Impeachment Inquiry 2: Now It's Official!

[GreyhoundFan]

Aw, Milk Dud is whining because they have to go back to the SCIF for more closed door testimony, "until I don't know when." Um, honey, you can resign from congress and not have to listen to any testimony. He's such a waste of oxygen.

[fraurosena]

Yovanovitch made a very good point that the trumplicans had no answer for earlier in her answer to one of the trumplicans: Yes, a president can recall an ambassador at their whim. And if he wanted to recall her, he could have simply done so. Why then was a smear campaign on her even necessary?

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

8 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Why then was a smear campaign on her even necessary? 

Because his overlord, Putin wanted it. And she's a woman.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by GreyhoundFan

[GreyhoundFan]

"4 takeaways from Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony"

Spoiler

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted from that job in April amid a smear campaign, testified Friday in the second public impeachment hearing into President Trump.

Below are some early takeaways from what happened in the hearing.

1. Trump’s alleged ‘witness intimidation’ — and GOP blowback

Perhaps the most colorful moment in the hearing came in the 10 o’clock hour. President Trump — whom the White House had said would not be watching the hearing beyond Republican Devin Nunes’s (Calif.) opening statement — tweeted about Yovanovitch.

“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?” Trump said. “Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) decided to read the tweet aloud and give Yovanovitch a chance to respond. She said she found the effect of Trump’s words “very intimidating.”

Schiff responded: “I want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.”

Aside from the allegation that this amounts to witness intimidation, this is notably counter to the strategy the GOP employed this week, which was to focus less on attacking the witnesses and more on what they couldn’t attest to firsthand.

And during the hearing’s first break, two high-profile Republicans objected. “I disagree with the tweet,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who serves on the intelligence committee. “I think Ambassador Yovanovitch is a public servant, like many of our public servants in the Foreign Service.”

Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) the third-ranking House Republican, said Yovanovitch “clearly is somebody who’s been a public servant to the United States for decades, and I don’t think the president should have done that.”

Kenneth Starr, whose investigation led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the 1990s, added on Fox News, “I must say that the president was not advised by counsel in deciding to do this tweet. Extraordinarily poor judgment.”

Trump later denied that he was trying to intimidate Yovanovitch with his tweet.

“I don’t think so at all,” he said, when a reporter asked whether his words could be intimidating.

Notably, though, no Republicans took up that thread or defended the tweets.

2. Trump as a one-man foreign policy wrecking crew

Over the course of her testimony, Yovanovitch painted a picture of a State Department and a U.S. foreign policy establishment held hostage by the whims of the president — most notably via his tweets.

She said that when she sought a statement of support from the State Department or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after Donald Trump Jr. attacked her, she was told no because it could quickly be “undermined.”

“I was told there was a concern on the seventh floor” — where State Department leaders’ offices are — “that if a statement of support was issued … that it could be undermined,” Yovanovitch said.

Asked to clarify, she said it was feared “that the president might issue a tweet contradicting that.”

She also was asked about the rough transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump praised the recently removed Ukraine prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko. She was asked whether it was the position of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine that Lutsenko was corrupt, and she said repeatedly that it was.

Trump in the call twice praised Lutsenko, saying that “I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good, and he was shut down, and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down, and you had some very bad people involved.”

It’s not exactly news that Trump’s whims can undermine other parts of the government. Yovanovitch basically describes a president who is completely disengaged from official U.S. policy toward top allies and whose tweets his subordinates live in fear of.

Lutsenko in March baselessly accused Yovanovitch of giving him a “do not prosecute” list. The State Department issued a statement defending her then, and Lutsenko later retracted the allegation. But even that statement was unattributed to any official, much less Pompeo or any senior officials. That suggested fear of Trump undermining his State Department was a mainstay.

3. A strong rebuke of Pompeo

Yovanovitch is still a State Department employee, despite being removed as ambassador. But she took a moment to pointedly rebuke the leaders of that department.

And it wasn’t difficult to see her true target: Pompeo.

Yovanovitch didn’t just accuse State Department leaders of failing to stand by her amid the smear campaign — which has been borne out in other testimony — she also said that they failed to maintain a robust Foreign Service.

“At the closed deposition [last month], I expressed grave concerns about the degradation of the Foreign Service over the past few years and the failure of State Department leadership to push back as foreign and corrupt interests apparently hijacked our Ukraine policy,” she said. “I remain disappointed that the department’s leadership and others have declined to acknowledge that the attacks against me and others are dangerously wrong.”

She added: “Moreover, the attacks are leading to a crisis in the State Department as the policy process is visibly unraveling, leadership vacancies go unfilled, and senior and mid-level officers ponder an uncertain future and head for the doors. The crisis has moved from the impact on individuals to an impact on the institution. The State Department is being hollowed out from within at a competitive and complex time on the world stage.”

Yovanovitch did not mention Pompeo by name, but it’s not difficult to connect the dots.

Top Pompeo aide Michael McKinley testified that he and other top officials lobbied for a statement in support of Yovanovitch in late September but was told that Pompeo decided against releasing such a statement — in part to “not draw undue attention to her.”

4. A gender-centric stunt

As The Post’s Elise Viebeck wrote ahead of Friday’s hearing, gender dynamics loomed large over the proceedings. And during the hearing’s first break, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) declared that Democrats were trying to get Yovanovitch to “cry for the cameras.”

But arguably the most significant moment on that front was one that was manufactured by Republicans — and rather transparently so.

After returning from the first break, ranking Republican Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) tried to yield time for questioning to Stefanik. But Schiff said Nunes couldn’t do that — that he could only yield to his counsel or ask questions himself. The Republican professed to be perplexed. “You’re gagging the young lady from New York?” Nunes said incredulously. The optics would seem to be pretty bad for Schiff; he was silencing the committee’s only female Republican, for apparently no reason except spite.

Except that’s hardly the case. The rules as voted on by the broader House last month were clear: The chairman, Schiff, and the ranking member, Nunes, each got 45-minute periods to either ask questions or yield to a staff member. (The resolution says: “Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning.”) Afterward, each member would get five minutes, during which they can yield to other members.

Stefanik still tried to use the moment for political hay, tweeting, “Once again, Adam B. Schiff flat out REFUSES to let duly elected Members of Congress ask questions to the witness, simply because we are Republicans.”

That is just not true — Schiff was acting firmly within the rules — and Nunes and Stefanik have to know that. It’s pretty apparent this was a stunt.

 

[fraurosena]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Because his overlord, Putin wanted it. And she's a woman.

Yes, I agree that ousting her came at Putins direction. But her question remains, why smear her when Trump could have simply recalled her regardless? That's just vindictive. I think that campaign came at Lutsenko's instigation as retaliation for her very public condemnation of corruption. But that's just my speculation.

Rep. Krishnamurthi made a good point against the trumplican argument that although Yovanovitch was ousted, she was replaced with ambassador Taylor, who is also a fine and upstanding agent unwilling to work with bad actors, so what exactly is the problem? Krishnamurthi succinctly pointed out that Yovanovitch was out of Ukraine by May 20. Taylor did not take up his position until June 17. So that left Ukraine without official American representation for a month.

A month in which the 'irregular channels' as Taylor calls them, to act as they wished. 

You can do a lot of stealthy damage in a month.

[fraurosena]

I loved the cheering applause as Yovanovitch left the hearing room by the way.
(And Schiff completely ignoring an obnoxious trumplican's shenanigans).

 

[Smash!]

I thought we all need a good laugh [emoji16]

Edit: The link to the tweet is gone ?

 

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Smash!

[fraurosena]

Oh Em Gee. 

How are the trumplicans going to defend Trump after that statement?

I can’t wait to read the transcript and I’m even more impatient for Sondland’s testimony.

 

The whole statement:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/david-holmes-testimony/index.html

[Whooping_Butt]

On 11/4/2019 at 9:02 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Meadows, struggling mightily to prove some wrongdoing by Yovanovitch, found he couldn’t pronounce the names he had been given — so he spelled them out. “I’m sorry, I’m not Ukrainian,” he said.

 

This dickhead? This dickhead is my state rep. ??‍♀️ I’m so fucking embarrassed. And ashamed. 
 

On 11/4/2019 at 9:02 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

 “Neither am I,” she replied.

?BURN?

[fraurosena]

Speaking of burn...

 

[fraurosena]

Parnas talking will be even more devastating  for Trump than Holmes’ statement.

He has indicated he’s willing to testify before Congress... 

[fraurosena]

Who would have thought George could make me laugh?

 

[Dandruff]

Wonder how well Dumpy is sleeping tonight.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

2 hours ago, Dandruff said:

Wonder how well Dumpy is sleeping tonight.

Probably like this

[Smash!]

I have to say I'm not optimistic. Senate will block the impeachment inquiry and Trumpsters will sell that to their base that the president did nothing wrong but the mean Democrats are the enemy.[emoji36]
In my opinion our only chance is a massive blue wave next year that kicks out as many republicans as possible and Trump out of office. If orange fuckface gets a second term well then The States will definitely fall into Authoritarianism with Ivanka as the next president [emoji85]

[apple1]

Slightly off-topic, I have to find a little humor or I will lose it.

Why does Pete Buttigieg look fantastic (knowledgeable, smart, professional, hard worker, etc.) in shirt sleeves...

While Jim Jordan just looks like he needs to buy this (very expensive) new product:

https://tideonewashmiracle.com/tide-one-wash-miracle/?sku=1WASHMIRACLE1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7_64koHv5QIVVR6tBh1xwgiMEAYYASABEgIvsfD_BwE

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Smash!]

 

Yeah that's how the GOP works. I'm sure they did it only for the cameras so they have a story to tell their voters. It was a trap for the Dems but I don't know how other way Schiff could have reacted to avoid tapping in it? He seems to have an excellent understanding of the play the GOP is playing...
Does anyone know how the Republicans behaved during the hearings of the Watergate Scandal? Where they assholes that live in an alternate universe even then?

[GreyhoundFan]

"Elise Stefanik emerges in impeachment hearings as key Trump defender — and GOP celebrity"

Spoiler

On the House floor, Rep. Elise Stefanik has built the record of a Republican maverick: She’s one of the few GOP lawmakers to vote against the party’s sweeping 2017 tax bill, back equal rights for LGBT Americans and support an effort to grant legal status to young undocumented immigrants.

But inside the ornate Capitol Hill hearing room where lawmakers are gathering evidence for a possible impeachment of President Trump, she has been a complete team player. The New York lawmaker has emerged as one of Trump’s most reliable allies on the House Intelligence Committee, an outspoken critic of panel Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and one of the GOP’s most effective messengers as they seek to undermine the Democratic-led probe.

Early in Friday’s hearing with former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Stefanik sought to make a point by speaking up during a period of questioning reserved only for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and his counsel under rules that passed the House on a party-line vote last month.

“The gentlewoman will suspend,” Schiff said. “You are not recognized.”

“What is the interruption for this time?” she shot back in an exchange calculated to underscore Republican objections to a process controlled by Democrats. “This is the fifth time you have interrupted members of Congress, duly elected members of Congress.”

Her performance Friday caught Trump’s attention: In remarks at the White House before the hearing ended, Trump lamented to reporters that “certain very talented people weren’t even allowed to ask questions,” a reference to Stefanik — though she actually asked numerous questions later in the hearing. Trump also retweeted a video clip posted to Stefanik’s account showing the exchange with Schiff.

In a brief interview after the hearing, Stefanik said she saw no dissonance between her centrist policy views and her prominent role attacking Democrats and defending Trump in the impeachment hearings.

“This is a matter of constitutional importance, and I’m asking substantive, fact-based questions to the witnesses,” she said. “I have one of the top 10 percent most bipartisan records in this House and one of the most independent records. But when it comes to constitutional matters, we should focus on the facts. We should not let this be a partisan attack the way Adam Schiff is conducting himself.”

Some Democrats see something else at work in Stefanik’s newly prominent role on the Intelligence Committee — stage management by a largely male corps of Republican lawmakers. Stefanik is the only GOP woman on the panel and, at 35, the youngest of the 13 Republican women in the House.

“I think everything they did today was strategy,” said Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), one of three Democratic women on the committee. “She’s one of the newer members on the committee, and she’s a woman. . . . When they are badgering a female witness who is a career Foreign Service officer with an impeccable record, and they want to badger her, I think it’s a better look when a woman is taking the lead on that.”

Stefanik has not shied away from her party’s fraught record on gender, delivering stern warnings to the men running her party that the GOP needs to do a better job recruiting female candidates and appealing to female voters. To that end, she has raised more than $340,000 this year for her political action committee devoted to electing women — an effort that has the backing of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other top party officials.

She bristled at the suggestion that her role in this week’s hearings had anything to do with gender: “They’re putting me forward because I ask the best questions,” Stefanik said, calling any suggestion otherwise “shameful.”

Inside a closed Oct. 29 deposition, Stefanik sparred with the lawyer of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council director overseeing Ukraine, over what she later called a “sexist remark.”

“I don’t know who you are, if you could identify yourself for the record,” said the lawyer, Michael Volkov, when Stefanik asked a question.

“I’m on the House Intelligence Committee,” she replied, adding, “I get asked this a lot.”

“Oh, that’s good,” Volkov said.

Stefanik shot back, “No, it’s not good. But I will continue my line of questioning.”

According to transcripts released by the Intelligence Committee, Stefanik attended at least part of seven of the 11 depositions for which the panel has issued transcripts. Stefanik asked questions in two of those seven depositions.

That is an above-average attendance rate among the members of the three committees authorized to participate, but Stefanik is not among the handful of Republicans who have attended every session and asked frequent questions.

Early in Wednesday’s hearing with two State Department officials, Stefanik interrupted Schiff to ask whether Democrats would be “prohibiting witnesses from answering members’ questions as you have in the closed-door depositions.”

Schiff shot back, “As the gentlewoman should know, if she was present for the depositions — ”

“Which I was,” she interjected.

“For some of them,” Schiff said.

Stefanik has otherwise used her time in both public hearings to deliver key GOP messages: that Trump’s policy of delivering aid for lethal weapons was better for Ukraine than former president Barack Obama’s; that Trump was justified in seeking investigations of Ukrainian corruption; and that Ukraine ultimately got military aid.

“For the millions of Americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following: Number one, Ukraine received the aid. Number two, there was, in fact, no investigation into Biden,” she said Wednesday.

Stefanik represents New York’s North Country, stretching from the outskirts of Saratoga Springs across the Adirondack Mountains to the Canadian border — territory that has long been considered politically moderate but took a sharp turn to the right in 2016, voting for Trump by 14 points.

Stefanik’s own 14-point victory over Democrat Tedra Cobb last year was her closest race since winning election to a vacant seat in 2014. Cobb is again running to unseat Stefanik and has seized on the impeachment proceedings to paint her as a partisan.

“Instead of upholding her constitutional duty, Elise Stefanik continues to choose the advancement of her political career at the expense of our national security,” Cobb tweeted Wednesday.

On Friday, Cobb suggested Stefanik’s high-profile role had been a boon for her campaign fundraising: “I am overwhelmed by the support we’re seeing today.”

As she was emerging as a GOP star of Friday’s impeachment hearing, Stefanik was also burnishing her bipartisan bona fides. Voting during a recess in the hearing, Stefanik was one of only 13 Republicans who joined with 222 Democrats to reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank — a long-standing target of House conservatives.

She also remains a favorite daughter of the GOP’s establishment wing, a group that has long managed to swallow its discomfort with Trump. Stefanik was named this month to Time magazine’s list of the 100 most influential up-and-coming global leaders. In a short essay for the list, former House speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) called Stefanik “the future of hopeful, aspirational politics in America.”

“Elise Stefanik is a builder — no easy feat in an age when so much of politics is about tearing people down,” Ryan wrote.

Still, on social media this week, Stefanik has become a partisan flash point, with GOP voices decrying Schiff’s decision to silence her questioning — never mind that Stefanik later received time for questions that she did not fully use.

One tweet, from the Daily Caller, compared the performance to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s 2017 move to silence Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — an exchange that went viral among Democrats.

“She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted,” the conservative news outlet tweeted, using McConnell’s words, with a photo of Stefanik.

Meanwhile, other voices have treated her as an ideological turncoat. Nicolle Wallace, an MSNBC host who served as a senior communications aide to president George W. Bush and for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, suggested in a tweet that Stefanik was drinking “loony tune juice with her breakfast” with former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, “going from occasionally reasonable republicans to Trump shills.”

Another former Bush aide, Matthew Dowd, called Stefanik “a perfect example of why just electing someone because they are a woman or a millennial doesn’t necessarily get you the leaders we need.” Dowd later deleted the tweet and apologized to Stefanik.

“This is one of the reasons young women don’t run for office,” she said in response, accepting the apology.

 

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, apple1 said:

Slightly off-topic, I have to find a little humor or I will lose it.

Why does Pete Buttigieg look fantastic (knowledgeable, smart, professional, hard worker, etc.) in shirt sleeves...

While Jim Jordan just looks like he needs to buy this (very expensive) new product:

https://tideonewashmiracle.com/tide-one-wash-miracle/?sku=1WASHMIRACLE1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7_64koHv5QIVVR6tBh1xwgiMEAYYASABEgIvsfD_BwE

Jim Jordan wears shirts that are several sizes too big for his height-deficient frame. That's why he looks crumpled and disheveled all the time. Although it could be a MAGA fashion statement. After all, Trump wears pants that are several sizes too big. 

Or, it could simply be a reflection of their state of delusion...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Isn't this the truth? "Trump saw the Yovanovitch hearing and just couldn’t bear being left out"

Spoiler

As former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was testifying Friday at the congressional impeachment hearings, the tyrannical 2-year-old occupying the Oval Office busied himself on Twitter trying to smear her. Presumably, there are no grown-ups left to mind him.

There he was, the president of the United States, apparently watching the proceedings, and he couldn’t bear being left out. He hurled insults at Yovanovitch in what House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) described as “witness intimidation in real time.” Not only was this an outrage bordering on criminal, Trump’s Twitter-tantrum conceivably could lead to an article of impeachment.

The president later defended his comments at a White House event on health care, saying, “I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do.” Of course he does, but there’s a tiny difference between him and “other people.” He’s the most powerful person in the world and commands the largest military on the planet. He doesn’t have to express every little thing. Someone should tell him.

This wasn’t Trump’s first time trying to bully — and, yes, intimidate — this highly respected public servant. Yovanovitch was an anti-corruption reformer in her role in war-torn Ukraine. But in May, for seemingly personal reasons, Trump fired her.

The president later expressed his low impression of Yovanovitch during a July 25 phone call with new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The U.S. president told his counterpart that Yovanovitch was “bad news,” that she caused problems everywhere she served, and that she would “go through some things.”

“It sounded like a threat,” Yovanovitch testified.

I’d say. Never mind the utter humiliation and disrespect. Or the implicit threat to others serving in the diplomatic service. Or the clear message to other interested parties, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, that Trump will kneecap his own people when they fail to serve his personal agenda. Does Trump know nothing about diplomacy? Never mind.

Ironically, Yovanovitch had learned of her ouster from Ukraine while honoring a murdered Ukrainian anti-corruption activist. She was told that she should get on a plane home that very day, according to her testimony. Trump likes this sort of thing, too. Remember that when James B. Comey was removed as FBI director two years ago, he was giving a pep talk to employees in the Los Angeles field office as wall-mounted televisions behind him began to flash “Comey Resigns.”

That Trump, what a prankster. Further to his own amusement, he apparently decided that Friday morning, right about when Yovanovitch’s hearing began, was exactly the right time to release a rough transcript of his first call with Zelensky in April. Surely an attempt to deflect attention from the hearing, the maneuver backfired when a comparison of Trump’s rough transcript and the White House’s readout, released immediately after the call, revealed significant discrepancies, raising doubts about the veracity of both.

Trump’s allies had maintained that Yovanovitch’s removal from Ukraine was based on her allegedly bad-mouthing the president and her failure to fight corruption. But the emerging picture based on recent revelations is that Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, considered her an obstacle to an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

If, indeed, Yovanovitch had impeded a valid investigation, evidence of which isn’t apparent, then perhaps Trump might have wanted to replace her. That’s certainly his prerogative, as he tweeted Friday. The main issue at stake, however, is whether Trump offered a quid pro quo or attempted to extort or bribe Zelensky in exchange for dirt on Hunter Biden and his father, a potential opponent in next year’s election. Whatever you call it, we now know that Trump did briefly freeze military funding to Ukraine and teased a White House visit in what appeared to be an exchange for information.

In her damning testimony last month during closed hearings, Yovanovitch said her firing was engineered in part by Giuliani, along with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were arrested last month on campaign-finance violations just as they were about to board a plane out of the country with one-way tickets. She claimed that the trio was conspiring with corrupt, old-guard Ukrainians to get her replaced with someone who would be more favorable to their “business dealings” — importing natural gas into Ukraine.

Plainly, Ukrainian natural gas is the stock to watch. For now, after the first two days of public hearings, it would seem that Trump and Giuliani are the bad news — and maybe soon they’ll be “going through some things” themselves.

 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The president later defended his comments at a White House event on health care, saying, “I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do.” Of course he does, but there’s a tiny difference between him and “other people.” He’s the most powerful person in the world and commands the largest military on the planet. He doesn’t have to express every little thing. Someone should tell him.

There is another thing about freedom of speech: it's the right of all people. 

However, and this is a big however, freedom of speech is NOT the right of a public office. A POTUS is not a person. It's an office. And as such, when tweeting from the official POTUS account, Trump is not tweeting as a person, for whom freedom of speech is a right, but as the public office, that does not have that right at all. Just like Nancy Pelosi has freedom of speech as a person, but not in her role as Speaker of the House, and just like #MoscowMitch has freedom of speech as a person, but not in his role as Majority Leader of the Senate. To name but two other public offices.

And that is precisely why his attack on Masha Yovanovitch is an impeachable offence. It wasn't Donald Trump attacking her. It was POTUS. 

Big difference.

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

It looks like Stefanik's stunt yesterday is having repercussions she may not have taken into consideration.

 

  

[SassyPants]

On 11/13/2019 at 12:45 AM, fraurosena said:

According to this NYT article the trumplicans are going to do exactly what we expect:

 

Dana Milbank also delves into Dem and trumplican strategies.

The case against Trump in seven words

 

If POTUS Trump thought that he was ferreting out corruption when he spoke to the Ukraine President, he IS woefully uneducated to the processes in place (and in unison we all say, DUH). Further, if Trump truly believed that thwarting corruption was the goal, why didn’t he take it one step further and contact his Justice Dept.

answer- because he was only trying to get dirt on the person he assumes will be his Presidential rival in 2020, similar to what he likely did with the Russians in 2016. Hey, it worked once. He is a lying liar who lies.