Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

a reply to: Sillyolme
is hearsay admissible in court?

at this point all we have is a memorandum and an opening statement

the rest is bs

the memorandum asks to "look into" something
similar to the "i hope" crap from comey

the opening statement has very little first hand information and a lot of opinion and 2nd and third hand bs

sorry but that is where we are

we do have the president of Ukrainians description
tho it does not fit the narrative the dems have put forth

while it appears trump may have held money for political gain we have NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE of such

when we do let me know

otherwise this is more muelleresk smears and bs

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

There are republicans in the hearing. Please stop saying they are not represented.
It is not true.

Republicans are denied subpoena power unless the full committee authorizes 😃

a reply to: Extorris

He never said that.

www.cnbc.com...

I think you read that nobody pushed me.

www.bbc.com...

"This is not corruption, it was just a call," Mr Zelensky said on Thursday.

"There was no blackmail. It was not the subject of our conversation."

looks pretty clear to me
spin aside and all......

so yes he did say those things

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fools

You have not read a transcript of the phone call. You have read a summary of the phone call.
The testimony of those who were privy to it or privy to the people who were are laying out what has been described as "troubling" testimony. These are law makers and the adjective "troubling" is polite speak.

The transcript is a full transcript. 😎🐇

It literally states on the released "Transcript" that it was not verbatim. Therefore not a full transcript

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fools

You have not read a transcript of the phone call. You have read a summary of the phone call.
The testimony of those who were privy to it or privy to the people who were are laying out what has been described as "troubling" testimony. These are law makers and the adjective "troubling" is polite speak.

The transcript is a full transcript. 😎🐇

It literally states on the released "Transcript" that it was not verbatim. Therefore not a full transcript

That's because they omit translators and talk between other parties doing translations. 😎

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
There are republicans in the hearing. Please stop saying they are not represented.
It is not true.

They are not allowed to call their own witnesses. They are not allowed copies of the transcripts. They are not allowed to speak about anything that goes on in there.

There have been three different impeachment resolutions put before the whole House and all 3 failed, which explains the why they are doing it this way - to drive the narrative, and try to increase public support for impeachment because they think it will help them in the elections.

It is a total Star Chamber illegitimate proceeding.

The beauty is, this will back-fire spectacularly, just like all of their machinations.

a reply to: shooterbrody

NSC official plans to testify in impeachment probe even if White House tries to block him
www.politico.com...

Tim Morrison has been identified as a witness to one of the most explosive pieces of evidence unearthed by House impeachment investigators.

AND This

John Bolton Reportedly In Talks To Give Impeachment Testimony
www.forbes.com...

a reply to: Extorris

Really? Is this the same Ukrainian who said there was no QPP - until he got behind closed doors?

And the transcript is????

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Extorris

Really? Is this the same Ukrainian who said there was no QPP - until he got behind closed doors?

I think you meant QPQ. What Ukranian said that?

Sidenote on latin: Quid: Some Thing Pro: For... QPQ Something for Something.

AKA

ZELENSKY: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though

a reply to: Extorris
hey uh would you please clarify something for me ....
who is in charge of diplomacy for the usa?
the nsc or the potus?

also
would bolton fit the description of a disgruntled employee???

also

hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/ noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

I eagerly await your retort.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
hey uh would you please clarify something for me ....
who is in charge of diplomacy for the usa?

Rudy Giuliani?

I don't care about disgruntled or not, verifiable facts are all that matter.

Both Bolton and NSC Official Tim Morrison can confirm what Taylor and Dr. Hill have precisely testified to.

If you are interested in following, Sondland is where this will pivot.
The stupid thing was for Sondland ever to give a deposition in the first place. He thought he could run cover for POTUS and no one else would defy WH Orders and testify.
Now Sondland is increasingly looking like he lied under oath, has to try and clean up his testimony or face charges.

And slightly to the left of the whole drama the man who POTUS tasked to lead his Ukraine FP..

Giuliani probe snowballs
www.politico.com...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Extorris

Geez , are the Dems Still Trying to Lynch the President ? Better get a Stronger Rope ........

Drumpf is providing his own rope, with several strands provided by his man Rudy.

November 16, 2019

Schiff Impeachment Witness TIM MORRISON testifies that ALEXANDER VINDMANN exhibited poor judgement, and was a "leaker".

Source: twitter.com...