WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (Yovanovich)

I assume you'll be starting additional threads like this for each day of testimony?? I cannot wait to see Sondland's day... I'm finally slogging through his original deposition this evening... No wonder why he hustled in to do an amended statement, because there are holes you can have Trump drive a truck through (simulate truck horn noises now)...

An interesting aside, which I didn't put together since Sondland wasn't as important back then, but the Whack-a-doo Mulvaney press conference was held the same day as this original deposition. Schiff refers to it after the lunch break.

Gotta give it to Schiff's staff... between that reference and reading Trump's intimidation tweet almost real time, he gets things in the record...

 

He's the defacto (not delecto) defendant here.... of course he's going to be referenced and accused. But there is no such thing as defendant intimidation, that I'm aware of...

 

Schumer was there and said perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice did not warrant impeachment and removal. What say he now?

How about Nadler who now heads the committee that writes it up?

"According to an October 4, 1998, Associated Press article that touted Nadler’s role as a top Clinton defender, the then-51 year-old congressman said:

I am the president’s defender in the sense that I haven’t seen anything yet that would rise, in my opinion, to the level of impeachable offense. …

I wish we could get this over with quickly. … In pushing the process, in pushing the arguments of fairness and due process the Republicans so far have been running a lynch mob."
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-of-running-a-lynch-mob-against-bill-clinton/


How about Feinstein? Remember her wanting to censure Clinton instead of remove? From her resolution..

"
So, what did Feinstein's resolution say?

As recorded in the Congressional Record, it said: "Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, gave false or misleading testimony and his actions have had the effect of impeding discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings;

CARTOONS | MICHAEL RAMIREZ
VIEW CARTOON
"Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct in this matter, is unacceptable for a President of the United States, does demean the Office of the President as well as the President himself, and creates disrespect for the laws of the land ...

"Whereas future generations of Americans must know that such behavior is not acceptable but also bears grave consequences, including the loss of integrity, trust and respect ..."

In one of its final paragraphs, it resolved: "That the United States Senate recognizes the historic gravity of this bipartisan resolution and trusts and urges that future congresses will recognize the importance of allowing this bipartisan statement of censure and condemnation to remain intact for all time.""
https://townhall.com/columnists/ter...n-gave-false-or-misleading-testimony-n2230987


Yet she voted not to remove him that perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice did not warrant it.

How about Pelosi?
"“Today the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance," then-House Minority Leader Pelosi declared on the House floor in December 1998.

She continued, "In the investigation of the president, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear -- fairness, privacy, checks and balances -- have been seriously violated and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton. ... Until the Republicans free themselves of that hatred, our country will suffer.”"
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nancy-pelosi-bill-clinton-impeachment-house-speech

Yet she and Schiff have created this insult to the Constitution with this secret one sided impeachment where we can't even find out who brought the charges.

 

And has he been attacked? I think prosecutors try to intimidate the people they are prosecuting routinely.

So you think Schiff should be able to decide who will testify and call them there to attack Trump with some immunity and impunity from rebuttal and comment, the defendant is to be silent?

 

*******n, you are still trying to pretend that witness intimidation can not happen when someone who is currently testifying had given previous testimony? Seriously. It makes no sense.

And yes, your first amendment rights are "limited" such that you can not threaten a witness when you are the target of an investigation. Get over it.

 

Yes? Has he testified?

 

Oh nice. Thanks. I'll have to check out that article when I get a chance.

 

The Democrats are affording Republicans more rights and privileges than were granted during Clinton's impeachment.

And my point, obviously, is that some vague reference to a standard espoused by some Democrats 20 years ago, the overwhelming percentage of which are no longer in office, is almost entirely not relevant and is certainly not dispositive.

 

Most everybody was on the opposite side of the fence back then... I'll raise you Lindsey and probably every other R in that article.

The House of Representatives will be bringing the charges... If they put one thing in there based exclusively on something from the WB, I'll yell for his/her appearance right with ya..... They won't.

Trump can answer them one by one in the trial... or not, I don't really care if he mounts a defense or not... I assume if he does, it'll be a YUGE deflection away from the articles at hand, meaning it will likely be up to Roberts how far he lets that **** go...

 

Tell me your actual name first. Then, I'll let you know whether you are likely to be sued for slander.

 

That is interesting and I had forgotten that they took place on the same day. Needless to say, there is a whole host of new questions that Sondland will be answering.

I still cant wrap my head around why he doesnt deserve to have his own day.

But yes, I plan to make a new thread for each day of public testimony.

 

Actually, make that 70, with the passing of Congressman Cummings...

It's amazing how many long term members of Congress I barely recognize.... Some people were meant for the back benches, even in the US.

 

It's a schedule and cannot be written in stone.... has to be flexibility in there...

The afternoon crew is L. Cooper and D. Hale.... If/when Sondland takes more time than expected, those 2 can be bumped...

I'm pretty sure I found the part of the deposition where Sondland had his 'Oh crap' moment and had to come back in..

Page 93..

 

You're dodging my point.

Let me rephrase the question.


Do you want to live in a country in which persons are convicted of crimes based solely on someone's opinion?

 

That's a hopelessly vague question. People are routinely convicted because of the unanimous opinions of jury members and the unilateral opinion of a judge in certain circumstances.

 

Well let me narrow it down a bit.

Do you want to live in a country where people are convicted of crimes based solely upon the opinion of their accuser?

 

No, but I do believe it appropriate to live in a country where the critical piece of evidence turns on whether you believe the opinion of the accuser or the accused.

For example, a rape case where the only evidence is the statement given by the accuser who alleges that the sex was not consensual while the accused alleges that the sex was consensual. If the jury evaluates the allegation according to the appropriate standard and decides that a rape did occur, then the accused should be punished even though the accused is being convicted based "solely on the opinion of the accused."

 

Even if both participants say there was no rape?

 

Coming attractions:

Who is testifying?

Tuesday, first panel at 9 a.m. ET

• Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council. Vindman listened to the July 25 telephone conversation in the White House Situation Room and reported his concerns about the president's mention of political investigations to the top NSC attorney, John Eisenberg. He said the attorney decided to move the record of the call onto a highly classified system that few could access.
• Jennifer Williams, a foreign service aide detailed to Vice President Pence's office who listened in on the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy.

Tuesday, second panel at 2:30 p.m. ET

• Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, who along with Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry was part of the "three amigos" tasked by the president to handle Ukraine policy. He was on the list of witnesses requested to appear by Republican members of the Intelligence Committee.
• Tim Morrison, the former National Security Council aide who heard the July 25 call but in closed-door testimony told the committees conducting the impeachment inquiry that he didn't view the president's actions as illegal or inappropriate. Republicans say his testimony supports the president's position that there was nothing improper about the July 25 call, and they included him on a list of witnesses they asked the Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to call.

Wednesday, first panel at 9 a.m. ET

• Gordon Sondland. Once a top donor to the president's inaugural committee, Sondland has faced intense scrutiny about his closed-door testimony after he sent the committee a three-page amendment reversing his initial account. In that addendum, Sondland said he personally told a top aide to Zelenskiy that the release of U.S. aid to Ukraine was linked to investigations.

Wednesday, second panel at 2:30 p.m. ET

• Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary at the Defense Department, who in closed-door testimony said that Ukrainians raised the administration's delay of $391 million in security assistance in August. She said that she spoke to Volker about the issue and that he told her he was working with Ukrainians to make a statement disavowing election interference.
• David Hale, the undersecretary of state for political affairs at the State Department. He testified behind closed doors on Nov. 6, and Republicans asked for him to appear in the public hearings.

Thursday, one panel only at 9 a.m. ET

• Fiona Hill, formerly the top Russia specialist on the National Security Council, testified last month that she registered concerns about the parallel foreign policy channel that Giuliani was using to impact policy in Ukraine. She told investigators that she discussed her concerns with then-National Security Adviser John Bolton, who said that Giuliani was "a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up."

​

Will Cry Baby Don throw more tantrums and whine about impressive, apolitical public servants testifying under oath? Many Democrats certainly hope so.

Will Cry Baby Don remove the gags from insiders like Mulvaney and Bolton with their privileged insights into what went down? Most Americans certainly hope so.

 

The poor baby.

 

Is that a yes? Doesn't a person have a right to respond to public attacks and defend themsleves?

 

He wasnt responding.. he fired first...

 

Yovanovitch was never fired. Yovanovitch still has a Cush job.

 

The Republicans were for removal it was the Democrats who said nor just obstruction of justice but perjury, subornation of perjury and witness tampering did jot warrant removal from office and they had Clinton dead to rights on all the CHARGES Starr brought.
So what leg do they have to stand on here?

 

Hogwash and precedent has a huge place at the table here especially since it is being run by those who were there previously.