House to vote on impeachment

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

for god’s sake, someone tell
trump not to attack witnesses while they’re testifying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like another impeachable offence.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

his son got the gig, coincidentally according to you, while
dad was the point person on the executive branch’s ukrainian
agenda.

i agree not illegal. what did trump
do that was illegal? quid pro quo is illegal? how many times a day does one politician say to another, “vote for my bill, and i’ll vote for yours.”

as confident as you all are that there’s nothing there, the left sure doesn’t want the truth revealed. BC we are honest enough to admit it is bc Trump wants his political rivals investigated to tarnish their names. how about we do an honest investigation and release the results?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When there is no smoke there is no need to investigate if there is a fire.

Trump's own words gives us reason to look into his asking a foreign gov. to investigate a political rival while at the same time holding up foreign aid.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

When there is no smoke there is no need to investigate if there is a fire.

Trump's own words gives us reason to look into his asking a foreign gov. to investigate a political rival while at the same time holding up foreign aid.

i see. it’s a virtue, specifically honesty, to deny that there was anything fishy going on.

you’re all also dismissing the Durham investigation even though not a word of it had been released. Which virtue does that indicate?

i’m not stupid enough to presume that Trump was simply seeking the truth when asking for the investigation. obviously there was a political component. but i have no problem with my president seeking the truth regarding what the bidens did, as i have no problem seeking the truth about credible accusations against trump.

funny, you constantly deny any wrongdoing in the part of democrats. That’s a coincidence, right? Not political?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump's own words gives us reason to look into his asking a foreign gov. to investigate a political rival while at the same time holding up foreign aid.

not just a political rival. a political
rival who engaged in behavior that many people would claim is fishy.

Paul, are you saying the potus can only inquire about the actions of people in his own party? no president can ever be trusted to inquire about anything being done by anyone in the opposing party?

The senate dems sent a letter to ukraine, asking them
to investigate Manafort and trump. But that was OK for them
to ask for dirt on a political rival.

Seems like you’re really afraid of what an investigation might conclude.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

asking a foreign gov. to investigate a political rival

.

this is dumb.. biden isn't a political rival...he's a bump on a log...he's NEVER won the nomination and he's been running since the early 70's

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like another impeachable offence.

oh boy! start the hearings...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yovanovitch says John Solomon's columns were used to push false allegations
BY OLIVIA BEAVERS - 11/15/19 01:58 PM EST 930
12


Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified Friday that a shadow campaign led by Rudy Giuliani and his associates appeared to be behind what she said were false attacks against her that led to her ouster.

She singled out columns in The Hill written by former conservative opinion contributor John Solomon, which the staff counsel to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) highlighted during the committee's second public impeachment hearing.

In response to questions from staff counsel Daniel Goldman, Yovanovich said the origin of the attacks against her was a series of opinion articles in The Hill authored by Solomon. She also said the allegations came in part from Yuri Lutsenko, the former prosecutor general of Ukraine.


"This effort by Giuliani and his associates resulted in a series of articles in The Hill publication that were based on allegations in part from Lutsenko," she said.

Goldman in his questioning highlighted three categories of attacks against Yovanovitch.

"One category included the attacks against you, which you referenced in your opening statement including that you had bad-mouthed the president and had given the prosecutor general a do-not-prosecute list," Goldman said. "There was another that included allegations of Ukrainian interference in a 2016 election and then there was a third that related to allegations concerning Burisma and the Bidens, is that accurate?"

"Yes," Yovanovitch answered, adding that they "seemed to be promoted by those around Mayor Giuliani."

"These attacks were being repeated by the president himself and his son," she added, which she said made her "worried."

Such allegations also received pickup on Fox News, she noted.

Yovanovitch said it was false that she had bad-mouthed the president and handed Lutsenko a do-not-prosecute list, a charge initially included in a column by Solomon in The Hill after an interview with Lutsenko.
Yovanovitch and the State Department have pushed back on that claim, saying it is false there was such a list.


Ukrainian media quoted Lutsenko as changing his story, though in an interview with The New York Times last month, Lutsenko blamed the confusion on an interpreter for his interview with Solomon and said Yovanovitch had asked him to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.

Yovanovitch has maintained on Wednesday that she did not speak negatively about the president, which was a point that led some to press for her removal.

The link I posted, and about which you supposedly responded to here, has nothing to do with your entire post.

First, PaulS requested a link re Hunter Biden and his pop re corruption. Paul is big on links. Apparently, links are necessary in order to be able to think properly. So I provided a link.

Second, it had nothing to do with Yovanovich or Lutsenko.

You quite often do this trick of sliding from what is said into something else, something you want to say, and a slide that implies there is a linkage, an actual response, when there is neither.

And it is a convenient way of avoiding that to which you ostensibly are responding.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like another impeachable offence.

its asinine behavior. although the lady made two mutually exclusive, completely contradicting statements ( on one hand that she never heard anything about Hunter i’m ukraine until trump, and also that the obama
administration coached her in what to say if
anyone asked why Hunter had that job), those statements cannot both be true, so what else is she lying about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

its asinine behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s actually a felony.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It’s actually a felony.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's funny

[spence]

Good week for America, bad week for Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

This sham being directed by Shift is nothing but an embarrassment to America. Nobody with a conscience could call this charade justice. History will recall this as a tipping point where the democrats lost control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This sham being directed by Shift is nothing but an embarrassment to America. Nobody with a conscience could call this charade justice. History will recall this as a tipping point where the democrats lost control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy have you got the GOP talking points down, the more people come forward the stronger their case gets and Trump even doubles down by intimidation tactics in the middle of her testimony.

Trump will be impeached, his lieutenants will not remove and we can finally get the election done. When that’s over Trump might want to consider a die job and some makeup; putting him in the prison jump suit will be way too much orange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Boy have you got the GOP talking points down, the more people come forward the stronger their case gets and Trump even doubles down by intimidation tactics in the middle of her testimony.

Trump will be impeached, his lieutenants will not remove and we can finally get the election done. When that’s over Trump might want to consider a die job and some makeup; putting him in the prison jump suit will be way too much orange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My prediction is we will all see you throw plenty more tantrums in the future due to our President. He has you desperate enough to be hopeful...too funny.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It’s actually a felony.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I doubt that. Saying she stinks at her job, isn't the same as threatening a witness.

It's vindictive and immature. Felony? That's a leap, but perhaps not much more of a leap than any of the other laughable accusations.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Boy have you got the GOP talking points down, the more people come forward the stronger their case gets and Trump even doubles down by intimidation tactics in the middle of her testimony.

Trump will be impeached, his lieutenants will not remove and we can finally get the election done. When that’s over Trump might want to consider a die job and some makeup; putting him in the prison jump suit will be way too much orange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at this damning testimony from 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."

Wow, she really put the nail in Trumps coffin.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Good week for America, bad week for Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe.

What's happening here, is that your side sees that none of the totalitarian Reds running for democratic nominee, has a great chance in a general election with an incumbent during this economy, even if it's a jerk like Trump. So they are doing anything they can, to prevent a fair election against him.

Maybe these hearings signal the end of his presidency. But if you learned anything from 2016 (I'll wager you didn't, you probably blame the results on all the things Hilary mentions in her book), you'd know that there's a chance that this helps Trump. He will wear an impeachment at the hands of Pelosi and AOC as a badge of honor.

No one knows how this will play out in the 6 states that will decide the election. It doesn't matter what people in CA or NY think, because those states aren't up for grabs.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

is nepotism, or getting your son a gig he isn't qualifies for, corruption?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Relay thats your arugument... whos kids are in the white house whos kid book was promoted on Tweeter by his fathers Twitter account againts the rules

I know dems bad. Republicans good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I know dems bad. Republicans good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong, pal. 100% wrong. I agree with Dems on some big issues - gay marriage (I was for it LONG before it was fashionable for liberals, I was for it when Hilary and Obama were adamantly opposed to it), death penalty, expanding healthcare coverage to pre existing conditions, and to some degree, gun control.

Please tell me, on what major policies, you agree with conservatives? Let's see who can think for themselves, and who is a partisan zombie, shall we?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Look at this damning testimony from 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."

Wow, she really put the nail in Trumps coffin.

That point has been debated already in another thread, so same point I made to Scott, where are the people who can say under oath, there was no back channel effort to get dirt for personal gains in an upcoming election and that the investigation was necessary to release the aid package? Everyone to a person seems to under oath be bringing forth evidence showing that is exactly what happened. Now you have all those overhearing what clearly was a stupid and very damaging non secure cell phone conversation coming forward, where Trump in his own words (no hearsay) confirms that is exactly what happened.

Again, if Trump, his chief of staff or other cabinet members can under oath make his case that this wasn’t the goal and never happened, why are they not coming forward?

Rhetorical question, we all know why, unless you are just spouting the GOP talking points, which seem to change weekly as new evidence is released, soon they won’t have much to say other than the standard; this is just a witch hunt because we all hate Trump and will fabricate anything to get him impeached.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Look at this damning testimony from 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."

Wow, she really put the nail in Trumps coffin.

I'm not sure you're understanding how this all works. Not everyone who testifies knows everything. It's the job of the committee to stitch it together and if justified (which it already looks to be) to hold a vote. Remember the Ambassador nor her superiors didn't even know why she was removed. The Republicans are just asking questions like the above to make it look like there was no wrong doing when it's simply just that she didn't have visibility...but other's do.

[wdmso]

Jordan claimed that Giuliani's role was akin to prior presidents having people like U2 lead singer Bono "do diplomatic missions."

Wow a stunning legal defense.

From the Guy who dismissed sexual abuse complaints..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

this is just a witch hunt because we all hate Trump and will fabricate anything to get him impeached.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is true...good job

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure you're understanding how this all works. Not everyone who testifies knows everything. It's the job of the committee to stitch it together and if justified (which it already looks to be) to hold a vote. Remember the Ambassador nor her superiors didn't even know why she was removed. The Republicans are just asking questions like the above to make it look like there was no wrong doing when it's simply just that she didn't have visibility...but other's do.

i get that. i just wonder if/when any of them will
say anything other than, “Trump is
mean and he humiliated all of us in 2016.”. when do we get to something other than that? what is there to stitch together? he’s a bully who tries to coerce people, when necessary, to get what he wants?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

From the Guy who dismissed sexual abuse complaints..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and the evidence of that is????

school hired a team of lawyers who interviewed hundreds of people, there was zero evidence that Jordan knew what was going on. there are two lawsuits that claim he knew. but no evidence yet.

your standards for what constitutes evidence of wrongdoing are quite, shall we say, flexible, aren’t they? depending upon the politics?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Don't get lost in the other guy with anger issues, that is the goal of injecting him into the hearing.

Meanwhile, in the House, the evidence from the Roger Stone hearing is attracting attention. When it rains, it pours.......

The House of Representatives is now investigating whether President Donald Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller in written answers he provided in the Russia investigation, the House's general counsel said in federal court Monday.

"Did the President lie? Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?" House general counsel Douglas Letter told the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit about why the House now needs access to grand jury material Mueller collected in his investigation.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and the evidence of that is????

school hired a team of lawyers who interviewed hundreds of people, there was zero evidence that Jordan knew what was going on. there are two lawsuits that claim he knew. but no evidence yet.

your standards for what constitutes evidence of wrongdoing are quite, shall we say, flexible, aren’t they? depending upon the politics?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In fact the law firm said that it was common knowledge amongst everyone there at the time that the perv. was doing stuff (jerking off in the shower, etc). Jordan was not named.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

In fact the law firm said that it was common knowledge amongst everyone there at the time that the perv. was doing stuff (jerking off in the shower, etc). Jordan was not named.

Where the hell else is he supposed to jerk-off??

Geesh, talk about Nit-picking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Where the hell else is he supposed to jerk-off??

Geesh, talk about Nit-picking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tissue - like every other man in America.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

In fact the law firm said that it was common knowledge amongst everyone there at the time that the perv. was doing stuff (jerking off in the shower, etc). Jordan was not named.

the report said one person ( not jordan) knew, didn’t conclude
anyone else knew.

that is known as legally innocent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device