statefan91 said:
Unfortunately people have become so desensitized that they can watch yesterday's testimony which confirms what the whistleblower reported, and think nothing of it.
I'm sure the proceedings will put together the overall picture of a President who is using US International Policy and Aid at his whim in an attempt to get political dirt on opponents and elongate his tenure in office.
The whistleblower is largely irrelevant at this point, as multiple people have come forward to corroborate what happened, including Lt. Vindman. I look forward to Sondland coming to public hearings and answering questions regarding his interactions with President Trump, Giuliani, and the other diplomats. I think his testimony will shed the most light on what happened and who ordered it.
I think what you said above feeds to a much bigger issue. I watched every second of the testimony yesterday and wholeheartedly disagree with what you said above.
I though that both the democrats and the witnesses looked bad. They are suppose to be a witness to something but neither one of them were. They realistically had no knowledge of the actual question at hand, but had no problem voicing their opinions.
The "whistleblower" should be the first person that we should of heard from, and then any body else that is called up should be there to either to help argue what the the original complaint is one way or another. Adam Schiff said that the impeachment proceedings (4th time they voted to impeach) this time were based on what someone came to him and his staff and complained about. We should all want to hear what this person says. How can you not?
Outside of that we have what is essentially the transcript of the call, put together from the notes and thoughts of the people on the call. We have all seen this and can read it. I don't think that it looks that far out of place and my guess is that Schiff and the democrats don't either, because if they did Schiff would of just read it into the congressional record when this first started, instead of making something up, which he did do.
From all of the closed door testimony that has been released so far everyone discussed their opinion and if they agreed with Trump's policy or not. I don't care about their opinions because the President of the United States sets terms of foreign policy. If they didn't agree with it they should of quit. Trump was elected because of how he said that he would run foreign policy and try to implement domestically, and it is his right as an elected official. It is the job of all of these people to implement his policy, not their own. If they don't like it they should quit.
On the Biden aspect of it i don't see an issue. Joe Biden is actually on tape telling about how he told Ukraine that the US would withhold aide unless a certain prosecutor was fired. He even told them to call Obama if they didn't believe that he could do it. The prosecutor was investigating a company that was paying Joe Biden's son 50K a month for corruption. The prosecutor was fired and Ukraine got their money. Seems to me something like that should be investigated.
As far as the aide that Trump is said to of withheld, i don't get it. Ukraine said that they didn't know anything was being withheld, the aide was distributed as normal, and there wasn't a condition for the aide being received.
To my original point i said your comment leads to a much bigger issue because of what i said. I don't care what any of the people you listed said because what i typed over the last two paragraphs actually happened and we have proof. Joe Biden is on tape, Biden's kid was getting paid (said so on tape), and there is a video of the Ukrainian President agreeing with what i said above. You have already made up your mind just like i have made up mine. How do we try to bridge something like that?