Fox News: Yovanovich Proves the Democrats Have No Case

[madasheck]

@H_Arendt

@gooddad409

@Camp

Forget accepted…there wasn’t even a hint of solicitation of a bribe.

Trump appears to be the most honest and transparent president we have had in the last hundred years.

Obama fired every Bush Ambassador on his 1st day in office. None of the dems on that committee had a problem with that!

As many Trump supporters have pointed out, Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. The question is not whether Obama chose his Ambassadors, it is can you point to any one Ambassador whom Obama made the subject of a smear campaign? These are the differences that constitute how one moves for exercising power to abusing it.

When Trump dismissed the entire group of US Attorneys when he became President there was no complaint because that was exercise, not abuse.

Trump also fired a bunch of lawyers as well, including Preet Bhahara, but no one is complaining about that even though the dismissal of Bharara was a sudden reversal of his intention to keep him after Bharara refused Jeff Sessions’ order that he resign.

[madasheck]

@Smyrna

Yovanovich applies a two-tier system concerning what is and what isn’t acceptable in politics. She will not in any way condone a career foreign service officer attempting to influence the politics of another country but when the other country does it…and she has the power to say something, she remains silent. Her silence did what she said she would not accept. I guess that’s different?

Generalities mean little in this discussion. What specific incident are you referring to?

[Kevhead]

@Camp

Trump appears to be the most honest and transparent president we have had in the last hundred years.

[gooddad409]

@madasheck

@H_Arendt

@gooddad409

@Camp

Forget accepted…there wasn’t even a hint of solicitation of a bribe.

Trump appears to be the most honest and transparent president we have had in the last hundred years.

Obama fired every Bush Ambassador on his 1st day in office. None of the dems on that committee had a problem with that!

As many Trump supporters have pointed out, Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. The question is not whether Obama chose his Ambassadors, it is can you point to any one Ambassador whom Obama made the subject of a smear campaign? These are the differences that constitute how one moves for exercising power to abusing it.

When Trump dismissed the entire group of US Attorneys when he became President there was no complaint because that was exercise, not abuse.

Trump also fired a bunch of lawyers as well, including Preet Bhahara, but no one is complaining about that even though the dismissal of Bharara was a sudden reversal of his intention to keep him after Bharara refused Jeff Sessions’ order that he resign.

Need a hankie?

[madasheck]

@gooddad409

@madasheck

@H_Arendt

@gooddad409

@Camp

Forget accepted…there wasn’t even a hint of solicitation of a bribe.

Trump appears to be the most honest and transparent president we have had in the last hundred years.

Obama fired every Bush Ambassador on his 1st day in office. None of the dems on that committee had a problem with that!

As many Trump supporters have pointed out, Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. The question is not whether Obama chose his Ambassadors, it is can you point to any one Ambassador whom Obama made the subject of a smear campaign? These are the differences that constitute how one moves for exercising power to abusing it.

When Trump dismissed the entire group of US Attorneys when he became President there was no complaint because that was exercise, not abuse.

Trump also fired a bunch of lawyers as well, including Preet Bhahara, but no one is complaining about that even though the dismissal of Bharara was a sudden reversal of his intention to keep him after Bharara refused Jeff Sessions’ order that he resign.

Need a hankie?

Why the deflection? Maybe you didn’t understand my post. Try reading it again.

[DougBH]

Her interview doesn’t prove there is no case (though I think there isn’t). It proves she didn’t do anything to add to the case though. And why would they have the first big witness, Taylor, who only had opinions on what he heard from other people, and the other big witness being the ambassador who basically left before anything was supposed to have happened? Why would you put your first big witnesses as two people who had very little if anything to add to the “case”?
She had an opinion that Hunter and Burisma should not be investigated, and that Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election should not have been investigated. Fine, any Democrat in the country could have been called up to give the same opinion. All that proved is that there were policy differences between the President and Yovanovich which would have been justification enough for replacing her.

[gooddad409]

@madasheck

@gooddad409

@madasheck

@H_Arendt

@gooddad409

@Camp

Forget accepted…there wasn’t even a hint of solicitation of a bribe.

Trump appears to be the most honest and transparent president we have had in the last hundred years.

Obama fired every Bush Ambassador on his 1st day in office. None of the dems on that committee had a problem with that!

As many Trump supporters have pointed out, Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. The question is not whether Obama chose his Ambassadors, it is can you point to any one Ambassador whom Obama made the subject of a smear campaign? These are the differences that constitute how one moves for exercising power to abusing it.

When Trump dismissed the entire group of US Attorneys when he became President there was no complaint because that was exercise, not abuse.

Trump also fired a bunch of lawyers as well, including Preet Bhahara, but no one is complaining about that even though the dismissal of Bharara was a sudden reversal of his intention to keep him after Bharara refused Jeff Sessions’ order that he resign.

Need a hankie?

Why the deflection? Maybe you didn’t understand my post. Try reading it again.

You seemed to need it. Just being helpful here.

[gooddad409]

@DougBH

Her interview doesn’t prove there is no case (though I think there isn’t). It proves she didn’t do anything to add to the case though. And why would they have the first big witness, Taylor, who only had opinions on what he heard from other people, and the other big witness being the ambassador who basically left before anything was supposed to have happened? Why would you put your first big witnesses as two people who had very little if anything to add to the “case”?
She had an opinion that Hunter and Burisma should not be investigated, and that Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election should not have been investigated. Fine, any Democrat in the country could have been called up to give the same opinion. All that proved is that there were policy differences between the President and Yovanovich which would have been justification enough for replacing her.

Makes no sense. Nobody ever accused Schiff of being smart though.

[Plasmaball]

Least she didnt break down and cry like a little baby like brett…

You know a mans man who drinks beer.

[Plasmaball]

Policy differences…ok…she wouldnt play ball with trumps shadow diplomacy and thus got booted from office.
You are leaving out a lot of context here which isnt really shocking at all given past conversations.

[Plasmaball]

Of course it makes sense. It’s not that complicated.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Plasmaball

Policy differences…ok…she wouldnt play ball with trumps shadow diplomacy and thus got booted from office.
You are leaving out a lot of context here which isnt really shocking at all given past conversations.

Right. The whole point of her being in the investigation is to put into context why she was fired.

[Kelby]

@gooddad409

@DougBH

Her interview doesn’t prove there is no case (though I think there isn’t). It proves she didn’t do anything to add to the case though. And why would they have the first big witness, Taylor, who only had opinions on what he heard from other people, and the other big witness being the ambassador who basically left before anything was supposed to have happened? Why would you put your first big witnesses as two people who had very little if anything to add to the “case”?
She had an opinion that Hunter and Burisma should not be investigated, and that Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election should not have been investigated. Fine, any Democrat in the country could have been called up to give the same opinion. All that proved is that there were policy differences between the President and Yovanovich which would have been justification enough for replacing her.

Makes no sense. Nobody ever accused Schiff of being smart though.

Graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law.

[WuWei]

Was there testimony on Thursday?

[gooddad409]

@Plasmaball

Of course it makes sense. It’s not that complicated.

She wasn’t hard to figure out. She is bitter and upset that she got canned.

So what? Obama canned all the Bush ambassadors the 1st day.

She didn’t add zilch to the investigation so that is hard to figure why they brought her in.

[gooddad409]

@Kelby

@gooddad409

@DougBH

Her interview doesn’t prove there is no case (though I think there isn’t). It proves she didn’t do anything to add to the case though. And why would they have the first big witness, Taylor, who only had opinions on what he heard from other people, and the other big witness being the ambassador who basically left before anything was supposed to have happened? Why would you put your first big witnesses as two people who had very little if anything to add to the “case”?
She had an opinion that Hunter and Burisma should not be investigated, and that Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election should not have been investigated. Fine, any Democrat in the country could have been called up to give the same opinion. All that proved is that there were policy differences between the President and Yovanovich which would have been justification enough for replacing her.

Makes no sense. Nobody ever accused Schiff of being smart though.

Graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law.

Educated and smart are not always the same thing.

Schiff is crooked as hell but certainly not smart.

[gooddad409]

@WuWei

Was there testimony on Thursday?

Nope.

[Kelby]

@gooddad409

@Kelby

@gooddad409

@DougBH

Her interview doesn’t prove there is no case (though I think there isn’t). It proves she didn’t do anything to add to the case though. And why would they have the first big witness, Taylor, who only had opinions on what he heard from other people, and the other big witness being the ambassador who basically left before anything was supposed to have happened? Why would you put your first big witnesses as two people who had very little if anything to add to the “case”?
She had an opinion that Hunter and Burisma should not be investigated, and that Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election should not have been investigated. Fine, any Democrat in the country could have been called up to give the same opinion. All that proved is that there were policy differences between the President and Yovanovich which would have been justification enough for replacing her.

Makes no sense. Nobody ever accused Schiff of being smart though.

Graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law.

Educated and smart are not always the same thing.

Schiff is crooked as hell but certainly not smart.

You don’t get into Stanford or Harvard without being very bright.

I’d put my money on him for that alone, but I’ve heard him speak and can assess his robust intelligence from that alone.

[H_Arendt]

@gooddad409

@Plasmaball

Of course it makes sense. It’s not that complicated.

She wasn’t hard to figure out. She is bitter and upset that she got canned.

So what? Obama canned all the Bush ambassadors the 1st day.

She didn’t add zilch to the investigation so that is hard to figure why they brought her in.

They brought her in to establish that Trump removed the Ambassador to clear the ground for Giuliani and his Russian mafia paymasters to operate. I’m curious how you could have missed that?

[Kelby]

@gooddad409

@Kelby

@gooddad409

@DougBH

Her interview doesn’t prove there is no case (though I think there isn’t). It proves she didn’t do anything to add to the case though. And why would they have the first big witness, Taylor, who only had opinions on what he heard from other people, and the other big witness being the ambassador who basically left before anything was supposed to have happened? Why would you put your first big witnesses as two people who had very little if anything to add to the “case”?
She had an opinion that Hunter and Burisma should not be investigated, and that Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election should not have been investigated. Fine, any Democrat in the country could have been called up to give the same opinion. All that proved is that there were policy differences between the President and Yovanovich which would have been justification enough for replacing her.

Makes no sense. Nobody ever accused Schiff of being smart though.

Graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law.

Educated and smart are not always the same thing.

Schiff is crooked as hell but certainly not smart.

I understand your need to believe that.