Those two people yesterday did confirm parts of the whistleblower's complaint in that the whistleblower also discussed the shadow diplomacy efforts launched by Giuliani, Perry, and Sondland as well as the abrupt removal of Yovanovich.
Those individuals have been subpoenaed for their testimony and they have been identified by numerous other individuals as containing information relevant to the investigation.
They had no first hand knowledge. They were never even in the same room as Trump. All they did was relate their own opinions about what was transpiring. If we want confirmation of what was in the complaint, the best place to get that confirmation is from the alleged whistle blower. As it is, all we know about the complaint is what Schiff has said is in it...
You can read the complaint yourself, as it was released by the Trump administration. You can read it here: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf And yes, they had plenty of first hand knowledge as to the Shadow Diplomacy. But if you want more first hand knowledge, then join us in demanding that Trump stop the stonewalling and allow the testimony of individuals who are very likely to have first hand knowledge, like Giuliani, Perry, Mulvaney, and Bolton. Someone who would not have first hand knowledge of Trump - as you all said yourself for weeks - is the whistleblower.
Wow, HOLY DEFLECTION! Hunter Biden has nothing to do with this. They are investigating Trump. The last failed republican house has nothing to do with this @Andrew Jackson How about you guys learn to stick to a thread topic for a change? The fact is, this is making democrats look VERY bad. "I wasn't in the call" WHAT???? "heresay is better than REAL evidence" WHAT???? This is going to make a typhoon sized red wave. I'm starting to think Trump orchestrated the whole thing on purpose.
When they essentially said they knew of no military aid in return for an investigation of Biden, I, for one, do not think they lied.
No...they related factual knowledge regarding their experience. It was never their position to judge the charges. They are not Trump accusers...the House will be his accuser, if they pass a bill of impeachment. This is still part of an investigation.
The whistle blower thought the presidents actions were shadowy, and the two witnesses thought the same thing. Does the fact that there was no shadow diplomacy in the pejorative sense of the term have any relevance here? Who cares what their opinions are??.... other than the coup masters I mean. Do you want to impeach a president because a couple of staffers didn't like something he did? I know many, including Schoff, Pelosi, Nadler, et al do.
Trump is doing the same, that is perfectly ok, what Trump can't do is bribe a foreign government to go after Biden
no one is impeaching anyone over what the whistle-blower thought, the whistle-blower just reported what he heard, it was deemed credible by Trump's own people, thus forwarded to Congress and here we are what do you want, a government where gov employees are afraid to go through proper channels to report abuse of power I do agree, though I would like to hear from Trump and those he is preventing from speaking too - obstructing them from speaking is also impeachable
I agree. That was one of the reasons that they came across as so credible. It is also why one of the biggest moments for Trump could take place yesterday. When Ratcliffe asked the witnesses what was the impeachable offense and the witnesses did not answer. It is not their job or their duty to answer that question (and indeed George Kent did say that at another point in the testimony).
Schiff saving it for the 3rd act is he??? He should know that in this scenario he has to hit the deck running with his best stuff right out of the box. Or he is dumber than he looks.
Would you elaborate on that for a bit? Why do you think that there was, in fact, "no shadow diplomacy in the pejorative sense of the term?"
I think it is a fair strategy to use witnesses to provide background and set up information. The removal of Yovanovich because she was being slandered by Giuliani and corrupt officials in Ukraine is a damning thread of information and sets the stage quite well for her testimony on Friday. But it also appears to have been a good decision given the new piece of information on Sondland that will need to be fleshed out in depositions on Friday and sets the stage for direct public questions at Sondland when he testifies next week.
do you think Trump and those he is obstructing will give their side of the story under oath, be glad to hear it
The president has the authority to use anyone he chooses to conduct foreign policy, government person or private person. Most presidents have used private or back channel envoys in foreign negotiations. The fact that some State Dept. officials get their nose out of joint matters nothing. It certainly is not an impeachable offense. Forgotten by many in the state dept is that the president, not they, are in charge of foreign policy.
Yes, it is a fair strategy, but none-the-less a stupid strategy from Schiff's standpoint. The president removed an ambassador. Can you point me to where that is within a million miles of an impeachable offense, bearing in mind that the president has the authority to remove an ambassador anytime and for any reason he wants.
