Day 5

bodysong

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Posts
7,261
Out of options in the face of damning testimony,
Republicans stopped asking Fiona Hill questions
November 21, 2019

(Dr.) Hill confirmed that she had a “blow-up” with Sondland on June 18,
when she asked him, “Who put you in charge of Ukraine?”

“I admit I was a little bit rude,” Hill said. “That's when he said ‘the president,’
which shut me up.”

Sondland testified on Wednesday that he “may have been spinning”
when he told people that he been expressly directed by the president
to deal with Ukraine policy, but he emphasized that he wasn’t part of
an irregular foreign policy channel, citing his interactions with
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Chief of Staff Mick
Mulvaney and others.

Hill, though, said Sondland “wasn’t communicating” with the
National Security Council on Ukraine, which is why she got
angry with him “many times.”

“What I was angry with is: He wasn’t coordinating with us,” she said.
“He was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were
being involved in national security, foreign policy, and those two
things had just diverged."

Hill also revealed that she warned Sondland,
“’This is all going to blow up.’ And here we are.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/...fiona-hills-and-david-holmes-testimony-072361

Later in the impeachment hearing, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)
felt obligated to apologize to Dr. Hill on (Rep. Mike) Turner’s behalf
for having to endure his “epic mansplaining.”

But Rep. Turner’s rant was the beginning of a trend among GOP questioners,
which itself indicated that House Republicans have mostly run out of energy
to defend President Trump after just the fifth day of the House Intelligence
Committee’s public hearings on impeachment.

The next minority member up, Rep. Dr. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), preferred
to nakedly avoid asking any witness questions and instead talk safely and
securely about his military service for the entirety of the five-minute block
and pulling off a complete filibuster before spending just a moment defending
House Republicans for spreading Russian propaganda — or so he thought.

After Dr. Hill’s impassioned, nearly four-minute speech, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)
asked her a personal question to lighten the mood in the room, before resuming
serious questions about the impeachment inquiry before giving way to the next
House Republican member.

Utah Republican Rep. Chris Stewart launched into a lengthy speech without
making any points and drained his five minutes in meaningless talking points.

https://occupydemocrats.com/2019/11...ublicans-stopped-asking-fiona-hill-questions/

Republicans have given up on asking questions from Hill and Holmes it seems.
They’re just ranting, like they’re nervous what the pair will say if given a
chance. The wheels have completely come off.

— Cameron Joseph (@cam_joseph) November 21, 2019
 
Julian Borger (@julianborger)

One Republican committee member after another has dodged asking
Fiona Hill a question, making statements instead.

Until Hill asks if she can respond and address the rhetoric
on Russia and Ukraine

November 21, 2019

- Molly O’Toole,
- Jennifer Haberkorn

Nov. 21, 2019

At times, Hill struggled to get a word in.

“Can I actually say something?” she asked after several rounds
from Republican members directing statements toward her
without questions.

Amid audible protest, Schiff allowed her to respond.

Later, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York characterized
one Republican member’s questioning, saying to Hill:
“That was some epic mansplaining you had to endure.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...mps-former-russia-advisor-impeachment-inquiry

A third consecutive Republican, Chris Stewart, makes a speech without
asking a question. They’ve seemingly decided that the best strategy from
here is to minimize the witnesses’ speaking time.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...arings-fiona-hill-david-holmes-latest-updates

President Donald Trump and his GOP allies pressed a defense Thursday
that he acted appropriately in withholding military aid to Ukraine out of
concern over the country’s corruption and claimed the House impeachment
hearings amounted to a rogue process.

The claims don’t match up with known facts.

A look at some of the remarks on Day 5 of public hearings
in the impeachment inquiry by the House Intelligence
Committee and Trump’s response:

CALIFORNIA REP. DEVIN NUNES, the top Republican on the committee:

“President Trump had good reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling
against his campaign.”

THE FACTS: That’s not credible. The theory that Ukrainians interfered
in the U.S. election and that Democrats cooperated in that effort is
unsubstantiated.

https://apnews.com/92fd8a4743e8447a8f8a7ec301ebe993

“I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems
relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it,” said Hill.
She was morally and legally right, of course — and her simple statement
should shame every official, both in Congress and the executive branch,
still aiding Trump’s obstruction.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/fi...lic-official-still-aiding-trumps-obstruction/

Take note of the missing testimony-

Missing testimony-

Energy Secretary Rick Perry

Vice President Mike Pence

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opinion/trump-impeachment-succession.html

White House national security adviser John Bolton

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney

https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/to...timony-and-their-refusal-to-do-so-is-damning/

Given Mr. Bolton’s senior rank, political gravitas and widely reported
opposition to Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, his testimony could
condemn or vindicate the President. Either way, he is a source of
invaluable evidence in a matter of the highest national importance.
In no circumstances, therefore, must the House give Bolton the
prerogative to put conditions on his compliance with a subpoena.

https://time.com/5736539/john-bolton-impeachment-testimony/
 
White House lawyer moved transcript of Trump call to classified server
after Ukraine adviser raised alarms

-Carol D. Leonnig

-Tom Hamburger

-Greg Miller

October 30, 2019

Moments after President Trump ended his phone call with Ukraine’s president
on July 25, an unsettled national security aide rushed to the office of White
House lawyer John Eisenberg.

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine adviser at the White House,
had been listening to the call and was disturbed by the pressure Trump had
applied to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political
rivals, according to people familiar with Vindman’s testimony to lawmakers
this week.

Vindman told Eisenberg, the White House’s legal adviser on national
security issues, that what the president did was wrong, said the people,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing
investigation.

Scribbling notes on a yellow legal pad, Eisenberg proposed a step that other officials
have said is at odds with long-standing White House protocol: moving a transcript
of the call to a highly classified server and restricting access to it, according to two
people familiar with Vindman’s account.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0fbdb6-fb4e-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html

John Eisenberg Declines To Appear For House Impeachment Inquiry

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/7762...lines-to-appear-for-house-impeachment-inquiry

Republican lawmakers, aides and strategists surveyed by CNBC’s
John Harwood have uniformly treated Trump’s bribery —
asking for foreign interference in our presidential elections again —
as an inconvenience, some annoyance which will blow over.

None of the elected Republicans so far have been willing to live up
to their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution against
enemies foreign and domestic. The only elected Republican to do so
had to leave the GOP because he believed impeachment hearings
were warranted.

Voters can’t forget this at the polls: our democracy and the Constitution
are inconveniences to the Republican Party.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/11/21/impeachable-acts-what-gop-spin-cant-change/

"Sure (Tim) Morrison hotfooted it directly to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg
directly after the president's perfect, perfect July 25 phone call."

- Wonkette

Republicans should have thought twice before calling Volker and Morrison

November 19, 2019

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.

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ans-made-mistakes-with-their-witness-choices/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0fbdb6-fb4e-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html

October 30, 2019

Eisenberg then suggested that the National Security Council move records
of the call to a separate, highly classified computer system, Vindman
told lawmakers.

The White House lawyer later directed the transcript’s removal to a system
known as NICE, for NSC Intelligence Collaboration Environment, which
is normally reserved for code-word-level *intelligence programs and
top-secret sources and methods, according to an administration official.

In his testimony, Vindman recalled that on the call, Zelensky raised Burisma
by name in response to Trump’s request that the Ukrainians look into the Bidens —
a detail not included in the transcript released by the White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0fbdb6-fb4e-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html
 
November 21, 2019 9:57 PM

The competing testimonies of Ambassador Gordon Sondland on Wednesday
followed by former national security aide Dr. Fiona Hill on Thursday-

brought one unmistakable point into stark relief:

All of Donald Trump's top officials were "in the loop," as Sondland put it,
on Trump’s new Ukraine objectives. Meanwhile, everyone else was desperately
scrambling to make sense of the whiplash departure from longstanding U.S. policy.


Dr. Hill, illustrated exactly how that played out during a seminal moment
Thursday when she explained a disagreement she'd had with Sondland,
whom Trump had deputized to execute his Ukraine policy in coordination
with Rudy Giuliani. Hill had gotten cross with Sondland for failing to keep
the National Security Council informed of his negotiations with Ukrainian
officials. Sondland responded that he had been keeping everyone abreast
of his work, including Trump, acting White House chief of staff Mick
Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and national security adviser
John Bolton. "Who else do I have to deal with?" Sondland asked her.
What Hill had wanted was for Sondland to be communicating within
the bounds of what she called a "robust interagency process."
The problem was, that interagency process was full of people who
were career diplomats, national security experts, budget wonks, and others
In other words, they were the public servants who spend their time trying
to make government work for the people. (Legitimate, real, qualified.)

But after listening to Sondland's testimony Thursday, Hill had an epiphany:
He was communicating with Trump's inner circle. He was keeping the top shelf
Trump officials informed and he had a point, she realized.

"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were
being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had
just diverged," Hill testified Thursday, reflecting on her disagreement with
Sondland. "So he (Sondland) was correct," she concluded.

All the president's men knew; everyone else was left to fumble around in the dark.

It's just stunning for a conspiracy between Trump and all his top-level officials
to be brought into such stark relief. Stunning.

- Kerry Eleveld
November 21, 2019

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...dent-s-men-knew-Everyone-else-was-in-the-dark

One of the wretched things about the last few years-
has been following and staying sane in the blizzard of bluster, misinformation,
gaslighting, conspiracy theories, and the actual empirical, complex reality
we have been confronted with. To keep one’s focus while enduring this
torrent of deliberate confusion and competing narratives has been
extremely hard.

Watching (Dr. Fiona Hill) her listen carefully to Castor and Nunes’s
questions and arguments, and then just as carefully, methodically
dismantle them was a kind of cleansing shower in an impossibly
humid summer. Her clear distinction between national security and
a “domestic errand” is at the heart of the profound corruption in this
presidency, and I have simply never seen it expressed so coherently
and plainly.

- Andrew Sullivan

(bodysong comment- “domestic (political) errand,” my arse!
This was Trump's operatives using a respected office to
perpetuate crimes. Unqualified, inexperienced, and uninformed
man sent to do a hatchet job for a criminal.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/7809...e-hotel-owner-until-he-went-to-work-for-trump )

"Fiona Hill has done her part. It gives me hope, I guess."
"Hope that we can, in fact, expose and defeat this malignancy
at the heart of our democracy."

"If we see Trump as the poison he truly is, we have now also seen
something else. We have seen the antidote."

- Andrew Sullivan
 
Crowdstrike is not a Ukrainian company. It's based in California.

The DNC did not "give" "the server" to anyone, they had 140 servers,
most of which were in the cloud. Crowdstrike imaged those servers
and gave the data to the FBI.

None of what the president just said is true.

— Mike Rothschild (@rothschildmd) November 22, 2019

“Crowdstrike” is Kremlin disinformation - crafted by their intelligence services,
& therefore military-grade propaganda & a weapon of war.

Dr. Hill warned POTUS & Repubs not to do this. It’s an attack.

POTUS is attacking us & Ukraine w/ Kremlin propaganda
over US airwaves.

— Lincoln's Bible (@LincolnsBible) November 22, 2019

WaPo and many others have fact-checked this one about 50 times.
Still false. And Crowdstrike isn’t even Ukrainian. As Dr. Hill said,
this is a conspiracy theory promoted by Russian security services
to sow division in the US and obscure Russian election interference.

— Anne Rumsey Gearan (@agearan) November 22, 2019
 
you support Joe Biden

27 November 2019

Trump impeachment:

Two White House budget officials quit over Ukraine aid concerns, says witness

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...inquiry-budget-office-lawyer-resigned-ukraine


He bragged about threatening to cut aid to Ukraine unless that Prosecuter was fired. Laughed about it and said the big guy knows. You'd vote for Biden.

Hunter Biden worked for an OIL, anti-climate change company -- BTW. "Energy Company" my azz!
 
He bragged about threatening to cut aid to Ukraine unless that Prosecuter was fired. Laughed about it and said the big guy knows. You'd vote for Biden.

Hunter Biden worked for an OIL, anti-climate change company -- BTW. "Energy Company" my azz!

What amazes me here is people in ability to see two things as separate:

"I don't know if Biden did anything wrong, but go ahead and investigate."

"I don't know if Trump did anything wrong, but go ahead and investigate"

Those seem like pretty normal statements. Investigate them both.

So far Trump's seems to have been guilty of something judging by his phone call, actions and the hearings. Though guilty of exactly what is hard to say, since the main players currently will not allow themselves to be deposed.

Yet the defence to the above is, go investigate Biden. Ignore the evidence about Trumps moves with the Ukraine aid, and to stop investigating Trump.

Why??

Footnote:

I hear this as an excuse all the time; Trump is not guilty, he is just being harassed by the Democrats.

Well that may be true, however, Trump's method of attacking back when he is attacked, portrays him in a guilty light ( at least to me). Maybe if he just cooperated with the investigations as most innocent people do then he wouldn't look so guilty, and the investigations would not be dragging out.

While the law states a person is innocent until proven guilty, once you are in a court, you still have to prove your innocence. The assumption of innocence ends when you walk into that court room. You only get to leave the court "free" if you prove innocence or at the very least, generate enough doubt that you are not guilty.
 
What amazes me here is people in ability to see two things as separate:

"I don't know if Biden did anything wrong, but go ahead and investigate."

"I don't know if Trump did anything wrong, but go ahead and investigate"

Those seem like pretty normal statements. Investigate them both.

So far Trump's seems to have been guilty of something judging by his phone call, actions and the hearings. Though guilty of exactly what is hard to say, since the main players currently will not allow themselves to be deposed.

Yet the defence to the above is, go investigate Biden. Ignore the evidence about Trumps moves with the Ukraine aid, and to stop investigating Trump.

Why??

Footnote:

I hear this as an excuse all the time; Trump is not guilty, he is just being harassed by the Democrats.

Well that may be true, however, Trump's method of attacking back when he is attacked, portrays him in a guilty light ( at least to me). Maybe if he just cooperated with the investigations as most innocent people do then he wouldn't look so guilty, and the investigations would not be dragging out.

While the law states a person is innocent until proven guilty, once you are in a court, you still have to prove your innocence. The assumption of innocence ends when you walk into that court room. You only get to leave the court "free" if you prove innocence or at the very least, generate enough doubt that you are not guilty.




For those accused of crimes under U.S. law, this principle means that the burden of proof is on the other party to show that the accused is actually guilty.

People sometimes assume that you go to court to prove that you're innocent, but this isn't the case. You have no obligation to do so. The court must start off with the belief that you're already innocent, and this is only to change if guilt is then established to a degree that goes beyond reasonable doubt. You don't have to prove anything if the court can't reach this distinction.For those accused of crimes under U.S. law, this principle means that the burden of proof is on the other party to show that the accused is actually guilty. People sometimes assume that you go to court to prove that you're innocent, but this isn't the case. You have no obligation to do so. The court must start off with the belief that you're already innocent, and this is only to change if guilt is then established to a degree that goes beyond reasonable doubt. You don't have to prove anything if the court can't reach this distinction.
 
Last edited:
(bodysong comment-

Today, I skimmed a bit of someone else's copy
of a special edition of Time magazine.
It was based on aspects of the impeachment.

I cannot quote the name of the person, that wrote the piece.
One statement about Presiderp Trump caught my eye.

It boils down to this-

In approaching anything, the first thing that occurs to Trump is the thought of
corruption. How to work corruption into the situation that presents itself ?
Who can be convinced into accepting corruption, and taking part in it ?

To go there first, is natural to him.

He has been doing it all of his life.

/end bodysong comment

How does this tie in to Trump's habit of sexually molesting women
(against their will) that he did not know, in public places ?
(at the risk of getting caught in the act by witnesses)

Is this a form of corrupting other people ?
The victims spoke to their companions about it.
People knew that he did this to other women.
Yet, it was not reported to the police.
Trump "got away with it."

His boast about grabbing women by the pussy,
was not what it appeared to be. It was not seduction
or sexual conquest- what he was really boasting about
was sexual assault. They did not "let him do it."

But they did let him get away with it.
To report it, would hurt their status,
not his. What respectable woman
would want their name mentioned
in the same breath as his ?

He lied to the press and media about sexual liasons
with famous women that he had never met.
A form of his bullying, the women were forced
to come forward and make a public denial.
 
Back
Top