Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Really?! You're going to dispute her testimony? On what basis?

Because of what she said.
Ambassador Yovanovitch: Well, one thing, just to remind, as I said in my opening statement, which you now have, I was not present at that time, but I can tell you what I understand to be the case".

 

[Cordelier]

Because of what she said.
Ambassador Yovanovitch: Well, one thing, just to remind, as I said in my opening statement, which you now have, I was not present at that time, but I can tell you what I understand to be the case".

So you're more knowledgeable about the Ukraine than the former Ambassador to the Ukraine?

I mean, hell, even Steve Castor acknowledges her subject expertise:

Q. And was he, in your experience - because you're very knowledgeable about the region, so when I ask you in your opinion, you have a very informed opinion - was Lutsenko better or worse than Shokin?

But you totally ignored that part, didn't you? Same thing for Kent's testimony. Why is that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Because of what she said.
Ambassador Yovanovitch: Well, one thing, just to remind, as I said in my opening statement, which you now have, I was not present at that time, but I can tell you what I understand to be the case".

But... but... but...

That's all the evidence these people need, along with their confirmation bias.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

So you're more knowledgeable about the Ukraine than the former Ambassador to the Ukraine?

I mean, hell, even Steve Castor acknowledges her subject expertise:

Q. And was he, in your experience - because you're very knowledgeable about the region, so when I ask you in your opinion, you have a very informed opinion - was Lutsenko better or worse than Shokin?

But you totally ignored that part, didn't you? Same thing for Kent's testimony. Why is that?

Because, like the former Ambassador Yovanovitch, I wasn't there either.

 

[Cordelier]

Because, like the former Ambassador Yovanovitch, I wasn't there either.

She may not have been in Kiev, but that doesn't mean she wasn't involved in the matter... ironically, at the time she had the job George Kent has now - Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs. I'd say that's a pretty good vantage point. She was nominated for the Ambassador spot just a few weeks after Shokin was dismissed.

George Kent was in Kiev, though... at the time of Shokin's dismissal he was Deputy Chief of Mission to Ukraine.

Want to try again?

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

She may not have been in Kiev, but that doesn't mean she wasn't involved in the matter... ironically, at the time she had the job George Kent has now - Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs. I'd say that's a pretty good vantage point. She was nominated for the Ambassador spot just a few weeks after Shokin was dismissed.

George Kent was in Kiev, though... at the time of Shokin's dismissal he was Deputy Chief of Mission to Ukraine.

Want to try again?

No, I think we've discussed the non-present Ambassador enough.