More damaging leaks
Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asserted that this counters claims of a “quid pro quo.”
“At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether or not the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld and on that most important issue. Neither this witness or any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, or any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld on July 25,” Ratcliffe said on “The Story” Tuesday night, claiming that absent testimony speaking to that point, “a quid pro quo is legally impossible.”
He was referring to the now-famous phone call on July 25 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump pressed for investigations into 2016 election interference and Biden family dealings in the country, specifically Hunter Biden's role on the board of natural gas firm Burisma Holdings.
A source familiar with the testimony confirmed to Fox News that during questioning on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Taylor said the Ukrainians did not know at the time of the call about the hold on U.S. military aid.
“The mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false — I questioned him directly on that,” Ratcliffe said Tuesday. “I can’t tell you what he said … but I can tell you what he didn’t say — neither he nor any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.”
He added: “You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.”
Comments
-
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said a fellow Republican lawmaker deconstructed a key part of the latest Trump impeachment inquiry witness testimony in Tuesday's closed-door session.
"In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy [acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill] Taylor's whole argument," McCarthy said.
The questioning by Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican and member of both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, was an important moment in the hearing, McCarthy claimed.
"We can't really talk about it," he said.
Ratcliffe appeared on Fox News after the testimony and said there were new details brought to light, but said nothing "worthy of impeachment."
McCarthy added House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is not allowing lawmakers to speak too specifically about the proceedings, in an interview Tuesday on "The Ingraham Angle."
"Adam Schiff won't let us talk about what happened," he said regarding U.S. diplomat to Ukraine Bill Taylor's closed-door hearing on Capitol Hill. "There is no quid pro quo."
The California lawmaker also claimed the impeachment inquiry process continues to be based largely on testimony from those without first-hand knowledge of the Trump-Ukraine situation.
"The one thing that you find out in this process is all this information is just like that whistleblower... everything is second-, third-, and fourth-hand information," he said.
He criticized Schiff for how he is conducting the proceedings, claiming the relevant Republican lawmakers are unable to view information from the hearings unless they are accompanied by the chairman's staff members.
"What they are doing [is] they are changing every rule we ever had," he said. -
Cool story bro.
-
Look at the shill right on time
Hondo wouldn't know the truth if it curb stomped him to death -
No one cares
-
-
Of course it was quid pro quo. Life is quid pro quo. Don't let the progressives co opt that word too.
Again, if Trump is 'quid pro quo' for demanding assistance in investigation, Biden is just as guilty of 'quid pro quo' on the other side demanding removal of the investigator.
It's the same FUCKING thing. Just opposite sides of the same quid.
-
Only a simple mind thinks they are the same thing. It's almost like there are facts and circumstances that are different in each scenario.PurpleThrobber said:Of course it was quid pro quo. Life is quid pro quo. Don't let the progressives co opt that word too.
Again, if Trump is 'quid pro quo' for demanding assistance in investigation, Biden is just as guilty of 'quid pro quo' on the other side demanding removal of the investigator.
It's the same FUCKING thing. Just opposite sides of the same quid. -
Go ahead - explain it.2001400ex said:
Only a simple mind thinks they are the same thing. It's almost like there are facts and circumstances that are different in each scenario.PurpleThrobber said:Of course it was quid pro quo. Life is quid pro quo. Don't let the progressives co opt that word too.
Again, if Trump is 'quid pro quo' for demanding assistance in investigation, Biden is just as guilty of 'quid pro quo' on the other side demanding removal of the investigator.
It's the same FUCKING thing. Just opposite sides of the same quid.
-
Tell us more oh ye of the complex mind2001400ex said:
Only a simple mind thinks they are the same thing. It's almost like there are facts and circumstances that are different in each scenario.PurpleThrobber said:Of course it was quid pro quo. Life is quid pro quo. Don't let the progressives co opt that word too.
Again, if Trump is 'quid pro quo' for demanding assistance in investigation, Biden is just as guilty of 'quid pro quo' on the other side demanding removal of the investigator.
It's the same FUCKING thing. Just opposite sides of the same quid. -
Biden is guilty of a quid pro quo to further US, EU, IMF and Ukrainian ant-corruption interests. Trump is guilty of a quid pro quo to further his own political interests...which in the mind of trumptards is the same FUCKING thing...PurpleThrobber said:Of course it was quid pro quo. Life is quid pro quo. Don't let the progressives co opt that word too.
Again, if Trump is 'quid pro quo' for demanding assistance in investigation, Biden is just as guilty of 'quid pro quo' on the other side demanding removal of the investigator.
It's the same FUCKING thing. Just opposite sides of the same quid.
