There’s nothing illegal in asking for a meeting....the first paragraph is simply a lie.
The last paragraph establishes President Trump has knowledge of and consented to the meeting. Of course the content of that meeting would be relevant...if this were a real trial.
Why would Rudy need to lie about that?
Schiff made up his mobster story early on and now anything that has “meeting” and “Zelensky” in it is “proof!” of his false narrative.That's what I would like to see pointed out as well.
A meeting was asked for. Nothing illegal with POTUS using secondary means to reach foreign leaders. There seems to be an impression that if the state dept is not leading a diplomatic effort it is somehow illegal. The state dept serves at the pleasure of the President. If ambassadors and embassy staff get hurt feelings they were not a part of this, then they forget who they work for. The President is in charge of diplomacy. Is this odd? Perhaps. Illegal? No.
Now the fabricated Ukraine deal started by an alleged Whistleblower who had contact with Adam Schiff’s staff weeks before it was released. So this is another fabricated scandal and the Democrats can only cry wolf so many times.
Was it common practice for past presidents to send Jesse Jackson to help release hostages?I don't know. It's certainly not common practice for Presidents to send their personal attorney to meet with a newly elected head of state.
Of course. Our impressions don’t make it illegal.Yes, I do have the "impression" that when a President uses his personal attorney to carry out the work that is normally done by the State Department (or any other government department), he is up to no good. The White House call summary of the later meeting with the President is what led to my impression.....
Well we can’t judge what the IG meant. What the alleged Whistleblower wrote no doubt concerned the IG. But we found out the whistleblower was not a first hand source. It would have been great for this alleged Whistleblower to testify but Schiff would not let it happen. So we have a written document from someone outside of the White House not present for the call getting second and third hand opinion from people who may have been in that room. We don’t even know that because (1) the whistleblower did not testify and (2) Vindman was told by Schiff not to name the person he spoke with. So LOL we know Vindman was the source for the whistleblower but he could not name him. What’s hilarious is everyone in DC knows who the whistleblower is and it’s the worst kept secret.The IG found it (Whistleblower report) credible. Or is he in on this fabrication as well?
Well we can’t judge what the IG meant. What the alleged Whistleblower wrote no doubt concerned the IG. But we found out the whistleblower was not a first hand source. It would have been great for this alleged Whistleblower to testify but Schiff would not let it happen. So we have a written document from someone outside of the White House not present for the call getting second and third hand opinion from people who may have been in that room. We don’t even know that because (1) the whistleblower did not testify and (2) Vindman was told by Schiff not to name the person he spoke with. So LOL we know Vindman was the source for the whistleblower but he could not name him. What’s hilarious is everyone in DC knows who the whistleblower is and it’s the worst kept secret.
Should have happened in the House impeachment inquiry. They balked and did not want to fight it in court.....call the "first hand sources" to testify. Vindman has. Have Pompeo, Pence and the rest take an oath with a hand on the Bible...and testify.
There's more to what has been released than information about a meeting and a bunch of hand written notes.There’s nothing illegal in asking for a meeting.
I also read the other scraps of notes and this amounts to a whole lot of nothing....
But it is amazing that a man who was recently arrested all of a sudden came up with handwritten notes. This is like the bogus Steele dossier again and will be exposed as well.
Should be a separate investigation and the FBI definitely needs to assign investigators.There's more to what has been released than information about a meeting and a bunch of hand written notes.
Digital evidence shows that the US Ambassador to the Ukraine was being stalked and there are hints that there may have been plans of doing her harm.
View attachment 270233 View attachment 270234 View attachment 270235 View attachment 270236
The images may be hard to read, but they can be found at this link: https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...l_letter_to_hjc_-_new_evidence_attachment.pdf
When it's put into context with all of the other evidence that has been provided it supports the abuse of power charge against the president.Should be a separate investigation and the FBI definitely needs to assign investigators.
Has nothing to do with the articles of impeachment.
It sure fits Schiff’s imaginative narrative.When it's put into context with all of the other evidence that has been provided it supports the abuse of power charge against the president.
Poor judgment is not impeachable.
Right. Spitting on the sidewalk too.Actually, it is; particularly poor judgement that leads to criminal behavior. Anything the House considers to fit high crimes and misdemeanors.
Giuliani makes it clear he was not representing the president, but Donald trump personally. In other words, this was not a diplomatic visit, and Guliani was not acting in the interests of the U.S., but in the personal interests of Donald Trump. Using the office of the President, and withholding u.s. aid like he did, to achieve any kind of personal interest is abuse of power.Was it common practice for past presidents to send Jesse Jackson to help release hostages?
Again is it odd? Sure. Illegal? No.
Was it odd a US President secretly sent billions in cash to Iran in a cargo plane in the dark of night? Yes it was odd. Illegal? No.
Right. Spitting on the sidewalk too.
That was not the intent of the founders. To try to find things the Congress can call “impeachable offenses.”
What is more plausible is they wanted her out of the country because they wanted to talk to Ukraine officials and embassy staff without her leaking it to the press or Democrats in Washington.