• 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!

Yovanovitch makes it clear: Trump put his personal interests above the U.S.

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."

And there you have it.

What the Democrats have = Nothing
 
Her testimony added nothing to the impeachment case which is why every thread here is about the tweets and how mean Trump was to reassign her. If dems actually had a case against Trump they wouldnt have wasted their time calling this woman.

Her testimony was credible and left a mark on those GOP hacks.

After Schiff banged his gavel and said adjourned, every spectator in the hearing room gave Ms. Yovanovich a standing ovation.

That's what a patriot looks and sounds like. Something that is quite alien to you.
 
1) She worked for 4 Republican Presidents starting with Reagan
2) Nobody in the State Dept contested her credentials as an effective fighter against corruption and I would simply suggest that their opinion is more reliable than anything posters here are going to come up with
3) Rudy and his gang had been trying to have her recalled since 2018. They had little time left to pull off their scam for Fat Donald and for themselves by 2019. They finally torpedoed her. She was recalled the day Zalinsky was inaugurated. What they didn't expect was that Pompeo would appoint Taylor, a tough experienced Charge d' Affairs candidate that immediately went into the Acting Ambassador role. Taylor came up to speed faster than drunken Rudy anticipated and the gig was up. I suspect Fat Donald is not happy with Pompeo. Suddenly Taylor started making noise, Sondland could not keep his BIG MOUTH SHUT (what an idiot) and Igor and Lev were just a little too "gamey" for their own good. Nice choice of partners Don and Rudy. Congress started to make noise about the delay in sending the Military Aid and there were already OMB Officers nervous because they knew holding the funds was illegal. So the funds had to be released.

Poor DonDon. Apparently he did not know that if he had held on for two more days, Zalinsky would have given him his public announcement of Investigations on CNN no less. Dumbass DonDon....lost his nerve and premature ejaculated.....probably something Melania knows something about.

I haven't questioned her credentials. The rest of your post is opinion. Exactly what gig was up?
 
I haven't questioned her credentials. The rest of your post is opinion. Exactly what gig was up?

"the gig" refers to the shadow State Department Rudy Colludy was running in Ukraine.
 
What the Democrats have = Nothing

I've been advised here that Yovanovitch feels bad, and that's an impeachable offense. No ****. And, and she could be lactose intolerant, too. Geeze. What else does she have to endure?
 
"the gig" refers to the shadow State Department Rudy Colludy was running in Ukraine.

I don't begrudge any President a little 'back channel' diplomacy for OUR protection.

Too bad for Trump that's not what he sent Rudy to do.
 
Her testimony added nothing to the impeachment case which is why every thread here is about the tweets and how mean Trump was to reassign her. If dems actually had a case against Trump they wouldnt have wasted their time calling this woman.

then you are unable to recognize that the unsavory, corrupt players from the former ukrainian regime were able to work thru the white house to remove an American ambassador who had been successfully aiding the new administration's efforts to become more democratic and less corrupt
 
I'm not interested in Yovanovitch's opinions regarding Trump. She was appointed by Obama. I don't expect her to "like" Trump. Thst has nothing whatever to do with the job she was appointed to perform. She had the option to resign at any time.

she began her foreign service career under reagan
she served four republican presidents
 
Izzat like the deep state, or is it completely different?

You tell us. Is Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Colludy a part of the Deep State?
 
More fan fiction from the left

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

please point out the fictitious parts and show us why we should find them other than credible
 
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."

And there you have it.

:lamo

Trump and his base. Repeating nonsense ad infinitum.

Question: Was she there to act as judge and jury, or was she there to give her take on what happened?
 
she began her foreign service career under reagan
she served four republican presidents

So what? I'm referring to her position as ambassador. She's still an employee of State. I've asked another here, so I'll ask you. Yovanovitch claims she was appointed as ambassador to Ukraine to clean up corruption. Can you give me an example of her efforts in that regard? After all, it's one thing to say you're doing that, and another to show demonstrable results.
 
Yes, there is an example of one of the oldest courtroom cheap tricks in the book. A witness is not there to determine if a crime has been committed, they are they to give testimony in regards to their experiences and interactions - PERIOD.

Of course ignorance of that obvious fact is probably why such a cheap trick works so well in Trumpland.

Donald Trump declares 'I love the poorly educated'

Is it any wonder why?
 
:lamo

Trump and his base. Repeating nonsense ad infinitum.

Question: Was she there to act as judge and jury, or was she there to give her take on what happened?

I assume she was there to support Schiff's charges, which originally were something about a quid pro quo. That was inane, so Adam changed it to bribery. Now it looks like making a former ambassador feel bad is claimed to be an impeachable offense.
 
So what? I'm referring to her position as ambassador. She's still an employee of State. I've asked another here, so I'll ask you. Yovanovitch claims she was appointed as ambassador to Ukraine to clean up corruption. Can you give me an example of her efforts in that regard? After all, it's one thing to say you're doing that, and another to show demonstrable results.

we know she knew who some of the corrupt ukrainian players were and that she alerted appropriate authorities with that information when it might be helpful in their counter-corruption efforts. is that the information from her testimony you are seeking? you should have listened to it
 
I assume she was there to support Schiff's charges, which originally were something about a quid pro quo. That was inane, so Adam changed it to bribery. Now it looks like making a former ambassador feel bad is claimed to be an impeachable offense.

and that is where the problem began
 
So what? I'm referring to her position as ambassador. She's still an employee of State. I've asked another here, so I'll ask you. Yovanovitch claims she was appointed as ambassador to Ukraine to clean up corruption. Can you give me an example of her efforts in that regard? After all, it's one thing to say you're doing that, and another to show demonstrable results.

Those documents are at State, which refuses to supply them even under subpoena.
 
we know she knew who some of the corrupt ukrainian players were and that she alerted appropriate authorities with that information when it might be helpful in their counter-corruption efforts. is that the information from her testimony you are seeking? you should have listened to it

Crap...I know of some of the people involved. We're talking about influencing policy here - directing policy in the directions most likely to yield the preferred result. That goes a little beyond getting Pompeo on the horn and telling him Poroshenko is corrupt.
 
Those documents are at State, which refuses to supply them even under subpoena.

That's not new. You may remember state claiming it would take hundreds of years to supply Hillary's emails.
 
then you are unable to recognize that the unsavory, corrupt players from the former ukrainian regime were able to work thru the white house to remove an American ambassador who had been successfully aiding the new administration's efforts to become more democratic and less corrupt

So what? This is an impeachment hearing not an HR meeting or a therapy session. She added nothing
 
Okay. What was the original purpose claimed by Schiff?

To investigate facets of the whistle-blower complaint, and go where the evidence led.
 
Back
Top Bottom