Good pitcher. Not worth the money. If that's what it took to keep him, I'm glad he's gone.

Oh looky. The Little Emperor is trying to make some friends.

It's obvious that you didn't read the IG report. What exactly is she supposed to have done that justified the abuse of her privacy?

Newsflash: Not liking Trump is not a criminal offense....... yet.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma

Looks like she's been identified as a source for one.

She's just striking pre-imptively. She knows she's about to get spanked by Durham.

"So What Offenses Would You Find Impeachable?"

Using the IRS to attack your opponents-Lois Lerner
Spying on your opponents using CIA/FBI assets.
Spying on reporters that don't immediately support you.
Forcing soldiers to sign non-disclosures about Benghazi or go to jail.
Making your own immigration laws (especially after admitting that you didn't have the right to do it in the first place.

To name a few.

The reporter has already said that she (not he) was ordered to write the hit piece by her editor. The editor has since been demoted. Liberal publication using women to take the blame and keeping the male editor on staff. Although I have never donated to a "GoFundMe", I would definitely consider donating to this one if/when she decides to sue.

Mandate into law that which is not possible regardless of the ramifications. Sounds like The Green New Deal.

FACT: Biden strong armed Ukraine with US Tax dollars for his crackhead son to keep making big money for the "family".
FACT: Executive Branch of Government is responsible for investigating such issues.
FACT: We have a treaty that specifically says we will cooperate in each other's investigation.
FACT: Trump is the head of the Executive Branch of Government. It was Trump's duty to investigate the deal.

Side note: Biden was not his political opponent when the investigations began. He was just another corrupt ex-politician at the time.

Vindman is an unelected bureaucrat who was offended that Trump didn't use the talking points that were determined and written by the State Dept. "experts". Maybe it's because of the fact that the State Dep't. "experts haven't been so "expert" lately. Over the past couple of decades they have tended to get a lot of people killed.

"there has been a report floating around for a while "

Is this from the same people bitching about closed-door hearings when they had the right to be inside?

#188 | Posted by Danforth

FTR, when the "people bitching about closed-door hearings", Pedi-Schiff shut the testimony down a rushed the witnesses out of chambers.

But actually, as I peruse around the internet, listen on the radio, or watch the news, I have seen/heard it discussed a number of times. It kind of sounds like the story exists. But is still being crafted for prime time. Like I said. I give it about as much credibility as the supposed "whistle blower".

"Yovanovitch now says she never spoke ill of Trump or the Administration with previous statements and evidence to the contrary"

Ah, she was disloyal? Nothing like making an occasional hoot of frustration because her boss was ---- things up?

#162 | Posted by Zed

Loyalty has nothing to do with it. The reason I said "may" be in trouble is because now there has been a report floating around for a while that she specifically told the Ukrainians not to worry about Trump because she and the State Department would not let him..... Her testimony today said just the opposite.

Like the supposed "whistle blower", I have not seen actual evidence that it exists.

And for the record, after reading back through Yovanovitch's history/record, she has screwed up everything she has touched since her Canadian/Russian ass was allowed into the U.S.

Zed,

Yovanovitch now says she never spoke ill of Trump or the Administration with previous statements and evidence to the contrary. She has also pretty much admitted that she was invested in concept of career State Department officials using "The Process" to determine foreign policy.

5,4,3,2,1....Pardon!

#2 | Posted by danni

Why not? Clinton did for his investors.

Yovanovitch may have just gotten her ass in trouble for perjury.

So when are the first hand witnesses going to testify?

Maybe you should tell your cult leader to stop blocking the first hand witnesses from testifying. That's what an innocent man would do isnt' it?

#147 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Good idea. Drag the supposed "whistle blower" before Congress...if there is one. And remember that when dipSchiff started this latest debacle, they had to change the rules for whistle blowers so that they could use uncorroborated hearsay as justify attacks on their own political enemies.

POTUS doesn't get a veto when the time comes to delivering Congressionally-approved aid.

#131 | Posted by Danforth

Correct. But as the Nation's administrator, he does get a say in HOW it is delivered. Ask Obama. POTUS can legally hold up and disrupt a lot of stuff.

Serious question: What comes first, the USA or the POTUS?

#134 | Posted by

If he wants the job, he has to do both. It's not an either/or or a chicken or the egg thing.

I didn't see it. I listened to it on the radio (I think it was on LPB). The portion I heard (about 2 hours) was two unelected career bureaucrats who could only state that they heard from someone who heard who heard from someone who heard ... That they had never met nor had a conversation with the President. And then when asked to opine about foreign policy process, Taylor kept speaking about how it was the State Department's job to decide foreign policy. That statement shows he is either incompetent or an outright liar. Either way, he needs to be unemployed by sundown. He apparently does not realize that 1) the POTUS determines US Foreign Policy and 2) that he is supposed to serve the US of A and at the pleasure of the POTUS. He's supposed to be a worker bee. Not a decider. If he wants to be a boss, he needs to run for office.

Have your heard of this thing called the internet where the full hearings are archived and available to watch at whatever time a person decides to do so?

#121 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce

As was stated upthread, people gotta work. Using a company computer to watch TV at work is frowned upon.

Neither of todays witnesses were even remotely credible. Neither had actual knowledge beyond hearsay. Both are career bureaucrats who claimed that the guy who determines the foreign policy of the United States (POTUS)was interfering in the foreign policy of the United States. The sad thing is that they probably believe that THEY (career bureaucrats) are the sole arbiters of foreign policy. Trump should fire them both for incompetence.

You didn't earn that...

"Liberals think freedom just happens and doesnt need to be defended withsomeonehaving to give their life."

You didn't defend any American's freedoms in Iraq, Boaz.

Well, maybe Erik Prince.

#60 | Posted by snoofy

Interesting statement considering they attacked us here (in the US). And then they TOLD us they were going to come here and use our laws against us to eliminate all infidels. And we know this because 1) they told us and keep on telling us that they are going to do it and 2) because they are doing it by flocking to small areas and immediately electing terrorist proxies like Illan Omar who then go forth and do everything in their power to illuminate American value and replace them with the very garbage that they "claim" they were fleeing in their own country.

No. Just my personal thoughts and rationale regarding civilians relating certain sentiments. Sorry if I offended.

I am one of the veterans that has always felt a little uneasy when someone says "thank you for your service". But after years of wrangling with that issue I have finally come to the understanding that it is a way for John Q. Public, who really doesn't know what service entails, to show respect and appreciation. And so, I have actually changed my opinion and now look at it as the only way some people have to show their appreciation for those of us who were willing to serve so that they didn't have too.