Marie Yavanovitch Testimony

[Jollybear]

No it didn’t. You just copied and pasted some right wing nonsense. Which I find odd. Because you allegedly watched the whole 7hours of her testimony and yet came to the conclusion that she lied based on two statements that were taken outta context but right wing media.

In any case here’s a clip of her being asked about her Being briefed on hunter Biden prior to her senate confrimation hearings.

So, in that video you just posted, she said she WAS AWARE of hunter and burisma.

Now, listen to me very carefully, because your getting NO RESPECT from me pale. What i posted to you of yovonavich two statements wer not right wing made up words, they wer her exact words IN CONTEXT!

Now, here is the news source that put the two statements together and made there point.

And below the article IS THE VIDEO for all to verify its authenticity! If you deny that, your not credable!

Um, Did Yovanovitch Lie In Her Testimony?

 

[Prometheus85]

So, in that video you just posted, she said she WAS AWARE of hunter and burisma.

Now, listen to me very carefully, because your getting NO RESPECT from me pale. What i posted to you of yovonavich two statements wer not right wing made up words, they wer her exact words IN CONTEXT!

Now, here is the news source that put the two statements together and made there point.

And below the article IS THE VIDEO for all to verify its authenticity! If you deny that, your not credable!

Um, Did Yovanovitch Lie In Her Testimony?

She was made aware of it to prepare her for her senate confrimation hearings. Meaning she didn’t know anything about prior. You just can’t help being a liar and dishonest. And as usual your sources are predominantly form right wing media. In this case it’s townhall. Which is a hotbed for right wing wingnut paranoia

 

[Jollybear]

She was made aware of it to prepare her for her senate confrimation hearings.

Who cares the reason she was made aware of it, SHE WAS MADE AWARE OF IT! Thats the point! And despite being made aware of it, her first statement she said she was not aware of it!

DUH.....!!!!! CLUE IN pale!

Also, this isnt about right wing vs left wing, this is about truth vs lies and truth is not validated by your feelings toward the right wing.

Meaning she didn’t know anything about prior. You just can’t help being a liar and dishonest. And as usual your sources are predominantly form right wing media. In this case it’s townhall. Which is a hotbed for right wing wingnut paranoia

The source i gave you quotes her words IN CONTEXT and validates it by giving you the videos below it.

Its documented. Its not made up. Thus its PROOF. Its NOT propaganda. Its REAL.

To call it propaganda is in itself propaganda! Your the one thats being dishonest. Go look in the mirror and say that again.

 

[Shad]

What’s everyone’s takeaway form her testimony?

She heard gossip and let out that the WH under Obama told her what to say about the Bidens perjuring herself. She vindicated Trump by admitting there was an issue at the WH level.

 

[Shad]

Um that's because the Republicans were disruptive and kept trying to talk out of turn.
There are rules, ya know.

Wrong. She had the right to speak according the rules as she is a member of committee itself.

 

[Shad]

To call it propaganda is in itself propaganda! Your the one thats being dishonest. Go look in the mirror and say that again.

A lot of users do not read anything they link nor what is linked to them. Get use to it. Maybe toss in some mockery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No they wernt disruptive lier! Thats a flagrant lie!

Absolutely they were. They continually tried to speak out of turn, then got all bent out of shape when told it wasn't their turn.
They've been doing that since the hearings started.

Actually, my last post to him refuted HIM. Its not the other way around.

Nope. I think you should read it again and watch Yovanovich's testimony again.

But hey, i saw you both talking about my post to eachother. Fill up, keep reinforcing eachother into your BS.

Sorry your feelings are hurt but that doesn't make our points bull****.

Watch the hearing again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

David Holmes
Witness overheard US ambassador tell Trump that Ukraine would investigate Biden - CNNPolitics

I think he's testifying publicly this week. Not 100% sure on that though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong. She had the right to speak according the rules as she is a member of committee itself.

Who? Stafanik? It wasn't her turn when she first tried to question Yovanovitch. She got her turn shortly afterward and was allowed to ask all the questions she wanted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who cares the reason she was made aware of it, SHE WAS MADE AWARE OF IT! Thats the point! And despite being made aware of it, her first statement she said she was not aware of it!

DUH.....!!!!! CLUE IN pale!

Also, this isnt about right wing vs left wing, this is about truth vs lies and truth is not validated by your feelings toward the right wing.

The source i gave you quotes her words IN CONTEXT and validates it by giving you the videos below it.

Its documented. Its not made up. Thus its PROOF. Its NOT propaganda. Its REAL.

To call it propaganda is in itself propaganda! Your the one thats being dishonest. Go look in the mirror and say that again.

Oh, come on. With you, everything is about right wing versus left wing. That's abundantly clear from almost every single one of your posts. Let's not kid ourselves.

What she said in her opening statement was that during her tenure in Ukraine, Biden/Burisma was never raised as an issue.

 

[Prometheus85]

Who cares the reason she was made aware of it, SHE WAS MADE AWARE OF IT! Thats the point! And despite being made aware of it, her first statement she said she was not aware of it!

DUH.....!!!!! CLUE IN pale!

Context matters. She made of aware of it because she didn’t know about it perviously. I mean she said it herself in the video I gave u. Her first statement was apart of her opening testimony where she talked about her many yrs of government service and although she have met former Vice President 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 her. I know how you like to cherry pick and take peoples words out of context in order to suit your false beliefs. It’s your M.O. after all. Also I find it ironic that someone that claimed to watch the WHOLE 7hrs of testimony and is yet completely clueless about what was talked about in that testimony is telling me to clue in.

Also, this isnt about right wing vs left wing, this is about truth vs lies and truth is not validated by your feelings toward the right wing.

Actually where u get your sources from are very important. Because it’s the right that is spreading lies about her and trying to smear her. While it’s the left that’s reporting on her in a "fair and balanced" way, no pun attended. You’re the one that wants to believe the lies of the right in Oder to validate your feelings towards the left.

The source i gave you quotes her words IN CONTEXT and validates it by giving you the videos below it.

i already proved that your source is nothing but right wing propaganda. Also how to do sum up a 7hr testimony that you claimed to watch based on a 1min video that was obviously edited to make it look she lied and contradicted herself?

 

[Prometheus85]

She heard gossip and let out that the WH under Obama told her what to say about the Bidens perjuring herself. She vindicated Trump by admitting there was an issue at the WH level.

What!?

Oh sweet baby jesus, this is like Hillary's half-price uranium clearinghouse. Just be quiet.

 

[Jose Fly]

Who? Stafanik? It wasn't her turn when she first tried to question Yovanovitch. She got her turn shortly afterward and was allowed to ask all the questions she wanted.

Another Republican member tried to give his time to her, which is against the rules (that apply to everyone). That the GOP was prepared with talking points about the incident indicates it was staged to try and distract from the actual proceedings.

 

[Prometheus85]

No they wernt disruptive lier! Thats a flagrant lie!.

apparently you don’t have a problem with the republicans trying to brake the rules so they can put on a farce, but you do have a problem with the democrats trying to remind the republicans of the rules. What was that about this not being about the left or the right to validate that ones feelings?

How Republicans Tried to Manufacture Outrage During Friday’s Impeachment Hearing

 

[SkepticThinker]

Another Republican member tried to give his time to her, which is against the rules (that apply to everyone). That the GOP was prepared with talking points about the incident indicates it was staged to try and distract from the actual proceedings.

Yes, exactly! I should have said that in my response.
Thank you.

 

[Shad]

Who? Stafanik? It wasn't her turn when she first tried to question Yovanovitch. She got her turn shortly afterward and was allowed to ask all the questions she wanted.

Nunes deferred time to her which he can do as she is a member of the committee.

 

[Shad]

Another Republican member tried to give his time to her, which is against the rules (that apply to everyone). That the GOP was prepared with talking points about the incident indicates it was staged to try and distract from the actual proceedings.

It wasn't against the rules. She is a committee member that can have the minority leader defer time to her.

 

[Shad]

What!?

Oh sweet baby jesus, this is like Hillary's half-price uranium clearinghouse. Just be quiet.

Not really. She stated in her opening statement she had no knowledge of Bidens nor Bursima when in fact she was told what to say regarding any question by the WH. A small lie but still a lie. She establishes even the WH had issues with the Bidens and Bursima.

 

[Jose Fly]

It wasn't against the rules. She is a committee member that can have the minority leader defer time to her.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...psci_chm_memo_to_members_on_open_hearings.pdf (emphasis mine)

"Pursuant to H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may conduct at the outset of
each open hearing extended rounds of questioning for periods of up to 90 minutes, as
determined by the Chair and split evenly between the two sides. As specified in H. Res.
660, the Chair and Ranking Member may not yield time to other Members during these
extended question periods, though either may yield time to Majority and Minority
Committee Counsels, respectively."

 

[Shad]

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...psci_chm_memo_to_members_on_open_hearings.pdf (emphasis mine)

"Pursuant to H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may conduct at the outset of
each open hearing extended rounds of questioning for periods of up to 90 minutes, as
determined by the Chair and split evenly between the two sides. As specified in H. Res.
660, the Chair and Ranking Member may not yield time to other Members during these
extended question periods, though either may yield time to Majority and Minority
Committee Counsels, respectively."

Wrong.

(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.

She is a Permanent Select Committee employee. More so Schiff said counsel only which is not in either source.

When Warren broke the rules she was called a hero.

‘Nevertheless, She Persisted’: How Senate’s Silencing of Warren Became a Meme