WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (Yovanovich)

He doesn't have to testify to defend himself.

 

Where was the intimidation and what changed in her testimony after the tweet? How did her testimony differ from her deposition?

 

Are both of those statements made while under oath?

And I thought we were analogizing to the witness intimidation of Yovanovitch.

 

Absolutely true - Democrats are affording Republicans and the President MORE rights and privileges than those afforded to Democrats and Clinton during that impeachment proceeding.

And "precedent" has absolutely zero value especially since the vast majority of Congressmen and Senators who are currently in office were not in power 20 years ago.

 

Then he isn't being witness intimidated.

 

Pure horse hockey.

 

That is not how witness intimidation works. The prosecution does not have to prove that a witness would have said something different. She was attacked while testifying by Trump and she said the attack was very intimidating.

Embrace the witness intimidation.

 

Sorry. I should have made it clear that I was speaking to the sublect of the charge formerly known as quid pro quo.

 

Did say he was, he was being publicly attacked and has a right to defend himself.

 

Patently false and the Democrats running it were there for Clinton.

 

Well yea it is it is to get them not to testify in the first place, she has twice or to change that testimony, she did not.

 

Then he is free to testify and espouse all the truth he wants.

 

It was in response to her testimony.

 

Testimony which was in response to him bad-mouthing her in the phone call in July...

 

Absolutely false.

 

By Zelinsky too. Good reason to recall her since the she did not accept the new President of Ukraine and supported the crooked one.

 

You can't read her mind so you have zero justification for believing that she altered her testimony after his attack.

 

How could she alter testimony about something she knew nothing about?

 

Here is your "patently false" and "absolutely false" going down in flames.

 

...she did know about his attack and then testified for another ~4 hours

 

So sad. She didn't like what Trump said about her later when she read the transcript. Well, Zelinsky didn't trust her either so...

 

That's fine. I would still like to know if "both participants" made their statements of non-criminality, or non-agreement with the charge or however you want to phrase it, were made while under oath.

 

Did you not hear about Trump attacking her while she was testifying on friday?

 

Which of course she would never have know about but Schiff for brains told her DURING her testimony.

 

You have reason to believe that her attorneys had not already informed her of the attack? Schiff was the only one with access to twitter in that room or something?