Jump to content
knapplc

The Trump Impeachment Thread

Recommended Posts

Vindman's Opening Statement: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191119_-_ltc_alex_vindman_opening_statement.pdf

 

Quote

July 10, 2019: Danylyuk Visit

On July 10, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, then Ukraine’s National Security Advisor, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland and Secretary Rick Perry also attended the meeting. I attended the meeting with Dr. Hill. We fully anticipated the Ukrainians would raise the issue of a meeting between the two presidents. Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short when Ambassador Sondland started to speak about the requirement that Ukraine deliver specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with President Trump. Following this meeting, there was a short debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance of Ukraine delivering the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Ambassador Sondland that this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security. Dr. Hill also asserted his comments were improper. Following the meeting Dr. Hill and I had agreed to report the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel, Mr. John Eisenberg.

 

July 25, 2019: Parliamentary Election Call

On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won parliamentary elections in another landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him. On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with White House colleagues. I was concerned by the call, what I heard was improper, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia’s strategic objectives in the region. I want to emphasize to the Committee that when I reported my concerns -- on July 10, relating to Ambassador Sondland, and on July 25, relating to the President -- I did so out of a sense of duty. I privately reported my concerns, in official channels, to the proper authorities in the chain of command. My intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country.

...

Dad, my sitting here today, in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to why Republicans thought this was going to be the best testimony yet for their case. Already this hearing has been incredibly damaging

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

I'm curious as to why Republicans thought this was going to be the best testimony yet for their case. Already this hearing has been incredibly damaging

I'm sure Jim Jordan's questioning will reveal the answer.  :blink:

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm sure Jim Jordan's questioning will reveal the answer.  :blink:

Lets hope, because I'm not seeing it. They can't shout 'hearsay' with these witnesses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing counsel, it really isn't a fair fight.

 

Democrats:

  • Adam Schiff: Stanford University, Harvard Law School JD, passed the bar and became LA Assistant US Attorney where he prosecuted the case against Richard Miller, a former FBI agent convicted of "passing secret documents to the Soviet Union in exchange for a promised $65,000 in gold and cash."
  • Adam Goldman: Yale University, Stanford Law School, passed the bar and became SDNY Assistant US Attorney where he prosecuted a variety of cases, including securities and white-collar fraud cases, as well as a racketeering and murder conviction against the acting boss of the Genovese Crime Family.

Republicans: 

  • Devin Nunes: Associate of Arts degree from the College of the Sequoias, Bachelors and Masters from Cal Poly in agriculture.
  • Jim Jordan: Ohio State University, Capital University Law School, never passed the bar or practiced law.
  • Steve Castor: George Washington Law School, practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia and D.C., counsel for Republican Oversight for 14 years (Benghazi, IRS focusing on political targets, etc.).

giphy.gif

 

(To be fair, Steve Castor doesn't have a legitimate legal defense to work with).

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:lol:

 

I have conducted direct and cross-examination of police officers/sheriffs in depositions and trial, and even I knew to be respectful and use their proper titles. I can't imagine the audacity to do that to a Purple Heart-winning Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army sitting there in uniform! 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Republicans deep in the weeds with their questioning. Muddying water is the only play they have 

 

On 11/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, QMany said:

I don't envy the GOP counsel's position. He has no reasonable legal defense.

 

 

"A Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation."

 

In this scene from the television series South Park, Johnnie Cochran stands in a courtroom next to a large screen on a tripod. He points to a picture on the screen of Chewbacca, who is wide-eyed and standing stiffly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

 

Yep doing it again today and they will do it again tomorrow and every other time they get a chance to do so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

:lol:

 

I have conducted direct and cross-examination of police officers/sheriffs in depositions and trial, and even I knew to be respectful and use their proper titles. I can't imagine the audacity to do that to a Purple Heart-winning Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army sitting there in uniform! 

Aren't the Republicans the ones who preach that THEY respect the military?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Yep doing it again today and they will do it again tomorrow and every other time they get a chance to do so

They have to give Hannity and Carlson talking points somehow. Right?  

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this is what the Republicans are clamoring about as Vindman, who was in on the phone call, confirms everything we already know about the situation. Isn't it possible they don't know who the whistleblower is but know who it could potentially be? I mean come on are you that stupid Mark?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Yep doing it again today and they will do it again tomorrow and every other time they get a chance to do so

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...