Prometheus85
Active Member
What’s everyone’s takeaway form her testimony?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Marie Yavanovitch Testimony
- Thread starter Prometheus85
- Start date
shmogie
Well-Known Member
She disagreed with how US policy re Ukraine was being conducted.
Trump said some bad things about her.
Of course. As Trump said, he could shoot someone in public and you'd still support him.
Prometheus85
Active Member
Strong WOMEN drive Trump nuts. He did not tweet during the interviews with men. He lost it when Marie Yavanovitch answered questions.
Prometheus85
Active Member
I guess that’s why trump was sh*ting his pants and trying his best to smear her on Twitter
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Her testimony showed how, in order to implement their corrupt Ukraine scheme, Trump et al had to get people like her out of the way.
What's weird about it all though is why they felt the need to smear her with bizarre, false allegations. All they had to do was recall her with no explanation, but I guess Trump and company just can't shake their well-practiced behaviors.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Tell me, what evidence of a crime did she provide?
An impeachment investigation is not about crimes. Crimes are dealt with in a court of law. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" comes from Britain:
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation
So Trump is, in effect, accused of abusing the power of his office.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Your point?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Few law scholars accept this idea. The Constitution says crimes. crimes are defined by statutes.
The House may politically impeach for whatever reason, in the most unfair and biased way possible by a simple majority. Alexander Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 65. He lamented strongly about impeachment being a vindictive political exercise with no crimes proven. So far, this is what we have today.
However, the Founders provided for 2/3 of the senate voting for removal after a trial, after determining the culpability of the president in committing a crime or crimes. With no crimes identified and proof of guilt, the senate will not remove him from office.
The Constitution says what it says, British common law is irrelevant, this isn't Britain, and if the Founders believed impeachment could be for abuse of power, they would have said so.
The political conspiracy to impeach Trump began at the inauguration, and has gone through many permutations in the years since.
An ugly precedent will be set, and when a democrat is president, impeachment could very well begin, for any reason the house, if controlled by Republicans, can dream up.
Sad.
Jollybear
Hey
Heres my take away.
"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.” yovanovitch said.
Second take away
She lied.
"Yovanovitch said, "although I have met former vice president Joe Biden several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me."
Then she contradicts this by saying this after asked a question.
"The first time you personally became aware of Burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings, and this was in the form of practice questions and answers," Stefanik told the former ambassador. "This was your deposition. And you testified in this particular practice Q & A with the Obama State Department, it wasn't just generally about Burisma and corruption. It was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Is that correct?"
Yovanovitch answered, "Yes. It is."
Case closed!
Get with the program!
Sorry, doesn't the Constitution actually say "high crimes and misdemeanors?" Please note that word "AND." It's kind of important. And yes, crimes are defined by statutes, misdemeanors are not -- and I think the framers were probably well aware of that distinction. So we should suppose they included misdemeanors for a reason, should we not? And in the US, at least, a misdemeanor is defined as a "non-indictable offense." So the framers seem to be making allowance for the possibility of presidents doing that which, while not clearly illegal by statute, were still wrong enough to be reason to consider their ouster.
Fascinating that you only listen to the question by one party, not those by the other. And make your determination based on a completely one-sided observation.
The notion of fairness is under deep, deep threat in the US, if that's the way everybody is going to play.
But why care about fairness, eh? As long as you win.
It used to be a better nation...I wonder what's happened.
Jollybear
Hey
Oh i heard all 7 bloody hours of her testimony. Oh ya, i know about fairness. And i also know the TRUTH isnt NUETRAL. Trump is either guilty or he is not. Yovonavich is either useless or she is not. Its not both. So, i gave my conclusion based on verbatum quotes.
Secondly, you wanna talk fairness, why not tell that to adam shift who gave more time to the democrats then the repubs in talking to her. And he kept banging his stupid hammer down on the board for repubs, but not once for the dems.
Ya, fair alright!
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Prometheus85
Active Member
Um, this is a bold faced lie. The first time they asked her about Hunter Biden, she straight up admitted that it was brought up in an Obama prep session. But the Republicans was talking loudly and over the witness as usual. I actually noticed that she mentioned it and was surprised that they didn’t poke at the issue, but they revisited it later. So no, she didn’t contradict herself or lie not even a little bit.
Also, it makes perfect sense for the Obama admin to have defenses prepared in case people try to make the Hunter Biden thing an issue. What exactly is the other option??? Please tell us, Republicans. What do you do if a President or VPs son is doing something that makes the administration look bad? Put them on a rocket to the moon? No, you create distance and you prepare your defense. And most importantly and most simply, you never do anything corrupt for that family member so it can’t be used against you. Like Biden did. Like Trump should learn to do.
I want to say these far right blogs that u clearly get your info from are full of sh*t, but I am starting to believe you trumptards genuinely just don’t get it.
Prometheus85
Active Member
you watch 7 bloody hours of the testimony but apparently missed the first time they asked her about hunter Biden andshe said, the first time she heard about hunter Biden was during her senate confrimation hearings. Also how she arrived in Ukraine in August 2016 several months before the election and several months before trump took office and the hunter Biden situation was not a main focus for what she was doing during that six month period. Yeah so much for fairness.
Last edited:
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Misdemeanors are defined by statutes, they are a crime.
No, actually a misdemeanor at the time of the framers was more consequential than today.
A misdemeanor today is not indictable, because it's commission requires direct observation of a law enforcement officer.
I don't quite understand where you got the idea that misdemeanors are not encoded by law.