In a story of yesterday’s hearing that I am not finding covered elsewhere, FOX is reporting that the White House and some Congressional Republicans think Representative Chris Stewart complete undermined the case for Impeachment with two questions of Ambassador Yovanovitch.
The first: "…do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?
The second: "“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?”
In both cases the Ambassador answered “No.”
Okay, what think you all?
The first question strikes me as bizarre. Stewart is asking whether Trump accepted bribes. Does anyone out there think the issue is Trump accepting bribes? Why does this question matter?
The second question is not as bizarre, but wasn’t the point of Ambassador Yovanovitch’s testimony how she believes she was pushed aside to give Guiliaini and his Russian Mafia pals freer rein in the Ukraine. The High Crimes that have been alleged all occurred after the Ambassador was recalled. So why is she the person to answer this question.
This all strikes me as one more example of how media coverage is polarizing opinion. How do others view this report… is Fox/White House correct that those two “No” answers are the basis for folding up the Impeachment Inquiry.
One caution: try to keep answers focused on these exchanges without wandering into broader arguments against or for impeachment. There are plenty of thread to talk about that. I don’t want to start one more. I am more interested in the epistemological aspects of this Fox New story.
Asking those giving testimony if a crime was committed is a diversionary tactic. They are not lawyers and it is not their job or responsibility to identify what crime may have taken place. They are there solely to provide testimony.
She wasn’t there to give testimony about things she knew nothing about.
“And so I ask you, Ambassador Yovanovitch…do you or do you not have direct knowledge of whether the President sometimes sneaks midnight snacks?”
“Um…no, I do not.”
“Well then! The Democrats have no case!”
She was there to provide testimony about her experience in this administration, the inexplicable motives given for her removal, and the nonsense happening with Giuliani.
It’s remarkably similar to what some Trumpsplainers do right here. Distract to totally irrelevant issues having nothing to do with the true scope of the inquiry.
As many Trump supporters have pointed out, Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. The question is not whether Obama chose his Ambassadors, it is can you point to any one Ambassador whom Obama made the subject of a smear campaign? These are the differences that constitute how one moves for exercising power to abusing it.
When Trump dismissed the entire group of US Attorneys when he became President there was no complaint because that was exercise, not abuse.
Yovanovich applies a two-tier system concerning what is and what isn’t acceptable in politics. She will not in any way condone a career foreign service officer attempting to influence the politics of another country but when the other country does it…and she has the power to say something, she remains silent. Her silence did what she said she would not accept. I guess that’s different?
Exactly. It was nothing more than a diversionary tactic. And I’m not totally surprised that Fox used it even if it was a completely illegitimate question. Hell, you might as well ask the little kid in the street whether he thought Trump took a bribe. It would have made about as much sense.
I dont think you should dismiss or disparage what someone feels truly in their heart of hearts. Regardless of its accuracy its their investment in an emotional and constant sense of self that you mock and there is no call for it. Are you trying to break them? Its just downright mean and I suggest you delete before I report
