Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump pushed to oust her

Great, more feelings. Yes, lets impeach a POTUS based on what some random diplomat feels

Edit: Its obvious the witness has been trained by the dems, always speaking fluently without stuttering and answering longwinded everytime and recollects old quotes etc etc but when Reps asked a question she stutters and stumble & keeps correcting herself.

Is it allowed to coach a witness that claims to be bipartisan? Asking out of curiosity

Democrat questioner says it is immoral and hurtful for trump to smear diplomat.

Why isnt it immoral and hurtful for dems to do that to trump for three years?

a reply to: Grambler

Entitlement....

Republicans once more fail to make the best arguments.

Kent testified Yovanavitch's state dept. pressured ukraine to drop investigations into Soros/Obama paid groups, and ukranians who were found guilty of interfering in the US election to help hillary.

Ask her about it!

a reply to: Grambler

and, orange man bad....

So I'm watching this on CSPAN2, did the sound just get wonky for anyone else?

Gotta hand it to Schiff... he's got one beady eye on the clock!

"The gentleman's time has expired!"

Greg Gutfeld is going to have a ball with this!

TheRedneck

The republicans problem is they are playing defense with this whole situation.

On both the investigation into biden or burisma, and into firing Yovanavicth.

They need to go on offense and argue trump was right to want this investigation and to fire her.

a reply to: Grambler

They did earlier; she denied it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: GramblerKent testified Yovanavitch's state dept. pressured ukraine to drop investigations into Soros/Obama paid

I have missed that, did Kent mention Soros and Obama by name or just named groups that could allegedly have ties with Soros and/or Obama?

Ok so she says she was effective at fighting corruption, but lutsenko was corrupt and didnt investigate Burisma well enough.

Apprently she didt do so good.

And why should we now not want trump investigating this corruption?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grambler

They did earlier; she denied it.

TheRedneck

Who asked her?; i heard it in her opening statement but that was it.

And she denied it, but them said the extent she discussed investigations with Ukrainian prosecutors it was to end corruption.

In other words, she doesnt feel it was wrong for her to pressure the Ukraine to drop investigations into Obama/soros allies, and ukranians that interfered tro help hillary, because stopping those investigations was "fighting corruption"

a reply to: Grambler

I honestly don't remember; I just remember it coming up.

IMO, it is only "fighting corruption" if one defines "fighting corruption" as equivalent to "assisting corruption."

TheRedneck

yovanavitch says she knows trump could fire her for any reason, but why the smear campaign.

GThis actually further points to trump not getting rid of her for corrupt reasons, or he would have done it quietly. Instead, he most likely believed what he and his team was saying.

So I had to run out for a little.

The one democrat asked if she had right to request info from Ukraine investigators, but if she did it for personal reasons its not allowed. says trump had a right to fire her, but if his intent was corrupt its bad.

Same could be true of Biden forcing the prosecutor looking into his sons company fired.

And same could be true of Yovanavicth, who had the right to pressure Ukraine to drop investigations, but we need an investigation as to why it was only into people helping the democrats.

a reply to: Grambler

That's the big question.

George Bush launched a war with Saddam Hussein over WMDs that weren't there (they were trucked over to Syria before the invasion so no one would see the "Made in USA" stamps on them). That was an incorrect decision (according to the media and most of the Congress). I don't remember an impeachment hearing on his bad decision.

When did a bad decision become grounds for impeachment? And so far I'm not even seeing evidence Trump made a bad decision. The Ukrainian investigation hasn't completed yet.

TheRedneck

Yovanavitch said repeatedly the intel community all agreed russia interfered, so that somehow makes it ok to not question if Ukraine investigated.

1. Russia doesnt disprove Ukraine could have interfered.

2. She'll look real bad if we find out the intel community was breaking rukles or laws in its investigation of trump.

You can really watch the blood drain from Schiff's face while she reads off those quotes.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
You can really watch the blood drain from Schiff's face while she reads off those quotes.

This is really great.

Uh, oh, it's the gentleman from California who likes to threaten gunowners with his nukes.

TheRedneck