|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 5:06:26 GMT -6
NBC News White House Correspondent Geoff Bennett reported Monday night on the plan by House Democrats to choreograph the release of secret Ukraine impeachment testimony transcripts so that the media can make the case against President Trump to the American people.
Bennett posted to Twitter, “Today, we got the Yovanovitch and McKinley transcripts. Tomorrow, we’ll get the ones for Volker and Sondland. House Democrats are choreographing the releases so that the testimonies, when amplified by media reports, weave together the case against Trump, acc. to sources familiar.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 5:06:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 10:09:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 10:29:51 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/watch-house-intelligence-committee-member-calls-for-schiff-to-answer-questions-under-oathWATCH: House Intelligence Committee Member Calls For Schiff To Answer Questions Under Oath Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) demanded on Tuesday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) testify under oath about his relationship with the whistleblower who ignited impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. “The whistleblower should answer questions under oath. But more importantly, Adam Schiff needs to answer questions under oath,” Stefanik told Fox News host Steve Doocy during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “I was the first member of Congress to ask when did Adam Schiff have access to the whistleblower.” “We know now that that was before the whistleblower submitted his complaint to the inspector general,” she continued. “So there are a lot of serious questions about the coordination between the whistleblower and Chairman Schiff.” House Democrats announced in September that they would be moving forward with an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower’s testimony accused Trump of asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden for using his position as vice president to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was looking into his son’s business dealings. The reports were not confirmed at the time of the announcement, and it was not until a day later that the White House released a transcript of Trump’s exchange with Zelensky. After the transcript was made public, many have argued that it fails to show the direct quid pro quo agreement initially alleged. The full House voted on a resolution last week outlining how the House Intelligence Committee will proceed with the hearings and gather evidence before turning over the process to the House Judiciary Committee to craft the articles of impeachment. The measure passed largely along party lines, 232-196, with only two Democrats defecting on the vote. It was not until weeks after the impeachment inquiry kicked off that it was revealed that Schiff’s office had been in contact with the whistleblower prior to the initial complaint. The news came as the California congressman had been dishonestly contending that there was no contact. He has subsequently backed off his calls for the whistleblower to testify following the revelations. “It’s interesting,” Stefanik said. “Adam Schiff at first wanted the whistleblower to testify, but as it became clear that there was coordination between the whistleblower and Adam Schiff and the Democratic staff members, now Adam Schiff is backtracking that, which is why our first witness will be Adam Schiff.” Stefanik, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, noted while the resolution allows for Republicans to introduce witnesses, they all must seek approval from Schiff, who is leading the impeachment charge. As a result, it is unlikely that Schiff will not veto his appearance as a fact witness. “This is a partisan resolution that was brought to the floor last week, passed with only Democratic support,” Stefanik said. “It limited our ability to subpoena witnesses, unless Adam Schiff signed off on it. It also allowed Adam Schiff to retract portions of testimony as they are released.” “This has been a partisan process from the start. Adam Schiff has conducted himself as counsel to the witnesses, as judge and jury and the American people deserve transparency,” she continued. “These should have been open, bipartisan hearings from the start. Again, throughout this process, we have seen partisan cherry picking leaking coming from the Democratic side and it’s unfair to the American people.” “Impeachment is more than a political buzz word,” Stefanik added. “This is serious constitutional process and the American people deserve access to 100 percent. They should be open hearings and the media deserves access.” Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) applauded the New York lawmaker and backed her calls for Schiff to testify under oath. “I’m so proud to serve with [Stefanik],” Cheney said. “She is exactly right — [Schiff] must be the first witness Republicans call. Of course, that would mean House Dems would actually have to abide by their own rules and let the GOP call witnesses. That would be a novel approach.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 10:41:20 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/04/dem-rep-lynch-i-believe-transcripts-are-being-released-in-certain-order-to-build-a-case/On Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,” Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA) stated that he believes that the transcripts of impeachment depositions are being released in a certain order in order to build a case. Lynch said, “Well, they were among the group of first witnesses. And I think they provide a context, especially Yovanovich. I think it provides a context to what was going on with former Mayor Giuliani acting on behalf of the president, that whole — the context of her threatened removal if she didn’t get on board with the program to defend the president’s conduct. So, I think it’s important to lay out the context, and the more, I think, impactful testimony will come later.” Host Katy Tur then asked, “So, are you saying you’re basically building a case, an argument, by releasing the testimony in a certain order?”Lynch responded, “I believe so, yeah.”.................................................................................. In other words the process is being manipulated by the democrats in order to get the results they want, the truth be darned. If those witnesses had evidence of Trump wrongdoing Shifty would have had them testify in public.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 12:43:28 GMT -6
CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux confronted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Capitol Hill Tuesday about his call for the naming of the anti-Trump ‘whistleblower’ in the Ukraine impeachment inquiry, saying it was illegal to reveal the name and asking if it was dangerous for Paul to demand the name be made public.
Paul brought a President Trump rally in Lexington, Kentucky to its feet Monday night with his impassioned call for the media to ‘do your job and print his name.’
Malveaux repeatedly questioned Paul as he walked in a Congressional hallway with questions such as, “You don’t think this is dangerous to actually out the whistleblower? I mean the president has said that he’s treasonous and a traitor” and “The whistleblower laws protect the whistleblower. You know it’s illegal to out a whistleblower?”
Paul made his case on the 6th Amendment right to confront your accuser and that the ‘whistleblower’ is also a material witness in alleged corruption by the Bidens with regard to Ukraine. Paul noted that the law does not protect the ‘whistleblower’ from anonymity.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 13:08:16 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/11/05/meghan-mccain-unloads-rand-paul-whistleblower/Meghan McCain tore into Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul during a segment of Tuesday’s “The View.” McCain, who has often been critical of Paul, lashed out at him for appearing alongside President Donald Trump at a Kentucky rally, demanding that the press reveal the identity of the whistleblower whose allegations brought about a renewed push for impeachment. “I hate him,” McCain said before Whoopi Goldberg had even finished introducing a clip of that rally. (RELATED: Meghan McCain Asks Cory Booker 5 Times About Gun Buybacks, He Wants To Talk About Other Things) “The whistle-blower needs to come before Congress as a material witness because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs. I say tonight to the media, do your job and print his name!” Paul said. “He sounds so crazy. Why does he sound so crazy?” McCain asked. “He does.” “It’s against the law to reveal the whistle-blower’s identity,” Joy Behar cut in. “And now he’s telling the media to break the law. Why don’t you break the law and then you go to jail, Rand.” “I’m not mad at that,” McCain laughed. Goldberg then drew a straight line to former President Richard Nixon, arguing that there would have been more pushback against him. “You know what’s really bothering me about all of this, is that had Nixon tried to do this to anyone, we would have had him out, said no, that’s not how the law works. the Constitution doesn’t work — that’s not how the law works.” “You had ethical Republicans in those days,” Behar snapped. “Yeah. I’m so disgusted because, you know, if Rand Paul were doing this to a witness and saying this about a witness that I had on one of my cases, I would send an FBI agent to his house and I would have him brought in because that’s witness intimidation, punishable by up to 20 years in prison,” Sunny Hostin added. “I would have him brought in. This person is a whistle-blower. He’s intimidating that witness and encouraging people to break the law. How dare he? He’s a sitting senator. He knows better.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 13:11:30 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/nbc-news-asks-voters-about-impeachment-doesnt-go-as-plannedNBC News Asks Voters About Impeachment, Doesn’t Go As Planned NBC News approached voters in early voting states — Minnesota, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — and asked them about Democrats’ attempt to impeach President Donald Trump with less than a year before the 2020 election. “People out there don’t talk about impeachment a lot at any events,” National Review Editor Rich Lowry told host Chuck Todd. “It doesn’t come up.” TOP ARTICLES 1/6 READ MORE New Docs Suggest Bannon May Have Given False Info To Mueller “We went out and tried to find some voters, guys, to talk about impeachment,” Todd said. “We had to bring it up to them.” Here’s what the voters told NBC News: JIM BAIRD (Minnesota): And I think it’s a waste of time and they’re a bunch of little kids fighting and not accomplishing what the hell they’re elected for. GRAY CHYNOWETH (New Hampshire): And I think we have a system of checks and balances. And the way it should work is that, you know, the House and the Senate should do what is set out in the Constitution. TRACY VEILLETTE (South Carolina): I read the document and there was absolutely nothing concerning to me from one president to another. It was absolutely appropriate. Todd, appearing somewhat surprised by what he saw, stated, “these were in the early states.” WATCH: A recent Emerson poll found that voters in Iowa, perhaps the most critical state for Democrats in the presidential primary, care very little about impeachment. “The most important issue for voters in Iowa in deciding for whom to vote for president is the economy at 33%, followed by healthcare at 19%, and social issues at 10%,” the poll found. “Impeachment ranked seven out of nine at 6%, ahead of education at 5% and foreign policy at 3%.” A separate poll USA TODAY/Suffolk poll from last month found that only “36 percent of respondents support the House voting to remove the president, while 22 percent say Congress should continue with its impeachment inquiry but should not vote to remove him. Further, 37 percent say lawmakers should end their impeachment probe, while four percent remain undecided on the matter,” Breitbart News reported. The Democrats voted on a resolution supporting their impeachment inquiry after the Trump administration slammed Democrats in a scathing letter late last month and after continued public outcry over the way in which Democrats were proceeding with their inquiry. The letter, written by White House Counsel Pat. A Cipollone, outlined the following problems with Democrats’ attempts to impeach the president in closed door hearings: Your “Inquiry” Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights and the Separation of Powers. The Invalid “Impeachment Inquiry” Plainly Seeks To Reverse the Election of 2016 and To Influence the Election of 2020. There Is No Legitimate Basis for Your “Impeachment Inquiry”; Instead, the Committees’ Actions Raise Serious Questions. In a statement, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham wrote: “The President has done nothing wrong, and the Democrats know it. For purely political reasons, the Democrats have decided their desire to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election allows them to conduct a so-called impeachment inquiry that ignores the fundamental rights guaranteed to every American. These partisan proceedings are an affront to the Constitution—as they are being held behind closed doors and deny the President the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, to have access to evidence, and many other basic rights.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 13:13:58 GMT -6
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/republicans-should-follow-rand-pauls-brilliant-lead-on-trumps-impeachmentRepublicans should follow Rand Paul's brilliant lead on Trump's impeachment Every Republican in Congress should be required to watch Sen. Rand Paul’s brief remarks at President Trump’s rally Monday night. They should all watch it again and again. In the span of two minutes, Paul said everything that needs to be said about the Democrats’ impeachment effort. He called on congressional Republicans to defend the president, he leaned into the attack on the corruption of the Bidens, and he hit the national media for refusing to publish the name of the career government employee who started the whole farce, otherwise referred to as “the whistleblower.” “We also now know the name of the whistleblower,” said Paul. “I say tonight to the media, do your job and print his name.” If only Paul had just said the name himself — nothing is stopping him, if he does in fact know the guy's name. There was naturally a meltdown among liberals, who were horrified that a Republican might actually fight for the leader of his party and confront this ridiculous attempt to remove Trump from office. Doesn’t Rand know that there’s an impeachment going on and that he’s supposed to be hiding under his chair right now? CNN liberal Keith Boykin tweeted, “Rand Paul should be ashamed of himself, but he’s not because he’s chosen blind loyalty to the president over patriotism to his country.” (True “patriotism” would be for Paul to lay down and cede power to Democrats, duh.) 00:01 03:49 A $25B US counter-drug smuggling operation quietly thrives far south of the border Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads National Journal's Josh Kraushaar, bowing to the media myth that the “whistleblower” is legally entitled to anonymity, said it was “deeply irresponsible” for Paul to ask that the name be published. Claire McCaskill, a former Democratic senator and now an MSNBC “analyst,” said the next day that Paul is “just kind of an idiot about stuff.” Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire said on MSNBC it “would be illegal” to put out the name. Note that none of this is true — government whistleblowers have no legal right to anonymity. CNN’s Pamela Brown repeated the lie that “the whistleblower is legally allowed to remain anonymous” and her colleague Anderson Cooper dutifully replied, "Right, the whistleblower is legally allowed to remain anonymous.” There is no law that secures the bureaucrat any right to anonymity. If there were, a lot of people would be in legal jeopardy at this very moment because a lot of people, including reporters at the New York Times, know exactly who it is. Why aren’t any of them being prosecuted if this is a legal issue? Because it’s not. Some liberals are also pretending this is a matter of protecting the safety of the bureaucrat. Where is the evidence of that? Stefan Halper covertly worked with the FBI to spy on the Trump 2016 campaign. His identity was eventually reported by multiple major news outlets, including the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and New York Magazine. He’s still alive and kicking — just fine, in fact, last I heard. Valerie Plame was a CIA employee. When her identity was published, she was unfortunately killed. Just kidding! She was on CNN this week. She's running for Congress. Rand Paul did a service to the country with his rallying cry. Every Republican should follow his lead.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 15:12:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 15:16:06 GMT -6
Excerpts from new testimony given by Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union were released on Tuesday. Sondland ‘s testimony was revised after his ‘memory was refreshed’ from reading other testimony to reflect what he described as a ‘quid pro quo message’ delivered to Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Democrats harassed Sondland last month during his closed-door interview and accused him of being an agent of shadow foreign policy on Ukraine, and now he’s changing his story? “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said in the document. Sondland said in his new testimony that he believed that withholding a $391 million aid package from Ukraine was “ill-advised” but admitted that he didn’t know “when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.” “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Sondland said. A text exchange in early September between Sondland and the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Bill Taylor show Sondland defending Trump and making it clear there was no quid pro quo in Trump’s communications with Zelensky. Before sending the text message, Gordon Sondland had a phone call with President Trump. Sondland asked Trump, “what do you want from Ukraine?” Trump responded, “I want nothing I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing…to do what he ran on.” (screenshot of excerpt below):
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 15:17:32 GMT -6
thehill.com/homenews/administration/469076-two-more-white-house-officials-skip-impeachment-depositionsWells Griffith, a special assistant to the president and senior director for international energy and environment on the National Security Council, did not appear for his Tuesday morning deposition. Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was absent for his closed-door hearing slated for Tuesday afternoon.
House Democrats are seeking testimony from Griffith because of his participation in a July meeting at the White House with Ukrainian officials, while Duffey was subpoenaed over his alleged involvement in withholding the $400 million in aid to Ukraine, The Washington Post reports.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 15:39:53 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/05/marie-yovanovitch-transcript-shows-quid-pro-quo-javelin-missiles-for-investigations-did-not-exist/The recently released transcript for former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch reveals that the purported “quid pro quo” in the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not exist. Democrats claimed that in Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, he had clearly delivered a quid pro quo — Javelin anti-tank missiles for Ukraine in exchange for investigating how the Russia collusion narrative began and dirt on Joe Biden. The July 25 phone call exchange between Trump and Zelensky follows: Zelensky: … We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. Trump: 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. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible. A former Hillary Clinton adviser and now director of “ImpeachmentHQ.com” asserted that the transcript “very clearly lays out a quid pro quo: Javelin anti-tank missiles for a ‘favor though,’ investigating the Bidens.” The Trump administration had frozen some $400 million in military assistance in July, but Yovanovitch’s testimony revealed that Javelins were not part of the assistance being held — thus it would not have constituted part of the “quid pro quo” as Democrats have asserted. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) pressed Yovanovitch on whether the Javelins were ever being held from Ukraine. “Ambassador, there’s been, and Chairman Schiff kind of alluded to this, and when we start talking about Javelins and foreign aid, for the record, I want to make sure that we’re clear. The foreign aid that was has been reported as being held up, it doesn’t relate to Javelins, does it?” he asked Yovanovitch. “No. At least I’m not aware that it does,” said Yovanovitch. Meadows continued, “Because foreign military sales, or FMS, as you would call it, is really a totally separate track, is it not? Foreign military sales (FMS) get approved, but they’re actually a purchase that happens with, in this case, it would have been Ukraine. Is that correct?” Yovanovitch responded, “So, yes. President Zelensky was talking about a purchase. But separately, as I understand it, and, again, this is from news accounts, the security assistance that was being held up was security assistance, it wasn’t the FMS.” Meadows replied, “But it was actually aid that had been appropriated and it had nothing to do with Javelins. Would you agree with that?” Yovanovitch replied, “That’s my understanding.” Meadows then drove the point home that Javelins had nothing to do with security assistance, which had been temporarily frozen. “And when the aid ultimately came through, it didn’t impact the purchase of those Javelins even when the aid ultimately was approved. Would you agree?” he asked. “Not to my not to my knowledge,” she responded. Later in the deposition, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) asked Yovanovitch if she was aware of any U.S. policy linking security aid to investigating the Bidens. Yovanovitch also said she was not aware of any official policy. “There’ s no official policy,” she said. When asked whether there was an “unofficial policy,” she first said reading the text messages from the colleague who replaced her in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, made her wonder if there was an unofficial policy, but she then walked her comments back. “I think that I probably should decline to answer that question, because I was not in the policy world at that point,” she said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 15:41:06 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/05/transcripts-ex-pompeo-adviser-rejects-adam-schiffs-effort-to-mischaracterize-his-testimony/Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) engaged in a failed attempt to direct Michael McKinley, a top U.S. State Department official, on what to say during his impeachment inquiry deposition behind closed doors last month, according to transcripts released on Monday. It appears that Schiff wanted McKinley to say that politics drove Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, at the behest of President Donald Trump, to remove former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from her post. Schiff insinuated that Pompeo had removed Yovanovitch to hide wrongdoing in Ukraine at the hands of the Trump administration. The California Democrat attempted to get McKinley to confirm his innuendo. Such a confirmation would have fueled the Democrats’ impeachment agenda. Throughout his testimony, McKinley made it clear that he had no direct knowledge of the Ukraine matter that triggered the impeachment probe. He also stressed that he never discussed political issues with Pompeo. Republicans have accused Schiff, the leader of the impeachment inquiry, of “coaching” witnesses while taking depositions. House impeachment investigators are trying to determine if Trump abused his power by allegedly pressuring his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for aid during a July 25 call. Trump and Zelensky have denied the accusation. McKinley accused Schiff of mischaracterizing his comments about a conversation he had with Pompeo over his concerns about the lack of support for Yovanovitch after he learned that Trump told Zelensky she was “bad news” during the call. The top State Department official, who served as a senior adviser to Pompeo until he resigned on October 11, did not learn about the contents of the call until the White House released the transcript on September 24. McKinley accused Schiff of trying to put words in his mouth while testifying on October 16. Although McKinley had already explained that he did not receive a direct response from Pompeo when he suggested that the State Department should release a statement in support of Yovanovitch, Schiff continued to pressure him to say what he wanted to hear. The exchange between McKinley and Schiff is described in the transcript as follows: Schiff: Can you go back and, as best you can, tell us exactly what you told the Secretary? McKinley: I said, are you aware of I’m sure you’re following what is happening. Wouldn’t it be good if we put out a statement on Ambassador Yovanovitch? Schiff: When you said, I’m sure you’re aware of what’s happening. McKinley: That’s right. Of course he said, yeah. You know, it’s that kind of exchange. I mean, to formalize it as something more. Schiff: No, no. I’m just I’m not trying to formalize it. I’m just trying to get exactly what was said during the meeting. McKinley sought a statement from the State Department in support of Yovanovitch after she was removed her from her post in Ukraine. During her deposition, Yovanovitch explained that Trump pressured the State Department to remove her because he had “lost confidence” in her, adding that she was told by a superior that she “had done nothing wrong.” The president has the right to remove any of his ambassadors, McKinley acknowledged. On October 11, McKinley resigned from his post at the State Department over the lack of support for Yovanovitch and concerns about the “whistleblower’s” claim that Trump had politicized aid to Ukraine. The “whistleblower’s” allegations are at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. McKinley wanted the State Department to put out a statement saying “clearly that we respect the professionalism, the tenure of Ambassador Yovanovitch in the Ukraine.” He ultimately dropped his quest for the statement after he learned from Morgan Ortagus, a State Department spokesperson, that Pompeo had decided “it was better not to release a statement at this time.” McKinley testified that Ortagus explained that Pompeo did not want to release a statement “in part to protect Ambassador Yovanovitch [by] not draw[ing] undue attention to her.” McKinley, however, testified that he subsequently talked to Yovanovitch, and she said she would welcome the statement.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 5, 2019 18:16:20 GMT -6
New memos reveal Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter. Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings. New memos released because of a FOIA lawsuit filed by award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon show Burisma Holdings contacted the Obama State Department several times during the 2016 election to discuss ending the probe. In fact, Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department. John Solomon reported: johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. (I filed that suit this summer with the help of the public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.) Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election. Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.” “Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption,” a Feb. 24, 2016, email between State officials read. “She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member). “Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt,” the email added. “According to Tramontano there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.” The emails show Tramontano was scheduled to meet Novelli on March 1, 2016, and that State Department officials were scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev. The records don’t show whether the meeting actually took place. The FOIA lawsuit is ongoing and State officials are slated to produce additional records in the months ahead. www.scribd.com/document/433389210/Bluestar-Novelli-ContactsI'm sure Maddow and Lemon will be all over this one tonight.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 20:40:11 GMT -6
So, conflict of interest & being overly biased against a defendent are no longer ways to be booted from jury selection? Not to this Obama appointed , Mueller loving judge. www.politico.com/news/2019/11/05/roger-stone-trial-opens-065991And that first juror was an only-in-D.C. character, a former Obama-era press secretary for the Office of Management and Budget whose husband still works at the Justice Department division that played a role in the Russia probe that ultimately snagged Stone. She even acknowledged to having negative views of President Donald Trump, and said she had followed the media coverage of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Still, the woman said she did not have strong views about Stone, and Jackson denied a request from Stone’s lawyers to strike the woman as a potential juror. Newsmax host:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 20:46:08 GMT -6
Some tweets from the whistleblower lawyer from 2017 that are interesting now:
Seems like he's following through on his end.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 20:49:02 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/11/05/roger-stone-judge-anti-trump-juror/The judge overseeing the trial of Roger Stone rejected a request from the Trump confidant’s defense lawyers Tuesday to remove a potential juror whose husband works on the Justice Department unit involved in the Russia investigation and who admitted to having negative views of President Donald Trump, according to reports. At the beginning of jury selection, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, said that she would not remove potential jurors solely on the basis that they work for the federal government or because of their views of Trump. That position was tested at the very start of jury selection at Stone’s trial, which recessed early after the longtime political operative fell ill. The potential juror served as a press secretary in the Office of Management and Budget during the Obama administration, according to Politico and Reuters. She also admitted to having a negative view of Trump. (RELATED: Roger Stone’s Trial Begins Tuesday) The potential juror’s husband also currently works in the Justice Department’s national security division, which was involved in the investigation of the Trump campaign and other Trump associates, including Stone.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 5:02:29 GMT -6
Zaid keyed off a report by The Hill on Paul’s comments to reporters Tuesday: thehill.com/homenews/senate/469156-paul-says-he-probably-will-disclose-whistleblowers-name…”I’m more than willing to, and I probably will at some point. … There is no law preventing anybody from saying the name,” Paul told reporters. Paul doubled down on potentially publicly releasing the whistleblower’s name during an interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier on Tuesday night, saying that he “may” disclose the name. “There’s nothing that prevents me from saying it now,” Paul said. Questioned on why he didn’t go to the Senate floor and disclose the name as part of a speech, he added, “I can, and I may, but I can do it right now if I want. Nothing stops me.” Paul stressed during the Fox News interview that he was convinced he knew the individual’s identity but that he had so far refrained from saying the name because he wanted to keep the focus on the process. “I want it to be more about the process and less about the person,” Paul argued. “Nothing stops me. There’s no law that stops me from doing it other than that I don’t want to make it about the one individual.”…
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 5:07:53 GMT -6
Humorous. Schiff leaks like a sieve to try & overthrow a duly elected President, but this crosses a line?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 10:46:02 GMT -6
johnsolomonreports.com/in-midst-of-2016-election-state-department-saw-burisma-as-joe-bidens-issue-memos-show/Whatever the Biden family recollections, the Obama State Department clearly saw the Burisma Holdings investigation in the midst of the 2016 presidential election as a Joe Biden issue. Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question about “Burisma and Hunter Biden.” In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch’s Senate confirmation hearing, the department’s Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to stick to a simple answer. “Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President’s son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?,” the draft Q&A asked. The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: “For questions on Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma, I would refer you to Vice President Biden’s office.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 15:35:08 GMT -6
It’s no surprise that Adam Schiff is calling in Trump haters such as Bill Taylor, the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine and Obama-era Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch to publicly smear Trump.
Recall, newly released travel documents revealed that Adam Schiff’s staffer took a Burisma Group-funded trip to Ukraine 12 days after the ‘whistleblower’ filed a complaint against Trump and met with US Ambassador Bill Taylor.
Marie Yovanovitch, who already testified behind closed doors to Schiff’s committee, is the anti-Trump fired US Ambassador to Ukraine to who was monitoring communications of US journalists who were prying into Ukraine.
Ambassador Yovanovich is a noted Trump-hater who blocked Ukrainian officials from traveling to the United States to hand over evidence of Obama misconduct during the 2016 election to President Trump.
Yovanovich was US ambassador to Ukraine during the 2016 election when the Ukrainian government was colluding with the DNC and Hillary Campaign to undermine the US presidential election.
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenkoko told journalists in March that Yovanovitch gave him a “do not prosecute” list during their first meeting.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 15:37:22 GMT -6
Andrii Telizhenko: Most of the Ukrainian and government officials do not even understand what the fuss is about here in Washington… We’re supposed to be the victims in this whole thing but we’re not. The Ukrainian president said there was no quid pro quo, there was no pressure. And what I know is he said privately that it was the most diplomatic phone call he’s had in the last couple months with foreign leaders…
Jack Posobiec: Did you see pressure under the Obama administration?
Andrii Telizhenko: Of course, we saw pressure every time. Starting with the Ambassador from the United States in Kiev who would call the president and tell him what to do. It’s unethical to do this anywhere else in the world… And in meetings he would be told what to do, who to fire, who to hire.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 15:38:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 15:39:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 15:43:31 GMT -6
House Releases Transcript of Schiff Star Witness Bill Taylor – Exchange Between Rep. Ratcliffe and Bill Taylor DESTROYS Quid Pro Quo Narrative. House investigators on Wednesday released the transcript of Schiff’s star impeachment witness Bill Taylor’s testimony to the Intel Committee to the public.
Bill Taylor is the anti-Trump Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine and Schiff’s star witness who was also involved with the whistleblower early on.
Recall, newly released travel documents revealed that Adam Schiff’s staffer took a Burisma Group-funded trip to Ukraine 12 days after the ‘whistleblower’ filed a complaint against Trump and met with US Ambassador Bill Taylor.
The exchange between Bill Taylor and Congressman John Ratcliffe (R-TX) totally destroyed the quid pro quo narrative.
“It sounds like from your statement today, that you were aware of the [military] hold and troubled by it but that President Zelensky was not aware of it at that point in time,” Ratcliffe said to Bill Taylor.
“That is correct,” Taylor responded.
Ratcliffe continued, “So, if nobody in the Ukrainian Government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid. I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”
Rep. Ratcliffe again asked Bill Taylor, “And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold?”
Ambassador Taylor replied, “That is correct.”
What completely obliterates this new scam cooked up by the Deep State-Democrat media complex is that the delayed military aid was released to Ukraine without any actions taken by Zelensky.
In other words, no one was strong-armed, there was no pressure, no quid pro quo which was further confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call and testimony from Ukraine Special Envoy Kurt Volker.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 15:45:21 GMT -6
According to CNN’s Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy FOX News brass has ordered FOX hosts and contributors NOT to disclose the name of the anti-Trump CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella. (Hello Paul Ryan). www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/media/fox-news-whistleblower/index.htmlFox News hosts and personalities have been instructed over the last several days not to identify the whistleblower whose complaint sparked an impeachment probe against President Trump, people familiar with the matter told CNN Business.
Several hosts and commentators on the network who have been supportive of President Trump seem to want to name the person they believe to be the whistleblower, but Fox’s guidelines have said not to do so.
Right-wing media hyped a report from a website last week which claimed it had likely identified the possible whistleblower. Fox is perhaps the only major component of the right-wing media machine that has, thus far, refrained from naming the person identified by that story.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 15:59:54 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/political/democrats-release-impeachment-hearing-transcript-top-diplomat-ukraineDemocrats' 'Star Witness' Admits He Wasn't On Trump-Ukraine Call, Sole Source Was NY Times House Democrats have released the latest in the series of heavily-redacted transcripts of the secret hearings they had undertaken in recent weeks - that of Bill Taylor - the top US diplomat in Ukraine - ahead of his public testimony next week. As The Hill notes, Taylor is viewed as a key witness who previously testified in meticulous detail about what he considered an effort by Trump and his allies to pressure Ukraine into opening investigations that would benefit Trump politically. In leaked copies of his 15-page opening statement, Taylor voiced concerns that the Trump administration had withheld nearly $400 million in aid as leverage to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into interference in the 2016 election and former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his leading 2020 political rivals. Key excerpts include: Taylor contradicts the picture Sondland laid out... And on quid pro quo Taylor admits Ukraine's criminal justice system is "flawed"... Isn't that a good reason to hold up aid to ensure that it is not corruptly flowing to the wrong entities? Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge.And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. “But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?” “That’s correct,” Taylor admitted. “So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?” Zeldin asked. “I have not talked to the president,” Taylor said. “I have no other information from what the president was thinking.” Additionally, as The Federalist notes, under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn’t aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.” “July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.” “And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked. “That is correct,” Taylor responded. The Democrats may need a better witness.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 16:02:40 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-worked-closely-with-anti-trump-dossier-hoaxers/Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, was part of an Obama administration email chain celebrating the eventual signing of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine. That and other emails show Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. One of those individuals, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (pictured), received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to Nuland’s direct role in the dossier controversy. Also part of the email chains was Christopher J. Anderson, who was a special adviser to former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. Anderson testified to the Democrat-led House committees running the impeachment inquiry. Ciaramella’s name comes up in six Obama-era government emails that were released by the State Department as part of two previous Freedom of Information Act requests. At the time of the exchanges, Ciaramella served as the Director for Baltic and Eastern European Affairs for the Obama-era National Security Council, where he worked on Ukraine policy. He is now an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency. One email, titled, “Loan Guarantee,” involved Nuland, who was reportedly a key champion of the Ukraine loan guarantee policy. “Hurray,” a celebratory Nuland wrote in response to a translated Ukrainian government announcement about the signing of the $1 billion loan guarantee. The announcement singles out Joe Biden as being present for the conclusion of an agreement leading to the loan guarantee. Ciaramella was one of several people CC’d in the email, which was sent from the U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, who was another key champion of the loan guarantee to Ukraine along with Nuland. The email is one of several that shows Ciaramella in the loop with top officials such as Nuland working on Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. The loan guarantee was pushed through after Ukraine agreed to several reforms, especially the firing of the nation’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This at a time that Shokin was reportedly investigating Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company paying Hunter Biden. Joe Biden infamously boasted on video about personally threatening to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was removed. Another released email shows Ciaramella himself sending a message to Nuland and others. Most of the contents are blocked out, including the email’s subject line. One non-classified section of that email shows a reply stating, “Embassy Kyiv — coordinated with our USAID mission folks — will have detailed input tomorrow.” One email involving Nuland was sent two days before the loan guarantee was signed on June 3, 2016. “Can you confirm who will be doing the actual signing for each side?” the exchange asked. Nuland has come under repeated fire for her various roles in the anti-Trump dossier controversy. FBI notes also cite career Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as saying that Nuland was in touch with Fusion GPS co-founder and dossier producer Glenn Simpson. Sen. John McCain, who infamously delivered the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly first dispatched an aide, David J. Kramer, to inquire with Nuland about the dossier claims. In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates. Meanwhile, looped into email chains with Ciaramella was then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer. An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry. Finer reportedly received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with Nuland. After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele. Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals. In testimony last year, Nuland made statements about a meeting at the State Department in October 2016 between State officials and Steele, but said that she didn’t participate. At a June 2018 hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) revealed contents of the State Department’s visitor logs while he was grilling Nuland. At the hearing, Burr asked: “I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?” “I did not,” Nuland replied. “I actively chose not to be part of that briefing.” “But were you aware of that briefing?” Burr asked. “I was not aware of it until afterwards,” Nuland retorted. Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele’s briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News. Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs. Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. Likely ‘whistleblower’ A RealClearInvestigations report by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry named Ciaramella as best fitting the description of the so-called whistleblower. Officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings say Ciaramella’s name has been raised in private in impeachment depositions and during at least one House open hearing that was not part of the formal impeachment proceedings. Federal documents show Ciaramella also worked closely with Joe Biden and worked under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked with former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump advocate who has faced controversy for his role in fueling the questionable Russia collusion investigation. Rice participated in Russia collusion probe meetings and reportedly unmasked senior members of Trump’s presidential campaign. Sperry cites former White House officials saying Ciaramella worked for Biden on Ukrainian policy issues in 2015 and 2016, encompassing the time period for which Biden has been facing possible conflict questions for leading Ukraine policy in light of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma. Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, the activist attorneys representing the so-called whistleblower, refused to confirm on deny that their secretive client is indeed Ciaramella. “We neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower,” the lawyers told the Washington Examiner in response to an inquiry about Ciaramella. Zaid and Bakaj added, “Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.” On Sunday, Trump responded to press reports naming Ciaramella, calling him a “radical” known for his close ties to Brennan and Rice. “Well, I’ll tell you what. There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he’s the whistleblower,” Trump told reporters. “If he’s the whistleblower, he has no credibility because he’s a Brennan guy, he’s a Susan Rice guy, he’s an Obama guy.” Trump added, “And he hates Trump. And he’s a radical. Now, maybe it’s not him. But if it’s him, you guys ought to release the information.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 16:04:24 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/bill-taylor-ukraine-unaware-of-u-s-hold-on-aid-during-july-25-call-quid-pro-quo-impossible/U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor told impeachment investigators last month that Ukraine did not know the U.S. had temporarily frozen aid at the time of the July 25 phone call, making quid pro quo impossible, transcripts released Wednesday revealed. Taylor’s October 22 depostion behind closed doors suggests Trump did not threaten to withhold aid during the infamous July 25 call between him and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky that ultimately triggered the impeachment inquiry. “July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance. And [on] July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed,” Taylor declared under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). Ratcliffe then asked, “To your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold?” “That is correct,” Taylor replied. Ukraine did not find out there was a hold on U.S. aid until over a month after the call, Taylor testified. The U.S. ultimately released the aid on September 11 without Ukraine having to do anything as part the alleged quid pro quo. Ratcliffe explained to Taylor: So the idea of a quid pro quo is a concept where there is a demand for action or an attempt to influence action in exchange for something else. And in this case, when people are talking about a quid pro quo, that something else is military aid. So, if nobody in the Ukrainian Government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid. Taylor did not dispute Ratcliffe’s explanation of a qui pro quo, acknowledging that he is not a lawyer. The Ukraine ambassador was not even on the July 25 call at the center of the impeachment probe. Citing Ratcliffe, President Donald Trump tweeted on October 23, “Neither he [Taylor] or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.” Neither he (Taylor) or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.” Congressman John Ratcliffe @foxandfriends Where is the Whistleblower? The Do Nothing Dems case is DEAD! — Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) October 23, 2019 House Democrats pursuing the impeachment inquiry are trying to determine if Trump abused his power by allegedly coercing Ukraine during the call to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for aid. Trump, Zelensky, and some impeachment inquiry witnesses have denied the existence of a quid pro quo. Meanwhile, however, other impeachment probe witnesses, including Taylor, have presumed that a quid pro quo did take place, citing second-hand information. Ratcliffe asked Taylor during his deposition, “Based on your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government became aware of a hold on military aid until two days later, on August 29th.” “That’s my understanding,” Taylor replied. Taylor’s concerns of a quid pro quo stem from conversations with other Trump administration officials, not the July 25 call. There are no transcripts of those conversations to confirm or contradict Taylor’s characterization of what was said. In a complaint filed August 12, a “whistleblower” accused Trump of making a quid pro quo offer to Zelensky on July 25 in which the U.S. president pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to launch a probe into the Bidens in exchange for aid. Hunter and Joe Biden have denied any wrongdoing. Although the complaint is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, there are signs House Democrats are trying to move beyond the July 25 call on Ukraine.
|
|