CLAIM: President Donald Trump withheld a White House meeting, and military aid, from Ukraine until it agreed to announce investigations.
VERDICT: False. There is no direct evidence of that in the entire House record.
Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) laid out the case against President Trump in opening arguments on Wednesday in the Senate impeachment trial. The core of his claim was that Trump withheld a White House meeting from new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as essential military aid, unless and until Ukraine announced investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and 2016 interference in the U.S. election.
Every part of that claim is untrue, and directly contradicted by the evidence that emerged in the House’s own inquiry.
Schiff is clearly relying on the testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland, who made the surprise announcement in his prepared statement for the public impeachment inquiry in the House Intelligence Committee that there had been a “quid pro quo” — a White House meeting in exchange for an announcement of investigations.
Under questioning, however, Sondland admitted that he had no direct knowledge of a “quid pro quo.” In fact, he testified that when he asked President Trump what he wanted from Ukraine, he said “nothing” and “no quid pro quo.”
Moroever, as the transcript of Trump’s first call with Zelensky in April showed, the president had already invited Zelensky to the White House with no conditions whatsoever — a fact that Schiff neglected to mention in the Senate.
As for the second call, there was never any discussion of withholding aid, or of the 2020 presidential election. The U.S. aid that was temporarily withheld was “security assistance” — not the all-important Javelin anti-tank missiles, which Trump provided earlier (and President Barack Obama had not). The hold had to do with future funding and had no effect on the flow of funds to Ukraine during the summer of 2019, when the temporary hold was in place.
(It is also odd how gung-ho Schiff and his colleagues have suddenly become about helping Ukraine resist Russia when they were silent when President Obama appeased Russia for years and denied aid to a Ukraine under attack.)
As numerous witnesses testified, and as the Ukrainian president and his aides have since said repeatedly, Ukraine was never aware — at least on the senior level — of the hold on aid, nor did they feel any pressure from Trump.
And the aid was delivered in September — before the deadline — without any announcement of investigations.
Maybe if Schiff ever TELLS THE TRUTH it should be reported. THAT would be truly newsworthy.
[DELETED COMMENT FROM OUR RESIDENT SOCK PUPPET GARY MILLER]
@Linda Baum: Except that was suppose to be done before the trial dearie.
The House voted on the evidence present not we will get the Senate to do the job.
Fail to prepare and…prepare to fail.
@Linda Baum:
I cannot believe that anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of the writing of the U.S. Constitution can think that President Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense.
Does Schiff lie? You betcha.
[DELETED COMMENT FROM OUR RESIDENT SOCK PUPPET GARY MILLER]
[DELETED COMMENT FROM OUR RESIDENT SOCK PUPPET GARY MILLER]
@Linda Baum: Consensus science? Gawd
@Linda Baum:
Therein lies the problem with law schools in the 21st century. You can get a law degree now without ever having to study Constitutional law. Hell, you can now get a law degree on the internet and in California, where Schitt-for-brains is from, allows you to take the Bar.
Never ever get a California lawyer to defend you if you need a lawyer unless they attended a law school outside of California.
But clearly, you have no rudimentary knowledge of the writing of the Constitution. Buy a book on it, read it and get back to us.
@kitt: Well, it’s not science. That’s one way you got this wrong, I guess.
@Linda Baum:
As there shouldn’t have been a problem for the impeachment inquiry to happen in the light of day rather than in a basement, with facts and testimony that we will never see. You cannot do something in secret, where your facts and your charges shift from day to day, then expect transparency from the accused.
Our legal system also depends on a very important postulate: people are innocent until proved guilty.
You’re commonly regurgitated statement is tantamount to the inverse. it is on the burden of the state to prove that Trump did something wrong, not have him give fodder to a political party who is struggling to manufacture a crime, and failing.
Your party does not understand how much it’s wrecking itself over this.
And, our country is not run by 500 left-leaning legal scholars who were not elected to do anything.
If you and your party want to remove President Trump, do it at The ballot box.
@Linda Baum: IF Schiff is lying? Why are you doubting? The evidence is before you that he is. He lied about having evidence proving Trump colluded with Russians, he lied about what Trump said in his call with Zelensky and he lied about contacting the “whistle blower”. What part about LYING do you not understand?
The question you (and every other Democrats that supports this blight on our national history) should be asking is, if the Democrat’s case is so solid, clear and substantial, WHY are they always LYING about the evidence?
Indeed, what DO they know? Do they know of any evidence other than hearsay,, opinion, presumption and outright lies? Do they know that the President conducts foreign policy? Do they know that even if a person is a candidate for President, they can still be investigated for crimes? Apparently not. Apparently there are 500 legal scholars that need to be disbarred.
@Nathan Blue: Schiff hasn’t even allowed Republicans to see all of the testimony he collected. What is HE hiding? Do you think Linda will ever ponder that question?
@Linda Baum: Yes, and you always should have to prove your innocence in a court of law.
Joe Biden just came out today (or last night) saying he will REFUSE to be a witness.
@M.: He’s not telling the truth, either. He didn’t get it wrong… he LIED. Cold, calculated lies, even when the facts have been presented to him.
@Nan G: Now, let’s hear the chorus of Democrats shouting, “What’s he hiding? What’s he afraid of?”
Schiff has said nothing during the course of the Senate presentation that isn’t accurate.
@Greg:
There, fixed it so it’s true.
@Linda Baum: Did you forget that Trump does not need to prove he is innocent? The HoR had to prove he was guilty and they have not even though they have the documents and testimony.
@Greg:
Prove it.
You and your party’s power from the Obama Era is gone. Move on.