13 conversations that Ambassador Taylor remembered.
But he didn’t remember Mr. Holmes briefing him about a call that was “so remarkable,” and an “extremely distinctive experience.”
THIS is the Dems’ closing witness?
A call heard some of, some he didn’t. Some wasn’t word for word, some was. He told everyone he knew what he heard... but the Ambassador doesn’t recall it at all. He *does* recall buying him lunch and free entertainment (his own words) #shampeachment
This was an enlightening exchange btw HOLMES & @RepRatcliffe:
Holmes could hear the Ukraine portion of the call btw Trump & Sondland, but not much about the A$AP Rocky portion.
Incredible. Holmes only could clearly hear what he perceives to be damaging, but not much of else.
“It wasn’t a word for word” is what he said at one point while remembering verbatim others. Sure seems Schiffty in his recollection - and the Ambassador even said something different than what he assumed. It’s a #Shampeachment, folks. Plain and simple.
For those seizing on the Fiona Hill comment about Sondland and a "domestic political operation" - you do realize we just heard from Sondland yesterday, who admitted @realDonaldTrump never asked him for a political quid pro quo, ever, and it was all his evidence-free assumption
HILL believed that Obama's decision NOT to provide lethal defensive weapons was made on a political basis - to not provoke the Russians.
Interagency consensus was to provide this aid at the time.
No whistlebower complaint against Obama for disregarding interagency consensus.
You couldn’t find any HPSCI Republicans who think that Russia *didnt* interfere in the 2016 election because they did. This week, it would be hard to find any Democrat witnesses who think Ukraine *also* interfered in ‘16. Confirmation bias? #shampeachment
One of the witnesses was pushing in 2015 *against* giving lethal military aid to Ukraine, even wrote an op-Ed on it. Today she says she was pushing for the release of the same aid to Ukraine. Seems like this is an important part of her testimony:
.@SpeakerPelosi: "The evidence is clear that the president has used his office for his own personal gain."
Full video here:
Are we back to “abuse of power” or is this something that is the “quid-pro-quo” that didn’t poll very well? I’m having a hard time keeping the charges against a President who said “No quid-pro-quo” & “I want Zelensky to do the right thing” and “Go tell the truth” #shampeachment
Most, if not all, of today’s testimony is based on what they discussed with Ambassador Sondland who said yesterday he made his own presumptions (guesses) about the aid.
The President told Sondland “no quid pro quo” so todays opinions are not relevant. #shampeachment
Nancy Pelosi just outlined the requirements she has for Mexico as it pertains to #USMCA and if they aren't willing to alter/change some things, there is no path forward. Since there is a significant financial benefit to them on this, did she just outline her quid-pro-quo?
This witness overhead a phone call and made his own presumptions about its context and has been giving a prolonged opening statement about his views on foreign policy. They got the aid and the President sets foreign policy. Maybe a free lunch wasn’t enough. #shampeachment
“Not only did I buy him lunch, I provided him some entertainment... great” - Ambassador Sondland in reference to the “witness” to his phone call with the President. He went on to question how many conversations the other witness had... presumably none. #SameSchiffDifferentDay
You might recall what Ambassador Sondland said about this yesterday....just in case. He also asked how many calls today’s witness had with the President.... answer was zero. #shampeachment
The current witness is disappointed that the person who sets the foreign policy of the United States - the President - didn’t use his talking points or information. There seems to be a pattern that folks don’t like the authority of the President #Shampeachment