Rep Chris Stewart guts Ambassador Yovanovitch

[Jim in CT]

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?

[wdmso]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What was she there to do?

whine and share her feelings like balsey ford

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

Quite simply to outline the corruption engendered by the Floridaman administration in Ukraine, which she did quite effectively. Floridaman noticed

In her testimony, Yovanovitch detailed how Giuliani and his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman worked with a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor to orchestrate a smear campaign against her, oust her from her post as ambassador, and "circumvent official channels" of Ukraine policy. Yovanovitch also testified, "Perhaps it was not surprising that when our anti-corruption efforts got in the way of the desire for profit or power, Ukrainians who preferred to play by the old, corrupt rules sought to remove me. What continues to amaze me is that they found Americans willing to partner with them and, working together, they apparently succeeded in orchestrating the removal of a U.S. ambassador. How could our system fail like this? How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government?" While Yovanovitch was testifying, Trump denigrated her on Twitter. When read what the president had written about her, Yovanovitch testified: "It's very intimidating. I can't speak to what the president is trying to do, but the effect is to be intimidating."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

Obama fired every GW Bush appointed ambassador

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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. from dummies

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.

work of fiction...nice job though

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by scottw

work of fiction...nice job though

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

"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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

this is a joke

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How long will he go into exile if Trump wins again?

could be devastating

[Got Stripers]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

This as you know is not a criminal court room, so the political case is being concocted....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fixed it

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

"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.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Got Stripers]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

All these career swamp hacks have conspired with the evil dems to concoct this impeachment inquiry based on third and forth hand information, 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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

A lot of people serving time for a hoax.
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

[Sea Dangles]

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