House Intel Committee Hearing Nov 15 2019 ---- Marie Yovanovitch

a reply to: TomLawless

I like your moves.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Among the most ridiculous assertions you've made in the past few weeks.

She was in the middle of testifying when POTUS tweeted. She wouldn't have even known about it if Schiff hadn't announced it.
Read that tweet again and explain to everyone how it's witness tampering or intimidation. He notes that everywhere she happened to be working turned to sh*t and that he has absolute right to appoint ambassadors.
His first point may be debatable but the second one isn't. Considering a large chunk of her testimony dealt with her firing, it's a point worth making.
I'm really starting to wonder. Are you shareblue or lawfare? Maybe another one I just haven't heard of?
Only reason I ask is because you seem like an intelligent person. Which leads me to believe you're either completely delusional or you're intentionally pushing narratives. Who knows, maybe you've just got one wicked case of cognitive dissonance; so impressed with yourself you're not willing to entertain the idea that you've been mislead.

a reply to: mtnshredder

No.
No.

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: carewemust
What is CNN gushing over now? Some guy overheard President Trump say, "F*uck Ukraine. I want that damn investigation!"

I think that would be called first hand knowledge.

Isn't this what you were asking for?

There's no proof any phone call was ever overheard by anyone 😃😃😃😃

The man testified under oath today...its the closet thing we have to proof. We now need to ask Sondland, if he confirms, what will your opinion be?

Same as always when no proof is presented 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃

a reply to: elDooberino

You didn’t bother to read the sources I quoted from the Department of Justice, or if you did, you’re ignoring the facts.

It wouldn’t matter if Ambassador Yovanovich was actually intimidated by the President’s public statements, because the crime of witness tampering (as I posted) originates with the action to do so, not with its success.

I’ve already answered your issues as presented by others multiple times, with all due respect. Further, while I realize this is a conspiracy site, and those of us who frequent it tend to put disparate data together into cogent narratives ... I’m not anything other than I seem to be.

Ask yourself this question ... you’ve granted me the possibility of being an intelligent person. You’ve read the things I post, and the ONLY two options you can come up with is that I’m a) delusional or b) a shill.

Ask yourself if that’s a limitation in what I do and say, or what you see and hear.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Aren't you determining Trump's "intent"?

a reply to: elDooberino

She was in the middle of testifying when POTUS tweeted. She wouldn't have even known about it if Schiff hadn't announced it.
Read that tweet again and explain to everyone how it's witness tampering or intimidation

Is she a witness?

Was the tweet negatively directed toward or about her?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Aren't you determining Trump's "intent"?

You could make that argument certainly. As we know, without overt statements, it is really difficult to legally prove “intent.”

Here are the salient points for the argument I’m making:

1. President Trump has previously demonstrated a desire to be rid of Yovanovich at least from her previous position.

2. According to all accounts, Ms. Yovanovich has been a successful member of the foreign service for over 30 years, and served under multiple Democratic and Republican Presidents. GWB appointed her twice to Ambassadorships.

3. Whatever his reasoning, Trump wanted to cause the Ukranians to investigate the Bidens, and Yovanovich disagreed with that and would have worked against it.

4. Now, if it turns out that Trump’s desire to have Ukraine investigate American citizens (rather than have our own law enforcement investigate criminal activity) had a legitimate purpose, the Ambassadors opposition was out of line and she deserved to be removed. If however (as the current impeachment procedings have asserted) those reasons were illegitimate, then Trump was wrong to remove her and he knows it.

5. What did we see that none of us would dispute? We saw the President publicly address the Ambassador AT THE MOMENT OF HER PUBLIC TESTIMONY with assertions that he had every right to remove her because he’s the President AND because she failed at her job (which we know is NOT the reason). So, even if he had the right to fire her, his stated reason is not correct. She didn’t fail in Somolia and she didn’t fail in Ukraine. Therefore, the only way his Tweet can be seen is that the President intended to affect the presentation of evidence (in this case to discredit it) which is the essence of witness tampering per the DOJ Manual:

It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings.

President Trump no matter his intent meets the description emphasized above.

That’s the basis of my claim.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It proscribes conduct intended

You still have to prove intent.

(from your quote)

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

It proscribes conduct intended

You still have to prove intent.

(from your quote)

No, I have to prove the intention (whatever it was) existed. We see that he did what I described. He did so with intent whatever the nature of the intent.

(EXCELLENT COUNTER, btw)

a reply to: Gryphon66

"...the crime of witness tampering (as I posted) originates with the action to do so, not with its success"

Witness tampering requires intent.

Are you seriously saying you can prove that POTUS knew schiff would read that aloud to her in the middle of her testimony, thus "intimidating" her?
I guess we can rule out Lawfare.

Aside from that, there wasn't anything intimidating in those tweets. They weren't even addressing her directly. There wasn't an implicit or explicit threat. He stated an opinion and he stated a fact. It could easily be argued his "intent" was to share this opinion and fact with his millions of Twitter followers watching the hearing.

At the end of the day, we got another long winded self congratulatory speech from a career bureaucrat who thinks she is entitled to her job; who thinks she is among those more qualified than POTUS to direct foreign policy. She couldn't speak directly to a quid pro quo, she couldn't speak to bribery, she couldn't speak to any crime being committed by the president.

She, the media, and the Dems presented her as some sort of folk hero of impunible credibility and honor but she's been accused of doing some seriously shady things:
Pressuring the Ukrainian govt to fire a prosecutor mid-national elections (which is a violation of international law)
Communicating some specific names to the Ukrainians which, according to them, amounted to a "do not prosecute" list.
She even seemed to contradict herself today.
One minute she's claiming the Obama administration never expressed any concerns over the Burisma/Biden "arrangement", yet the next minute she's testifying that the administration spent a notable portion of her confirmation prep specifically addressing that very issue.

Just face it. Today was another sh!t show for the super official impeachment inquiry and proponents of impeachment are grasping for an angle of attack. Schiff rang the bell and you dutifully began salivating.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings.

President Trump no matter his intent meets the description emphasized above.

What Schiff did by falsifying and reading his own fabricated transcript of Trumps call, without any pre-disclosed description that it was in fact fictitious, would fall into the above description wouldn’t it? Fairly certain that what he did would be defined as “illegitimate”, correct?

a reply to: Liquesence

It doesn't matter. It requires intent to hinder, augment or delay testimony. You would have to argue that trump wrote that tweet, while she's testifying, expecting schiff to read it to her in order to "tamper" with her testimony.

Aside from that, it's not even an intimidating tweet. It's a boilerplate shot at her tenure at State and a reminder for everyone that presidents have the authority to fire/hire ambassadors at will. In all likelihood, it was intended for his Twitter followers watching the testimony as it was occurring.

Can you really prove otherwise?

So... to sum up today's hearing Marie Yovanovitch got her feelings hurt by Trump... LOL

a reply to: mtnshredder

Schiff really seems to me to suffer from spectrum disorder or maybe dissociative disorder.

Or maybe both.

What he did with the “mob boss impersonation” was totally disconnected from the appropriate action in that social situation. However, the only individual I could see that being directed toward is Mr. Trump himself, who is not scheduled to appear as a witness as far as I know.

So, I’d rule Schiff’s actions ill-placed, but not necessarily illegitimate. He just came off like an incompetent goof.

originally posted by: CraftyArrow
So... to sum up today's hearing Marie Yovanovitch got her feelings hurt by Trump... LOL

CNN and MSNBC have already forgotten about her. They want Ambassador Sondland to call Bill Taylor and the guy who overheard President Trump on Sondland's phone, liars.

Ref: www.cnn.com...

Sondland testifies next Wednesday.

If the Trump Admin has "dirt" on Biden, they should release some of it to the public ASAP. Prove that they're not just blowing hot air, in order reduce public confidence in Biden's credibility.

a reply to: elDooberino

You’re asking me to prove the nature of intent, which is not what the statutes require.

I have to show that the action was done WITH INTENT ... I don’t have to explicate the whys and wherefores, indeed, that is one of the severe limitations placed on much of the law ... it’s really difficult to prove the nature of intent, but it is not, particularly in this case, difficult at all to prove the presence of intent.

originally posted by: carewemust
If the Trump Admin has "dirt" on Biden, they should release some of it to the public ASAP. Prove that they're not just blowing hot air, in order reduce public confidence in Biden's credibility.

Absolutely critical in my opinion. If they’ve got the goods on the Bidens, now is the time to show it clearly.

Of course, if they don’t, a considerable portion of the President’s defense in this matter evaporates completely.

Therefore, unless it’s the strongest case since Benedict Arnold, they’d do better to leave it a mystery. Then at least, they will retain the unerring support of Trump’s base.

originally posted by: CraftyArrow
So... to sum up today's hearing Marie Yovanovitch got her feelings hurt by Trump... LOL

What a huge waste of time and money. Between Mueller and Schiff the Dems have wasted their first year in control of the House.

What’s the encore for year 2?

a reply to: Gryphon66

"I have to show that the action was done WITH INTENT ... I don’t have to explicate the whys and wherefores, indeed, that is one of the severe limitations placed on much of the law ... it’s really difficult to prove the nature of intent, but it is not, particularly in this case, difficult at all to prove the presence of intent."

Presence of intent to do what, write a tweet?

That can't be what you're arguing. No way you're saying that, in order to charge someone with witness tampering/intimidation, all you have to prove is that they intended to do...something? I couldn't have read that right.

In this case, "intent" very specifically refers to the intent to commit tampering/intimidation. Yeah, I know intent is difficult to prove. That's the whole point. That's why the argument is absurd.