欧洲新闻网 | 中国 | 国际 | 社会 | 娱乐 | 时尚 | 民生 | 科技 | 旅游 | 体育 | 财经 | 健康 | 文化 | 艺术 | 人物 | 家居 | 公益 | 视频 | 华人
投稿邮箱:uscntv@outlook.com
主页 > 头条 > 正文

新证据支持特朗普弹劾听证会的交换条件

2019-11-14 18:03   美国新闻网   - 

 

  众议院公开弹劾听证会的第一天,见证人强化指控,并揭露新证据。唐纳德·特朗普总统向乌克兰总统施压,要求其在接受军事援助前启动出于政治动机的调查,作为交换条件。

  与此同时,共和党人试图损害这两位证人——代理美国驻乌克兰大使威廉·泰勒和负责欧洲和欧亚事务的副助理国务卿乔治·肯特——的可信度,称他们的证词是“道听途说”,同时还深入探讨他们的论点,即不可能发生交换,因为乌克兰最初不知道近4亿美元的援助,而且白宫访问被搁置。

  尽管周三电视听证会上披露的大部分信息已经通过证人证词的转录被曝光,但公开诉讼为立法者提供了第一次正式机会,直接向美国人民提供支持或反对弹劾的证据。

  泰勒和肯特告诉众议院情报委员会成员,虽然乌克兰总统沃洛迪米尔·泽伦斯基和他的官员不知道在臭名昭著的7月25日与特朗普的电话中,援助被扣留,但乌克兰官员在8月下旬开始意识到这一点,并开始表示担忧。

  泰勒还重申了美国驻欧盟大使戈登·桑德兰私下作证时说的话。桑德兰此前私下告诉立法者,他通知乌克兰官员,在该国公开承诺对与乔·拜登的儿子亨特有关联的乌克兰天然气公司布里斯马以及关于2016年乌克兰干涉美国选举的阴谋论展开调查之前,不会公布援助。

  虽然肯特说他在2015年去过副总统办公室,提出“我担心亨特·拜登作为董事会成员的身份可能会造成利益冲突的感觉”,但他“没有看到任何美国官员试图保护布里斯马免受审查。”

  职业外交官进一步表示,他们担心政府中存在“不正常”的外交政策渠道,其中一些渠道对美国的利益“适得其反”。

impeachment hearing bolsters quid pro quo
11月13日,美国驻乌克兰代理大使威廉·泰勒(左)和负责欧洲和欧亚事务的副助理国务卿乔治·肯特宣誓在众议院弹劾听证会上作证。吉姆·洛·斯卡索-普尔/盖蒂的照片
 

  泰勒作证说:“因为这种安全援助对乌克兰和我们自己的国家利益都非常重要,除了帮助一场政治运动之外,别无其他正当理由地拒绝这种援助是没有意义的。”。“这与我们一直试图做的一切适得其反。这是不合逻辑的。这无法解释。太疯狂了。”

  一条此前未披露的信息来自泰勒。他告诉议员们,7月26日——特朗普和泽伦斯基通话的第二天——特朗普在泰勒的一名员工在场的一家餐厅给桑德拉打了电话。

  泰勒说:“在与特朗普总统通话后,我的工作人员询问桑德兰大使特朗普总统对乌克兰的看法。”。“桑德兰大使回应说,特朗普总统更关心拜登的调查,这是[·鲁迪]朱利安尼迫切要求的。”

  泰勒说他直到最近才被他的员工告知这个信息。

  与此同时,共和党人试图质疑泰勒和肯特的可信度,强调他们没有在7月25日的电话中,也没有与特朗普和米克·马尔瓦尼交谈。马尔瓦尼身兼白宫代理参谋长兼预算和管理办公室主任,他按照特朗普的指示暂停了军事援助。

  由于证人缺乏第一手知识,共和党人认为任何证词都是“道听途说”和无关紧要的。

  众议员吉姆·乔丹(俄亥俄州共和党人)对泰勒说:“我们有六个人在一句话里进行了四次对话,你刚刚告诉我,这就是你得到清晰理解的地方。”。“这是我不敢相信的。你是[民主党的明星证人。我见过比这更容易理解的教堂祈祷链。"

  泰勒回应道:“我不认为自己是任何事情的明星证人....我的理解只来自我交谈过的人。”

  虽然共和党人批评他们的民主党同事没有提出第一手证人,但民主党人指出他们没能提出,因为白宫告诉像马尔瓦尼这样的几个证人不要遵从众议院的弹劾调查。

  共和党人还认为,因为泽兰斯基最终从未按照特朗普和他周围的其他人的要求展开调查——尽管泰勒作证说乌克兰官员告诉他泽兰斯基有计划——乌克兰没有接受援助的要求,因此也没有交换条件。民主党人指出,只有在揭发者的投诉被揭露后,援助才被释放,乌克兰最终意识到了这一搁置。

  “泽兰斯基需要做什么才能得到援助?答案是什么,”众议员约翰·拉特克利夫说。“他没有做任何众议院民主党人说他被强迫、胁迫和威胁要做的事情。他什么也没做,因为他不必做。”

  至少有一名民主党人试图直接反驳这一说法,询问谋杀、抢劫、勒索和贿赂等犯罪未遂是否仍然是犯罪,尽管没有成功实施最终行为。

IMPEACHMENT HEARING WITNESSES SUPPORT QUID PRO QUO ALLEGATIONS AS GOP TRIES TO TEAR INTO THEIR CREDIBILITY

  The first day of the House's public impeachment hearings featured witnesses reinforcing allegations and bringing to light new evidence there was a quid pro quo by President Donald Trump in pressuring his Ukrainian counterpart to initiate politically motivated investigations before receiving military aid.

  At the same time, Republicans aimed to damage the credibility of the two witnesses—acting U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent—by calling their testimony "hearsay" while also digging into their argument that a quid pro quo could not have occurred because Ukraine was initially unaware the nearly $400 million in aid and a White House visit was being withheld.

  Though much of the information revealed from Wednesday's televised hearings had already come to light via transcriptions from witness depositions, the public proceeding offered lawmakers their first official opportunity to take their evidence for or against impeachment directly to the American people.

  Taylor and Kent told members of the House Intelligence Committee that while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his officials were unaware aid was being held during the infamous July 25 phone call with Trump, Ukrainian officials became aware in late August and began expressing concerns.

  Taylor also reiterated what U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland had said in testimony behind closed doors. Sondland previously told lawmakers privately that he notified Ukrainian officials the aid would not be released until the country publicly committed to opening investigations into Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company tied to Joe Biden's son, Hunter, and a conspiracy theory about 2016 U.S. election interference by Ukraine.  

  Although Kent said he went to the office of the vice president in 2015 to raise "my concern that Hunter Biden's status as board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest," he "did not witness any efforts by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny."

  The career diplomats further stated concerns about the existence of "irregular" channels that existed in the administration to conduct foreign policy, with some of it being "counterproductive" to U.S. interests.

impeachment hearing bolsters quid pro quo
Acting U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine William Taylor, left, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent are sworn in to testify before a House impeachment hearing on November 13.PHOTO BY JIM LO SCALZO-POOL/GETTY
 

  A previously undisclosed piece of information came from Taylor. He informed lawmakers that on July 26—the day after the Trump-Zelenskiy call—Trump phoned Sondland at a restaurant, where one of Taylor's staffers was present.

  "Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine," Taylor said. "Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which [Rudy] Giuliani was pressing for."

  Taylor said he was not informed of the information until recently by his staffer.

  Republicans, meanwhile, sought to call into question the credibility of Taylor and Kent by highlighting the fact that they were not on the July 25 phone call and had spoken with neither Trump nor Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney, who wears two hats as acting White House chief of staff and head of the Office of Budget and Management, placed the hold on the military aid at Trump's direction.

  Because of the witnesses' lack of firsthand knowledge, the Republicans viewed any testimony as "hearsay" and irrelevant.

  "We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding," Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said to Taylor. "This is what I can't believe. You're [Democrats'] star witness. I've seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this."

  Taylor responded by saying: "I don't consider myself a star witness of anything.... My understanding is only coming from people I talked to."

  While Republicans have criticized their Democratic colleagues for not bringing forward firsthand witnesses, Democrats have noted they've been unable to because the White House told several witnesses like Mulvaney to not comply with the House's impeachment inquiry.

  Republicans also argued that because Zelenskiy ultimately never opened the investigations requested by Trump and others around him—despite testimony from Taylor that Ukrainian officials told him Zelenskiy had plans to—there were no requirements for Ukraine to receive the aid and thus no quid pro quo. Democrats have pointed out that the aid was released only after the existence of a whistleblower complaint was revealed and that Ukraine eventually became aware of the hold.

  "What did Zelenskiy have to do to get aid? The answer is nothing," said Representative John Ratcliffe (R-Texas). "He didn't do any of the things that House Democrats say he was being forced and coerced and threatened to do. He didn't do anything because he didn't have to."

  At least one Democrat sought to directly rebut that assertion by asking whether attempted crimes, such as murder, robbery, extortion and bribery, were still crimes, despite not successfully committing the final acts.

  Taylor responded in the affirmative.

  声明:文章大多转自网络,旨在更广泛的传播。本文仅代表作者个人观点,与美国新闻网无关。其原创性以及文中陈述文字和内容未经本站证实,对本文以及其中全部或者部分内容、文字的真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。如有稿件内容、版权等问题请联系删除。联系邮箱:uscntv@outlook.com。

上一篇:报告警告称,美国选举供应商几乎没有监管,有“严重”网络安全风险
下一篇:北极冷锋横扫美国,带来创纪录的寒冷

热点新闻

重要通知

服务之窗

关于我们| 联系我们| 广告服务| 供稿服务| 法律声明| 招聘信息| 网站地图

本网站所刊载信息,不代表美国新闻网的立场和观点。 刊用本网站稿件,务经书面授权。

美国新闻网由欧洲华文电视台美国站主办 www.uscntv.com

[部分稿件来源于网络,如有侵权请及时联系我们] [邮箱:uscntv@outlook.com]