Any of y'all out there think that the dementia don real-time tweet trashing Yovanovich even more was a GREAT MOVE?

Only one I know of DB. She shows up regularly to defend him. Others do on occasion but really this egregious example of how self-destructively dense he is should be held up to all for its utter absurdity and obtuse mindlessness!  He is so clueless and unaware. There is no tie to his conscious or reality. He is a complete REACTOR and never thinks first. He is incapable of seeing potential consequences. Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday! :)

Maybe that individual feels as though they are a voice in the darkness, but fails to see they are more a voice OF the darkness. 

 I am certain that the need to defend support dementia don is the dominant thing in her life vis a vis being on an internet social site  like this. No matter what the egregous behaviour is there she is defending. So I guess so. Thank you for your reply! :)

But it makes no nevermind to you that the President of the United States publicly posted these things DURING this person’s testimony to Congress. Wow. He essentially blamed her for the entire Somali crisis. A bit overstated, and poorly timed, would you say? Cowardly, as well. 

Once again, M2, your utter absence of legal acumen betrays your blind obedience to a despot.
It doesn’t phase your conscience one bit that the Pres of the United States has no inhibitions whatever about denigrating his own countrymen at any turn, even dedicated career public servants, and even with preference to foreign dictators, to advance his personal interests. 

Don’t look now, but that thought process is a big part of the problem. His and yours. 

I would not have recommended the tweet. 

But it is a nothing. Other than bringing out that the Ukr Pres also not happy with her. That alone is a valid reason for her removal. (Not that a reason is required) It not amount to intimidation. 
Perhaps Dems should have given President Trump's lawyers a seat at impeachment and Trump would not have to be tweet his voice to be heard. Both Clinton and Nixon were given this right. 
No Rep mentioned the Ukr Pres not wanting as well during the hearing. 

The President has the right to free speech just like the rest of us. 

Once again, and should I say ad nauseum, you misunderstand or blindly misrepresent that these are HEARINGS, not a trial. Has it also escaped your view that Trump has unfailingly forbidden his people to show up at all? 

He ****** about no committee vote, then there was one. He cried for weeks that hearings should be made public, now they are. Still the complaints, the hollow conspiracies pour out of his cowardly Tweets. He cries about not having suitable representation at the hearings, but prevents his lackeys from appearing. 

The hypocrisy there is even louder than the statements you are posting. That you are oblivious to it is telling indeed.  
But on the last thing, we agree. The fool has every right to continue to incriminate himself, and there can be no doubt he will. 

This post was edited by my2cents at November 16, 2019 9:40 AM MST

There are defense attorneys at hearings before trial. 

Um, yeah. Covered that. Instead of sending his lawyers, he is forbidding participation. While griping pathetically from the cowards’ pulpit of twitter about not being represented. Hypocrisy. 

Not that Trump listens to counsel anyway, hence the mess he continues to build for himself, and the lame defense(s) his supporters are forced to invent. Hypocrisy.

No, his lawyers are not be allowed.  You may want to look that one up. 

The public hearing are similar to a preliminary hearing in criminal court which would have defense attorneys present and many times the defense does not offer evidence on their behalf withholding it for the trial if it comes. 

Right, not allowed. It is not a judicial proceeding, nor a criminal court.

Cannot teach what is refused to learn. 

 

Exactly.... Trump's lawyers were not allowed. So he is using Twitter to get out his objection to her testimony. 

Yes it is political. And the Dems are loosing. 


Did you notice how they (the 3 who testified this week publicly) keep referring to being worried about this would upset policy towards Ukraine?  THEY do not set policy.  The elected POTUS does that.

The  president was not happy withYovanovich because she was doing a heroic job of fighting corruption so he and his corrupt pals 'had to' get rid of her.

So was Pres of Ukraine in on this too? He did not want her either.  

'He may not have wanted her' perhaps due to Trump's influence. Why shouldn't he want her if she was helping to eliminate corruption?

He said she did not like him....did not want him to win. And was not accepting of him as President.

Do you know the Ambassador violated the Geneva Convention?

A slight violation of the Geneva Convention may have been necessary for her to combat corruption in the Ukraine.

So you are ok with it then...fair enough. Perhaps this also a reason Pres V. wanted her gone? 

Yes because she was doing battle against corruption and president T was behind wanting her gone.

And Pres V also wanted her gone.  She was not wanted by either country as their representative.  Time to go. 

These people (the 3 state department people who testified this week) have it in there head that they make policy.  Well, that is not the law.  The law is POTUS makes the foreign policy.   And looking into corruption that took place in the 2016 election that cost us millions in the Mueller report.  Should be looked into. 

Why was her job performance so highly rated after she was forced to leave? I imagine you know who been saying she done so well. 

No, there are allegation the state department was involved in 2016 election tampering from Ukraine.

This is the deep state....they think they are in charge.  Of course they love her. This post was edited by my2cents at November 16, 2019 2:55 PM MST