2 questions show all her testimony was bunk

[Jay59]

Policy comes through channels, not from some drunken private attorney on a mission for one man that happens to also be President. That is why we have a State Dept. It ain't Anarchy yet and neither is it Royalty yet in this country though there appears advocates for each in this forum. Nobody informed either the responsible State Dept or responsible NSA representatives that there was a policy change afoot.

You know why? BECAUSE THERE WASN"T ONE. There was simply a rogue channel full of idiots and crooks out to achieve its own and its leader's corrupt goals. Trumps goon squad:
Rudy the drunk (soon to be indicted, sent to rehab and then to the old goon's home)
Lev the crook (Mobbed up and indicted)
Igor the crook (iMobbed up and ndicted)
Sondland the idiot (currently dancing on the top of a fence)
Perry the representative of Trumpian gas company patrons (not talking)
Volker, group secretary (currently dancing on the top of a fence)
Manafort (in prison)
Firbish (still fighting extradition back to the US for Trial)

Except not. Get a grip on reality.

The bottom line is that she is a disgruntled employee grinding her ax.

 

[Somerville]

Except not. Get a grip on reality.

The bottom line is that she is a disgruntled employee grinding her ax.

Your opinion and not one shared by those who have been paying attention.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.

Surely you’re not stupid enough to suggest that Yovanovitch is the only person who has information/answers. You’re not, right?

 

[Jay59]

Your opinion and not one shared by those who have been paying attention.

To the contrary, by most who are paying attention. TDS victims are a minority, though that does include 90% of the MSM.

 

[Jay59]

Surely you’re not stupid enough to suggest that Yovanovitch is the only person who has information/answers. You’re not, right?

The suggestion is that she has no answers and never did. It follows that no one else has more than nothing, so I have to concede your point. They are essentially equivalent. No one has any information/answers that you are looking to find.

 

[rickc]

Wow!

Those arguments from the right are not grounded in the facts.

No one who has direct contact with trump has testified: Well that will soon change even though Trump has done everything he possibly could to obstruct this investigation.

So what if he bribed Ucraine's president everyone does it. Well i believe when a government official does it for personal gain it is a criminal act.

This action just doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Really? Republicans impeached bill clinton for lying about a blow job.

Lots more but i think you get the idea.

 

[danielpalos]

it doesn't really matter; we need better ways and means to be more faithful to our supreme law of the land.

The House has an opportunity to promote the general welfare at this critical juncture in our political economy.

 

[ElChupacabra]

This isn't a key witness at all. This witness has only peripheral relevance and is only slightly negative about Trump. Given that, and given Trump's response, do any of you Trump supporters wish he would just shut the hell up? I mean, the serious stuff is still to come and Trump has already gone all-in attack. If anyone in the Republican party has Trump's interests at heart they'll find a way to shut him up, and soon.
Or maybe the Republican party is already seeing a way to President Pence leading them into the election.

Trump reminds me of the idiot criminal who eventually admits he committed the crime because the idea of being told he can't do something is worse than concealing what he thinks he should be able to do.

 

[danielpalos]

Public policy is Public not Private.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The suggestion is that she has no answers and never did. It follows that no one else has more than nothing, so I have to concede your point. They are essentially equivalent. No one has any information/answers that you are looking to find.

You’re living in a Trumpster fantasy world.

Yovanovitch testified to a separate and irregular channel from Trump’s personal attorney, Giuliani, to Ukrainian leadership and the false smear campaign mounted by Giuliani to have her removed from Ukraine.

Every single State Department, and other government official, who has spoken out about Yovanovitch has unanimously agreed that she was a superb diplomat, completely dedicated to carrying out her duties, and they could offer no reason for her removal other than to acknowledge that it is the president’s prerogative to choose or remove diplomats at will. A prerogative not in dispute, but causing legitimate questions as the cause and timing.

Many pieces of Trump’s corrupt scheme have already come to light, and in the coming week there will be even more. I’m especially looking forward to hearing what Sondland has to say. There will be some serious questions about his changed testimony and the subject/content of his phone call with Trump that was overhead by another State Department member. It is very possible that Sondland’s testimony will implicate Trump directly to the failed attempted bribery/extortion scheme.

 

[Moot]

Except that that is not what she knows. What she knows is that the policy of this administration is not the one she had invested her time and efforts in. She knows that when she expressed displeasure at the change in approach, the Trump administration changed Ambassadors. These are things she knows. She speculates about Giuliani but doesn't know squat.

Funny, thats not what she said...nor does it resemble anything that actually transpired.

No one knew what Trump's foreign policies are...because he doesn't seem to have any. Instead he seems to be taking direction from the Kremlin and we know what their policies are. It's to undermine Ukraine so they can take the blame for the 2016 election interference.

Sooner or later you will have to decide which side you are on....the US or Russia.

 

[JasperL]

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.

We do have a witness testifying to it - the staffer who heard that idiot Sondland on the phone with Trump. The others are chicken**** cowards and won't testify under oath. And the not-transcript itself confirms the basics - investigations for aid.

 

[JasperL]

...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.

It's not about how she feels. It's about the President sanctioning a dishonest smear campaign against his own ****ing ambassador.

 

[JasperL]

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.

That's an incredibly dishonest characterization of the issue. It's all you have, obviously, because addressing the case with integrity would leave you not choice but to condemn what she was subjected to. Sad what I think otherwise good people will do to defend the indefensible just because that shameful idiot is in the WH.

 

[JasperL]

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.

No, that's not what happened. She rightly objects to the personal attorney of the President of the United States subjecting her to a smear campaign based on what are now proved lies. Anyone not a committed Trump cultist should object to that, so what's your excuse?

 

[humbolt]

It's not about how she feels. It's about the President sanctioning a dishonest smear campaign against his own ****ing ambassador.

Her testimony largely related to her opinions, and opinions are influenced by emotions. Opinions, however valuable one might consider them, are not dispositive. Sorry. At some point, whether you or Schiff like it or not, due process comes into play.

 

[humbolt]

That's an incredibly dishonest characterization of the issue. It's all you have, obviously, because addressing the case with integrity would leave you not choice but to condemn what she was subjected to. Sad what I think otherwise good people will do to defend the indefensible just because that shameful idiot is in the WH.

You can wear a kangaroo suit if you like, but you're not a real kangaroo. Go back and read Schiff's opening statement, and quit crying about false characterizations.

 

[Jay59]

You’re living in a Trumpster fantasy world.

Yovanovitch testified to a separate and irregular channel from Trump’s personal attorney, Giuliani, to Ukrainian leadership and the false smear campaign mounted by Giuliani to have her removed from Ukraine.

Every single State Department, and other government official, who has spoken out about Yovanovitch has unanimously agreed that she was a superb diplomat, completely dedicated to carrying out her duties, and they could offer no reason for her removal other than to acknowledge that it is the president’s prerogative to choose or remove diplomats at will. A prerogative not in dispute, but causing legitimate questions as the cause and timing.

Many pieces of Trump’s corrupt scheme have already come to light, and in the coming week there will be even more. I’m especially looking forward to hearing what Sondland has to say. There will be some serious questions about his changed testimony and the subject/content of his phone call with Trump that was overhead by another State Department member. It is very possible that Sondland’s testimony will implicate Trump directly to the failed attempted bribery/extortion scheme.

There is a fantasy world but I'm not in it.

You do realize this isn't even working for many Democrats right? Meanwhile Trump has record support in his own party.

 

[Jay59]

Funny, thats not what she said...nor does it resemble anything that actually transpired.

No one knew what Trump's foreign policies are...because he doesn't seem to have any. Instead he seems to be taking direction from the Kremlin and we know what their policies are. It's to undermine Ukraine so they can take the blame for the 2016 election interference.

Sooner or later you will have to decide which side you are on....the US or Russia.

There has never been any reasonable doubt which side Donald Trump has been--America's.

You should know that by now. Indeed, you are on the wrong side of at least three different things here. Trump has thwarted Putin in several fronts, not least of his is Ukraine. Obama gave them toiletries when Putin invaded. Trump has sent real military aid, as promised and without the kind of strings Joe Biden attached.

 

[JustHanging]

You can wear a kangaroo suit if you like, but you're not a real kangaroo. Go back and read Schiff's opening statement, and quit crying about false characterizations.

What are you babbling about? He didn't "cry" about false characterizations. He just pointed out you made one.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There is a fantasy world but I'm not in it.

Your post proves otherwise.

The suggestion is that she has no answers and never did. It follows that no one else has more than nothing, so I have to concede your point. They are essentially equivalent. No one has any information/answers that you are looking to find.

You do realize this isn't even working for many Democrats right? Meanwhile Trump has record support in his own party.

I do know that many Dems don’t support impeachment however, far, far many more do and that number continues to grow. As for Trump’s support with his base, it’s been mostly steady since the beginning of his administration, but not expanding. At all. If he continues on in the same way (no reason to believe otherwise), he is likely to lose in ‘20. That is, if he’s even still in office.

 

[Jay59]

No, that's not what happened. She rightly objects to the personal attorney of the President of the United States subjecting her to a smear campaign based on what are now proved lies. Anyone not a committed Trump cultist should object to that, so what's your excuse?

:lamo You accuse someone else of a smear campaign based on lies. :lamo

 

[Jay59]

Your post proves otherwise. I do know that many Dems don’t support impeachment however, far, far many more do and that number continues to grow. As for Trump’s support with his base, it’s been mostly steady since the beginning of his administration, but not expanding. At all. If he continues on in the same way (no reason to believe otherwise), he is likely to lose in ‘20. That is, if he’s even still in office.

Show evidence that the number is growing. I hear the opposite.

Trump's base has been distilled down to 42% to 44%. That is nearly an unbeatable number, since it does represent the floor.

 

[Moot]

There has never been any reasonable doubt which side Donald Trump has been--America's.

You should know that by now. Indeed, you are on the wrong side of at least three different things here. Trump has thwarted Putin in several fronts, not least of his is Ukraine. Obama gave them toiletries when Putin invaded. Trump has sent real military aid, as promised and without the kind of strings Joe Biden attached.

:lamo Surely you jest.

25 times Trump was soft on Russia - CNNPolitics

Russia is common thread between Trump'''s Ukraine and Syria problems


Military aid? What do you think Ukraine did with the billions that Obama gave them...buy cookies? (Nuland joke)

"...The U.S. has provided about $1.5 billion in military support to Kiev between 2014 and this past June, according to an updated analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. And Trump’s temporary cut off of the aid represented a significant setback for the country....

"Ukraine would never be where it is without that support from the United States," said Ash Carter, who served as President Barack Obama’s defense secretary from 2015 to 2017. "Everything we were doing there to train their military forces, their National Guard, to improve the professionalism and reduce corruption in the defense ministry … all that was critical."...

Before the aid influx, “the Ukrainian military was in woeful shape,” said Mariya Omelicheva, a professor of national security strategy at the Pentagon’s National Defense University who specializes in the region....

The U.S. bumped up its military support in 2014, soon after a popular uprising ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Russian troops annexed the Crimean peninsula while fomenting a separatist uprising in eastern Ukraine's Donbass region.

The vast majority of the funds, approved with bipartisan support in Congress, has financed items such as sniper rifles; rocket-propelled grenade launchers; counter-artillery radars; command and control and communications systems; night vision goggles; medical equipment; as well training and logistical support.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is especially interested in buying more Javelin anti-tank missiles to combat Russian tanks and other armored vehicles — a topic he broached during his July 25 telephone call with Trump that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry..."

How U.S. military aid became a lifeline for Ukraine - POLITICO​

Please try to be more informed, Jay59

 

[dairyair]

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.

Who ever claimed about 1st hand knowledge about bribes? And this isn't about tRUMP taking a bribe, but offering a bribe.

She was there to talk about circumstances surrounding her dismissal from position.