Ratcliffes Question News Today

Evidence or leading objections to questions that are posed from this point forward. thats my question. >> mr. ratcliffe, ill say once again im not objectng to the question but i am instructing the witness that they should not presume questions from the majority or the minority that may represent facts not in evidence are correct. this is -- i have answered the question. we will resume the questioning and resume the clock. >> so you certainly can appreciate president trumps concer concerns? >> mr...

This was a very strong message that americans are willing to provide more than blankets. this was the obama administrations approach. note this important fact. the security assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians having done any of the things they were supposedly being blackmailed to do. so were supposed to believe that president trump committed a terrible crime that never actually occurred and which the supposed victim denies ever happened. id like to briefly speak about the c...

Almost the foundation of every question that mr. goldman asked regarding facts not in evidence, leading. but house resolution 660 does not say that we are under the federal rules of evidence. if it is your position that i should be asserting objections to questions that violate the federal rules of evidence, let me know now because this hearing is going to change significantly. >> as i said, mr. ratcliffe, ill allow the question. >> i think the gentleman has a different question about the rules....

Whats the question? >> there are many facts relating to the run-up of the 2016 election that remain unresolved. >> any further -- >> well attorney general barr in may of 2019 tasked the u.s. attorney for connecticut, john durham to broadly examine the governments collection of intelligence involving the presidents campaign. that effort initially was an administrative review, has turned into a criminal probe. u.s. attorney durham is casting a wide net and is following the facts where they may lea...

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. >> ill allow the question, but are -- >> parliamentary inquiry, are you seriously interrupting our time here? >> ill allow the question. i wont dock this from the time. i just want to be clear, ambassador, if youre able to verify the things that counsel has asked you in the prerequisite of the question, thats fine. otherwise in questions...