Trump attacks impeachment witness on Twitter, Democrats see intimidation

[bristolboy]

29 minutes ago, wayned said:

 

He might have a point edge in the polls but IMHO it's totally due to his popularity as he continues to dominate the news cycle be it good or bad, mostly bad. Trump is on a person's mind and when asked whether it's Trump or Biden they say Trump!  Then they ask "what was the question:?

It's only Rasmussen which is not surprising because it's basically a junk poll meant to give Republicans talking points. In the last midterms, it said Republicans were up by 1 point in the popular vote for the House races. They lost by 8 points. And lost 40 seats.

[Tug]

He’s at it again attempting to intimidate another witness Jennifer Williams this time keep it up donald lol

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

He’s at it again attempting to intimidate another witness Jennifer Williams this time keep it up donald lol

Is it because Jennifer Williams is incompetent at her job, because she’s a ‘never Trumper’, a secret Democrat.

 

 

Or is it because Jennifer Williams is a first hand witness to Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President and has given testimony under oath to the Congressional Investigating committee?

[wayned]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Is it because Jennifer Williams is incompetent at her job, because she’s a ‘never Trumper’, a secret Democrat.

 

 

Or is it because Jennifer Williams is a first hand witness to Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President and has given testimony under oath to the Congressional Investigating committee?

No it's because she is one of those career state department employees whose only loyalty is to the constitution.  I must admit like one of those US Embassy employees that I bad mouthed when they stopped issuing the Income Affidavits.

[RocketDog]

On 11/16/2019 at 6:28 AM, Kelsall said:

Democrats see a lot of things that aren't there.

Well said I suppose, but not sure what you said. I'll certainly take it under consideration, when I have some time to waste.

 

Thanks for your erudite observation and copious support information.

[Becker]

Link: Republican congressman calls new details about Trump revealed in impeachment testimony 'alarming'

 

"A Republican member of one of the House committees involved in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump said Sunday that information provided about Trump during a closed-door deposition of a former National Security Council official "is alarming" and "not OK."

"Well, of course, all of that is alarming. As I've said from the beginning, I think this is not OK. The President of the United States shouldn't even in the original phone call be on the phone with the president of another country and raise his political opponent," Rep. Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union.""

[Skallywag]

1 hour ago, Becker said:

"A Republican member of one of the House committees involved in the impeachment inquiry... said Sunday that information provided about Trump during a closed-door deposition..... "is alarming" and "not OK."

This is the problem.  "Alarming" and "not OK" is the standard for Trump.  WIll never change any Republicans mind that he is MAGA , so methods do not matter.

[JHolmesJr]

I wasn't aware that being "alarming and not ok" to a biased commentator was impeachable

conduct.

 

[mtls2005]

13 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

You're correct, it will never end till Mr. Trump finishes his second term.

 

I honestly do not believe he will go to jail, but if he does, all terms will be served concurently.

[Saint Nick]

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

You guys never disappoint.  Totally reliable.  And punctual.  I wish my watch worked as well.

 

Can't argue with the information then attack the source.  Same as it ever was.

Since the "source" and the "information" are closely locked together...yeah...that's what one should do!

[Saint Nick]

21 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Timing. How on Earth can a tweet intimidate a witness who is already sitting in a chamber presenting her testimony? How? If and only if the Democrats read it to her live during her testimony. Cromagnon man wept.

 

a) you are aware, that there was a break, coming...literally minutes after Trump pumped his BS onto twitter?

b) even if you REALLY believe, that it was not threatening to Jovanovitch, you are aware that there are other and more witnesses, you might find this behavior threatening?

 

[Saint Nick]

15 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

I agree Trump doesn't have Obama's silky and polished rhetoric...obama is a trained lawyer.

 

But Trump draws his power from cutting through all the BS and saying it like it is.

 

Theres a huge demand for it these days...it's called authenticity. The only downside to it

is you don't always choreograph your words... and Trump has said things that have sounded

unpolished.

 

Have you seen Obama talk without a teleprompter...he sounds terrible.

 

 

Trump sounds terrible either way!

"...cutting through all the BS and saying it like it is..." yeah...sure....????

[bristolboy]

Just now, hyku1147 said:

Hysterical!

Thank you for your well reasoned analysis.

[johnnybangkok]

16 hours ago, hyku1147 said:

History shows us that hysteria* is a very dangerous, and highly contagious, emotional disturbance/psychiatric condition. Many Dem's - including Yovanovitch -  are exhibiting -  "selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and over-dramatic or attention-seeking behavior."

 

It is telling that there is no Trump hysteria, yet the Anti-Trump plague has spread across both North America, and Europe, like the Black Death. The carrier being pseudo journalism.

 

* hys·te·ri·a

 

noun: hysteria; plural noun: hysterias

1. exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people.

   "the mass hysteria that characterizes the week before Christmas"

    

   Psychiatry

   A psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior...

 

Don't you love how Trump fans have to give us definitions of big words like 'hysteria' and 'psychiatry'?

Believe us we know these words. We have to deal with them every day when debating you lot. 

 

[JHolmesJr]

39 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Orange man said mean things about me - Impeach him !!  LOL ????????????

 

But wait - didnt Obama sack every single Ambasador that Bush appointed and replavfed them all with Liberal Dem hacks like Yovanovitch?  Yes that is right - every single one.  Not a word said by the MSM about such blatant political 'intimidation' either - I wonder why?? 

 

 

You're right, in essence....however some will say he only fired all political appointee ambassadors 

and left the career foreign service personnel alone. Big deal....he basically removed anyone who he didn't

want representing his admin's foreign policy....whats sauce for the goose....

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Intimidation is what biased people draw from it....he laid out the reasons why he recalled her.

That's not intimidation....it's a performance appraisal.

A performance appraisal is done publicly on twitter? Whilst giving evidence.

 

better tell the repubs in the hearing who all said she did a great job.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Sujo

[JHolmesJr]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Was obama so braindead and egotistical that he had to smear them and intimidate them re giving testimony?

 

even repubs at the hearing thanked her for doing a great job.

 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

A performance appraisal is done publicly on twitter?

 

Its done anywhere he wants....not a crime....certainly not impeachable....back to your

legal books.

[AussieBob18]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As you article says, he fired the political appointees, not the career foreign service personnel. Big difference. And they received a grace period, see your articles, as was custom until Trump came in. Grace period makes sense so replacements can be readies, something Trump did not need obviously.

You have a serious issue seeing Steven. Both Obama and Trump gave them notice as of their inauguration days.

 

[Sujo]

30 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

 

Its done anywhere he wants....not a crime....certainly not impeachable....back to your

legal books.

It is when shes giving evidence.

 

the point is he doesnt need to do it and it has no basis n reality.

 

bit i get it. Dems and repubs all lying. Trump only tells the truth.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

You have a serious issue seeing Steven. Both Obama and Trump gave them notice as of their inauguration days.

 

Sorry to see you forgot to read this " The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months. " or " “When you have people out there whose only reason for being an ambassador is their political connection to the outgoing president of a different party, it’s pretty logical to say they should leave,” said Mr. Neumann, a career Foreign Service officer who held ambassadorships in Algeria, Bahrain and Afghanistan. “But I don’t recollect there was ever a guillotine in January where it was just, ‘Everybody out of the pool immediately.’” "

Edited November 18, 2019 by stevenl

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

You have a serious issue seeing Steven. Both Obama and Trump gave them notice as of their inauguration days.

 

Im glad you corrected yourself to admit obama didnt sack all ambassadors.

 

how this is in any way relevant to what trump did is a mystery.

 

all he needed to do was fire her. He didnt, giuliano ran a campaign against her using dodgy characters whose claims have been debunked. The ambassador was known for fighting corruption. Trump doesnt want his own corruption investgated.

 

so he doesnt just fire her as he can, he makes up a dodgy story then smears her good name in public, an ambassador who has biparisan support for her great work during both repub and dem admins.

 

i know who is more believable and it isnt truthful don with 13000 lies in 3 years.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Truthiness? ????

Much? ????

I suppose it's a good thing that you've added this word to your vocabulary. But it's clear you still don't know what it means. Let me refer you to your lesson post #301 in this thread. That should give you some idea of what truthiness isn't. How many times do I have to correct you? 

Edited November 18, 2019 by bristolboy

[Saint Nick]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

By the way Nick, believe it or not, it took a lot to find the WAPO article or any article about Obama sacking all the Bush appointed Ambassadors.  I wonder why that is - eh??  Do it yourself - google it  - not so easy to find anything negative about Obama or anything positive about Trump.  And yet the truth is there if one is willing to just look a little deeper. Both sides of any political debate are right and both sides are wrong.  But some things are self-evidently true. WAPO and NYT are biased towards Obama and biased against Trump.

 

 

 

Yeah...I wonder why that is?

An incoming president, replacing part of the personal, the president before him hired!

Can't quiet figure it out....hmmm...I guess, I remains a mystery, why this is not frontpage news!

 

One question, though: Did he also smear all of them and question their job- performance or work- ethics?

No?

Seems, that is not a common thing to do, unless...you are a little child, like....ahm...hmmmm...can't think of anyone, right now!

[gamb00ler]

On 11/16/2019 at 3:38 PM, hyku1147 said:

A 'Star Witness' relating 3rd and 4th hand hearsay 'evidence'.

You're correct to write 'evidence' to indicate that it is not really evidence.  But you should also realize that the process is NOT a trial therefore no one is presenting actual evidence.  It is merely testimony to point the investigators to areas where they will look for REAL evidence.  You have not engaged your critical thinking ability to analyze the impeachment process.

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

An incumbent Democrat Governor won re-election in Louisiana. What a huge upset! Not!

 

As usual, the MSM says this is a disaster for President Trump & Republicans for the 2020 election. What they're not telling you: The GOP flipped 3 districts in Louisiana and gained a supermajority in the Senate.

 

Na na na naaa naaa ????
 

Lucky for those 3 republicans that Trump didn't campaign for them.

[metisdead]

A post using a trolling meme has been removed as well as the replies. 

 

Off topic deflection posts and replies have been removed. 

[TopDeadSenter]

Well, well, well. Couple of months down the road. Impeachment fiasco never mentioned any more. Hardly a surprise. It's as if they can trash Trumps first few years in office with the mother of all hoaxes, and then just take a mulligans. Your ball went into the lake Ralph, don't worry play another ball no harm done. And their star witness, remember, the most credible witness, Marie Yovanovitch. Well, turns out she was lying. You just couldn't begin to make this stuff up. These impeachers will have a whole lot of worry on their plate now the worm has turned.

 

 

 Ex-Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch may have lied to Congress about her knowledge of Burisma Holdings — with new documents revealing she received direct warnings about the Ukrainian gas company despite claiming to know little about it, according to a new report.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/15/yovanovitch-may-have-misled-congress-over-burisma-knowledge/

 

[Crazy Alex]

On 11/18/2019 at 3:58 PM, gamb00ler said:

You're correct to write 'evidence' to indicate that it is not really evidence.  But you should also realize that the process is NOT a trial therefore no one is presenting actual evidence.  It is merely testimony to point the investigators to areas where they will look for REAL evidence.  You have not engaged your critical thinking ability to analyze the impeachment process.

That didn't age so well.

[Crazy Alex]

8 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Well, well, well. Couple of months down the road. Impeachment fiasco never mentioned any more. Hardly a surprise. It's as if they can trash Trumps first few years in office with the mother of all hoaxes, and then just take a mulligans. Your ball went into the lake Ralph, don't worry play another ball no harm done. And their star witness, remember, the most credible witness, Marie Yovanovitch. Well, turns out she was lying. You just couldn't begin to make this stuff up. These impeachers will have a whole lot of worry on their plate now the worm has turned.

 

 

 Ex-Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch may have lied to Congress about her knowledge of Burisma Holdings — with new documents revealing she received direct warnings about the Ukrainian gas company despite claiming to know little about it, according to a new report.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/15/yovanovitch-may-have-misled-congress-over-burisma-knowledge/

 

Thanks for renewing a chuckle about the whole affair. The *star witness* didn't see or hear Trump do anything illegal. Heck, NO ONE did.

 

But at least we know Democrats take lying to the FBI and Congress very seriously.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Crazy Alex

[nattaya09]

26 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

"...............But at least we know Democrats take lying to the FBI and Congress very seriously.."

In fact they place them on the same altar of reverence they hold #metoo

Edited May 16, 2020 by nattaya09
spelling