NewsPolitics

Adam Schiff Interrupts Public Impeachment Hearing As Republicans Start Grilling Democrat Approved Witnesses

Here is an update on the LIVE impeachment hearing going on right now.

During a line of questioning, Rep. Nunes was asking Ambassador William Taylor about former Ukrainian Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch.

Yovanovitch’s “ousting” has been used as a tool by democrats to prove that Trump has been nefarious in his attempts to root out corruption in regards to Ukraine.

Nunes: THANK YOU, MR. TAYLOR. FUSION GPS CORRECTOR NELLIE ORR TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS THAT LESEE. HENKO WAS A SOURCE FOR FUSION GPS’S OPERATION TO DIRTY UP THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INCLUDING THE COMPILATION OF THE STEELE DOSSIER ON BEHALF OF THE DNC AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE UNAWARE THAT LESCHENKO SERVED AS A SOURCE FOR THAT. IS THIS STILL CORRECT?

Taylor: IT IS.

Nunes: YOU SAID YOU DID NOT KNOW UKRAINIAN INTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER AVOKOV MOCKED AND DISPARAGED THEN-CANDIDATE TRUMP ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER. IS THAT STILL…

Taylor: THAT IS CORRECT.

Nunes: AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS COMMITTEE YOU SAID YOU WERE NEVER BRIEFED ON THESE REPORTS AND STATEMENTS, THAT YOU DID NOT DO DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE TAKING YOUR POST TO DISCOVER THAT PRESIDENT — THE PRESIDENT’S AND MAYOR GIULIANI’S CONCERNS MAY HAVE BEEN AND THAT YOU — WHAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN AND YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THEM WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. IS THAT STILL CORRECT?

Taylor: YES, SIR.

Nunes: FURTHERMORE, YOU SAID IT UPSET YOU TO HEAR ABOUT THE MANY INDICATIONS OF UKRAINIAN ELECTION MEDDLING. PRECISE WORDS AND I WILL READ THEM BACK TO YOU, BASED ON THIS POLITICAL ARTICLE WHICH AGAIN SURPRISES ME AND DISAPPOINTMENTS ME, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS A MISTAKE FOR ANY DIPLOMATIC OFFICIAL IN ONE COUNTRY TO INTERFERE IN THE POLITICAL LIFE OF ANOTHER. THAT IS DISAPPOINTING, END QUOTE. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IS THAT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY?

Taylor: MR. NUNES, IT IS. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, I LOOKED INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SEVERAL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. IN 2016, CANDIDATE TRUMP HAD MADE A STATEMENT SAYING THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT HE WOULD ALLOW CRIMEA TO GO BACK TO RUSSIA. HE EXPRESSED THE SENTIMENT OR THE OPINION THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT CRIMEA WANTED TO GO BACK TO RUSSIA. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, MR. NUNES, IS THAT THOSE, THAT SENTIMENT IS AMAZINGLY INFLAMMATORY TO ALL UKRAINIANS. SO —

Nunes: I THINK THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. ARE YOU AWARE DURING THE, I BELIEVE IT IS THE 2012 ELECTION WHEN AT THE TIME PRESIDENT OBAMA LEANED OVER ON A HOT MIC TO THEN RUSSIAN PRESIDENT AND SAID THAT HE’D HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, AND WAS THAT INFLAMMATORY TO THE UKRAINIANS, ALSO?

Taylor: I DON’T KNOW, SIR…

The Republican then went back to the subject of the ousted Ukrainian ambassador, and Ukraine’s attempt to meddle in our election in 2016.

Nunes: FROM THE PRESIDENT’S PERSPECTIVE, IF THE AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, AND ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL DIPLOMATS IS PENNING AN OP-ED AND CERTAINLY WITH THE OKAY OF PRESIDENT POROSHENKO, THIS DNC CONSULTANTS ARE CONFERRING WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AT THE EMBASSY, AND FORMER PRIME MINISTER AND THE AMBASSADOR HAD ALSO BEEN IN THE ZELENSKY REALM WAS SAYING VERY UNKIND THINGS ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS VERY CONCERNED THAT SOME ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF HIM, DID NOT SUPPORT HIM AND WERE OUT TO GET HIM?

That’s when Rep. Adam Schiff decided to halt the hearing to instruct the witness on how to respond to the question.

Schiff I WILL ALLOW THE QUESTION, BUT ARE YOU — I WON’T DOCK THE TIME, BUT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR, AMBASSADOR, IF YOU CAN VERIFY THE THINGS THAT THE COUNSEL HAS IDENTIFIED IN THE PREREQUISITES, BUT FOR THE MAJORITY OR THE MINORITY WITHOUT FACTS BEFORE YOU, YOU SHOULD BE CAUTIONED ABOUT THAT.

HOLY SHIFF. Are you kidding me? This guy just stopped Republicans from questioning a witness, after Republicans sat for almost an hour and allowed Democrats to pepper the witnesses with softballs.

One member of the committee, Rep. Radcliffe, had the balls to call Schiff out on it:

CHAIRMAN, I SAT HERE THROUGH THE FIRST 45 MINUTES AND LITERALLY HAD AN OBJECTION TO ALMOST THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY QUESTION THAT MR. GOLDMAN ASKED REGARDING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE LEADING, BUT HOW RESOLUTION 660 DOES NOT SAY THAT WE ARE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, AND IF IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT I NEED TO BE INSERTING OBJECTIONS THAT VIOLATE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, LET ME KNOW NOW, BECAUSE THIS HEARING IS GOING TO CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY.

Schiff immediately backtracked:

AS I SAID, MR. RADCLIFFE, I WILL ALLOW THE QUESTION.

Things are getting spicy folks.