Impeachment Inquiry 2: Now It's Official!

[GreyhoundFan]

8 minutes ago, Howl said:

Shiff has some serious unflappable Buddha fu goin' on and extremely firm when he needs to be.   Totally unruffled and on point.

If I were in Schiff's place, I'd want to kick Nunes in the shins.

 

"6 takeaways from Alexander Vindman’s and Jennifer Williams’s testimony"

Spoiler

After three impeachment inquiry witnesses last week painted a broad picture of a U.S. foreign policy hijacked by political interests, this week begins with testimony from people who serve inside the White House and witnessed key events firsthand.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is the lead Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, while Jennifer Williams is a State Department employee who was detailed to Vice President Pence on Eurasia matters. They testified in the morning; Former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and former National Security Council senior aide Tim Morrison will testify later Tuesday.

All four previously testified in closed-door depositions. Here’s what we learned from Vindman’s and Williams’s open hearing.

1. An unknown Vindman contact in the intel community

In one of the tensest exchanges, Vindman disclosed that he spoke with an intelligence community official about President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, but he declined to identify the official, saying he had been advised not to by his counsel.

When Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) began asking for more details about the individual, Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) interjected and warned about any attempts to out the anonymous whistleblower who first filed a complaint involving the Trump call.

Nunes had made clear in his opening statement how important he felt it was to hear directly from the whistleblower, who has declined to give up their anonymity and is legally entitled to it.

Nunes sought to argue that if Vindman didn’t know who the whistleblower was, he wouldn’t actually be outing anyone. But Vindmand stood his ground:

NUNES: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know who the whistleblower was — or is.

VINDMAN: I do not know who the whistleblower is. That is correct ...

(CROSSTALK)

NUNES: So how is it possible for you to name these people and then out the whistleblower?

VINDMAN: Per the advice of my counsel, I’ve -- I’ve been advised not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community.

Nunes soon suggested that Vindman might want to instead plead the Fifth Amendment — the one protecting witnesses against self-incrimination — to which Vindman’s lawyer objected.

“This does not call for an answer that is invoking the Fifth or any theoretical issue like that,” he said. “We’re following the ruling of the chair.”

It bears emphasizing that whoever the whistleblower is, the vast majority of their claims were secondhand and have been confirmed by other witnesses, rendering their unique insights into the impeachment inquiry somewhat limited.

2. Trump’s lack of interest in ‘corruption’

Vindman confirmed reporting that he had drafted talking points for President Trump ahead of Trump’s April phone call with Zelensky and that those talking points included Ukrainian corruption.

“Those were the recommended talking points that were cleared through the NSC staff for the president,” Vindman said.

That’s significant because Trump didn’t bring up corruption on the call, according to a transcript of it that the White House released last week — even as the White House’s readout of the call incorrectly stated that it had been discussed.

The Washington Post previously reported that the readout was drafted before the call took place and wasn’t corrected afterward. But that’s two indications that corruption was supposed to be brought up on the call, and Trump didn’t do it.

That undermines the White House defense that Trump was truly concerned about corruption in Ukraine and that’s why he was pressing for specific investigations. That argument is already undermined by multiple pieces of evidence — including Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani’s public comments and that Trump has shown interest in only two investigations, both of which carry obvious personal benefits for him. Vindman’s testimony indicates that Ukrainian corruption wasn’t much of a priority for Trump, at least as of April.

David Holmes, a U.S. official who was in Ukraine, also testified last week that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told him that Trump didn’t “give a s---" about Ukraine and just wanted his specific investigations.

3. Vindman: Nothing ‘nefarious’ in rough transcript omitting Burisma

Both House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and his counsel, Daniel Goldman, pressed Vindman on reports that he had recommended that the rough transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky be corrected to include the word “Burisma,” the company that had employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

The idea appeared to be that something might have been omitted from the official transcript, which included a number of curious ellipses, that reflected poorly on Trump.

Vindman and Williams, both of whom were on the call, testified that Burisma was, in fact, mentioned. But Vindman suggested its omission from the rough transcript wasn’t a big deal. He indicated that the drafting of the rough transcript followed a normal process and that he didn’t see anything wrong in his two suggestions not being included.

“When I first saw the transcript without the two substantive items I attempted to include, I didn’t see that as nefarious,” Vindman said.

4. Two striking moments on Vindman’s biography

Vindman, who was born in Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union and immigrated to the United States as a child, has been attacked in conservative media arguably more than any other witness — including by suggestions that his loyalty may not be to the United States. Schiff even took time out at the start of the hearing to warn Republicans against impugning Vindman’s character, invoking Fox News.

Against that backdrop, Vindman closed his opening statement with this note to his Soviet-born father, who brought his family to the United States when Vindman was young.

“Dad, my sitting here today, in the U.S. Capitol, talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision 40 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,” he said. “Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”

Later in the hearing, Vindman also took exception to ranking Republican Devin Nunes (Calif.) calling him “Mr. Vindman.”

“Ranking member, it’s Lieutenant Colonel Vindman,” Vindman said.

5. A curious line of questioning about Vindman’s Ukraine ties

To the above point, one particular line of questioning seemed aimed at suggesting, well, something, about Vindman’s Ukraine ties.

GOP counsel Stephen Castor asked Vindman about a top Ukrainian official, Oleksandr Danylyuk, having suggested Vindman could be Ukraine’s defense minister — a very high-ranking position in the country’s government.

Vindman testified that he wasn’t sure whether the offer was a real one, given he’s not a high-ranking official in the U.S. military, and that he reported it to his superiors.

“I’m an American,” he said. “I came here when I was a toddler. I immediately dismissed these offers, did not entertain them. … The whole notion is rather comical."

Castor never raised the issue of Vindman’s loyalties, but he did suggest the offer might present a conflict of interest. Vindman countered that his superiors never made such a determination.

Later, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) pointed to Vindman’s Purple Heart and other military awards and objected to Castor’s line of questioning, saying it was clearly about Vindman’s loyalties. “I want people to understand what that was all about,” Himes said. “It’s the kind of thing you say when you have to defend the indefensible.”

6. Questions about a Pence-Zelensky call

At the very start of Williams’s testimony, Schiff asked her about another Zelensky call — this one featuring Pence, on Sept. 18. Williams’s counsel interjected and stated that Pence’s office has determined that the call includes classified information and thus couldn’t be discussed in an open setting.

That’s interesting, because a Post report in October about Pence’s role in all of this stated that U.S. officials determined that the Sept. 18 call was “somewhat perfunctory.”

As that report detailed, Trump involved Pence in efforts to pressure Zelensky to launch specific investigations, including by withdrawing him from a planned trip to Zelensky’s inauguration. That was a core claim by the whistleblower, and Williams confirmed it Tuesday.

Williams and Schiff agreed that she would testify in writing about the call.

 

[thoughtful]

30 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

One bombshell(ish) thing did happen during this hearing that I managed to catch: Vindman indicated that there might have been retaliation against him in the workplace. Without any reason he hasn't been invited to participate in certain meetings where he usually participated in before testifying.

And he intelligently and professionally refused to characterize it as retaliation or punishment or due to suspicion of him. He just stated the facts.

 

[fraurosena]

6 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

At the very start of Williams’s testimony, Schiff asked her about another Zelensky call — this one featuring Pence, on Sept. 18. Williams’s counsel interjected and stated that Pence’s office has determined that the call includes classified information and thus couldn’t be discussed in an open setting.

That’s interesting, because a Post report in October about Pence’s role in all of this stated that U.S. officials determined that the Sept. 18 call was “somewhat perfunctory.”

As that report detailed, Trump involved Pence in efforts to pressure Zelensky to launch specific investigations, including by withdrawing him from a planned trip to Zelensky’s inauguration. That was a core claim by the whistleblower, and Williams confirmed it Tuesday.

Williams and Schiff agreed that she would testify in writing about the call.

Oh, I forgot about this! It's so important, because we all know Pence is involved in this up to his eyeballs, and this may be an inroad into exposing that. 

[Howl]

Jennifer Williams is a very cool customer and I think was very carefully coached to not  implicate Trump or her immediate supervisor, who she reported to about the contents of the call and by being Pence adjacent, to protect Pence.  

So, is she a patriot who went ahead and answered the call to testify or was she carefully coached to not implicate anyone and therefore a form of damage control.   She was obviously a counterweight to Vindman, who immediately reported to NSC lawyers.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Howl

[SassyPants]

10 minutes ago, Howl said:

Jennifer Williams is a very cool customer and I think was very carefully coached to not  implicate Trump or her immediate supervisor, who she reported to about the contents of the call and by being Pence adjacent, to protect Pence.  

So, is she a patriot who went ahead and answered the call to testify or was she carefully coached to not implicate anyone and therefore a form of damage control.   She was obviously a counterweight to Vindman, who immediately reported to NSC lawyers.

 I do wish that Vindman had presented as more straightforward. His stumbling, attempting to retract or change his response and asking to have questions to be repeated affected his overall testimony. Now maybe that was a strategy to get the interrogators off of their game? Williams was easier to listen to. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by SassyPants

[fraurosena]

8 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

 I do wish that Vindman had presented as more straightforward. His stumbling, attempting to retract or change his response and asking to have questions to be repeated affected his overall testimony. Now maybe that was a strategy to get the interrogators off of their game? Williams was easier to listen to. 

I believe Vindman was incredibly nervous. His hands were visibly shaking as he read out his statement. He was attempting to be as complete and truthful as he could but his nerves got in the way. I agree that listening to him was not easy. He doesn't have that deep, resonating voice that Taylor has, nor the pleasant, appealing voice of Yovanovitch or Williams, so that didn't help him either. Not speaking in fluid, complete sentences seemed to be more difficult for him -- then again, many of us can't, especially under such pressure.

That said, it should be about the content of his answers, not the way he says them. I thought he held his own well enough, and certainly stood up to the trumplicans when necessary. All in all, his testimony was as devastating in its own way as Taylor, Kent and Yovanovitch's were.

I completely agree with @Howl's assessment of Williams. She was very careful and measured in her answers, never explicitly disparaging. I'm on the fence about her motives. Maybe she wants to do her duty, and keep her job perspectives intact, whichever way the penny drops. Maybe she was supposed to be the 'token' witness from Pence's office to intimate Pence's implicit compliance with Congress. 

[Smash!]

Now Ambassador Volker and Mr. Morrisson are going to testify and I have to go to bed ? I think this is going to be interesting.

[fraurosena]

Thanks for reminding me @Smash! I almost missed his opening statement, that's on right now. 

I wonder how this one is going to go...

[Smash!]

I had to laugh about this [emoji1]

[fraurosena]

So Volker is attempting to say he didn't know what was happening around him? 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Using grab bag of arguments, Republicans stick together against impeachment"

Spoiler

They’ve called the testimony “secondhand information” and “hearsay.” They’ve defended the president’s right to investigate corruption abroad. They’ve raised questions about the anonymous whistleblower who started the probe. They’ve argued that nothing ultimately happened. And, over and over, they’ve attacked the process.

Republicans battling the potential impeachment of President Trump have flitted among a multitude of shifting — and, at times, contradictory — defenses and deflections as they seek to cast doubt on a narrative supported by mounting evidence: that Trump subverted U.S. foreign policy to further his personal aims by pressuring Ukraine to launch politically motivated investigations, using hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid as leverage.

While those attacks — at least 22, according to a Washington Post tally — have done little to undermine the core allegations under investigation in the House, they have been remarkably successful in one respect: keeping congressional Republicans united against impeachment as the GOP casts the probe as partisan.

“Different people have different issues,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). “One might have problems with the process. One has problems with the underlying facts. Some people say, ‘Well, gosh, I don’t agree with the phone call, but it’s not impeachable.’ So you get all kinds of different paradigms that it’s being viewed through. . . . Everybody will gravitate to their strongest argument that they feel most comfortable with.”

That dynamic has been on full display in recent days. Last week, faced with detailed testimony from three career State Department officials, Trump’s allies focused on dismissing the evidence as “hearsay” incapable of corroborating the core Democratic claim that Trump personally tried to withhold aid to force the investigations.

But when a political adviser at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, told impeachment investigators Friday that he overheard Trump ask about the status of the Ukraine investigations, Republicans’ definition of “hearsay” appeared to shift: Meadows, for instance, suggested that the witness, David Holmes, may have not heard the full context of the conversation and that it was not actually a firsthand account, since he was not speaking directly with the president.

Those arguments, meanwhile, have shared the stage with many others. During his opening statement at a hearing Tuesday morning, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) launched a furious attack on the media, calling the impeachment inquiry a “fevered rush to tarnish and remove a president who refuses to pretend that the media are something different than what they really are — puppets of the Democratic Party.”

He went on to question why Democrats abandoned their plans to summon testimony from the whistleblower — without mentioning that virtually every major allegation in his Aug. 12 complaint has now been corroborated by congressional testimony.

Last week, a key GOP message suggested that because Trump ultimately lifted the hold on aid to Ukraine, there was, in fact, no wrongdoing — what some on Capitol Hill have called the “no harm, no foul” defense. An even older argument — that judging Trump’s behavior is best left up to voters in an election less than a year away — has also gained significant traction.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was personally compelled to rebut those arguments in a letter to her Democratic rank-and-file Monday, noting that Trump released the aid on Sept. 11, two days after the inspector general for the intelligence community notified Congress of the existence of a credible whistleblower complaint.

“There are also some who say that no serious wrongdoing was committed, because the military assistance to Ukraine was eventually released,” she wrote. “The fact is, the aid was only released after the whistleblower exposed the truth of the president’s extortion and bribery, and the House launched a formal investigation.”

Leaving the decision on Trump to voters would be “dangerous,” she added, “because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.”

Democrats say the expanding list of Republican arguments against impeachment reflects a flailing party that cannot rebut the central allegations at stake.

“The president of the United States attempted to bribe the Ukrainians into opening a phony investigation against his opponent and held up military aid to them as leverage — those facts are really not in dispute, and so they’re engaged in an effort to distract from that,” said Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.). “I think the American people are seeing it for what it is, and I think it’s very sad.”

Despite Democrats’ confidence in the strength of their case against Trump, however, there has been remarkable unity in the ranks of Republican lawmakers. No Republicans joined Democrats, for instance, in an Oct. 31 vote formalizing rules for the impeachment inquiry, though one ex-Republican, Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), voted yes.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said that dynamic was unlikely to change anytime soon, thanks to what he called a strategic misstep by Democrats — choosing not to follow the lengthy processes in the impeachment investigations of Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton.

In those cases, months-long investigations — public and private — preceded formal House impeachment proceedings.

Independent counsels pursued those inquiries, but this time, the Justice Department, led by a Trump appointee, Attorney General William P. Barr, declined to investigate Trump’s conduct, leaving the fact-finding to Congress. After the disclosure of the whistleblower complaint, House Democrats quickly launched a probe, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), that has rapidly summoned key witnesses to private depositions, and now to public hearings.

While Republican lawmakers have participated at every stage of the probe, they have largely been cut out of decisions about how the investigation has been structured.

That, Cole said, has resulted in a situation in which Republicans of all stripes — ideologically, temperamentally and otherwise — have felt comfortable opposing the impeachment effort: “Even folks that had some questions about the president thought the process just was unfair.”

Among those is Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. The GOP veteran has shown clear discomfort with how Trump handled relations with Ukraine but has signaled he is disinclined to remove him from office.

“I believe it was inappropriate. I do not believe it was impeachable,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this month.

Illustrating that not every anti-impeachment argument carries the presidential imprimatur, Trump tweeted his dismay just hours after the Nov. 10 interview: “There was NOTHING said that was in any way wrong. Republicans, don’t be led into the fools trap of saying it was not perfect, but is not impeachable. No, it is much stronger than that. NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG!”

But the wrong-but-not-impeachable argument could be Trump’s saving grace in the Senate, where a number of GOP lawmakers have signaled similar discomfort with how Trump conducted his Ukraine policy and could be disinclined to embrace more-sweeping, scorched-earth rebuttals.

“All you care about is, what are the votes on the board?” Cole said. “Anything that gets us to more no’s strengthens the president’s hand. If we come out of here with essentially a unanimous Republican no vote, how in the world is the Republican Senate going to turn their back on every member of the Republican caucus in the House?”

Multiple Republicans said this week that they simply did not expect the days of testimony to change any minds — whether on Capitol Hill or among Republican voters across the country.

Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), who as the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee will play a lead role in the next phase of the impeachment process, said Republican lawmakers have simply become desensitized to Democratic attacks on Trump.

“There were voices saying the day after election, we should impeach him, so it’s been a constant drumbeat,” he said — echoing another frequent GOP talking point. “We believe that when you look at the sourcing of the facts, the facts don’t warrant impeachment. It’s easy for us to stand together on that. The bottom line is, there’s nothing impeachable. So our side is going to stick with president.”

 

[fraurosena]

Volker and Morrison both are so obviously trying to extricate themselves from the shit they find themselves in. They didn't know what was going on, my ass. Pointing the finger at Giuliani is the only thing they can do, but it's not really working.

Too bad I won't be able to hear the all the trumplicans in this hearing. It's getting late over here. I'm off to bed.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Every time I think this administration can't sink lower, it does.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

And the MilkDud is trending on twitter:

[Howl]

The most horrifying phrase in the English language: "I yield my time to Representative Jordan."

Nunes has given himself over to pouting. 

Mike Conaway, the representative for West Texas, went on a rant about how pissed off he is about something something something.  

[GreyhoundFan]

"Coach Jordan goes to war for Team Trump"

Spoiler

What’s an impeachment drama without a Republican wrestling coach stepping into the spotlight?

Perhaps you recall that crazy day in December 1998 when the GOP majority in Congress found itself in a pickle. House Republicans were deep into the process of impeaching President Bill Clinton for offenses related to his affair with a much younger member of the White House staff. They had also defenestrated their egomaniac House speaker, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who had encouraged the unpopular impeachment while he was secretly carrying on his own affair with a much younger staff member. Their choice to replace Gingrich, Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana, had gone to the well of the House to announce that, upon reflection, he was not going to be speaker after all.

Another affair? Bingo!

In this moment of desperation, the Republicans turned to Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, known to his friends as Denny and known to the rest of the world not at all. And from the wreckage of the failed impeachment, the bearlike Hastert, a former wrestling coach, led them through eight more years in the majority. This stretch of success made Hastert the longest-serving speaker in his party’s history and positioned him for a lucrative stretch as a K Street lobbyist. Coach Hastert ended his public life with quite another stretch: a year in federal prison, guilty of offenses related to his sexual abuse of high school boys.

In a welcome sign of progress, the coach in the current round of impeachment is not alleged to have sexually abused anyone. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the designated bulldog of President Trump’s defense, is only accused of covering up serial sexual abuse by someone else. Former members of the Ohio State wrestling team have said Jordan, as an assistant coach, knew that the team doctor was molesting athletes. Jordan denies it and repeats the denial every time another athlete comes forward to say otherwise.

Hastert’s coaching skills were manifest in his ability to keep the GOP team together. Ask Gingrich, John Boehner or Paul Ryan, and they’ll tell you that is no easy trick. All three of these Republican speakers were tormented by factional infighting. Jordan’s wrestling past is evident in his approach to questioning witnesses. Wrestling is a sport of aggression, contortion, quickness and leverage. Consistency, not so much. A wrestler tries anything that might pinpoint and exploit the opponent’s weak spots.

There’s no missing Coach Jordan if you tune into the impeachment hearings before the House Intelligence Committee. As Trump might say, he looks the part of a grappler. Jordan does his questioning in shirt sleeves, as if he had just asked his wingman to hold his coat before a bar fight. Or maybe he’s preparing to demonstrate the proper technique for reversing a takedown. Or maybe he’s worried that, given how fast and angrily he talks, his suit jacket might combust.

He’s a newbie on the committee, added by Republican leaders specifically for the purpose of doing battle. Each time his allotted five minutes come around, he darts toward his target with a particular hold in mind. It varies from match to match, witness to witness. With acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr., the coatless coach tried what might be called the “no harm, no foul” approach. The president could not have withheld aid from Ukraine as leverage to get an investigation, Jordan argued, because the aid was eventually released. With Taylor’s predecessor, Marie Yovanovitch, he went the opposite direction: If the president withheld aid from Ukraine to get an investigation going, who could blame him? Everyone knows, Jordan said, that Trump doesn’t like foreign aid, and besides — of course he’s mad that Ukrainian politicians supported his opponent in 2016.

With Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Jordan tried another move entirely: He demanded the names of everyone with whom Vindman discussed a July 25 phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president — the call in which Trump asked for “a favor” involving political investigations. Republicans believe that Vindman’s interpretation of the call inspired an unnamed whistleblower to distort a friendly exchange between world leaders into an impeachable offense.

That the aid was only released after the whistleblower’s whistle blew; that Ukrainian politicians opposed Trump for the perfectly sound reason that he was in the back pocket of their mortal enemy, Vladimir Putin; that Vindman was just one of many government servants, including then-national security adviser John Bolton, alarmed by Trump’s behavior — none of this deters Coach Jordan as he writhes for any advantage in pursuit of a win.

He probably didn’t come to Washington with dreams of shattering public trust in our institutions: the FBI, CIA, National Security Council and State Department. But a wrestler doesn’t choose his opponent. Jordan just pulls on his Team Trump singlet and goes to war.

 

[SassyPants]

If Morrison thought the conversations were on the up and up and not an attempt at extortion, why did he agree with or actually make the decision to place the information surrounding these conversations into a special, hidden file?

And Volker sure doesn’t know a whole lot for a man who was front and center in this entire debacle. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans should have thought twice before calling Volker and Morrison"

Spoiler

The testimony on Tuesday of Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, and Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council official, was supposed to help President Trump. That was not a good idea. Not in the least.

Volker testified that only after all the other witnesses testified did he realize that “Burisma” meant an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. He said he did not realize he was facilitating an extortion plot. Whether you believe Volker was willfully blind to the president’s extortion of an ally, or you think he tried to lie during his deposition when he denied knowledge of the plot, his story makes little sense. He was present for the July 10 meeting when Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, improperly brought up the Biden question, for example. Nevertheless, Volker insisted, “I did not understand that others believed that an investigation of the Ukrainian company Burisma, which had a history of accusations of corruption, was tantamount to investigating Vice President Biden. I drew a sharp distinction between the two.”

Many observers did not buy that Volker could have missed what was going on. Susan Hennessey of the Lawfare blog remarked, “Volker seems to be trying to say he was hoping he could appease Trump’s improper desire for a political investigation of the Bidens by getting what was a facially legitimate investigation of Burisma.”

For that to be true, Volker would have had to ignore public news reports in which Giuliani bragged about going to Ukraine to initiate an investigation of Biden. It strains credulity to believe that a seasoned foreign policy expert with experience in the region such as Volker would think there was something specific to investigate at Burisma other than the Bidens.

Volker’s testimony only got worse for Trump. Volker said the conspiracy theory that the president and his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, cooked up was “self-serving and not credible.” He also declared, “I have known former Vice President Biden for a long time and I know how he respects his duties of higher office. It’s just not credible to me that a vice president of the United States is going to do anything other than act as how he sees best for the national interest.” (Perhaps Biden, a Democratic candidate for president, will use that in his campaign ad.) Volker also said that if he had known what was going on he would have objected, and said that creating conspiracy theories about the Bidens is not how we should be conducting foreign policy.

Morrison was not much better from the White House’s standpoint. He said he was “disappointed” that the president did not press the anti-corruption message on the July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, but insisted he was merely concerned about “political” fallout from the call, not any illegality — although he contacted NSC lawyers. He conceded that “CrowdStrike” and the Bidens were not part of the recommended talking points drafted ahead of that call. Morrison added dryly said that invoking domestic politics is not something they recommend a president doing.

Morrison also made very clear that Sondland was in direct communication with Giuliani, Trump and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Among the most problematic exchanges was this one with Daniel S. Goldman, counsel to the House Intelligence Committee:

Goldman: You understood from [Sondland] that Trump was withholding security assistance as additional leverage to get Ukraine to publicly announce . . . investigations that President Trump had discussed . . . ?

Morrison: I was concerned about what [Sondland] was saying were requirements.

There was also this back-and-forth:

Goldman: What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that he told [Zelensky aide Andriy] Yermak?

Morrison: That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted.

In other words, Morrison confirmed that the investigation into the Bidens was a hurdle to get U.S. military aid, and he was aware that this came from the president. Morrison confirmed that Ukraine, by Sept. 1, was well aware that aid was being held up over an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.

These were supposed to be helpful witnesses for Trump. They plainly were not. Moreover, Volker’s change of heart likely previews Sondland’s testimony tomorrow, during which he will be able to confirm direct contact with Trump. In sum, Republicans have egg on their face, raising the legitimate question as to whether they have the slightest idea what they are doing.

 

[fraurosena]

The trumplicans are so desperate that they even accused their own witnesses of being Schiff’s. Is Nunes so stupid to think that nobody has access to their list of witnesses and would look it up?

 

[JMarie]

8 hours ago, fraurosena said:

------- 

I loved this rebuttal of the trumplican claim that the dems are changing the charges from quid pro quo to bribery.

 

The theme on Fox News tonight: "bribery" as replaced "quid pro quo," and nobody mentioned bribery At All today.

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

How appalling is it when a decorated Luitenant Colonel has to be protected from his own commander in chief?

 

[thoughtful]

3 hours ago, Howl said:

The most horrifying phrase in the English language: "I yield my time to Representative Jordan."

Really.

I just want to play this at him (and several other of those dishonest shmucks), over and over:

 

[fraurosena]

Rufus be praised!

It’s taken a while, but it looks like there are still people with a conscience left in that party.

Now let’s hope that there are enough reasonable republicans at the federal level too, to really make a difference. 

 

[fraurosena]

What she says.

Here's a link to follow along Gordon Sondland's testimony. Will he plead the fifth, or come clean?