Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Releases Another Transcript, Lashes Out at Second Impeachment Hearing

Trump Releases Another Transcript, Lashes Out at Second Impeachment Hearing

“It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn48UP4hx3Q

President Donald Trump released the transcript of his first phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky back in April. The men enjoyed a short conversation with Trump praising Zelensky’s win.

He published the transcript as the second impeachment hearing kicked off. Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is testifying before the House Intelligence Committee.

Last night, Trump pointed out that an official from Ukraine admitted he did not link military assistance to any investigation.

This morning, Trump dropped a hard truth for the Democrats:

Trump is 100% correct. Zelensky criticized Yovanovitch in the July phone call. He also has the right to dismiss and appoint American ambassadors.

In the first phone call, former Vice President Joe Biden did not come up. Zelensky also praised Trump and invited him to his inauguration.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | November 15, 2019 at 11:08 am

God bless President Trump!

As if things couldn’t get more desperate for the Dem’s they are now trying to add witness intimidation to their fantasy list of POTUS wrong doings. This whole thing is a farce!

I am convinced Yovanovitch was running cover for the Burisma bribes to Biden/Kerry/Pelosi. It falls in with Sarah Carter’s reporting that several citizens reported she was spying on them and monitoring US citizens in the Ukraine.

    (checks dates) She only became Ukrainian ambassador on August 2016. She was mostly a Washingtonion during the Obama admin. Pyatt would have been the go-to ambassador from 2013-2016 until he got pushed to Greece during a End-Of-Term shuffle. My guess would be Obama was getting his foreign policy minions good and embedded so he could still pull strings during a Hillary presidency.

Why do conservative sites adopt the language of the left and say “Trump lashes out”?

Why not,
– “corrects the lies of Democrats”
– or “highlights the failures of the former ambassador”
– or “cites exonerating testimony provided by actual witnesses to rebut the hearsay of the Democrats”

Just asking. Not sure why a Trump lashes while Democrats tweet.

“It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”

This is the key point that needs to be made again and again. Trump needed no more reason to dismiss Yovanovitch than the fact that he didn’t like her. He answers to absolutely nobody in this matter, except that he needed the senate’s consent to hire her replacement.

And more generally, it is impossible for a president to undermine US foreign policy, because US policy is whatever the president says it is — even if he said something different five minutes ago.

Which reminds me. When 0bama made the Iran deal it was motivated by his hatred of his country, and it was certainly contrary to the USA’s interests, but not to its policy, because US policy at the time was to surrender to Iran.

Contrary to what I previously stated, I now believe that the Dems will NOT vote to impeach Trump.

They’ve looked for pretenses to impeach him since the day he was elected, but this Ukraine pretense isn’t looking good right now. Their strategy depends on running a star chamber inquisition where they only question “witnesses” (most of whom didn’t actually witness anything, but are reporting hearsay) who will try to incriminate Trump. They can also cut off any Republican questioning that points out contradictions in their narrative.

The Dems depend on Lord High Executioner Schiff to veto any witnesses who might spoil their narrative. So he will disallow all, or nearly all, of the Republicans’ defense witnesses. He will certainly disallow any witnesses who might imply that some corruption was going on that involved American politicians, and needed to be investigated. He will also disallow any testimony (or even mentioning the name) of the Democrats’ CIA operative who is hiding behind the conveniently modified “whistleblower” statutes.

This plan falls apart if they vote to impeach. The Senate will subpoena all the witnesses that Schiff vetoed, and the truth will emerge. This would be a political disaster for the Dems, showing how they conspired with the “whistleblower” to orchestrate a “coup” (the word used by the “whistleblower’s” attorney). It would also expose corruption among the Dems, and show why it was proper for Trump to urge the Ukrainians to investigate and stop the corruption involving US citizens.

I suspect the Dems will try to avoid an impeachment vote, because it will make them look weak. If they do end up voting, I expect that Schiff, Pelosi, and Biden will push strongly (secretly, of course) to prevent the impeachment because they cannot risk the Senate exposing the truth.

    mailman in reply to OldProf2. | November 16, 2019 at 3:50 pm

    Democrats have backed themselves into a corner. They will vote to impeach because to do otherwise will be a failure to them.

    They will then hope the RINO’s and traitors then get to work and scupper any true defense of the President.

Truth and reality are strangers to most Dems/Progs. They will look at basic facts setting in plain sight and say it’s not correct.

Something I believe: The Dems/Progs cannot believe that the smartest woman in the world lost a rigged election to a person who never held elected office. When impeachment fails, they, with their wholly owned subsidiary, the dinosaur media, will try to rig the next election.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend