The impeachment goat and pony show

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

53 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I don't know who John Solomon is. What is FOIA? You say investigate "former VP for his and his family's corruption"  (corruption is a strong allegation) , but then your proof is "raised concerns" and "a lot of information"...is that your proof?

Taking millions of dollars to do a job you have no qualifications for doesn't sound like corruption to you???

[Dashinka 23,329]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I don't know who John Solomon is. What is FOIA? You say investigate "former VP for his and his family's corruption"  (corruption is a strong allegation) , but then your proof is "raised concerns" and "a lot of information"...is that your proof?

You can search John Solomon, he is currently being denigrated by the mainstream media since he has been actually doing real journalism digging as much as he can, but of course since he is going after the Biden's he is persona non grata and biased (always funny, seeing a bunch of biased news sources calling out someone else's bias).  FOIA stands for Freedom of Information Act, the very act that some Dems do their best at avoiding.  As to the Biden's, well the connection they have is to the Ukraine which has been the epitome of corruption , so if the shoe fits, maybe the DOJ is already investigating.  Now, I am not saying they are corrupt, but just like the Russian collusion narrative, don't we need an investigation to find out?  Maybe a special prosecutor.  Heck the Dems are used to their candidates being under DOJ investigation.

23 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Taking millions of dollars to do a job you have no qualifications for doesn't sound like corruption to you???

Par for the course for many Washington insiders.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[laylalex 7,253]

10 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Question: is there any significance to the red buffalo check plaid behind the wording there? 

 

I think Ambassador Yovanovitch has been doing a great job this morning. We've got it on in the background at work. It was shocking to hear that Trump had tweeted nasty things about her while she was testifying. Why would he think that would make him look good or strong? It makes him look out of control and like he's trying to intimidate a witness.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Question: is there any significance to the red buffalo check plaid behind the wording there? 

You'll have to ask the creator of the meme.

[Dashinka 23,329]

19 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Question: is there any significance to the red buffalo check plaid behind the wording there? 

 

I think Ambassador Yovanovitch has been doing a great job this morning. We've got it on in the background at work. It was shocking to hear that Trump had tweeted nasty things about her while she was testifying. Why would he think that would make him look good or strong? It makes him look out of control and like he's trying to intimidate a witness.

Why was she even there?  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,327]

13 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Why was she even there?  

Here is all you need to know.  Pretty much sums it up. They should have just stopped at this point.

 

Mark Meadows‏Verified account @RepMarkMeadows

FollowFollow @RepMarkMeadows

More

Bravo from @RepChrisStewart, who just summarized this whole hearing:

Q: "Do you have any information regarding POTUS accepting bribes?"

Yovanovitch: "No"

Q: Do you have any evidence of any criminal activity from POTUS?" Yovanovitch:

"No"

That, there, should be the ballgame

10:59 AM - 15 Nov 2019

 

 

[laylalex 7,253]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Why was she even there?  

Why do you think she shouldn't be? She was testifying to what was happening in Ukraine with trying to get her removed from her position, machinations of people like Giuliani and others, but there has been no assertion that she was removed for any real reason. I think too much is being made of the fact that ambassadors serve at the president's pleasure. Why has she been removed and not replaced? Who is the nominee? Wouldn't you expect that a president who removes someone for no cause would have a nominee waiting in the wings for confirmation? Why is there only a chargé d'affaires right now? What did she do to displease Trump? What was Trump doing to further his supposed goal of fighting against corruption? Who were his players that were helping him do that? What were they doing? Why didn't Trump mention fighting corruption in his call to Zelensky in his April call if it was so important to him and as he said he did in that call?

 

Sorry for all the questions, I just think there are a lot of questions that don't match up well with the narrative that this administration was doing everything "perfectly." I do want to stress that I think the Republicans in general have been very respectful of the Ambassador today and conducted themselves quite well in comparison to what I saw of Wednesday.

[Dashinka 23,329]

5 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why do you think she shouldn't be? She was testifying to what was happening in Ukraine with trying to get her removed from her position, machinations of people like Giuliani and others, but there has been no assertion that she was removed for any real reason. I think too much is being made of the fact that ambassadors serve at the president's pleasure. Why has she been removed and not replaced? Who is the nominee? Wouldn't you expect that a president who removes someone for no cause would have a nominee waiting in the wings for confirmation? Why is there only a chargé d'affaires right now? What did she do to displease Trump? What was Trump doing to further his supposed goal of fighting against corruption? Who were his players that were helping him do that? What were they doing? Why didn't Trump mention fighting corruption in his call to Zelensky in his April call if it was so important to him and as he said he did in that call?

 

Sorry for all the questions, I just think there are a lot of questions that don't match up well with the narrative that this administration was doing everything "perfectly." I do want to stress that I think the Republicans in general have been very respectful of the Ambassador today and conducted themselves quite well in comparison to what I saw of Wednesday.

I thought this whole thing was about a phone call in July when President Trump demanded an investigation into the Biden’s as a condition of US aid?  Wasn’t she let go in May?  Does she have any relevant information to the supposed issue driving this fishing expedition, or does she just have more opinion and hearsay about a topic that occurred after she was emoted from her post?

Edited November 15, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,327]

Beyonce to perform at impeachment halftime

[laylalex 7,253]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

I thought this whole thing was about a phone call in July when President Trump demanded an investigation into the Biden’s as a condition of US aid?  Wasn’t she let go in May?  Does she have any relevant information to the supposed issue driving this fishing expedition, or does she just have more opinion and hearsay about a topic that occurred after she was emoted from her post?

It isn't just about the phone call. The call isn't a solitary point in time. It is the events that precipitated the phone call as well. There was pressure -- allegedly -- to have the Ambassador removed because she opposed meddling in Ukrainian politics to further a domestic American political move. Why would it NOT be relevant to have the ambassador posted to Ukraine during the relevant time -- not just the July call, but the months leading up to the July call -- testify about what she saw as something shady happening? What is lost by having her there? Why is the president not testifying himself to refute these allegations? If it were me, and I stood falsely accused, I'd go under oath. But that's just me.  

[Dashinka 23,329]

15 minutes ago, laylalex said:

It isn't just about the phone call. The call isn't a solitary point in time. It is the events that precipitated the phone call as well. There was pressure -- allegedly -- to have the Ambassador removed because she opposed meddling in Ukrainian politics to further a domestic American political move. Why would it NOT be relevant to have the ambassador posted to Ukraine during the relevant time -- not just the July call, but the months leading up to the July call -- testify about what she saw as something shady happening? What is lost by having her there? Why is the president not testifying himself to refute these allegations? If it were me, and I stood falsely accused, I'd go under oath. But that's just me.  

So what were the shady deals that she has uncovered in her testimony regarding the events leading up to the call?  If you go to the other thread, it appears she has a shady history of meddling in the Ukrainian internal affairs herself.  I personally don’t care that she is there with her hearsay, and opinion.  My point was that she has no factual knowledge of what triggered this investigation.  Btw, I am still waiting for someone from the Left tell me what crime has actually occurred.  Anyway, more political theatre using a lifer bureaucrat provide a lot of opinion and conjecture.  By the way, the President does not have to give a reason for removing an ambassador, and to my knowledge, she actually still works for the DoS, so she was not totally fired.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,327]

I will say this. Trump needs to stop Twitting or whatever you call it. He is not helping himself

 

watching Chris wallace. Guy always seems to call it straight down the line 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Nature Boy 2.0

[luckytxn 2,263]

When is the planned impeachment vote happening?

[90DayFinancier 910]