Rep Chris Stewart guts Ambassador Yovanovitch

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

thing is, trump didn't need any reason whatsoever to dump her, because that happens all the time
when the administration changes.

so she was a disgruntled former employee, playing the victim card. she also appears to have lied about responding to democrats attempts to reach out to her in this issue. she also explicitly testified to having zero knowledge that trump did
anything illegal.

that’s some smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

thing is, trump didn't need any reason whatsoever to dump her, because that happens all the time
when the administration changes.

so she was a disgruntled former employee, playing the victim card. she also appears to have lied about responding to democrats attempts to reach out to her in this issue. she also explicitly testified to having zero knowledge that trump did
anything illegal.

that’s some smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you need a smoking gun?
Floridaman learned plausible deniability from Roy Cohn many years ago. It's why he doesn't think lawyers write anything down. He's done it for years and never been indicted.

I doubt that Sondland, Perry, Guiliani or Volker will go to jail for Floridaman. One of these guys will flip.

As far as the emails that she responded to, I would assume that anyone who has worked at high levels of government for 33 years would have numerous contacts on both sides of the aisle. She had already asked the political appointee in the State Department for an explanation of why she was removed from her post and received no answer. She spoke with people she knew. Do you find that improbable or do you only see the world in a partisan fashion?

Look at a list of Ambassadors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambass...S._ambassadors ) and see how many are Career Diplomats. There are many who, as Yovanovitch did, served thru multiple administrations of both parties. In 33 years she worked for administrations of both parties.

I posted the reason people lobbied to have her removed and testimony confirms it. The reason she was called was to testify about the role of the Floridaman administration in Ukraine. Can you refute, with proof, that it was because she worked against corruption in Ukraine?