Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1179476)

for god’s sake, someone tell
trump not to attack witnesses while they’re testifying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1179469)

his son got the gig, coincidentally according to you, while
dad was the point person on the executive branch’s ukrainian
agenda.

i agree not illegal. what did trump
do that was illegal? quid pro quo is illegal? how many times a day does one politician say to another, “vote for my bill, and i’ll vote for yours.”

as confident as you all are that there’s nothing there, the left sure doesn’t want the truth revealed. BC we are honest enough to admit it is bc Trump wants his political rivals investigated to tarnish their names. how about we do an honest investigation and release the results?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1179479)

When there is no smoke there is no need to investigate if there is a fire.

Trump's own words gives us reason to look into his asking a foreign gov. to investigate a political rival while at the same time holding up foreign aid.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1179479)

Trump's own words gives us reason to look into his asking a foreign gov. to investigate a political rival while at the same time holding up foreign aid.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1179479)

asking a foreign gov. to investigate a political rival

.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1179478)

Sounds like another impeachable offence.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1179472)

Yovanovitch says John Solomon's columns were used to push false allegations
BY OLIVIA BEAVERS - 11/15/19 01:58 PM EST 930
12


Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified Friday that a shadow campaign led by Rudy Giuliani and his associates appeared to be behind what she said were false attacks against her that led to her ouster.

She singled out columns in The Hill written by former conservative opinion contributor John Solomon, which the staff counsel to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) highlighted during the committee's second public impeachment hearing.

In response to questions from staff counsel Daniel Goldman, Yovanovich said the origin of the attacks against her was a series of opinion articles in The Hill authored by Solomon. She also said the allegations came in part from Yuri Lutsenko, the former prosecutor general of Ukraine.


"This effort by Giuliani and his associates resulted in a series of articles in The Hill publication that were based on allegations in part from Lutsenko," she said.

Goldman in his questioning highlighted three categories of attacks against Yovanovitch.

"One category included the attacks against you, which you referenced in your opening statement including that you had bad-mouthed the president and had given the prosecutor general a do-not-prosecute list," Goldman said. "There was another that included allegations of Ukrainian interference in a 2016 election and then there was a third that related to allegations concerning Burisma and the Bidens, is that accurate?"

"Yes," Yovanovitch answered, adding that they "seemed to be promoted by those around Mayor Giuliani."

"These attacks were being repeated by the president himself and his son," she added, which she said made her "worried."

Such allegations also received pickup on Fox News, she noted.

Yovanovitch said it was false that she had bad-mouthed the president and handed Lutsenko a do-not-prosecute list, a charge initially included in a column by Solomon in The Hill after an interview with Lutsenko.
Yovanovitch and the State Department have pushed back on that claim, saying it is false there was such a list.


Ukrainian media quoted Lutsenko as changing his story, though in an interview with The New York Times last month, Lutsenko blamed the confusion on an interpreter for his interview with Solomon and said Yovanovitch had asked him to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.

Yovanovitch has maintained on Wednesday that she did not speak negatively about the president, which was a point that led some to press for her removal.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1179478)

Sounds like another impeachable offence.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1179486)

its asinine behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1179488)

It’s actually a felony.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1179493)

This sham being directed by Shift is nothing but an embarrassment to America. Nobody with a conscience could call this charade justice. History will recall this as a tipping point where the democrats lost control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1179497)

Boy have you got the GOP talking points down, the more people come forward the stronger their case gets and Trump even doubles down by intimidation tactics in the middle of her testimony.

Trump will be impeached, his lieutenants will not remove and we can finally get the election done. When that’s over Trump might want to consider a die job and some makeup; putting him in the prison jump suit will be way too much orange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1179488)

It’s actually a felony.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1179497)

Boy have you got the GOP talking points down, the more people come forward the stronger their case gets and Trump even doubles down by intimidation tactics in the middle of her testimony.

Trump will be impeached, his lieutenants will not remove and we can finally get the election done. When that’s over Trump might want to consider a die job and some makeup; putting him in the prison jump suit will be way too much orange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1179492)

Good week for America, bad week for Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1179444)

is nepotism, or getting your son a gig he isn't qualifies for, corruption?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1179509)

I know dems bad. Republicans good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1179505)

Look at this damning testimony from Yovanovitch

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."

Wow, she really put the nail in Trumps coffin.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1179505)

Look at this damning testimony from Yovanovitch

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."

Wow, she really put the nail in Trumps coffin.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1179540)

this is just a witch hunt because we all hate Trump and will fabricate anything to get him impeached.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1179548)

I'm not sure you're understanding how this all works. Not everyone who testifies knows everything. It's the job of the committee to stitch it together and if justified (which it already looks to be) to hold a vote. Remember the Ambassador nor her superiors didn't even know why she was removed. The Republicans are just asking questions like the above to make it look like there was no wrong doing when it's simply just that she didn't have visibility...but other's do.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1179626)

From the Guy who dismissed sexual abuse complaints..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1179630)

and the evidence of that is????

school hired a team of lawyers who interviewed hundreds of people, there was zero evidence that Jordan knew what was going on. there are two lawsuits that claim he knew. but no evidence yet.

your standards for what constitutes evidence of wrongdoing are quite, shall we say, flexible, aren’t they? depending upon the politics?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1179657)

In fact the law firm said that it was common knowledge amongst everyone there at the time that the perv. was doing stuff (jerking off in the shower, etc). Jordan was not named.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1179661)

Where the hell else is he supposed to jerk-off??

Geesh, talk about Nit-picking :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1179657)

In fact the law firm said that it was common knowledge amongst everyone there at the time that the perv. was doing stuff (jerking off in the shower, etc). Jordan was not named.