• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 questions show all her testimony was bunk

Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

trump can fire whoever he wants for any reason he wants to.
maybe he didn't like her performance. it doesn't matter why.

she doesn't know why she was just told your fired.

what you are doing is speculating why she got fired so.

the fact is trump doesn't have to justify why she was fired. that is kinda the part of working on behalf of the president.
if he doesn't like you working in that position anymore you can be dismissed.

nothing was busted for trump.

her testimony was a disaster for leftist trying to unseat trump.

she has no knowledge of any crimes committed by the president.
so there you have it 100% bust.
 
YorkshirePete said:
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
Click to expand...

actually it was criminality in clintons case he lied to a grand jury that is a federal felony.

glad to see you can't see a busted testimony when you facts are presented.
she has nothing to testify to nothing she said was relevant.

she has no knowledge that trump took a bribe offered a bribe or made any other illegal act as president.
so she pretty much was a great witness for trump regarding the charges the leftist are trying to accuse him of.

usually is you are going to call a witness they have evidence that the person did something wrong.
she has nothing and knows nothing.
 
ludin said:
actually it was criminality in clintons case he lied to a grand jury that is a federal felony.

glad to see you can't see a busted testimony when you facts are presented.
she has nothing to testify to nothing she said was relevant.

she has no knowledge that trump took a bribe offered a bribe or made any other illegal act as president.
so she pretty much was a great witness for trump regarding the charges the leftist are trying to accuse him of.

usually is you are going to call a witness they have evidence that the person did something wrong.
she has nothing and knows nothing.
Click to expand...

If Ambassador Yovanovitch was such "a great witness for trump", why did he attack her via his favourite method communication - Twitter? Is he so insecure that the slightest criticism causes him to lose control? Why did the GOPers in the room fail to back the president's attacks?
 
Somerville said:
If Ambassador Yovanovitch was such "a great witness for trump", why did he attack her via his favourite method communication - Twitter? Is he so insecure that the slightest criticism causes him to lose control? Why did the GOPers in the room fail to back the president's attacks?
Click to expand...

i saw the tweet there was no attack.
she was a great witness she admitted she has no knowledge of any criminal activity by the president.
just took 7 hours for someone to ask a relevant question.
 
The ambassador triggered Trump into doing precisely what she was giving evidence of when he did it again in real time. Schiff swiftly capitalised by giving her the opportunity to respond in real time, and she smashed it!
 
ludin said:
trump can fire whoever he wants for any reason he wants to.
maybe he didn't like her performance. it doesn't matter why.

she doesn't know why she was just told your fired.

what you are doing is speculating why she got fired so.

the fact is trump doesn't have to justify why she was fired. that is kinda the part of working on behalf of the president.
if he doesn't like you working in that position anymore you can be dismissed.

nothing was busted for trump.

her testimony was a disaster for leftist trying to unseat trump.

she has no knowledge of any crimes committed by the president.
so there you have it 100% bust.
Click to expand...

Amb. Yovanovitch has knowledge that a coordinated smear campaign was being conducted against her by Rudi Giuliani, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, John Solomn and former Prosecutor General, Lutsenko. If you didn't know by now, Giuliani and his cohorts are at the center of the impeachment allegations against Trump. So her testimony helped to fill in some of the holes in the growing body of evidence against Trump.

Compared to Kavanaugh she conducted herself very well and professionally....no tears, no hysterics, no shouting...just calm, thoughtful, honest answers. She also got a standing ovation when she left the room.
 
Fenton said:
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.
Click to expand...

After I read your first comment on the viewership I did some Googling. And much like I said, the sign of the times plays into the situation. These hearings are held at a time when most people are working. On the flip side the Nixon hearings were shown prime time. These hearings can also be watched by streaming on various media sites which doesn't reflect on the TV viewership. The only way people could watch the Nixon hearing was by turning on their TV. Is there as much viewership? No, but plenty of factors come in to play past nobody cares.

Previously the hearings were private and the screaming from the right (including Trump) was deafening. Why aren't they public? Schiff is only letting out partial transcripts! Now they're being broadcast live and there is still crying going on. They're boring, the people aren't star witnesses, Schiff isn't letting people talk (when he's following the rules set ahead of time) and on it goes.

As to what I bolded above, you're wrong. The very first day we (and congress) learned of a phone call between Sondland and Trump that wasn't previously known. Sondland has already had to return to clear up his first amnesia and now he'll get to return and explain it again.
 
ludin said:
trump can fire whoever he wants for any reason he wants to.
maybe he didn't like her performance. it doesn't matter why.

she doesn't know why she was just told your fired.

what you are doing is speculating why she got fired so.

the fact is trump doesn't have to justify why she was fired. that is kinda the part of working on behalf of the president.
if he doesn't like you working in that position anymore you can be dismissed.

nothing was busted for trump.

her testimony was a disaster for leftist trying to unseat trump.

she has no knowledge of any crimes committed by the president.
so there you have it 100% bust.
Click to expand...

Yes Trump has the right to fire her. But only a petty and insecure little man takes to smearing someone who's had over 30 years of impressive work for the country like he's done to her. Even the GOP counsel commended her for her work.
 
ludin said:
usually is you are going to call a witness they have evidence that the person did something wrong.
she has nothing and knows nothing.
Click to expand...

There are witnesses who don't have first hand knowledge of the crime.

I just sat on a jury where 3 witnesses were called to establish car ownership, driving status, and availability to a vehicle. None had any knowledge of this crime.
 
ludin said:
i saw the tweet there was no attack.
she was a great witness she admitted she has no knowledge of any criminal activity by the president.
just took 7 hours for someone to ask a relevant question.
Click to expand...

We all saw the tweet and it was a direct attack against her reputation and while she was testifying, no less.

Yovanovitch has knowledge of criminal activity by Trump's personal lawyer, Giuliani, Lev and Igor and the corrupt former Prosecutor General, Lutshenko. She also has knowledge of Pompeo and the undermining of the State Department that allowed Giuliani to conduct shadow diplomacy against US national interests.
 
JasperL said:
If you call exposing corruption and abuse of power 'time filler' then I guess.... :confused:
Click to expand...
If that was what she did, it would have been worthwhile. Instead we had a disgruntled employee whining about being demoted. No corruption in sight.
 
Re: 3 questions show all her testimony was bunk

3leftsdoo said:
Impeachment = Complete farce
Click to expand...

The whole thing is unnecessary. The democrats already voted to impeach him the day after his election. Every single "witness" could refute every single point, and they'll still vote 100% impeachment.

Don't worry though...what comes around goes around.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

The desperation of the trumpanzee knuckle draggers is hilarious. A 30-year honorable State Dept veteran had to endure threats from POTUS during her testimony and crickets from Pompao in defending her.

The trumpanzee-infested GOP party is such a criminal, disgusting mess.
 
SkyFox76 said:
I could have sworn I saw you say you were done bothering to watch these hearings back on Wed.

When I keep seeing these threads you guys are piling on it gives the impression you're trying to convince each other "there's nothing there!" Kind of like the president keeps trying to convince us all "the call was perfect!". :lamo
Click to expand...
Kind of overlooking the extended circle jerk you guys on the left have been in for the last three years, aren't you, Mr. Pott? First it was "popular vote", then "just wait 'til Mueller reports", then "wait 'til Mueller testifies", then "we really got him with his taxes", then it was "wow! he threatened to nuke Ukraine if Zelensky didn't produce a Biden Dossier by the end of July". I have to admit I enjoy the constant "just wait . . ."
 
SkyFox76 said:
After I read your first comment on the viewership I did some Googling. And much like I said, the sign of the times plays into the situation. These hearings are held at a time when most people are working. On the flip side the Nixon hearings were shown prime time. These hearings can also be watched by streaming on various media sites which doesn't reflect on the TV viewership. The only way people could watch the Nixon hearing was by turning on their TV. Is there as much viewership? No, but plenty of factors come in to play past nobody cares.

Previously the hearings were private and the screaming from the right (including Trump) was deafening. Why aren't they public? Schiff is only letting out partial transcripts! Now they're being broadcast live and there is still crying going on. They're boring, the people aren't star witnesses, Schiff isn't letting people talk (when he's following the rules set ahead of time) and on it goes.

As to what I bolded above, you're wrong. The very first day we (and congress) learned of a phone call between Sondland and Trump that wasn't previously known. Sondland has already had to return to clear up his first amnesia and now he'll get to return and explain it again.
Click to expand...

Yes right, no one's watching because " people are working "

Michael Cohen's testimony had more viewers than the impeachment hearings.( 16 million ) 21 million watched Comey testify and close to 28 million watched Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing

NBC News blamed the lack of viewers on the first two witness lack of " pizzazz " necessary to capture the attention of American viewers

The witnesses lack of pizzazz had nothing to do with it. Face it, the hearings were a flop and no one cares.

Pelosi changed the rules to give the House committee chairs and House lawyers expanded powers. They can now take depositions from witnesses without a minority member present. Hell they don't have to tell the Republicans anything whatsoever.

What she and Schiff and Nadler cant change is people's minds. They can't force Americans to care about this farce.
 
ludin said:
She admitted no crimes that she saw or heard.
So now your saying she perjured herself?
No I am ashamed that leftist drug her out to parade her around and once again ended up with egg on their faces in 30 seconds.

You should read her response to the questions.
Instead of making stuff up that doesn't exist.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Click to expand...

I watched it all live, as it happened. I said nothing of the sort. Can you watch and comment based on reality? Not based on what you think reality ought to be in order to make your beliefs true?

Try to view this as if you are an adult. So far you are failing miserably in that regard.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Witness: I saw a yellow car speeding away from the bank with a guy in a grren mask driving.

Did you see the bank getting robbed?
'No'

"Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the people driving that car has been involved with at all?"

'NO'

well you are a stupid witness to have. you were not even in the bank
 
rjay said:
I watched it all live, as it happened. I said nothing of the sort. Can you watch and comment based on reality? Not based on what you think reality ought to be in order to make your beliefs true?

Try to view this as if you are an adult. So far you are failing miserably in that regard.
Click to expand...

This line of questioning not only sums up her testimony it sums up the hearings.

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

Yovanovitch: No.

Rep 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.
 
Re: 3 questions show all her testimony was bunk

3leftsdoo said:
Impeachment = Complete farce
Click to expand...

Your bull**** = complete farce.

Spare us the indignity of anymore nonsense.
 
Fenton said:
This line of questioning not only sums up her testimony it sums up the hearings.

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

Yovanovitch: No.

Rep 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.
Click to expand...

Not you too. Can anyone on hear make a cogent case?

- see response to the thoughtless garbage you are spewing in #142
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess you've never watched a crime show in your life. FYI, usually the prosecutors lie out a foundation for their case. She added plenty of foundation. Keep hoping your guy is gonna escape this little nasty episode of election tampering, not gonna happen.
 
"The American people know this is nonsense. The American people know this is unfair."

—U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee
Click to expand...

What I learned from watching and listening to Chris Stewart:

Some of us American people now know with certainty Chris Stewart emphatically lies and spews nonsense. Don't trust Chris Stewart. He utterly lacks credibility.

Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony advanced the case for impeaching the Bozo in the White House.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

The entire Schiff led attempt to commit an false-impeachment coup is far worse than "Bunk", it is sedition, treason, perjury, abuse of power, and false witness!

I was a blue-dog Democrat for over two decades, I will never vote for another Democrat, EVER!

-
 
rjay said:
Witness: I saw a yellow car speeding away from the bank with a guy in a grren mask driving.

Did you see the bank getting robbed?
'No'

"Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the people driving that car has been involved with at all?"

'NO'

well you are a stupid witness to have. you were not even in the bank
Click to expand...

Nailed it.

:applaud
 
Fenton said:
This line of questioning not only sums up her testimony it sums up the hearings.
Click to expand...

Only to those who don't bother thinking for themselves, or lack the critical thinking skills to realize they are being conned.

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

Yovanovitch: No.

Rep 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.
Click to expand...

See post #142.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom