Marie Yavanovitch Testimony

[Prometheus85]

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.

no this is what she said.

I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I 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 me.

She was briefed about it before her senate confrimation hearings upon her becoming ambassador to Ukraine that took place yrs later. I take it you didn’t watch the testimony as well and just getting your info from right wing media.

And she did not establish the White House has concerns. She said it that it could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. Which we all know according the evidence, there was no conflict of interest.

 

[Shad]

no this is what she said.

I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I 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 me.

She was briefed about it before her senate confrimation hearings upon her becoming ambassador to Ukraine that took place yrs later. I take it you didn’t watch the testimony as well and just getting your info from right wing media.

Which her being briefed on an issue. She was told to defer. If there was no issue she would have not been prepped with an answer. This established the Obama administration had issues with the Biden's and Burimsa being raised as an issue and what she was to say. She could have stuck with "I do not know anything" instead of a referral. When the question is about an individuals knowledge one does not refer to someone else.

Q:What do you know about England?

A:You must ask the Queen about that

Such an answer is not a statement of her knowledge.

I was not quoting her.

No I watched the C-span video.

There is also this from Ukraine

Top Ukrainian justice official says US ambassador gave him a do not prosecute list

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Oh for the love of.....

Members of the Committee are not employees of the Committee. There's a reason the rules specify "members" and "employees"....they're not the same thing. If they were, they'd use the same label for both.

More so Schiff said counsel only which is not in either source.

The GOP Counsel is an employee of the Committee (he's being paid to be there and can ask questions, even though he's not a member). That's why members are able to yield their time to counsel, and have done so.

Sheesh.

 

[Prometheus85]

Which her being briefed on an issue. She was told to defer. If there was no issue she would have not been prepped with an answer. This established the Obama administration had issues with the Biden's and Burimsa

I was not quoting her.

No I watched the C-span video.

There is also this from Ukraine

Top Ukrainian justice official says US ambassador gave him a do not prosecute list

What?


By prepped they mean told her to direct questions about a person and a company she knew nothing about back to those who do have knowledge.

Sounds truly nefarious.

And if it was a problem that it is now, why didn't any Republicans raise the issue during her confirmation hearings?

also that do not Prosecute list has already been Proving to be a lie by the person who started it.

Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko admits U.S. ambassador didn't give him a do not prosecute list

 

[Shad]

What?


By prepped they mean told her to direct questions about a person and a company she knew nothing about back to those who do have knowledge.

The question was about her knowledge. You do not defer to someone else about your own knowledge. More so it establishes that the Obama administration had concerns about questions involving the Bidens and Bursima.

Sounds truly nefarious.

It establishes there was concern by the WH.

And if it was a problem that it is now, why didn't any Republicans raise the issue during her confirmation hearings?

The same reason why Dems ignored the withholding funding by Biden and Obama yet go after Trump for withholding funding. An agenda and opportunity.

 

[Jose Fly]

The same reason why Dems ignored the withholding funding by Biden and Obama yet go after Trump for withholding funding. An agenda and opportunity.

Good grief, where the heck have you been? In the first day of public hearings, Democrats asked Ambassador Taylor and George Kent about that and they reiterated the fact that it was all done in concert with international efforts (EU and IMF) and bipartisan US foreign policy.

Again.....sheesh.

 

[Prometheus85]

Good grief, where the heck have you been? In the first day of public hearings, Democrats asked Ambassador Taylor and George Kent about that and they reiterated the fact that it was all done in concert with international efforts (EU and IMF) and bipartisan US foreign policy.

Again.....sheesh.

constantly repeating false claims is straight outta the denialist handbook. I also noticed how he ain’t got nothing to say about that debunked "do not prosecute list" conspiracy theory.

 

[Jose Fly]

constantly repeating false claims is straight outta the denialist handbook. I also noticed how he ain’t got nothing to say about that debunked "do not prosecute list" conspiracy theory.

He's definitely racking up quite the "greatest hits" list. My favorite so far is when he demanded I provide evidence that J. Biden was acting in concert with the EU, IMF, and bipartisan US foreign policy, I provided sources saying exactly that. And how did he respond? By saying all I had done was "throw a bunch of links" at him!

Denialism certainly is something to behold.

 

[Prometheus85]

The question was about her knowledge. You do not defer to someone else about your own knowledge. More so it establishes that the Obama administration had concerns about questions involving the Bidens and Bursima.

what part of she didn’t have any knowledge on hunter Biden and Bursima and being prepped on it before her senate confrimation hearings are u not understanding? Also it was brought up as a topic for a practice Q&A before she was to be questioned by Senate before being confirmed for her job. That is not the same as it being raised as an issue by her superiors or colleagues as a part of her job as diplomat.

As we all know the joe/hunter Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory has been debunked to hell and back. But keep trying to convince yourself otherwise.

 

[Shad]

Oh for the love of.....

Members of the Committee are not employees of the Committee. There's a reason the rules specify "members" and "employees"....they're not the same thing. If they were, they'd use the same label for both.

Guess I was wrong.

The GOP Counsel is an employee of the Committee (he's being paid to be there and can ask questions, even though he's not a member). That's why members are able to yield their time to counsel, and have done so.

I thought the man next to Nunes was a member of the Committee.

 

[Shad]

what part of she didn’t have any knowledge on hunter Biden and Bursima and being prepped on it before her senate confrimation hearings are u not understanding?

She did have knowledge just not much. She knew the WH wanted to refer questions about both to the WH. That is still knowledge. Just nothing big. The point is not her messing up. The point is the WH told her what to say about specific questions. The WH had the issue.

Also it was brought up as a topic for a practice Q&A before she was to be questioned by Senate before being confirmed for her job. That is not the same as it being raised as an issue by her superiors or colleagues as a part of her job as diplomat.

I never claimed such. Strawman.

As we all know the joe/hunter Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory has been debunked to hell and back. But keep trying to convince yourself otherwise.

Hah right. A man with no knowledge of the industry nor nation gets a job on his merit..........The guy kicked out the military for doing coke. Sounds legit.

You are still attacking a strawman.

 

[Jose Fly]

Guess I was wrong.

I thought the man next to Nunes was a member of the Committee.

Thank you.

So then the Republicans' grousing about all this was a bit of a sideshow, wasn't it?

 

[Shad]

Good grief, where the heck have you been? In the first day of public hearings, Democrats asked Ambassador Taylor and George Kent about that and they reiterated the fact that it was all done in concert with international efforts (EU and IMF) and bipartisan US foreign policy.

Again.....sheesh.

You are attacking a strawman. You are assuming my point. My point is was the rejection of the demand.

 

[Shad]

Thank you.

So then the Republicans' grousing about all this was a bit of a sideshow, wasn't it?

The rule breaking? Yes. It's like the sit-in stunt. The GOP could have filled a Resolution for debate and vote. It would take days to weeks to get going. Dems may just agree at the end of the process given Dems opened the hearings. That is too much time for low and unreliable optics.

 

[Shad]

He's definitely racking up quite the "greatest hits" list. My favorite so far is when he demanded I provide evidence that J. Biden was acting in concert with the EU, IMF, and bipartisan US foreign policy, I provided sources saying exactly that. And how did he respond? By saying all I had done was "throw a bunch of links" at him!

Wrong. This is completely fabricated. My point was about quid pro quo by Biden for aid that had nothing to do with corruption. Just as Trump asking for an investigation has nothing to do with aid.

Denialism certainly is something to behold.

You are making stuff up.

 

[Shad]

constantly repeating false claims is straight outta the denialist handbook. I also noticed how he ain’t got nothing to say about that debunked "do not prosecute list" conspiracy theory.

Wrong. You are assuming I have knowledge then rejected it instead of lacking that knowledge. You are also assuming what I am going to do just to grandstand. This is nothing but a fantasy in your head. You are delusional. Impressive that you openly talking about your fantasies in public.

 

[Jose Fly]

The rule breaking? Yes. It's like the sit-in stunt. The GOP could have filled a Resolution for debate and vote. It would take days to weeks to get going. Dems may just agree at the end of the process given Dems opened the hearings. That is too much time for low and unreliable optics.

Agreed.

Wrong. This is completely fabricated.

*SIGH*

"A linked article does not mean it turn's into evidence because you say so. More so you couldn't even prove your claim that Biden's action had support. You still can't. Try again." Exactly as I described.

You are making stuff up.

You should be more careful in your accusations.

 

[Shad]

Agreed.


*SIGH*

"A linked article does not mean it turn's into evidence because you say so. More so you couldn't even prove your claim that Biden's action had support. You still can't. Try again." Exactly as I described.

You still didn't support your claim. You presented support after the fact not evidence of Biden doing it on the behalf of those groups. That was my point. Like I said, a fabrication by you.

You should be more careful in your accusations.

You read the wrong post. Try again. If you look at the comment chain it was about Obama withholding aid. Again a user made up a fantasy because I had not linked a source within the time frame they wanted. You commented on that to which I made response regarding your after the fact support being the same as Biden's action was done for the same reason. You still have no evidence Biden did anything on the behalf of anyone nor group. Further more my point was that withholding aid unrelated to corruption was akin to withholding aid for an investigation.

As I said it is a fabrication as you are only voicing your view of our discussion and commentary. You didn't link what was actually being discussed between you and I. Namely what you called evidence and what I said about it. You just made a smear toward me to another user.

 

[Jose Fly]

You still didn't support your claim. You presented support after the fact

LOL.....what?

I didn't provide support, except for the support I provided? And how could I do anything except provide it "after the fact"? I could only support it after you demanded it, and after the original event occurred. I don't have a time machine!

not evidence of Biden doing it on the behalf of those groups.

First, I didn't say it was "on behalf of" those groups, I said he acted in concert with and with the support of the EU, IMF, and US Congressmen from both parties.

Second, now that George Kent has publicly testified that J. Biden was acting according to official US foreign policy, notice how Republicans have pretty much dropped the whole "Biden did it too" talking point?

 

[Shad]

LOL.....what?

I didn't provide support, except for the support I provided? And how could I do anything except provide it "after the fact"? I could only support it after you demanded it, and after the original event occurred. I don't have a time machine!

The claim as in why Biden was going to withhold foreign funding. I asked for evidence of Biden's actions were on the behalf of those group not that those group supported his action after the fact. There is a difference.

First, I didn't say it was "on behalf of" those groups, I said he acted in concert with and with the support of the EU, IMF, and US Congressmen from both parties.

I am not using behalf as representation but support and assistance.

Second, now that George Kent has publicly testified that J. Biden was acting according to official US foreign policy, notice how Republicans have pretty much dropped the whole "Biden did it too" talking point?

You mean the statement that actions by Trump compared to that of Biden were "not the same, his statement or a question. I need a reference point.

Republicans never dropped that point really.