hard to say, but probably notIf the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?
hard to say, but probably notIf the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?
No sure why its relavent. But bribery is bribery.If the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?
What do you mean?If the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?
jamny said:
If the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?
So the argument will probably be that before Trump there wasn't a POTUS smart enough to do it.GOLDMAN:
"Have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the United States?"
TAYLOR:
"No, Mr. Goldman, I've not."
Jordan is there to ask questions. And I have a feeling he’s going to look awful doing it, but we’ll see.I hope Nunes does all the questioning for the GOP.
(And, I secretly hope Jordan tries to jump in and Nunes slaps him down...)
That "policy" being the withholding of Congressionally appropriated aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation into a political rival of POTUS in anticipation of an upcoming election? Doesn't seem like a "policy" to me - more like a shake down to solely benefit the President - not the USA's interests.Good summary so far -
Ann Couter@AnnCoulter Okay, fine, I backslid and listened to a few minutes, but now I have the whole picture: It's a policy disagreement, featuring self-important bureaucrats telling us that their views are better than THE ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.
https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/1194647800908304385?s=21
His audience of 1 will love it, though.Jordan is there to ask questions. And I have a feeling he’s going to look awful doing it, but we’ll see.
This is the way they did it in Watergate. It changes the entire tone of the hearing- it removes the circus like atmosphere, and makes it serious. Even if the Republicans, when they get their chance, try to turn it back into a circus, it won’t matter because what people will remember is this testimony.This lawyer asking questions is great.
I think Graham's argument was dead in the water before he even said it. He was just following the ordered dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge talking points.Two points have occurred to me:
1. Remember how the Republicans kept arguing that only certain excerpts were leaked from the private hearings, which makes this whole process tainted and illegitimate? This has been Lindsay Graham’s whole reason for not watching these hearings (supposedly). I think that argument is now dead in the water. If anything, the full testimony is more damning than the excerpts.
2. Remember how Schiff has been attacked for supposedly lying about the phone call? It sure seems like everything he said was 100% accurate.
Just repeating what was already known but nice to have down again in a concise Q and A.And just destroyed the Biden conspiracy theory.
Really good lawyers do that. Bad lawyers are truly awful to watch, especially when you've seen a guy this good work.For me being a non-lawyer, Goldman is making this very easy to follow. That 45 minutes was far better than 45 hours of TV talking heads.
Hell, Mueller's body language was terrible, too. I'm pretty sure that's how I'd look at a baby shower.Taylor’s voice is so much better than Mueller’s.
It’s really sad that as a society we put so much emphasis on things that really should be meaningless, like the power of a voice. But it’s true.
nailed itMy guess is that Jordan will attempt to paint the picture that all of this is hearsay and just Taylor's and Kent's opinions, with no basis in firsthand conversations between the Trump and Ukraine officials.
Steve Scalise@SteveScalise
Meet the “star witnesses” Adam Schiff called today:
- Neither have any firsthand knowledge
- Neither spoke to @realDonaldTrump
- One got his info from The New York Times
This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!
Great, let’s have Trump testifySteve Scalise@SteveScalise
Meet the “star witnesses” Adam Schiff called today:
- Neither have any firsthand knowledge
- Neither spoke to @realDonaldTrump
- One got his info from The New York Times
This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!
Everyone but the true believers know what the deal is. The point I think is to demonstrate how truly craven they are.How can Trump keep saying there's no QPQ
More importantly how does anyone believe him.
Do you understand that the conduct under fire here goes well beyond a single phone call?This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!
I kind of hope Jordan goes after Taylor's character. That would not go so well for old Jim.only thing I can think the GOP does here is if they hammer on second-hand knowledge and lack of direct contact with Trump. If they go after their character.....
Called it...A bit curious if Holmes is the staffer that Taylor testified about hearing the phone call between Trump and Sondland.
Voices matter. Sad but true.Taylor’s voice is so much better than Mueller’s.
It’s really sad that as a society we put so much emphasis on things that really should be meaningless, like the power of a voice. But it’s true.
“Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone, asking Ambassador Sondland about ‘the investigations.’ Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.”Steve Scalise@SteveScalise
Meet the “star witnesses” Adam Schiff called today:
- Neither have any firsthand knowledge
- Neither spoke to @realDonaldTrump
- One got his info from The New York Times
This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!
Goldman was excellent. Allowed the fact witnesses to tell what they know. It's devastating.For me being a non-lawyer, Goldman is making this very easy to follow. That 45 minutes was far better than 45 hours of TV talking heads.
It’s a good question that I’m not sure anyone can answer. My sense is that it wouldn’t have convinced Pelosi, but that’s just a gut feeling. The meeting is, at root, an act within POTUS’ discretion. This wasn’t. If he wanted to stop the assistance he would have needed to veto the appropriations bill. Once he didn’t do that, he had no discretion.If the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?
My Cousin Vinny down?Voices matter. Sad but true.
Would you be able to take either Taylor or Mueller or anyone else testifying as seriously if they sounded like Joe Pesci?
And looks as well. Most successful trial lawyers are tall, for instance.Voices matter. Sad but true.
Would you be able to take either Taylor or Mueller or anyone else testifying as seriously if they sounded like Joe Pesci?
The transcript is in itself bad for POTUS. The surrounding sworn testimony by over a dozen witnesses to the crime provides context and makes it even worse.Steve Scalise@SteveScalise
Meet the “star witnesses” Adam Schiff called today:
- Neither have any firsthand knowledge
- Neither spoke to @realDonaldTrump
- One got his info from The New York Times
This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!
I doubt it. He's not going to get good answers.Is there a question coming?