Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Day 4

KA-BOOOOM!!!

Morning LTers. Too much truth, it's all over but the hanging. America experienced a unifying moment when the collective jaw of the nation dropped. Just closing mine as I type.

Today's Main Points
_____________________

1. No quid pro quo is dead as a defense. Republicans admit it's time to bury it after Sondland's opening remarks become public. https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/it-doesnt-matter-anymore-house-republicans-pivo...

2. Capo di capi Trump; his bagman Giuliani; his consigliere, Barr; his enforcer, Pompeo; his hitman, Mulvaney;and even "silent Cal," the capo-in-waiting have been bagged and thrown under the bus by Sondland's sworn testimony.

3. Testimony of ALL witnesses prior to Sondland and now Sondland himself is congruent and confirmed; Republican successive walls of defense have all been destroyed.

4. Sondland knows the Ukrainians knew conditions for them to receive the vital military aid was a quid pro quo. How? "Because I told them." https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/sondland-says-ukrainians-knew-there-was-a-quid-...

5. Republicans in total disarray https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/other/key-republicans-walk-out-of-hearing-room...

6a. Republicans committing mass political suicide because of their smear tactics against witnesses. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-vindman-uniform-rank_n_5dd42d33e4b03b... and https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/11/19/army-providing-security-vindman-d...

6b. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) re-election ambitions look doomed. https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/elise-stefanik-shredded-by-local-columnist-for-... and https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/11/elise-stefanik-donald-trump-impeach...

6c. "Nunes (R-CA) is an idiot" as a hashtag trended #1 WORLDWIDE yesterday https://thehill.com/homenews/house/471091-devinnunesisanidiot-trends-after-vindm... Blindsided by Sondland implication that Trump direct initiator of "munitions on conditions" conspiracy, today Nunes has only debunked old Republican conspiracy theories to offer in his Day 4 opening remarks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7k6ULeLbxs

6d. Implicated as a co-conspirator, Pompeo silently "pleads the 5th." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/sondland-testimony-ta...

6e-1. Sondland on THE ISSUE of impeachment Dempcrats are driving home. . .

"Members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?" Sondland's opening statement said. "As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

6e-2. Sondland destroys Trump's last stand defense in spite of not receiving documentary confirmation from State Dept. that has refused his access to his own records for purposes of his use in giving truthful testimony.

Sondland also said the White House confirmed the call. But Trump has said he knows "nothing" about it.

Asked about the call at a press conference last week, Trump said, "I know nothing about that. First time I've heard it." When asked if he recalled speaking with Sondland, he continued, "I don't recall. No, not at all. Not even a little bit."

6e-3 Sondland confirms coverup of why Trump issued hold on security aid pkg., for which NO witnesses have been able so far to explain in spite of their efforts to get reason from WH and State Dept, as per earlier testimony.

Sondland said he became aware in July and August that the White House suspended security aid, a move he opposed. He said he wasn’t told why the aid was held up, but that he understood it’s release would depend on Ukraine beginning investigations.

“I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression,” Sondland said. “I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/20/impeachment-live-updates...

Blogging break as battlefield quiets down and inquisitors pick at the opening statement.

Godfather III continues.

Transcription of Sondland's opening remarks can be read here:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/471250-read-ambassador-gordon-sondla...

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/read-gordon-sondlands-opening-statement...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-gordon-sondlands-full-opening-testimo...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/20/20973970/impeachment-hearings... (pdf link is first line of text)

Who Won the Day?

Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY) "Who would benefit from an investigation of the Bidens?" https://youtu.be/qpQyY5YsI3M

GOPers keep hammering more nails into the cover of the party's coffin.

Part B: Evening Round
Topic: Testimony on Withholding of Authorized, Certified Security Aid by Trump
Witnesses: Laura Cooper Dept. of Pentagon; David Hale, #3 in Pompeo's State Dept.

Both officials tried to get security aid to Ukraine released. What are the mechanics of how the hold happened? Maybe we'll get an answer to Sondland's stymied efforts to get a "credible" reason for Trump's hold. More likely, we may hear how that hold was probably illegal, especially by the Pentagon.

Cooper transcript from previous closed hearing testimony: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/11/778345515/read-defense-department-officials-impea...
Hale transcript from previous closed hearing testimony: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779530244/read-testimony-of-top-state-department-...

Trump Sharpie Impeachment Defense

Chair Schiff Opening Remarks:

Notes Hale is most senior official in State (assume he means tenure?). He is witness to Amb. Yovanovitch smear and tried to get Pompeo to issue statement of support for her. Didn't happen.

Notes Cooper's Dept of Defense and all other Fed agencies supported the aid, except OMB. She met with Amb. Volker who told her that Zelensky statement/announcement must precede release of security aid. Alarmed her.

Nunes Opening Remarks:

Continues in the worn out groove that whistleblower is the villain; false accusation of Democratic conspiracy to "get Trump"; attack and smear Chalupa of State Dept for Ukrainian journalist's anti-Trump op-ed (don't get the connection); saws the old debunked Biden corruption violin; kicks around hearsay ball; lauds Trump's Sharpie defense; blah, blah, blah whine, whine, whine about Democrats impeaching Trump instead of themselves.

Please watch hearings, if you're able. I have to fix dinner. (BREAK)

>1 Limelite:

KA-BOOOOM!!!

I ‘presume’ that’s the sound of Sondland’s entire testimony being blown apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnEWYilDgcg

Turner: "Is that your testimony here today, Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied investigations to the aid? Because I don't think you're saying that.”

Sondland: "I've said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming."

Turner: "So no one told you. Giuliani didn't tell you. Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody. Pompeo. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?"

Sondland: "I think I already testified."

Turner: "Answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations—because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that president Trump was tying aid to investigation. Yes or no?"

Sondland: "Yes"

Turner: "So you really have no testimony here today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations"

Sondland: "Other than my own presumption."

Turner: "Which is nothing."

Republicans reject Trump's attacks on impeachment witnesses (Politico)

GOP lawmakers are wary of the president's inflammatory rhetoric, even as they seek to defend him...While Republicans have shown zero signs of breaking with President Donald Trump when it comes to impeachment itself, GOP lawmakers are also making it clear they’re unwilling to fully embrace Trump’s scorched-earth defense tactics, which have centered — at least in part — on tearing down his critics, sometimes against the advice of his own allies and advisers.

“There’s no need to attack. I was a combat veteran,” retiring Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) told POLITICO. “I think the better position to take is: There’s nothing impeachable”...

>8 TrippB:

When you pretend a bombshell is a "dud," that's usually when it blows up in your face. Trumpists have yet to learn this. Proof? They're eating their own, savaging fellow lifelong Republicans; at worst threatening fellow Republicans' safety with violence and at best indulging in finger-pointing at other Republicans.

Examples of this behavior have been witnessed by all who watched the hearings, have been understood by any who paid attention to the Army's need to offer protection to two who've testified, and heard by anyone who chose to listen when Sondland testified about Republican representative Earl Blumenauer's conspiracy to encourage retaliation against him for appearing today. He advocated a boycott of Sondland's business that has endangered patrons and employees, and threatens his and his employees' livelihoods.

So much for "job creating Republicans" -- actions belie their words.

Not to mention that the latter is explicitly against the law; further, not to mention human decency, when directed against ANY witness in ANY legal inquiry.

So much for "law and order" Republican double-speak.

When President Richard Nixon disgraced himself and his office by abusing his authority, it was a scandal essentially contained within the circle of Nixon and his top White House appointees.

In the present case of the Democrats' vendetta against Donald Trump, the scandal is one which disgraces nearly the entire national corps of elected Democrats. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZYCiXshjxk )

There are extremely few Democrats whose words and deeds concerning Trump have not left them deservedly disgraced.

Tulsi Gabbard, candidate for president in the 2020 election, is a conspicuous exception to the rule. She's had nothing to do with these farcical hearings and for that fact she ought to be proud; for that fact she deserves our admiration.

(The National Review) From Impeachment to the Debates — and Back Again |
By Victor Davis Hanson | November 20, 2019 11:47 PM

... ...

"All day long, the grinning Sondland played Roadrunner to Adam Schiff’s Wiley E. Coyote, as he slowed and pulled up to offer up Trump — only to scoot away in a puff of dust as soon as Schiff tried to wrap his hands around him.

"What we are left with so far are two inconvenient truths that won’t go away.

"One, Trump sent lethal military aid to Ukraine and never fired any prosecutor; the Obama administration, led by Joe Biden, got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired and forbade sending lethal aid to the Ukrainians. Those facts eroded any argument that Trump endangered the Ukrainians in a way Obama had not.

"In that regard, Trump did not smear Joe Biden; Joe Biden smeared Joe Biden when he bragged in front of the Council on Foreign Relations that, as tough-guy Joe, he quashed Ukrainian investigations by leveraging U.S. aid — with the sort of language that Schiff could only have hoped Trump had used:

'I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said, "I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money." Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.'
... ...

At least two screens at the White House today? (The hearing and Fox News counsel.)
WH kitchen will want to hold the butter on the popcorn, though--Trump won't want to break for another Walter Reed moment.
(If tweets any indication, one may be imminent.)

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 7:32 AM · Nov 21, 2019
The Republican Party, and me, had a GREAT day yesterday with respect to the phony Impeachment Hoax, & yet,
when I got home to the White House & checked out the news coverage on much of television,
you would have no idea they were reporting on the same event. FAKE & CORRUPT NEWS!

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 8:15 AM · Nov 21, 2019
Corrupt politician Adam Schiff’s lies are growing by the day.
Keep fighting tough, Republicans, you are dealing with human scum
who have taken Due Process and all of the Republican Party’s rights away from us
during the most unfair hearings in American History......

.....But we are winning big, and they will soon be on our turf.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | ~ 8am Nov 21, 2019
....”Nothing gives Schiff jurisdiction over Impeachment.”

“The new House Resolution gives Adam Schiff (the most dishonest man in politics) the power unilaterally to release edited transcripts. Rule 10 gives Chairman Schiff absolutely no jurisdiction. Subpoenas issued as part of Dems’ Impeachment inquiry are illegal.” Sam Dewey @FoxNews

>11 proximity1:

Look who quotes a classicist Neocon, Trump water-boy, a defender of the Orange Shitegibbon.

Hanson is a supporter of Donald Trump, authoring a 2019 book The Case for Trump.20 Trump praised the book.20 In the book, Hanson defends Trump's insults and vile language as "uncouth authenticity", and praises Trump for "an uncanny ability to troll and create hysteria among his media and political critics."20 According to Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada, the book "focuses less on the case for Trump than on the case against everyone else," in particular attacking Hillary Clinton.20 According to Lozada, Hanson indulges "in casual sexism, criticizing Clinton’s “shrill” voice and her “signature off-putting laugh,” and inexplicably suggesting that while “Trump’s bulk fueled a monstrous energy; Hillary’s girth sapped her strength.”"20 Hanson praises the Trump administration for its "inspired" and "impressive" Cabinet members.20 In the book, Hanson blamed Barack Obama for "deliberately whipping up" "much of the current division in the country", while ignoring Trump's birtherism or attacks on Muslims.20 The book likens Trump to a hero of ancient literature, sacrificing himself for the greater good.20 Hanson expressed support for Trump's proposed border wall on the Southern border, saying that walls around houses deter criminals.20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson

Great choice. The man should stick to history because when he writes about the present he's deliberately blind and deplorable.

The truth is Trump is corrupt, his administration is corrupt, but because they're not corrupt enough for him, he goes looking for amoral losers and actual thugs to do his dirty work. Cripes! He's known to cheat at golf!

The truth is Trumpists are whack-doodle spreaders of cockamamie lies and Russian "kompromat" and dezinformatsiya in order to further their Republican corruption and, at the same time, attempt again, their usual Republican heavy-handed and unsuccessful efforts to cover it up. The Nixonian legacy.

Did you ever stop to ask yourself if Trump's intentions toward Ukraine were "honorable" and in US interests, why did he recruit Giuliani (unregistered foreign agent) and Lev and Igor to cook up a pro-Russian net of lies and smear campaign in order to benefit himself? If Trump's Ukrainian policy were in the US national interests, all he had to do was pursue any REAL anti-corruption initiatives through the existing State Department channels. This is not hard.

But the proof of Trump's corruption, beyond all the witnesses testimony and the documentary evidence that's come to light, is:

1) the confessions of the actors -- himself included; the individuals he set in motion to act on his behalf -- Giuliani pals, Lev and Igor's indicted criminal Ukrainian buddy(ies) already identified by Ukraine as corrupt;

2) and the answer to a favorite right wing question, "Who would benefit?" (from all this corruption) that even Sondland, after being schooled in logic by Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY), admitted he knew the answer to.

Only DONALD TRUMP.

#13--'In the book, Hanson defends Trump's insults and vile language as 'uncouth authenticity', and praises Trump for 'an uncanny ability to troll and create hysteria among his media and political critics'---so some people think this is a good thing but it's not a presidential thing because a president should not try to divide, he/she should try to include as much as possible those who do not support him/her. Trolling and creating hysteria does the country no good. The reason blacks and gays and many Hispanics and Muslims are against this presidency is the divisive nature of the Trump administration. So the political divide is driven by racism, religious bigotry, homophobia, misogyny amongst other things and encouraged by the current holder of the White House for his own political benefit and defended by an almost lily white Republican Party who's only black congressman is retiring, are anti-Muslim sometimes anti-Jewish when you consider the alt-right wing and its white nationalist component, have no LGBTQ elected officials anywhere that I know of or even candidates for office--they have Milo of the alt-right and very few women. That's what they are and not because I say so but because that's really what they are. A lot of white men and a few white women and one black Senator from South Carolina. They don't really represent the country.

Hanson is a hack and a fascist.

>14 lriley:
"The reason blacks and gays and many Hispanics and Muslims are against this presidency is the divisive nature of the Trump administration."

Not to mention white people who can identify an ass from a mile away.

>10 Limelite:
You haven’t retracted this post yet, so I’ll just say I’m not in disagreement with all of your statement, as long as the errors are corrected. Here’s a more accurate version:

”…and heard by anyone who chose to listen when Sondland testified about Republican Democrat representative Earl Blumenauer's conspiracy to encourage retaliation against him for appearing today. He advocated a boycott of Sondland's business that has endangered patrons and employees, and threatens his and his employees' livelihoods.

So much for "job creating Republicans Democrats -- actions belie their words.

Not to mention that the latter is explicitly against the law; further, not to mention human decency, when directed against ANY witness in ANY legal inquiry.

So much for "law and order" Republican Democrat double-speak.

There. Fixed that for you, as Blumenauer is a Democrat, and has been from his first elected office in 1972. The harassment he encouraged looks to have come from left-wing activists.

You're right. I appreciate your correction and will consume my deserved serving of crow.

My error. Blumenauer is a Democrat.

Ah, so it won't be a total wipe-out. The bad guys score one.

So that makes the score good guys 1,000 and bad guys 1.

So, then, let the game continue.

"Imagine FDR withholding military assistance to the UK in 1940 to pressure Churchill to help him win reelection."

Michael McFaul @McFaul | ~9 pm 11/21/2019

Missed the impeachment hearings over the last 2 weeks? Well, I watched almost every word (doing commentary for @NBCNews & @MSNBC ) so you didn't have to. My quick takeaways in one thread.

1. Most people had never heard of these witnesses before. I knew most of them: Ambs Taylor, Volker, Yovanovitch, Lt. Col. Vindman, David Holmes, and Dr. Fiona Hill. Ive known Bill, Masha & Fiona for 3 decades. So it was weird watching them; none of them wanted to be there.

2. The story now is crystal clear. After 2 weeks, none of the basic facts were ever seriously disputed.

3. Let's start with President Trump and Ukraine. Trump has never cared about Ukrainian sovereignty, democracy, rule of law, or the war with Russia. He made that clear as a candidate. He has been consistent in that view. Trump seeks Putin's favor. Appeasing Putin = dissing Ukraine.

4. Trump, however, will use any means necessary to win reelection, including asking foreign governments to help him. He said as much to @GStephanopoulos on camera. He saw an opportunity in Ukraine. He first deputized Guiliani to explore it.

5. Several months ago, Giuliani began to court Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko with the goal of opening investigations into Burisma/Biden. The aim was clear -- find/fabricate dirt on VP Biden, at the time the leading Democratic candidate in the 2020 election.

6. Giuliani also wanted Lutsenko to investigate "Ukrainian meddling" in the 2016 US presidential election. The goal -- deflect attention from the ACTUAL Russian intervention in 2016 & thereby strengthen legitimacy of Trump victory in 2016.

7. Lutsenko despised US Amb Yovanovitch. In this first quid pro quo, Giuliani got Yovanovitch fired in return for Lutsenko's agreement to open these investigations. (Giuliani's & his 2 sidekicks may have had other motivations in play -- more to come on that)

8. But then electoral politics in Ukraine intervened. Zelensky was elected president, and Lutsenko's boss, Poroshenko, lost. Lutsenko eventually lost his position. Giuliani's first play failed.

9. A new, inexperienced president in Ukraine, however, offered a new opportunity to create leverage for Trump/Giuliani. Zelensky, even more than Poroshenko, desperately needed a meeting with Trump to signal his close ties with the US.

10. Trump took advantage, demanding investigations into Burisma/Biden and "Ukraine 2016 meddling" in return for an Oval office bilateral meeting with Zelensky. He drafted new actors -- the 3 amigos -- to work with Guiliani and achieve these "deliverables" for 2020.

11. In his call to Zelensnky on July 25th, Trump bluntly asked for a "favor" -- opening these investigations. In other words, Trump was asking a foreign government to help his reelection campaign.

12. Trump then upped the ante and froze U.S. military assistance to Ukraine.

13. Zelensky was ready to acquiesce to this quid pro quo, or what Amb Bolton called a "drug deal." He even arranged to announce the opening of these investigations on Zakaria's CNN show.

13. (sic) But then the whistleblower stepped in. Trump panicked, released the aid, and then said (on September 9th) he didn't want anything from Ukraine anymore.

14. Trump used his public office -- the most sacred office in our country -- to try to pursue his private electoral interests. That's the definition of corruption.

15. To achieved these "deliverables", Trump even went so far as to withhold military assistance to a US partner at war with Russia. (14,000 people have died). Imagine FDR withholding military assistance to the UK in 1940 to pressure Churchill to help him win reelection.

16. Trump even asked a foreign govt to investigate a private American citizen, even though there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.(Trump never expressed any interest in anti-corruption in Ukraine generally; nor did he use proper channels to pursue.)

17. Trump and team only stopped running the extortion/coercion/"drug deal" play after they were caught. (And most witnesses only came forward to testify after the whistleblower exposed this abuse of power) Had they not been exposed, the quid pro quo would have occurred...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1197693232542388224.html

David Frum @davidfrum | 6 hours ago, 6 tweets ~8 am 11/21/2019

President Trump won the 2016 election by accepting clandestine foreign help. He was caught trying to win the 2020 election by extorting clandestine foreign help. If unchecked, he will do it again. He's likely doing it right now.

Trump's Ukraine plot nearly succeeded. Pressured by escalating Russian violence over summer 2019, Zelensky booked a 9/13 interview w @FareedZakaria to announce investigation of Biden. Only the 9/9 delivery of whistleblower report to Congress disrupted the scheme.

mentions And don't forget that the Trump admin had illegally -but successfully - suppressed the whistleblower report for 6 weeks. If the suppression had succeeded only 1 week more, Trump's plan to conscript Zelensky as a 2020 campaign auxiliary would have worked.

mentions One more thing. We treat Trump's escalating pressure on Zelensky to accuse Biden - and Russia's escalating violence vs Ukraine - as two unconnected events. But if Russia knew Trump was pressuring Zelensky (thanks eg to Sondland's unsecured calls) then maybe events were connected

mentions I keep wondering whether by escalating its violence vs Ukraine in August and September 2019, Russia was doing its part to pressure Zelensky to help Trump win re-election in 2020

mentions Now that the scheme has failed for the time being, it can be waved away as merely "inappropriate" by @HurdOnTheHill

But with only slightly tighter timing, Trump would have succeeded in his plan to extort Ukraine to help him exonerate Putin and slander Biden.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1197865908162695173.html

______________________________________________________________

'With you, Mr. President, all roads lead to Putin.'

- Nancy Pelosi
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/14/pelosi_on_trump_ukraine_impea...

Trump administration withholding $105M in security aid owed to Lebanon. OMB decided to hold military aid that had been awaiting approval since May. No reason given.

Two possible reasons exist: growing role of Hezbollah in gov't. and resignation of the PM following pubic demonstrations over corruption and economic woes.

The withholding act comes after the Ukraine scandal.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-withholding-dollar105-million...

>21 Limelite:

(Short Title) "Act for International Development of 1961"

_________________________________

426 PUBLIC LAW 87-195-SEPT. 4, 1961 75 STAT. CHAPTER 2—DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE Development of economic resources, etc. Authority to enter into agree-ments. TITLE I DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND

SEC. 201. GENERAL AUTHORITY.— (a) The President shall establish a fund to be known as the "Development Loan Fund" to be used by the President to make loans pursuant to the authority contained in this title. (b) The President is authorized to make loans payable as to principal and interest in United States dollars on such terms and conditions as he may determine, in order to promote the economic development of less developed friendly countries and areas, with em-phasis upon assisting long-range plans and programs designed to develop economic resources and increase productive capacities.” (emphasis added)

Every U.S. foreign aid program is administered by and through a department or an agency of the Executive and is therefore under the authority and the discretion of the president of the United States.

#22--holding up aid approved by congress does not fall under any kind of International Development assistance statute. It is not discretionary and FWIW Trump went behind the backs of members of his own party when he held up the Ukraine allotted aid. Not knowing what the hell was going on they started squawking about the held up aid and turns out Trump held that aid up wanting a little bit of personal quid pro quo in the form of an investigation of a political opponent and to rewrite the history of Russia's interference into the 2016 election and to pull the blame away from Putin's govt. and put it instead on a previous Ukrainian govt.---this coordinated through a shadow State Dept. headed by his personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani which was another illegality.

So we what we have here is basically a fucking clown in the White House getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and the defense is (there is none really) that because he's president he's entitled to commit any crime he wants. Might as well be a King, right? You think so anyway as do pretty much every elected republican congressperson who are basically all disgusting trash. Impeachment is going to happen--removal is unlikely because of the Senate but failing that voters will have their own chance to impeach and remove in 2020.

>22 proximity1: Wrong. >23 lriley: Correct.

USAID DOES NOT "OVERSEE" DOD MILITARY AID, FMF DOES. The two agencies co-operate in that USAID can request military aircraft for transportation of USAID workers and materiel, for ex.

Furthermore, fallout from the impeachment proceedings as FOIAs kick-in to secure government documents Trump Admin refused to release. "Not a single scrap of paper" is going to become a flood of pages.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/exposed-paper-trail-between-pompeo-giuliani-and...

It's clear why Mike Pompeo has refused to release this information to Congress.

It reveals a clear paper trail from Rudy Giuliani to the Oval Office to Secretary Pompeo to facilitate Giuliani’s smear campaign against a U.S. ambassador.

— American Oversight (@weareoversight) November 23, 2019

Read for yourself here: https://t.co/SyiHfRjYIU

Among them: the full contents of Rudy’s wild dossier of “evidence” State turned over to Congress and confirmation that Pompeo called Rudy twice in late March. https://t.co/qgvv3sjY0e pic.twitter.com/NdRjuM40QZ

Records of March 26 and 29 calls between Secretary Pompeo and Rudy Giuliani.

We haven't seen evidence or reporting of a March 26 call before now.

Pages 39, 45, and 46https://t.co/xaXVJnKmiz

Says, AO Exec. Dir,

. . .it looks apparent this was a connection to ensure that Rudy Giuliani’s smear campaign against a sitting U.S. ambassador made it to Mike Pompeo’s desk. This is just the first set of disclosures American Oversight’s litigation is going to expose.”

RE:

>24 Limelite: "USAID DOES NOT "OVERSEE" DOD MILITARY AID, FMF DOES."

Yeah? So, who claimed otherwise? I didn't.

--- for the benefit of others who are confused by your detail-skimpy admonishment, "FMF" stands for "Foreign Military Financing" and it is a sub-group of the "Defense Security Cooperation Agency", operating at the Pentagon.

Home >> Programs >> Foreign Military Financing (FMF)

Foreign Military Financing (FMF)

"Who:

"Secretary of State determines which countries will have programs. Secretary of Defense executes the program."
_____________________________

Defense Security Cooperation Agency
2800 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-2800
Phone: 703.697.9709

these are excutive branch departments--Defense and State-- and their heads are appointees of the president, answerable to the president and charged with implementing the president's policies. Since they serve at the pleasure of the president, if they don't faithfully implement the president's orders and his policies, they are subject to being dismissed and replaced by others on the president's orders---which was my point and that point stands unrefuted by what you've wasted our time posting for us to read.

The point of fundamental misunderstanding of how the govt. functions is between Trump's left ear and right ear. He can talk about policy all he likes--name whatever secretary or cabinet head he likes but without the funding for policy or departments which is in the hands of the House of Representatives all that is pretty much just for show and useless. He still hasn't figured out what checks and balances are.

By the way he also has a fundamental misunderstanding about how foreign policy, intelligence and the military operate. His Ukrainian fiasco is proof of that on both foreign policy and intelligence. He continues to back Putin's b.s. story against his own intelligence agencies---that's been an ongoing theme at least since the Helsinki summit. This thing with Gallager in which he has just fired the Navy Secretary again shows Trump's incompetence--taking the side of a criminal over the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which is in place to keep military discipline. He takes the side of one sorry ass psychopath over the entire military really when he does that. IMO he's overcompensating for the cowardice shown back in the Vietnam era with his sleazy and b.s. bone spurs story.

by Aaron Maté, writing in The Nation magazine:
________________________________

“Impeachment Non-Bombshells Endanger Democrats in 2020 |Unmerited hype about Gordon Sondland’s testimony has overshadowed the potential damage that the impeachment saga poses for the presidential election. | 22 November 2019

“Two weeks of public hearings in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump closed with widespread talk of a new “bombshell” that had sealed the case, and with it the fate of Trump’s presidency. But rather than producing a Watergate-like moment, the Ukrainegate testimony was far more akin to its predecessor, Russiagate, and accordingly, far more likely to produce the same disappointing result.

“The basis for the excitement was the testimony of Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union. Sondland is one of the few witnesses to have actually spoken to Trump, and the only known US official said to have relayed to Ukrainian counterparts that money to purchase US weapons—known as 'military aid' or 'security sector assistance'—was conditioned on Kiev’s commitment to open investigations.

“The consensus interpretation of Sondland’s testimony is that he confirmed that such a scheme transpired. Indeed, in his opening statement, Sondland asserted that there was a 'quid pro quo'(1) and that 'everyone was in the loop.'(2) Widely overlooked is that Sondland was not referring to the military funding. Instead, Sondland said that Rudy Giuliani told US officials and Ukrainians that a Ukrainian commitment to open investigations were 'prerequisites'(3) for a White House meeting and phone call sought by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But leveraging a White House meeting or phone call is not the “quid” at the heart of the impeachment inquiry: leveraging military funding is. And on that front, Sondland’s testimony did not advance the Democrats’ case.

“When questioning began, Sondland made clear that Trump never told him that the military funding was contingent on investigations. In fact, he said that Trump never mentioned that military funding (4) at all. The idea that it was conditioned on the investigations did not come from Trump, but, as Sondland explained, from his own interpretation 'in the absence of any credible explanation'(5) for why the money had been frozen.

“Asked(6) by Representative Adam Schiff whether 'the military assistance was also being withheld pending Zelensky announcing these investigations,' Sondland replied(7): 'That was my presumption. My personal presumption based on the facts at the time. Nothing was moving.' He then told(8) Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman the same thing: 'President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from (Rudy) Guiliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The aid was my own personal, you know, guess.' And yet again(9):

'Nobody told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.' …

… “Because he was only operating off of his 'own presumption,' Sondland also revealed that a critical conversation with a Ukrainian official, Andriy Yermak, was far less explosive than initially believed. Two US officials—Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, and Tim Morrison, a National Security Council aide—had testified that Sondland had linked the military funding to the investigations in a conversation with Yermak in Warsaw on September 1. This was a critical claim, as it potentially showed the first—and to this date, the only—explicit communication of such a linkage to the Ukrainian side.” …

“If the evidence presented by the Democrats’ star witness is in fact only his 'personal presumption' on the core issue, then Democrats face a major evidentiary hole. To date, no one else has filled it.

“The impeachment hearings leave us with a gap between the evidence presented and the maximalist, 'bombshell' interpretations drawn from it. That’s nothing new. The same dynamic drove Russiagate for nearly three years until it collapsed.” … ...

…

______________________________

Hyper-linked REFERENCES :

(1) 'quid pro quo' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/OQAJjzm9x6hbkPjuTbyOYbnc1zQpeZaYZA6...

(2) 'everyone was in the loop' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/OQAJjzm9x6hbkPjuTbyOYbnc1zQpeZaYZA6...

(3) 'prerequisites' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/OQAJjzm9x6hbkPjuTbyOYbnc1zQpeZaYZA6...

(4) 'never mentioned military funding' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/RUFhkdtuhvzDmvL7jnzijiqmXWmgZmgwpcB...

(5) 'in the absence of any credible explanation' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/OQAJjzm9x6hbkPjuTbyOYbnc1zQpeZaYZA6...

(6) 'asked' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/a4cw7ZH1AT6wOSp5DIwziRdNWM9gNZrsCJI...

(7) 'replied' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/a4cw7ZH1AT6wOSp5DIwziRdNWM9gNZrsCJI...

(8) 'then told' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/a4cw7ZH1AT6wOSp5DIwziRdNWM9gNZrsCJI...

(9) 'yet again' : https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/a4cw7ZH1AT6wOSp5DIwziRdNWM9gNZrsCJI...

Silly opinion piece that in typical right wing fashion has an author who cherry picks in an effort to hide his eyes from pattern recognition and logical chain of evidence, pointing to crimes committed by and directed by Trump.

BTW, it's the Mueller investigation hasn't been the "dud" Republican propaganda would like you to believe. There's a whole lot of Trump cronies sitting in prison, about to sit in prison, and already served in prison because of the evidence Mueller uncovered,in spite of Trump's obstruction.

That same obstruction of justice and that same Mueller report evidence is about to play a part in the impeachment hearings, too. Stay tuned. An impartial viewer of events can see that the mighty fortress of lies that Trump and his henchmen have built around their criminal behavior is cracked and rapidly crumbling.

The wheels of justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine this time, like many other times in the past.

BTW, Why do Trumpists hate honest, credible Republicans and honorable career public servants who are doing the right thing by testifying under oath to what they know, by speaking truth to wannabe tyranny and adhering to their oaths (as public servants) to the Constitution? The oath that the imposter president has no regard for.

It also bugs me that Republicans always refer to the Mueller investigation as a Democratic investigation. The Democrats were completely out of power when it started. More lies.