8 thoughts on “Yovanuvitch”

  1. Her defense would argue that whether she did or didn’t have a list of “untouchables” was not a material or relevant fact in her House testimony, while the prosecution would argue “Oh, but it was highly relevant.”

    But while all that would be going on, it would become quite apparent that the corruption the Republicans and Trump are interested in is far, far from “debunked”.

  2. There are competing narratives with one of them being the claim that allegations about Obama and Biden have been debunked. No debunking is ever presented, but the claim is widely repeated. It would be great if the DNC media actually did some debunking and put their evidence and findings out in the public because that would mean there is some legitimate foundation for their narrative. But they don’t do that.

    The DNC media doesn’t do any basic investigations into any of the relevant people in Ukraine. Did Trump hurt relations with Ukraine? They could go talk to people in Ukraine to find out. Was the prosecutor fired really corrupt? Was there a quid pro quo? Was Trump working to benefit Russia in Ukraine? Did Ukraine meddle in our elections? Our media don’t investigate and report on the central questions in the controversies except when to contradict their past reporting, like when they celebrated Ukraine meddling in our election and the prosecution of Manafort.

    Our news media are trash.

    1. Yes, claiming something has been debunked without offering any evidence to support the claim is an old tactic. The press claimed that the Swiftboat veterans claims against John Kerry were debunked back in 2004 but never offered anything other than their say-so to back up the assertion. This was the same year that “fake but accurate” was good enough for the forged memos against W.

      Fear not, however. The market is beginning to catch up with the liars. Business Insider: 7,700 people have lost their jobs so far this year in a media landslide

  3. I’m sorry we picking and choosing now what statements from a Foreign prosecutor to believe? The same prosecutor who is under investigation in his own country.

    He has no physical evidence on the do not prosecute list, so we have a he says vs she says.
    Only physical evidence (kinda internal Ukrainian Memos don’t prove it was provided to the USA) he provided was on a subject that I can not find any direct reference to in her testimony. No direct mention of Franklin Templeton matter in the committee . Closet to what he claimed she testified to was Lutsenko in general wanting to go around the system. Which clearly Lutsenko is not above going around the system, see working with Guilliani/Soloman to get her fired. So no perjury there. Can’t find any reference to how he characterize her testimony to any precision certainly not the “organize his meeting with American Attorney General but you know gentleman there is a procedure for this ” which seem to be provided as a rough quote.

    Thanks Rand for the OAN video link had not seen their particular form of propaganda can see why it effective. (Don’t have the channel and never bothered looking at youtube for it). With their cliff note setting the table style and citing facts with absence of supporting evidence. Particularly making factual statement that Shorkin was investigating Burisma but seen no hard evidence that was the case besides Shorkin saying it is.

    1. Shorkin was fired after he seized property that belonged to Burisma’s owner, which resulted in Joe Biden making another call to Ukraine’s President. Pretty hard to say he didn’t have an investigation going when he was seizing assets as part of it.

      Second, the replacement prosecutor isn’t the only Ukrainian who’s talked about a no-prosecute list.

  4. The Democrats in the House are using naked, partisan political power to bring Articles of Impeachment forward, and the vibe I am getting is that Mr. McConnell and his Republicans will use naked, partisan political power to quickly move to acquittal in the Senate.

    There are activists on the Right, maybe including Mr. Trump in that camp, who want a “You want the Truth? You can’t handle the Truth!” type of trial in the Senate, I am getting this sense that there is a political Middle who thinks the whole thing is stupid and just want to move on.

  5. This quid pro quo attempting to get foreign help to influence the election charge does look serious, assuming Trump actually did it (so far, the Democrats have failed to provide any proof).

    I think the Democrats are about to drop an utter bombshell with incontrovertible proof that’s as clear as black and white. I’ve seen it. It’s a video of Donald Trump, clearly thinking he wasn’t on microphone after the 2012 nuclear security summit, leaning over and saying quietly to President Medvedev that this is his last election and that he needs some space, and that after the election he can be more flexible on issues like missile defense. Donald Trump then reaches over and pats Medvedev’s hand, and Medvedev quietly replied to Trump, “I understand your message about space. I transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin).” And there it is, the quid pro quo, with US missile defenses as the bribe to Putin.

    Here’s the video the Democrats have of Donald Trump dong this, in order to get “space” from Russia in order to be reelected in 2012.

    I think it is very, very clear what is going on here.

Comments are closed.