Yovanovitch Neatly Picks Apart GOP Talking Point That Ukraine Was Out To Get Trump

  
Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  85 comments

Yovanovitch Neatly Picks Apart GOP Talking Point That Ukraine Was Out To Get Trump
In his final feeble attempt to make out Ukrainians as hostile to then-candidate Trump, Castor brought up some anti-Trump comments Arsen Avakov, Ukrainian minister of internal affairs, made online. “He said some real nasty things,” Castor said. Yovanovitch raised her eyebrows. “Well, sometimes that happens on social media,” she responded, as the hearing room burst into laughter.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





GettyImages-1182539782.jpg

Former ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch calmly dismantled Republican staff attorney Steve Castor’s line of questioning centered on the idea that Ukrainian officials were out to get then-candidate Donald Trump during the second half of her Friday hearing.

Castor started by bringing up Alexandra Chalupa, a former DNC contractor who conveyed her concerns about Paul Manafort’s hiring by the Trump campaign to her employers, due to his reputation in Ukraine. Republicans have painted her as the link between the Clinton campaign and Ukraine, part of their baseless conspiracy theory that the country meddled in the 2016 election.

Yovanovitch neatly brushed off Castor’s questioning, saying that she doesn’t recall ever even meeting Chalupa and didn’t have much further information about her.

Castor gave up and moved on to the black ledger, which revealed undisclosed payments to Manafort from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party. Castor tried to spin Ukrainian journalist Serhiy Leshchenko’s exposing of the ledger as an anti-Trump attack.

“Just speaking about Mr. Leshchenko, he is an investigative journalist, as you said, and he got access to the black ledger and he published it, as I think journalists would do,” she responded. ” I don’t have any information to suggest that that was targeting President Trump.”


Yovanovitch shoots down black ledger line of questioning  pic.twitter.com/bnKzs7RPJ2 — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire)  November 15, 2019

Castor shifted gears and brought up an  op-ed  written by Valeriy Chaly, former Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S., in which Chaly blasts Trump for musing that if elected, he may consider lifting the sanctions on Russia and making Crimea one of its territories.

Castor asked her if she could see how that piece of writing, regardless of the substance, could create the “perception” that the Ukrainian establishment was anti-Trump.

She replied that he was merely criticizing Trump’s policy position, and that Crimea’s status is a “tremendously sensitive issue” in Ukraine.

In his final feeble attempt to make out Ukrainians as hostile to then-candidate Trump, Castor brought up some anti-Trump comments Arsen Avakov, Ukrainian minister of internal affairs, made online.

“He said some real nasty things,” Castor said.

Yovanovitch raised her eyebrows. “Well, sometimes that happens on social media,” she responded, as the hearing room burst into laughter.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

The Republican lawyer who was questioning Yovanovitch thought he would list all the ways Ukraine had conspired against Donald Trump in 2016. 

The list landed with all the impact of a deflated marshmallow. 

It is easy to see why Trump didnt want this woman around as he was scheming to subvert anti-corruption activities in Ukraine. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

If you read what she actually said, her statements are  essentially substance free and doesn't really address the questions asked. And her agreeing that Minister Avaskov publicly said nasty things about candidate Trump undercuts the premise of the article.

She certainly didn't rebut the facts set forth by these reporters working for politico (the impeccably liberal news source that stooped to clearing stories with HRC before running them)

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Do you think a US Ambassador should, in fact, tell a  foreign minister that it's inappropriate to meddle in the US elections by attacking a Presidential candidate with an an op-ed in the American media?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    4 weeks ago

Why was Rudy Giuliani running a smear campaign to get this woman removed? What the hell was he even doing over there?  Why was there an "irregular" channel of "diplomacy" in Ukraine headed up by the president's personal lawyer who has publicly stated on twitter that everything he did in Ukraine was on behalf of his "client" Donald Trump?   So when Giuliani smeared this woman he was doing so on behalf of his "client", not US foreign policy. Why? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    4 weeks ago
Yovanovitch was well aware of the campaign to oust her before she was ultimately recalled to Washington in May. But the transcript of her deposition reveals that she felt personally threatened by Trump — specifically, after he told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Yovanovitch would be “going to go through some things.”

“I didn't know what it meant. I was very concerned. I still am,” Yovanovitch told investigators.

“I was shocked. I mean, I was very surprised that President Trump would — first of all, that I would feature repeatedly in a presidential phone call, but secondly, that the president would speak about me or any ambassador in that way to a foreign counterpart,” she added.

Giuliani was working against U.S. policy in Ukraine, Yovanovitch says

Yovanovitch described the extent to which the shadow campaign being pushed by Giuliani and others ran counter to U.S. policy toward the besieged eastern European country.

She said she told Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan that it was a “dangerous precedent” that “private interests and people who don’t like a particular American ambassador could combine to, you know, find somebody who was more suitable for their interests.”

At one point, she said Ukraine’s interior minister told her that two of Giuliani’s indicted associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, wanted her removed from her post because they wanted to “have business dealings in Ukraine.”

Rudy the influencer

If it wasn’t already clear that Giuliani has the ear of the president, Yovanovitch’s testimony should remove all doubt.

When asked if anyone at the State Department tried to push back on Giuliani’s campaign against her and his shadow diplomacy efforts, which were inconsistent with U.S. policy toward Ukraine, Yovanovitch replied: “I don’t think they felt they could.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-smear-campaign-an-untouchable-giuliani-and-an-infected-state-dept-key-deposition-details/ar-AAJQF61
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

iuliani running a smear campaign to get this woman removed

Well, she seemed fine with the Ukrainian government attacking Trump. Read the politico article and it's clear she was either totally ineffective in keeping Ukraine out of American politics or was quite happy they were helping HRC.  Either way, she's not an appropriate representative.

Contrary to the Ambassador's belief, US foreign policy is not determined by Ambassadors, but the President.  Her arrogance is breathtaking. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Yes but of course, the Evil Rudy deflection. RUSSIA!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Because she was just another left wing political operative that was pissed because she got bounced because she didn't agree with Trump's way of wanting to do things. She never has met and talked to the president or even met him. She provided nothing new or relevant. Next witness! 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.6  MUVA  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.5    4 weeks ago

She has a HR complaint that is weak at best. 

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.7  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    4 weeks ago

I don't think you know what that two year old article actually lays out. 

It talks about a woman that did investigating on her own about Manafort (now in jail), and corruption in Ukraine involving people that fled to Russia.

Odd that some think people in Ukraine shouldn't get upset when trump says the Russian invasion of Crimea might have been legal.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @1.1.7    4 weeks ago

The entire basis for "Ukraine interfered in 2016" seems to be that some people in Ukraine didnt want Trump to be president, and they said something in public. 

Did they hack into the Trump campaigns emails? lol. 

Is the right ever going to present the world with FACTS, or are we supposed to humor their ridiculous conspiracy theories until kingdom come? 

It's time for all Americans who arent batshit Infowars or Lou Dobbs sheep to step up and take sides. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    4 weeks ago
If you read what she actually said, her statements are  essentially substance free and doesn't really address the questions asked.

That's false. 

And her agreeing that Minister Avaskov publicly said nasty things about candidate Trump undercuts the premise of the article.

Yovanovitch did no such thing. She said that it probably not appropriate and then went on to praise Minister Avakov for being pragmatic and a good partner with the US. 

For someone who insist on reading what she actually said, you get it wrong every time.

BTW, what 'facts' from you link was Yovanovitch asked to refute? 

Do you think a US Ambassador should, in fact, tell a  foreign minister that it's inappropriate to meddle in the US elections by attacking a Presidential candidate with an an op-ed in the American media?  

You're conflating the Ukraine Minister with the Ukraine US Ambassador. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
The Republican lawyer who was questioning Yovanovitch thought he would list all the ways Ukraine had conspired against Donald Trump in 2016. 

Clearly the previous Ukrainian administration wanted Hillary Clinton to win in 2016. I find it beyond belief that Yavonovich didn't know that. Then again she claimed to not even have known that Joe Biden boasted about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired! She only seemed to know that she was smeared and that we should all be sympathetic about that and the fact that she was recalled. Somebody should have asked her what she thought of the President being smeared 24/7 for 3 years. Maybe they should have told her that life can be ruff at times, but I thought she told us she was "tuff".  Wasn't she involved in dangerous assignments? Maybe she is just bitter or maybe, just maybe, she did have a "do not prosecute list."  Maybe Schiff should call in Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko?  On second though - that is never going to happen!

Overall, the hearing was quite a farce. Schiff denying Republican members transcripts and attempts to raise points of order and looking bad doing it. The witness had little to do with the question of any quid pro quo. She was obviously presented as a sympathetic figure. Once she felt comfortable that no real questions were coming, we got to see a bit of her mind set. She felt smeared & wronged, but supposedly had no knowledge of the wrongs done by the Ukraine to candidate Trump. Truly amazing!

I really got a laugh at the end of the hearing when what were most likely State Dept employees started applauding as Yovanavich left the room. They really think the people are stupid.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 weeks ago
Clearly the previous Ukrainian administration wanted Hillary Clinton to win in 2016.

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

Then again she claimed to not even have known that Joe Biden boasted about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired!

False. 

Somebody should have asked her what she thought of the President being smeared 24/7 for 3 years. 

You must have missed the memo about bitching and whining about witnesses giving their opinions. 

She felt smeared & wronged,

That is because she was smeared and wronged and Trump did it again yesterday. 

but supposedly had no knowledge of the wrongs done by the Ukraine to candidate Trump. 

Actually, she knew all about some Ukrainians being mean to Trump. 

I really got a laugh at the end of the hearing when what were most likely State Dept employees started applauding as Yovanavich left the room.

I really got a laugh out of your assumption about 'State Dept employees'.

They really think the people are stupid.

Or it just might be possible that the people there thought that Yovanovitch deserved the respect that she EARNED after 33 years of service. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 weeks ago
Somebody should have asked her what she thought of the President being smeared 24/7 for 3 years.

Donald Trump is a PROVEN, liar , crook, bigot, and moron. Such a person cannot be "smeared". The idea that Trump has been treated badly, by anyone, is hilarious. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.1    4 weeks ago
Or it just might be possible that the people there thought that Yovanovitch deserved the respect that she EARNED after 33 years of service. 

I wouldn't trust her to fetch my laundry. Trump should have done what Obama did before entering the White House - FIRE THE LOT OF THEM!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    4 weeks ago
I wouldn't trust her to fetch my laundry.

Well Trump disagrees with you because the Trump State Dept. extended her term and asked her to stay through 2020.

Trump should have done what Obama did before entering the White House - FIRE THE LOT OF THEM!

Really Vic? Please post a link proving that Obama took that action BEFORE he entered the WH. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.4    4 weeks ago
Well Trump disagrees

He is a trusting soul.


Please post a link proving that Obama took that action BEFORE he entered the WH. 



https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/11/15/flashback-that-time-obama-brutally-fired-all-of-bushs-ambassadors-n2556576

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    4 weeks ago

That link will earn you some cricket-time, I believe!

Or a segue into something totally different.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.7  MUVA  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    4 weeks ago

Obama had to though he is the chosen one and could no wrong in the eyes of some

1dmflu.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    4 weeks ago
He is a trusting soul.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

You might want to READ your own link Vic. It is about 'politically appointed Ambassadors' and it PROVES that Obama was giving them a heads up that their term would end upon his inauguration. 

Here's one about Trump's EQUAL action. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/50-politically-appointed-us-ambassadors-to-leave-before-inauguration-day.html

In short, it's commonplace for incoming POTUS to clear out political appointees , Ambassadors included. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @1.2.4    4 weeks ago
Trump State Dept. extended her term and asked her to stay through 2020.

Her term was from 2016 to 2019.  The State Department did NOT extend her term, but there was an request to extend.

As it is, she was only 'short toured' by a short period of time.  She was scheduled to leave in August 2019.

Please post a link proving that Obama took that action BEFORE he entered the WH. 

Ask and ye shall receive:

The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.

The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.

Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.

Source:  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/11/15/flashback-that-time-obama-brutally-fired-all-of-bushs-ambassadors-n2556576

Ergo, they were notified BEFORE Obama took office that he were to leave their posts effective the day Obama was sworn into office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    4 weeks ago

Do you think that certain Presidents can not pick ambassadors to any country?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.11  KDMichigan  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.6    4 weeks ago
Or a segue into something totally different.

You were right.

256

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.12  KDMichigan  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.9    4 weeks ago
The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters

OMG don't let the snowflakes see that. They have been crying about Trump doing it for 3 years.

You wouldn't want them to change their opinion of the messiah King Obama.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.13  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.9    4 weeks ago
Her term was from 2016 to 2019.  The State Department did NOT extend her term, but there was an request to extend.
As it is, she was only 'short toured' by a short period of time.  She was scheduled to leave in August 2019.

That's a lot of blathering that merely supports my statement. 

Ergo, they were notified BEFORE Obama took office that he were to leave their posts effective the day Obama was sworn into office.

A notification of a PENDING action is NOT the action itself. You're just trying to twist shit to fit your agenda. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.10    4 weeks ago

I am viewing Texan's comments but ignoring them. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.13    4 weeks ago
A notification of a PENDING action is NOT the action itself. You're just trying to twist shit to fit your agenda. 

Ridiculous in this circumstance.

Just fucking ridiculous.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.14    4 weeks ago
I am viewing Texan's comments but ignoring them. 

That is hilarious!

You responded to me.

Great job ignoring me!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.17  KDMichigan  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.16    4 weeks ago
You responded to me.

256

You did it now Tex. I see a BTFW in your future.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.16    4 weeks ago

I am viewing Texan's comments but ignoring them. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.15    4 weeks ago

I am viewing Texan's comments but ignoring them. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.20  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.21  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.20    4 weeks ago

Then why did Castor, the GOP counsel, keep asking witnesses if they could understand why Trump FELT the way he does? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.22  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    4 weeks ago
I wouldn't trust her to fetch my laundry.

Trump lies so much if he told me the sky was blue I would walk outside and look up to make sure. She has 33 years of service under dem and repub presidents, but suddenly she is a partisan hack the minute trump says so? You have got to be fucking kidding me. Trump has told of 12,000 lies in 3 years, and you say you don't trust this Amb.? LMFAO!

 
 
 
Snuffy
2  Snuffy    4 weeks ago

I don't think either side landed any real punches the past two days of testimony. It's been mostly opinion and/or second-hand information and lacking in any facts TBH. The biggest for the Rep's was Stewart asking two questions (do you have any info regarding Trump of accepting any bribed and any info regarding any criminal activity that Trump was involved in) and both answers were no. Maybe next week we will finally hear some real facts when they bring in Tim Morrison & Jennifer Williams who were both on the actual call.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Snuffy @2    4 weeks ago
Maybe next week we will finally hear some real facts when they bring in Tim Morrison & Jennifer Williams who were both on the actual call.

It will be a breath of fresh air if they speak to what was actually discussed and not what they interpret the discussion to indicate.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @2    4 weeks ago
I don't think either side landed any real punches the past two days of testimony

Yep, which is why support for impeachment sits at 44% according to a poll I saw this morning, down a point.  

Clinton voters want him removed from office, as they have since before he was sworn in. Nothing has changed.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    4 weeks ago

You know what's even lower? The democrat held house's approval ratings. Lowest in US history at 20%. 

jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

If you are going to suck, be the best at it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.1    4 weeks ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/impeachment-and-the-stone-verdict-show-trump-is-surrounded-by-criminals/ar-BBWP9Ja

Day two of the House impeachment hearings, featuring Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, may have appeared on the surface to focus on a sideshow. Yovanovitch was not directly involved in Trump’s efforts to extort Ukraine for political advantage, the main charge he faces. What her testimony instead accomplished was to put the lie to Trump’s  ludicrous defense  that he was pursuing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine — that his demands that Kiev investigate his rivals were simply about cleaning the country up.

The lawyer for House Republicans asked Yovanovitch to affirm that “the president has long-standing concerns about corruption in the Ukraine.” Her response was savage: “That’s what he says.” Her testimony was devoted to proving the hypocrisy of Trump’s claim. She testified how she had worked in Ukraine to promote reform, how her efforts to do so alienated corrupt oligarchs there, and how those oligarchs then worked in tandem with Rudy Giuliani to foment a backlash against her. She explained that the fired Ukrainian prosecutor that Trump praised to Ukraine’s president in a July phone call was in fact totally corrupt.

Yovanovitch recounted that she learned of her firing while presenting an award for a Ukrainian attacked for her reform efforts, a completely fitting juxtaposition. Trump fired Yovanovitch because she stood in the way of the corruption he and his allies were promoting. To the extent corruption motivated Trump’s diplomatic posture in Ukraine, it was that he wanted to encourage more of it.

 
 
 
Old Hermit
2.2.3  Old Hermit  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    4 weeks ago
Yep, which is why support for impeachment sits at 44% according to a poll I saw this morning, down a point.  

.

Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump?

original

original

.

Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose

original

.

From the polls I keep seeing, today is just like the day Trump became President where more of America thinks he's unfit to be President and want him out than the shrinking minority that still consider him Presidential.

Will, about 25% of the Country thought Nixon was doing a good job the day he flew off into the sunset in disgrace.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Old Hermit @2.2.3    4 weeks ago

Do you remember this?

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample MoE
Clinton (D)
Trump (R)
Johnson (L)
Stein (G)
Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3
Bloomberg 11/4 - 11/6 799 LV 3.5 44 41 4 2 Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP Tracking 11/4 - 11/7 1026 LV 3.1 43 45 8 2 Trump +2
Economist/YouGov 11/4 - 11/7 3677 LV -- 45 41 5 2 Clinton +4
ABC/Wash Post Tracking 11/3 - 11/6 2220 LV 2.5 47 43 4 1 Clinton +4
FOX News 11/3 - 11/6 1295 LV 2.5 48 44 3 2 Clinton +4
Monmouth 11/3 - 11/6 748 LV 3.6 50 44 4 1 Clinton +6
Gravis 11/3 - 11/6 16639 RV 1.0 47 43 3 2 Clinton +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/3 - 11/5 1282 LV 2.7 44 40 6 2 Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos 11/2 - 11/6 2196 LV 2.3 42 39 6 3 Clinton +3
Rasmussen Reports 11/2 - 11/6 1500 LV 2.5 45 43 4 2 Clinton +2
CBS News 11/2 - 11/6 1426 LV 3.0 45 41 5 2 Clinton +4

All General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Polling Data

By the way.....  it's the same source as you used:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.2    4 weeks ago

As is usual, you provide

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Opinions masquerading as facts. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.6  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.1    4 weeks ago
You know what's even lower? The democrat held house's approval ratings. Lowest in US history at 20%

Seriously BF, do you just pull stuff out of your anal vent? Most of the time that John Boehner and Ryan were Speaker, the House's approval ratings were BELOW 20%. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.7  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.4    4 weeks ago
Do you remember this?

Do you remember that polls don't elect presidents? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    4 weeks ago
“Well, sometimes that happens on social media,” she responded, as the hearing room burst into laughter.

Wow.  The clown made a joke.  Congratulations!!!!

It still does not negate the fact that she has NO, allow me to repeat that so there is no misunderstanding, NO direct knowledge of anything Adam Schiff is attempting to bring up other than her feelings were hurt.  Well, boo hoo, let me get you a box of tissues.

The fact remains, the President has the authority to replace ANY Ambassador in any country at any time he(she) deems fit.  A reason is NOT//NOT required.  He(she) can simply not like the color of the Ambassadors hair, or clothing style, or anything else about the Ambassador.

The Schiff clown show is pissing off even die hard Democrats.  (Allow me to distinguish between rational die hard Democrats and bat shit crazy left wing radical fanatics.)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago

The woman was brought on because she was removed from her position for no good reason, and that removal is part of the scheme. They thought she was "anti-corruption" and would not abide by the shenanigans Giuliani had planned and indeed went into.  Removing her was just pre-emptive, although it seems to have taken longer than they wanted. 

She was far from a "side show". Her story helps to lay the foundation. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago
The woman was brought on because she was removed from her position for no good reason

A POTUS does not need a reason for recalling ambassadors. They served at the pleasure of the POTUS. PERIOD.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Of course he needs a reason. When you admit you have no reason people get rightfully suspicious. Trump is nowhere near smart enough to pull off anything like what he wanted to do. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago
The woman was brought on because she was removed from her position for no good reason,

The President NEEDS NO REASON...  PERIOD end of fucking story.  Deal with it.

Here's a bit of history you probably don't want Trump haters to know:

Obama Gives Political Ambassadors Their Pink Slips

By Glenn Kessler
The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.

The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.

Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.

Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.

By Web Politics Editor  |  December 3, 2008; 10:04 AM ET

Source:  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-political-ambassad.html

Obama told the ambassadors to vacate their posts even before he took fucking office.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
Of course he needs a reason.

Bull shit!!!   The President needs NO//NO reason to fire ANY political appointee of member of the Executive Branch.

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
A POTUS does not need a reason for recalling ambassadors. They served at the pleasure of the POTUS. PERIOD.

yep, she even stated that in her testimony. It was obvious she wasn't happy with being recalled but she was and she wasn't owned any explanation. She did state that she understood the President wanted her removed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

You are flailing, period.  She wasn't fired in order to give someone else the job. She was there for more than TWO YEARS after Trump took office. The comparison with Obama is non-existent. 

Keep telling yourself everything is fine because Trump is the president and doesn't need "reasons"  and see where that gets you. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.7  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago

She should take it up with HR she has zero knowledge of the phone call. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.8  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    4 weeks ago

She serves at the pleasure of the president no pleasure no job again she has a HR complaint. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    4 weeks ago
Keep telling yourself everything is fine because Trump is the president and doesn't need "reasons"  and see where that gets you. 

I'm no longer a federal employee, so it has no bearing on me.  

Even as a contractor, it had no bearing on me as all a government worker could do was have me removed from my contract.

The only thing President Trump could do to harm me would have been to revoke my security clearance, which by the way has just been reinstated as I've been recruited back.

You are flailing, period.  She wasn't fired in order to give someone else the job. She was there for more than TWO YEARS after Trump took office. The comparison with Obama is non-existent. 

The only one flailing JR is you.  Whether day one, or the next to last day on the job, the POTUS has the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY to fire ANY political appointee of member of the executive branch.  Period end of story.

That you simply refuse to acknowledge the truth of the situation pretty much reveals your own desperation at removing President Trump from office.  Heres a clue:

It ain't gonna fucking happen.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.10  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.9    4 weeks ago
Whether day one, or the next to last day on the job, the POTUS has the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY to fire ANY political appointee of member of the executive branch.  Period end of story.

Even Eric Swalwell (D-CA) didn't know. He calls the removal of an ambassador "for no good reason" an abuse of power. Video of his interview is in this article:

https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/11/07/dumb-eric-swalwell-doesnt-think-u-s-ambassadors-serve-at-the-pleasure-of-presidents/

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.11  XDm9mm  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.10    4 weeks ago
Even Eric Swalwell

Yeah, Swallwell is another rabid radical anti-Trump shithead not worth my time listening to.  My dog has more smarts than that asshat.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.12  Jasper2529  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.5    4 weeks ago
yep, she even stated that in her testimony. It was obvious she wasn't happy with being recalled but she was and she wasn't owned any explanation.

It was obvious that the Democrats focused on her hurt feelings instead of facts. Her feelings mean nothing. Those Dems knew it but they used her as a pawn by portraying her as a female victim.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.12    4 weeks ago
Those Dems knew it but they used her as a pawn by portraying her as a female victim.

That's essentially all the Democrats have is perpetuating the continual victimhood to retain power and buy votes.  All Democrat voters are pawns of the Democrat machine.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.14  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.13    4 weeks ago
That's essentially all the Democrats have is perpetuating the continual victimhood to retain power and buy votes.  All Democrat voters are pawns of the Democrat machine.

Identity politics has been the Democratic Party's banner for centuries. In more current times, they flaunt it on a daily basis in the MSM, politics, and social media. Their newest victim is Ms. Yovanovitch. I was surprised that a seasoned federal employee like her would play by Schiff's clown show victim rules - she seemed to be smarter than that, but I was wrong.  

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.15  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago
The woman was brought on because she was removed from her position for no good reason,

Who cares.

Remember when Obama fired ALL of Bush's ambassador's? Which one told Congress their feelings were hurt? Which ones were fired for no good reason? Probably all of them.

I don't remember your 3.1 being posted back then.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.16  XDm9mm  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.14    4 weeks ago
Identity politics has been the Democratic Party's banner for centuries.

What they have yet to understand is that many of their 'constituent base' are coming to realize that.  

Trump has been fulfilling the promises made by not only him, but by the Democrats that lied to them before.   

Black unemployment the lowest in history.  Black employment the highest in history. 

Women unemployment the lowest in decades (eclipsed only by the numbers in WWII).  Women employment the highest (proportionally) again since the highs of WWII.  

Hispanic and Asian numbers are similar.   

Wages going up for all, including minorities.

More people are in a position to grab the brass ring on the merry-go-round we call life here in America and the Democrats are quivering in their boots at the knowledge more will realize that and turn on the Democrats and their continual pity party politics.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.17  Jasper2529  replied to  bugsy @3.1.15    4 weeks ago
Remember when Obama fired ALL of Bush's ambassador's? Which one told Congress their feelings were hurt? Which ones were fired for no good reason? 

Even if ALL other presidents did what Obama did, it's now impeachable ... because ... it's ... now ... TRUMMMPPPP !  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
Of course he needs a reason. 

Bullshit. PROVE IT!

Did Obama have a reason to let all Bush appointees go before he even took the oath?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.18    4 weeks ago
Did Obama have a reason to let all Bush appointees go before he even took the oath?

Actually, yes he did.  They were all appointed by Bush.  Obama needed nothing more than that.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.20  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.19    4 weeks ago

Actually, if there is a corrupt intent for removing an employee of the Foreign Service, there IS an issue. 

Sondland is purely a 'political appointee'. Yovanovitch is a career employee of the Foreign Service. Two different worlds. THAT is why Sondland and his ilk can be summarily fired and Yovanovitch is given another position within the Foreign Service. A position BTW that tasks her to recruit and train our future diplomats. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 weeks ago
It still does not negate the fact that she has NO, allow me to repeat that so there is no misunderstanding, NO direct knowledge of anything Adam Schiff is attempting to bring up other than her feelings were hurt.  Well, boo hoo, let me get you a box of tissues.

The Schiff/Pelosi clown show has struck out THREE times in 2 days. All three of their "key witnesses" have stated, under oath, that Trump did not commit a crime. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2    4 weeks ago
All three of their "key witnesses"

And all three readily admitted that they have NO direct knowledge of what they were testifying to....   simply hearsay or what they 'surmised' might have been meant.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 weeks ago

In an alternate reality where she lied to congress under-oath and admitted the Potus didn't do anything wrong but not fall in line with the Military Industrial Complex foreign policy on a rag cable network.

Lefty Cable news is the Potus's best chance for re-election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4    4 weeks ago

Now that you told us what you dreamed overnight, slap some cold water on your face and rejoin reality. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4.1.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    4 weeks ago

Your star witness admitted that she was prepped on the Burisma corruption questions during her confirmation. You should probably find out who did the prepping.  Just don't say his name, his hack attorney might sue.

Then you better hope the Impeachment fails in the house as it's going to be front and center in the Senate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

Lev Parnas is saying he was personally asked by President Trump to go to Ukraine and find dirt on Joe Biden. 

Oh my. lol

That would be the same Lev Parnas who is connected to the Russian Mafia. jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.3  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

He and his bud are also under investigation in Sacramento for their weed shops.  Don't  hear much about it, but sure did when I was there last month.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article236118253.html

A Ukrainian-born man indicted in a campaign-finance scheme along with two associates of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, is an officer in a Sacramento cannabis dispensary controlled by a local businessman with a considerable share of the city’s pot business, records show.

Andrey Kukushkin was among four men indicted last week in an intricate plan to funnel foreign campaign donations to U.S. politicians and enter the legal pot business in Nevada and other states. Two of the defendants, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, are associates of Giuliani and were reportedly helping him investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his son.

Now, that international scandal has unraveled a considerable subplot in Sacramento.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    4 weeks ago
Lev Parnas is saying he was personally asked by President Trump to go to Ukraine and find dirt on Joe Biden.

Is that the same American citizen Lev Parnas?   The one brought to America by his parents at the age of three and who applied for and received American citizenship?

And you DO have a source to prove you allegation, don't you?

Can the same be said of Christopher Steele of the famed Steele Dossier?  The still British citizen, former MI-6 Special Agent (read SPY) who was hired by not only the DNC and Clinton campaign though a law firm but by our own FBI to assimilate "dirt" on one Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump?

Do you notice any salient differences JR?  Any?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.5  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
Your star witness admitted that she was prepped on the Burisma corruption questions during her confirmation.

That is false. 

Then you better hope the Impeachment fails in the house as it's going to be front and center in the Senate.

Do you think that's the best exculpatory evidence the Senate has?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @4.1.5    4 weeks ago
That is false. 

Uhmmmm   not quite.

The Obama administration was so concerned about Hunter Biden’s job on a Ukraine energy giant’s board of directors that it prepped Marie Yovanovitch about the issue before her 2016 Senate confirmation.

In response to questions from Republican counsel Stephen Castor, the ousted former US ambassador to Ukraine testified at the House Intelligence Committee’s second public impeachment hearing on Friday that she had been informed about the lucrative gig the son of Vice President Joe Biden had landed with Burisma.

“As I said, I arrived in August of 2016, several months before the elections and several months before President Trump took office. And it was not a focus of what I was doing in that six-month period,” she said.

Castor pressed her on why she took no action after learning of Hunter Biden’s post, which paid him as much as $50,000 a month despite his lack of relevant experience.

“We — I was aware of it, because as I told you before, in the deposition, there had been a — in terms of the preparation for my Senate confirmation hearings for Ukraine, there was a question about that and a select answer,” Yovanovitch replied.

Source:    https://nypost.com/2019/11/15/marie-yovanovitch-admits-obama-admin-prepped-her-on-hunter-biden-before-her-confirmation/

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.7  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
Uhmmmm   not quite.

You're defending another members statement with a link that doesn't support it. 

Well done. /s

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2  Jasper2529  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4    4 weeks ago
she lied to congress under-oath

It's disturbing that she stated that she never knew that Joe Biden bragged about his own Ukraine/Burisma/Hunter quid pro quo.  She lied under oath, because millions of people have seen the video of Joe Biden bragging about what he and Obama did.

 
 
 
lib50
4.2.1  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.2    4 weeks ago

She didn't lie, you are just confused because you are pushing a debunked conspiracy theory. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  lib50 @4.2.1    4 weeks ago
She didn't lie,

Prove it. Biden's video has been online for months for all to see, so prove that she didn't know about it.

you are just confused because you are pushing a debunked conspiracy theory. 

Prove it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  lib50 @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

Maybe you need to look at the damn video. Joe is quite clear in what he says.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

Biden can brag about his corruption and the left cheers him on. Too bad they can't get Trump to do the same.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @4.2.3    4 weeks ago
Biden can brag about his corruption and the left cheers him on.

What was corrupt about what Biden did? Please be specific. 

Too bad they can't get Trump to do the same.

Trump did it voluntarily. 

 
 
 
lib50
4.2.5  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.2.2    4 weeks ago
Prove it.

Um, YOU prove something.  But for shits and giggles, here is plenty of reading material.  Lets start with where the entire thing began.  BREITBART AND BANNON.  But read from the beginning, lots of information here.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/on-bidens-and-ukraine-wild-claims-with-little-basis-quicktake

The notion that Hunter Biden and his father could be complicit in Ukrainian corruption was first aired in a 2018 book, “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.” Its author, Peter Schweizer, is an editor at Breitbart News and president of the Government Accountability Institute, a nonprofit group founded by former Trump political adviser Steve Bannon. The group’s board chairwoman is Rebekah Mercer, a prominent Trump supporter. Trump has cited Schweizer by name in some of his Twitter attacks on the Bidens. But even Schweizer’s book doesn’t allege that any laws were broken.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/11/donald-trump/trump-ad-misleads-about-biden-ukraine-and-prosecut/

There is literally so much fact in here that proves the Trump/Biden lies are bullshit I don't want to take up this entire seed. But here is a smidge:

A Trump ad says "Fact: Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor .... Fact: the prosecutor said he was forced out for leading a corruption probe into Hunter Biden's company. Fact: Democrats want to impeach President Trump for discussing this investigation with Ukraine's President."

Biden called for Ukraine to fire Shokin, the prosecutor general, but so did many others. The facts show that Biden wanted Shokin removed due to widespread concerns that Shokin was ineffective in pursuing corruption cases — not that he was too aggressively pursuing cases. The Trump campaign cites Shokin himself, but he is not a reliable source. And Democrats want to impeach Trump for using foreign policy to promote his own re-election, not his desire to investigate corruption. 

This ad claims a compilation of "facts," but it’s presentation and lack of context is so misleading as to be inaccurate. We rate this statement False.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-claims-about-hunter-biden-in-china/

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

  • For months before that, the US and other countries had pressured for Shokin to be ousted because he didn't make a concerted effort to fight corruption. Biden, who was spearheading the Obama administration's Ukraine work, was at the center of these efforts, and threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine if Shokin wasn't fired. 
  • So, it's true that Biden was among those who pushed for Shokin to be fired as Ukraine's top prosecutor, but by the time this happened the probe into Burisma was dormant, according to Bloomberg.
  • According to the Times , Ukrainian and American officials have also debated whether Shokin was using the threat of prosecution against Burisma in order to solicit a bribe.   
  • Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told The Washington Post , "Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma. Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."
  • Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine's former prosecutor general who left the post at the end of August, told Bloomberg in an interview in May that neither Biden nor Hunter are the subject of investigations: "I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of US presidential elections. Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing. A company can pay however much it wants to its board."
  • Lutsenko added: "At the end of the day, Shokin submitted his own resignation."
  • Additionally, Lutsenko on September 26 told The Washington Post : "From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, [Hunter Biden] did not violate anything."
  • Lutsenko in an interview with the Los Angeles Times on September 29 echoed his previous comments and said that he'd not seen any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
  • Trump on October 3 stood on the White House lawn and once again called on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
  • On October 4, it was reported Ukraine's new prosecutor general, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, is reviewing past investigations into the owner of Burisma. This raised the possibility of inquiries being restarted, the Wall Street Journal reported.
  • Ryaboshapka on October 4 also told Reuters he's not aware of any evidence of wrongdoing on Hunter's part and that he'd not been in touch with any foreign lawyers regarding the case. 

 
 
 
freepress
5  freepress    4 weeks ago

The right wing arguments against honest people are ridiculous. They have been so brainwashed by Fox and right wing talking points they eagerly disavow any fact or any truth that contradicts their own narrow mindset.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1  XDm9mm  replied to  freepress @5    4 weeks ago
The right wing arguments against honest people are ridiculous.

What arguments?  Simply stating what the three "witnesses" admitted to in that they have no first hand knowledge of anything the President said, and have not themselves spoken with the President is in some way a denigrating statement?

No one is disputing their obvious honesty in not having any direct knowledge.  So please, what is your problem with what people indicate?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

XDm9mm
Just Jim NC TttH
zuksam
lib50
Raven Wing
Phaedrus
Ender
Ed-NavDoc
MUVA
Ozzwald

KDMichigan
Sean Treacy
arkpdx


34 visitors