New Impeachment Transcripts Released Today

Associated Press

The preponderance of evidence is becoming overwhelming. So far we are seeing evidence of extortion, abuse of power and obstruction of justice from the witnesses. Extortion would fall under Bribery as an article of impeachment and the other two would be as named. There is also, of course, the possibility that the president will give testimony himself, or be asked to give written replies to inquiries, although with all the evidence so far I think that will be completely unnecessary. However, any such development would also create the possibility of lying under oath.

Here are some excerpts from today's transcripts, from Lt. Col. Vindman and Fiona Hill, a White House Russia adviser.

“He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn’t exist into the Bidens and Burisma,” Vindman said. “The Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens.”

Into the Bidens? the investigators pressed.

“To the best of my recollection, yes,” he said. “My visceral reaction to what was being called for suggested that it was explicit. There was no ambiguity.”

Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, sought to portray Trump’s request for a favor in his phone call with the Ukrainian president as falling short of a demand.

But Vindman disagreed.

“When the president of the United States makes a request for a favor, it certainly seems, I would take it as a demand,” he retorted.

Vindman, a veteran of the Iraq War, then added: “Congressman, as a military officer if my superiors tell me to do something, I take that not as a request , I take that as a demand.”

Unless you investigate these people I want you to investigate, I am not giving you any money. (Money that is not mine to give.)

That is extortion.

The Constitution calls it Bribery.

a reply to: Oraculi

Unless you investigate these people I want you to investigate, I am not giving you any money. (Money that is not mine to give.) That is extortion.

Sounds like an apt description of Joe Biden's actions.

a reply to: Oraculi

Trump? No.

Joe? Absolutely! He even stated so and bragged about it on TV.
Just imagine if Trump did that.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Oraculi

Unless you investigate these people I want you to investigate, I am not giving you any money. (Money that is not mine to give.) That is extortion.

Sounds like an apt description of Joe Biden's actions.

Exactly!

a reply to: Oraculi

New transcripts, same nothing burger.

a reply to: Oraculi
you get to the part where the "whistleblower" worked under fiona hill?
shame she "forgot" to mention that......

the rug is unraveling from beneath them

This OP is however just like the Russian collision nonsense. You forget the part about the whistler blower where he worked under the Obama admin?

a reply to: Oraculi

impeachment should be a slam dunk. What time are the articles being released?

a reply to: Oraculi

Very interesting... more Star Chamber evidence of the traps set and strategic obstacles put in place to stop the President -- and anyone/everyone -- who would investigate the deeply entrenched criminal corruption of Biden and Team Obama.

Very good to know.

Thanks for posting.

a reply to: Boadicea

It only further shows what is happening in the house is a coup agaisnt the president and even the whistleblower admitted it on his social media page.

a reply to: network dude

You know the way these deep state allegations go, we went through this with JFK.
They will tell us if we are going to need a new president, no sense for us to waste our time weighing in.

a reply to: Oraculi

I don't see a preponderance of evidence. I see lots of talking about the same thing over and over. Saying the same thing 10 different ways doesn't add up to 10x the evidence. That seems to be the DNC theme since 2016.

Even a rat is smart enough to finish a maze for a piece of cheese, but with an election at stake the left can't even get off the hamster wheel of impeachment after 3 years.

a reply to: Oraculi

When is Bolton going to step up?

"This is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: 'You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go and tell him what you've heard and what I've said,'" Hill said.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Posting work written by others

I hope the President completely ignores the process. To argue with idiots is beneath him.

I wonder if these two got their opinions on the matter from the same New York Times piece as Bill Taylor.

a reply to: Oraculi

Stop wasting everyone's time by posting transcripts of these witnesses opinions on what Trump wanted to do in the call.

The only things that matter are

A.) There was no quid pro quo - because the money was not held back - and there has been no investigation of the Bidens

B.) The transcript is available to read and anyone with an IQ of 100 can read it and realize there was no quid pro quo.

C.) The Ukranians deny they were coerced to do anything.

There is no crime if there is no victim.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Oraculi

Saying the same thing 10 different ways doesn't add up to 10x the evidence.

Maybe not, but it makes that evidence 10X as damning.

Add in Text Records and Transcripts and the truth becomes inescapable.

Gordon Sondland, the US's ambassador to the EU, told Vindman that the idea of predicating the White House meeting on Ukraine delivering Trump the political dirt he wanted "had been coordinated with" Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff.

Vindman is the third witness so far to point to Sondland's relationship with Mulvaney.

Hill testified that during a July 21 meeting with Ukrainian officials, Sondland "was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations."

And George Kent, a top State Department official, testified that Mulvaney coordinated Sondland's presence at high level meetings vis-a-vis Ukraine policy, and that Mulvaney was the one who carried out Trump's directive to freeze military aid.

...

At a later meeting, Sondland once again brought up the investigations Trump wanted and told Ukrainian officials they "would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens."

Vindman testified that there was "no ambiguity" in his mind about what Sondland was conveying. "He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn't exist into the Bidens and Burisma."

Vindman emphasized that Sondland specifically mentioned the Bidens by name when asking for the investigation into Burisma.

www.businessinsider.com...

When these people are cross-examined by Republicans next week, they will be reduced to babbling like Bob Mueller was.

Into the Bidens? the investigators pressed.

“To the best of my recollection, yes,” he said. “My visceral reaction to what was being called for suggested that it was explicit. There was no ambiguity.

To the best of His recollection? This is the same Guy who changed His testimony? So His memory isn't that great?

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Posting work written by others