Marie Yovanovitch tells Chris Stewart: No info that Trump committed crime

Nah we'll do like every democrat President has done in the modern era and that's invoke executive privilege in investigations of wrong doing. I'm glad to see you moving those goal post yet again though. If we could just get so and so to testify we would really have him, blah blah blah. Getting more boring by the day

 

No...withholding the funding required notifying Congress, along with the cause of withholding. That wasn't done. The "deadline" you are referencing is the requirement to spend the appropriated funding within the fiscal year. After September 30th, the appropriation would have expired and Congress would have had to requested a new appropriation for FY 2020. That would have meant explaining to Congress why it wasn't appropriated in FY 2019 and blown the conspiracy out of water. It was ALWAYS a bluff. Counting on the new Ukrainian President lack of understanding of our system and hoping to create sufficient pressure on him to make a public announcement regarding the demanded investigations BEFORE September 30th. It was the Whistleblower's disclosure that began the exposure of the conspiracy. of the
To get the conspiracy to work, Trump had to get rid of the Ambassador, and temporarily substitute the Three Amigos as the "official U.S. representatives" in Ukraine, who would convey the President's demands on investigations. She was fired immediately following the Ukrainian election and told to leave the country ASAP. That, presumably, would have made it impossible for Ukrainian officials to seek her advice on the Giuliani/Sondland demands.

 

Hmm...2 days after the whistleblower...3 weeks before the Congressional deadline...

MUST BE THE DEADLINE!

 

Trump, in the words of Sondland, "does not give a **** about Ukraine." He "just wants the investigations."

 

Which, of course, is opinion.

 

She told the truth when asked.

Moreover, impeachment isn't about criminal violations entirely. You can be impeached and have never committed a crime. So her testimony may not have proven any crime, but it definitely painted a picture that anyone who was working with the Ukraine at that time and wasn't pushing to investigate Biden was a problem.

The real question for you is why fire her? Why MAKE her a disgruntled employee? We have had ambassadors serving in countries that we have had poor relations with for many many years and we didn't fire them even when changing president's from one party to the next. So why was she fired again? I know no reason is REQUIRED, but no one does anything without motive. So tell us Trump's motive, because his motive, criminal or not, may very well be impeachable.

 

Funny thing about stonewalling the testimony of those who have relevant and first hand information is that it makes the OTHER article of impeachment - i.e. Obstruction of Justice - that much stronger.

And Trump isn't claiming executive privilege. He is claiming absolute immunity.

 

Trump is free to come before the House and testify to his opinion as well.

But funny thing about "opinion" is that we ask juries - every day - to evaluate the intent and opinion of the accused. And every day, all across the country, juries return a guilty verdict because they determine that the defendant had the requisite intent of the defendant based on their own opinions. Even when the defendant chose to remain silent and even when the defendant repeatedly declared that he was innocent.

 

You believe every opinion of the dem clown show yet ignore the actual testimony. Funny that.

 

I was just referring to your previous post,

 

I don't give a crap about Ukraine and i want the investigation!!!!

 

I agree. I don't really care how it made her feel that she was recalled and granted a position at Georgetown University. I also don't care what she thinks happened after she was recalled. That said, it is not good for the Democrat's narrative that she answered this question the way she did.

 

The usual misrepresentation from House R’s, shameless.

 

She was an honest person, whom the administration knew couldn't be bought. She left prior to the pressure being applied to the new Ukrainian President and was fired exactly because she would have blown the whistle on such pressure. And, as a result, she was out-of-the-picture by the time the Three Amigos and the Giuliani Gang began putting on the pressure. Her complaint was not that the President had exercised his right to fire her, but that he found it necessary to try and destroy her reputation in doing so. Why?

 

No, and your point is?

 

So, why was she fired?

 

She wasn’t fired.

 

Had ole hoof in mouth not said this publically on videotape you might be able to make that leads balloon fly.



Biden admitted to it on video tape, so of course it deserves further investigation to determine if he was BSing or he really did it. The guy wants to be President. We could ask Biden if he broke the law but he'll likely just say it wasn't true and he was bragging. So we have to ask the other side which is what Trump did. Judging by the reaction from the left, I'm thinkin he did it or they wouldn't care because there would be nothing there.

That's NOT his call and using blackmail with US aid to do it would be Abuse of office.....you can frame it anyway you'd like it's a crime. That's why Trump asked the Ukrainian President to coordinate with the U.S. AG.

 

You would remove a sitting President duly elected, based on rumor and innuendo? Please do so the American voters can see who the Democrats really are. He will finish out his 2 terms in office. Biden is the only chance the Democrats have in 2020. When the impeachment moves over to the Senate, Joe and Hunter will be called to testify along with Devon Archer and Chris Heinz. The Republicans will be armed with depositions by Zelensky and Shokin and NO Schiff to run interference for them.

 

Certainly an interesting observation. I watched all testimonies gavel to gavel on C-SPAN and found the testimonies riveting. We learned that Guiliani and the tree amigos were running a shadow organization outside normal State Department channels and that their objective was to find dirt on the Biden's. We learned the White House was keenly interested in that effort and less interested in corruption in Ukraine generally. I found the witnesses professional, unbiased, out of the loop by design, and honest.

My overall impression was that these were good, honest, and professional public servants dedicated to serving the interests of the United States. Most had been public servants a good portion of their lives. I did not look at follow on network commentary, which is why I chose C-SPAN.

 

Gosh. That really sucks.

 

What relevant evidence can either of the Bidens give? Sure, there will be no Schiff. Just the CJ of SCOTUS is all. He'd be putty in your hands, I know.

 

She was fired from her Ambassadorial post and reassigned in Washington.

 

She wasn’t fired. She still has a Cush government job.

 

Not everyone looks for a "cush job." Some look for challenging ones. She was fired from her Ambassadorial post in Ukraine.