Spot on. The overarching theme of the testimonies so far is exactly what I said: that these career officials disagreed with the president on Ukraine policy. Channelling some written down doctrine to which they were faithful is a very weak excuse when it is abundantly clear that the president had changed course in some areas without writing the policy shifts down explicitly.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 15 2019 12:06pm

I doubt that you'd find many people who think that the President shouldn't set policy. I think the big issue though is that this wasn't done in the open. If you want to investigate Hunter Biden, Burisma, etc. tell the people who are supposed to execute the policy. Wear it loudly and proudly. Don't keep people who need to be in the know, in the dark.

What policy differences did they have? Please be specific.

This post was edited by IceMage on Nov 15 2019 12:16pm

Are you listening to the testimony and the questions... right now?


/e Did you just hear that the State dept. was alarmed with the gas company and Hunter Biden back in 2014. But yet, the US ambassadors to the Ukraine chose to let that concern die on the vine.
Then Trump wanted it investigated fully. Would that not be a policy difference within the State dept., and obviously with Trump?



/ee Sewell, a Dem, is now digging a hole for the Dems. She's explaining to the American public how not being supportive of Yovanovitch, should not be done. Yet, the entire House is doing the same thing to Trump.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 15 2019 12:32pm

The president wasn't pursuing a different set of policies. He didn't decide to withhold military aid because of a policy dispute. He did it to pressure the Ukrainians to announce investigations into the Bidens and a loony conspiracy theory.

If the president wants to pursue a different policy toward Ukraine, if he wants to abandon support for Ukraine, that's his right. That's not what happened here... that's not what Trump is even saying happened. So stop pretending these career officials were going against his policy. They weren't. They were expressing concern that Trump's stated policy of support for Ukraine was being undermined by an irregular foreign policy channel being led by Guiliani. After the revelations came out, Trump released the military aid.

Also, diplomats have every right to express concern about policy changes anyhow. If Trump announces tomorrow that US forces were pulling out of South Korea, you can expect to see some resignations in the State and Defense departments. Taylor himself told Pompeo that if the position of strong support for Ukraine changes, he would resign.

This post was edited by IceMage on Nov 15 2019 12:44pm

I read the "quit lying cam" in big letters and have determined that you are a jackass.
I didn't lie about anything.
Schiff sent a 'fuck you' letter to the republicans after they sent that request list.
Yes the couple of people there who schiff already had testify in private, that schiff already determined were in his political interest to have testify, will be testifying again.
Additional witnesses requested were denied.
I used imprecise shorthand language referring to schiff's response to that letter and his position preventing people from testifying. That was not intended to deceive and was not an intentionally false statement..
The point that schiff is blocking inconvenient witnesses the republicans wanted is not contested.
Try reading what I say in good faith and respond to the points.

The gullible faith in political institutions is noted. Your opinion that he should have only went through the DoJ and an anti-corruption bureau from a notoriously and extremely corrupt country doesn't make asking them to look into Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired a heinous abuse of power, nor does it justify Schiff's lies and politically motivated sham hearings.

Trump made it known... repeatedly, that he wanted the gas company and the Bidens investigated. The State Depts. ambassadors to the Ukraine, ignored that desire. Again, sounds like a policy difference to me.
This claim that the US ambassadors to the Ukraine ignored that desire, came right from Yovamnovitch's testimony about 20 minutes ago.

/e she said: "We hadn't been investigating, but the investigation wasn't closed".




/ee I think it's fairly obvious by now, that Yovanavitch has nothing, evidence wise. She apparently wants to damage Trump for removing her, even though she admits it's his prerogative.
Further, she's sitting in the middle of a smear campaign against Trump, complaining about Trump claiming "she's done a bad job", in a smear campaign against her.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 15 2019 12:52pm

>claims Trump truly concerned about corruption in Ukraine
>calls other users gullible

How stupid can republicans be to keep regurgitating the 'no russia collusion' statement

I guess they didn't read their own fucking report.

Like wtf

how is this reality

This post was edited by Phaggot on Nov 15 2019 12:57pm

Well, you said here: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=82022182&f=119&p=551393034 "All witnesses requested by Republicans banned." I had to be stern because I can't have you mischaracterize the situation. I'm glad that are retracting that statement and clarified your position.

Who am I to have faith in if not our institutions? Rudy Giuliani? But you're right, I'm the gullible one for believing that Trump truly cares about corruption. You win.