It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's afternoon hearing.
Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: "No."
Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."
Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., covered similar ground in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"
"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.
"And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"
"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.
originally posted by: andy06shake
And no credible defense from team Trump whatsoever.
He's already being impeached, no potential about that.
All those witnesses are all singing a very similar tune, and its not in praise of the bad orange Man.
If he's done nothing wrong whats he panicking for and trying to discredit nevermind intimidate witnesses on the stand?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl
I don't disagree, and it's a separate argument that could be made. We don't even have to get into it though because EVERY last witness has said there was none. So the fact quid-pro-quo is not even necessarily wrong doesn't matter.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, acknowledged Thursday that President Donald Trump held up a military-aid package to Ukraine in part because he wanted the Ukrainian government to investigate unfounded conspiracy theories related to the 2016 election.
All you need to do is post a quote from anyone involved in listening to the phone call and quote them saying there was wrongdoing.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
All you need to do is post a quote from anyone involved in listening to the phone call and quote them saying there was wrongdoing.
Now you're moving the goal posts.
However, without rummaging through the internet, I can tell you that Lt Col Vidman and Jennifer Williams both listened in on the call and both said Trump's request was impropriate.
However, Vindman was caught in an apparent contradiction late in the day by Republican Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup. Vindman testified earlier in the day that he did not discuss his concerns about Trump's July phone call with Morrison, his superior, because he was unavailable.
But, under questioning from Wenstrup, Morrison confirmed that Vindman had given him edits of the transcript of the call, on the same day that Vindman testified Morrison was unreachable.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea
Again:
Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, acknowledged Thursday that President Donald Trump held up a military-aid package to Ukraine in part because he wanted the Ukrainian government to investigate unfounded conspiracy theories related to the 2016 election.
www.businessinsider.com...
Mulvaney said Trump told him that he believed Ukraine was a "corrupt place" and that he didn't want to "send them a bunch of money." He also said the president was concerned that other European countries weren't doing their fair share to contribute to Ukraine's defense.
Mulvaney added: "Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it. And that's why we held up the money."
ABC News' Jonathan Karl immediately followed up and asked Mulvaney to confirm that "the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine."
Mulvaney replied affirmatively, saying that "the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation."
“I never said the president of the United States should be impeached,” Sondland replied.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Like i said you must have been watching a different Sondland.
Next witness indeed.
Keep them coming.
Coz they are all singing a very similar tune.
They are even all in the same key.
Sondland acknowledged the Ukraine quid pro quo and implicated Trump, Pence, Pompeo and many others.
And no matter how many time he screams "I want nothing" or there was "no quid pro quo" it will not change a thing.
Mulvaney is clearly explaining Trump's concerns about corruption in Ukraine, and that it was because of that corruption that foreign aid was withheld.
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Like i said you must have been watching a different Sondland.
Next witness indeed.
Keep them coming.
Coz they are all singing a very similar tune.
They are even all in the same key.