As HD indicates, since they can argue that they don’t need to explain it, they won’t. Attempts at justification will surely use the conspiracy theory espoused by Giuliani, Trump and other right-wing fringers.
From Wikipedia:
Trump also implied that Yovanovitch bore responsibility for the Somali Civil War.
Trump: “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?”
Don’t attack the source, attack the content. I actually posted video clips showing what appears to be Yovanovitch contradicting herself, and when I found that gatewaypundit made the same point I noticed they also allege two other lies by Yavonovitch and posted them here for discussion.
Here is another link I found with the two clips spliced together, making it easier to see:
Would you attack politico as a source? They actually posted an article in January 2017 which Trump’s defenders could point to to say why he might think Ukraine needs to do the investigations mentioned in the call that started all of this:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
This isn’t accurate. Vindman was listening in on the call himself and made his own set of notes, which don’t jibe with the sanitized version released to the public. Adam Schiff has nothing to do with any of those facts.
Have Vindman’s notes been released?
I haven’t been closely following your tangent but if your argument is that the Obama administration acted underhandedly, then that’s possibly true. But, likewise, the Chinese are possibly being unfair to the Uighurs. It’s true, but irrelevant.
In general:
a) If you conclusively prove that party A is guilty of crimes, that doesn’t exonerate party B of their crimes. That’s not how it works. Both A and B can be guilty.
b) Trying to launch an investigation into A during an investigation into B is a distraction, not a valid line of reasoning. If you want an investigation into Hunter Biden, I would note that the Senate is currently doing nothing and is lead by the Republicans. Schiff is not stopping them. I would also note that there is a thread where you can raise any evidence that you are aware of that the Bidens are guilty of anything at a criminal level.
And even more general… There are three sides you can take on the fight between the Hatfields and the McCoys:
I would opine that options 1 and 2 are wrong.
OK, what’s the available evidence that “she was fired for a corrupt purpose”?
I’m not sure it is a tangent. It did fork though. I started out pointing out issues with Yovanovitch’s credibility. A few posters responded by attacking my sources, and I got the impression they recommend completely blocking my sources from attention. So I argued “attack the content, not the source”. Then I recalled politico, a source I guess they wouldn’t recommend that one completely ignore, had posted a relevant article in January 2017. It talks about Ukranian interference in our 2016 election. This was something Trump mentioned in the call that the whistleblower blew the whistle on, staring this Impeachment Inquiry. So I guess the new forked topic is: if Russian election interference justified the Mueller investigation, why doesn’t Ukranian election interference justify an investigation? This was mentioned by Trump, closer to the allusion to aid, and only much later in the call did he mention Biden. But I guess this is jumping the gun, as I have read future witnesses are going to talk about what they heard in the call, and I guess then what was mentioned and in what order, and why Trump should or should not have said stuff will be more relevant. So consider it a “foreshadowing fork”, not a tangent.
Just a reminder that we don’t have to spin our wheels and add dozens of posts to a thread by trying to respond to every [term redacted, replaced with mangy horned-swoggled rapscallion]…
Hunter Biden is an adult, and his father cannot control his actions. I’m sure his father would have preferred that he not take the job.
All I can say is that by going after the prosecutor that was “fixing” the investigation of the owner of Burisma, Joe Biden showed clear and convincing impartiality. Not that the entire Western world wasn’t going aftercthat Guy, anyway.
There is long history of corrupt prosecutors in that country, and they frequently frame businesspeople, both foreign and domestic, for political or financial gain. Discouraging that practice is a key part of the foreign policy goal of making the country safe for investment. But there was never an actual list.
I don’t watch videos, I read print media. It’s way more objective
So what. It was discussed at the beginning of the hearing that the State Department personnel were not allowed access to their notes or calendars. These people have a lot of conversations, answer a lot of correspondence and meet with a lot of people.
So, years later, she forgot sending an email that said “I’ll talk to later” or something else unsubstantial. So what?
And I have to wonder how many individuals and companies she was briefed on prior to her confirmation hearing. Haven’t you ever crammed for a test? So, 3 years or so later, she forgot they mentioned his name. So what? I mean, you guys are sure forgiving of Trump every time he forgets saying something or meeting someone.
Anyway, keep up the good fight. Because I have a feeling that once it’s discovered exactly what Parnas Fruman were up to in Ukraine, it’s going to get really hard to play defense. Especially if it turns out that they were looking to replace pro-American interests at Naftogaz with pro-Russian interests.
The fact that these bozos got arrrested gives me hope that their are still people in federal law enforcement that are uncorrupted. Because this whole debacle was engineered by Russia in order to destabilize both Ukraine and the US. I hope the State Department prevails.
Here is the full discussion.
Overall, the September 25th release is largely what he saw, he believes to be the genuine output of their team, and the only substantive gaps are the two he explains and neither is particular large or changes the call in a vast way.
But yes, the call was treated differently than usual and, likely, that was for reasons of trying to protect the President’s ass after being criminal on the phone in front of witnesses.
From your video links, Yovanovitch said that the Obamas were underhanded, while under oath, and that they were concerned with Biden.
I don’t see how that impacts her believability.
If she, elsewhere, said that they didn’t talk to her about Biden, I’d more quickly jump to “brain fart” than “she was protecting the Obamas”. People can and do fail to think of things that are relevant to what they’re talking about, sometimes. Humans are not computers.
One might note, for example, that she threw the Obamas under the bus, under oath, on live TV while purportedly acting as an agent of the Democrats to destroy Trump, when the Democrats are doing everything that they can to avoid the Burisma/Biden topic and make sure that Biden comes out looking clean if forced into discussing it either way.
So either she massively failed in her mission as a plant, or…people aren’t computers.
Seriously?
That you ask for “evidence” is startling to me. Or do you define “evidence” as absolute irrefutable proof, a smoking gun?
Do you honestly see no evidence that she was fired for a corrupt purpose?
A surprise visit to Walter Reed medical center for an unannounced physical. Previous ones have been announced.
What all Rudy Giuliani was up to seems to still be under investigation, but I can’t think of any component of it that doesn’t look corrupt.
And, true, Trump might not be aware that Giuliani was corrupt. And, if Giuliani was painting Yovanovitch in a bad light, because she was hampering his corrupt activities in Ukraine, the President would obviously side with the person who he knows better and is friends with.
But it seems difficult to have 20+ criminal business partners and friends and have that be random happenstance.
If you believe that Trump is all above board and legal, and thinks that Rudy is a saint, well I have a few bridges that are great investments at low low prices.
People on Twitter are speculating that he’s setting up an excuse to resign “for medical reasons”.
We can only hope.
For someone urging others not to attack the source, your argument here is entirely about attacking the source.
The circumstantial case, which makes sense to me, is that Rudy and his pals (the ones who are now in jail) were allied with the corrupt prosecutor whom everyone in Western governments wanted fired, and probably wanted to install their own stooge in that position so that the stooge with fabricate evidence against Biden and the DNC. However, the ambassador knew her ass from her elbow and that Rudy was up to his eyeballs in relations with Ukrainian criminals who would affirm any conspiracy theory Rudy wants them to. So obviously, anyone not on Team Trump Swamp has to go.
Now, it Team Trump Swamp can offer a contemporaneous account of why she was fired, that could use useful evidence that this circumstantial case is flawed. But they can’t offer any rationale at all, so the most likely conclusion - that her firing relates to Rudy’s corrupt dealings - can’t be so easily dismissed.
I mean, the actual reason given by the White House is that it turns out he has nothing to do this weekend and decides to get portions of his physical done three months early. Out of the blue. I don’t know what the actual explanation is, but this one is clearly bullshit.
He could actually be sick.
I’ll keep my comments to myself. I wish I were a better person, but I’m not.
I think it much more likely that he’d be preparing a “You can’t impeach a man who’s suffering from bone spurs” defense.