Oh, by the way, it would make no difference whether it was the Ukrainian prosecutor or Zelenskyy himself announced the investigation. The key is that the investigation tied US aid to benefiting Trumpâs campaign.
(Apparently, Lt. Col. Vindman had a better sense of right and wrong than this guy.)
You are probably right but nothing too disturbing here other than Morrison has an odd view of extortion. He was concerned about the conversation being leaked and ramifications of it. So there is that.
Is he saying he didnât hear anything âillegalâ because Ukraine didnât give Trump the information on the phone? Or because he didnât think pay for play with a foreign country was illegal?
If youâre of the persuasion that âif the President does it, then itâs legalâ then, yeah, this guyâs take makes sense. Thereâs more than a few of 'em out there, especially in the current executive branch.
How did Morrison last 19 years working in the govt and NOT know that it is unlawful to SOLICIT foreign election help âI need a favor thoughâ let alone NOT recognize a Quid Pro Quo?
Despite Morrison being more concerned on the leaking side vs the unlawful act, he is throwing Sondland under the busâŚand there is omitted wordâŚBURISM!
According to Taylorâs testimony, Sondland told Morrison that security assistance Congress had appropriated for Ukraine was dependent upon Zelensky committing to the investigations Trump wanted.
However, Morrison recalled Thursday that Sondland told the Ukrainian aide âit could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor generalânot President Zelenskyâwould commit to pursue the Burisma investigation.â
Good thing Morrison is leaving the NSC because he clearly is NOT the right person to work there! Watch where he goesâŚany plum and high dollar position?
Farkas, in pointing out the kind of witness she suspected Morrison to be, did not seem as alarmed as this gambit seems to merit.
Trump was quite aware of what he wanted with Ukraine, and one more Sondland-type person does not alter that. What it does is once again demonstrating the ability of Donald Trump and the people with whom he is connected to corrupt.
For example, most individuals heard and saw reference to records of the Famous Phone CallâŚwithout an automatic reflex-action of thinking of things like alterations of those recordsâŚ
And yet, when Vindman brought up that scenario, we were not surprised.
That sounds like the plan, but Sondland isnât a nobody bureaucratic functionary that they can expect to just push around. Heâs got money and his own reputation (quickly going down the tubes as it may be) and if he realizes heâs being set up to take the fall, I expect his lips are suddenly going to start being a lot looser.
This guy is a trumpie. Former House Republican Staffer. Look at what he saw/heard (extortion, etc) that is what matters. His characterization of what happened as not of concern has no significance. It should be attacked as a justification. Morrison (unlike others, including Hill) did nothing, reported nothing. He was complicit in allowing Trump to do what he did. he put party over country, unlike Vindman and Hill and Taylor. This needs to be pointed out.
âHow did Morrison last 19 years working in the govt and NOT know that it is unlawful to SOLICIT foreign election help âI need a favor thoughâ let alone NOT recognize a Quid Pro Quo?"
That is exactly how Morrison lasted 19 years working in govt, hear no evil, speak no evil.
My questions for Morrison -
Who does Morrison think Kashyap Patel is? What does Morrison think Patelâs job is?
and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship
How would the leak of a MemCont of a phone call that Ukraine was on the other end of impact Ukrainian perceptions of what was said on the phone? Please explain your concern.