Offical Impeachment Thread

[NotYourBody]

Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.

He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.

There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.

If he fired Yovanovitch, that would alert the media so he recalled her. She had to be remove because she would know immediately about the phone call, the freeze on military aid and the implications. Also, if she were there it would be difficult to bring Giuliani into the picture. Giuliani was needed so Trump would not have to be involved in the deal.

If the House get's Giuliani in the witness chair, it will be all over for Trump.

WTF are you talking about? She was replaced two months before the phone call.

Why? Because president has right to do it. I'm surprised he didn't replaced the moment he stepped into office.

Would have been better if he did, but he's too damn stupid to do that.

 

[basquebromance]

this thread is making me dizzy!

 

[HappyJoy]

=

For starters Snowden leaked information to the press, that does not afford any whistle blower protections.

As far as the person's identity, no it;s not a crime to reveal their name and nobody said there was, not sure why you guys like to keep building strawmen just to burn them down.

However, if say the president released the name of the whistle blower that could be considered intimidation become an additional article of impeachment for Congress to deal with. Also, whoever reveals the whistle blowers name could face a civil lawsuit if intent behind the revealing of the name are intended to be injurious. Considering the mood of this country revealing the person's name I think is irresponsible and could potentially put the persons life in danger. Also, as I've already stated the whistle blower is now irrelevant, the claims were investigated and we've now moved on to actual witness testimony. The whistle blower claims will not be used to draw up articles of impeachment. I'd treat the whistle blower no more important to a crime as an anonymous call to 911.

You know that Donald J. Trump is the whistleblower, right and that he is playing you fools so he can take both Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama and The DNC down in one stroke of Genius, right?

Then why are you so wrapped up in the identity of the whistle blower? Some really dumb logic you got going there. Green and Blue is going to want to talk to you about that.

If you haven’t figured out that Trump set this all up to expose The Democrats involvement in both The Dossier and corruption in The Ukraine, then you are on a level of stupid even I am unable to fathom.

Why do you think you keep coming up with Nothing Burgers each and every time?

And why to they each and EVERY Time expose Democrat Corruption?

President Trump has access to Intel not even Congress has as right to see. You think he doesn't know what The Democrats did in the Ukraine and with Russia, and you think he doesn't know where all the missing money went?

You think he doesn't know what Clapper, Brennan, Biden, Clinton, Podesta and Obama were all doing in The Ukraine through Soros NGOs and The Ukraine Embassy?

Just hang out a while, because there are going to be some hangings when this is all done, and it's not going to be The President.

Ah, yes let's paraphrase the wingnut response: "I don't know why Trump keeps stepping in it but he told me he's a stable genius so he must be playing a game I never learned called Chess...4 dimensional chess....cuz that sounds smart".

I'm a cat, toying with a mouse, before the cat decides the game is over.

Figure it out. I gave you the clues. I have been giving you all the clues over the past three years.

If you think you can take down The Deep State and Drain The Swamp overnight, you are wrong.

This takes careful multi-year planning.

Now, there again, I gave you, yet another clue. I am only permitted to say, what I am permitted to say when I am permitted to say it.

I can tell you now, that the trap is set, and the vermin has taken the bait, and the hammer is about to fall.

^Delusions of grandeur. Seek help.

Oh, I think soon, you and your "Comrades" or going to be begging for Mercy once the facts are exposed, and once you realize that a trap was set for you all, to expose you, smoke you out and then ensnare you by the very trap you attempted to set for others.

This is how Chess is played.

Exactly, you can't explain what Trump is doing so you pretend the guy with a limited vocabulary is a stable genius. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[IM2]

It appears that everyone else knows.....except you, RealDumb.


Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm


And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax." EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time | Breitbart



And the Liberal elites have admitted what we on the right have said for decades.


1. Had it not been for Trump's election....none of this would be happening!
With Hillary running, the whole rape-apologist program of the Democrats came to the forefront....and they had to pretend that Trump was on the same level (the gutter) as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

Here's the 'divide:' the Democrats with at least a double digit IQ are ready to admit the truth, the rape history that the Right has been revealing about Clinton for...what....decades.

You, a total dunce, are still fighting the war you've lost.

2. Which Liberal outlets are now admitting what we on the Right have said for decades?

The New York Times

MSNBC

The Atlantic

Slate


Vox



Politico



"So the recent wave of liberals “reckoning” with Bill Clinton’s sexual offenses should be put into proper context. It is not the beginning of the end for the Clintons atop the Democratic Party. It’s just the end.

….the mea culpas from Bill’s defenders proliferating through lefty media, from the New York Times to Politico to Vox, are anything but brave. They’re convenient." https://nypost.com/2017/11/16/dems-...ses-is-the-final-nail-in-the-clintons-coffin/



3. On the other side....lying low-life imbeciles.....you.....who can't keep up with the program.



“Maher asked, "Could Bill Clinton, if he had done what he did in 1998, survive today or would his own party have thrown him under the bus?"

Farrow explained, "Bill Clinton is a different conversation. He has been credibly accused of rape. That is nothing to do with gray areas. That is, you know, I think the Juanita Broadderick claim has been overdue for revisiting."

Farrow also said that he is "heartened by the fact that people now routinely express outrage about Bill Clinton and particularly those more serious allegations about him." Ronan Farrow Says Juanita Broaddrick's Rape Claim Against Bill Clinton Should Be Revisited





Is there anything....ANYTHING.....you Leftists have been right about?

Facts First: Volodymyr Zelensky did say Yovanovitch’s attitude was “far from the best”

Fact check: Trump tweets Ukraine's president spoke unfavorably of Yovanovitch. Here's what we know.

There you go, dumbass! You should have already known.

Yeah, Trump told him she was bad news, and he agreed. Kissy kissy.

Zelensky said, “It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%.”

I just have to laugh.

Don't mind her, dementia is taking it's toll.

Right. Making direct quotes of what people said is crazy, while gifs of little creatures laughing is the epitome of realistic.

How's this?

“Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

…Democrats failed to prove a quid pro quo took place during President Donald Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"No one's testified there's been a quid pro quo," Jordan explained. "Everyone's got second, third, fourth-hand information. Mr. Morrison, who was on the call, said he didn't think anything was improper or illegal in the call. Ms. Williams didn't think anything improper or illegal happened in the call."

The congressman reminded Brennan of one important tidbit, the same one he has made in the past: the four facts surround the call have not changed.

"That's the funny thing about facts. They don't change.

1.The fact that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of assertion of dollars for an investigation on the call.

2.We have the two guys on the call. President Trump and President Zelensky said no pressure and no linkage," he explained.

3. "My point is that he [Zelensky] didn't know that their aid was held up at the time of the call.

4. And, most importantly, they didn't do anything, any specific action or investigation to get the aid released." Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’



Better?

Oh, so you attended a motaur races instead.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Such is the willfully ignorant right.

 

[NotYourBody]

Everyone knows how Trump runs his mouth they accept that and go on the Democrats are Desperately Seeking a way to get rid of their competition they're so scared of four more years of trump

That is a big pasture full of bullshit right there. Are you ******* kidding me?

I do not excuse Trump's words as just him running his mouth. He is the President. What he says matters. If he wanted that kind of grade school nonsense, he should have stayed in the business of bankrupting Trump branded companies instead of trying (and failing spectacularly) to be President of the United States.

Nancy was right. Trump is in way over his head and has no idea how to do the job.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, Trump told him she was bad news, and he agreed. Kissy kissy.

Zelensky said, “It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%.”

I just have to laugh.

Don't mind her, dementia is taking it's toll.

Right. Making direct quotes of what people said is crazy, while gifs of little creatures laughing is the epitome of realistic.

How's this?

“Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

…Democrats failed to prove a quid pro quo took place during President Donald Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"No one's testified there's been a quid pro quo," Jordan explained. "Everyone's got second, third, fourth-hand information. Mr. Morrison, who was on the call, said he didn't think anything was improper or illegal in the call. Ms. Williams didn't think anything improper or illegal happened in the call."

The congressman reminded Brennan of one important tidbit, the same one he has made in the past: the four facts surround the call have not changed.

"That's the funny thing about facts. They don't change.

1.The fact that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of assertion of dollars for an investigation on the call.

2.We have the two guys on the call. President Trump and President Zelensky said no pressure and no linkage," he explained.

3. "My point is that he [Zelensky] didn't know that their aid was held up at the time of the call.

4. And, most importantly, they didn't do anything, any specific action or investigation to get the aid released." Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’



Better?

Oh, so you attended a motaur races instead.

View attachment 290510

Wise of you not to engage, after the beatings I'm had to administer.

 

[The Original Tree]

=

You know that Donald J. Trump is the whistleblower, right and that he is playing you fools so he can take both Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama and The DNC down in one stroke of Genius, right?

Then why are you so wrapped up in the identity of the whistle blower? Some really dumb logic you got going there. Green and Blue is going to want to talk to you about that.

If you haven’t figured out that Trump set this all up to expose The Democrats involvement in both The Dossier and corruption in The Ukraine, then you are on a level of stupid even I am unable to fathom.

Why do you think you keep coming up with Nothing Burgers each and every time?

And why to they each and EVERY Time expose Democrat Corruption?

President Trump has access to Intel not even Congress has as right to see. You think he doesn't know what The Democrats did in the Ukraine and with Russia, and you think he doesn't know where all the missing money went?

You think he doesn't know what Clapper, Brennan, Biden, Clinton, Podesta and Obama were all doing in The Ukraine through Soros NGOs and The Ukraine Embassy?

Just hang out a while, because there are going to be some hangings when this is all done, and it's not going to be The President.

Ah, yes let's paraphrase the wingnut response: "I don't know why Trump keeps stepping in it but he told me he's a stable genius so he must be playing a game I never learned called Chess...4 dimensional chess....cuz that sounds smart".

I'm a cat, toying with a mouse, before the cat decides the game is over.

Figure it out. I gave you the clues. I have been giving you all the clues over the past three years.

If you think you can take down The Deep State and Drain The Swamp overnight, you are wrong.

This takes careful multi-year planning.

Now, there again, I gave you, yet another clue. I am only permitted to say, what I am permitted to say when I am permitted to say it.

I can tell you now, that the trap is set, and the vermin has taken the bait, and the hammer is about to fall.

^Delusions of grandeur. Seek help.

Oh, I think soon, you and your "Comrades" or going to be begging for Mercy once the facts are exposed, and once you realize that a trap was set for you all, to expose you, smoke you out and then ensnare you by the very trap you attempted to set for others.

This is how Chess is played.

Exactly, you can't explain what Trump is doing so you pretend the guy with a limited vocabulary is a stable genius. Thanks for proving my point.

You are less than a pawn, unfortunately. You are just a lil ole checker on a checker board, wondering what the **** in going on at the Big Board. I am not even asking you to believe me. I am just telling you to sit back and watch what happens. These fools do not even know they are entrapped....but they will soon.

They will soon.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Another note for the Trumpettes attempting to excuse their vote for Trump by throwing out these allocations of sexual misconduct with Bill Clinton.

1) Nearly all of this came to light after Clinton's second election.
2) We knew about Trump before the election
3) I never voted for Bill Clinton
4) You voted for a man that you knew had over 25 accusations including child rape & him on tape talking about groping women.

so please. Shut the **** up about Bill Clinton.

they're all factual. I use only facts. You, naw. Hey but any day you can post up the thing that trump actually did.

The topic is Trump. Deal with it

 

[IM2]

Link? What indication do you have that Zelinsky didn't "care" for the ambassador?

Facts First: Volodymyr Zelensky did say Yovanovitch’s attitude was “far from the best”

There you go, dumbass! You should have already known.

Did you read your link? He said it after Trump brought her up. Zelensky would do or say anything Trump wanted him to...Trump was extorting him after all.

Why would the State Department tell Yovanovich that she did nothing wrong if she had lost the confidence of the host country?

We know how this played out. Yovanovich pushed back against the "drug deal" that the "Three Amigos" were scheming and so she had to be removed to let Rick Perry secure Ukrainian drilling rights for his donors and to make conspiracy theories come to life to make Trump look like Russia didn't help him win. ( they did)

It's disgusting how all those politicians pat each other's back. They ALL did the great job and service to the country. Yeah, right.

She was Obama holdover. That alone is enough to replace her. Yet, she was badmouthing president that she was representing in Ukraine. That is another reason. So who was smearing whom in this case?
She should've been fired the moment Trump walked into White House for simple reason that she was there during time that Ukrainians were working with DNC against Trump and she did nothing about it, even more, I think she had a role in it.

Yovanovich has been in the State Dept since Reagan. Technically she's a Reagan holdover.

Oh, and the accusation that she was badmouthing Trump comes from a bunch of people paid off by Dmytro Firtash, who is currently fighting extradition to the US for Ukrainian Corruption. As was said in the hearing, you can't fight corruption without pissing off corrupt people.

She was Obama's ambassador, dumbass!

Yovanovitch is "well known in diplomatic circles for her measured demeanor and diligence in representing both Republican and Democratic administrations."[10] Yovanovitch was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan on November 20, 2004; she presented her credentials on February 4, 2005, and remained in this post until February 4, 2008.[1][11] Her nomination as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote.[12]

Yovanovitch was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Armenia on August 4, 2008; she presented her credentials on September 22, 2008, and remained in this post until June 9, 2011.[11] Her nomination as ambassador to Armenia was again confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote.[13] During confirmation hearings, Yovanovitch acknowledged that Turks had committed mass killings, rapes, and expulsions of Armenians between 1915 and 1923, calling this "one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century," but, in line with U.S. policy, declined to use the phrase Armenian Genocide, saying that the use of this politically sensitive phrase was a policy decision that could be made only by the highest-ranking U.S. officials, namely President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.[14]

While in Armenia, Yovanovitch pushed Armenian authorities to give fair treatment to Armenians arrested in post-election protests in 2008.[10] Yovanovitch received the Secretary's Diplomacy in Human Rights Award,[9] a department award honoring ambassadors who demonstrate "extraordinary commitment to defending human rights."[10]

Marie Yovanovitch - Wikipedia

She was GW Bush's ambassador also.

 

[Ame®icano]

Really, A Trump over calling Bill Clinton a rapist. Who did he rape? Did you forget Trump's rape accusation of a 14 year old? Really?

What US investigation did Trump ask for help with?

It appears that everyone else knows.....except you, RealDumb.


Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm


And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax." EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time | Breitbart



And the Liberal elites have admitted what we on the right have said for decades.


1. Had it not been for Trump's election....none of this would be happening!
With Hillary running, the whole rape-apologist program of the Democrats came to the forefront....and they had to pretend that Trump was on the same level (the gutter) as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

Here's the 'divide:' the Democrats with at least a double digit IQ are ready to admit the truth, the rape history that the Right has been revealing about Clinton for...what....decades.

You, a total dunce, are still fighting the war you've lost.

2. Which Liberal outlets are now admitting what we on the Right have said for decades?

The New York Times

MSNBC

The Atlantic

Slate


Vox



Politico



"So the recent wave of liberals “reckoning” with Bill Clinton’s sexual offenses should be put into proper context. It is not the beginning of the end for the Clintons atop the Democratic Party. It’s just the end.

….the mea culpas from Bill’s defenders proliferating through lefty media, from the New York Times to Politico to Vox, are anything but brave. They’re convenient." https://nypost.com/2017/11/16/dems-...ses-is-the-final-nail-in-the-clintons-coffin/



3. On the other side....lying low-life imbeciles.....you.....who can't keep up with the program.



“Maher asked, "Could Bill Clinton, if he had done what he did in 1998, survive today or would his own party have thrown him under the bus?"

Farrow explained, "Bill Clinton is a different conversation. He has been credibly accused of rape. That is nothing to do with gray areas. That is, you know, I think the Juanita Broadderick claim has been overdue for revisiting."

Farrow also said that he is "heartened by the fact that people now routinely express outrage about Bill Clinton and particularly those more serious allegations about him." Ronan Farrow Says Juanita Broaddrick's Rape Claim Against Bill Clinton Should Be Revisited





Is there anything....ANYTHING.....you Leftists have been right about?

"Had it not been for Trump's election....none of this would be happening!"

Which part? You knew exactly who Trump was & you voted for him. Sorry, but where does that put your moral standing? About as low as you can get.

all of it? Exposure for all to see, the 30 to 40 year politicians and their elitism to think they can tell 65 million americans to go fk themselves. Yeah.

When 65 Americans are so ******* stupid that they actually voted for a piece of shit like Trump, yes.

I just have to laugh.

Don't mind her, dementia is taking it's toll.

Right. Making direct quotes of what people said is crazy, while gifs of little creatures laughing is the epitome of realistic.

How's this?

“Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

…Democrats failed to prove a quid pro quo took place during President Donald Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"No one's testified there's been a quid pro quo," Jordan explained. "Everyone's got second, third, fourth-hand information. Mr. Morrison, who was on the call, said he didn't think anything was improper or illegal in the call. Ms. Williams didn't think anything improper or illegal happened in the call."

The congressman reminded Brennan of one important tidbit, the same one he has made in the past: the four facts surround the call have not changed.

"That's the funny thing about facts. They don't change.

1.The fact that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of assertion of dollars for an investigation on the call.

2.We have the two guys on the call. President Trump and President Zelensky said no pressure and no linkage," he explained.

3. "My point is that he [Zelensky] didn't know that their aid was held up at the time of the call.

4. And, most importantly, they didn't do anything, any specific action or investigation to get the aid released." Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’



Better?

Jim Jones? The Ohio State guy that let a predator molest? That Jim Jones? What was his Quid Pro Quo then?

Jim who????


Gads, you go to quite an extent to prove you're a moron.

Trust me....it is unnecessary......everyone knows.

You're wrong PC, it comes to him naturally. It's effortless.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More bad news for the Orange Ogre

House Investigating Whether Trump Lied To Mueller In U.S. Russia Probe | HuffPost

 

[IM2]

I just have to laugh.

Don't mind her, dementia is taking it's toll.

Right. Making direct quotes of what people said is crazy, while gifs of little creatures laughing is the epitome of realistic.

How's this?

“Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

…Democrats failed to prove a quid pro quo took place during President Donald Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"No one's testified there's been a quid pro quo," Jordan explained. "Everyone's got second, third, fourth-hand information. Mr. Morrison, who was on the call, said he didn't think anything was improper or illegal in the call. Ms. Williams didn't think anything improper or illegal happened in the call."

The congressman reminded Brennan of one important tidbit, the same one he has made in the past: the four facts surround the call have not changed.

"That's the funny thing about facts. They don't change.

1.The fact that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of assertion of dollars for an investigation on the call.

2.We have the two guys on the call. President Trump and President Zelensky said no pressure and no linkage," he explained.

3. "My point is that he [Zelensky] didn't know that their aid was held up at the time of the call.

4. And, most importantly, they didn't do anything, any specific action or investigation to get the aid released." Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’



Better?

Oh, so you attended a motaur races instead.

View attachment 290510

Wise of you not to engage, after the beatings I'm had to administer.

I'm making a joke out of you. You couldn't beat a wet piece of paper.

A quid pro quo is not even necessary. The fact Trump asked is a crime.

 

[HappyJoy]

^Certifiable.

 

[IM2]

The “Quid” is a Crime: No Need to Prove “Pro Quo” in Ukrainegate

Late last week allegations surfaced in The Wall Street Journal that during a July 25th phone call President Donald Trump had repeatedly pressured Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. If these allegations are true, some of which were admitted by the President himself on Sunday, it looks like Trump has violated federal campaign finance laws. Again. Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani seems to be on the hook for violations, too.

During the July phone call, Trump reportedly urged Zelensky “about eight times” to work with Rudy Giuliani to probe Giuliani’s own assertions that Joe Biden had acted improperly as vice president to curb an investigation of a gas company for which Hunter Biden was a director. Trump’s request to Zelensky is reportedly part of a U.S. intelligence community whistle-blower complaint, tied to allegations that Trump may have delayed a military aid package as leverage on Ukraine’s president.

Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election, and prohibits a person from soliciting, accepting or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”

And that’s all the law requires. Whether or not Ukraine came through, whether or not the communications involved a quid pro quo, the solicitation of a thing of value from the Ukraine President in connection with a U.S. election could be a federal crime.

The “Quid” is a Crime: No Need to Prove “Pro Quo” in Ukrainegate

 

[Ame®icano]

Facts First: Volodymyr Zelensky did say Yovanovitch’s attitude was “far from the best”

There you go, dumbass! You should have already known.

Did you read your link? He said it after Trump brought her up. Zelensky would do or say anything Trump wanted him to...Trump was extorting him after all.

Why would the State Department tell Yovanovich that she did nothing wrong if she had lost the confidence of the host country?

We know how this played out. Yovanovich pushed back against the "drug deal" that the "Three Amigos" were scheming and so she had to be removed to let Rick Perry secure Ukrainian drilling rights for his donors and to make conspiracy theories come to life to make Trump look like Russia didn't help him win. ( they did)

It's disgusting how all those politicians pat each other's back. They ALL did the great job and service to the country. Yeah, right.

She was Obama holdover. That alone is enough to replace her. Yet, she was badmouthing president that she was representing in Ukraine. That is another reason. So who was smearing whom in this case?
She should've been fired the moment Trump walked into White House for simple reason that she was there during time that Ukrainians were working with DNC against Trump and she did nothing about it, even more, I think she had a role in it.

Yovanovich has been in the State Dept since Reagan. Technically she's a Reagan holdover.

Oh, and the accusation that she was badmouthing Trump comes from a bunch of people paid off by Dmytro Firtash, who is currently fighting extradition to the US for Ukrainian Corruption. As was said in the hearing, you can't fight corruption without pissing off corrupt people.

OK, let's say she didn't badmouth Trump.

Tell me, what Ambassador Yovanovich did when she learned that DNC is working with Ukrainians to dig dirt on Trump?

What DNC working with Ukrainians to dig dirt on Trump? Can I have a little more information on that?

What, you didn't know that Ukraine admitted their involvement and meddling in US elections?

Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused ‘Meddling’ in U.S. Election - NYTimes
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - Politico

Now, tell me, why would Ukraine work with DNC against Trump, and in favor of Hillary Clinton?

 

[Ame®icano]

Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.

He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.

There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.

If he fired Yovanovitch, that would alert the media so he recalled her. She had to be remove because she would know immediately about the phone call, the freeze on military aid and the implications. Also, if she were there it would be difficult to bring Giuliani into the picture. Giuliani was needed so Trump would not have to be involved in the deal.

If the House get's Giuliani in the witness chair, it will be all over for Trump.

WTF are you talking about? She was replaced two months before the phone call.

Why? Because president has right to do it. I'm surprised he didn't replaced the moment he stepped into office.

Would have been better if he did, but he's too damn stupid to do that.

How many of us knew that Ukraine was meddling in US elections?

If there wasn't Russian collusion hoax, or had Hillary won, we would never find out about it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Impeachment?????

 

[colfax_m]

Did you read your link? He said it after Trump brought her up. Zelensky would do or say anything Trump wanted him to...Trump was extorting him after all.

Why would the State Department tell Yovanovich that she did nothing wrong if she had lost the confidence of the host country?

We know how this played out. Yovanovich pushed back against the "drug deal" that the "Three Amigos" were scheming and so she had to be removed to let Rick Perry secure Ukrainian drilling rights for his donors and to make conspiracy theories come to life to make Trump look like Russia didn't help him win. ( they did)

It's disgusting how all those politicians pat each other's back. They ALL did the great job and service to the country. Yeah, right.

She was Obama holdover. That alone is enough to replace her. Yet, she was badmouthing president that she was representing in Ukraine. That is another reason. So who was smearing whom in this case?
She should've been fired the moment Trump walked into White House for simple reason that she was there during time that Ukrainians were working with DNC against Trump and she did nothing about it, even more, I think she had a role in it.

Yovanovich has been in the State Dept since Reagan. Technically she's a Reagan holdover.

Oh, and the accusation that she was badmouthing Trump comes from a bunch of people paid off by Dmytro Firtash, who is currently fighting extradition to the US for Ukrainian Corruption. As was said in the hearing, you can't fight corruption without pissing off corrupt people.

OK, let's say she didn't badmouth Trump.

Tell me, what Ambassador Yovanovich did when she learned that DNC is working with Ukrainians to dig dirt on Trump?

What DNC working with Ukrainians to dig dirt on Trump? Can I have a little more information on that?

What, you didn't know that Ukraine admitted their involvement and meddling in US elections?

Now, tell me, why would Ukraine work with DNC against Trump, and in favor of Hillary Clinton?

The two Ukrainians you referenced that were convicted of "meddling" in the US election had their convictions overturned. No one ever mentions that.

What exactly are you accusing Ukraine of doing to help against Trump? Do you even know?

 

[Baz Ares]