# The Trump Impeachment Inquiry **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 24, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771 "2019-09-24T20:23:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 244
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4861 "2019-11-16T20:08:07Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Did the Republicans ever come up with a reason why Yovanovitch was fired, other than because Individual 1 wanted her fired? As **HD** indicates, since they can argue that they don’t need to explain it, they won’t. Attempts at justification will surely use the conspiracy theory espoused by Giuliani, Trump and other right-wing fringers. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Yovanovitch#Smear_campaign_against_Yovanovitch_and_ouster): > [@](#): > > As U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was the target of a conspiracy-driven smear campaign. Unfounded allegations against her were then made by Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, as well as conservative commentator John Solomon of _The Hill_ and Ukraine’s then-top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, who accused her of being part of a conspiracy involving anti-corruption probes in Ukraine and efforts by the Trump administration to investigate ties between Ukrainian officials and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Lutsenko, who has been accused by Ukrainian civil society organizations of corruption, claimed that Yovanovitch, an Obama administration appointee, had interfered in Ukraine politics, had given him a “do-not-prosecute” list and was interfering in his ability to combat corruption in Ukraine. The U.S. State Department said that Lutsenko’s allegations against Yovanovitch were “an outright fabrication” and indicated that they were a “classic disinformation campaign.” Lutsenko subsequently recanted his claims of a “do-not-prosecute” list. Lutsenko’s unfounded allegation was nonetheless amplified by President Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr., Giuliani, Solomon, and conservative media outlets. Ukrainians who opposed Yovanovitch were also sources for Giuliani, who “was on a months-long search for political dirt in Ukraine to help President Trump.” Trump also implied that Yovanovitch bore responsibility for the Somali Civil War. [Trump](https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1195356198347956224): “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?” ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4862 "2019-11-16T20:11:37Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > lol Don’t attack the source, attack the content. I actually posted video clips showing what appears to be Yovanovitch contradicting herself, and when I found that gatewaypundit made the same point I noticed they also allege two other lies by Yavonovitch and posted them here for discussion. Here is another link I found with the two clips spliced together, making it easier to see: > Would you attack politico as a source? They actually posted an article in January 2017 which Trump’s defenders could point to to say why he might think Ukraine needs to do the investigations mentioned in the call that started all of this: [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446) ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4863 "2019-11-16T20:37:05Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Based on the testimony from Vindman, there is no real transcript and the one we have is more or less the one that he saw back when it was put together plus or minus a word or two. > > The description of Vindman’s testimony that described it as though there was a purposeful gathering to corrupt the document was a falsehood, probably created by Schiff - though it’s not impossible that Team Trump did it to try and frame the Democrats. This isn’t accurate. Vindman was _listening in on the call himself_ and _made his own set of notes_, which don’t jibe with the sanitized version released to the public. Adam Schiff has nothing to do with any of those facts. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4864 "2019-11-16T20:38:54Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > This isn’t accurate. Vindman was _listening in on the call himself_ and _made his own set of notes_, which don’t jibe with the sanitized version released to the public. Adam Schiff has nothing to do with any of those facts. Have Vindman’s notes been released? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4865 "2019-11-16T20:42:26Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Don’t attack the source, attack the content. I actually posted video clips showing what appears to be Yovanovitch contradicting herself, and when I found that gatewaypundit made the same point I noticed they also allege two other lies by Yavonovitch and posted them here for discussion. > > Here is another link I found with the two clips spliced together, making it easier to see: > [https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1195446982988455938](https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1195446982988455938) > > Would you attack politico as a source? They actually posted an article in January 2017 which Trump’s defenders could point to to say why he might think Ukraine needs to do the investigations mentioned in the call that started all of this: > [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446) I haven’t been closely following your tangent but if your argument is that the Obama administration acted underhandedly, then that’s possibly true. But, likewise, the Chinese are possibly being unfair to the Uighurs. It’s true, but irrelevant. In general: a) If you conclusively prove that party A is guilty of crimes, that doesn’t exonerate party B of their crimes. That’s not how it works. Both A and B can be guilty. b) Trying to launch an investigation into A during an investigation into B is a distraction, not a valid line of reasoning. If you want an investigation into Hunter Biden, I would note that the Senate is currently doing nothing and is lead by the Republicans. Schiff is not stopping them. I would also note that [there is a thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=882803) where you can raise any evidence that you are aware of that the Bidens are guilty of anything at a criminal level. And even more general… There are three sides you can take on the fight between the Hatfields and the McCoys: 1. That the McCoys were in the right. 2. That the Hatfields were in the right. 3. That both families destroyed themselves trying to one-up the other, out of nothing more than stupidity and machismo, and that was dumb and it would be dumb to ever try to get into any situation where you’re choosing between being a Hatfield or McCoy. I would opine that options 1 and 2 are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4866 "2019-11-16T20:45:37Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > … except if she was fired for a corrupt purpose. Then it’s an abuse of power. OK, what’s the available evidence that “she was fired for a corrupt purpose”? ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4867 "2019-11-16T21:01:43Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I haven’t been closely following your tangent but if your argument is that the Obama administration acted underhandedly, then that’s possibly true. But, likewise, the Chinese are possibly being unfair to the Uighurs. It’s true, but irrelevant. > > In general: > > a) If you conclusively prove that party A is guilty of crimes, that doesn’t exonerate party B of their crimes. That’s not how it works. Both A and B can be guilty. > b) Trying to launch an investigation into A during an investigation into B is a distraction, not a valid line of reasoning. If you want an investigation into Hunter Biden, I would note that the Senate is currently doing nothing and is lead by the Republicans. Schiff is not stopping them. I would also note that [there is a thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=882803) where you can raise any evidence that you are aware of that the Bidens are guilty of anything at a criminal level. > > And even more general… There are three sides you can take on the fight between the Hatfields and the McCoys: > > 1. That the McCoys were in the right. > 2. That the Hatfields were in the right. > 3. That both families destroyed themselves trying to one-up the other, out of nothing more than stupidity and machismo, and that was dumb and it would be dumb to ever try to get into any situation where you’re choosing between being a Hatfield or McCoy. > > I would opine that options 1 and 2 are wrong. I’m not sure it is a tangent. It did fork though. I started out pointing out issues with Yovanovitch’s credibility. A few posters responded by attacking my sources, and I got the impression they recommend completely blocking my sources from attention. So I argued “attack the content, not the source”. Then I recalled politico, a source I guess they wouldn’t recommend that one completely ignore, had posted a relevant article in January 2017. It talks about Ukranian interference in our 2016 election. This was something Trump mentioned in the call that the whistleblower blew the whistle on, staring this Impeachment Inquiry. So I guess the new forked topic is: if Russian election interference justified the Mueller investigation, why doesn’t Ukranian election interference justify an investigation? This was mentioned by Trump, closer to the allusion to aid, and only much later in the call did he mention Biden. But I guess this is jumping the gun, as I have read future witnesses are going to talk about what they heard in the call, and I guess then what was mentioned and in what order, and why Trump should or should not have said stuff will be more relevant. So consider it a “foreshadowing fork”, not a tangent. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4868 "2019-11-16T21:19:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > OK, what’s the available evidence that “she was fired for a corrupt purpose”? > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I’m not sure it is a tangent. It did fork though. I started out pointing out issues with Yovanovitch’s credibility… Just a reminder that we don’t have to spin our wheels and add dozens of posts to a thread by trying to respond to every [term redacted, replaced with _mangy horned-swoggled rapscallion_]… ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4869 "2019-11-16T21:31:41Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [PBS - WATCH: Yovanovitch: Hunter Biden’s Burisma role could raise ‘appearance of a conflict of interest’](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1gzWwbUfK8) Hunter Biden is an adult, and his father cannot control his actions. I’m sure his father would have preferred that he not take the job. All I can say is that by going after the prosecutor that was “fixing” the investigation of the owner of Burisma, Joe Biden showed clear and convincing impartiality. Not that the entire Western world wasn’t going aftercthat Guy, anyway. > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The “do not prosecute list” is discussed beginning at 1 minute 33 seconds here: > [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fiRZ1gdh1s4](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fiRZ1gdh1s4) > Here the main source of news on the list, John Solomon, points out that there is also testimony by others that pressure was applied to prevent prosecutions. (I guess he is talking about the secret nonpublic testimony. Or it is in transcripts that have been released from the nonpublic hearings that more energetic Dopers can track down for us.) There is long history of corrupt prosecutors in that country, and they frequently frame businesspeople, both foreign and domestic, for political or financial gain. Discouraging that practice is a key part of the foreign policy goal of making the country safe for investment. But there was never an actual list. > [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Did the Republicans ever come up with a reason why Yovanovitch was fired, other than because Individual 1 wanted her fired? > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Don’t attack the source, attack the content. I actually posted video clips showing what appears to be Yovanovitch contradicting herself, and when I found that gatewaypundit made the same point I noticed they also allege two other lies by Yavonovitch and posted them here for discussion. > > Here is another link I found with the two clips spliced together, making it easier to see: > [https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1195446982988455938](https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1195446982988455938) > > Would you attack politico as a source? They actually posted an article in January 2017 which Trump’s defenders could point to to say why he might think Ukraine needs to do the investigations mentioned in the call that started all of this: > [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446) I don’t watch videos, I read print media. It’s way more objective So what. It was discussed at the beginning of the hearing that the State Department personnel were not allowed access to their notes or calendars. These people have a lot of conversations, answer a lot of correspondence and meet with a lot of people. So, years later, she forgot sending an email that said “I’ll talk to later” or something else unsubstantial. So what? And I have to wonder how many individuals and companies she was briefed on prior to her confirmation hearing. Haven’t you ever crammed for a test? So, 3 years or so later, she forgot they mentioned his name. So what? I mean, you guys are sure forgiving of Trump every time he forgets saying something or meeting someone. Anyway, keep up the good fight. Because I have a feeling that once it’s discovered exactly what Parnas Fruman were up to in Ukraine, it’s going to get really hard to play defense. Especially if it turns out that they were looking to replace pro-American interests at Naftogaz with pro-Russian interests. The fact that these bozos got arrrested gives me hope that their are still people in federal law enforcement that are uncorrupted. Because this whole debacle was engineered by Russia in order to destabilize both Ukraine and the US. I hope the State Department prevails. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4870 "2019-11-16T21:40:26Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > This isn’t accurate. Vindman was _listening in on the call himself_ and _made his own set of notes_, which don’t jibe with the sanitized version released to the public. Adam Schiff has nothing to do with any of those facts. Here is the full discussion. - Minor edits for length, listed at the bottom. - Emphasis added. > [@](#): > > Q And how was this call memorialized in realtime? > A So, you know, frankly, I didn’t realIy dig deep into this process, didn’t really fully understand it until it unfolded. But what I typically see is what’s called a TELCON. It’s a telephone communication. It’s not quite a transcript, so it’s not verbatim, but it’s pretty close to it. > **Q Before we get there, I just want to understand, in the Situation Room, were there stenographers or people on recording, or how does it work? > A So certainly the staff officers would take their notes, and the reason for that is that you need to make sure if there’s a do-out that you’re able to pass that on to the appropriate department agency for coordination to advance U.S. national security policy. So people were taking notes. > But in terms of the way these things are traditionally memorialized, there’s a transcript that’s produced – on, you know, a transcript seems to imply that it’s completely verbatim. Something along a transcript that – very accurate, but not maybe flawless, that catalogs what’s been discussed and then that goes into a staffing process to try to make sure it’s accurate. > Q And what does that process entail? > A So typically what ends up happening is the transcript is produced by the White House Situation Room. It goes to the people that were in the room, maybe not even always all the people in the room, but the relevant people, like the director, senior director for the directorate in which the country falls, legal. And then you review the transcript to make sure it’s accurate, because, again, it’s not verbatim. It’s not recorded or anything of that nature, as far as I understand.** > Q Did you have the opportunity to review the transcript and compare it to your notes? > A I did. > Q Did you make any changes or suggestions? > A I did make a couple of changes and suggestions. > Q Okay. Now, let me – I’m going to give you the call record now, and we’ll mark this as Exhibit 1. > [ Majority Exhibit No. 1 > Was marked for identification.] > BY MR. GOLDMAN: > Q Now, this has now obviously been declassified and publicized. Have you, prior to coming here today, have you had an opportunity to review this carefully again? > A I have. > Q Okay. And you obviously saw this in realtime, correct? > A Yes, sir. > Q At the time, would you have – so just explain the process to me. So you make your own edits or suggestions, and then what happens after that? > A So the transcript is produced. It goes through the executive secretary from the National Security Council. It gets pushed out to the appropriate people for review. It goes through legal review, and then it goes to leadership for their final review, and then it goes into, you know, the historical record. > Q And is it disseminated among the cabinet-level officials on others who would need to know? > A I don’t know. > Q You don’t know that. So do you ever then see the final version after you make your edits ? > A Normally it would. In this case, the way it was managed, I didn’t see the final version after my edits. And, frankly, under normal circumstances, I would put my edits in and then, you know, if those edits were deemed appropriate by my leadership or legal, they would enter the record; it they weren’t, you know, I basically provide > my contribution, but it doesn’t – you know, I’m not the final say on how the transcript looks. > Q But ordinarily you’ll make your contribution. It goes to the full process to be finalized, and then the final version does come back to you? > A It doesn’t, but I do have the ability to – you know, if I wanted to, I could go into the system and take a look at it, make sure all the changes were made, You know. > a And you said that normal process did not occur here? > A It didn’t. It did not. > a What was different? > A As opposed to going into the standard communications system, it went into a different type, a different, more secure system. And in this particular system, while I did have an account, it was not functioning properly, so I had to go analog and take a look at – get a hand copy of it, make some – annotate some changes to it, return > it, and, you know, I guess it went through a paper process. > Q So even in the editing process that you normally do, that was done in a different way? > A Yes. > Q In other words, it was on a different system and you had to use a different process to put your edits in? > A Yes. > Q And how long after the call is this process done? > A It’s usually – the effort is to expedite it and make sure you have an accurate, you know, recitation of the call within a fairly short period of time. We’re talking about days. > Q So do you recall how soon – on do you recall when you first learned that this call was placed in the more highly classified system? > A That conversation occurred alongside the conversation with Mr. Eisenberg in which I voiced concerns about the July 21 call. > Q Before we – > MR. VOLK0V: July 25. > BY MR. GOLDMAN: > Q July 25. > A 25th, yeah. > Q But before we get to that, I guess, I am just wondering, because you – when you made your edits, it was already in that system? > A So, yes. It was already shifted over to that other system. > > [… 1 …] > > Q Okay. Now, what we see here in Exhibit 1, is this a standard MEMCON on - - yeah, MEMCON, memorandum of telephone conversation for Presidential phone conversations? > A It is. > Q It is the standard version? > A Yes, that’s what they typically use > **Q Is there a word-for-word transcript that is produced of these conversations ? > A I don’t believe so. > Q Okay. So this is usual? > A Yes, completely normal. > Q Now, and is there an audio recording? > A I don’t believe so.** > Q At least not in the U.S.? > A True. > Q So you’ve now had an – let me sorry. Withdrawn. > Did you even look at the final version that was placed in the highly classified system? > A So the version I saw was still the one that was in staffing. I did not have a chance to see, you know, the end result, which is what was released after I made my edits. > **Q And is the end result what you understand to be Exhibit 1 that was released on September 25? > A Yes, connect.** > Q Okay. Now, let me ask you this question: Did the end result incorporate all of your edits? > A So there were probably some, you know, non-substantive edits that I don’t recall what I necessarily put into it, but there were a couple of things that were not included. > Q And can you point us > A Sure. > Q – to what those were on are? > A Yeah. So page four, bottom of the first panagraph, let’s see, okay, so that ellipses where it ends with “it,” there was a comment about there are recordings from the President. He said that “there are recordings” of these misdeeds. > Q Okay. And that ellipses substitutes for there are recordings ? > A Correct. > > [… 2 …] > > Q Was there anything else that was different? > A There’s one other substantive item in the next paragraph from Zelensky, where it says, “He or she will look into the situation specifically to the company” it shouldn’t be “the company.” It should be “to Burisma that you mentioned.” Because I think, you know, frankly, these are not necessarily folks that are familiar with the substance. So President Zelensky specifically mentioned the company Burisma. > Q All night. So why don’t you do this, first, just read the sentence as it is in this exhibit. > A “He on she will look into the situation specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.” > Q And then read can you restate it with what you recall Zelensky saying? > A “He on she will look into the situation specifically into Burisma” and I think that’s, you know, that’s where it ended. > > [… 3 …] > > Q Is there anything else that you recall as being substantively different? > A Substantively, I think those are the only two items. > Q Now, I believe that there are other ellipses in here. On top of page three, for example, the President – President Trump says: > I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine. They say CrowdStrike, dot, dot, dot, ellipses. I guess you have one of your wealthy people, dot, dot, dot, again, another ellipses. Do you know whether those ellipses replaced other substantive statements? > A To the best of my recollection, I think at the end of CrowdStrike, “they say you have it” was said. > Q “They say you have it”? > A Yeah. > Q So the President says, "They say CrowdStrike, they say you have it. " > A Uh-huh. > Q “I guess you have one of your wealthy people”? > A Yeah. I don’t recall frankly. Oh, you know what? So, frankly, it covers it. So I don’t – if you look, you know, a couple more words down, it says, “the server, they say Ukraine has it.” So that’s covered. I don’t recall what those ellipses are. > a But generally speaking, when there are ellipses here, do they replace words? > A Not always. Like I said, in my notes, if it was a Ukrainian word on something that required some content and it was not in there, I’d replace it, but not every ellipses has something else with it. 1. I have removed one side discussion about clarifying for the record what “this” system is versus “that” system. 2,3) I have removed some requests for Vindman to repeat the transcript with his changes. Overall, the September 25th release is largely what he saw, he believes to be the genuine output of their team, and the only substantive gaps are the two he explains and neither is particular large or changes the call in a vast way. But yes, the call was treated differently than usual and, likely, that was for reasons of trying to protect the President’s ass after being criminal on the phone in front of witnesses. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4871 "2019-11-16T21:52:12Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I’m not sure it is a tangent. It did fork though. I started out pointing out issues with Yovanovitch’s credibility. A few posters responded by attacking my sources, and I got the impression they recommend completely blocking my sources from attention. So I argued “attack the content, not the source”. Then I recalled politico, a source I guess they wouldn’t recommend that one completely ignore, had posted a relevant article in January 2017. It talks about Ukranian interference in our 2016 election. This was something Trump mentioned in the call that the whistleblower blew the whistle on, staring this Impeachment Inquiry. So I guess the new forked topic is: if Russian election interference justified the Mueller investigation, why doesn’t Ukranian election interference justify an investigation? This was mentioned by Trump, closer to the allusion to aid, and only much later in the call did he mention Biden. But I guess this is jumping the gun, as I have read future witnesses are going to talk about what they heard in the call, and I guess then what was mentioned and in what order, and why Trump should or should not have said stuff will be more relevant. So consider it a “foreshadowing fork”, not a tangent. From your video links, Yovanovitch said that the Obamas were underhanded, while under oath, and that they were concerned with Biden. I don’t see how that impacts her believability. If she, elsewhere, said that they didn’t talk to her about Biden, I’d more quickly jump to “brain fart” than “she was protecting the Obamas”. People can and do fail to think of things that are relevant to what they’re talking about, sometimes. Humans are not computers. One might note, for example, that she threw the Obamas under the bus, under oath, on live TV while purportedly acting as an agent of the Democrats to destroy Trump, when the Democrats are doing everything that they can to avoid the Burisma/Biden topic and make sure that Biden comes out looking clean if forced into discussing it either way. So either she massively failed in her mission as a plant, or…people aren’t computers. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4872 "2019-11-16T22:02:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > OK, what’s the available evidence that “she was fired for a corrupt purpose”? Seriously? That you ask for “evidence” is startling to me. Or do you define “evidence” as absolute irrefutable proof, a smoking gun? Do you honestly see no **evidence** that she was fired for a corrupt purpose? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4873 "2019-11-16T22:04:41Z")
A surprise visit to [Walter Reed medical center](https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/1195809697074466817) for an unannounced physical. Previous ones have been announced. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4874 "2019-11-16T22:09:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > OK, what’s the available evidence that “she was fired for a corrupt purpose”? What all Rudy Giuliani was up to seems to still be under investigation, but I can’t think of any component of it that doesn’t look corrupt. And, true, Trump might not be aware that Giuliani was corrupt. And, if Giuliani was painting Yovanovitch in a bad light, because she was hampering his corrupt activities in Ukraine, the President would obviously side with the person who he knows better and is friends with. But it seems difficult to have 20+ criminal business partners and friends and have that be random happenstance. If you believe that Trump is all above board and legal, and thinks that Rudy is a saint, well I have a few bridges that are great investments at low low prices. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4875 "2019-11-16T22:13:30Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > A surprise visit to [Walter Reed medical center](https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/1195809697074466817) for an unannounced physical. Previous ones have been announced. People on Twitter are speculating that he’s setting up an excuse to resign “for medical reasons”. We can only hope. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4876 "2019-11-16T22:13:35Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Don’t attack the source, attack the content. For someone urging others not to attack the source, your argument here is entirely about attacking the source. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > OK, what’s the available evidence that “she was fired for a corrupt purpose”? The circumstantial case, which makes sense to me, is that Rudy and his pals (the ones who are now in jail) were allied with the corrupt prosecutor whom everyone in Western governments wanted fired, and probably wanted to install their own stooge in that position so that the stooge with fabricate evidence against Biden and the DNC. However, the ambassador knew her ass from her elbow and that Rudy was up to his eyeballs in relations with Ukrainian criminals who would affirm any conspiracy theory Rudy wants them to. So obviously, anyone not on Team Trump Swamp has to go. Now, it Team Trump Swamp can offer a contemporaneous account of why she was fired, that could use useful evidence that this circumstantial case is flawed. But they can’t offer any rationale at all, so the most likely conclusion - that her firing relates to Rudy’s corrupt dealings - can’t be so easily dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4877 "2019-11-16T22:15:18Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > People on Twitter are speculating that he’s setting up an excuse to resign “for medical reasons”. > > We can only hope. I mean, the actual reason given by the White House is that it turns out he has nothing to do this weekend and decides to get portions of his physical done three months early. Out of the blue. I don’t know what the actual explanation is, but this one is clearly bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4878 "2019-11-16T22:19:03Z")
He could actually be sick. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4879 "2019-11-16T22:20:05Z")
I’ll keep my comments to myself. I wish I were a better person, but I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4880 "2019-11-16T22:22:42Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > People on Twitter are speculating that he’s setting up an excuse to resign “for medical reasons”. I think it much more likely that he’d be preparing a “You can’t impeach a man who’s suffering from bone spurs” defense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=243) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=245)