Le gagnant de la soirée est indubitablement @JoeBiden
, qui a dominé tout le long et a paru le plus fort sur les deux grands dossiers:
1°) Il a répété que les Américains ne veulent pas de Medicare For All.
2°) Il parait le plus à même de battre Donald  
https://twitter.com/BranaaJean/stat [...] 3418963969

Super-forme pour @JoeBiden
 à quelques heures du 5e débat:
 Non pas 1 mais 6 sondages différents le placent au-dessus de 30%. Il a désormais 12,7 points d'avance au niveau national.
@ewarren poursuit sa descente et @BernieSanders se dirige également à la baisse.
https://twitter.com/BranaaJean/stat [...] 0615449602

CHRONIQUE. Sauf improbable coup de théâtre, non seulement l'impeachment n'aboutira pas, mais la procédure sème la pagaille chez les démocrates.
 
...
 
Pete Buttigieg, le jeune maire de South End, dans l'Indiana, a créé cette semaine la surprise en faisant irruption en tête des sondages avant la primaire de l'Iowa, en février, la première de la saison politique. Mais sa percée est pour le moment très locale et repose plus sur le découragement qu'inspirent les autres candidats que sur une adhésion à une position modérée, proche de celle de Biden.
 
Un panel démocrate si décourageant qu'il a donné l'idée à deux nouveaux candidats d'entrer en lice. L'un est l'ancien gouverneur noir du Massachusetts Deval Patrick. Une réputation d'excellent gestionnaire et le soutien d'Obama peuvent l'aider. Mais débarquer dans les primaires avec huit mois de retard n'est pas un gage de réussite.
Et maintenant, Michael Bloomberg
 
C'est aussi le principal handicap de Michael Bloomberg. L'ancien maire de New York s'était abstenu de concourir jusqu'à présent pour ne pas gêner Biden. Son arrivée probable dans la course est un signe de plus de la descente aux enfers de l'ancien vice-président d'Obama. L'atout de ce milliardaire, neuvième fortune du monde, est évidemment son argent. Car contrairement à ce qui se passe dans beaucoup d'autres pays et en particulier le nôtre, la réussite financière n'entraîne pas là-bas immédiatement un procès en suspicion. Elle aide même plutôt à conquérir le pouvoir politique : il a déjà dépensé 100 millions de dollars dans des publicités anti-Trump.
 
Mais pour lui, comme pour les autres potentiels candidats démocrates, l'impeachment pourrait apparaître comme un piège. Le mélange des genres auquel s'est livré Trump dans ses coups de téléphone en Ukraine, la diplomatie parallèle ambiguë de Rudolph Giuliani, son envoyé spécial à Kiev, le doute sur ses relations coupables avec Poutine lors de l'élection de 2016, et plus généralement le mépris affiché à l'égard des engagements passés des États-Unis, comme le prouve le reniement hier de la position constante des Américains depuis quarante ans sur les colonies d'Israël dans les territoires occupés, tout cela aurait pu fournir des arguments électoraux aux démocrates. La procédure de destitution les aura pollués, banalisés ou asséchés avant même que débute la campagne électorale.
 
Nancy Pelosi avait raison : l'impeachment ne mènera nulle part.

Hill to warn of ‘fictional narrative’ on Ukraine

Hill is expected to open her testimony before the impeachment inquiry with a withering attack on House members seeking to sow doubt about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
 
“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,” Hill says in her opening statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.
 
The statement amounts to an apparent rebuke of Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, and others who have used hearings to advance claims that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that waged information warfare against the United States in 2016.
 
Hill’s remarks also appear to be aimed at Trump, who has been depicted by numerous witnesses as either convinced that Ukraine sought to defeat him in 2016, or advancing that conspiratorial claim as a way of deflecting attention from Russia’s involvement.
 
“The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions,” Hill says. “It is beyond dispute.”

Holmes: Barrage of allegations against Yovanovitch unlike anything I've seen in my career.

During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump
to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone, and I heard
him announce himself several times, along the lines of “Gordan Sondland holding for the
President.” It appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards
and assistants. I then noticed Ambassador Sondland’s demeanor change, and understood that
he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on
speakerphone, I could hear the President’s voice through the earpiece of the phone. The
President’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone
away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.
I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from
Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine.
Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President
Zelenskyy “loves your ass.” I then heard President Trump ask, “So, he’s gonna do the
investigation?” Ambassador Sondland replied that “he’s gonna do it,” adding that President
Zelenskyy will do “anything you ask him to.” Even though I did not take notes of these
statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my
colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking
with the President.
 
The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland’s efforts, on behalf of the
President, to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden, and I could only hear Ambassador
Sondland’s side of that part of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the President that
the rapper was “kind of f----d there,” and “should have pled guilty.” He recommended that the
President “wait until after the sentencing or it will make it worse,” adding that the President
should “let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker-tape when he comes
home.” Ambassador Sondland further told the President that Sweden “should have released
him on your word,” but that “you can tell the Kardashians you tried.”
After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad
mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the
opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President’s views on  
Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not
“give a s--t about Ukraine.” Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not “give a s--t
about Ukraine.” I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only
cares about “big stuff.” I noted that there was “big stuff” going on in Ukraine, like a war with
Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant “big stuff” that benefits the President,
like the “Biden investigation” that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. The conversation then moved on
to other topics.

Upon returning to the Embassy, I immediately briefed my direct supervisor, the Deputy
Chief of Mission, about Ambassador Sondland’s call with President Trump and my subsequent
conversation with Ambassador Sondland. I told others at the Embassy about the call as well. I
also emailed an Embassy official in Sweden regarding the issue with the U.S. rapper that was
discussed on the call.
 
July 26 was my last day in the office ahead of a planned vacation that ended on August
6. After returning to the Embassy, I told Ambassador Taylor about the July 26 call. I also
repeatedly referred to the call and conversation with Ambassador Sondland in meetings and
conversations where the issue of the President’s interest in Ukraine was potentially relevant.
At that time, Ambassador Sondland’s statement of the President’s lack of interest in Ukraine
was of particular focus. We understood that in order to secure a meeting between President
Trump and President Zelenskyy, we would have to work hard to find a way to explain Ukraine’s
importance to President Trump in terms that he found compelling.