Impeachment hearing so far who is winning or losing?

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: darkbake
It’s still bribery under the law.

Please quote the part of the transcript you feel is bribery. I just don't see it.

If the call "Memo" - Not Transcript was sufficient to conclude guilt there would not have been an inquiry.

The claim "look at the Transcript!" is an ineffective Red Herring the same way that the WhistleBlower complaint is a Red Herring.

The WB complaint is not "evidence" it is a complaint.
The Call memo is evidence but the events that preceded that are equally if not more important.

Here is the list of witness testimony so far

Following are witnesses scheduled for public testimony:

Friday, Nov. 15 - Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine abruptly removed by Trump in May.

Tuesday, Nov. 19 - Morning: Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who serves as the director for European affairs at the National Security Council; Afternoon: Ambassador Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, and Tim Morrison, a White House aide with the National Security Council focusing on Europe and Russia policy.

Wednesday, Nov. 20 - Morning: Ambassador Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union. Afternoon: Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs and David Hale, the under secretary of state for political affairs

Thursday, Nov. 21 - Morning: Fiona Hill, former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia.

Witnesses who testified as public hearings began on Nov. 13:

Wednesday, Nov. 13 - George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine.

Witnesses who gave depositions behind closed doors:

Oct. 3 - Kurt Volker

Oct. 11 - Marie Yovanovitch

Oct. 14 - Fiona Hill

Oct. 15 - George Kent

Oct. 16 - Michael McKinley, former policy adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

Oct. 17 - Gordon Sondland

Oct. 22 - William Taylor

Oct. 23 - Laura Cooper

Oct. 26 - Philip Reeker, acting assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs

Oct. 29 - Alexander Vindman

Oct. 30 - Catherine Croft, former adviser to Volker on Ukraine policy

Oct. 30 - Christopher Anderson, former specialist on Ukraine at the State Department.

Oct. 31 - Timothy Morrison

Nov. 6 - David Hale

Nov. 7 - Jennifer Williams

Nov. 15 - David Holmes, the top political affairs officer at the U.S. embassy in Kiev

Nov. 16 - Mark Sandy, director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget.

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: Caractacus

What would you call something that isn’t the actual transcript that was placed in memo form as required for release?

a reply to: Caractacus

I imagine the actual transcript is in a format with security markings that makes the actual document ineligible for public release.

What it boils down to is secondhand accounts vs first hand accounts.

The Dems don’t have squat.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Caractacus

What would you call something that isn’t the actual transcript that was placed in memo form as required for release?

It's an interesting question.
What we know now is that (at least publicly acknowledged) there is no recording of calls with POTUS + world leaders.
There is also no "Transcription" or professional transcriber like you might find in court or congress.
No text to speech software at work.

Just a small handful of NSC staff taking notes on the call in real-time.

Those notes are then compiled and someone edits into a "memo" form to look something like a transcription for an official record.

Example: Lt. Col. Vindman asked to have a part of the exchange between Pres. Trump and Zelenskey included in the final memo that he had written down during the conversation, but it was determined to be unnecessary or something.

The GOV itself officially calls these "Memorandum of Telephone Conversation". It's right at the top of the documents.

Pres. Trump inaccurately refers to it as a Transcript.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Caractacus

I imagine the actual transcript is in a format with security markings that makes the actual document ineligible for public release.

The President can declassify virtually anything and has done so repeatedly on the fly.

The Dems don’t have squat.

There is a great deal of testimony and evidence.

a reply to: Caractacus

Then quote the “damning” first hand evidence.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Caractacus

Then quote the “damning” first hand evidence.

All of the testimony given thus far has been "First Hand Evidence".

I think you are asking for President Trump's testimony?

Or are you asking for testimony of someone who spoke directly with President Trump about the scheme?
That would be Sondland, Giuliani and Mulvaney.

Of those three Sondland is the only one that has agreed to testify, has since amended his testimony once to avoid perjury charges and is scheduled to testify again (publicly) this coming week.

Meanwhile another person gave testimony today regarding a conversation between President Trump and Sondland:

During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update.

Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone, and I heard him announce himself several times, along the lines of "Gordon Sondland holding for the President." It appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistants. I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor change, and understood that he had been connected to President Trump.

While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President's voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President's voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.

I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelenskyy "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So, he's gonna do the investigation?" Ambassador Sondland replied that "he's gonna do it," adding that President Zelenskyy will do "anything you ask him to."

Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the President.

The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland's efforts, on behalf of the President, to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden, and I could only hear Ambassador Sondland's side of that part of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the President that the rapper was "kind of f----d there," and "should have pled guilty." He recommended that the President "wait until after the sentencing or it will make it worse," adding that the President should "let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker-tape when he comes home." Ambassador Sondland further told the President that Sweden "should have released him on your word," but that "you can tell the Kardashians you tried."

After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not "give a s—t about Ukraine." Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not "give a s—t about Ukraine." I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about "big stuff." I noted that there was "big stuff" going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant "big stuff" that benefits the President, like the "Biden investigation" that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. The conversation then moved on to other topics.

www.cbsnews.com...

* It looks like Sondland will AGAIN have to amend prior testimony to avoid perjury charges and this time he will be questioned in public about his conversations with the President.

This is just testimony that came out today on a Saturday.

This is snowballing quickly IMO as more and more people come forward.

Piece of ass for an investigation. That is a Quid-Quo-Pro folks!

Holmes said Sondland told Trump that Zelensky “loves your ass” to which Trump responded: “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?

www.foxnews.com...
We've got Trump now!

a reply to: Caractacus

The testimony you reference occurred on Friday. CNN and MSNBC talked about it ad nauseam from 5pm Friday until the wee hours of the morning. As experts agreed, there are no new facts. Everyone knows that Trump wanted the Bidens investigated. He's said so himself, several times.

a reply to: carewemust

It's not even firsthand information, he wasn't even part of the conversation... but anyway "So, he’s gonna do the investigation?" LOL

a reply to: CraftyArrow

Sat 11/16/2019

A "leak" from today's disposition in Schiff's basement bunker.

Rep. Lee Zeldin says: twitter.com...

Pelosi-Schiff's slow-motion impeachment train wreck continues.

I'm failing to see how any of the things Trump is accused of doing are actually a crime?

If you want a financial corruption free nation, it has to be "open season" on financial corruption.

If you want corruption prosecutions to be successful, it has to be political enemies that initiate the inquiry. (Political allies will do "investigations" just for show, but not intending to actually convict their friends.)

If the corruption happens in a foreign country, and you can get them to lend the aid of local law enforcement, that would dramatically increase the odds of success in catching financial corruption.


They might as well be accusing Trump of chewing gum.

One witness takes the stand, and points out that he heard from another witness that they had seen Trump walking down the street with his jaw moving.

Another will take the stand and say that his jaw was indeed moving, but it wasn't because he had gum in his mouth.

... But nobody seems able to say for sure that they ever saw him actually blow a bubble with the gum, nor spit it out. So where did the gum go?

So they're all waiting for that "smoking gun" bit of evidence that will prove he had gum in his mouth so we can have an impeachment.

And nobody stopping to ask: when did gum chewing become illegal?



The answer: About the same time it became illegal to initiate inquiries into your opponent's potentially corrupt financial dealings.

Never thought I'd see that day that was considered a "high crime or misdemeanor" in America.

originally posted by: Caractacus


Stonewalling is a bad strategy for the President IMO.

I think he's stone walling just to give the press something to report about.

He doesn't want it over any quicker than the democrats do. If anything I think he wants to last, so people get more and more curious about what, exactly, was happening with Burisma.

Nancy's new song for her heart people !!!

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Impeachment by the U.S. House is a political matter. No Federal Crimes need to be proven. The House determines what the "crimes" are. Then they vote on them. A simple majority (51%) are all that's needed to send an impeachment article over to the U.S. Senate. From what I hear, the process is more complicated in the Senate.

a reply to: carewemust

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Impeachment by the U.S. House is a political matter. No Federal Crimes need to be proven. The House determines what the "crimes" are. Then they vote on them. A simple majority (51%) are all that's needed to send an impeachment article over to the U.S. Senate. From what I hear, the process is more complicated in the Senate.

So... there is no requirement that there be a "high crime or misdemeanor"?


Then it is like I was saying. The president could be impeached for chewing gum, if they wanted.

originally posted by: Veryolduser
Is it trump? Is it schiff? What are your thoughts on this?

It's not America that's winning.

Attn!

Info shared in Schiff's dungeon this past Saturday that requires the transcripts to be released IMMEDIATELY, or further testimonies DELAYED.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
Attn!

Info shared in Schiff's dungeon this past Saturday that requires the transcripts to be released IMMEDIATELY, or further testimonies DELAYED.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

The Drama is getting good !! 😃😃😃😃

Hey there. We're all losing. Mass shootings up. Congress voted out a proposed SSDI increase of $300, when the current disability pay is $700, a month. But they voted themselves a raise. The current climate is incredibly divisive, and the economic windfall we're all supposed to believe in is based on pure gambling on the stock market, most can't afford to invest in.
"Draining the swamp," has turned out to be part of the same swamp, and we have a leader who can't debate logically with facts, but resorts to name calling and ad hominem attacks at anyone who opposes or criticizes him.

My take on "wealth redistribution?" I went to the Circle K last night for a soda. I was .50 cents short. The cashier (prob not earning a living wage) graciously covered me. As I left, a lady asked if I had an extra .50 cents to pay for her big gulp fountain drink. Of course, I didn't, as the cashier had just covered my shortage.

And now, I'm out of vodka. Crap. Woe is me. I gotta stop watching the news, fake or otherwise.
tetra
eta: sry if that wasn't on topic, but I do think we're all losing in this current situation.