READ: House Republican witness list for impeachment hearings

How do you interpret the words "I want you to do me a favour," especially given the back-ground we now know about?

 

Wrong!

The "transcript" is INCOMPLETE and your BLOTUS is LYING as always!

 

Then I'm sure they won't try to give evidence about what happened on the call.

They'll give evidence about things of which they have personal, first-hand knowledge.

 

And his whole testimony was based on what he read in the NYT.
https://www.westernjournal.com/bombshell-star-schiff-witness-amb-taylor-admits-nyt-source/

 

You gotta be kidding me.

You're changing words now??!?

 

HAHA. Well, good luck, but impeachment isn't gonna do it, and the Democrat field doesn't look good either, sooooo.....

 

It was you that placed the word demand in question. You attributed it to Vindman. So yes his opinion on what it means is important.
What would you expect Zelenskiy to say with Trump still having a year in office?
I haven't seen Zelenskiy say he didn't know, but I have seen sworn testimony that says the Ukrainians were told before the call. Not that it matters. The clock doesn't stop at the call, it continues until today.

 

They don’t care.
It’s all memes, trolling and online lies since this man took office.

 

That might be a good start.

 

Not just "since".

Even BEFORE he was Elected.

Basically, ever since he announced.

A constant stream of "memes, trolling, and online lies" (as well as "FAKE News" narratives) being posted to social media, was the key component in getting this National DISGRACE Elected.:smh:

 

You need to watch them follow the testimony of everyone.

Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on the National Security Council, also told House impeachment investigators that he was advised by then-White House official Fiona Hill to stay away from the parallel Ukraine policy being pursued by Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, according to one of the sources.
-----------------
Morrison, whose appearance on Capitol Hill lasted for more than eight hours, backed up last week's testimony from Taylor, currently the top US diplomat in Ukraine, about interactions the two had regarding the President's efforts to press for investigations while US aid to Ukraine was held up. While he did deviate from Taylor on some details, Morrison testified that Sondland told him the President would release the aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor general announced an investigation, according to sources.
"I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate," Morrison said.
------------------
The U.S. ambassador to the European Union edited his testimony to congressional investigators and now recalls that he told Ukrainian officials they should announce anti-corruption investigations if they wanted to get the U.S. military aid they were promised. That’s according to a transcript of his deposition released Tuesday, which makes it clear that the targets of the investigation were meant to include the company that employed Hunter Biden, the son of one of President Donald Trump’s main political rivals.
--------------------------
Ms. Hill was the senior director for Russian and Europe on the National Security Council until July. When she spoke with investigators last month, she described a heated confrontation at the White House in early July after Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, told visiting Ukrainian officials that they would need to conduct the investigations Mr. Trump wanted if their new president was to get the White House meeting he coveted. Ms. Hill said that she reported the episode to White House lawyers at the direction of her boss, John R. Bolton, who called whatever was taking place toward Ukraine a “drug deal” they should not be a part of.
-------------------------
Don't blame the NYT's. They got it right just like they usually do.

 

I have stated over and over, why are you afraid to have the person who brought forth the complaint in an attempt to bring down a President testify about any and all things surrounding it? He should be witness numero uno.

 

So what? You used four. Lack of rebuttal noted again.

 

I will give @Jestsayin credit for owning up to the mistake.

 

Anything else though? Do you have any fact witnesses that can discuss Trump's behavior?

 

When a cop relies on a confidential informant to launch an investigation and the police then collect enough witnesses who are willing to testify and evidence that they do not need to use anything provided by the CI, then the CI is irrelevant and unnecessary.

The same has happened here.

 

Do you mean someone who can prove his innocence? Now there is due process for you.

 

Or even somebody who can step up and say he's not 100% guilty... it would be a start towards a non-conviction and give the Senate something to hang their hat(s) on when they blindly vote...

Just one person??

 

Do you have any fact witness that can prove his innocence?

 

Vindman said in his testimony that he didn't think it was proper for Trump to "demand" a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen. Trump never demanded anything. Vindman using the word demand is his personal interpretation and personal opinion.
https://www.scribd.com/document/434064258/Vindman-pdf

Ukrainian President Denies Trump Pressured Him During July Call
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrain...mp-pressured-him-during-july-call-11570707164

Ukrainian Government Reportedly Didn’t Know About Trump’s Aid Freeze Until Month After Call
https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/27/ukraine-government-trump-aid-freeze-phone-call/

 

Wrong!!!

Trump didn't demand anything.

Vindman is a fricking liar!!!!!

 

So please make up your mind once and for all this IS or IS NOT a legal proceeding a CRIMINAL proceeding or not. And when a cop relies on a witness confidential or not that information becomes part of the investigation and that person is subject to be called a witness even by the defense.

 

The transcript.

 

No, it is not a criminal proceeding. I am using the criminal proceeding to help you understand the limitations of the "meet your accuser" due process rights afforded to defendants during a criminal proceeding (again, impeachment is not).

And in the circumstance that I outlined above, if the information provided by the CI is not necessary to the prosecution, if it is not going to be presented in any way, shape or form at trial, then the defense does not have a right to call that witness. That witness is not an accuser.

 

...So....nobody.

Got it.