Day two

[hislegacy]

I disagree.

The president has every right to DEFEND himself.

A defense would be “she is incorrect because XYZ”. Not “she stinks at everything she does”

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That’s easy

which is this

A Grand Jury

or

an impeachment inquiry?

I'm aware that it is not technically a grand jury.

I'm asking for support for your assertion that "they are to examine both sides of the inquiry" in an impeachment inquiry.

 

[hislegacy]

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"

game, set and match.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Running her down is not defending yourself.

There's a difference between stating negative information about her and "running her down".

It's already well known that the new Ukrainian president wanted her removed. She apparently had been quite undiplomatic in her dealings with him. That alone is more than enough reason to remove her.

That Yovanovitch doesn't understand how anyone could possibly have fired her attests to both her unsuitability to serve in the diplomatic corps and her lack of credibility as a witness against Trump.

 

[hislegacy]

I'm aware that it is not technically a grand jury.

I'm asking for support for your assertion that "they are to examine both sides of the inquiry" in an impeachment inquiry.

inquiry

• n.
  The act of inquiring.
• n.
  A question; a query.
• n.
  A close examination of a matter.
  
  notice it doesn’t say a close examination of ONE side of a matter.

 

[hislegacy]

There's a difference between stating negative information about her and "running her down".

It's already well known that the new Ukrainian president wanted her removed. She apparently had been quite undiplomatic in her dealings with him. That alone is more than enough reason to remove her.

That Yovanovitch doesn't understand how anyone could possibly have fired her attests to both her unsuitability to serve in the diplomatic corps and her lack of credibility as a witness against Trump.

if the president had tweeted the Ukrainian President didn’t want her. That would have been fine.

degrading 33 years of service well documented is not. No matter who we are disposed to support (I am a Trump supporter), you can’t be a good supporter without calling him out when he does something untoward

 

[NightHawkeye]

A defense would be “she is incorrect because XYZ”. Not “she stinks at everything she does”

LOL ... Trump doesn't play politics in the same manner which allowed Republicans to be out-maneuvered by Democrats in recent years.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I disagree.

The president has every right to DEFEND himself.

What was he defending himself from? What was specifically her attack on him that he’d need to defend himself from?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

inquiry

• n.
  The act of inquiring.
• n.
  A question; a query.
• n.
  A close examination of a matter.
  
  notice it doesn’t say a close examination of ONE side of a matter.

Notice it doesn't say BOTH sides either.

Either way, quoting dictionary definitions doesn't really help your case. Impeachment is a legally defined process in the Constitution. Unless the Constitution specifies that witnesses for the defense must be called as part of an impeachment inquiry, you have no justification beyond your own feelings.

 

[hislegacy]

Notice it doesn't say BOTH sides either.

Either way, quoting dictionary definitions doesn't really help your case. Impeachment is a legally defined process in the Constitution. Unless the Constitution specifies that witnesses for the defense must be called as part of an impeachment inquiry, you have no justification beyond your own feelings.

well thank you, from your depth of knowledge please cite case, and or precedent that shows an inquiry is only one sided.

see, stupid me I thought an inquiry was to find out whether or not something happened. And again, stupid me, to find that out you have to hear all the evidence, both pro and con.

 

[Arcangl86]

well thank you, from your depth of knowledge please cite case, and or precedent that shows an inquiry is only one sided.

see, stupid me I thought an inquiry was to find out whether or not something happened. And again, stupid me, to find that out you have to hear all the evidence, both pro and con.

You seem to be confusing an inquiry with a trial.

 

[hislegacy]

You seem to be confusing an inquiry with a trial.

can you cite some information that clearly shows an inquiry deals with only one side of an issue please.

IOW. Please show where the inquiry is not did he or didn’t he, just did he. I you can remove a President based solely on one side, then virtually no President has a chance of making full term in the future.

 

[Arcangl86]

can you cite some information that clearly shows an inquiry deals with only one side of an issue please.

Can you cite some information that clearly shows an inquiry deals with both sides of an issue? After all, you are the one making the claim that an inquiry is supposed to address both sides.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

well thank you, from your depth of knowledge please cite case, and or precedent that shows an inquiry is only one sided.

see, stupid me I thought an inquiry was to find out whether or not something happened. And again, stupid me, to find that out you have to hear all the evidence, both pro and con.

Where have I said that it must be one-sided? You're the only one who has made any positive claims about the number of viewpoints that must be presented. It's up to the House to set the parameters. They have done so.

 

[LostMarbels]

Does anyone even know this woman is being investigated for withholding evidence from AG Barr?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I you can remove a President based solely on one side, then virtually no President has a chance of making full term in the future.

The House will not decide whether or not the President will be removed. That is the job of the Senate.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Does anyone even know this woman is being investigated for withholding evidence from AG Barr?

No. Citation?

 

[LostMarbels]

No. Citation?

Judicial watch is looking into it.

Let me see f I can find a better article from someone that might be accepted.

 

[stevil]

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"

game, set and match.

The point of having Yovanovitch testify wasn't to provide an accusation of bribery against Trump.
It was to present Yovanovitch as the ambassador that was pushed out by Trump.

Why was she pushed out?
Was she partisan?
Was she doing a good job or bad job as an ambassador?
Was it to get her out of the way so that Trump could bring in his Shadow department (personal lawyer) and push through his personal agenda towards getting Ukraine to do a personal favour.
It was clear that Yovanovitch wouldn't be supportive of the personal favour approach.

 

[wing2000]

I disagree.

The president has every right to DEFEND himself.

Do you consider this a defense?

“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?” Mr. Trump wrote, assailing her on Twitter to his 66 million followers and adding that “It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”