[color=var(--primaryTextColor)]Two National Security Council experts told House investigators that they had serious concerns about Rudolph W. Giuliani’s efforts to affect U.S. policy in Ukraine, including what one called his “partisan investigations” of Democrats, according to transcripts released by House Democrats on Friday.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an expert on Ukraine who still works in the White House, and Fiona Hill, an expert on Russia who left her post in July , voiced similar concerns about the demands that Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, was making in Ukraine and how to work with — or around — him.
Vindman said that Ukrainian government officials reached out to him in April “for advice on how to respond to Mr. Giuliani’s advances, meaning his call to undertake these—what would come across as partisan investigations.”
Vindman was one of two people who testified that they were so troubled after Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky in a July 25 phone call for a “favor” — investigations that could benefit his 2020 relection campaign - that they expressed their concerns to NSC lawyers.
He told lawmakers that there was “no doubt” Trump was asking for a “deliverable” from Zelensky — a public announcement about investigating Democrats before Trump would agree to let the newly elected leader of the embattled U.S. ally visit the White House.
When pressed by Republicans on how he came to that conclusion, Vindman said there was no expressed words exchanged but that his conclusion was there was a quid pro quo on the table.
“The demand was, in order to get the White House meeting, they had to deliver an investigation. That became clear as time progressed from how this thing unfolded,” he said.
Hill told lawmakers that she became aware of Guiliani’s sudden “strong interest” in Ukraine in early 2019 after seeing his TV interviews and reading articles in The Hill.
“Mr. Giuliani was asserting quite frequently on television in public appearances that he had been given some authority over matters related to Ukraine, and if that was the case, we hadn’t been informed about that,” she said.
“But he was making a lot of public statements and, you know, obviously making a lot of assertions, including about our ambassador to Ukraine,” Marie L. Yovanovitch, she added.
Hill told lawmakers that Yovanovitch was recalled as U.S. envoy to Ukraine in May as the result of a smear campaign orchestrated by Giuliani and others. Hill called the episode convinced her to leave the administration.
“There was no basis for her removal,” Hill said. “The accusations against her had no merit whatsoever.”
But Hill said Giuliani “had created an atmosphere in which she was under great suspicion, and it was obvious that she would lose the confidence of senior people because these accusations seem to stick to people even when they’re proved not to be true.”
Finding the situation to be “dispiriting,” Hill sought out John Bolton, then national security advisor. She described his reaction as “pained.”
“He basically said—in fact, he directly said: ‘Rudy Giuliani is a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up.’ He made it clear that he didn’t feel that there was anything that he could personally do about this,” Hill said.
Democrats had subpoenaed Bolton to testify this week, but he declined, saying he would await a court ruling on whether he must comply.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
As I see this, the town has a Republican fire chief and council member, and some traitor is trying to undo an election by crying "Wolf"--or "fire" as the case may be.
Bet a week's pay the so-called "citizen" will turn out to be an illegal working for a Democrat.
Meantime, the police and fire department are wasting time and tax payer dollars responding to a biased report.
Trump would fake Ahlzheimers to avoid taking responsibility for spilling a drink.
Here's Trump saying of Gordon Sondland, "I hardly know the gentleman." Sondland donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration and was subsequently appointed by Trump to be his ambassador to the European Union. pic.twitter.com/c73j2f2diL
Jim Jordan, who has more credible evidence against himself that he covered up sexual assaults than that Hunter Biden committed fraud, is now on the "intelligence" committee.
Along those lines these are the witnesses the GOP have requested:
Republicans have requested a list of witnesses for the impeachment hearings (alphabetical order):
-Devon Archer -Hunter Biden -Alexandra Chalupa -David Hale -Tim Morrison -Nellie Ohr -Amb. Volker -The “Whistleblower” & their sources
Honestly I'm not sure how Hillary Clinton and Devin Nunes' Cow aren't on that list.
The Republicans will do everything in their power to make the hering a circus. And they won't be embarrassed and their supporters won't care because they have bought the snakeoil from the Grifter in the Oval Office.
What a sad, sad example they are setting.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Shifty Adam Schiff will only release doctored transcripts. We haven’t even seen the documents and are restricted from (get this) having a lawyer. Republicans should put out their own transcripts! Schiff must testify as to why he MADE UP a statement from me, and read it to all!
(11-11-2019, 11:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: Very modern Presidential.
Shifty Adam Schiff will only release doctored transcripts. We haven’t even seen the documents and are restricted from (get this) having a lawyer. Republicans should put out their own transcripts! Schiff must testify as to why he MADE UP a statement from me, and read it to all!
(11-04-2019, 06:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's a lot of dancing to avoid acknowledging that he did, in fact, have evidence of the conversation and it wasn't entirely hearsay, as was claimed. No matter what other information he received, he had received the readout.
The readout wasn't cited as evidence for a single one of his claim. What he cited he admits was 2nd hand info.
You quoted an out-of-context snippet that suggestion he used the readout as part of his whistleblower report. I provided context from all sides to show that's not the case. I flat out said the readout wasn't evidence - no dancing. I don't check my P&R notifications on the weekends since I can't respond anyways. When I opened it up and saw this was your comment I was disappointed. Right or wrong, your always informed about your position and argue from evidence. That response just aint it.
(11-11-2019, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No he does not. The info he cited was from sources with "direct knowledge" of the call, not 2nd hand.
If I understand current defenses of Trump, if a whistleblower or other "Deep-stater" reports what someone in on the call said, then, that is "2nd hand" evidence. I.e., the Deep-stater's testimony is 2nd hand. This also extends to people who proof transcripts and otherwise record calls and transactions with foreign leaders. If they are reading from recordings or protocols prepared by people who were there, their views are second hand. Same for people who discovered the call record had been placed on the ultra-classified server.
If Adam Schiff reports to the press what a deep-stater said in a hearing, then that is 3rd hand. That's what they NYT and WaPo are reporting, then--2nd and 3rd hand sources.
Imagine that one of your clients, with bruises all over her face, tells you she has been beaten by her husband. If you testify that she told you her husband beat her, yours would be "2nd hand" testimony in this sense. Same for the doctor who treats your client and the police officer who takes her initial statement, and the neighbor who heard her screaming "stop beating me." NONE of you WERE THERE IN THE ROOM. 2nd hand.
If the husband defends himself by claiming all the testimony is 2nd hand and anyway you are all Democrats and he is a Republican, you have an analogy to the current GOP defense of Trump. The wife's testimony would not be 2nd hand, but would be biased, especially if she has accused her husband before.
The important dots to connect here are not between the call transcripts/notes and the policy actions leading up to and after the call.
Rather, the important dots to connect are between "snitches/traitors" and party affiliation. That is why we need the name of the whistleblower. How were these people able to block an investigation into Ukraine's hacking of our election? Why do they want to make Russia out as the bad guy?
Trump is more popular in Russia than in the US right now, because he is the one US leader with courage to stick up for them.
(11-11-2019, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No he does not. The info he cited was from sources with "direct knowledge" of the call, not 2nd hand.
The people he cited (although in most of the instances he doesn't name specific people and just says "an official" or something similar) had "direct knowledge" of the info, but the whistleblower himself did not have "direct knowledge" of the info - according to his own statement to start of the report. That makes what the whistleblower had 2nd hand information.
My friend Bob has direct knowledge of WWII as he fought in the war. Bob tells me a personal war story. Is the info contained in his war story that I wrote down in my book report my "direct knowledge" or 2nd hand info?
Let's use the Webster dictionary definition of "secondhand" since words matter and so we can all be on the same page.
(11-11-2019, 04:42 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The people he cited (although in most of the instances he doesn't name specific people and just says "an official" or something similar) had "direct knowledge" of the info, but the whistleblower himself did not have "direct knowledge" of the info - according to his own statement to start of the report. That makes what the whistleblower had 2nd hand information.
My friend Bob has direct knowledge of WWII as he fought in the war. Bob tells me a personal war story. Is the info contained in his war story my "direct knowledge" or 2nd hand info?
I tend to agree with your definition of "2nd hand," 6.
What do you make of transcripts and other documents created to record what happened on calls to foreign leaders? Would someone with access and referring to such documents have 2nd hand knowledge?
(11-11-2019, 04:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Imagine that one of your clients, with bruises all over her face, tells you she has been beaten by her husband. If you testify that she told you her husband beat her, yours would be "2nd hand" testimony in this sense. Same for the doctor who treats your client and the police officer who takes her initial statement, and the neighbor who heard her screaming "stop beating me." NONE of you WERE THERE IN THE ROOM. 2nd hand.
If the husband defends himself by claiming all the testimony is 2nd hand and anyway you are all Democrats and he is a Republican, you have an analogy to the current GOP defense of Trump. The wife's testimony would not be 2nd hand, but would be biased, especially if she has accused her husband before.
The neighbor's testimony wouldn't be hearsay as they witnessed the event in real time. The bruises themselves would be actual evidence. The doctor's diagnoses to the injuries wouldn't be hearsay as they examined the patient, but the doctor's account of what went down as learned from the victim telling the story to the doctor would be 2nd hand info. The victim's statement in itself would be 2nd hand info for the officer, but any other evidence or observations the officer made while on scene would be a first hand account.
A husband word vs wife's word isn't going to lead to any convictions. Bruises, neighbor witnesses, diagnosed injuries from a doctor and officer's observations of the scene would all be used against the husband.
(11-11-2019, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: I tend to agree with your definition of "2nd hand," 6.
What do you make of transcripts and other documents created to record what happened on calls to foreign leaders? Would someone with access and referring to such documents have 2nd hand knowledge?
If we can accept that the transcripts themselves are accurate, they would be direct evidence of what was said during the call. If someone cited the transcript directly they would be presenting firsthand knowledge regardless if they were on the call or not.
(11-11-2019, 04:52 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The neighbor's testimony wouldn't be hearsay as they witnessed the event in real time. The bruises themselves would be actual evidence. The doctor's diagnoses to the injuries wouldn't be hearsay as they examined the patient, but the doctor's account of what went down as learned from the victim telling the story to the doctor would be 2nd hand info. The victim's statement in itself would be 2nd hand info for the officer, but any other evidence or observations the officer made while on scene would be a first hand account.
A husband word vs wife's word isn't going to lead to any convictions. Bruises, neighbor witnesses, diagnosed injuries from a doctor and officer's observations of the scene would all be used against the husband.
The neighbor wasn't in the room and so never "saw" the beating, if one actually occurred.
The bruises and doctor's treatment record would be like the call notation perhaps. The victim's statement would be like a record prepared after the call by someone who was present at the scene.
Perhaps an "officer on the scene" could then be like someone who found out the official call transcript was hidden on the classified server, talked to officials who explained what had happened, read meeting protocols and the like--but was not there for the actual beating--I mean, call to Ukraine?
Trump would be the husband, claiming all was a witch hunt of people out to get him. 2nd hand observation by deep-state dems. Husband is protected from the wife's word by "immunity"? If the analogy holds so far, then Trump defenders would say they don't see any bruises. Or bruises happen in marriage, "get over it." They would want the police to investigate the background of the neighbor, the doctor, and the wife, not to mention the policemen who took the statement, to look for "bias."
Could that work in a real life case of wife beating? Could the defense sideline the prosecution and fool the jury by going after the credibility of the witnesses--including doctors and police officers?
(11-11-2019, 04:42 PM)6andcounting Wrote: My friend Bob has direct knowledge of WWII as he fought in the war. Bob tells me a personal war story. Is the info contained in his war story that I wrote down in my book report my "direct knowledge" or 2nd hand info?
If Bob had first hand knowledge then the story is a first hand account of what happened.
The whole issue of "second hand" is just a red herring. If a police officer files a warrant based on a direct eyewitness statement no one would be attacking that as "second hand". Instead it is considered direct eye witness evidence. It would be false to claim that the police did not have anything but "second hand" evidence or "hearsay".
(11-11-2019, 05:10 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: so why does the whistleblower matter at all when Daddy and legitimate witnesses have corroborated the exact details?
It doesn't. But Trump (and his defenders) think every accusation is false and must be from someone who "hates" the President or is "lying".
That Trump accuses anyone else of lying just shows how delusional he really is.
What was in the whistleblower's report was mostly confirmed by people who were on the call and the public hearing will shed more light on all of it.
It's just noise from DJT and his minions to distract.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-11-2019, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Bob had first hand knowledge then the story is a first hand account of what happened.
The whole issue of "second hand" is just a red herring. If a police officer files a warrant based on a direct eyewitness statement no one would be attacking that as "second hand". Instead it is considered direct eye witness evidence. It would be false to claim that the police did not have anything but "second hand" evidence or "hearsay".
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: zs2qohic9ix31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&a...cc5c95e118]](https://preview.redd.it/zs2qohic9ix31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7b058157a472b1c8f4e7d439da8493cc5c95e118)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
![[Image: Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg)
