comparemela.com

The democrats and this investigation that kind of talk you know certainly. Reinforces their preconceived notions to the extent that American Public opinion is deeply polarized extremely partisan in these days and he has a talk along those lines may or may simply act to solidify people in their preconceived views rather than have them approach these hearings with an open mind what difference do you think its going to make now that we can actually watch this and listen to this of course the testimony before was behind closed doors it would leak would get information about what people that say it but to hear people to see people even in the minds of those who might be more predisposed to donald trump is that enough to shift that that Public Perception and that public idea about what were seeing here well ive seen some polling data that suggests that is sort of the overwhelming majority of americans now regard the president as. Actions on ukraine as perhaps inappropriate. Is an open question about whether they will bend support removing him from office because of those inappropriate actions but i think the sort of steady state maybe even a little bit boring at times testimony of these high level Public Officials would distinguish records of Public Service certainly establishes a Strong Foundation for judging the president s actions again it doesnt necessarily follow that theyll be a political conclusion to to remove him from office but the substance that something was amiss in how the president dealt with ukraine is increasingly supported by by the evidence developed in these hearings and thats what it comes down to is not when you can get lost in the read 0 a little bit because some of the questioning does get very detailed and very technical but fundamentally theres a question of this quid pro quo that in this telephone conversation between donald trump and president selenski there was an attempt to pressure president selenski to investigate joe biden and his son ultimately thats what it comes down to reason whether that can be established in your mind just as you do what youre saying there you will leaning towards the fact that this might be becoming established were going to break away just simply try to come back to you let us lets listen in again to these hearings on capitol hill i want to ask you both. About some of the questions you were asked by my colleagues in the middle already 1st if i could ask you ms williams and colonel than you were asked a series of questions by the Ranking Member at the outset were you aware of the fact that and then there was a recitation of information about ricin cesky the bidens. Is a fair to say you have no firsthand knowledge of any of the matters that were asked those questions thats correct that is correct. And this one was you were also asked a series of questions about the Vice President s schedule and whether he could have made the united duration or was the president traveling or. The trip to canada lets be clear about something the president you were instructed that the president had told the Vice President not to go before you even knew the date of the United Nation is that correct yes thats correct so at the time he was told not to go there was no calculation about where he might be or where the president might be because that they hadnt even been set yet is that right thats right the date had not been set so we were weighing a number of different scenarios of when when an operation might fall now i think you said that originally president had told him to go and then you received the instruction that the president no longer wanted him to go. Were you aware in the interim between the president telling him to go with the president telling him not to go that route giuliani had to abort a trip that he was going to make to crane i had seen that in the press yes and had you seen in the press that Rudy Giuliani blame people around zelinsky for having to cancel the trip for having to cancel his trip yes i had read that in the press reporting yes and during the press reporting also that giuliani wanted to go to ukraine to as he put it not meddle in the election but metal and investigations i did read that yes and that occurred prior to the president canceling the Vice President s trip to the naga ration it did i believe it was around made 10th or so. Colonel then when you were asked by the minority counsel about the president s words in the july 25th call and whether the president s words were ambiguous. Was there any ambiguity about the president s you use of the word biden there was not. It was pretty clear that the president wanted selenski to commit to investigating the bidens was it not that is correct that is one of the favors that you thought should be properly characterized as a demand that is correct and theres no ambiguity about that in my mind there was not. Its also true is it not that these 2 investigations that the president asked alinsky for him to 2016 and then to the bidens were precisely the 2 investigations that Rudy Giuliani was calling for publicly the not that is correct so when people suggest well maybe Rudy Giuliani was acting on his own and maybe he was a freelancer or whatever the president referred to exactly the same 2 investigations Rudy Giuliani was out pushing on his behalf is that correct that is correct. Now ms williams you were asked about the meeting the Vice President had with the linsky in september. In which ukraines brought up their concern about the hold on the Security Systems is that right thats right and you were asked about whether in that meeting between the Vice President s olinsky the bidens or barisan the came up and i think you said they did not correct thats right they did not come up now that bilateral meeting was a large meeting that involved 2 or 3 dozen people was in it it was so in the context of this meeting with 2 or 3 dozen people the Vice President didnt bring up those investigations correct no he did not bring up this and thats what hes never brought up as investigations were you aware that immediately and i mean immediately after that meeting broke up. A master saw on one has said that he went over to mr year mock one of the top advisors to selenski and told your mach that if they wanted the military aid they were going to have to do these investigations or words to that effect i was not aware at the time of any meeting side meetings that ambassador sunland had following our Vice President s meeting with president slansky ive only learned that investors on lines testimony so at the big Public Meeting it didnt come up and you cant speak to the private meeting that was held immediately thereafter correct the Vice President moved on with his schedule immediately after his meeting with the president lenski you know colonel venkman i want to go back to that july 10th. Meeting or meetings the one with ambassador bolton and then the one in the wardroom that followed quickly on its heels were you aware that. Ambassador bolton instructed your superior dr hill to go talk to the lawyers after that meeting i really learned shortly after she was finished talking to her about her bolton and after we wrapped up with the wardroom that she did have a meeting with them and that thats what was expressed now you thought you should go talk to the lawyers on your own correct i bet is my recollection yes. But bolton also thought that dr hill should go talk to the lawyers because his concern over this drug deal that some of them will they be were going to bring up is that right that is my understanding and in fact is this drug deal as bolton called it involved this conditioning of the white house meeting on these investigations that someone brought up is that right that is my understanding and in fact this same. Conditioning or this same issue of wanting these political investigations and tying it to the white house meeting this came up in the july 25th call did it not when the president asked for these investigations that is correct so the very same issue that bolton said to hill go talk to the lawyers the very same issue that prompted you to go talk to the lawyers ends up coming up in that call with the president is i right that is correct and it was that conversation that once again lead you back to the Lawyers Office that is correct now yield to the Ranking Member of parliament increment suit chairman you took 7 minutes i assume youre going to give us equal time yes mr innes thanks gentlemen Lieutenant Colonel going on before i turn to mr jordan. I asked miss williams about this about she had ever. Accessed without authorization fellow employees Computer System. Chance or no to the question have you ever accessed anyones Computer System at the n. S. C. Without authorization without their knowledge no knowledge or authorization im sorry knowledge or authorization you know you never accessed someones computer without their knowledge or rock or authorization correct. Sure jordan. I think the Ranking Member colonel i want to thank you for your service and sacrifice to our great country this afternoon your your former boss mr morris is going to sit right where youre sitting and hes going to testify and i want to give you a chance i think were bringing you a copy i want to give you a chance to respond to some of the things mr morrison said in his deposition page 82 of the transcript from mr morse and mr morse and said this i had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel denman judgment among the discussions i had with dr hill in the transition was our team its strength its weaknesses and fiona and others had raised concerns about alexs judgment when mr morris was asked by mr castor did anyone ever bring concerns to you that they believe colonel denman may have a leak something mr morrison replied yes so if your boss had concerns about your judgment your former boss dr hill had concerns about your judgment your colleagues had concerns about your judgment and your colleagues felt that there were times when you leaked information any idea why they have those impressions colonel than yes represented jordan i guess ill start by your reading. Dr hills own words as she she attested to in my last evaluation that was dated middle of july right before she left alex is a top one percent military officer and the best army officer ive worked with in my 15 years of Government Service is brilliant unflappable and exercises excellent judgment so it was exactly sorry ok im just exemplary during numerous visits and so forth and so on but i think you get the idea. Mr morse and you know the data that was. Whats the im sorry july. 13th so. Mr jordan i would say that i cant say what mr morrison why mr morrison i question my judgment we had only recently started working together his it didnt he wasnt there very long and we were just trying to figure out our relationship maybe it was a different cultures military culture versus and colonel you never leaked information i never did never would that is that is preposterous that i would do that ok colonel its its interesting we deposed a lot of people in the bunker in the base of the capitol over the last several weeks but of all those depositions only 3 of the individuals we deposed were actually on the now somewhat famous july 25th phone call between President Trump and president s lewinsky that was you the individual sitting beside you miss williams and then there were of course was your boss mr morrison who i just read from his his deposition when we asked miss williams who she spoke to after the call about the call she was willing to answer our questions and chairmanship allowed her to answer our questions when we asked mr morrison who he spoke to after the call about the call he was willing to answer our question and mr schiff allowed chairmanship allowed him to answer our question but we ask you. You 1st told us 3 individuals at the n. S. A. Your brother and the 2 lawyers and then you said there was a group of other people you communicated with but you would only give us one individual in that Group Secretary cant and the chairman would only allow you to give us that name when we ask you who else you communicated with you would not tell us so i want to know 1st how many other people are in that group of people you communicated with outside the 4 individuals i just named as mr jordan are no doubt certainly after the 1st call there were probably half a dozen or more people to read out those are people with a proper clearance and then the need to know in this case because a sense to be on the call and mr eisenberg told me not to speak to anybody else i only write out outside of the n. S. C. 2 individuals 2 individuals and one other person and youre not willing to tell us who that other individual is mr chairman i want to order mr chairman or chairman point of order to suspend counsel mr chairman i would ask you on enforce the rule with regard to the disclosure with regard to the intelligence and im going to thank you counsel you know as i indicated before this committee will not be used throughout the whistleblower. That same as the chairman gets us and even if its not of the time so i dont lose the time you are recognizing mr jordan mr chairman i dont see how this is outing whistleblower that the witness has testified in his deposition he does know who the whistleblower is you have said even though no one believes you you have said you dont know who the whistleblower is so how is this outing a whistleblower to to to find out who this individual is. Jorn this is your time for questioning you can use it when we like but your question should be addressed to them id like that and your question should not be addressed to trying to out the whistle blew up ok colonel then theres another thing mr morrison told us in his deposition he said he was not concerned about the call itself he said there was nothing illegal or improper on the call but he was concerned about the call leaking the contents of the call leaking its really said this he was concerned how would play out in washingtons polarized environment how the contents would be used in washingtons political process exists or morrison was right excuse me mr jordan could i get a page age 44 industry morrison was right call leaks was a laura goes to chairmanship staff and he runs off to the lawyer the same lawyer who said in january of 2017 the coup has started against President Trump and one thing the democrats didnt one thing they didnt count on one thing that in count on was the president releasing the call transcript and letting us all see what he said it in count on that transcript shows no linkage the 2 individuals on the call have both said no pressure no pushing no linkage of Security Systems dollars to an investigation swims after the call the 25th you know that little dimon talked to several people after the call the 25th people did you talk to about the call i did not speak to anybody about the call in speak to anybody i you know back to the tribes and you mr chairman chairman i ask unanimous consent to enter the Lieutenant Colonels Performance Review into the record may inquire of a colonel of them and whether you would like us to do that if you would were happy to if you would prefer that on the record i leave that to you. I guess with redactions it has. And it should be protected and maybe the only elements are that are relevant to the actual narrative. Sherman did you read the relevant portions or i mean that was the the short version there were some other paragraphs in there but imo i would draw my request ok thank you thank you both for your testimony mr williams you joined the Foreign Service in 2006 correct correct prior to becoming a nonpartisan career official you worked as a field representative for the Bush Cheney Campaign in 2004 and then you held a political appointment in the department of Homeland Security under secretary chertoff is that correct thats correct sir and now as a Foreign Service officer you have served 3 president s 2 republicans and one democrat a variety of roles correct yes or and in your current position youre detailed from state to advise the Vice President on Foreign Policy towards europe and russia correct thats right is williams on sunday the president personally targeted you in a tweet this is after he targeted ambassador you event of edge during her hearing testimony id like to show and read you the tweet it reads tell Jennifer Williams whoever that is to read both transcripts of the president ial calls and see the just released statement from ukraine then she should meet with the other never trump who i dont know and mostly never even heard of and work out a better president ial attack ms williams are you engaged in a president ial attack there is williams are you would never trump or im not sure i know an official definition of a never trump or would you describe yourself that way i would not know the debt make did that tweet make an impression on you when you read it it certainly surprised me i was not expecting to be called out by name which surprised me too and it looks an awful lot like witness intimidation and tampering and in effect an effort to try to get you to perhaps shape your testimony today. Lieutenant colonel. You previously testified that youve dedicated your entire professional life to the United States of america colonel above your left breast you are wearing a device which is a springfield musket on a blue field what is that device combat and infantrymans badge how do you get the combat infantryman badge you have to be serving in a brigade and below a Tactical Unit that means a fighting unit frontline unit in combat under fire correct youre also wearing a purple heart can you tell us in 20 or 30 seconds why youre wearing a purple heart. In 2014 in the. Ramp up to probably the largest urban operations urban operation in decades outside of lucia we were conducting a reconnaissance patrol in conjunction with the marines and my vehicle was struck by a improvised explosive device that pop up penetrated the armor were you injured i was the day after you appeared for your deposition Lieutenant Colonel President Trump called you a never trump or colonel inman would you call yourself a never trump or representative i call myself never partisan thank you comin in your military career youve served under 4 president s 2 democrats and 2 republicans have you ever wavered from the oath you took to support and defend the constitution never give any political motivations for your appearance here today no one. Colonel than multiple right wing conspiracy theorists including Rudy Giuliani have accused you of harboring loyalty towards ukraine. They make these accusations based only on the fact that your family like Many American families immigrated to the United States theyve accused you of espionage and dual loyalties weve seen that in this room this morning the 3 minutes that were spent asking you about the offer made to make you the minister of defense that may have come close in a Brooks Brothers suit and in parliamentary language that was designed exclusively to give the right wing media an opening to question your loyalties i want people to understand what that was all about its the kind of attack the kind of thing you say when youre defending the indefensible what you say when its not enough to attack the media the way the Ranking Member gave over his Opening Statement or do attack the democrats but its what you stoop to when the in defensibility of your case requires that you attack a man who is wearing a springfield rifle on a field of blue above a purple heart i sir thank you for your service and yield back the balance of my time conaway and share your much 5 years 2 of us reckless i thank the gentleman for yielding in a press conference last thursday speaker of the house nancy pelosi said the President Trump committed the Impeachable Offense of bribery. Evidence in his july 25th call transcript with presence alinsky in concert with that multiple democratic members of this Committee Gave t. V. And radio interviews over this past week discussing how the president s conduct supported his impeachment for committing bribery all of which struck me as very odd. Because for the longest time this was all about quid pro quo cording to the whistleblower complaint but after witness after witness began saying there was no quid pro quo or even that quid pro quo was not even possible we saw a shift from the democrats it briefly started to refer to the president s conduct on the july 25th call as extortion and now it shifted again last week to bribery mr williams you used the word unusual to describe the president s call last hour on july 25th Lieutenant Colonel binman used the word inappropriate improper i word searched each of your transcripts and the word bribery or bribe doesnt appear anywhere in that is what he was you didnt youve never used the word bribery or bribe to explain President Trumps conduct correct yes or colonel then you havent either that is correct the problem is in an impeachment inquiry or that the speaker of the house says is all about bribery where bribery is the Impeachable Offense no witness has used the word bribery to describe present problems conduct none of them. All of the definition transcripts. These are just the 10 that have been released. 6 weeks of witness interviews in this impeachment inquiry hundreds of hours of testimony thousands of questions asked thousands of answers given the number of times that witnesses have been asked any question about whether or not President Trumps conduct constituted bribery before ambassador yavanna bitch was asked by my colleague congressman stewart last thursday is 0 the number of times witnesses have used the word bribery or bribe to describe President Trumps conduct in the last 6 weeks of this inquiry is 0 in fact in these 3500 pages of sworn deposition testimony in just these 10 transcripts released thus far the word bribery appears in these 3500 pages exactly one time and ironically it appears not in a description of President Trumps alleged conduct it appears in the description of Vice President bidens alleged conduct this is important because as early as next week my democratic colleagues are going to say we need to vote on the evidence from this impeachment inquiry on the impeachment of the president for bribery and were going to send a report to the Judiciary Committee and because theres more democrats than republicans its going to likely pass and when that happens the American People need to be clear that when the democrats what they are describing as bribery not a single witness is describing is bribery weve heard many times in the course of this proceeding that the facts of the president are not in dispute but the American People are asking if the facts are the same why do the crimes that the president is being accused of keep changing why do we go from quid pro quo to extortion not to bribery fair menounos told you the answer answer is polling Washington Times asked americans. What would be the most damning accusation didnt come back quid pro quo it didnt come back explore ssion it came back bribery so this case is all about bribery look its bad enough that the democrats have forbidden white house lawyers from participating in this proceeding its hard enough to defend yourself without your lawyers present but whats even worse is trying to defend yourself against an accusation that keeps changing in the middle of the proceeding if democrats accuse the president of a high crime or Impeachable Offense he at least ought to know which one it is and when Speaker Pelosi says this is all about bribery shes promised us evidence of bribery that would be compelling and overwhelming and instead its invisible and youll back this will. Mr chairman id like to join everyone in thanking both of our witnesses for your service. Lieutenant colonel

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.