3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 Watching Yovanovitch on the stand was painful. She had no evidence to help the witch hunters. I can't help thinking this whole affair has been poorly thought out. For example Ambassador Stevens comes home mutilated in a body bag, and crickets chirp. Ambassador Yovanovitch comes home with a pet lip and it's meltdown time. Bad optics I'm afraid.

Yes very sad but true. What really happens in the real world is that most Americans do not watch either CNN or Fox ( no poll or link needed, it’s a pure fact ) most don’t get riled up all day/ night about this. Many do want their politicians to get back to work and are getting quite, for a better term “extremely upset” with all the BS. 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You have a problem.

 

The witness stated while under oath that she found the President’s remarks intimidating.

 

Perhaps you should start examining the President ‘s Hoover to behave the way he has.

She's a snowflake.  So?

 

My question still stands.  What language within Trump's tweet fits the equivalent of intimidation?  Point it out, Chomper.

 

I could raise my arm to scratch my head and someone next to me could claim that they felt intimidated.  And you would believe them?

 

What a joke.

 

Donald Trump may very well become the first POTUS to be shot while resisting arrest.

 

If he had not been born rich it might have happened a long time ago.

 

Family wealth protected him when he was young.

 

The wealth that his bullying sociopathy earned him as he grew older seduced those around him.

 

Television allowed him to seduce the wider public.

 

A truly "historic" monster, "of his time".

 

Because of his nature he will not accede to any act, law or decree.

 

Sooner or later an honest lawman will have to say, with his hand resting on his pistol butt:

 

"Mr President, you have to come with us now".

 

Profile of the Sociopath - R. Preston McAfee

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

She's a snowflake.  So?

 

My question still stands.  What language within Trump's tweet fits the equivalent of intimidation?  Point it out, Chomper.

 

I could raise my arm to scratch my head and someone next to me could claim that they felt intimidated.  And you would believe them?

 

What a joke.

So the President of the US (the most powerful man on the planet) takes time out of his day to post derogatory remarks about a US government employee Andy you want to argue about the precise wording.

 

Away with your nonsense.

5 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

As far as I know she wasn't aware of the tweet until it was read to her today.

AFAIK, NOBODY was aware of the Tweet because it happened in real-time, slap bang in the middle of Marie Yovanovitch's measured and reasoned testimony.

 

Where's the 'Doh!' emoticon when you truly need it?

7 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

Donald Trump may very well become the first POTUS to be shot while resisting arrest.

 

If he had not been born rich it might have happened a long time ago.

 

Family wealth protected him when he was young.

 

The wealth that his bullying sociopathy earned him as he grew older seduced those around him.

 

Television allowed him to seduce the wider public.

 

A truly "historic" monster, of his "time".

 

Because of his nature he will not accede to any act, law or decree.

 

Sooner or later an honest lawman will have to say, with his hand resting on his pistol butt:

 

"Mr President, you have to come with us now".

 

Profile of the Sociopath - R. Preston McAfee

 

What a bunch of opinionated tripe.  Not a shred of truth in what you wrote.  Pure biased opinion.

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

Sonderland is up next week.  The guy is probably living in a pool of his own sweat afraid they're going to cancel his ticket.

Don't leave the house this weekend, Gordon.

 

 

Stay away from the windows too. This mad man my do a Putin or Kim. He is that crazy. Feel sorry for the USA that the world once look up to. 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So the President of the US (the most powerful man on the planet) takes time out of his day to post derogatory remarks about a US government employee Andy you want to argue about the precise wording.

 

Away with your nonsense.

Where's the intimidating language, Chomper?

 

Again, there's absolutely nothing there to substantiate intimidation but the libs say it's there.  Ask them to point to it and they blather about something else.

 

Where's the intimidating language, Chomper?  Point to it.

 

You can't.  it isn't there.  The Dems are making it up (well, actually, Yovanovitch is).  It's all made up.

5 hours ago, meechai said:

I am a person that rarely gives a hoot about politics as it all has long gone bad but.....

What I read is Trump said she sucked at her job

Then you must have missed the collective, bipartisan and totally unsolicited acknowledgments of her long and successful career as a US diplomat given after her testimony.

4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

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

And you can't see or don't care about the criminals he has hired:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/6-trump-associates-have-been-convicted-in-mueller-related-investigations/ar-BBWPaPt?ocid=spartandhp

 

I quess it is more important that people can wear their Chinese made MAGA hat and all the people of color are removed from the USA, to make the USA white again (which it never was, they only grabbed power after they slaughtered the natives and stole their land)

 

Off topic troll post removed

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Then you must have missed the collective, bipartisan and totally unsolicited acknowledgments of her long and successful career as a US diplomat given after her testimony.

Yes I did miss it as I do not watch any of this 3 ring circus but happened to see the title of this thread & looked inside.

 

That aside....How does what your pointing out change the right of Trump or anyone else to have a different opinion of her? These are fundamental rights we all have yes?

 

I agree with what Tippaporn is saying & the "snowflake" nick name is well earned by this party (just my opinion)

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 Watching Yovanovitch on the stand was painful. She had no evidence to help the witch hunters. I can't help thinking this whole affair has been poorly thought out. For example Ambassador Stevens comes home mutilated in a body bag, and crickets chirp. Ambassador Yovanovitch comes home with a pet lip and it's meltdown time. Bad optics I'm afraid.

Guess you missed the part where the room gave her a standings ovation at the end of her testimony...

 

Or more closer to home for you when Chris Wallace (FoxNews) reports “If You’re ‘Not Moved’ By Yovanovitch, ‘You Don’t Have A Pulse”

 

And stay tuned when next week on The Amigos we see “I hardly knew the guy” Sonlins Mia culpa about his first hand phone calls to the a Presidential burner phone... 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Where's the intimidating language, Chomper?

 

Again, there's absolutely nothing there to substantiate intimidation but the libs say it's there.  Ask them to point to it and they blather about something else.

 

Where's the intimidating language, Chomper?  Point to it.

 

You can't.  it isn't there.  The Dems are making it up (well, actually, Yovanovitch is).  It's all made up.

Right. So when your boss tweets to the world about your poor job performance, that's not intimidating?

I will grant you, though, that the tweet was so stupid that it doesn't merit serious consideration.

Some troll posts have been removed. 

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

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

That might be seen as having an imagination while you base Trump supporters cannot see thing that clearly are there. That's blindness.

Everyone need to at least watch this C-Span clip

 

 

The next step here will be the intelligence departments coming after all of Trumps cronies who were in clandestine discussions with Ukraine.

 

It has already been clearly demonstrated that Trumps unofficial team were working in a way that defied official policy. That is not up for debate. That is confirmed.

 

Guiliani was doing what he did without official vetting and government clearances. That is illegal. Whoever is found to have been orchestrating Guiliana, Sondland and possibly Barr, and the like will be needing to answer some tough questions on why this Ukraine situation took place through unofficial channels and in direct contradiction to offical Foreign Affairs policy. This is not going away no matter what the result of the Senate hearing.

 

Another interesting point on the Senate. It is clear there are a lot o Republicans up for election in marginal areas soon. They are unlikely to put their name to a vote against Trump's misdeeds. But what would happen if there was a blind ballot?

 

Senators who's moral judgement knows that what their party leader and head of the free world has been doing is not becoming of a person in such an office, would be allowed to vote without backlash from the President and their constituents.

 

I believe - and I may be wrong - it will only take three Republicans to block senate proceedings. They could demand that the ballot is to be blind before rules of the impeachment trial are ratified.

 

Then you have a very different ball game.

 

3 minutes ago, sfokevin said:

Everyone need to at least watch this C-Span clip

 

 

The beauty of the spontaneous applause was it drowned out the desperate Reps trying to insert their last words or probably rites. 

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 Watching Yovanovitch on the stand was painful.

 

9 minutes ago, sfokevin said:

Everyone need to at least watch this C-Span clip

 

 

Now I know what TopDeadSenter meant when he said it was "painful" but I must admit I have not one iota of sympathy for either him nor Trump who must have been fuming while watching the hearings.

Judging by his pathetic tweets he didn't have a good day, not a good day at all!

2 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Nunes said. "This is the House Intelligence Committee that's now turned into the House impeachment committee."

Well Nunes, it's called evolution - an adaption to environment.

It's the same Nunes who in his opening comments on the 2nd day bizarrely suggested it become the Mexico and Canada trade agreement committee.

 

Between him and the hopelessly ineloquent and laughably inarticulate counsel "not as outlandish as it could be" Castor, I don't know which one is worse at stand-up.

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Right. So when your boss tweets to the world about your poor job performance, that's not intimidating?

I will grant you, though, that the tweet was so stupid that it doesn't merit serious consideration.

Intimidating how so, bristolboy?  There are other adjectives that would be appropriate but intimidating?  That adjective doesn't fit.  Not in the slightest.  But libs just don't care about truth.  They distort reality and the truth.

 

Try this:  define the word and then apply it to Trump's tweet and show where it's applicable.   You won't do this because you can't.  And you know it.  So your only option for actual, substantive debate is to spout nonsense.  No different than Chomper.  When challenged he gave it up.

 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The House Congress is dealing with the Impeachment.

 

The Senate has a large backlog of House Resolutions that McConnell is sitting on.

 

Let’s pretend that’s not a fact.

Please, I can not find this large backlog of House resolutions that McConnell is sitting on...I found 2 that he sent back for changes...????

13 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

The next step here will be the intelligence departments coming after all of Trumps cronies who were in clandestine discussions with Ukraine.

 

It has already been clearly demonstrated that Trumps unofficial team were working in a way that defied official policy. That is not up for debate. That is confirmed.

 

Guiliani was doing what he did without official vetting and government clearances. That is illegal. Whoever is found to have been orchestrating Guiliana, Sondland and possibly Barr, and the like will be needing to answer some tough questions on why this Ukraine situation took place through unofficial channels and in direct contradiction to offical Foreign Affairs policy. This is not going away no matter what the result of the Senate hearing.

 

Another interesting point on the Senate. It is clear there are a lot o Republicans up for election in marginal areas soon. They are unlikely to put their name to a vote against Trump's misdeeds. But what would happen if there was a blind ballot?

 

Senators who's moral judgement knows that what their party leader and head of the free world has been doing is not becoming of a person in such an office, would be allowed to vote without backlash from the President and their constituents.

 

I believe - and I may be wrong - it will only take three Republicans to block senate proceedings. They could demand that the ballot is to be blind before rules of the impeachment trial are ratified.

 

Then you have a very different ball game.

 

Anyone who thinks that the Senate could remove a duly elected President using a blind ballot is taking some serious drugs.  It would never, ever fly with the population.  And every politician knows it.

 

Just shows how desperate the Dems are to float such an insane scheme.  They're looking for anything, anyway possible.  They are desperate.  No one they've put up as a candidate could beat Trump.  They know it.

 

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

It is the same in the UK with brexit but these things happen and they have to be dealt with, you can't have an unstable mafiosi running America.

Hearsay and a counseling session to aid a woman who lost her job...would not be considered priority in a normal world...

6 hours ago, tifino said:

Demos not happy that their planting of her over there in the first place... to help smooth the way for the Bidens to do their underworld Ukraine thing - got twarted

 

 

I think that you really believe that. How you ever done any research on the lady? Try doing a little research before you post. You may even learn something.

 

Granted this is from Wikipedia but

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Yovanovitch

 

Marie Louise "Masha" Yovanovitch (born 1958) is an American diplomat and member of the senior ranks of the United States Foreign Service.[1][2] She served in a variety of State Department posts, including Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2004–2005); U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan (2005–2008); U.S. Ambassador to Armenia (2008–2011); Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (2012–2013); and Ambassador to Ukraine (2016–2019). Yovanovitch is a diplomat in residence at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.

 

While ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was subjected to a conspiracy-driven smear campaign, amplified by President Donald Trump and his allies. In May 2019, Trump abruptly recalled Yovanovitch from her post following claims by Trump surrogates that she was undermining Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former vice president and 2020 U.S. presidential election candidate Joe Biden. Yovanovitch's removal preceded a July 2019 phone call by Trump in which he attempted to pressure Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Intimidating how so, bristolboy?  There are other adjectives that would be appropriate but intimidating?  That adjective doesn't fit.  Not in the slightest.  But libs just don't care about truth.  They distort reality and the truth.

 

Try this:  define the word and then apply it to Trump's tweet and show where it's applicable.   You won't do this because you can't.  And you know it.  So your only option for actual, substantive debate is to spout nonsense.  No different than Chomper.  When challenged he gave it up.

 

Leave you to defend the indefensible. His tweet has change the dynamics of Yovanovitch’s testimony and make her a victim in the eyes of the general public. Even Republicans were appalled at his tweet. He doing himself no favour with his impulsive combative behavior. He just dug his hole deeper with another possible impeachment article. He is stupid beyond comprehension. 

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Anyone who thinks that the Senate could remove a duly elected President using a blind ballot is taking some serious drugs.  It would never, ever fly with the population.  And every politician knows it.

 

Just shows how desperate the Dems are to float such an insane scheme.  They're looking for anything, anyway possible.  They are desperate.  No one they've put up as a candidate could beat Trump.  They know it.

 

What population are you talking about - the American population as a whole? Or did you really men "part of the population" but just "misspoke"?

Understanding that 45 fans think CNN is all "fake news" because they report objectively about 45, they are doing an interesting segment that I think warrants attention.

 

They have assembled a group of five "undecided" Midwestern voters (mix of genders and race) and watched them watch the impeachment inquiry hearings.

 

ALL started this with the position of NOT supporting impeachment.

 

After the first day, none of them changed their position.

 

After the next session with dumped Ambassador Yovanovitch THREE of them changed their positions to support impeachment! Yes, a very small sample of undecided voters, but such a massive change of opinion based on one day of testimony seems remarkable. CNN (responsible journalism organ that it is) was crystal clear that this pro impeachment group was talking about favoring impeachment in the house. None of that three is yet at the point of supporting conviction in the senate.

 

A key factor in this group changing their minds was the horrible tweet by the current president. (Does he want to be impeached?)

 

So this group will continue to be followed along this process. Of course some now pro impeachment are free to change their minds later.

1 hour ago, PAWNEESE said:

With respect I think the point is she was about to most certainly hear of the intimidation at the scheduled long break. The pause was about to happen before the Republican lawyer questioned her.

 

Schiff knew she would be told by her support staff.  Also it was meant to intimidate future witnesses too.   Some of Trumps supporters are nasty.

 

(Trump was tweeting nasty spiteful childish stuff about her as she spoke .. for those not following the context .. and the chairman informed the witness and hearing what was going on. And hinted it was a possible further impeachable crime)

 

I did have my reservations as to why Schiff chose to 'live-stream' DJT's hot-off-the-press Tweet about his PERSONAL opinion of Yovanovitch beyond introducing the arguable notion of it being intimidation. However, it now appears very prescient based on the timing that you have highlighted where it's an incontrovertible fact that her staffers would have made her aware of it during the long break and ahead of possibly 'hostile' questioning.

 

The fact that the Republican response after the break was pretty much a repeat of their damp squib performance of the opening day, I would suggest that beyond the 'show me the whistleblower' tape-loop that seems to have been installed in Jim Jordan's head, the twittering of their dear leader pushed them onto the back foot (again).