Ratcliffe: No witness has used the word bribery


IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF BRIBERY EVIDENCED IN HIS JULY 25th CALL TRANSCRIPT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. MULTIPLE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE GAVE TV AND RADIO INTERVIEWS OVER THE PAST WEEK DISCUSSING HOW THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT SUPPORTED HIS IMPEACHMENT FOR COMMITTING BRIBERY. ALL OF WHICH STRUCK ME AS VERY ODD BECAUSE FOR THE LONGEST TIME THIS WAS ALL ABOUT QUID PRO QUO ACCORDING TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. BUT AFTER WITNESS AFTER WITNESS BEGAN SAYING THERE WAS NO QUIT PRO KUO OR EVEN THAT QUID PRO QUO WAS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, WE SAW A SHIFT FROM THE DEMOCRATS. THEY BRIEFLY STARTED TO REFER TO THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT ON THE JULY 25th CALL AS EXTORTION. AND NOW IT’S SHIFTED AGAIN LAST WEEK TO BRIBERY. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU USED THE WORD UNUSUAL TO DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT’S CALL LAST — ON JULY 25th. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU USED THE WORD INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER. I’VE WORD SEARCHED EACH OF YOUR TRANSCRIPTS AND THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE DOESN’T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THAT. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU HAVE NEVER USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT, CORRECT?>>NO, SIR.>>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN’T EITHER.>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>THE PROBLEM IS, IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAYS IS ALL ABOUT BRIBERY, WHERE BRIBERY IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, NO WITNESS HAS USED THE WORD BRIBERY TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT. NONE OF THEM. THESE ARE ALL OF THE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, THESE ARE JUST THE 10 THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED. SIX WEEKS OF WITNESS INTERVIEWS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TESTIMONY, THOUSANDS OF QUESTIONS ASKED, THOUSANDS OF ANSWERS GIVEN, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT WITNESSES HAVE BEEN ASKED ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT CONSTITUTED BRIBERY BEFORE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS ASKED BY MY COLLEAGUE CONGRESSMAN STEWART LAST THURSDAY IS ZERO. THE NUMBER OF TIMES WITNESSES HAVE USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT IN THE LAST SIX WEEKS OF THIS INQUIRY IS ZERO. IN FACT, IN THESE 3500 PAGES OF SWORN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN JUST THESE 10 TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED THUS FAR THE WORD BRIBERY APPEARS IN THESE 3500 PAGES EXACTLY ONE TIME AND IRONICALLY IT APPEARS NOT IN A DESCRIPTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ALLEGED CONDUCT. IT APPEARS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN’S ALLEGED CONDUCT. MY COLLEAGUES WILL SAY WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE EVIDENCE ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT FOR BRIBERY AND THEY’LL SEND A REPORT TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS IT WILL LIKELY PASS. AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT WHEN THE DEMOCRATS, WHAT THEY’RE DESCRIBING AS BRIBERY, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS IS DESCRIBING AS BRIBERY. WE’VE HEARD MANY TIMES IN THE COURSE OF THIS PROCEEDING THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESIDENT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ASKING IF THE FACTS ARE THE SAME, WHY DO THE CRIMES THAT THE PRESIDENT IS BEING ACCUSED OF KEEP CHANGING? WHY DO WE GO FROM QUID PRO QUO, TO EXTORTION, NOW TO BRIBERY? CHAIRMAN NUNES TOLD YOU THE ANSWER. THE ANSWER IS POLLING. WASHINGTON TIMES ASKED AMERICANS WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST DAMNING ACCUSATION. IT CAME BACK BRIBERY. THIS CASE IS ALL ABOUT BRIBERY. IT’S BAD ENOUGH THAT THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITHOUT YOUR LAWYERS PRESENT BUT WHAT’S EVEN WORSE IS TRYING TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST AN ACCUSATION THAT KEEPS CHANGING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCEEDING. IF DEMOCRATS ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT OF HIGH CRIME OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HE OUGHT TO KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS. WHEN SPEAKER PELOSI SAYS IT’S ALL ABOUT BRIBERY SHE PROMISED OF EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY THAT WOULD BE COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND INSTEAD IT’S INVISIBLE. I YIELD BACK.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, I’D LIKE TO JOIN EVERYONE IN THINKING BOTH OF OUR WITNESSES FOR YOUR SERVICE. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, AS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *