|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1573983868 Message started by eau de sauvage on 11/17/19 at 01:44:28 |
|
Title: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by eau de sauvage on 11/17/19 at 01:44:28 Trump keeps saying 'read the transcript'. This seems even more ironic after Ivanovitch's testimony. He 33 years of service in some of the world's most dangerous places, under six presidents wondered, who even the Republican's at the inquiry, praised, was set up to be investigated by Ukraine simply to further Trump's scheme. Here's the transcript in full https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf and here's the relevant passage, where he slags off Ivanovitch and implies she's corrupt then Zelensky says he'll get onto it, obviously this has already all been set up as we've been hearing all week. Zelensky:He or she will look. into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of.that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would_ be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovictch. It was great that you were the first one. who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree·with you 100%. Her attitude to.wards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his· side. This is utter insanity, this is a brand new spanking fresh govt in the newly emerging democracy and Trump is corrupting Zelensky before he even gets started. Sondland has already said that "Zelensky will do anything you want" to Trump, on the phone which was overheard by three people at the restaurant, and they'll be testifying, and Sondland will know this before he goes up for his third attempt to clarify the situation next week. I think this will be the moment that it all comes tumbling down for Trump, Sondland will not risk jail for perjury now everything has been corroborated. As Yovanovitch said, it's utterly amazing that Guiliani could work with two corrupt private donors to Trump as well as the former corrupt prosecutor to have a US ambassador, (one of the most senior) removed. How easy was that they must have wondered. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by Mavigogun on 11/17/19 at 03:09:29 I think this will be the moment that it all comes tumbling down for Trump, 1) Trumpitors don't care that he is a criminal/bigot/liar/enemy of democracy/etc. 2) Those remaining in the GOP have gone all-in on pleasing Trump's base. 3) There is no three. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by WebsterMark on 11/17/19 at 05:02:54 I found the exchange below to be of great interest. In a world where the press did not mostly wear their team's blue jersey, this would have made significant waves. Those in the Obama administration already knew Joe Biden's son was given a job specifically to influence the VP. Training a nominee how to cleverly dance around the issue isn't really confronting it. Stefanik: The first time that 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. This was your deposition. And you testified that 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: Yes, it is. Stefanik: And the exact quote from your testimony is, “The way the question was phrased in this model Q&A was, ‘what can you tell us about Hunter Biden being named to the board of Burisma?'” So for the millions of Americans watching, President Obama’s own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation and yet our Democratic colleagues and the Chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask that same question that the Obama State Department was so concerned about. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by WebsterMark on 11/17/19 at 05:06:34 Folowed by this exchange: Ratcliffe: I’d like to ask you about your earlier testimony about your Senate confirmation and congresswoman Stefanik had asked you how the Obama-Biden State Department had prepared you to answer questions about Burisma and Hunter Biden specifically. You recall that? Yovanovitch: Yes. Ratcliffe: And she mentioned that you had been asked or been prepared for a question about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Burisma but I don’t think that you gave us the answer or answers that the Obama-Biden State Department prepared you to give in response to that question. Do you remember what those answers were? Yovanovitch: Yeah it was something along the lines of, “I would refer you to the vice president’s office on that.” Ratcliffe: So did they in the course of that brief you about the amount of money that Hunter Biden was being paid by Burisma? Yovanovitch: No, this wasn’t part of a briefing. I mean I had sort of big old books with questions that might come up. Ratcliffe: In preparation for your confirmation and they thought that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma might be significant enough that it would come up during your confirmation, is that correct? Yovanovitch: Apparently so, I mean there were hundreds of questions. Ratcliffe: Well, hundreds of questions, but were there hundreds of companies? how many companies other than Burisma did the Obama-Biden State Department prepare you to give answers for and if so, if there were others. which ones? Yovanovitch: I just don’t recall. Ratcliffe: You don’t recall that there were any other companies, is that correct? Yovanovitch: I’m quite sure there probably were some companies, but I mean, you know, this is a while ago and I don’t recall. Ratcliffe: But you specifically recall Burisma? Yovanovitch: Yes. Ratcliffe: All right, out of thousands of companies in the Ukraine the only one that you recall the Obama-Biden State Department preparing you to answer questions about was the one where the vice president’s son was on the board, is that fair? Yovanovitch: Yes. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by Mavigogun on 11/17/19 at 06:51:26 I guess you just don't get it- the President extorted an ally country at war with Russia for a public smear. It may be that Biden will need to account for himself; our judgement of that accounting in no way mitigates Trump's damage to the office of the President and our country, betrayal of our values, and national interest expressed via Congress. I don't like Biden- but that has no bearing on Trump's corruption. Have grounds for persuing charges against Biden? Have at it. In the meanwhile, the President of the United States is doing real damage that demands address by patriots. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by WebsterMark on 11/17/19 at 06:55:35 the president extorted an ally country at war with Russia for a public smear That's an allegation not supported by the most direct evidence, which is the transcript of the call. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by thumperclone on 11/17/19 at 07:38:19 the most direct evidence will come from those who have 1st hand knowledge but at this point are barred by trump to testify.. how do you spell obstruction? |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by thumperclone on 11/17/19 at 07:40:24 the house should call trumph to testify then lying to congress could be added to the charges |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by pg on 11/17/19 at 09:54:02 All three witnesses: can you assert their was an impeachable offence? Ahhh, ahhh, but, but, we have a second hand antidote of..... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by pg on 11/17/19 at 10:55:58 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCnDEbKSTM8[/media] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCnDEbKSTM8 Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by eau de sauvage on 11/17/19 at 14:47:31 152720313627300F233029420 wrote:
@WM, we've had the direct evidence and more is coming with Sondland's testimony. Regarding Burisma, no one has spoken of a conflict of interest, it is just a bad look, a perceived conflict. Ultimately though Bidden Sr was following established US foreign policy. 3F282E222D3D4F0 wrote:
All three witnesses have already said multiple times that they are not there to give a view on impeachment as they are non partisan career diplomats. So you've simply quoted Nunes leading question that he knows they cannot answer so pointing to a non answer as somehow exonerating Trump's corruption only works for fools. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by Serowbot on 11/17/19 at 15:33:34 Repub's said they wanted evidence of "Quid pro Quo" outside the phone call... Now that it's coming forth, they say, "This is hearsay, because these people weren't on the call... Catch 22... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by pg on 11/17/19 at 16:32:59 The phone call on July 25th was the focal point of the whistle blower's complaint. That is why it is so imperative the witnesses 2nd and 3rd hand information is not credible. On September 24, 2019, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi announced that committees would undertake formal impeachment inquiries after reports about controversial interactions between Trump and the country of Ukraine because of that phone call. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by Mavigogun on 11/17/19 at 21:02:15 6F5D5A4B4C5D4A75594A53380 wrote:
Agents of Trump have testified to setting the stage for extortion before the call. Trump withheld vital weaponry for no other reason than to extort Ukraine. The stage set, Trump clearly predicated release of aid on help with his election campaign on the call. There's no supposition- the circumstance is overt. You might as well be declaring the South won the Civil War- it's that absurd. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by pg on 11/18/19 at 03:45:29 6C607768666E66746F010 wrote:
Except, Zelensky didn't know the aid was held until a month after the call..... Why didn't Barry give them more support in the form of lethal military weaponry? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by Serowbot on 11/18/19 at 06:49:25 102225343322350A26352C470 wrote:
The "transcript" is a rough summary,... the call went 28 minutes... Not word for word,... and there is testimony that pertinent portions are left out. Secondly there was originally only one call,... now there's two,... Could there be three?,.. or four?... Mike Pence aide Jennifer Williams, who overheard Zelensky call, is now a 'Never Trumper'. In her testimony, Williams said the call "struck me as unusual and inappropriate." The league of Never Trumpers grows daily... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by WebsterMark on 11/19/19 at 14:48:57 I got some time this afternoon to watch this debacle. What a joke. Much todo about nothing. This is a bunch of crybabies given a platform to b!tch about a new boss. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by T And T Garage on 11/19/19 at 15:37:33 I saw Lt. Col. Vindman crush it. It'll be interesting to hear what Sondland has to say tomorrow. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by WebsterMark on 11/19/19 at 16:55:20 I thought he sounded like someone who thinks far more of himself than what others do....One of the other witnesses described him as basically a problem. If I’m at a level where I listen in on a Presidential phone call and I think a serious, perhaps criminal conversation took place, I’m immediately telling my boss, and everybody else. He didn’t do that if I heard his answer correctly. I was in and out of the room. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by eau de sauvage on 11/20/19 at 00:47:53 142621303726310E223128430 wrote:
Actually he answered that "I did my job". Schiff also pointed out that Morrison also went to the lawyer and not his superior. In fact I can't see how anyone who supports the military and is a true patriot of America, even the most partisan could not fail to be moved by this summing up by Schiff regarding the attacks on Vindman. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCkf-3f8w00[/media] |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 05:18:03 Wearing a uniform doesn't mean you're above reproach or that you're not a fool. Using a uniform as a shield is cowardly. Bottom line to this whole debacle is summed up in a couple of simple questions and answers I heard one congressman ask the only guy who, as far as I know, spoke to both Presidents, and that was Volker. Did Trump say to the President of Ukraine they'll be no aid unless you conduct some type of investigation that implicates Joe Biden's son (in some manner that implicates Joe himself. ) The answer is is a clear no. Did the Ukraine President understand he was being asked to conduct such aninvestigation or aid would be withheld? The answer is a clear no. Everything else that's been talked about are opinions from individuals with their own perspectives not just of this event, but a wider view of US foreign policy. Which by the way, their job is to conduct the policy desires of The President. The Democratic Party has made attempt after attempt to overturn an election they can't understand losing. This ridiculous impeachment, which is guaranteed to fail, sets up future scenarios where a House majority will routinely hold impeachment hearings to remove opposition Presidents. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 05:30:58 The only thing that has changed is your standards. The crime is clear. This harm aside, any other President would have resigned after it was reveled he had stole money given to a veterans- lacking that shame, he would have been impeached in short order. Your judgement and ethics have been compromised, or have ever been malformed. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by T And T Garage on 11/20/19 at 05:41:43 6A585F4E49584F705C4F563D0 wrote:
Again, this isn't about the election - it's about trump wiping his a$$ with the Constitution. He is not above the law and he will will be tried. If pompeo leaves his side, game over. All his allies will be gone and it'll be a nixon all over again. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 06:20:19 534D42434E534855270 wrote:
By his own account, Mark doesn't care about the Constitution, the Republic, democracy, or the rule of law- his declared reason for voting for Trump was the hope of fomenting a culture war in which his side rose victorious. He's a nut. There's no point in discussing facts, the record, or rationality with someone so far off the deep end their hope for our country is war. He'll toy with reason and facts only so far as he can leverage them to his insanity; integrity of thought isn't a vulnerability he's susceptible to. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by T And T Garage on 11/20/19 at 08:04:19 ‘Everyone was in the loop’ In his opening statement, Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified to the House Intelligence Committee that there was a quid pro quo in President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and that Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were all in on it. “I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo’?” Sondland said. “The answer is yes.” “Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland continued. “It was no secret.” Sondland specifically called out Pompeo and members of the State Department. “They knew what we were doing and why,” he said. Sondland said that Giuliani relayed to officials that Trump “wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians. Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these pre-requisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. “Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” he testified. “Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.” |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 09:55:15 Back in the day, the question was "what did the President know, and when did he know it?" Today the question is "what does the public know, and when did they know it?" The crimes are not hidden- all that is left to resolve is how long those in the know will persist in denying the rising Sun. |
|
Title: Re: Ivanovitch mentioned in Trump/Zelensky call Post by eau de sauvage on 11/20/19 at 13:53:31 @Mavigogun, the meta crime will be watching the Senate throwing out all reason, and going all in with Trump. This is the constitutional crisis that they never wanted to be put into, but the only way out for them now is to wade fully into the fetid swamp corridors of what passes for Trump's mind. The GOP spin tumbler has already exonerated Trump because Sonderland quoted Trump saying 'no quid pro quo'. Trump exonerated by his own quote, classic insanity. Never mind that Sonderland stated in no uncertain Terms what was required. I don't think that the Democrats have pushed the fact that it was the announcement of the investigations into the Bidden, not the investigations per se. It has been mentioned but it's more of a big deal than it seems, because the *only* point of an announcement is to use for a campaign advertisement. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |