Ex-White House official testifies he wasn't concerned 'anything illegal was discussed'

It's 3 people and a transcript.

 

I haven't seen that info.

 

That could be a coincidence.

 

Of course it could!


Seriously - what happened to trigger Trump withholding the aid, when his whole administration had reviewed it and said it should be released?

If he did have a reason to withhold, what steps did he take to satisfy himself that it should be released?

Were those steps completed in the days before it was released?

Nope. Nothing. He withheld it to try to force Ukraine to do a hatchet job on Biden. When it looked like his plan might be coming out into the open, he released the money. That fits the timeline perfectly.

 

I guess it all depends upon what news you read.

Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, told House investigators over eight hours of closed-door testimony that the “substance” of his conversations recalled by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, was “accurate,” according to his prepared remarks and people familiar with Morrison’s testimony.

In particular, Morrison verified that Trump’s envoy to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, conveyed to a Ukrainian official that the military aid would be released if the country investigated an energy firm linked to the son of former vice president Joe Biden. Morrison, who announced his resignation the night before his testimony, said he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal, but rather problematic for U.S. policy in supporting an ally in the region.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1285c6-fb62-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html

 

You are suggesting that criminal acts should not be punishable, nor should they be classified as criminal acts, if the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim make statements, while not under oath, that you deem is exculpatory.

Think about that for a second with an analogy and yes, like all analogies, there are differences, but bear with me please.

Let us say that Johnny objectively did break into Tom's house and set a fire. Johnny says publicly, and while not under oath, that he did nothing wrong. And then Tom even comes out and says, again while not under oath, there is no way that Johnny did the act. Tom even offers an alibi for Johnny.

Do you think we, as a society, should still punish Johnny? Remember that Johnny objectively did commit the arson.

Now, let us make the situation a bit more murky. What if police continue to investigate and find out that Tom has a fire insurance plan that will cover for accidental, but not for deliberate acts.

Do you now see why a "victim's" public statement, one not made under oath, is rarely determininative as to whether a crime took place?

And in the end, abuse of power is not one of those situations where the "exculpatory" statement of the "victim" is not determinative.

 

"Acts" would be criminal based on law and evidence to show the criminal act.. 2nd or third hand knowledge of a phone call where both parties involved say you are full of **** is just that...

 

A non-word for word transcript that has now been testified under oath as incomplete as to a material omission.

 

If it was "incomplete" and they have direct knowledge of the call what was left out? Surely these "expert witnesses" would have testified to it.. Right?

Or is a "concern" now enough? I have a "concern" about certain peoples mental health by viewing this forum but i'm not suggesting people should be locked up for their own safety..

 

I'm not suggesting that.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ision-ukraine-funds-major-gaps-omb/index.html

 

That is the impression you give. But please feel free to clarify.

Why should an exculpatory statement by Trump and an exculpatory statement by Zelensky, both made while not under oath, be determinative in this case?

 

There have been a few witnesses that were under oath that corroborated Trump's version of the phone call.

 

Nope. Not terrified in the least.

But you left-wingers should be...

The states that will decide the 2020 election oppose impeaching President Trump
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ion-oppose-impeaching-president-trump.563740/

 

So, it's a "he said/she said" scenario?

Which leads back to the fact the you left-wingers are trying to impeach a duly elected President based purely on interpretation and personal opinion, which is pretty sick and disgusting.

 

It's not the impression I give, it's what you're reading into it because orange man bad.

If you say Mr. X killed Mr. Y, and Mr. Y says no such thing happened, why would you bother pursuing a case? How could you? You don't have a case. It just sounds like you have a personal problem with Mr. X, or you've been huffing glue.

 

I'm not sad. I'm referring to you left-wingers as being sad.

 

No, there are too many other people that have called Trump out on this issue.

 

What Biden did, is unknown. One can say it is unethical, and most likely his son got a deal, but that isn't illegal.

 

You must realize that your analogy fails for the simple fact that Mr. Y's public statement would also prove he is not dead and you can't have a murder without a death.

Mr. Zelensky saying he felt "no pressure" does not fundamentally disprove that trump abused his power.

 

FYI, don't lose focus, this about the POTUS soliciting a foreign government to interfere with our elections to help his position and used Congressionally approved aid to obtain the favor.

 

Vindman testified to two examples of information which was left out of the transcript: Trump mentioning recordings of former vice president Joe Biden discussing Ukraine corruption and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s explicit mention of Burisma Holdings, the company that had Biden’s son Hunter on its board.

 

Have Zelensky or Trump testified to these alleged "you are full of ****" statements while under oath?

 

The transcript is Mr. Y. It's right there for anyone to see. The problem is orange man bad.

 

The transcript which has been testified to as containing material omissions?

And we are well beyond a transcript at this point. There was an entire campaign, using Sondland and Giuliani and others, to pressure Ukraine.