Rep Chris Stewart guts Ambassador Yovanovitch
 

Stewart: "I would now feel compelled to ask you, Madam Ambassador, as you sit here before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?"

Yovanovitch: "No."

Stewart: "Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?"

Yovanovitch: "No."

This was like a scene from 'My Cousin Vinny', after Joe Pesci got on a roll.

The last ambassador testified about "what he heard" from someone else, this lady was there, I presume, merely because she dislikes Trump. That's all she had to offer.

The democrats are taking a real gamble here. This could easily help Trump, if people conclude that this is an illegitimate sham drummed up because even the democrats know they have little chance of any of their freaks candidates beating Trump in a fair election.


Are we ever going to see any actual evidence?

Clearly you dont understand how investigations work..

She wasn't their to provide that information, and no one yet who has testified have stated they have any suggestions whats criminal .. its not their place.... they just provide time line and experience

Beacause it not a criminal case . But Republicans keep insists some how a criminal act is required for impeachment... to the gullible base...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was she there to do? Tell us he's a sexist because he fired her?

"it not a criminal case"

Doesn't he need to be found guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors?

Or can you just admit that it's all about the fact that they don't like him?

whine and share her feelings like balsey ford

Keep you head in the sand. They dont like him defense is lame and tired

You need to watch more law and order..

If you cant figure out why she was questioned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea gutted, I guess that’s why she got a standing ovation Jim.

One of the biggest political scandals in American history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was she there to establish? That Trump is mean because he fired her? Presidents don't do that all the time with US attorneys and ambassadors, other appointed positions? In the executive branch, only the president is elected, everyone else comes and goes when administrations change. But it's only mean when Republicans do it. I think Clinton fired all 50 US attoneys (is that right?) and put his own people in.

Can you tell me why she was there? What was the point of her testimony?

Obama fired every GW Bush appointed ambassador

this is a joke

Yup. But he needs it to be seen as a scandal, because he cannot handle the alternative, that he could get re elected. How long will he go into exile if Trump wins again?

could be devastating :kewl:

That Giuliani was secretly conspiring with Ukrainians running a smear campaign against her to give Trump cover for removal so she couldn't block his corrupt attempts to get investigations into the Bidens and Russian hacking at the expense of US security and solely to help Trump's reelection campaign.

And her testimony was so compelling she got a standing ovation.

That's not a conspiracy theory Jim, it's all laid out as bare as can be in the testimony of highly regarded non-partisan bureaucrats...and there's a lot more to come.

work of fiction...nice job though

"running a smear campaign against her to give Trump cover for removal"

But he doesn't NEED cover for her removal, everyone in the executive branch serves at his pleasure. It's common for new presidents to come in, clean house, and put their own people in. He doesn't need just cause.

She also made mutually exclusive statements about when she first heard about what the Bidens were doing there, one minute she claimed she had no knowledge of Hunter working there until Trump was POTUS, later on she testified that the Obama administration briefed her on what Hunter was doing there. What ese is she wrong or lying about?

"And her testimony was so compelling she got a standing ovation."

Big whoop, your side gives standing ovations to convicted rapist Roman Polanski. Anyone who is a self-perceived victim gets a standing ovation.

You're very impressed by standing ovations I see.

"and there's a lot more to come"

I hope so for your side, there hasn't been anything substantial yet.

Question, if as you say this is all fiction, where are those people to state so UNDER oath, none of this happened. No need to answer it is a rhetorical question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh you mean those people Trump won't let testify because there's nothing to hide?

This is exactly the turning of justice upside down that has been happening ever since the Trump/Russian conspiracy hoax--reversing the accepted presumption of innocence which puts the burden of proof on the demonstration of guilt into requiring the proof of innocence wile presuming guilt.

This as you know is not a criminal court room, so the political case is being made for his abuse of power, potential bribery and likely an effort to cover it up. The other side, other than some true patriots, has refused to come in to make their case. Why no effort to do so, are you really hanging your hat on the argument, you have all assumed I’m guilty so why plead my case. Lame excuse and it’s far more likely, that if under oath, even more damaging evidence and complicity comes out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fixed it

All these career diplomats have conspired with the evil dems to concoct this impeachment inquiry, boy the conspiracy nuts have broken out of the looney bin, lock your doors and windows🤡🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can never put anything past the dirty democrats they, are a slippery and remarkably dishonest and shameless bunch...think about it...schif is sitting in judgment of others...that's pretty screwed up...that's like satan standing at the pearly gates deciding who is good enough to enter, I wouldn't cooperate either..plus...the longer this goes the better it is for trump and the dumber and more pathetic the democraps look...keep impeaching baby....maybe try to locate some more convincing actors though and give them better scripts to read:read:

They consistently produce garbage and it is starting to give off an odor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The other side" can't just walk in. They either have to be invited by Schiff, or allowed in by him. He is not going to let someone from the "other side" come in if they have exculpatory testimony.

The other side will get its chance in the Senate trial. And there, the burden of proof will be on the accusers.

The conspiracy nuts who created the Trump/Russia conspiracy hoax concocted an even more tangled web than this one. If you don't think it can be done, when a more sophisticated one was done right before your eyes, then maybe you're the looney one.

Well I guess in a month or two we will all know who is crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They got the invite, they are called subpoena and had they testified under oath, their testimony would be part of the record.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn’t think you were as drunk on the Trump cocktail as some others, but I guess it’s all party lines, ignore the abuse. Trump isn’t going about running the country any differently than he ran his company, he has no respect for law, truth is as he sees and speaks it and the only thing he cares about is promoting his brand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A lot of people serving time for a hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Morrison said Sondland had repeated contact with Trump and believed he had a mandate from the president to work on a second channel involving Rudy Giuliani, president Trump's personal attorney, outside the normal interagency process pressing for the investigation. But Morrison also raised several questions about whether Trump, himself, did anything wrong.

Republican only read he raised questions whether Trump did anything wrong . (,so he didn't) they do the same with climate and taxes and healthcare.. they find the needle in the haystack. And present it as undeniable truth.

its the judicial committee will present charges if any to the Senate .. seems people think this is the impeachment Trial ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i have no issue with manafort and stone being convicted. but was anyone convicted of election tampering? or were the charges more like tax evasion, perjury, interfering with the investigation?

is there any evidence that anything that happened overseas had
any meaningful impact on the election?

let’s look at his taxes again!!!

here’s an idea spence. perhaps
the democrats could
nominate someone who has a speck of tiny ability to appeal
to SOMEONE who lives between Hollywood and Manhattan. No one in the field besides Biden has that ability. And the party doesn’t want Biden, not even Obama wants Biden.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t know why you’d lie to the FBI or tamper with witnesses unless you did something wrong.

Good read for you also.

https://thebulwark.com/trumps-clean-hands-defense/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and the woman who got a standing ovation, why would she lie about being contacted by the DNC about all this?

Most will lie if it suits them. are you only oncerned when republicans do it? The ambassador said she never spoke to the democrats about this situation, we have emails that show otherwise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some selected people were "invited," a whole lot of people were not. People that the Repubs wanted to testify were blocked.

Like bidens Son?

Love to hear how you think that witness would provide any relevance ... other than a deflection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do know the DNC and a Democratic house member or senator are not the same. Correct

Please stop with the conspiracys. Post links and sources. Or just admit he did it. Its easier then being a contortionist.. avoiding whats known and grasping at straws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am sober about the leftist, Progressive continual dismantling of our constitutional republic and incrementally transforming it into a quasi democracy.

It's not about Trump, per se, for me. I am not drinking whatever cocktail you accuse him of serving. He is not the best, nor the worst, to lead us back in the founding direction. He is, with all of his flaws, better, wittingly or unwittingly, at lopping off many of the Progressive appendages of power and influence which have metastasized into our governing structure. And he certainly has outed so called Conservative pretenders.

For those who are actually interested in our real foundational corruption rather than the inevitable surface eruptions of flawed and corrupt politicians, he is a clarifying point of departure from the quickening tack toward despotic government underpinned by the tyranny of a willing and dependent majority.

I am not for a "democracy." I am with the Founders in recognizing that democracies evolve into tyrannical majoritarian rule directed by the few despots who coerce the majority, first by favor catering to human self-interest , then by force, into giving themselves the power to inflict every self-aggrandizing policy they wish. Some think this is good--that a benevolent dictatorship is the best way of securing the well-being of the masses.

The Progressive notion of democracy is, as I implied, "quasi." It uses the method of voting, not to accede to the will of the people, but to subdue them to the will of supposedly wiser and more able experts who will overcome the petty self-interests of individuals and, by their superior knowledge of what is good for all people, create the governing bureaucracy that can, without local impediments, distribute that good to everyone in the most equitable and efficient manor.

Before Trump started wielding his wrecking hammer, we were on the doorstep of that quasi-democracy with its rule by bureaucratic agencies.

It is obvious to many of us, that the constant negative attention being paid to Trump, and the unabated effort to get rid of him, to impeach him before he even had a chance to exercise any presidential power, and continually seeking ways to do so when other ways fail--and in light of him being one of theirs before he ran for the office--that there is something way beyond him as Trump that is behind all these efforts.

So it is not about Trump per se for me. It is about that "way beyond" thing. All of this impeachment nonsense is first a distraction from that thing, and second a maybe-get-lucky effort that gets him out of the way of that ultimate quasi-democracy.

you’re right i misspoke. she got an email
from a democrat staffer, and under oath she said she didn’t respond
to it, and she did.

she also admitted zero knowledge of trump doing anything illegal.

she got a standing ovation because trump fired her. that must make her an innocent victim of his scumbaggery, as opposed to it being beyond common for presidents to replace political appointees from the previous administration. democrat presidents NEVER do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What part of a witness doesn't determine what is or isn't a crime ..

Why do Republicans keep thinking that has any relevance. If the think it was or was not a crime?

I am certain if she said yes she thought it was a crime .. your tune would be different
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If thats not a kool aid driven reply. Of conspiracies mixed with chicken little with a dash of i want a time machine to bring me back to when American was acceptable.. i am not sure what else to call it. A manifesto?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device