Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump pushed to oust her

Periscope i did on the first part of this testimony

twitter.com...

Price Is Right has been joined in progress. Even the networks are tired of these ratings.

Funny how the narrative is being framed by not covering the cross examination?

a reply to: Grambler

Good summery so far.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Price Is Right has been joined in progress. Even the networks are tired of these ratings.

Funny how the narrative is being framed by not covering the cross examination?

Be curious to see if they go back to it. My guess is they wont. They have the narrative for the evening news now.

Witness tampering.....lol. But for the fact that Schiff read the presidents tweet to the witness during the course of the hearing, she would have not known about the tweet. How the hell is that witness tampering?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Price Is Right has been joined in progress. Even the networks are tired of these ratings.

Funny how the narrative is being framed by not covering the cross examination?

Same as the first testimony on wednesday.

Dems filibuster for about 2 hours, then take an intermission, knowing most people will have tuned out by the time republicans get to respond.

a reply to: Ahabstar

If you saw the thread I started last night, people across America were angry that their daytime shows were interrupted on Wednesday by droning diplomats.

a reply to: carewemust

Charles Adams couldn't have come up with the absurdity of the modern American.

a reply to: carewemust
OH NO!!! Double posted, sorry

Why is Yovanavitch, who admits she wasnt even around when the black ledger (aka election interference from Ukraine) was released, allowed to testify that it was all a lie.

But the Dems wont let Alexandra Chulpa, the actual DNC operative who was in Ukraine getting the ledger from the Ukrainian officials who were interfering in the election, testify?

a reply to: Grambler

Thanks Grambler. Good to know I didn't miss anything by sleeping in this morning.

This hearing was such a dud, that now all the talking heads are saying the most important thing so far was the President's tweet..........should tell you how irrelevant the rest of the testimony was.

She served at the pleasure of the President. He doesn't need to 'take steps to oust her'. He simply needs to fire her.
Democrats have lost their minds. They actually think a President of the United States removing an ambassador warrants testimony at an impeachment hearing. Crazy.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
This hearing was such a dud, that now all the talking heads are saying the most important thing so far was the President's tweet..........should tell you how irrelevant the rest of the testimony was.

So now the dem position i trump is not only not allowed to fire an ambassador or he gets impeached, but he isnt even allowed to speak badly of her to defend why he fired her?

Wow!

originally posted by: UKTruth
She served at the pleasure of the President. He doesn't need to 'take steps to oust her'. He simply needs to fire her.
Democrats have lost their minds. They actually think a President of the United States removing an ambassador warrants testimony at an impeachment hearing. Crazy.

and they seem to think that mean tweets are witness tampering........

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: UKTruth
She served at the pleasure of the President. He doesn't need to 'take steps to oust her'. He simply needs to fire her.
Democrats have lost their minds. They actually think a President of the United States removing an ambassador warrants testimony at an impeachment hearing. Crazy.

and they seem to think that mean tweets are witness tampering........

I saw that. Utterly hilarious.

a reply to: Grambler

The Senate is going to go right to the heart of the matter. Johnson preparing to subpoena Whistleblower, Bidens, Schiff.

thehill.com...

If guilliani is called on to testify, does that mean all of the democrats mean tweets and comments about him are also witness tampering?

Well, it's nice to know that Shiff considers witness tampering so serious... I wonder how serious he considers denial of Constitutional rights?

All of the following is from the US Constitution:

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

OK so far. Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

OK, still so far so good. The House of Representatives gets to impeach the President over crimes committed. It's therefore a criminal investigation for prosecution.

Amendment 6:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Whoa! Wait a minute! Donald Trump is under a criminal investigation for impeachment. He has the right to counsel and to confront the witnesses against him. He just did that by releasing a tweet that explained why he fired the Ambassador. Rudy Guiliani is his counsel. How can Shiff then claim that his tweet defending hmself and his use of counsel is grounds for impeachment?

Sounds to me like Adam Schiff needs to go back to school, or at least to the public library. I'm sure they have a copy of the Constitution there.

Furthermore, the opening statement admitted two things: she served at the pleasure of the President, and her job was to assist with official policy as determined by the President and Congress. According to the Constitution (yeah, that irritating thing again), Congress' role is advisory. Foreign policy is set by the President. So how exactly is she then complaining that the present policy is improper because the State Department (read: she) disagrees with it?

Maybe they both can go to the library together...

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grambler

Yes.

TheRedneck