Select Page

Day 2 Of The Impeachment Hearings

Day 2 Of The Impeachment Hearings

After the failings of day one, with the two people called forward having never met Trump having no first-hand knowledge, only second hand, third hand, and fourth hand knowledge, the Democrats are coming back with what they hope will be a better witness, ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

As with day one, the video below will be a live feed, you can rewind it if you wish to watch it from the beginning. The video is a live C-Span feed:

As with day one, the video above will be a live feed. You can rewind it if you wish to watch from the beginning. The video is a live C-Span feed. As the day goes on, we will come back and highlight what has been said, what both sides of the political aisle are trying to get at, and, more importantly, what the ambassador has stated.

The opening statement from Rep. Schiff was not surprising. This was the star witness for the Democrats so he spent his opening statement praising her. He said the president got rid of her because she would not stand by corruption. He noted that Trump getting rid of her was his right, but why did he do it, he implied that this was done malicously. He claims the only reason Trump replaced the ambassador was due to corruption.

Rep. Nunez opened up by saying that rather than do what they were elected to do, such as pass the spending bill and putting bills out, they have instead focused on what he termed a “stage,”, their “Watergate fantasies.” He spoke on how all the cases the DNC is presenting are rumors and provide no first-hand knowledge. He called out the Representative who, on Wednesday, said that a rumor was better than first-hand knowledge.

He also spoke how Rep. Schiff sought out naked pictures from a Russian Prankster, laid out how the Ukrain and Senator Grassley showed how the DNC and the Ukrainians set out to affect the US elections in 2016. Then he spoke on how V.P. Biden covered for his son Hunter when he was hired into a job for which he had no experience, all so they had access to his father.

Rep. Schiff refused to allow any points of order by the GOP members and before enabling the ambassador to speak he went off on a rant.

We saw the same thing we saw on day one from the ambassador’s statement with her condemnation of Russia, saying this was not a matter of keeping the law, it was, more importantly, a matter of fairness and dignity.

She implied she was removed to appease the corrupt people and that this was not due to a policy difference. Instead of that, it was her standing up to Russia and deep corruption within Ukraine which was the reason for her termination.

She went on to claim her innocence, argued that the attacks against her were politically based and nothing more.

The counsel for the DNC then asked questions to see why the Ambassador was let go asking if she did a bad job. She claimed others told her there was a concerted effort to rid her.

She said her removal was caused by foreign influence and not from the White House. Somehow removing her was caused by this influence from Trump, but could not explain where the evidence of this was. When asked if she knew that she could be hired or removed at the will of the president she did state she knew this.

During this time Trump tweeted in real-time and Schiff was trying to say that this was intimidating the ambassador, but I must ask, “how was she getting access to the tweet?” she had no means to do this. To claim this is a crime is nonsense.

Trump went on to tweet:

This is claimed to be witness tampering, I have to disagree.

Some don’t:

What is the reaction of others to this hearing after the first break:

After the lunch break we will hear the GOP have their turn to question Amb. Yovanovitch will continue to post later.

Representative Nunez did correctly ask why the ambassador was even there. This was not the forum for such a witness. When Nunez passed his time to a member, Rep. Schiff worked to stifle the person speaking.

When the GOP counsel asked the ambassador if her firing hurt diplomatic relations, or gave pause to Ukraine and may have encouraged Russia, she said she thought so.

The questions then went into what she felt were wrongful accusations against her. Then questions about the black ledger and other such items, from which many of the Trump Collusion claims came out of.

The question was if the ambassador knew of the attacks that came from Ukraine and against Manafort and Trump. She didn’t or wasn’t willing to testify what she knew before the election or not.

Congressman Schiff wanted to point out that the removal of the ambassador was tied to Trump wanting Biden and his son investigated, tried to imply that somehow Trump removed her to place someone that would turn the other way.

The Ambassador then was questioned on the investigation into the company that Biden’s son worked for pointing out how it was initiated under Obama’s time in office and how it was Biden who forced the firing of the prosecutor. She did finally acknowledge this.

Next, we had the counter from the Democrats who said that somehow it was not the right of the president to hire and fire an ambassador. I would suggest he read the constitution. She answered that elections have consequences, it seems this was lost on the Democrats, last I checked Obama himself put in over 100 new ambassadors, people that donated to his election. Funny how this wasn’t abused, but when Trump did this it was.

The GOP then pressed by reading in articles where Rep. Schiff told papers that the whistleblower would testify before the committeeasking why this had not yet happened.

It is interesting that when the ambassador was questioned over Biden threatening that $1 billion of aid will be withheld, she refused to admit that there could be a connection. Chairman Schiff quickly cut the questioning off.

It looks like at this point, all we are going to hear is that somehow terminating a person who works at the pleasure of the president is wrong. Any attempt to question what happened with Biden and the Democrats are going to cut it off.


Rep Jim Jordan questioned why she was outraged with what Trump did. When the Ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed criticizing Trump, Chairman Schiff gave him extra time, then told him that he indulged him the right to have his questioned answered. Rep. Jordan, replied, “Our indulgement wore out with you long ago Mr. Chairman!”

In the end, we saw more of what we have seen before, Chairman Schiff demanding that he and his party have a right to speak and then silencing the GOP.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *