Impeachment testimony

Updated,

8:02 pm:

There may have been something left out, or I didn't see it the first time.  In this piece, Scalise mentions to Wallace that it was in the authorization for aid that the President could withhold aid if there was a corruption problem.  In other words, the aid legislation authorized the President to do what he did.

That is a significant point, right there.   

2:14 pm:

Thanks to this video, I revisited the CBS story, which had a link that listed the witnesses to appear this week in the so-called impeachment inquiry.

There does appear to be some significant issues here, so it isn't over yet.  It is a bit of a stretch to say that an investigation of the Bidens involves a political advantage for Trump as opposed to an actual corruption issue.  There is a lot more evidence of corruption than what the Democrats are willing to admit.

It speaks to why the GOP is asking for witnesses.  The Democrats and Schiff are only allowing witnesses that advance their narrative.  Therefore, there will be no "Taco Bell" Chalupa to testify.  If this was an honest inquiry, there would be a full-scale discussion of the Bidens.  Of course, that will not be permitted.

This week will get deeper into the weeds, so to speak.  It may justify, at least in their minds, the impeachment.  But it is definitely a partisan exercise.

This kid has swallowed the Kool-Aid.  As for Chris Wallace, he is entertaining this charade called an impeachment inquiry.  There's a lot being covered up here.  There is a huge backstory on the 2016 election that hasn't been told, and that of the Bidens has also been covered up.

As for Trump, even if he went after Biden, there's evidence to support an investigation of him. Trump's denial of a quid pro quo could be a problem for him if it turns out to be true.  But there's no quid pro quo in the transcript of July 25, but Trump's critics are disputing that the phone call is the whole story.  Maybe there's something there, but in my opinion, it isn't nearly enough to justify impeachment.  Nor a political scandal for that matter.  But it could hurt Trump politically if his credibility takes a hit.

His credibility could take a hit if Trump is lying about the quid pro quo.  But why would he lie about this?  If you are right legally and politically, why lie about it?  That's the problem that could result from this.  If he felt that he couldn't take the risk of telling the truth, that is an indication of another problem.

We'll see.




9:57 am:

As far as I can tell, the Democrats have laid a couple eggs that didn't hatch so far.  The third one may come on Wednesday, with Ambassador Sondland testifying in public.

There may be open hearings from Tuesday to Thursday this week, but this CBS report is entirely not clear on that.   The report mentioned a person named Holmes said he overheard Sondland talking on the phone with the President one day AFTER the Zelensky call.  The CBS report also mentioned that Sondland gave an opinion to a Ukrainian official about the aid being held up for a commitment to investigate.   That seems irrelevant since the conversation with Zelensky had already taken place.

Sondland is not one of the principals here.  The principals are Zelensky and Trump.  Sondland is giving only his opinion, and the conversation in question had already taken place.  What's the point?

The aid was already approved by Congress.  The President can only delay it at best.  The delay could have been from late April to mid-September.  Technically it could be argued that there was no freeze at all.  The aid was released during the time frame that it was authorized.  I hear that the date the aid was due was on the 30th of September.  It looks like the impeachment argument is a bit too fine of a point, but that won't stop the Democrats from trying it anyway.