A strange thing happened today
Today's final day of impeachment hearings brought two witnesses, who have made the case that there was in fact a quid pro quo. Republicans can still debate whether or not it rises to the level of an impeachable offense, but this fact has been established.
David Holmes (State Department Counselor - US Embassy in the Ukraine) was the distinguished looking man who supposedly overheard the cell phone conversation between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump. We also learned that it was he who coined the phrase "the Three Amigo's.
Holmes was completely overshadowed by the woman with the English accent & stern face sitting to his right. It was her testimony that I found so compelling. I may have pre-judged her based on an article she once wrote, but I was impressed with her unbridled sincerity. I am now certain that it was Giuliani who convinced the President to go down this dangerous road of getting the new Ukrainian government to uncover what went on between democrats and the Ukraine's former government. One of the faults of President Trump has sometimes been his decision making. I understand how he must have felt after three years of fraudulent investigations and intense resistance from all sides, but it was clear that dedicated public servants like John Bolton and Fiona Hill were acting in his best interests as well as that of the nation. Investigations of the deep state are already underway. There was no need for Rudy Giuliani to go out and use the Ukraine to look into the same matters. The mission was inevitably destined for disaster.
I don't know how the balance of the hearing will go after members of the committee return from the long recess - where they are trying to cram the nation's business into what remains of this legislative session. I'm not sure that Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff even know it yet, but they have just won the quid pro quo.
Fiona Hill was their best witness.
(The same Fiona Hill, believe it or not, who once wrote a piece in 2015 arguing that arming the Ukrainians would be a mistake!)
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
232 visitors
"I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my ability. If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm."
I am ready to answer your questions...…..Fiona Hill
All the rules of civility are in effect
Dr. Hill was incredibly powerful with her testimony. IMO she is the ace card. It is too bad that she can't run for POTUS as she was foreign born.
Vic, it doesnt appear you understood what Fiona Hill was saying.
I think it's more of a case of we don't know what you were hearing. Please expound......or not. Your choice of course.
For once I can't find anything to dispute with Vic's statement, I found Hill very credible as well.
I believe Gordon Sondland was the important witness since he was the principal person directly involved. So far, Sondland is the only witness with direct knowledge of all aspects of what was going on. Sondland confirmed there wasn't a cover up, there weren't irregular communications with the Ukrainian government, and that the quid pro quo involved political favors. Since so many people had been read into the loop, it's surprising this wasn't leaked to the press. Perhaps the story was leaked and the press recognized there wasn't anything there but smoke.
The other witnesses have represented the technocratic bureaucracy who only had hearsay evidence or incidental involvement in single events. It seems rather obvious that President Trump does not see Ukraine as being vitally important to the security of the United States. It seems equally obvious that the technocratic bureaucracy wants to make Ukraine vital to security. Ukraine provides an opportunity for the United States to indirectly confront Russia which would be consistent with the status quo playbook of foreign policy. The technocrats don't want to kill the job; relegating Ukraine to a position of insignificance would threaten their careers based upon expertise in significant matters concerning security.
The interesting battle is between a President and the technocrats over the status quo.
So you think it is all about people wanting to keep their jobs?
It has been established time and again what trump and Giuliani were up to. Trying to blame bureaucrats and saying they only want to be relevant and make their jobs more important has to be the weakest defence of trump I have heard yet.
I am just glad that someone exposed Rudy for the loose cannon he is.
Yes. The status quo includes a need for particular types of expertise that a change in policy would make obsolete. Those with a vested interest in protecting and maintaining the status quo impart a bureaucratic inertia to the formulation of policy.
Donald Trump is being accused of withholding military weapon systems as leverage to obtain a political favor. Democrats are outraged because Trump delayed Ukraine obtaining military weapons. President Zelensky even mentioned Javelin missiles during the now infamous phone conversation. The FGM-148 Javelin is a man carried, fire and forget missile for use against tanks and armored vehicles. Not an appropriate or useful weapon for use against insurgent separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Democrats are trying to put lipstick on the pig by calling it 'foreign aid'. The reality is that Democrats and the technocratic bureaucracy are outraged over Trump interfering with arming Ukraine for direct warfare against Russia. The status quo depends upon technocratic expertise for indirectly confronting Russia by arming proxy governments and increasing regional tensions through military threats. As tensions escalate, the United States will provide Ukraine with more advanced weapon systems; that's the expertise of the bureaucracy. Without indirect confrontation between the United States and Russia in proxy states, the technocratic experts would become obsolete. There aren't a lot of other job opportunities for Cold Warriors.
A change in policy or good relations with the country would not change any need for diplomats in the area. They would still be needed.
It wasn't only weapons that were withheld. I don't know why you keep repeating that.
What else was being withheld? What else did President Zelensky mention in the now infamous phone conversation?
Agreed and THAT, in my opinion, is why Mr. Trump with his "I want nothing" comments were so heated. Giuliani went rogue thinking he was doing Mr. Trump's bidding when in fact, Mr. Trump wanted that OFF of the table. And yes, it pissed him off. If Giuliani doesn't have some other "value", I expect him to be gone in short order. He should have been long ago.
The $250 million tranche was for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative run through the Defense Department which mostly involves training, organizational development, and ancillary support for a country's military. The $141.5 million tranche was for the Foreign Military Financing overseen by the State Department. (The funds overseen by the State Department was being used to purchase FGM-148 Javelin missiles.)
OMB delaying or freezing appropriated foreign aid is not unusual.
How the OMB used its powers to delay Ukraine aid -- Roll Call
"Dr. Fiona Hill" was just asked by Karen Lorraine Jacqueline Speier (2:38 of the fake hearing, November 21, 2019), how "Rudy" may have messed up anything Ukraine .
According to "Dr. Fiona Hill"...….nothing happened !
The hearing concluded with another closing argument from Adam Schiff. Something Schiff has mastered.
House members left for holiday break and will not be back until December 3. Any momentum Fiona Hill gave to the democrats will be lost.
Hours earlier Nancy Pelosi announced that even if there is an agreement on USMCA today, there may not be enough time to set a ratification vote this year.
The President was meeting with Senators Susan Collins and Mitt Romney.
When House members return the impeachment inquiry is likely to be resumed by the House Judiciary Committee, where the President will be entitled to counsel.
Prognosis:
Moderate Texas Republican Will Hurd, who is retiring and has no dogs in the fight acknowledged that the President acted improperly, but his actions did not rise to the level of impeachment. The House minority leader and Rep Jim Jordan were still denying that there was any quid pro quo. That means that if Nancy Pelosi actually takes the political risk involved in enacting impeachment it will surely die a quick & certain death in the US Senate.
Fiona Hill expressing concerns over domestic politics influencing foreign relations is laughable. That's, perhaps, one of the most hilarious assertions that has been made. Foreign policy is nothing but political. The role of the State Dept. is to interact with (and meddle in) the political governments of other countries.
I believe that Fiona Hill was attempting to express concerns over partisan politics intruding into foreign affairs. Which is ironic since she is expressing those concerns before a partisan political body engaged in a partisan abuse of Congressional oversight authority. Fiona Hill is attempting to play both ends to the middle.
There are many who affirm 'the impeachment' is not going as well as expected and that may prove to be true. Putin is counting on that. RT is an effective information mechanism.