Cut the sir keep this, but they just came across my twitter trans. Am it's too good not to share hello and welcome to the five hundred and thirty eight politics podcast, I'm Galen Druke, the second day of public impeachment hearings is behind us ambassador to Ukraine. Marie Bonaventure testified about the events that led to President Trump removing her from her post as ambassador to Ukraine. She talked about the importance the foreign Service and Rudy Giuliani smear campaign that preceded her removal. Republicans. Why she was giving testimony at all, since she was not the ambassador during the time that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the bidens and the twenty sixteen election and then Trump for his part, tweeted about you on demeaning her during the testimony, so let's discuss what all went down and what the two arguments line of arguments were.

From Democrats and Republicans here with me to do that. Our senior politics writer climb on his it's good guilt, another big day of hearing yeah by the tv watching tv all day, though, it has a very different balance as an adult political reporter that true, and also with us, is senior right. Perry, Bacon Junior has a gun, Perry, I'm doing great guess. So, let's get right to it clear. What was your top line take away from the a of testimony for starters, Marie of out of it. She, like the two diplomats that that testified earlier this week, was a pretty good witness for the Democrats. I think she had what is at the base? A pretty relatable story, which is she was from you know her Bob in a that had led to it, although I should say she sells department but remove from the job she felt very unjustly on false promises State department knew about, but still went ahead with her

acts at Trump's best, and you know she she didn't necessarily always take the bait on partisan questions. Sometimes, I think her answers work were kind of clipped, but I think she presented sort of a sympathetic face to the idea that Rudy Giuliani was behind an effort to remove her from her post for sort of out their reasons having to do with a conspiracy theory is your take away from the day she was the second day when it's not the first day when is, but wanna, logically with sort of issue to listen to, because in some ways you would have made more sense chronologically to have the person. Who was removed in this kind of weird way testify first. Then 'cause she sort of laid out this, detail, I was the ambassador. I was pretty good at it. I had a good experience. I am credentials. There was this weird which I was removed and then, of course mister.

Who replaced her and then he kind of witness the quid pro quo and the more the more nefarious things. It was interesting to watch. She's, not in too much of actually what is going to be. The fundamental impeachment, I think, but I do think she goes to the fact that a very unusual Ukraine policy that involved moving someone as an ambassador who, who I think, testified well to having been very credential for that job if the job was representing the US in Ukraine a way yeah the republican response, both in those hearings and then in the twitterverse kind of the rapid response team was something like you can't be impeached for hurting somebody's feelings right and the president has full range to appoint or remove an ambassador as they wish, and it was kind of like alright. So why are you here?

and also by the way it Marie sorry that you're being used as a pawn in these Democrats impeachment push, I mean, was that an effective was that honest truth I think you're one of will be effective. If all goes according to Democrats, the of how this is received in setting the scene in in in letting people in on the atmosphere that existed in train in the Ukraine Foreign Policy making channel with the Trump administration, which was to say it was weird right and that it was being- Basically, by the press. Personal lawyer right. This is she's kind of a prelude to Giuliani and the Giuliani adjacent people right. So it goes foreign interference in US affairs. It goes to Giuliani, improperly leaning certain ukrainian channels in order to get this much talked about political dirt, I mean she

is more kind of setting up the picture. She sort of to Perry's point earlier Taylor kind of started us in Medias res right with, with that, the testimony on on Wednesday he kind of said this is this- is the central fact of what was happening, and now we go back in time. Tumor Ivanovic and we get a little more context for the story as it unfolds, right, because she was not the ambassador during this period of time that we're talking about so what argument general argument Cliff notes for the day word Democrats, making through their questions and through their staff, attorneys questions. I think The broader argument was taking this ambassador. Removing her from her post was part of a broader series of acts by the truck ministration that suggests the Ukraine policy. Was not about you know anything to do the Ukraine itself and improving

really to to help trump with his reelection by remove her and then getting in and then having someone other people involved with the policy. Who would be? willing to implement this aid for investigate his trade. In other words, she was here mainly that she was here to demonstrate that they had they had this great, yes, so we had to remove her to get the scheme going. That was kind of the core argument, It's interesting, I mean, I think, a lot of what came across both in the recount. Of what happened to Maria advantage, but also in her talking about basically the state apartment under Trump was this revelation of the the transaction way the Trump thinks about foreign policy, so you in owes him something. Therefore they must do political favors to him it kind of is in line with how he thinks of something like NATO right. He always says the. U is more than any other country to NATO and, like those NATO members West, the name they back pay right. Well, the the poor,

the NATO alliance is its foundation right to kind of promote this originally it's kind of pro western anti communist reduce the spheres of influence. It's organization. That's not about just dues paying It has a greater effect, and I think you a microcosm in this. You create this whole Ukraine affair of the. Actional nature that the Trump Administration has approach foreign policy with. I think that uh He comes from the top, and so when Mick Mulvaney stood out, though White House podium and said yes deal with it. Politics are politics are going have on a have an effect in foreign policy making Well, that might have been an banal statement for him as someone who works in White House for many people who who are involved in. Policy making for State department employees. That was alarming because I think the hallmark of american foreign policy has typically been. You want to try to make sure that

generally have a sense that what the United States is saying from administration to administration, whether or not be democratic or republican, is that there is a ultimate she goal in policy making that those groups have that the country might be yes different parties, but when it faces As to the world that has some kind of United Vision And- and that seems to be breaking down here- and you see quite a public display here- and it's also been fundamentally trigger right for decades from republican to democratic administration, the foreign policy goals have been relatively bipartisan and in some ways, as a result of that we have an answer. We realized how much authority the president has to do as he wishes when it comes to foreign policy, because the president doesn't have to rely Congress for a lot of things he wants to do with regard to other nations. It's just more obvious when it's a goal that is not shared across parties, perhaps yeah- and I think I mean not to get not to go too far down the garden path with with foreign

But I think the IRAN deal and the Paris climate accord to big, Obama Stration foreign policy things. Can reversing them right, like there's a sort of flip flopping. I think that has the rest of the world nervous about the women of the United States on the certain things right and the ability for a press on present and then another to renege on a deal is actually kind of damaging to the ability of the country's ability to broker those deals in the future. And you mentioned not going too far down the path of you know the foreign service in foreign policy, but you want what you did to spend a lot of time in her opening remarks. Talking about the significance of the foreign service and basically making an argument for why we have the foreign service- and you know I mean I think on Wednesday, like if somebody fell asleep,

years ago when the Berlin Wall fell and woke up today, they will be very shocked to find that it almost seemed partisan for a foreign service member to be making the foreign policy arguments of Reaganism and George Hw Bush's presidency, while giving testimony against a current republican president anyway, side note on for policy, but we laid out what the Democrats argument was. How did Republicans try to respond to all of that? You know I wasn't thinking that they have a sort of a clear cut response, because her crew Those were such that I think in the narrative she told was somewhat hard to dispute like in the fact that she got recalled from Ukraine in this. On the way, so they didn't really dispute her core facts to her narrative. I think one thing they said, as you indicated, which is that removing investors, not impeachable, offense. That's not a great argument, because the demo

you're not going to have an article of impeachment. It says she was removed. It will be a much broader case with the main argument. Was you great ambassador you're fine, they were so focus on other things. I mean they focus on the whistle and how he's not able Stl here or she is not testifying. So I didn't think the Republicans spent a lot of time trying to rebut, but the ambassador was more saying that she wasn't involved in the court decisions one and the removal itself was not impeachable too. They also got into hunter, and right when Republicans Cirque reticule with representative at least a phonic, who, I think is arguably the most effective questioner on the republican side was asking questions right, even when you we're preparing to be sworn in. As ambassador, you were prepared to be asked questions about Hunter Biden, roll. I thought that was a very effective line of questioning on Stefan part and, frankly, the most effective

Publican line in general. I think, as far as far as the battle goes to win public into their side right? The idea of the legal form of corrupt which is nepotism, is pretty what is pretty much. What's nakedly on display, with Hunter Biden, having a board seat for pre snow, which he is now resigned from. Yes, her pointing out that the Obama administration was aware that Hunter Biden had this had the seat, and you know both the Biden say that Hunter Biden, his father, never discussed Ukraine fine, but I'll administration was aware of the the appearance of I prided George can't spoke to that on Wednesday and I think a least, a phonic I mean yeah. I got to push back on this for twitter, but, like I think she It was pretty effective. As far as you know, I think the Republicans are on their heels, a little bit as far as facts go for for most of this hearing stuff, because a lot of what they're Let Rudy Giuliani was pushing was a conspiracy theory, but yes, the phonic is

is raising her profile in a way that I have to think is pretty savvy down the line a she was the youngest member of Congress, woman in Congress and she's you know it reminds me a little bit of the way that Kamala Harris raised her profile with Trump hearings. Just you know the idea that when all eyes on the television, it's good to be time find the time to shine, so she certainly got that memo. Another big theme that is going to be discussed after the hearings from today is Trump's tweet in the middle of the staff attorney for the Democrats, asking more, Donna rich questions, Trump tweeted this everywhere Maria Moderates went turned bad. She started off in Somalia. How did that? Go then, thanks for to Ukraine, where the new ukrainian President spoke unfavourably about her in my second phone call with him, it is a: U S, president, absolute right to appoint ambassadors, and this was credits. He goes on to say more, but we'll leave it at that. What was the rest

of this tweet Adam Schiff, read the tweet in the hearing the ambassador talked about it and can I use. Part of a broader narrative that having the having the american President Attack, her sort of personally has been lead damaging to her internally to our psyche. So she mentioned that, and there are is on the hill. You know when the reporters asked him after ask them sort of in between the different parts of the hearing. Republicans hill were sort of nervous about. What's what's Rob did Liz Cheney is usually pretty strong. Defense defence defending the party said it wasn't a great idea to tweet that out shift used the phrase witness, intimidation and said that will be part of potentially groove the impeachment charges. I thought it overblown I'll be honest with you. Donald criticize somebody on twitter who is critical of, Leon NEWS at seven like what was

but nothing was surprising about. Then, of course, Donald Trump responded that way. Nothing was new about that at all to me, but it was my view. I thought both sides kind of acted like something that was entirely predict old was interesting that I found to be sort of. Of course he did that it's interesting, though, like the live reading of the tweet getting her wrist, because obviously she hadn't seen the tweet because she was doing testimony there thing novel about that, and then he he elicited from her the yes, I think the intent of that was to threaten me and it's interesting, because I think in some ways Ivanovic was quite a was quite reluctant to talk in depth about how she right. You know at one point she said. Well, I don't really want I'm a private person. I don't want to talk about the effect of this on my family, but there's a good moment. It was almost like a gif, an own goal from Trump having tweeted, and then to the Democrats, sort of being like well, let's see what she has to say about that, and I

It's a it was almost a public off guard moment in which I thought was interesting. Yeah as with the witness tampering, but it certainly wasn't a great moment because that's a good, that's a good little clip, I felt intimidated in our side. That's a threat or I felt threatened the one of our new thing that happened today was Trump released, the right up of his first phone call. With is it and is a Lansky? We already have the right above his second phone call, which is the one that came out back in September, and he released that timed with the beginning of this hearing. What was the point of all that? What did we learn from that? It's not a transcript. It says at the bottom of the page. You know this is not a verbatim transcript. What was a poor releasing it now and what did we learn from it? So the call seemed like it was earlier in the ukrainian President's term, So it was earlier than that they seem to have sort of a introductory call. That was

particularly interesting. I guess, if you to to show that Donald Trump is not always shaking down the ukrainian president. It did illustrate that so I mean it was a much more right now all call our relationship is based on our relationship is based on more yes, so senescence. He was not a particularly a. Devin, the read the from the call like it was a huge exoneration in at some point, I was listening like he. Reading something this has no impact. Well, no one came back to it because I think that called in even the other Republicans didn't think call was exaggerating, but my guess is the White House. Yes, because they release the call right before the hearing newness is close to them. He in sort of dramatic fashion, but that was not particular useful evidence. I don't let me the I screen shot a headline earlier today from the Rupert Murdoch owned daily mail and there

headline about this, transcript was quote what releases transcript of first call between Trump and ukrainian leader? That shows president offered him White House visit with no strings attached and with mention of biting probe? So that's what? Apparently, we were supposed to take from that, although when this initial call happened, the read out of the call or the summary of the call that was made public, you know there's a president. Trump spoke with president, so once you this morning, it's either. It said that he pushed the president of Ukraine trying ed on the issue of corruption? Obviously it doesn't say corruption anywhere in that transcript or write up. What were they talking about when they released as we're not saying he pushes the on corruption. I'm a little confused by this for two reasons. First, if a I'm going to be brewed. Your maybe and say I think a more strategic White House would have. Maybe

sure that if the readout they put out sit corruption that the cause Well, they put out said corruption, so wasn't easy to suggest they were sort of like one of those two times, so that was one part and the part was, I don't think the call was incriminating at all. I I just think it goes to the point, but I think the call in some ways actually prove the opposite point, which is that, publicans are trying to argue. Trump is singularly obsessed with corruption in Ukraine. This would his actions but call just seems like it's a risk. You get a call the present in any other country on someone with some of the things he read. It was like visit the President welcome Congratulations, you're do a great job. If you were really focused on corruption, Ukraine is the most corrupt country I can think of, and I have to press them. Call was not evidence of that. Alright, well that's most of what happened today, but as we wrap up here

we did notice. While we were all watching and live blogging about the hearings, the NBC decided to cut away from them before they were over well before they were over. Does it seem like the network? they're all tuned in and canceled their regularly scheduled programming this week will continue to do so through next week. I mean, I know, we're not supposed Talk about the pizzazz level of these hearings. The media got criticized a particularly on NBC store. I got criticized for saying that there wasn't enough pizazz on Wednesday what I'm referring to. But how do we see the network's continuing to cover us? It's a good question an you know. It goes too weirdly. It reminded me of bear with me on this comparison, APOLLO thirteen, the class I'm with you, I'm with you, take me, then the classic nine, both both the famous infamous field. The moon, and also the nineties movie starring Tom Hanks, which

talked about how there was a region supposed to be a broadcast from the space shuttle on NASH. Television, all the networks, were supposed to carry it this moment in the film where they say they have to break it to the astronauts family that like well, people are kind of bored I walking on the moon, we've already done it, so the networks are going to run it and networks networks are supposed to have this duty in some sense is that they originally that three main networks were kind of given the airwaves right, and they did there was an understanding that they did have a civic responsibility to say broad that broadcast things like presidential debates or the results of an election, and so I think, you're seeing here with NBC being, I was kind of boring what, ok with that or not is tension between balance like what's the the civic duty with like two people care about this anymore, like we're here for the we're here for the ratings right, it's also clear that most Americans are going to consume this through the

or this podcast or whatever it is like. I don't think anybody actually expects that Americans are watching five been a half hours of testimony on a daily basis. During the war most of you interest in production at like business, as in production, just went way down in America. This Friday what's your read on how the networks are covering this or just how the media in general is reacting to these impeachment hearing so far, so they say two hundred and thirty, three things I guess the first is that I do think will be different. When a witness, I'm thinking of Gordon son, one particularly a witness who we think is very close to what happened and talk to Donald Trump. I do think that I'm not going to predict every network covers it full scale. I do think that is a different magnitude of buttons and potentially more interesting candidly, and I do think that will be covered differently. I don't know if we should guess that the coverage will just go down I'm here, although I'm not sure, maybe it will, but I do think that's a different hearing

second part is I'm not sure that it necessarily matters if dirt Jeanne million or nine million or seven million, or three million people watched these hearings. You know either way three hundred million are not watching is what is something like that? So I think of a viral big what happens in the hearings that we didn't expect and it becomes a big thing- I don't think it matters who was watching, live or not it'll become a big thing, I don't know that we're going to have that moment in part, because you know the we have so far have pretty much said what they person in the private hearing and not much particularly different from that and it What is the Democrats are going to call or sort of these people who are diplomats who are, diplomatic and not very exciting. I don't I have like a We have into the microphone dial moment the next few weeks? I think that will limit the hearings in this.

As well. I think these hearings might be dole and that will change things now in terms debate in the media about how should the media for the hearings and should the media just be. Actual, or should they care cover them as a performance? our time with this question, because I would argue that These hearings are important. The facts matter. We shouldn't diminish that we shouldn't play theater critic time. Hearings are Foreman's sort. So you have to think about it. Would that a little bit with that your mind as well it's interesting it almost all you're talking it struck me that kind of what the Democratic Congressional down they facing is the same problem that like late, it face and Saturday night LIVE faces, which is known, watches the full thing they watch. The clips on tube an you're only going to watch it. If there's something that someone says. Oh it's really funny or if you know you read the like the vulture recap of the funniest moments

and I think sine is. He is not a career diplomat, is a you know, hotel yet, and I he's he's perhaps, I'm going to give a good quote listening to the W Nyc podcast about Trump Trump INC, and I think this is where I heard him he was talking about. The hotel business and he said something to the effect of well but it's everything combined its restaurants, entertainment, it's sex and I will someone someone new at a at a like? A industry conference describes the hotel business like that, might give some good quotes congressional testimony? I don't know like everyone tune in for gardens online and that's going to be Wednesday morning, but to the point about just watching the clips. It also means that both partisan outlets are going to get the content that they want, and then they can air the clips that will fire up their

our viewers accordingly, which we've been doing that which you can see like watching these hearings all day long. You kind of know when you see it. What's going to lead Hannity tonight, like, what's going to lead, Matt out tonight, etc. Although it's troubling, I think, from a for point of view, I mean there was a moment on Wednesday when Jim Arden addressing Adam Schiff said well. We all know that you are the only member of Congress. You know Mister Chairman shift. That knows the density of the whistleblower and director after that Adam Schiff says. Let me collect correct the record. I do not know who the whistleblower is, but the clip that I saw tweet it out by Jordan's office and then by, I believe, the president and so will make the rounds, is George saying well shift you're, the only one who knows who the whistleblower is and no one else does. You know not true, but that's the kind of thing that can come out of this, which is you don't get the full story, and that is

it is troubling just from just from a person who deals in facts right, like I do think, that's a problematic thing, although obviously. I should note here, like everyone been stuff, it's just. That was particularly blatant that I saw that circulating we have one more thought deal. Okay, I one one more thing, your so. The one thing I think about today that it was were saying is I actually think the Roger Stone Conviction is probably a more important story than the ambassador's testimony ooh there's the kind of five hundred and thirty eight hot. Take. We come to this podcast for where's the data, and I say I don't have any data in this is it. I know the demo It's simple Losi. Besides this impeachment is about this one phone call this one quid pro quo in we're proving that

In reality, I would argue the impeachment Ukraine was the 19th, the in the first. Eighteen were really led us to this point and- and I think, Roger Stone in the whole Muller Investigation kind of created the predicate for this, and then you Rain was the final step and they were like. We've got in peach and we're going to move forward on this, and I just general I think that we look back upon this administration. The fact that campaign chairman one of his big advisors like how many people on the Trump team, two and sixteen were indicted and went to jail or wind or you fine, or have you that ultimately a huge story, and some in sticks with people in a way that I'm not sure you know that

was being to an ambassador, ultimately will yeah. I mean it kind of goes to show that in the middle of the new cycle, as it's been in recent years, it's easy to lose track of everything that's going on, and yes, the fact that Roger phone was found guilty today is like not even going to lead the news, because it's going to be the impeachment hearings that lead the news by the way cut this or keep this. But this just came across my twitter transwomen, it's too good not to someone someone just we this in Two people named not Rumsfeld one of the sexiest men alive CN Pentagon reporter called him quote a big flirty pussycat I saw earlier, I'm not sure where it came from what causes that real news can we fact check that before we decide to leave it in the podcast I'm looking at a screenshot shot says people magazine at the top.

CNN called a virtual rock rock star, Fox dub them about Wade magnet and the Wall Street Journal kill them the new hunk of home front air time I mean I don't know how it is used to be more fun, although that was more fun for like six doesn't to get pretty serious quickly, but anyway, oh my god, a big flirty pussycat. I just a little levity from two thousand and two and times are so much simpler. It's Friday, nobody email us complaining that we're off topic anyway.

Everyone have a great weekend. We will see you back on Monday and then for the rest of the week with these hearings and then the debate Wednesday night. Also, let me remind people that if you want five, thirty, eight scribe, which obviously you do go to five thirty eight dot com, slash store. We've got some cool new designs on there for you to check out. That's it for now. Thank you, Claire Thankskilling. Thank you, Barry. Thank you. My name is Gail and Rick. Tony chow is in the control room. Our intern is Jake are low. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcasts. At five thirty dot com, you can also course treated us with questions or comments. If you're a fan of the show, leave us a reading or review in the Apple podcast store. I know I say that every time, but actually do it head over to our podcast or give us a raven, we're doing a lot of podcast for you anyway, or tell someone about the show thanks for listening and will see you soon