Thoughts When Ambassador Yovanovitch Testified

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
93,035
Reaction score
19,001
Points
2,220
Location
Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
I watched almost all of Ambassador Yavanovitch's testimony and here is what I thought about it:

1) It seemed ironic that her testimony that is being used to in effect 'fire' an elected President is about how unfair it was that she was fired from her job when she thought she was doing her job well. You dont say?

2) "Ambassador Yovanovitch, when you were told you were fired, what color would you use to portray your feelings? A Moody Muave? Odius Ochre? A Melancholy Purple? Could you show where on this doll the President hurt you?"

3) Obviously she feels persecuted and targetted for her political associations.

Meanwhile Roger Stone is likely to spend the rest of his natural life in prison, and Paul Manafort rots in a tiny cell all for being friends of Trumps that Wiessman thought he could flip.

4) Why are we listening to this woman complain about getting fired? Are women just too soft to handle such a thing? As a contractor I have worked over a dozen jobs in the last 22 years and got laid off. Deal with it, you serve at the Presidents pleasure, that is what that phrase means, girl.

5) Why didnt she use vocal fry creaky voice like that other tear jerker?
Let's face it....Democrats think women are ready-made victims to be used whenever it becomes politically convenient......at the same time they claim women are tough and self-sufficient.
 

B. Kidd

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
21,928
Reaction score
4,264
Points
280
Location
Western Lands
My wife liked her Chanel scarf.

I had the same thought that Nunes expressed; WTF is she doing there and how is she directly related to the phone call and paused funds?
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
8,317
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
What's the point? She admits that she knows nothing and can't verify the crazy allegations that keep changing from day to day so why was she called? Were democrats hoping that she would break down and cry over being fired?
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
59,866
Reaction score
11,003
Points
2,070
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
What's the point? She admits that she knows nothing and can't verify the crazy allegations that keep changing from day to day so why was she called? Were democrats hoping that she would break down and cry over being fired?
Apparently, Shiff thinks that women will tune in if its a soap opera drama.

I think it is hilarious how TV talking keep calling him ShifT. Even Chris Wallace!
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
38,576
Reaction score
12,201
Points
1,550
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
This is what I took away from the Hearings yesterday:

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, admitted to lawmakers that President Donald Trump did not engage in any kind of criminal activity related to Ukraine.


“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked point blank.

“No,” Yovanovitch said.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

“No.”
Another Democratic Star Witness Admits Trump Committed No Crime



Case closed, stick it with a fork because it's done.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
21,564
Reaction score
3,426
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
If trump’s twitter comments were considered witness intimidation then Schiff is the one guilty of that. Unless Yovanovitch was on twitter while being questioned, Schiff was the one laying the intimidating words on her by relaying those tweets real time.
Doesnt that make Schifferbrains an accessory to that threat as well?
He is being exactly what he is accusing trump of being.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
59,927
Reaction score
12,408
Points
2,220
This is what I took away from the Hearings yesterday:

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, admitted to lawmakers that President Donald Trump did not engage in any kind of criminal activity related to Ukraine.


“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked point blank.

“No,” Yovanovitch said.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

“No.”
Another Democratic Star Witness Admits Trump Committed No Crime



Case closed, stick it with a fork because it's done.
The headline doesn't report what she said. She said she didn't have any information/knowledge of him accepting bribes. Why would she? She'd been sent home by Trump so she wouldn't. But he's never been accused of "accepting" bribes. Is this Chris Stewart an old dotard or what?
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
59,866
Reaction score
11,003
Points
2,070
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
But he's never been accused of "accepting" bribes. Is this Chris Stewart an old dotard or what?
It is understandable OldLady that you have not become aware of the latest Democrat Congressional change to the Impeachment narrative.

They have moved beyond 'Quid Pro Quo'. That is Truth from the week before last week.

But after some focus groups the Dems have determined that what Trump REALLY did was violate bribery laws.

Since they now think that that charge is more shocking to the American public, they are going with that now.

Didnt you get the new DNC Talking Points memo?
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
59,927
Reaction score
12,408
Points
2,220
But he's never been accused of "accepting" bribes. Is this Chris Stewart an old dotard or what?
It is understandable OldLady that you have not become aware of the latest Democrat Congressional change to the Impeachment narrative.

They have moved beyond 'Quid Pro Quo'. That is Truth from the week before last week.

But after some focus groups the Dems have determined that what Trump REALLY did was violate bribery laws.

Since they now think that that charge is more shocking to the American public, they are going with that now.

Didnt you get the new DNC Talking Points memo?
Jim, I am aware of that. However, they are saying that Trump was offering bribes, not accepting bribes.
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
59,815
Reaction score
8,564
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
This is what I took away from the Hearings yesterday:

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, admitted to lawmakers that President Donald Trump did not engage in any kind of criminal activity related to Ukraine.


“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked point blank.

“No,” Yovanovitch said.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

“No.”
Another Democratic Star Witness Admits Trump Committed No Crime



Case closed, stick it with a fork because it's done.
Nope. She said she didn't know of any. She is in no position to "admit" anything of the sort. Next.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
465
Points
130
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
This is what I took away from the Hearings yesterday:

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, admitted to lawmakers that President Donald Trump did not engage in any kind of criminal activity related to Ukraine.


“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked point blank.

“No,” Yovanovitch said.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

“No.”
Another Democratic Star Witness Admits Trump Committed No Crime



Case closed, stick it with a fork because it's done.
The headline doesn't report what she said. She said she didn't have any information/knowledge of him accepting bribes. Why would she? She'd been sent home by Trump so she wouldn't. But he's never been accused of "accepting" bribes. Is this Chris Stewart an old dotard or what?
Nah, I'm pretty sure the reason he asked it that way is because the constitutional definition by which the Democrats are hoping to make this a quick and easy impeachment, describes bribery in the context of the president TAKING a bribe, not OFFERING a bribe. Essentially, the negative answer to this question points out SPECIFICALLY that nothing she had witnessed fit that definition.

Then again, maybe the question WAS mis-framed and just made that convenient point by accident. Maybe the guy's Mr. Magoo on this one. Or maybe his motives were over your head.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
59,866
Reaction score
11,003
Points
2,070
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Jim, I am aware of that. However, they are saying that Trump was offering bribes, not accepting bribes.
I am afraid that that is a distinction without much difference in the public's mind.

A bribe has to be offered and accepted before it is an actual crime right?

If you get stopped by a cop for a speeding ticket and you say 'Well, right me the ticket and I will pay my fine in court." Are you then offering a bribe?

No, of course not. You are saying that once party A, the cop, does action B, writing the ticket, you will follow up by paying party C the fine.

Trump said once the Ukraine (party A) shares the investigation information with the USA DoJ (action B) he will send the money to party C, the Ukrainian government.

So how is that offering a bribe?

Is enforcing the law an impeachable offence now? Only if it is a Democrat?
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
59,927
Reaction score
12,408
Points
2,220
This is what I took away from the Hearings yesterday:

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, admitted to lawmakers that President Donald Trump did not engage in any kind of criminal activity related to Ukraine.


“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked point blank.

“No,” Yovanovitch said.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

“No.”
Another Democratic Star Witness Admits Trump Committed No Crime



Case closed, stick it with a fork because it's done.
The headline doesn't report what she said. She said she didn't have any information/knowledge of him accepting bribes. Why would she? She'd been sent home by Trump so she wouldn't. But he's never been accused of "accepting" bribes. Is this Chris Stewart an old dotard or what?
Nah, I'm pretty sure the reason he asked it that way is because the constitutional definition by which the Democrats are hoping to make this a quick and easy impeachment, describes bribery in the context of the president TAKING a bribe, not OFFERING a bribe. Essentially, the negative answer to this question points out SPECIFICALLY that nothing she had witnessed fit that definition.

Then again, maybe the question WAS mis-framed and just made that convenient point by accident. Maybe the guy's Mr. Magoo on this one. Or maybe his motives were over your head.
No, I'm sure you're right. Thanks for the explanation.
 

Muhammed

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
17,621
Reaction score
3,443
Points
290
Location
North Coast, USA
Her testimony reveals how devoid of class the blob is. But that is something all of us already knew.
Her testimony was nothing.
Worthless.

She should save it for her therapist.

Zero to do with anything regarding impeachment.

All witnesses so far, waste of time, waste of taxpayer dollars.
It certainly wasn't the strongest argument Schiff has put forward so far. It taught me something, though.
It showed me that Trump was (is) siding with the corrupt Russian oligarchs that the State Department and the country of Ukraine has been trying to get rid of. As Kent said, you can't go after corrupt oligarchs without pissing some people off.
So why is the President on their side?
I just got convinced, after three years of giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on the Russia thing, that he is playing in their corner. He may be an unwitting tool, but he's clearly on the side of the boys with the big wallets who don't blink twice when bribery or blackmail is the tool of choice. And Trump came damned close to using those tools himself. And called it "beautiful" and "perfect."

The American people knew before we elected him that he had the morals of a sewer rat. That's no big surprise. What was brought home in Yanokovich's testimony yesterday is that Trump is also on the wrong side here, and that doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, a Republican or a Green Party fan. Will I vote for a man who says it was "very unfair" that Shokin was fired? OF COURSE the State Department and the Ambassador aren't going to agree with that. Do you?
Shokin was fired because Joe Biden wanted him replaced with a corrupt prosecutor. They withheld the $1 billion aid package until Biden got Lutsenko (who had recently served prison time for corruption and is currently wanted for corruption) into the PG office. Lutsenko then closed the case against Burisma.

First they tried to assassinate Shokin, and a month later Biden demanded that Shokin be fired. Another coincidence? There sure is a lot of coincidences in the Biden/Burisma timeline.

The investigation is about more than Biden's pay for play corruption, there is also the attempted assassination, a much more serious crime.
 
Last edited:

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
59,927
Reaction score
12,408
Points
2,220
Jim, I am aware of that. However, they are saying that Trump was offering bribes, not accepting bribes.
I am afraid that that is a distinction without much difference in the public's mind.

A bribe has to be offered and accepted before it is an actual crime right?

If you get stopped by a cop for a speeding ticket and you say 'Well, right me the ticket and I will pay my fine in court." Are you then offering a bribe?

No, of course not. You are saying that once party A, the cop, does action B, writing the ticket, you will follow up by paying party C the fine.

Trump said once the Ukraine (party A) shares the investigation information with the USA DoJ (action B) he will send the money to party C, the Ukrainian government.

So how is that offering a bribe?

Is enforcing the law an impeachable offence now? Only if it is a Democrat?
Of course you can be arrested for offering a bribe if it isn't accepted.
If you get stopped by a cop and put a folded $500 bill under your drivers license when you hand it to him, he's either going to pocket the money and tell you to have a nice day, or arrest your ass.

You know what he did and you can play around with this like it's some kinda "game," but I'm done giving this bastard the benefit of the doubt. He needs to be fired.
 

Not2BSubjugated

Callous Individualist
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
465
Points
130
Location
In a mysanthropic malaise
This is what I took away from the Hearings yesterday:

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, admitted to lawmakers that President Donald Trump did not engage in any kind of criminal activity related to Ukraine.


“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked point blank.

“No,” Yovanovitch said.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

“No.”
Another Democratic Star Witness Admits Trump Committed No Crime



Case closed, stick it with a fork because it's done.
The headline doesn't report what she said. She said she didn't have any information/knowledge of him accepting bribes. Why would she? She'd been sent home by Trump so she wouldn't. But he's never been accused of "accepting" bribes. Is this Chris Stewart an old dotard or what?
Nah, I'm pretty sure the reason he asked it that way is because the constitutional definition by which the Democrats are hoping to make this a quick and easy impeachment, describes bribery in the context of the president TAKING a bribe, not OFFERING a bribe. Essentially, the negative answer to this question points out SPECIFICALLY that nothing she had witnessed fit that definition.

Then again, maybe the question WAS mis-framed and just made that convenient point by accident. Maybe the guy's Mr. Magoo on this one. Or maybe his motives were over your head.
No, I'm sure you're right. Thanks for the explanation.
Well shit, that wasn't the snide sorta response I was expecting. I think I had you pegged wrong. I'll have to lay off the sarcasm next time.
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
38,576
Reaction score
12,201
Points
1,550
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
This is what I took away from the Hearings yesterday:

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, admitted to lawmakers that President Donald Trump did not engage in any kind of criminal activity related to Ukraine.


“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah asked point blank.

“No,” Yovanovitch said.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

“No.”
Another Democratic Star Witness Admits Trump Committed No Crime



Case closed, stick it with a fork because it's done.
Nope. She said she didn't know of any. She is in no position to "admit" anything of the sort. Next.
So your admitting the only reason she was there was to cry that she got canned. Got it
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top