Read it for God Sake! Stop being lazy! https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex...tify-in-second-round-of-impeachment-testimony
I've read the actual transcripts and watched the public testimony. You? You googled an article from Faux Snooze. It's obvious who the lazy one is, and for the confused out there, it isn't me. Identify the witness, and quote their testimony my sloth-like amigo.
This is a great example of how badly the whole of this argument is patched together. Our President never even slightly suggested delaying the Javelin missiles but you try to find him guilty by some sort of implied message that he might delay the Javelins which no one anywhere suggested to anyone.
“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.
*LOL* Jesus, dude. First, that's not a verbatim "transcript" of the call; it's a memorandum consisting of 5 freaking pages. There's not way that Bonespurs can fit 30 minutes of criminal activity into 5 pages. Second, the extortion/bribery abuse of office took place mostly outside of the telephone discussion. The discussion was just the final part of Bonespurs' criminal adventure. Were you asleep when Hill and Sondland made it crystal clear what Bonespurs was trying to do?
They mischaracterize the testimony of some of the witnesses, and screech about the others being "liars". Meanwhile, they misconstrue the living **** out of the applicable law
Hey Dude! Read Volker's and Morrison's testimony for your fricking self. They both said there was no bribe, demands or QPQ. Stop being lazy! There is no evidence of extortion/bribery. Stop making crap up to satisfy your perturb left-wing fantasies. That's their personal opinion and presumption. Not fact. Sondland has already been caught lying on a few occasions. Stop relying on the lying Sondland!
^^^^ *LOL* Did Devin "Midnight Cab Ride to Treason" Nunes ask Sondland about the QPQ, or did he only ask those questions to witnesses who didn't directly speak to the Orange Bum?
Actually, the timeline shows the call is actually more at the beginning... He made the decision to delay the aid possibly in early July, then the call, then the essential ignoring of the Ukrainians (and Americans) asking about it through early August and early September.. Not to be hyper picky.... And don't forget about Mulvaney's press conference... he spelled the entire thing out for us... Thanks Mick!
That, of course, is your "parody" of Mick's press conference... he never said "crimes", but he sure described them...
Sondland said it was his "presumption" that the situation was QPQ. Sondland never testified that Trump demanded or wanted QPQ. Try to keep up!
No he didn't... He presumed the aid for investigations (as did everybody involved)... He stated for a fact that meeting for investigations was in play... Remember... "Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Sondland said in his opening remarks. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
Only certain persons fall under executive privilege. If Congress wants any of those persons to testify then there is a third branch of the government set up to make that determination. The Congressional branch does not have the legal authority to bully the executive branch.
What's the mad rush. Seems like legal channels should be followed and this shouldn't be superseded by impatience.