WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (Yovanovich)

There is zero rational reason to think that Schiff was the only one in that courtroom who had access to twitter. Her lawyers could, and possibly might have for all you know, have already learned about and told her about that tweet.

And you have reached the conclusion (shockingingly!) That there was no threat or pressure to not testify in that tweet. Yovanovitch testified under oath that his tweet was intimidating.

Whose opinion matters more? Do you want to argue that her interpretation is irrational?

 

We are apparently supposed to believe that Schiff intimidated his own witness.
It may be time to review Schiff's history as a federal prosecutor.

 

Televised political lynchings don't work while there is still a viable opposition.

How long will it take for Pelosi to kick the now fully exposed, repulsive and incompetent Schiff to the curb?

 

As you noted earlier, its a criticism. People often consider such as "attacks". That doesn't mean it was a threat or pressure to not testify.

 

ohhh...FUTURE testimony huh? lol. Limit it? In what way was this a threat or pressure to not testify?

 

It is irrational. Especially coming from an ambassador who is supposed to have much thicker skin. That she thought it was "intimidating" is pure BS that came from someone who got removed from her post because others in Ukraine didn't trust her.

 

Schiff has been horrible and has yet to address the fact that he amped this up declaring over and over and over the complainer would be called to testify that we needed to hear him testify and now he refuses to call him. He with this restrictive hearing and unproductive witnesses is backing the Democrats into a corner on a vote unsupported by the evidence.

Did you catch this key part yesterday

“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.”

Why are we here?

 

Although TLegal and I almost never agree on anything, he is absolutely right about what the House of Reps can impeach a president for! In fact, as he says, the House doesn't even have to have a reason in order to impeach a president! They could impeach Trump because they don't like his choice of suit and tie if they want to! They can impeach him for burning popcorn in a microwave... in other words, a majority of Democrats can impeach him for ANYTHING THEY LIKE!

The only thing of any real importance is what's done in the SENATE after the House holds its vote (where a simple majority is all that's needed to impeach)! THAT is where there would be a real trial, with evidence and proof presented, along with examinations, cross-examinations, etc. Only the SENATE can remove a president!

 

Yes there was lots to investigate influential the cover and lots of wrongdoing your attempt to divert is specious here try to focus.

 

Someone getting a salary is corruption? Guy gets hired, guy gets paid. How is that corruption?

 

How in earth would it have done that? Were Trump to be called to testify he could have made those same utterences in front of the committee and it would have not been some kind of witness intimidation he has his right to free speech too.

 

I can't understand your weird posts. They have little common sense and lots of feelings.

 

I don't think you are capable of understanding. I will do my best to remember that. Wrong does not equate to illegal. It equates to feelings. You must have gotten trophies for participation. lol And you call yourself Mr.TLegal . Yeah, right.

 

Nope, didn't miss that part... Yovanovitch was gone before the extortion occurred... I knew that going in... why didn't you?

Also, NOBODY is accusing Trump of "accepting" a bribe... So ****ing silly to ask the question that way... Anybody who didn't see through that doesn't deserve to be watching this..

The ambassador was there to add background to the general scumbaggery going on which affected her. Not all witnesses are going to be the ones who actually witnessed the impeachable offenses (like Gordon Sondland or Mick Mulvaney or possibly John Bolton)

 

So why was she a witness, why was she testifying.........that's what you missed. Just as with the first two witnesses. Her being replaced was not an impeachable offense nor pointed to one. She's upset....oh well. You think she was treated rudely, take to the foreign relations committee or human resources and stop wasting our time with this phony impeachment.

And the bribery IS what the Democrats are desperately trying to shift to now.

 

It's a political process, not a court of law.

Keep your plot consistent.

 

Yeah like when she perjured herself.

You can say whatever you want, but we know she testified that she knew nothing about Burisma and Biden, then later testified she was part of a "Q&A" that prepped her to answer questions she might receive re: Biden and Burisma.

 

Yes, but not that Trump accepted a bribe.... he offered the bribe, which again, I think is misleading... he withheld things, which is extortion, but if the D's think the word bribe works better, it doesn't matter in the end... It's abuse of power, whatever the terms used...

 

Through intimidation. Like the one to which she testified.

You also seem to conveniently ignore the source of the attack. This is the president and the one who dismissed her and has the ability to launch career oriented or even prosecutorial oriented attacks.

 

Your opinion that her opinion is pure BS is noted and then dismissed as lacking in any basis.

 

I suggest focusing on your own grammar first because the run-on makes it difficult to follow your point.

 

A) I do not accept that he could simply make the same comments while under oath and be free of the allegation, but he is welcome to try.
B) He launched an attack in the public realm that attacked her reputation while she was testifying. She testified that she felt intimidated by his attack. She is a credible witness and her opinion is rational. Thus, he engaged in witness intimidation.

 

So why was she there? Yesterday was nothing but a sad Democratic therapy session. By the way, she committed perjury (see other thread on this), she should be prosecuted for lying to Congress like Roger Stone, right? And when she said she never heard that Biden bragged about having the prosecutor fired, it makes her either a liar or stupid.

The entire Constitutional intent of a POTUS being removed for bribery is that he not be bribed BY a foreign power to act in a way detrimental to the US.

 

Not when she probably committed perjury and claimed she never heard that Biden bragged about firing the prosecutor.

And we have men that feel they're women, so what? About the witness testimony nonsense, this is from another thread I posted on:

The latest from Congressional TDS sufferers, that Trump was 'witness tampering' by his tweets about the former Ukrainian ambassador. Complete bunk, witness tampering is one of three things:

1. Physical harm to a witness.
2. Bribing a witness.
3. Coercing a witness to lie.

Pleading your case under 1A rights and criticizing witnesses making false accusations against you based on hearsay isn't witness tampering. Trump has every right to do so.

 

Sure thing.