The Impeachment of Donald Trump.

[Knife]

I'm hoping it won't take that. It's only been two weeks and already there is a huge ground shift. Putting some of these sideline actors on witness stands/depositions for a couple weeks to bring out the dirty details and possible other wrong doings that are similar will/should be enough to open the flood gate.

GOPer Senators need more than the base to get elected in their states, then need either poor turn out or the middle. This is turning on them fast, enough so that voting to impeach MAY be the best political strategy.

Moscow Mitch also has serious problems in his state this round, along with charges of his own with his wife and foreign contributors that if Trump is in a shit ton of trouble with will probably transfer to McConnell. If it gets bad enough, and not saying it will, he might have a rebellion on his hands in the Senate for his Leadership spot.

[mr friendly guy]

The arguments defending Trump are hilarious.
"How do you plan to defend Trump"
Answer "Defend him from what."
"Well there is an impeachment enquiry."

Jesus Christ.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Sooooo.....
Trump, not satisfied with one Impeachable offense, decided to do another one today and asked China to investigate Biden as well.
NPR

Updated at 6:21 p.m. ET

President Trump now says China should investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Trump brought up China, just days before restarting trade talks with Beijing, while answering questions about his call with his Ukrainian counterpart and what specifically he hoped Ukraine would do about the Biden family.

"If they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into Bidens," Trump said. "It's a very simple answer ... And by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as Ukraine."

The allegations relate to Hunter Biden joining the board of an investment firm with Chinese ties while his father was vice president. Trump has not shared any evidence of wrongdoing.

In a statement Thursday, Joe Biden called Trump's remarks "a grotesque choice of lies over truth and self over the country."

The president's remarks Thursday are a significant escalation of events in the Ukraine matter. He's doubling down on wanting foreign governments to investigate the former vice president, who is a leading challenger to Trump in the 2020 presidential election. He's also calling on China, which is run by an authoritarian government, to investigate a U.S. citizen.

On Twitter, Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub reupped a statement she issued this summer, writing that "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept."

[FaxModem1]

Well, he did run a casino. I guess 'Go big or go home' is something he took as a motto.

[Broomstick]

Hmm....I do believe that one of the reasons Obama was elected was because the Republicans were so intent on destroying Hilary they didn't see Obama coming from the rear of the field to pull ahead of everyone else. I'm wondering if they're so intent on bringing down what they perceive as the Democratic threat - Biden - they might overlook someone else in the line-up who could be elected.

The thing is, Trump really does believe he has done absolutely nothing wrong. So why shouldn't he keep doing it?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Yeah I do not think the same thing will happen this time. Right now it looks like Trump WILL be impeached, but obviously not resign. It will go to the Election where he will hopefully loose.

But I really cannot see the senate voting to remove him, or Trump stepping down on his own.

[Broomstick]

Given the speed of US government (typically, slower than molasses in January) I'm not sure there is time to impeach and remove prior to the election next November.

Also, now that I think about it the Republicans seem to be targeting Biden first, then lining up their ammunition on Warren. Which tells you who they think are the "threats".

Meanwhile, Pence is very clearly throwing in/allying with Trump. Hmm... No doubt, the Republicans (that are capable of imagining this) are thinking that even if Trump is removed they will still have Pence as PotUS, and given US rules on PotUS term limits, potentially getting NINE years of Pence instead of "just" eight given where he'd be taking over if Trump is removed prior to the election.

I really don't want Pence as PotUS. He's politically savvy enough he might actually get some of his agenda passed.

[Knife]

Given the speed of US government (typically, slower than molasses in January) I'm not sure there is time to impeach and remove prior to the election next November.

Also, now that I think about it the Republicans seem to be targeting Biden first, then lining up their ammunition on Warren. Which tells you who they think are the "threats".

Meanwhile, Pence is very clearly throwing in/allying with Trump. Hmm... No doubt, the Republicans (that are capable of imagining this) are thinking that even if Trump is removed they will still have Pence as PotUS, and given US rules on PotUS term limits, potentially getting NINE years of Pence instead of "just" eight given where he'd be taking over if Trump is removed prior to the election.

I really don't want Pence as PotUS. He's politically savvy enough he might actually get some of his agenda passed.

If the political pressure really heats up on the Senate, specifically on those GOPers who are running next year and those who are 'retiring', you might see enough to boot Trump. It's a long shot and I don't give much hope for it now but it is possible. That said, Pence is as dirty as Trump in this and it would take something short of a revolution for the GOPers in the Senate to remove Pence if the House Impeached him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Given the speed of US government (typically, slower than molasses in January) I'm not sure there is time to impeach and remove prior to the election next November.

Also, now that I think about it the Republicans seem to be targeting Biden first, then lining up their ammunition on Warren. Which tells you who they think are the "threats".

Meanwhile, Pence is very clearly throwing in/allying with Trump. Hmm... No doubt, the Republicans (that are capable of imagining this) are thinking that even if Trump is removed they will still have Pence as PotUS, and given US rules on PotUS term limits, potentially getting NINE years of Pence instead of "just" eight given where he'd be taking over if Trump is removed prior to the election.

I really don't want Pence as PotUS. He's politically savvy enough he might actually get some of his agenda passed.

If the political pressure really heats up on the Senate, specifically on those GOPers who are running next year and those who are 'retiring', you might see enough to boot Trump. It's a long shot and I don't give much hope for it now but it is possible. That said, Pence is as dirty as Trump in this and it would take something short of a revolution for the GOPers in the Senate to remove Pence if the House Impeached him.

It should be noted regarding political pressure on the Senate that polling shows the public, while divided, is more supportive of impeaching Trump right now than it was of impeaching either Clinton or Nixon at this point in their respective impeachment processes.

[Knife]

Given the speed of US government (typically, slower than molasses in January) I'm not sure there is time to impeach and remove prior to the election next November.

Also, now that I think about it the Republicans seem to be targeting Biden first, then lining up their ammunition on Warren. Which tells you who they think are the "threats".

Meanwhile, Pence is very clearly throwing in/allying with Trump. Hmm... No doubt, the Republicans (that are capable of imagining this) are thinking that even if Trump is removed they will still have Pence as PotUS, and given US rules on PotUS term limits, potentially getting NINE years of Pence instead of "just" eight given where he'd be taking over if Trump is removed prior to the election.

I really don't want Pence as PotUS. He's politically savvy enough he might actually get some of his agenda passed.

If the political pressure really heats up on the Senate, specifically on those GOPers who are running next year and those who are 'retiring', you might see enough to boot Trump. It's a long shot and I don't give much hope for it now but it is possible. That said, Pence is as dirty as Trump in this and it would take something short of a revolution for the GOPers in the Senate to remove Pence if the House Impeached him.

It should be noted regarding political pressure on the Senate that polling shows the public, while divided, is more supportive of impeaching Trump right now than it was of impeaching either Clinton or Nixon at this point in their respective impeachment processes.

It's going to have to be much more in favor to start turning Senator's. Again, possible but not feeling it yet.

[Broomstick]

If Trump keeps decompensating on camera impeachment and removal may become more likely.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Slight but important update.
They are very soon going to be voting to begin FORMAL impeachment hearings in the house... this should certainly make things more interesting. From NPR

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in a letter to Democrats on Monday that the House will vote to formalize the procedures in the ongoing impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

The resolution will outline the terms for public hearings, the disclosure of deposition transcripts, procedures to transfer evidence to the House Judiciary Committee and due process rights for Trump.

Senior Democratic aides said the resolution will be released on Wednesday, with a House vote on Thursday.

"We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives," Pelosi wrote.

House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff confirmed that the resolution will establish a format for open hearings.

"The American people will hear firsthand about the President's misconduct," Schiff said in a statement.

So far the White House has refused to comply with the inquiry because the House has not voted. It is unclear if passage of the resolution will change the White House's strategy as the investigation intensifies.

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham responded briefly in a statement Monday, saying "We won't be able to comment fully until we see the actual text, but Speaker Pelosi is finally admitting what the rest of America already knew – that Democrats were conducting an unauthorized impeachment proceeding, refusing to give the President due process, and their secret, shady, closed door depositions are completely and irreversibly illegitimate."

The White House and congressional Republicans have criticized Democrats for not conducting a full House vote at the onset to authorize the impeachment inquiry, as Congress did for Bill Clinton's impeachment. Neither the Constitution nor House rules require that, but it has given Republicans a unifying talking point to attack the inquiry so far.

Republicans were quick to move the goal posts following Pelosi's announcement. "We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment," tweeted Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is leading the impeachment investigation.

Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham said he believes Democrats were "forced to change course" because Senate Republicans and the American people demanded a vote. Still, he said the vote now is like "un-ringing a bell as House Democrats have selectively leaked information in order to damage President Trump for weeks."

"I look forward to reviewing their proposal," Graham said, "and ensuring it provides President Trump with the rights and privileges Republicans afforded former President Clinton during the 1998 impeachment process."

Congressional Republicans have largely focused their lines of defense on the process and not on the substance of the allegations against Trump that he abused his office to pressure Ukraine to advance investigations that would help him politically. House GOP strategy will also have to evolve as the investigation takes a more public turn.

So far the inquiry has taken place behind closed doors. Schiff has promised public hearings, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., has said he would like the House to wrap up its work on impeachment by the end of the year. The House is currently scheduled to be in session just 19 more days this year, putting Democrats under an ever-increasing time crunch.

If the House approves any articles of impeachment against Trump, it will trigger a near immediate trial in the Senate to decide whether to remove him from office. The most recent impeachment trial, of Clinton in 1999, lasted five weeks. Many lawmakers say they would like to conclude the impeachment process before ballots start being cast in the 2020 presidential primary season, which kicks off Feb. 3 with the Iowa caucuses.

[The Romulan Republic]

Looks like the Dems are planning to start moving away from closed door hearings to prime time testimony. We'll see if that shifts opinion any further than low-50s in favor of impeachment (we'll need more than that, I think, to get significant numbers of Republicans to jump ship).

[Galvatron]

[Knife]

Was talking to the wife the other day, still really believe you have two clocking going here. The actual impeachment vote of the House that then kicks it to the Senate. Sure, all the testimony in the House is going to stir some good shit. A lot of news will be generated, and the new House format of actual lawyers doing the questioning will do heaps of good questioning the witnesses on air in the hearings.

The second clock will be Trumps taxes. If those suckers come out before the Senate votes, Trumps done. As it stands, and unless something really solid and nasty comes out in open hearings in the House, I just don't see GOP Senator's turning against him in numbers enough to matter. The Dems need 20 if all Dems vote to remove.

If either NY State and/or the House get Trumps taxes and incorporate them into the impeachment before the Senate vote, it'll be enough to push the GOP over to removal. Straight out proof of tax fraud, avoidance, not being rich, gifting, probably money laundering, and who knows what else (granted a lot of speculation in there but come on it's Trump we all know he's dirty as fuck we just don't have the documents) will seal his doom. Appeals court slammed him down last week. Pretty sure as far at NY state is concerned, he's down to SCOTUS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all of them need to agree to hear the care to accept it? I'm not even sure Trump's picks can save him on his ridiculous assertion, plus the added bonus that his private lawyers dragged the OLM legal memo about no indicting a POTUS into this as well that the appeals court shot down.

[Mr Bean]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all of them need to agree to hear the care to accept it? I'm not even sure Trump's picks can save him on his ridiculous assertion, plus the added bonus that his private lawyers dragged the OLM legal memo about no indicting a POTUS into this as well that the appeals court shot down.

Nope, only four of the nine need to say yes to hear a case.

And for my own part I don't hold out hope on the taxes thing. Not because there's nothing there but because his ability to run out the clock is the best money can buy and money can buy a lot when it comes to time wasting.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The problem with Trump's probable tax misdeeds is that they are likely to all fall into the same legal grey areas and loopholes that all of the super-rich routinely take advantage of. The privileges of the rich are designed to make it difficult to arrest through legal means. And with the bulk of our government apparatus existing for little purpose other than to allow the super-rich to continue being super-rich, there's no real incentive for them to make any of the institutional changes required to stop this kind of behavior from happening (and thus no real incentive to make an example out of Trump). Most likely these will just be dull legal rumblings that murmur on in the background for months or years before a quiet out-of-court settlement.

[Knife]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all of them need to agree to hear the care to accept it? I'm not even sure Trump's picks can save him on his ridiculous assertion, plus the added bonus that his private lawyers dragged the OLM legal memo about no indicting a POTUS into this as well that the appeals court shot down.

Nope, only four of the nine need to say yes to hear a case.

And for my own part I don't hold out hope on the taxes thing. Not because there's nothing there but because his ability to run out the clock is the best money can buy and money can buy a lot when it comes to time wasting.

Hmm, well, SCOTUS might take it up then. That said, if they rule against, it would be a huge ruling, if they rule for, it's a huge propaganda tool. And since the appeals court has already ruled for NY, there is only so much more time they can waste. Either SCOTUS takes it or passes. If they take it, it rules by next July, right before the election. I don't think Trump wants a ruling one way or another right before the election. The Appeals already shot it down for NY.

[Knife]

The problem with Trump's probable tax misdeeds is that they are likely to all fall into the same legal grey areas and loopholes that all of the super-rich routinely take advantage of. The privileges of the rich are designed to make it difficult to arrest through legal means. And with the bulk of our government apparatus existing for little purpose other than to allow the super-rich to continue being super-rich, there's no real incentive for them to make any of the institutional changes required to stop this kind of behavior from happening (and thus no real incentive to make an example out of Trump). Most likely these will just be dull legal rumblings that murmur on in the background for months or years before a quiet out-of-court settlement.

See, I'm not so sure. It's the optics not the nuts and bolts. If his taxes get out and he's paid effectively no taxes in years, committed fraud, and is worth jack shit, the illusion of Trump is done. Sure, his little fan club of 20-30% will stay with him but the GOP support will crumble. Find a Russian name on a bank statement or loan paper and he's finished, the Senate will remove him with a vote of 90 something.

[Mr Bean]

The problem with Trump's probable tax misdeeds is that they are likely to all fall into the same legal grey areas and loopholes that all of the super-rich routinely take advantage of. The privileges of the rich are designed to make it difficult to arrest through legal means. And with the bulk of our government apparatus existing for little purpose other than to allow the super-rich to continue being super-rich, there's no real incentive for them to make any of the institutional changes required to stop this kind of behavior from happening (and thus no real incentive to make an example out of Trump). Most likely these will just be dull legal rumblings that murmur on in the background for months or years before a quiet out-of-court settlement.

See, I'm not so sure. It's the optics not the nuts and bolts. If his taxes get out and he's paid effectively no taxes in years, committed fraud, and is worth jack shit, the illusion of Trump is done. Sure, his little fan club of 20-30% will stay with him but the GOP support will crumble. Find a Russian name on a bank statement or loan paper and he's finished, the Senate will remove him with a vote of 90 something.

There's already evidence out there of asset miss pricing, one of the big pieces of evidence NY State officials is using is Trump declaring his assets are worth X millions to the state but Y millions to the feds and Z millions to investors and loan officers. Even with what's been published already there's clear a-b-c to charging him for either investment Fraud, tax Fraud or just Fraud Fraud, it's simply a matter of getting the figures lining them up and putting them in front of a judge. The problem has been getting said figures and getting them in front of such a judge. Hence the endless delays.

TL:DR
Trump is guilty of either A. Insurance Fraud, B. Tax Fraud,or C. All of the Above it just depends on who he lied to.

[Knife]

I know, it's one of the things NY state is after him on.

[The Romulan Republic]

I know, it's one of the things NY state is after him on.

Yeah, what hopes I have for Justice being done are mostly vested in the State of New York. Even if the Senate acquits, the day that motherfucker is out of office and doesn't have the inane "won't indict a sitting President" policy protecting him, the State of New York is going to go after him for campaign finance, tax issues, and God knows what else (perjury/obstruction will probably end up getting tacked on, this being Trump). And while he could conceivably get a pardon from Pence or a weak-willed, "bipartisan compromise" obsessed Democrat, Presidential pardons don't cover state crimes. And I find it very unlikely that any governor of New York (certainly not the current one) is going to go easy on Donald Trump.

[bilateralrope]

The second clock will be Trumps taxes. If those suckers come out before the Senate votes, Trumps done. As it stands, and unless something really solid and nasty comes out in open hearings in the House, I just don't see GOP Senator's turning against him in numbers enough to matter. The Dems need 20 if all Dems vote to remove.

How many Republican senators are up for reelection this time ?

Because how they vote on the impeachment is going to affect them personally when it comes to the election. So, if public support for impeachment gets high enough, there will be some who decide that it's better for them personally if they remove Trump from office. The question is: How high does public support for impeachment need to be before they start flipping ?

[The Romulan Republic]

The second clock will be Trumps taxes. If those suckers come out before the Senate votes, Trumps done. As it stands, and unless something really solid and nasty comes out in open hearings in the House, I just don't see GOP Senator's turning against him in numbers enough to matter. The Dems need 20 if all Dems vote to remove.

How many Republican senators are up for reelection this time ?

Because how they vote on the impeachment is going to affect them personally when it comes to the election. So, if public support for impeachment gets high enough, there will be some who decide that it's better for them personally if they remove Trump from office. The question is: How high does public support for impeachment need to be before they start flipping ?

The problem is, even if independents and moderate Republicans go for impeachment en mass, its still a better calculation for most Republican legislators (presuming they are purely self-interested) to stick with Trump and hope for a role as lackies in his autocracy, because the moment they ditch him, well, they won't be winning over a lot of Democrats even if they do vote to impeach, but they'll also lose a lot of the Trump base. I'd expect a Republican who votes to impeach to fall below 40, perhaps even 35 or 30% of the vote in most places.

The ones most likely to break are those who don't have to worry about running in 2020, especially those thinking of retiring, and Mitt Romney, who is not only a "moderate" Republican and Trump critic, but rich enough and popular enough in his state that he can probably actually manage to get reelected after flipping Trump the proverbial bird (and also old enough now that he's probably thinking about legacy more than a future political career- he's already a presidential loser, and is never realistically going to rise higher than where he is).

I think though that if it happens, it'll happen in a group. No Republican is going to want to be the first to break, but if a few break, it'll give cover to others to follow suit.

Edit: Seriously, anyone who favors impeachment should be lobbying the hell out of Mitt Romney right now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump threatened the former Ambassador to the Ukraine:

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/201 ... mp-in-call

The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine said she was warned by officials in the country that President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was maneuvering against her and that they were concerned about getting dragged into U.S. politics.

Marie Yovanovitch, the former envoy, said Ukrainian officials alerted her to contacts between Giuliani and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, and “that Mr. Lutsenko was looking to hurt me in the U.S.,” according to the transcript of her private deposition released Monday by House committees leading the impeachment investigation.

Former U.S. Ambassador To Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Appears Before House Panels

She said that in February, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov warned her to “watch my back.” Avakov also expressed concerns to her that it would be “dangerous” for Ukraine to get involved in U.S. politics because it would damage bipartisan support the country had in Congress.

Yovanovitch, who was recalled from her post in May, said she subsequently felt threatened by the way Trump spoke about her on a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, according to the transcript.

In that call, documented by a White House memo later made public, Trump called his top diplomat in the country “bad news” and said “she’s going to go through some things.”

Yovanovitch told the committees: “I was shocked and I was apprehensive about what that meant.”

Trump dismissed her testimony Monday as he left the White House for a rally in Kentucky.

“I really don’t know her but if you look at the transcripts, the president of Ukraine was not a fan of her either,” the president said. In the White House memo of their call, Zelenskiy said Trump was the first person to tell him Yovanovitch was “a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%.”

The transcripts from Yovanovitch and Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, were released after the Democratic-led House voted last week to set the ground rules for the public phase of the impeachment inquiry. The Committees on Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs are expected to release additional records of depositions held behind closed doors last month.

Some details of the witness testimonies were already known from opening statements released by their attorneys and public comments from lawmakers. Republicans have complained that the American public has only had access to an incomplete picture of the investigation so far, which doesn’t include the cross-examination from GOP committee members and staff behind closed doors.

McKinley’s Concerns

Making the transcripts public is intended to address this criticism before some witnesses are called back for open hearings. Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said Monday the committees will release transcripts from former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker and current European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland on Tuesday.

QuickTake: What to Know About Trump, Ukraine and Impeachment

According to the transcript from McKinley’s deposition, he told the committees he resigned last month over concerns about how Yovanovitch was treated, as well as “the emerging information on the engagement of our missions to procure negative political information for domestic purposes.”

McKinley said in his 37 years in the State Department, he had never seen such efforts to dig up dirt on a political opponent. The former Pompeo aide also proposed publishing a statement of support for Yovanovitch after the release of the White House memo regarding Trump’s call with Zelenskiy.

“It shouldn’t be difficult to put out a short statement that’s not political, stating clearly that we respect the professionalism, the tenure of Ambassador Yovanovitch in the Ukraine,” McKinley said, adding that others in the State Department supported the idea.

McKinley said he told Pompeo “this situation isn’t acceptable” when he spoke with the secretary of state about his resignation, but Pompeo did not respond. Nor did he put out the public statement McKinley proposed.

Giuliani Associates

Throughout much of the 317-page transcript of Yovanovich’s testimony, Schiff takes a lead role in the Democratic queries, often posing leading questions that elicit one-word answers. Schiff is quick to rule on procedures or objections raised by Republicans, often curtly.

Several follow-up questions from Republicans, including Oversight ranking member Jim Jordan and Representative Mark Meadows, two close Trump allies, seek clarity on the timing and circumstances of specific conversations recalled by Yovanovitch, such as an exchange with George Kent, another State Department official.

Elsewhere in her deposition, Yovanovitch referenced two Giuliani associates -- Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas -- who have since been charged with campaign finance violations. She said Avakov, the Ukrainian interior minister, warned her that Fruman and Parnas helped set up meetings between Giuliani and Lutsenko, outside normal diplomatic channels.

Yovanovitch testified that Avakov said that Fruman and Parnas “were interested in having a different ambassador at post,” which she attributed to their desire to “have business dealings in Ukraine.”

She said she “didn’t understand that because nobody at the embassy had ever met those two individuals.”

Who’s Who: The Americans at the Center of Trump-Ukraine Uproar

Yovanovitch told the committees that she discussed the apparent campaign against her with Sondland, a Trump donor who became the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. She said Sondland advised her to publicly praise the president.

“He may not have used the words ‘support President Trump,’ but he said: ‘You know the president. Well, maybe you don’t know him personally, but you know, you know, the sorts of things that he likes. You know, go out there battling aggressively and, you know, praise him or support him,’” Yovanovitch said, according to the transcript.

The career diplomat’s testimony also described the aid for Ukraine that the U.S. Congress appropriated but the Trump administration didn’t initially deliver. She did say that the assistance program for Ukraine was increased, “due to the generosity of the Congress,” including the lethal weapons that the Trump administration decided to provide.

Yovanovitch said while she was telling Ukrainian officials that there was bipartisan support for the military aid, “there were other emissaries, you know, perhaps sharing things or focusing on other things that would have maybe confused people.”

The transcript from Yovanovitch’s deposition showed that she told the House committees that the back-channel policy executed by Giuliani “complicated things.”

Meadows, a Republican from North Carolina, downplayed the importance of these two transcripts, arguing that they don’t shed any light on the impeachment allegations.

“All the transcripts released today really just deal with Ambassador Yovanovitch being removed from office,” Meadows said. “She even admits that the president can do that at his sole discretion.”

— With assistance by Laura Litvan, and Josh Wingrove

(Updates with Trump remarks, additional transcript quotes beginning in the seventh paragraph.)

There are no words for this.

Naturally, Republicans defend the President making threats against diplomats for not being loyal to the Dear Leader.

Its also come out that she was told that she needed to Tweet support of Trump if she wanted to keep her job:

https://voanews.com/usa/impeachment-inq ... port-trump

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch said she was told by a Trump administration official that she should tweet out support for President Donald Trump if she wanted to save her job, according to a transcript of her testimony to lawmakers made public Monday.

Yovanovitch said that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland gave her the advice to publicly show support for Trump after she faced criticism from right-wing media outlets for allegedly being hostile to the president.

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, center, arrives for a joint interview with the House Committees on Capitol Hill, Oct. 17, 2019.
FILE - U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, center, arrives for a joint interview with the House Committees on Capitol Hill, Oct. 17, 2019.
A transcript of Yovanovitch's testimony to lawmakers in October was released Monday by the three House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Republicans have criticized the Democratic-led inquiry for not holding the interviews in public.

According to the transcript, Yovanovitch told lawmakers that she was not disloyal to the president. She said she heard allegations in the media that she told her embassy staff to ignore orders from the president because he was going to be impeached.

"That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing to my embassy colleagues or anyone else," she said.

Yovanovitch, a career diplomat, was removed from her post in Ukraine in May, several months ahead of schedule. Trump described Yovanovitch as "bad news" in his July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Yovanovitch told lawmakers that she was shocked and felt threatened when she found out that Trump spoke about her in the phone call.

"I was very concerned," she said.

Yovanovitch said she learned last year that Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Guiliani, was in touch with Ukraine's former top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, "and that they had plans, and that they were going to, you know, do things, including to me."

The Democratic-led impeachment probe is centered on whether Trump withheld $391 million in military aid to Ukraine unless it investigated one of Trump's chief 2020 Democratic political rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden, who worked for a Ukrainian natural gas company.

Here's a link to her testimony, if anyone wants to read it:

https://cnn.com/2019/11/04/politics/yov ... index.html