WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (Yovanovich)

Sure he could it is HIS OPINION. And she gave her testimony weeks ago in her deposition she wasn't threatened or intimidated when she gave. What changed in her testimony vis-a-vis her deposition after Trump's tweet?

 

I suggest you stick with the subject at hand.

 

What future testimony, she gave her deposition this is just the verbal relaying of her testimony. How did Trump intimidate her or threaten her before she gave her deposition?

 

I just shared a video where it is in writing in the Ukrainian Newspapers. That's called proof to normal people.

 

There was none. Doesn't matter what she feels. Matters what the law states.

And did he threaten any of that? No? Then you got bupkis.

 

Lacking in basis? Hmm...how about being sore about being removed from her post? How about the fact that she is testifying even though she wasn't even around at the time that all this happened? And that her testimony has been phrased in such a way as to appear damaging to Trump even though its not because again...she wasn't even involved in ANY thing because she was removed from her post long before any of this started. Hell, even before the aid was withheld. Her "testifying" to "quid pro quo" or "bribery" or whatever the TrumpHaters circle is claiming now a days is completely useless since she wasn't even an Ambassador to Ukraine at the time.

 

They seem to being missing the fact that her public testimony was just a rehash of her sworn testimony and deposition given weeks ago.

 

She testified the Obama admin was concerned. Impeach!

 

At what Post # ?

 

It is a screename based on my last name and my bar license in two states, but revel in your self-imposed superiority and stop worrying about my pair at your own leisure.

 

No. This was live testimony and entailed her responding to new questions. It was not a simple retelling of her previous testimony.

 

Pure conjecture, she gave hours and hours of behind door testimony to prepare to the public testimony and there was certainly no change in demeanor after the tweet came to light.

 

"It is a screename based on my last name and my bar license in two states..."

Sounds interesting.

It's a shame that we can't discuss that further.

 

Intimidating a witness can only happen in a legal/court proceeding.

This is a political process bro. Keep up.

 

It's ok, we're not in a court of law with this. It's a "political process" so intimidating a witness isn't possible.

 

Aw, that's cute.

Too bad 1) trump routinely demands the same protections and rights afforded a courtroom proceeding and 2) impeachment articles do not give one flying **** whether the witness intimidation occurred in a court room proceeding or outside of a courtroom proceeding.

 

You mean the political process for which trump can be impeached for anything deemed an impeachable offense - including witness tampering conducted outside of a courtroom proceeding - by Congress.

Glad you caught up.

 

...there is nothing to dispute the fact that her testimony on friday was new testimony.

 

*shrug*

 

How much you pay for those?

 

There is nothing to dispute the fact she had already given this testimony what little testimony there actually was but you insist what was the new part?

 

What the dem clown show and media don’t want you to know.

Zelinsky

 

Facts don't matter.

With the results of these two gubernatorial elections behind us, it looks like the voters don't care. I think they'll continue to support these hoaxters.

 

First, they screamed that it wasn't public, and now they're screaming that it was public, but redundant?

*LOL*