PDA

View Full Version : Democrats release some transcripts; Volker, Yovanovitch



jimnyc
11-05-2019, 05:39 PM
Yesterday, a few days back and as they slowly try to release things in a manner of their liking.... the news was that these folks are killing Trump and damaging and proving the quid pro quo...

Then the transcripts, and people that can actually read, read them....

---

Volker Denies Quid Pro Quo in Testimony Transcripts: ‘No Leverage Implied’

Former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker repeatedly denied that quid pro quo took place during the July 25 call between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, transcripts released on Tuesday show.

“I didn’t think” a quid pro quo “was actually there,” Volker, the first impeachment inquiry witness, testified, referring to the call.

“I don’t think” Ukraine was “aware” that U.S. aid was being withheld “at the time” of the call, “so there was no leverage implied,” he added.

Volker testified that he believed that Ukraine did not become aware of the hold on U.S. aid until Politico published a story on the matter, based on leaked information, on August 28, more than a month after the July 25 call.

House Democrat impeachment investigators are trying to determine if Trump abused his power by allegedly pressuring Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, and claims of tampering in the 2016 elections during the July 25 call.

Trump, Zelensky, Volker, and other impeachment probe witnesses have denied those claims.

House investigators asked Volker, “Did President Trump ever withhold a meeting with President Zelensky or delay a meeting with President Zelensky until the Ukrainians committed to investigate the allegations that you just described concerning the [2016] presidential election?”

“The answer to the question is no …. there was no linkage like that,” Volker said.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/05/volker-denies-quid-pro-quo-in-testimony-transcripts-no-leverage-implied/


Marie Yovanovitch Transcript Shows ‘Quid Pro Quo’ – Javelin Missiles for Investigations – Did Not Exist

The recently released transcript for former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch reveals that the purported “quid pro quo” in the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not exist.

Democrats claimed that in Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, he had clearly delivered a quid pro quo — Javelin anti-tank missiles for Ukraine in exchange for investigating how the Russia collusion narrative began and dirt on Joe Biden.

The July 25 phone call exchange between Trump and Zelensky follows:


Zelensky: … We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/05/marie-yovanovitch-transcript-shows-quid-pro-quo-javelin-missiles-for-investigations-did-not-exist/

And I think there are many Democrats that likely already know this much...

Democrat Rep. Cindy Axne Confirms Backing Impeachment Inquiry ‘Absolutely’ a Political ‘Disaster’ for Democrats

Democrat freshman Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA), who represents a battleground district in Iowa, confirmed in an interview with local public radio this week that it is “absolutely” a “disaster” for Democrats politically to back impeachment of President Donald Trump—but she is doing it anyway.

Asked by the host during an interview on Iowa Public Radio if backing an impeachment inquiry into President Trump is a “political disaster for the Democrats,” she replied that “absolutely” it is.

Host Ben Kieffer on Iowa Public Radio asked Axne:


For months, Congresswoman Axne, before this Ukraine scandal broke, your Democratic House Speaker had been hesitant to wade into this full blown impeachment inquiry fearing it could put moderate Democratic lawmakers—perhaps you put yourself in that category—in danger of the 2020 elections. How much of that fear is still there with you? This could be a political disaster for the Democrats could it not?

In response, Axne confirmed that impeachment is “absolutely” a disaster for the Democrats.

“Well, absolutely,” Axne said. “Historically it’s not very beneficial from a political perspective to conduct presidential impeachment.”

Axne represents Iowa’s third congressional district, one of the 31 districts in which President Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton where Democrats currently sit in the House seats. She won her seat in the 2018 midterm elections, but as a freshman from a very pro-Trump distric, she is particularly vulnerable heading into the 2020 congressional elections.

The GOP only needs to retake a net 19 seats to retake the House majority in 2020, making this one of the districts everyone is watching heading into next year—making Axne’s admission that it is “absolutely” a “disaster” for her and other Democrats to back impeachment all the more important.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/05/democrat-rep-cindy-axne-confirms-backing-impeachment-inquiry-absolutely-a-political-disaster-for-democrats/

jimnyc
11-06-2019, 08:05 AM
This was the 3rd, of who I just started reading about this morning. The headlines on a few MSM liberal sites is that this guy outright nailed Trump and he's done now, that he outright nails him with his testimony. And amazing that he had to revise it to begin with.

---

No, Sondland's Revised Testimony Doesn't Prove There Was a Quid Pro Quo

On Tuesday, transcripts released by the House Intelligence Committee containing revised testimony from U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland show that he admitted that military aid to Ukraine was “likely" tied on Ukraine announcing investigations into 2016 election interference and Burisma. According to Sondland’s testimony, a White House meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump was also contingent on these investigations taking place.

First of all, why did Sondland change his original testimony?

Sondland, who refused to acknowledge the purported quid pro quo in his initial testimony, said he had “refreshed [his] recollection” after reading testimony by top diplomat William Taylor and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council. The ambassador then went on to revise parts of his own testimony to reflect his delivery of the quid pro quo message.

Sondland agreed with investigators that a Trump-Zelensky meet would be conditioned on a commitment to investigations into the Bidens and 2016 election interference.

“If you mean that those conditions would have to be complied with prior to getting a meeting, that was my understanding,” Sondland said.

Nothing bizarre about that, right? But I digress. The media and Democrats see this as proof of a quid pro quo. But is it?

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/no-sondlands-revised-testimony-doesnt-prove-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo/

STTAB
11-06-2019, 12:06 PM
This was the 3rd, of who I just started reading about this morning. The headlines on a few MSM liberal sites is that this guy outright nailed Trump and he's done now, that he outright nails him with his testimony. And amazing that he had to revise it to begin with.

---

No, Sondland's Revised Testimony Doesn't Prove There Was a Quid Pro Quo

On Tuesday, transcripts released by the House Intelligence Committee containing revised testimony from U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland show that he admitted that military aid to Ukraine was “likely" tied on Ukraine announcing investigations into 2016 election interference and Burisma. According to Sondland’s testimony, a White House meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump was also contingent on these investigations taking place.

First of all, why did Sondland change his original testimony?

Sondland, who refused to acknowledge the purported quid pro quo in his initial testimony, said he had “refreshed [his] recollection” after reading testimony by top diplomat William Taylor and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council. The ambassador then went on to revise parts of his own testimony to reflect his delivery of the quid pro quo message.

Sondland agreed with investigators that a Trump-Zelensky meet would be conditioned on a commitment to investigations into the Bidens and 2016 election interference.

“If you mean that those conditions would have to be complied with prior to getting a meeting, that was my understanding,” Sondland said.

Nothing bizarre about that, right? But I digress. The media and Democrats see this as proof of a quid pro quo. But is it?

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/no-sondlands-revised-testimony-doesnt-prove-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo/


"I refreshed my memory" LOL what a crock, does ANYONE believe that?

jimnyc
11-06-2019, 12:13 PM
"I refreshed my memory" LOL what a crock, does ANYONE believe that?

Yeah right. I found that comical that he had to go back in and more or less change his story and/or add what he was told into evidence!

jimnyc
11-06-2019, 12:52 PM
Even when the democrats leak BS, and control the output of what they are doing in private, and control the story - they still fail.

--

Jim Jordan Tells Reporters: Kurt Volker's Transcript Is the One You All Don't Want to Talk About

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, told reporters the only testimony that matters in the impeachment inquiry is the one former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker gave to lawmakers.

"We have the definitive account on all this is the one from Ambassador Volker...he was the special envoy to Ukraine. He was the guy who was in this each and everyday, working on these issues. And it's interesting, that's the one transcript y'all don't want to talk about," Jordan said.

"We got the call transcript. We know there was nothing wrong in the call transcript. We got the two guys on the call who said there was no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo. We have the fact the Ukrainians, at the time of the call, didn't even know aid had even been held. And we have have the most important fact is they did nothing to get the aid released," he continued.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) released the transcripts from Volker's and Ambassador Gordon Sondland's deposition on Tuesday. In Volker's testimony, he said there was no “linkage” between a White House meeting and Ukrainian investigations. Volker further said he did not view the delay in aid to be significant because it was eventually given.

Rest - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2019/11/06/jim-jordan-the-definitive-account-on-all-this-is-the-one-from-ambassador-volker-not-sondland-n2556013