Schiff’s fail: You don’t impeach a President on hearsay, you divide a country
WASHINGTON: It’s over. No longer bothering to listen to the drone of the wasps of the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. Not going to listen to one more word out of Adam Schiff’s pursed little mouth. He has proven he is just what his meme says he is. A political clown that even inside the beltway Liberal darlings, The Washington Post, Glenn Kessler has given him “Four Pinocchios” the highest rating, indicating an outright falsehood.”
Ambassador to the European Union Sonland’s testimony was Democrat’s smoking gun.
Sondland was going to bury President Trump in high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, Sondland’s is a child’s water pistol. No bullet. No bang. No smoke. It seems that after watching much of the hearings, and listening and rereading the statements, American’s have been given a real look into how the sausage of foreign policy is made.
And it is messy. And it includes a vast collection of participants. Ambassadors, lawyers, military aides, National Security Council members, and the ever-present more.
Ambassador to the European Countries Gordon Sondland’s opening statement says:
“Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”
But once under oath, Sondland spoke words like “I presumed.” “I believe.” “I was told.” Not that he knew. That he was a fact witness to anything. That his testimony is based on hearsay which is defined as:
Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
The one fact that Amb. Sondland made clear is that he was taken by the presumed power of his position. And that he is not now, nor has he ever been, supportive of President Trump.
And as we have heard over and over, Mr. Sondland told Dr. Hill and others what he heard, presumed and believed and that because of his position, his presumptions, beliefs, and heresy were valid. But what those witnesses and America have learned, there were no facts behind Sondland’s statements.
Not a smoking gun. A wet noodle.
Mr. Vindman (he lost rights to his military rank) failed in his testimony. What we learned is that he is the person that leaked the phone call contents to Eric Ciaramella, the unnamed whistleblower. We also learned that Vindman is a disgruntled bureaucrat whose feelings were hurt when he was not allowed to set Ukraine foreign policy.
Mr. Vindman’s testimony is that it was clear that Ukraine had to deliver specific investigations in order to secure a much-coveted White House meeting with Trump.
Back to the video of Zelensky and Trump at the U.N., it is Zelensky who is heard seeking that White House invitation. As a newly elected president with a fledgling democracy, he needs that White House photo op. But there is not one head of state that has visited the White House, posed smiling with the President of the United States – any president – that did not do so with an agenda. On the part of both countries.
But Vindman says that in an earlier call in April with his Ukrainian counterpart as “positive” and that Trump “expressed his desire to work with President Zelensky and extended an invitation to the White House.”
The only persons stopping that visit? Adam Schiff and the House Democrats. Had this latest Impeachment Hoax not sucking all the oxygen out of the room, Zelensky may have already come and gone.
And America may have taken a few moments to watch last night’s debates, where Impeachment was barely touched. (The Democratic Primary Debates Are Increasingly Pointless)
What we learned is that this person who Adam Schiff relies on to destroy the President is a mole who was offered the position of Defense Minister for Ukraine, his home state. Not once, not twice, but three times.
Thinking people should be asking when the Senate is going to investigate Mr. Vindman’s activities on behalf of Ukraine. They may not be aligned with the best interests of America.
Sondland’s testimony is that Trump clearly stated he did not want a quid pro quo.
“Here is my response that he just gave. Ready? You have the cameras rolling? I want nothing. That’s what I want from Ukraine. I want nothing — I said it twice.”
While Trump has said that Sondland “seems like a nice guy,” he has downplayed his connection to Sondland even as Sondland attempted to increase his role and access to the President.
“I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy, though. He was with other candidates. He actually supported other candidates. Not me — came in late.”
Sondland’s opening statement was that there was a quid pro quo in exchange for a meeting at the White House. However, he added that nobody told him that military aid would be linked to investigations into Burisma Holdings and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
While he was being questioned by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sondland said Trump told him he did not want a quid pro quo.
“I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman. I kept hearing all these different ideas and theories, and this and that. What do you want? And it was a very short, abrupt conversation and he was not in a good mood. And he just said, I want nothing, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing. Something to that effect.”
Trump mentioned his desire for Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens during a July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president, but has repeatedly claimed that he did not want a quid pro quo in exchange for the investigations.
But is the President of the United States correct in questioning Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election?
In questioning their collusion with the DNC and the Clinton campaign? Probably not. Politico writing (Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire – Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton – 1-11-2017)
“Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.”
Dr. Fiona Hill
Dr. Fiona Hill, today’s witness, told the impeachment inquiry panel that she was concerned that hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security. But in a 2015 Washington Post op-ed, Hill argued against giving Ukraine any lethal weapons. (How aiding Ukraine could push Putin into a Regional War ) Dr. Hill explaining that she had evolved her opinion in that matter,.
Hill, however, was testifying in the seventh public hearing in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry. As she had in her closed-door deposition last month, Hill said she was concerned about Ukraine’s security and stability as it defended itself against Russia.
In her article op-ed, and as a representative of the left-wing Brookings Institute think-tank, Hill argued:
“The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladi¬mir Putin’s “calculus.” Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table.
We strongly disagree…
It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right.
Hill explained that once she entered the Trump administration in April 2017, she saw that there was a proper “plan” in place for military assistance.
“[E]verybody changes their mind, you know, and kind of learns things. I, you know, was basically persuaded that you know, this was actually worth doing,” she told the committee in her deposition.
All of the witnesses have admitted that President Trump’s policy of sending weapons to Ukraine has worked and is more effective than President Barack Obama’s policy, which denied lethal defensive assistance to the Ukrainians.”
Mr. David Holmes
David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine testifies he was able to hear the first portion of the President’s call with President Zelinsky.
Is this what he heard? Because out of four pages of transcript, this is the first two pages – which would more than cover “the first portion” of a call he claims to have overheard:
Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, -somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills· and knowledge and were able to use it as an example to our elections – and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation· that we· were able to achieve a unique success. I’m able to tell you the following; the first time, you· called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election.
I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.
[laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.
Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.
Well, it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are ‘doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was· speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine.
Yes, you are absolutely right. Not only 100% but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron. And I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine.
It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and- I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. 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.
So, if Holmes is testifying because he, like most of the Deep State, cannot tolerate President Trump being there for Ukraine when President Obama’s legacy in Ukraine – sending blankets and meals ready to eat – was so ineffective?
There is simply no intent proven that the President planned to hold aide until after the investigation.
Because aide has been released, and investigations have not gone forward – yet. Because Democrats are their own worst enemy. And their actions have lifted a large curtain on the Republican-led Senates ability
Interpretation, presumptions, assumptions, hearsay – there is little chance that twenty-Republican senators will vote to give up the White House based on interpretations, presumption, assumptions, and hearsay – information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.