Select Page

First Day Of Impeachment Hearings

First Day Of Impeachment Hearings

I will be adding to this as we go through the day and will try to highlight the most important parts and then pass on what is essential with these impeachment hearings to you!

Here is a link to the live hearings so you can follow with me:

The first one to give a statement was Adam Schiff and rather than stick to the truth he accused Trump and his team of chasing conspiracy theories. Crowd strike was the main one, then he set off on his own conspiracy theory. Once more, we see with Schiff that when the facts aren’t there to support his narrative, he just makes them up.

The second one to speak was the Minority leader, and he proceeded to call into question the whole proceeding. 1. How the Democrats refused to allow people to testify as they were not exactly what they wanted. 2. The proceedings were held behind closed doors. 3. They could not get one Republican to vote to support this.

He then went on to state how politically biased this was.

Before the proceedings started Schiff was asked if he was going to allow people the GOP called up as witnesses to testify. He said no to the majority of them, and then claimed he did not know who the whistleblower was; even though evidence shows he met with both the whistleblower and his attorney.

Ambassador Taylor then spoke up on how he went back to Ukraine and how the new administration moved to stop corruption. He showed displeasure at Trump setting up a backchannel or irregular channel on dealing with Ukraine; something presidents have done for years. It is obvious he is not happy he is not in control of this channel.

He spoke of confusion over two channels of diplomacy and stated that he heard that President Zelensky wanted to make a statement of what he was going to do to get a White House meeting, how Trump said he wanted the rule of law and for Ukraine to “get” at “things.” He states that he believed that this “thing” was dealing with investigations into the business that Hunter Biden worked for. 

Then he stated that he overheard someone say that aid was being withheld. When he asked who did this he was told it was coming from Trump and his administration. He stated that an ambassador assumed the connections, then said what he heard from second-hand information.

He testified that the Ukrainian president said he did not wish to be involved in any way with the US election issues and said that President Zelensky said he was happy with the call he had with Trump. He said he was never part of the call and never saw any printouts of the call.

The testimony went on about the investigation, his concern about assistance and he said if changes were made in the aid, he would resign. He said the Ukrainians did not know of any hold on aid until after Trump spoke with the Ukraine President.

His testimony never showed any meeting with Trump or contact with him and what he heard the whole time was second-hand information. When he asked for clarification of aid, he was told to call Ambassador Sondland. He did go on and say that it was openly stated that aid was not dependent on the investigation. Ambassador Sondland once more called him and stated that there was no quid pro quo.

The Democrats set up their special counsel to interview Ambassador Taylor and it was predictable they would try to say that belief meant more than the facts.

Here are the facts that were found.

  1. There was no talk of quid pro quo.
  2. There was no direct conversation heard from Trump.
  3. You had a rumor and nothing more.

Upon return, Congressman Nunes set about showing the extreme bias from Ambassador Taylor towards Trump and then passed to the counsel for the minority.

The minority counsel, Steve Castor, then stated that Hunter Biden’s job was questionable, at least in appearance.

Schiff took back control of the interview. He then tried to steer the conversation to make it seem that there was a give and take there while providing no evidence. He could not get the ambassador to admit that he did not know what the President of Ukraine was going to say on CNN.

Image result for Schiff

Congressman Jordan then asked for the linkage between aid and investigation in three meetings with the president and at no time could the Ambassador show this. He admitted to this and said that the Ukrainians had no knowledge of aid being withheld. He tried to say that there was a linkage on the third meeting, but they did speak about funding, but at no time did they say one was connected to the other.

When Jordan started to show how far fetched this story was, it was a case of he heard it from someone who heard it from someone else in another nation, that this is what they were using as star witnesses evidence. 3rd party hearsay.

Rep. Ratcliffe then went on to read President Zelensky’s statement where there was no blackmail and no knowledge of aid being withheld. There was no pressure on the investigation or that assistance would be withheld. He then proceeded to show all the news that this had reported the same. When he proceeded to ask more questions, Schiff cut him off and would not allow him to continue.

What was funny was both of the witnesses were asked if they had any contact with the president and both said they did not, and yet here they were, the star witnesses for the democrats. The question was asked, “You do know this is about the president, why are you here?” When asked if they had any first-hand knowledge of this they had to admit they had none. This was finished with the statement that second and third-hand information was not admissible in any court of law as it is not reliable information.

Rep. Jordan then came out and said while Ambassador Stevens was wrong, he may have heard right, but what he heard with second or third-hand information was incorrect.

What needs to be stated, in spite of all the claims, there is not an investigation on Biden or his son Hunter, nor is there any aid withheld. One has to ask if nothing was done, how is then is there guilt?

Image result for Rep. Castro

In a move that should not surprise anyone, Rep. Castro tried to equate what Trump did as equivalent to attempted murder or something equally wrong.

The complaint by the Democrats is that somehow Trump did something wrong firing the Ambassador to Ukraine early in his presidency. It was admitted that they work at the convenience of the president, and he has the legal authority to fire every ambassador and hire in new ones if he wished.

The most significant problem today for the Democrats is in the Twitter feed above, even CNN, with their rabid Trump haters, could not deny that not having ever met Trump is an issue.

There was one thing of note. Nothing could be interpreted as breaking the law. This is nothing but political theater.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

1 Comment

  1. vurtil opmer

    A lot of of what you say is supprisingly appropriate and that makes me ponder the reason why I had not looked at this with this light previously. This particular piece really did switch the light on for me as far as this particular topic goes. Nevertheless there is actually 1 factor I am not really too cozy with and while I try to reconcile that with the actual core theme of the point, let me observe exactly what the rest of your visitors have to point out.Very well done.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.