Predisent Donald J. Skroob: Episode X: Purple Raining to Impeachment

[Fiye]

Anyways Holmes testimony seems really bad for the orange man.

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...967404546?s=19

[kuronosan]

This is a blatant fucking power grab.

[guartz]

This is a blatant fucking power grab.

Here is what I find ironic. When Hillary was considered a sure thing, she voiced a concern that was echoed even on these forums that Republicans would not accept the results of the election. Here we are almost four years in and it's still #resist. Now DoJ is calling you out on it and this is the response you give? Why don't you call for his impeachment and prove him even more right?

[Tyche]

It's not irony. You're simply conflating not accepting election results with not accepting an administration that is so corrupt that more people in his administration have been charged with felonies in 3 years than the past 7 administrations combined, and that includes administrations overseeing multiple wars and an impeachment. And we ain't even done yet. I mean, now we're looking at some pretty obvious abuse of power, witness intimidation, and bribing a foreign head of state to investigate a political rival.

[guartz]

What was proven is that we have prosecutors that are great at catching people on technicalities. The russian collusion is a sham, always was always will be.

[guartz]

Let's just hope Trump resists the urge to go ham on prosecutions like dems have been. A lot of people who don't deserve to be in jail will end up in jail.

[Athas]

What was proven is that we have prosecutors that are great at catching people on technicalities. The russian collusion is a sham, always was always will be.

It's you're assertion that lying to Congress is some trick of procedure?

[archibaldcrane]

let me tell you guartz, if it's what you say i love it

Spoiler: show

especially later in the summer

[Tyche]

All those manafort charges, all the unregistered foreign lobbying, all witness intimidation, lying to the FBI, lying to Congress, buying fucking bank accounts for Russians...shit is just technicalities. It's almost like those prosecutors didn't produce a report consisting of hundreds of pages and thousands more in court filings detailing these mere technicalities.

[Tyche]

But Trump should def go after Schiff for lying about talking to the whistleblowers attorneys. We know lying just isn't something Trump is capable of.

[guartz]

It's you're assertion that lying to Congress is some trick of procedure?

A good example is the latest testimonies. Marie Yovanovitch said she didn't know about Biden and Burisma was an issue. Quote: "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."

and well, this is her response during the testimony




I don't think she deserve 15 years for that, but you disagree?

[Tyche]

You're completely misrepresenting that entire exchange. I got you though. For those who don't want spend 6 minutes on it.

She was asked if Biden or the previous administration raised the issue of Burisma with her. She said no. She said that the state department did prep her on several companies, Burisma among them. So she said the administration didn't go over Burisma with her, but the state department did during her confirmation hearing and she was aware of it. She never said she didn't know anything about it. Never. It's a complete misquote and mischaracterization by you. I don't really see an issue there, but, us know, jump all over it. If that's the damning thing you took from that interview, you.missed a lot.

[Athas]

I'm not going to click on a Breitbart video, but I assume from the title, you're referring to this exchange?

CASTOR: And, you know, one of the folks they added to their board was the vice president's son, Hunter Biden, which, you know, raises questions, is he a genius on the corporate governance front? Is he a genius with the Ukrainian oligarchical systems and cleaning that up? Or was he just added to the board because he's the vice president's son? Was that ever, you know, a concern or that -- at least the perception of that concern, addressed?

YOVANOVITCH: As I said, I arrived in August of 2016, you know, several months before the elections and several months before President Trump took office. And it was not a focus of what I was doing in -- in that six-month period.

CASTOR: OK. Was -- was the issue ever raised at all?

YOVANOVITCH: You know, not -- not...

CASTOR: He was still on the board, I think, at the time.

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah, my understanding from newspaper accounts is that he just recently left, in 2019. I never met him, never -- never talked to him. And I'm sorry, what was your question?

CASTOR: He was still on the board when you arrived at post, and was just wondering if -- if at least the perception problem was -- was brought to your attention as the ambassador?

YOVANOVITCH: We -- I was aware of it because, as I told you before in -- in the deposition, there had been a -- in terms of the preparation for my Senate confirmation hearings for Ukraine, there was a question about that and a select answer. So I was aware of it, yes.

CASTOR: OK. In your deposition, you acknowledged that the president has longstanding concerns about corruption in Ukraine, is that true?

YOVANOVITCH: That's -- that's what he says.

CASTOR: Well, going back to -- there was a meeting with President Poroshenko in September of 2017 in the Oval Office, and I believe you testified that, you know, he expressed his concerns then.

YOVANOVITCH: Yeah. He said that a friend of his had told him that Ukraine was the most corrupt country in the world.

CASTOR: OK.

Several witnesses have testified that the president has concerns that there are certain elements of the Ukrainian establishment that, during 2016, were out to get him. Is that something you were aware of at any point in time?

YOVANOVITCH: Well, I'm certainly aware of that now. Obviously there's been a lot of press attention on that.

It was not -- it was not brought to my attention during the two and a half years that I served under President Trump as our ambassador to Ukraine.

CASTOR: We've gone through the deposition. Some of these -- these elements that, you know, maybe they loom larger now, but, you know, in hindsight was there any discussion at the embassy that there are these indications of some Ukrainians trying to, you know, at least advocate against then-candidate Trump?

YOVANOVITCH: Actually, there weren't. I mean, we -- we didn't really see it that way.

CASTOR: Were you aware of -- I know Mr. Nunes mentioned this earlier -- the -- the consultant Alexandra Chalupa had reportedly -- at least according to her and according to, you know, Ken Vogel at Politico, was trying to work with the Ukrainian embassy in D.C. to, you know, trade information, share leads of that sort -- sort of thing?

YOVANOVITCH: I saw the article. I, you know, didn't have any further information about that.

CASTOR: And did you see the article at the time or did you only -- did that only come to your attention subsequently?

YOVANOVITCH: It's certainly been brought to my attention subsequently. I think I did see something to that effect at the time, as well.

CASTOR: And -- and, you know, you're the ambassador in country at this point. Did -- did you aim to get to the bottom of that?

Because, you know, if true, if the reporting true, if what Ms. Chalupa told Mr. Vogel is accurate, that would be concerning, correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Well, I -- I was the ambassador in Ukraine starting in August of 2016. And what you're describing, if -- if true, as -- as you said -- what you're describing took place in the United States. So if there were concerns about what Ms. Chalupa was doing, I -- I think that that would have been handled here.

The fact that is issue of perceptions was raised to her by the state department doesn't contradict her debunking of claims that she was involved in some corrupt conspiracy in the Obama admin.

[guartz]

Good to know state department is a completely separate entity from previous administration, and that Biden thing was a concern enough to have a raised at a confirmation hearing. But no nobody made a big deal out of it.

[Fiye]

Good to know state department is a completely separate entity from previous administration, and that Biden thing was a concern enough to have a raised at a confirmation hearing. But no nobody made a big deal out of it.

What the fuck are you referring to?

[Zealot]

Ah, you're back to genuine conviction, that's what was annoying me last time, the obvious ploys for reactions. This is real guartz.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Athas]

Good to know state department is a completely separate entity from previous administration, and that Biden thing was a concern enough to have a raised at a confirmation hearing. But no nobody made a big deal out of it.

She was accused of providing a "do not prosecute" list to Ukraine from Joe Biden or the larger Obama admin. I don't see how you could reasonably or in good faith conflate that with with the above exchange.

[Eurell]

The russian collusion is a sham, always was always will be.

Exept for that whole part where they literally confessed to trying to collude lol. Jr literally tweeted out the emails.

[Fiye]

I will forever love how 4+ people still reply to someone when they something really fucking stupid.

[Byrthnoth]

I will forever love how 4+ people still reply to someone when they something really fucking stupid.

This is why our advertisement-based media ecosystem is just fucked. Outrageous content gets a lot more attention than reasonable content.

I have been trying to treat responding to guartz like clicking on clickbait for a while now and I have to say I feel like I am wasting less time at least.