Quote:
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
Hybrid Mode
