Online users
???: Message???: Message  

Andy McCarthy: No crime in transcripts
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

11/06/2019, 12:04:25

Author Profile Mail author Edit
www.wnd.com

Andy McCarthy: No crime in transcripts - WND

WND Staff
4-5 minutes

House Democrats who released transcripts of the testimonies of former ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker contend they bolster the case for impeachment of President Trump.

But former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew C. McCarthy said Tuesday he doesn't see any crimes or actions worthy of impeachment.

"It seems to me like a really botched situation," he said. "And what I'm fearful of, frankly, is we're all going to strain our brains for the next few weeks to get to the bottom of what actually happened here, and what we're going to find is that it's much ado about nothing."

TRENDING: Duggar son runs for office, vows to 'defend' 2nd Amendment and 'stand up for religious liberty'

He emphasized that "a lot of people had an idea about doing things that they shouldn't have done, but ultimately nothing ever happened."

"You know, the Ukrainians got their aid — nothing ended up being pulled back from them. They didn't have to make a commitment to investigate the Bidens."

He believes Ukraine should have been asked to investigate the Bidens for violations of Ukrainian law, and the aid should not have been delayed after Congress passed it and the president signed the legislation.

The best defense, he said, is going to be, "No harm, no foul."

In a tweet Monday, McCarthy wrote: "The president's best defense continues to be that any misconduct in his dealings with Ukraine was not impeachable under the circumstances. The sooner he and GOP defenders shift away from 'perfect' and to that, the better off they'll be."

'I now recall'

Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, who was among the Republican lawmakers in attendance at the depositions, noted in a tweet Tuesday that Democrats and the media are focusing on Sondland's updated testimony in which he said he told Andriy Yermak, an aide to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, that the military aid may not be released without an anti-corruption statement by Zelensky.

Sondland testified: "I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks."

Meadows argued that even if one thinks Sondland's statement to Yermak was "nefarious," it was based on Sondland's assumption. He admitted previously in his updated testimony that didn't know -- and still doesn't know -- why aid was delayed.

Sondland said he "presumed" it was because of corruption.

Meadows insisted the Volker and Sondland transcripts show President Trump "wanted to clean up corruption in Ukraine, and ensure taxpayer funded aid wasn’t going to corrupt causes."

"Only D.C. Democrats could spin protecting taxpayer money into an impeachable offense," he wrote. "Blatant partisanship."

Noting Volker testified before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees in October, Meadows said his testimony "once again proves there was no quid pro quo in Trump's dealings with Ukraine."

Meadows asked Volker: "And in no way, shape, or form in either the readouts from the United States or Ukraine did you receive any indication whatsoever for anything that resembles a quid pro quo?"

Volker replied: "Correct."

Volker, who resigned in late September, also was asked: "Did President Trump ever withhold a meeting with President Zelensky or delay a meeting with President Zelensky until the Ukrainians committed to investigate the allegations that you described concerning the 2016 election?"

Volker: "The answer to the question is no ... we did have difficulty scheduling a meeting, but there was no linkage like that."





LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message