2 questions show all her testimony was bunk

[JasperL]

I did not realize a witness was supposed to make these determinations.

Learn something new every day!

I didn't realize that an impeachment can only include a single charge!

 

[trixare4kids]

Nope. No smoking gun. But hey, we get to see a bunch of flaming assholes, so there's that. We get to see Schiff, and Taylor, and some ambassador chick who got fired and can't think of anything illegal Trump did, but he never shudda fired her because she did an absolutely smashing job in Somalia...

Plus, the TDS obsessed media did their best as always. Couldn't wait to jump into the fray, constitutional scholars that they are, and claim Trump's tweet was witness intimidation, an impeachable offense. And then, the clowns, who don't even bother to hide their biases, clapped for Yovanovitch.
The only thing missing were the :violin :violin

Trump Attacks Marie Yovanovitch During Hearing - The Atlantic

Trump Attack on Envoy During Testimony Raises Charges of Witness Intimidation - The New York Times

Impeachment hearings: Did Trump just commit witness tampering with his tweets about Yovanovitch? - Vox

Harvard Law Professor Says Trump Attacking Witness During Impeachment Hearings is Another 'Impeachable Offense'

 

[JasperL]

" Quid pro quo " is old news apparently. Democrats would appreciate it if people started using the words " extortion " and " bribery " to describe Trump's actions towards Ukraine.

Yep, in an effort to get people's attention ( because no one's watching their show trial ) and sway public opinion in their favor, the Democrats have added two new buzz words. They obviously are convinced the average American is a simpleton.

I don't think it's possible to be more patronizing than that.

It's not the GOP that looks down on its base, the Democrats have been manipulating their base with misinformation and straight out lies for the last 3 years.

I see, so you ignored my point to tell me how bad liberals are. Predictable and boring.

 

[Grand Mal]

She discredited herself. She has no information can give no information and cannot name one crime the president committed.

She admitted it in all of 30 seconds. She has nothing and is immaterial.

As irrelevant and immaterial as you all say she was, she got Cheeto Mussolini into full-blown attack mode. And this is just getting started. Trump's head is gonna explode when the important testimony starts. By the time this process is finished Trump's reactions might become the biggest issue.

 

[trixare4kids]

The frenzy of posts has been almost entertaining, in aB rated movie sorta way.

And tyvm! eace

Why are you thanking yourself?

Too bad you can't like your own post too. :lamo

 

[JasperL]

Why don't you post some evidence of Trump's illegality?

Before you bother with some lengthy screed, I'll tell you why you won't. It's because you don't have any. Neither does Schiff, Taylor, Yovanovitch, Ciaramella, or any of the other self-serving bureaucrats being trotted out.

For starters, "criminality" isn't the standard. It's the straw man the GOP have been creating. You and the GOP cannot defend the baseless smear campaign against Yovanovitch coordinated by Rudy, Trump's lawyer, so instead you say it wasn't "criminal" and I presume then we should all agree that POTUS through his lawyer smearing a U.S. ambassador is now good. I don't agree. If you agree it's fine to use lies to smear an Ambassador, just say it. No need to fabricate bull**** allegations she did her job poorly.

 

[humbolt]

Plus, the TDS obsessed media did their best as always. Couldn't wait to jump into the fray, constitutional scholars that they are, and claim Trump's tweet was witness intimidation, an impeachable offense. And then, the clowns, who don't even bother to hide their biases, clapped for Yovanovitch.
The only thing missing were the :violin :violin

Trump Attacks Marie Yovanovitch During Hearing - The Atlantic

Trump Attack on Envoy During Testimony Raises Charges of Witness Intimidation - The New York Times

Impeachment hearings: Did Trump just commit witness tampering with his tweets about Yovanovitch? - Vox

Harvard Law Professor Says Trump Attacking Witness During Impeachment Hearings is Another 'Impeachable Offense'

My, my. That poor lady. She got her ass fired. On the brighter side side, Obama got Stevens killed, so maybe she's fortunate, after all.

 

[Fishking]

I'm a trooper. You? You just complain about women?

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



Let's see what happens. Is Schiff being a sexist woman hater for not allowing a female Congresswoman from speaking here?

 

[humbolt]

For starters, "criminality" isn't the standard. It's the straw man the GOP have been creating. You and the GOP cannot defend the baseless smear campaign against Yovanovitch coordinated by Rudy, Trump's lawyer, so instead you say it wasn't "criminal" and I presume then we should all agree that POTUS through his lawyer smearing a U.S. ambassador is now good. I don't agree. If you agree it's fine to use lies to smear an Ambassador, just say it. No need to fabricate bull**** allegations she did her job poorly.

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.

 

[j brown's body]

Thats why they wanted her out...so she wouldn't get in the way of Rudi, Lev and Igor's criminal activities to benefit Trump.

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?

 

[j brown's body]

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



Let's see what happens. Is Schiff being a sexist woman hater for not allowing a female Congresswoman from speaking here?

She has to follow the rules, like everyone else.

 

[j brown's body]

My, my. That poor lady. She got her ass fired. On the brighter side side, Obama got Stevens killed, so maybe she's fortunate, after all.

Why was she fired, and smeared?

 

[Fishking]

She has to follow the rules, like everyone else.

The question wasn't directed at you, so you're missing the point. You're lacking some historical context here.

 

[SkyFox76]

Plus, the TDS obsessed media did their best as always. Couldn't wait to jump into the fray, constitutional scholars that they are, and claim Trump's tweet was witness intimidation, an impeachable offense. And then, the clowns, who don't even bother to hide their biases, clapped for Yovanovitch.
The only thing missing were the :violin :violin

Trump Attacks Marie Yovanovitch During Hearing - The Atlantic

Trump Attack on Envoy During Testimony Raises Charges of Witness Intimidation - The New York Times

Impeachment hearings: Did Trump just commit witness tampering with his tweets about Yovanovitch? - Vox

Harvard Law Professor Says Trump Attacking Witness During Impeachment Hearings is Another 'Impeachable Offense'

I've yet to see why Trump felt it necessary to trash this woman's character and job performance. Other than of course he's a petty little man who's intimidated by successful women. And it wasn't enough he steam rolled her 30 years of professional career back when she was fired, he had to slither onto Twitter again yesterday to prove what a feeble little man he really is.

This woman was commended by both the dems and the GOP and even counsel for the GOP. I think a large percent of them (regardless of party) realize this woman in no way has deserved the treatment she's gotten by Trump or his cronies. The applause she received (which IMO was deserved) came from the audience as well as members of congress.

 

[veritas1]

Day 2 was yet another failure for Commissar Schiff and his toadies. Here's what we learned:

1. When asked directly if she knew of any bribery by Trump (the latest fad), Yavanovitch said no. When asked directly if she knew of any crimes whatever, she said no.

2. She answered "I don't know" repeatedly showing that she really has no direct knowledge of much of anything, be it quid pro quos, bribery or anything else.

3. When asked if she serves at the pleasure of the POTUS and can be removed by him for any reason, she said yes. The fact is that she was close to the prior Ukrainian administration and was not liked by the new one. That fact alone compromised her ability to do the job required. The Dems tried to make the hearing about the legitimacy of Trump firing her as if that is in any way, shape or form impeachable. Yavonovitch herself played into this narrative acting hurt and appalled that she would be replaced. This is rather amusing. Here's a career State Dept. employee who has served in some of the most corrupt and dangerous environments (Somalia & Ukraine) acting as if her delicate psyche just can't take being removed from her post. Does anyone buy that for a second? If she really is that much of a touchy snowflake, then she should leave the government at once and open a daycare center.

4. The Dems put their sexism on full display. Had a man been the one removed from the post, is there the slightest chance that they would have brought up the nonsense about "bullying". Nope but, because she's a woman, why that ogre Trump just manhandled the delicate little thing. It was quite revealing in how the Dems cynically played on her gender to try to garner sympathy when everyone knows they'd have provided no such cover for a conservative woman. It was really quite revolting. And Yavanovitch played along.

5. Trump didn't intimidate Yavanovitch. Or was she monitoring Twitter while she testified? Commissar Schff is the one who brought intimidation into the hearing by dramatically referring to Trump's tweet, which was irrelevant to the proceedings and unnecessary. But, that's the kind of snake Schiff is. Again, does anybody really think that Yavanovitch is intimidated by social media? It's was total theatre and absurd theatre at that. Naturally, the MSM was all over it trying to turn crap to gold.

 

[humbolt]

She has to follow the rules, like everyone else.

Yup.

Schiff: "Any questions of a probative nature or exculpatory evidence?

Congress person: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions...

Schiff: Shut up! Just shut the **** up! I'll have your ass tazed and removed. Moving on...

 

[SkyFox76]

Why are you thanking yourself?

Too bad you can't like your own post too. :lamo

I realize your reading comprehension is limited but my reply is not to myself.
Nice job on your part of looking silly though. :applaud

 

[ocean515]

She has to follow the rules, like everyone else.

Which rules are you referring to?

 

[ocean515]

Why was she fired, and smeared?

She provided testimony to why she was fired when she appeared in Schiff's bunker.

 

[humbolt]

Why was she fired, and smeared?

Doesn't matter. She was employed as an ambassador at the president's pleasure. He was displeased, and that's sufficient. It's surprising she lasted as long as she did. It's standard practice that many holdovers in positions within the Executive are relieved when a new administration assumes office.

 

[SkyFox76]

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



Let's see what happens. Is Schiff being a sexist woman hater for not allowing a female Congresswoman from speaking here?

If you paid attention you'd know she wasn't allowed to speak atm because that's what the rules state. She was allowed to ask her questions and speak when it was the right time.

This is the stuff that makes me think some of you argue with no real knowledge of the facts. I saw Trump cry about the same thing and it's bs from him as well. GOP fake victim cries.

 

[SkyFox76]

She has to follow the rules, like everyone else.

They seem to miss the fact she was out of order but was allowed her questions at the proper time.

 

[jnug]

Which rules are you referring to?

I suspect he is referring to the Committee Rule that states that the first 45 minutes of each witness open hearing session shall be exclusively reserved for the Chair, the Ranking Member and the two Committee Counsels and cannot be proxied to ANY OTHER PANEL MEMBER, either side.

Every panel member knew the rule. That was just what we have gotten used to lately since the Repugs have no real way to defend Fat Donald, another showboating display.

 

[ocean515]

I suspect he is referring to the Committee Rule that states that the first 45 minutes of each witness open hearing session shall be exclusively reserved for the Chair, the Ranking Member and the two Committee Counsels and cannot be proxied to ANY OTHER PANEL MEMBER, either side.

Every panel member knew the rule. That was just what we have gotten used to lately since the Repugs have no real way to defend Fat Donald, another showboating display.

Are you attempting to refer to House Res. 660, which was passed unilaterally by Dems on 10/31/19 and from which the following excerpt has been extracted?

Text - H.Res.660 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

SEC. 2. Open and transparent investigative proceedings by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
For the purpose of continuing the investigation described in the first section of this resolution, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as the “Permanent Select Committee”) is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:

(1) The chair of the Permanent Select Committee shall designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this section.

(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. 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. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.

(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution.​

 

[Fenton]

As irrelevant and immaterial as you all say she was, she got Cheeto Mussolini into full-blown attack mode. And this is just getting started. Trump's head is gonna explode when the important testimony starts. By the time this process is finished Trump's reactions might become the biggest issue.

Just started ? This has been going for 3 years, and this impeachment inquiry is just another contrived Democrat scheme to remove Donald Trump from office

And Taylor was their star witness, their best chance to sell this scam to the American people. Problem for the Democrats is no one cares about this clown show and no one's watching it

They idea that the Democrats are holding back a witness who actually has first hand information that could sink Trump is absurd.
The next witness will be more of these same. No evidence and just more hearsay and opinions.