2 questions show all her testimony was bunk

[SkyFox76]

Gotta wait for the oppo research to get done.

It sure is a good thing there's all that unlimited, anonymous cash available for it.

He probably got a ticket for not picking up his dog's **** or forgetting his anniversary or something, anything, even a completely made up thing that will make his testimony irrelevant.

We all know their media can make literally anything up and the usual subjects will run here to post it and about a third of the voting population will swallow it hook line and sinker.

Happens damn near every day.

Well, there's already one in here who seems unaware that it's entirely possible to hear a person on the other end of the phone unless it's on speaker, so that could be a weak argument to start with. Which of course could be shredded in 10 seconds, but hey, doesn't eliminate it from the possibilities.

 

[j brown's body]

Thanks for the Schiff approved capsule.:lol: Yavanovitch was very close to the outgoing corrupt Poroshenko regime, not the incoming Zelensky one which had pledged to fight corruption. The only person fired to allow corruption to continue was Shokin. Burisma, in fact, canvassed the Obama administration to get heat off them. You can thank Quid Pro Joe.

She made a speech last March criticizing Poroshenko for not fighting corruption. That contradicts your statement. You provide no evidence to support any of your other ones.

Right. Wing. Babble.

None if what I pointed out came from Schiff.

 

[Fenton]

What a goofy comment. There is no shortage of comments, complaints and tears from the Trump supporters in just this forum alone. Then let's add in Trump showing his backside yesterday which was a clear indication he was watching and feeling threatened.

You know who's not interested or watching? The people who aren't in here talking about it.

It's estimated that 80 % of Americans tuned into Nixon's impeachment inquiry.
How many Americans watched Thursdays hearing ? 13 million.
That's less than 5% of the US population. No one cares and no one's watching and the Democrats and the MSM know it

After Taylor's testimony the MSM and Left wing commentators were forced to write numerous article's that tried to explain away the lack of interest.

Apparently impeachment hearings are supposed to be boring. Some even said it's our duty as Patriotic American's to all tune in and watch and some were practically beginning people to watch this clown show

The Democrats responded with a follow up witness who had no relevant information whatsoever. Why the hell was she even testifying ?

 

[SkyFox76]

Looks like some GOPer Congress critters have better ethical standards than some of the commenters here

The president was left isolated after Republican lawmakers refused to follow his lead and attack the former ambassador to Ukraine.

and

I hope Trump continues down this petty little path. He may have people who will stand up for their parties sake, but at some point everyone has a line in the sand. This smear campaign is no doubt edging people to realize Trump will do anything and everything to anyone with absolutely no regards to how it destroys their lives.

Best I could tell, both sides commended this woman for an impressive career over the span of 30 years. She has knowledge in her work and carried herself well during her testimony.

Yet there was the president literally trashing her on Twitter as she testified. Like a petty little child sticking his tongue out behind moms back.

If his own people found it in poor judgment imagine what undecided voters felt.

 

[JasperL]

So, nothing. I didn't expect much, but to your credit, you delivered even less. That's hard to do.

So we're going to drop the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing, and substitute "I don't like him" in it's place? You're a hoot.

Abusing his office to get his personal attorney to smear a serving ambassador who has served the country with honor for 33 years is NOT "I don't like him" it's I don't like abuse of power, what he did, that specific shameful, disgusting, deplorable, dishonorable ACT. Imagine a boss that if he decides to fire YOU runs to the newspaper and spreads lies that the employee was embezzling money, was caught viewing child porn. What do you think that does to morale, the ability to attract good people, that to disagree with POTUS doesn't just mean getting fired but getting publicly humiliated, BASED ON LIES.

And abuse of power is a "high crime and misdemeanor." So is using the foreign policy of the U.S. to advance the President's personal agenda. Impeachment simply doesn't require a criminal act as we define it in 2019. If you don't know this, you should do some reading on the historical meaning of the term. It most closely resembles breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty. Criminal acts meet that bar, clearly, but so would lots of things NOT criminal.

That's why what the GOP is doing is so dishonest. If you want someone to explain it to you, you can listen to Sen. Graham from during the Clinton impeachment. Now he and his cohorts sing a different tune, and they know they are misleading the public.

 

[Fenton]

I admit the sample size is small, but seems unanimous......

Molly Jong-Fast on Twitter: "If I were a Republican I would be very very worried right now.....… "

Worried about what exactly ? The Republicans have been effective in exposing this farce for what it is.

For example, Rep Stewarts line of questions to Yavonovitch....

" Stewart: Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?

Yovanovitch: No.

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

Yovanovitch: No."

If this impeachment inquiry isn't going the way the Democrats and their supporters thought it would then that's all on the Democrats.

This public hearing was their idea and they chose to call in people like Taylor and Yavonovitch.
They've got no one to blame but themselves.

 

[veritas1]

She made a speech last March criticizing Poroshenko for not fighting corruption. That contradicts your statement. You provide no evidence to support any of your other ones.

Right. Wing. Babble.

None if what I pointed out came from Schiff.

And none of what I pointed out could not be gleaned by anyone watching her testimony. She provided no substantive evidence of any crime committed by Trump. She repeatedly denied such knowledge or said she didn't know. She was basically a waste of time. The Dems knew this and thus the pivot to talk about her firing as if she's immune from removal. It was another failed day for Commissar Schiff.

 

[SkyFox76]

It's estimated that 80 % of Americans tuned into Nixon's impeachment inquiry.
How many Americans watched Thursdays hearing ? 13 million.
That's less than 5% of the US population. No one cares and no one's watching and the Democrats and the MSM know it

After Taylor's testimony the MSM and Left wing commentators were forced to write numerous article's that tried to explain away the lack of interest.

Apparently impeachment hearings are supposed to be boring. Some even said it's our duty as Patriotic American's to all tune in and watch and some were practically beginning people to watch this clown show

The Democrats responded with a follow up witness who had no relevant information whatsoever. Why the hell was she even testifying ?

People's lives are a lot more complicated and filled than back during Nixon's days. Working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet, so the ability to sit for 5-6-7 hours and watch this stuff doesn't fit many schedules. Added the ability to check headlines on social media, back then your choice was tv, radio or newspaper. So again, entirely different times.

 

[Rexedgar]

Worried about what exactly ? The Republicans have been effective in exposing this farce for what it is.

For example, Rep Stewarts line of questions to Yavonovitch....

" Stewart: Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?

Yovanovitch: No.

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

Yovanovitch: No."

If this impeachment inquiry isn't going the way the Democrats and their supporters thought it would then that's all on the Democrats.

This public hearing was their idea and they chose to call in people like Taylor and Yavonovitch.
They've got no one to blame but themselves.

Gotta open the link :shrug:

 

[JasperL]

It's the basis for impeachment claimed by Schiff. You guys keep the target moving if you want. It's cute. It reminds me of that girl in second grade that wore a frilly pink dress with gray elephants dancing around the bottom. That kinda cute.

It's interesting how none of the Trump cultists defend what he did, they just waste time pushing bogus reasons why we aren't supposed to care about what he did. This reason is - "if it's legal, it's good!" Or "if it's not criminal, it's not impeachable." That's nonsense of course, either version.

 

[veritas1]

Worried about what exactly ? The Republicans have been effective in exposing this farce for what it is.

For example, Rep Stewarts line of questions to Yavonovitch....

" Stewart: Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?

Yovanovitch: No.

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

Yovanovitch: No."

If this impeachment inquiry isn't going the way the Democrats and their supporters thought it would then that's all on the Democrats.

This public hearing was their idea and they chose to call in people like Taylor and Yavonovitch.
They've got no one to blame but themselves.

Yep, and you can be sure that if Schiff could have gotten away with the whole thing being behind closed doors with select manipulated leaks, he would have done so. Sunshine and transparency is the death knell of their scheme. It's why they are hiding the WB and stopping the GOP from calling their own witnesses.

 

[veritas1]

It's interesting how none of the Trump cultists defend what he did, they just waste time pushing bogus reasons why we aren't supposed to care about what he did. This reason is - "if it's legal, it's good!" Or "if it's not criminal, it's not impeachable." That's nonsense of course, either version.

The problem is that what you claim Trump did, did not happen. The Dems can't even dredge up anyone who can testify to it. Their "star" witnesses have been abject failures. I suspect that they have nobody with any direct knowledge. If they did, we'd be seeing them and not the time wasters we're seeing.

 

[Outlook]

Whiny race-baiting to top off and already fail of a post. :lol:

Actually the line about mean white men is something a CNN commentator said.

 

[YorkshirePete]

All it took was 2 questions and 30 seconds for the ambassador to show nothing she said implicates trump.

7 hours of nonsense undone by 2 questions.

Chris Stewart takedown of Yovanovitch shows Democrats have '''no case,''' GOP says | Fox News

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

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

Yovanovitch: "No.

Impeachment has little to do with criminality.
Read clintons charges
No criminality
She helped establish a timeline darlin
Glad to see you are digesting the repub talking points

 

[YorkshirePete]

Impeachment has little to do with criminality.
Read clintons charges
No criminality
She helped establish a timeline darlin
Glad to see you are digesting the repub talking points

Omg knees news!!
Roger A "our job is not to report the news, it's to reiterate what our viewers already think"
(And mandatory blond short skirts)"
Terrific news source

 

[humbolt]

Abusing his office to get his personal attorney to smear a serving ambassador who has served the country with honor for 33 years is NOT "I don't like him" it's I don't like abuse of power, what he did, that specific shameful, disgusting, deplorable, dishonorable ACT. Imagine a boss that if he decides to fire YOU runs to the newspaper and spreads lies that the employee was embezzling money, was caught viewing child porn. What do you think that does to morale, the ability to attract good people, that to disagree with POTUS doesn't just mean getting fired but getting publicly humiliated, BASED ON LIES.

And abuse of power is a "high crime and misdemeanor." So is using the foreign policy of the U.S. to advance the President's personal agenda. Impeachment simply doesn't require a criminal act as we define it in 2019. If you don't know this, you should do some reading on the historical meaning of the term. It most closely resembles breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty. Criminal acts meet that bar, clearly, but so would lots of things NOT criminal.

That's why what the GOP is doing is so dishonest. If you want someone to explain it to you, you can listen to Sen. Graham from during the Clinton impeachment. Now he and his cohorts sing a different tune, and they know they are misleading the public.

...And it makes me CRY, too.

You left that out. I don't really care how the former ambassador feels. It's not relevant, and telling a her she sucks isn't grounds for impeachment. BUT, I'll add it to the ever growing list of impeachable offenses the left claims.

 

[humbolt]

It's interesting how none of the Trump cultists defend what he did, they just waste time pushing bogus reasons why we aren't supposed to care about what he did. This reason is - "if it's legal, it's good!" Or "if it's not criminal, it's not impeachable." That's nonsense of course, either version.

Talk to Schiff. He used quid pro quo as the justification. Don't tell me this is yet another fishing expedition. You guys are amazingly inept. Now you're claiming the president can't recall an ambassador because their feelings could be hurt.

 

[SkyFox76]

The problem is that what you claim Trump did, did not happen. The Dems can't even dredge up anyone who can testify to it. Their "star" witnesses have been abject failures. I suspect that they have nobody with any direct knowledge. If they did, we'd be seeing them and not the time wasters we're seeing.

Hearings are a process. With some exceptions, most hearings don't have just one "star witness" that walks in, says "yeah I saw him shoot the guy and here's the video I took" so witnesses are brought in one by one that all offer pieces of a larger picture. People wanted to dismiss Taylor, yet it was Taylor who shed the light on his aide overhearing the phone call between Trump and Sondland. And now that aide has been interviewed to share what we weren't aware of before Wed. Hearing the president speaking on the phone is rather direct don't you think?

Past that, the idea that no one has direct knowledge is rather absurd imo, given we already know there are people with direct knowledge. But sadly the president refuses to let those people speak. All the while claiming he's done nothing wrong. That's how all innocent people act right? Gag the people that can clear them. But then we've also got Sondland who has come forward. Granted he seemed to "forget" part of the truth until others testimony was released, and now he's going to either have to bow out, or explain (yet again) how he also forgot a phone call between himself and the president that was overheard. It'll be interesting to hear what his excuse is.

And of course the true "star" witness would be Trump himself. The guy who keeps telling us the call was perfect, wth that means. At this point he probably mumbles it in his sleep he's chanted it so many times. This is the guy who has told us he has the greatest memory of all time, who can't seem to recall discussing wikileaks with Stone, or a phone call with Sondland. To be honest, I doubt he remembers what he ate for breakfast, but hey, he's the one making the claims so his supporters jump right on board without question.

Mark Sandy (OMB) is in a closed door session atm, he will may have answers on why the $400 million was held. Who knows, maybe he'll even drop a name or two that will add more to the puzzle. We could find out later today I suppose.

So no, expecting a "star" witness isn't a reality for these hearings, or many that take place around the country every day. All that will really matter is how the testimony all fits together in the end.

 

[danielpalos]

All it took was 2 questions and 30 seconds for the ambassador to show nothing she said implicates trump.

7 hours of nonsense undone by 2 questions.

Chris Stewart takedown of Yovanovitch shows Democrats have '''no case,''' GOP says | Fox News

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

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

Yovanovitch: "No.

should she have said, nothing more than hearsay?

 

[Moot]

She admitted no crimes that she saw.
So your argument is a bust or did you not read her own testimony?

You didn't answer the question...why did Trump want her out and smear her reputation? Until you can honestly answer that question...the only bust in this fight will be Trump.

 

[Moot]

Indeed. The point is that she was removed in order to make way for the corruption, thus she was not there when the issues in the questions came up.

Otherwise, why was she smeared and fired?

That's the million dollar question that republican's can't answer unless they admit that Trump was conspiring to commit an illegal act.

 

[ecofarm]

Lol...how many times are you going to use this sad, pathetic, tactic?

What are you crying about? How did I hurt you? Do you need a kiss to make it better?

Look here. Race baiting sexist garbage:

But, but she’s a trooper. She endured 7 hours in front of those mean white men. Let’s all stand up and applaud. Such a trooper. They should make a statue of her next to the statue of Blasey Ford. Such troopers.
This is a key witness? LOL

Think you could muster the gumption to admit it?

No, you can't. You're gonna claim that's not race baiting. You're gonna claim that's not sexist. Go ahead, do it. Show us all what you got.

 

[SkyFox76]

See post #63.

Under H.Res.660 — which lays out the inquiry’s rules — Schiff (D-California) and Nunes (R-California), the committee’s ranking minority member, are allowed to question witnesses “for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair.”

The resolution additionally states that, “Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning.”

Essentially, only Schiff, Nunes, the majority’s counsel and the minority’s counsel may question witnesses during questioning periods lasting longer than five minutes.

If you watched the hearing you would know that during the 5 minute period Stefanik was absolutely allowed to speak. So, as I said the crying that Schiff wouldn't let her talk is bs.

Following that period of questioning during Friday’s hearing — which Nunes largely yielded to minority counsel Steve Castor — and after granting himself another five minutes, Schiff recognized Nunes for an additional five minutes.

Nunes then yielded that time to Stefanik, which was permitted.

Schiff: Nunes cannot hand yield time to Stefanik, per inquiry rules | Local | poststar.com

 

[Outlook]

What are you crying about? How did I hurt you? Do you need a kiss to make it better?

Look here. Race baiting sexist garbage:



Think you could muster the gumption to admit it?

No, you can't. You're gonna claim that's not race baiting. You're gonna claim that's not sexist. Go ahead, do it. Show us all what you got.

I admit it, the way Schiff and his colleagues talked to the witness, it was very sexist and she should have called them out on it. They treated the witness like a four year old.
I admit it, the way CNN described the congressmen at the inquiry was racist.
This is par for the left.

 

[Fenton]

People's lives are a lot more complicated and filled than back during Nixon's days. Working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet, so the ability to sit for 5-6-7 hours and watch this stuff doesn't fit many schedules. Added the ability to check headlines on social media, back then your choice was tv, radio or newspaper. So again, entirely different times.

Nah, they just don't care. Everyone of these witnesses have already given their written sworn depositions, so the Democrats know exactly what they're going to say.

The Democrats called this public hearing in an attempt to gain public support for impeachment. That's the entire point of this side show. To get American's on board.

The fact that no one's watching or cares for that matter is really bad for the Democrat's.

It means all the polling that showed a majority of Americans supported impeachment was bogus, and Americans are getting sick of the Democrat's antics.

If Schiff could figure out a way to shut this down he would.