WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (Yovanovich)

According to the proven liar Cohen.

 

I know. That, to me, didn't seem important to the point.

 

By the way, no kidding... Cohen is in prison already...

 

...yes? Michael Cohen committed a felony. Directing someone to commit s felony is also a felony.

 

Only if you pretend that they did the same actions.

 

Your theory appears to be that a person is only engaged in intimidation of a witness if they deliver that message directly to the witness.

That is not how the law works nor is it a reflection of how the law should work.

 

Schiff for brains delivered it to her. Now he is a co-conspirator.

No one with a brain believes it was witness intimidation, especially when the witness witnessed nothing.

 

Start Watching at 6:50. Direct quotes from Lutsenko.



Yovanovitch DID give Lutsenko a list! Both the NY Times and Washington Post got it 100% wrong. She gave him the list verbally. She is a damn liar.

 

Lutsenko is a Putin Kilimnik operative and a known lying sack of crap. Whose word are you going to believe between an American Patriot like Yovonavich and a Putin stooge like Lutsenko? Verbal list, my ass.

 

Oh, I see.... and as it "oozes" its way up from the White House will it 'marble-cake' itself with all the viscous, obsidian-black slime that oozes up from the Democrat-contaminated House ...?

Every damn day something always happens that makes me miss the 1980's even more than I did before. What a total pile of CRAP the 21st-century is turning out to be....

 

Of course, you can prove that, yes?

 

They cannot yield time from the chair to allow detailed and extended questioning and counsel has to do the main questioning and questioning when they do get to question is limited to 5 minutes and they cannot call all their witnesses.

This has been HIGHLY controlled by Schiff you saw him today gaveling down Republicans refusing even points of order. The Dems ain't doing good here and he knows it. They have shown that indeed Trump supported Ukraine far more than Obama, that there was serious concern over corruption in Ukraine, that Trump had every right and even duty to protect those dollars the the Ukraines were not even aware and they received the money to continue the far more support than the Democrats ever gave Ukraine without harm to foreign policy of the war in which they were engaged. The ambassador didn't like being replaced and it hurt her feelings....................oh well. Even SHE testified that Hunter Biden was on the radar during the Obama administration, there were warnings back then. She pled total ignorance to the fact a person at the State Department was the contact point between the Clinton campaign and officials in Ukraine to try and influence the election................well good reason to replace you as we trying to investigate such activity and plug it up and hold persons in the government who were engaged in corrupt acts be caught and prosecuted. And if that includes Hunter Biden so be it, and if his father as involved so be it.

 

Swalwell also said the the not a whistleblower had an absolute right to anonymity and that is an outright lie. Even if he were a whistleblower he has no right to anonymity in this proceeding or any proceeding.

 

Delayed watching..........

The Democrats keep claiming she was fired which is a lie and then trying to make the case about how TERRIBLE it was and acting as if she had some claim or right to the job. Her being reassigned is NOT an impeachable offense so why do they keep going over and over and over about irrelevant matters. If there is to be a hearing on such a matter it should be before the House Foreign Relations or Human Services Committee. She can whine all she wants about it and the Democrat can all they want about it and they can pound sand.

 

There was lots of wrong doing and wrong actions and are you trying to make the case that a planned attack on our embassy annex where our ambassador and 3 other Americans were slaughtered was not a matter of proper Congressional oversight? That the Secretary of State and Defense both come under direct Congressional oversight and their actions it such an attack should not be subject to complete investigation and oversight by the Congress?

 

Nah...I'm not defending anyone. People are allowed to express their personal opinions on twitter.Reading Trump's tweet just proves that Schiff doesn't give a damn about witnrsses as long as he gets what he wants. The guy is a mental case. Anyone who studied psychology will tell you that.

 

It doesn't really matter. She crossed the line undet Obama's administration. She definitely abused the power.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/video...o-monitor-journalists-trump-allies-inside-jw/

 

Schiff is doing an excellent job here... Most R's are not going to act like adults so he's not going to treat them like adults...

The only mistake he's made so far is interrupting the questioning of Taylor on Day 1 to tell him he doesn't need to try and answer every non-related question asked by R's... Taylor and Kent showed they could handle those lightweights...

I'm not convinced the standing ovation yesterday was solely directed at the Ambassador...

 

How about you point it out to me? All he does is question her skills, says the exact same thing that she does in that a US ambassador serves at the will of the President (which is why he had every right to remove her) and then talks about doing more than Obama.

At most its an "attack" on her abilities as an ambassador. It certain is not a threat of any type which is what would be "intimidating". Hell, he was nicer to her than many other people that he has "attacked". Didn't even call her a name even once in that tweet.

 

You may want to check out what legality of witness intimidation is. LINK: Witness Intimidation Law and Legal Definition

Where in that tweet did Trump threaten or pressure her to not testify? Especially considering that she was ALREADY testifying and had been for 2 hours before that tweet came out, which he knew.

 

Except of course in this case the only reason she knew about it was because of Schiff. If he hadn't said anything she wouldn't have known until after her testimony was done. Being too busy answering questions and all that to look for a tweet that she didn't even know existed.

Also, there was no threat or pressure to not testify in that tweet. As such, no witness intimidation.

 

I never said or implied that Benghazi should not have been investigated. I said that it was investigated repeatedly and extensively.

And all found zero evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Obama administration.

 

You are defending trump and attacking Schiff.

 

You found the attack and lol at trump's implication that Mogadishu is her fault as a "question of her skills."

The fact that the attack happened while and because she was testifying against him is what makes it witness intimidation.

The notion that he could have, and has been more of an ******* to others, is a crap defense.

 

Which means that her testimony was ongoing and thus his tweet was designed to alter or limit her future testimony.