- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,748
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
11/15/19
PRESIDENT TRUMP and his defenders have been arguing, weakly, that his actions toward Ukraine, including demands for the investigation of his political opponents, were somehow consistent with U.S. national interests. There is no way to make that case about his treatment of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. In compelling testimony during the House’s impeachment inquiry on Friday, she described how the president’s firing of her was orchestrated by corrupt Ukrainian actors whom the United States had been trying to neutralize — and how that reversal damaged U.S. diplomacy around the world. No wonder, then, that Mr. Trump, who has never offered a reason for yanking Ms. Yovanovitch, took to Twitter to abuse her, claiming that “everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad.” Beyond the absurdity of suggesting that Ms. Yovanovitch somehow brought about the troubles of Somalia or Uzbekistan, Mr. Trump was attacking a still-serving federal government employee even as she testified to his wrongdoing. Democrats were right to suggest this amounted to witness intimidation. The truth is that Ms. Yovanovitch was having an impact in Kyiv. As other witnesses have testified, she was aggressive in pushing the Ukrainian government to fulfill its promises to tackle corruption, something it did not do. In particular, she tangled with Yuriy Lutsenko, the general prosecutor. Mr. Lutsenko responded by launching a smear campaign against her, in conjunction with two shady U.S. businessmen and Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Mr. Lutsenko won Mr. Giuliani over with false claims about Joe Biden. The businessmen, who had been seeking Ms. Yovanovitch’s ouster since 2018, got Mr. Trump’s ear by making a large contribution to a PAC supporting him.
As Ms. Yovanovitch put it, “individuals, who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated U.S. policy against corruption . . . were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador, using unofficial back channels. . . . They shared baseless allegations with the president and convinced him to remove his ambassador, despite the fact that the State Department fully understood that the allegations were false and the sources highly suspect.” Republicans tried to argue that Ms. Yovanovitch’s story had nothing to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign to have Ukraine launch political investigations. But Mr. Giuliani clearly saw Ms. Yovanovitch as an obstacle to his effort to orchestrate a probe of Mr. Biden. “How could our system fail like this?” the ambassador asked. “How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government?” The answer lies with a president who put his personal interests — and those of corrupt Ukrainians — above those of the United States.
No politician has ever done that. :lamo
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.
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.
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 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.
The new approach to defending Trump is just to admit that's he's a corrupt, self-serving, deranged conspiracy theorist who abuses the levers of government to get what he wants. Rick Santorum, a Trump supporter, more or less admitted this on CNN.
Keep thinking that. The chairs on lido deck need rearranging, maybe you can lend a hand.
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 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.
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.
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.
Her testimony, which you obviously didn't listen to, clearly demonstrates how she was removed, under false pretenses and w/no notice, because she wouldn't play ball with Fruity G's corrupt plans.
Why do you insist on talking about things you have no knowledge of?
Fruity G? :lol:
Yes. Yovanovitch is a witness who has testified to the self-serving nature, ineptitude, stupidity, and corruption of Donald Trump, but she did not personally witness any of his crimes. For that, we'll have to see what the other witnesses say.
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.
Yovanovitch makes it clear: Trump put his personal interests above the U.S.
Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovich.
Madame Ambassador Marie Yovanovich served the Unites States with honor and distinction during her 33 years of State Department service.
This is anathema to that traitorous self-serving criminal in the White House who put his own personal interests ahead of the best interests of the United States. Trump even attacked her as she was testifying.
Mike Pompeo also comes across as the partisan toady that he is.
Ambassador Yovanovitch:
Among the most senior diplomats at @StateDept
Served our country for 33 years
Appointed by presidents of both parties
Yet the Pompeo State Dept wouldn't defend her against false accusations, because they were concerned about a tweet from the President. WTF?
More fan fiction from the leftYovanovitch makes it clear: Trump put his personal interests above the U.S.
Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovich.
Madame Ambassador Marie Yovanovich served the Unites States with honor and distinction during her 33 years of State Department service.
This is anathema to that traitorous self-serving criminal in the White House who put his own personal interests ahead of the best interests of the United States. Trump even attacked her as she was testifying.
Mike Pompeo also comes across as the partisan toady that he is.
Ambassador Yovanovitch:
Among the most senior diplomats at @StateDept
Served our country for 33 years
Appointed by presidents of both parties
Yet the Pompeo State Dept wouldn't defend her against false accusations, because they were concerned about a tweet from the President. WTF?
It's what Trumplegangers call "logic".
Like when Taylor and Kent were asked about naming the impeachable crime their silent delay being interpreted as "no impeachable behavior".
They present the silence as evidence and ignore Kent's answer 'that's not our job, it's yours'.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?