After all these people coming out, how can they still be using the "it's just the democrats" defense?
Because "all these people" haven't offered a single piece of direct, relevant, irrefutable and inculpating evidence yet.
Taylor: yes, my "clear understanding" about the aid was based on 4x hearsay, and nobody ever said anything about it ever in my presence
Yovanovitch: admitted no knowledge of any bribery, no knowledge of the President committing any crime whatsoever.
Volker: No evidence of quid pro quo, no evidence of bribery, no evidence of treason.
Morrison: Same questions asked as Volker's above, same answers.
Testified to Vindman having history for not following chain of command, leaking classified information, complaining when he felt not being given respect he's due
Vindman: admitted that the president, not unelected bureaucrats, sets U.S. policy
admitted he never had any contact with President Trump, ever
admitted having no firsthand knowledge of aid or an investigation and was just “following news accounts”
admitted Trump was “well within his rights” to ask Ukraine for help in an investigation
admitted that putting the transcript of the Ukraine call on a secure server was “definitely not unprecedented”
admitted the Trump-Zelenksy call transcript was “very accurate”
admitted he has never used the term “bribery” to describe the president’s actions
said he couldn’t recall Ukrainians feeling pressured to do investigations
said, "As far as I can tell," Hunter Biden was not qualified to serve on Burisma’s board
said there was an appearance of a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board
said he never thought anything the President said was a crime or anything of that sort, but he thought (i.e. opinion) that it was wrong
explained that he thought President Trump's request for a "favor" was a demand, based on his knowledge of military culture (neither Trump or Zelensky are military)
Sondland: "I know that members of this Committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question - was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is Yes."
BOOM! Sondland dropped the bomb, right?!? B'Golly,
Now we got him.
But later: Schiff: "Though President Trump claimed to you there was no quid pro quo, he also made it clear to you in that call that President Zelensky had to quote 'clear things up and do it in public.' You don't have any reason to dispute ..."
Sondland: I don't have any reason to dispute the 'clear things up and do it in public,' what I'm trying to be very clear about was President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that statement.
Schiff: But in that same conversation you had with him about the aid, about the quid pro quo, he told you that President Zelensky had to quote 'clear things up and do it in public,' correct?
Sondland: I did not have a conversation with him about the aid. I had a conversation with him, as referenced in my texts, about quid pro quo.
Schiff: Well the quid pro quo you were discussing was over the aid, correct?
Sondland: No. President Trump, when I asked him the open-ended question, as I testified previously, "What do you want from Ukraine?" His answer was "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky to do the right thing." That's all I got from President Trump.
so, itsfuckingnothing.gif