This witness -- David Holmes -- testifies that the direction of foreign policy in the Ukraine changed from promoting democracy, and opposing Russian aggression, to promoting the president's own political needs . . . and that this was done on a channel of direction directly from the White House. If that is not an impeachable offense, I don't know what is. If this is not considered sufficient evidence (since there is also supporting evidence) to convict, what is? Read what Holmes testifies during the House hearings:
Holmes says that under Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, the effort was to fight corruption in Ukraine. Then, he says:
"Beginning in March 2019, the situation at the Embassy and in Ukraine changed dramatically. Specifically, our diplomatic policy that had been focused on supporting Ukrainian democratic reform and resistance to Russian aggression became overshadowed by a political agenda being promoted by Rudy Giuliani and a cadre of officials operating with a direct channel to the White House."
\
No comments:
Post a Comment