Day two

[LostMarbels]

Saying that someone is "under investigation" implies an official government inquiry.

This why I'm kinda hesitant of even trying to explain myself anymore. I could take 3 to 5 days to research, and post a realy informative post, and then it isn't even remembered by the individuals that argued against it.

There is no way you can make the comment, to me, that I haven't shown government inquiries.

But I am supposed to play fetch and find them again for you.

 

[DaisyDay]

Running her down is not defending yourself.

You're right - it might even constitute witness intimidation. She is an employee and he is her ultimate boss (fortunately, civil service has rules so the big boss can't arbitrarily fire government workers and put his own people in - the spoils system).

 

[Aldebaran]

Hooray for shifting responsibility of the President.

That's about all they've got. If Schiff hadn't said anything, it couldn't be claimed that this woman was "intimidated" because she wouldn't have even known what Trump said until after she testified. But sure, let's Schifft the responsibilty for that to the president.

 

[hislegacy]

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.”

no. I don’t. A defense would include the reason she was removed, not just an insult.

 

[hislegacy]

Neither do I believe she deserves a standing ovation.

but it makes good drama.

 

[JohnAshton]

this is not a grand jury. Period

This is an impeachment inquiry. They are to examine BOTH sides of the inquiry.

Not in the slightest. That is for the Senate to decide not you.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This why I'm kinda hesitant of even trying to explain myself anymore. I could take 3 to 5 days to research, and post a realy informative post, and then it isn't even remembered by the individuals that argued against it.

There is no way you can make the comment, to me, that I haven't shown government inquiries.

That's fair, but generally, if you make a claim, it's assumed that you have a basis for that claim. It shouldn't require several days worth of research to substantiate a relatively simple claim - like whether or not a person is under official investigation.

But I am supposed to play fetch and find them again for you.

You make the claim, you support it. That's how it works.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Was she checking Trump's tweets while testifying? I didn't see her doing that. However, good ole Schiff took the time to grandstand by pointing out during the hearing in front of the TV camera what Trump tweeted. It sure looked like Schiff was really trying hard to make a mountain out of a molehill. If "witness intimidation" is such a bad thing, then why did Schiff take the time to point out to the witness what Trump had written? She wouldn't even have known about it if he hadn't done that, and therefore "intimidation" couldn't be alleged. But Schiff couldn't let an opportunity go to waste!

Hooray for live TV.

Incredible.

 

[Aldebaran]

Incredible.

Indeed!

 

[Hank77]

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.

Why do they want to have Hunter Biden testify? Why not this American who sat on the board with Biden and is still on the board?

In February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black, former director of the Counterterrorism Center of the Central Intelligence Agency (1999–2002) in the George W. Bush administration and former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism (2002–2004), was appointed to the board.[35]
Burisma Holdings - Wikipedia

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Indeed!

I’m taking about your devotion to Trump despite the entire House committee seeing the terrible optics of his tweet and deciding to distance themselves from it.

 

[LostMarbels]

You make the claim, you support it. That's how it works.

In all fairness I am only trying to be polite enough to warn you. Maybe point out things you have ignored or overlooked thinking they were nothing but rumor. Once things begin popping off, a lot of people are going to go thru a genuinely confusing and tough time, having only heard one narrative for years, and bam, next day a total new reality. It is not my onis to educate you or get you to believe what is presented. I can only do my best to present stuff as factually as possible.

 

[Hank77]

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.

The House doesn't determine the fate of the President. If he is impeached the trial will take place in the Senate. There is where he can bring witnesses for his defense and have his attorney to represent him. Even if the Senate found him guilty they could allow him to remain in office.

 

[Aldebaran]

I’m taking about your devotion to Trump despite the entire House committee seeing the terrible optics of his tweet and deciding to distance themselves from it.

Optics? Is that going to become the main focus now?

 

[LostMarbels]

Why do they want to have Hunter Biden testify?

He represents part of the corruption Trump was actualy asking to be looked into. 4 sons of 4 democratic politicians, all working in the ukrainian energy sector that had dealings with Barisma, received enormous sums of money, at the same time when the same parties in ukraine were involved with the DNC/HRC scandals concerning Trump and 2016 election meddling.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

He represents part of the corruption Trump was actualy asking to be looked into. 4 sons of 4 democratic politicians, all working in the ukrainian energy sector that had dealings with Barisma, received enormous sums of money, at the same time when the same parties in ukraine were involved with the DNC/HRC scandals concerning Trump and 2016 election meddling.

This isn’t an investigation into Hunter Biden. This is an investigation into Trump’s wrong doing. What Hunter did or did not do has no bearing on whether Trump should or should not be impeached. A president can’t bribe with American tax dollars a foreign government to announce an investigation into the family member of a political rival. That’s what this investigation is for. Not Biden.

 

[wing2000]

He represents part of the corruption Trump was actualy asking to be looked into. 4 sons of 4 democratic politicians, all working in the ukrainian energy sector that had dealings with Barisma, received enormous sums of money, at the same time when the same parties in ukraine were involved with the DNC/HRC scandals concerning Trump and 2016 election meddling.

If you want to have Congress pass a law that sons or daughters of high ranking government officials can't serve on the Board of Directors for any company, be my guest (might be a good idea). Hunter has a lot of company, including, the current President's children. That issue has no relevance whatsoever on the current impeachment inquiry.

 

[hislegacy]

You seem to be confusing an inquiry with a trial.

Cite sources showing an inquiry is one sided

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.

you answer my question first please.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Optics? Is that going to become the main focus now?

The House Republicans apparently thought optics was something to consider today judging by how quickly they tried to distance themselves from the president’s criminally indicting tweet.

 

[rjs330]

btw, the President's tweet amounts to witness intimidation. He continues to write the articles of impeachment for the Democrats.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, interrupted his counsel’s questioning to read the president’s words aloud to Ms. Yovanovitch. There were audible gasps in the stately hearing room as he did so, and asked Ms. Yovanovitch for her reaction.

“It’s very intimidating,” she replied, taken aback.


Marie Yovanovitch, Ex-Ukraine Envoy Ousted by Trump, Says She Feels Intimidated by Him
btw -- I'm quoting the NYT piece as I don't see a transcript released yet from today's hearing...

Typical leftist thoughts. Only feelings matter.