drcrinum said:

---

They're really worried. Note one of the authors, Devlin Barrett, was the go-to of Page & Strzok for their leaks. I'll wager he's mentioned a few times in the IG report.

Note: For some reason, this particular WaPo article is not paywalled. I wonder why...(Heh-heh)

---

Yes, at that time Barrett was with the Wall Street Journal. Like many in the media, he is compromised with regard to what he is reporting on. I really hope more of the media's terrible and possibly unlawful behavior gets exposed in the future.

I went that that tweet about the BK standing ovation, a few responses down someone stated that they were two tables over from RR and did see him standing.

No opinion on this, just stating what a responder said.

OPAG said:

---

I went that that tweet about the BK standing ovation, a few responses down someone stated that they were two tables over from RR and did see him standing.

No opinion on this, just stating what a responder said.

---

I guess that's my confusion. Admittedly I've said in this thread I think RR is at worst a grey hat, but how would I know?

I have to assume those in DC have some inkling. So why invite him?

OPAG said:

---

I went that that tweet about the BK standing ovation, a few responses down someone stated that they were two tables over from RR and did see him standing.

No opinion on this, just stating what a responder said.

---

https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-15-essential-questions-for-marie-yovanovitch-americas-former-ambassador-to-ukraine/

Quote:

---

.....
[ol]

Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma Holdings or the Bidens?

What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go to Ukraine in 2018?

In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank?

Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?

John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?

In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports?

Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or harassed?

Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?

On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?

If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?

At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?

At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?

John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry, Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise Burisma with you?

What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?

In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State resources might be improper or illegal?

[/ol]

---

Today is the day Yovanovitch testifies (again) before Schiff's court. Joe Solomon has given the Repubs a list of 15 questions to ask Yovanovitch. I've bolded the biggies IMO.

Transcript of Trump's first telecom with Zelensky from April 2019 released today...a total nothingburger.

IB4 it's not authentic and hearsay is often more reliable [/leftist sycophants]

Wildcat said:

---

IB4 it's not authentic and hearsay is often more reliable [/leftist sycophants]

---

Don't forget that opinions, feelings, thoughts, fears, and concerns are more important than facts.

Rapier108 said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

IB4 it's not authentic and hearsay is often more reliable [/leftist sycophants]

---

Don't forget that opinions, feelings, thoughts, fears, and concerns are more important than facts.

---

The reason Trump released his earlier April telecom with Zelensky today -- Yovanovitch & Schiff had speculated during her previous testimony that Trump had discussed her with Zelensky during the April telecom. Hah!

Yep so quick to refute her speculations that they didn't cross check it with what the official WH readout of the call said.

What I get from the talking heads is if you are a woman and get choked up it's powerful testimony. Much like Blow Hob Ford. Of course we know how that turned out. This woman thinks she is way more important than she is.

The press talking heads who have a natural agreeable temperament are easy to emotionally manipulate. Shocking, I tell you.

This is what I love about Trump and will vote for him again, despite all his other flows. His ability to fight back effectively and "cut them off at the knees" in the face of overwhelming headwind.

drcrinum said:

---

The reason Trump released his earlier April telecom with Zelensky today -- Yovanovitch & Schiff had speculated during her previous testimony that Trump had discussed her with Zelensky during the April telecom. Hah!

---

The Chairman: Do you know whether part of the reason you didn't get a readout of the first call may have involved the President bashing you in the first call?

Ms. Yovanovitch: It's possible.

So it's possible that you know? That's not an answer. Do you know or not? Schiff didn't even pose the question in the hypothetical, just a yes/no.

That is not an answer to the question, just the chairman and a "witness" working together to provide an answer.

Also, does not an ambassador serve at the pleasure of the President? Can he not move those people around as he pleases, even if it might not be (to the State Department's way of viewing things) "the best idea"?

Is this an impeachment inquiry or an HR meeting? Crapping on your ambassador is not an impeachable offense.

BFD.

Yep

Secolobo said:

---

---

And dems will hide behind whataboutism...pathetically and hypocritically.

Did Barry notify all ambassadors or not? Of those, how many did he fire?

Quote:

---

From 2008 to 2011, she was Bush's and Obama's ambassador to Armenia. George W. Bush removed Yovanovitch's predecessor, Ambassador John Evans, from the Armenia post after he rightly called the Turkish Holocaust of Armenians a "genocide." Bush then nominated Richard Hoagland to be U.S. ambassador to Armenia, but he refused to acknowledge the Turkish Holocaust as "genocide," so the Senate rejected him. Yovanovitch was the next nominee for the post, and she got the message not to call it "genocide" but to fudge it enough to placate Armenian Americans, so she played along and refused to call the Medz Yeghern the Turkish Holocaust of 1.5 million Armenians between 191523 a "genocide." In the words of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), reported by the Associated Press on June 19, 2008, when he questioned her during hearings on her nomination,

Quote:

---

It is a shame that career foreign service officers have to be brought before the [Senate Foreign Relations] Committee and find difficulty in acknowledging historical facts, and find difficulty in acknowledging the realities of what has been internationally recognized. And it is amazing to me that we can talk about millions, a million and a half human beings who were slaughtered, we can talk about those who were raped, we can talk about those who were forcibly pushed out of their country, and we can have presidential acknowledgements of that, but then we cannot call it what it is.

---

---

Quote:

---

"We remain troubled by Ambassador Yovanovitch's evasive answers, her outright non-responses, and her refusal, in her replies to Senator Obama and other Senators, to offer anything approaching a reasonable or factually supportable explanation of the reasons behind Administration's misguided policy on the Armenian Genocide," Hamparian said. "This being said, it appears as though Ambassador Yovanovitch and her colleagues have learned from the disastrous Hoagland experience and are coming to understand that the U.S. Senate will not accept and the Armenian American community will never allow an Ambassador to Armenia who denies the Armenian Genocide."
5. On October 2, 2008, towards the end of President George W. Bush's tenure, she was asked while she was U.S. ambassador to Armenia what she would do if the newly elected president would change foreign policy, such as formally calling the Turkish Holocaust of Armenians a "genocide" even though she refused to do so. The ARMINFO News Agency reported,

Quote:

---

"[An] Ambassador serves his president and may be recalled anytime and for any reason," newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to Armenia Marie L. Yovanovitch said in response to [an] ArmInfo question [as to whether] her personal stand on [the] Armenian Genocide will allow her further [to] work at the US Department of State if the new leadership of the White House recognizes Genocide.
"The decision to recall [an] Ambassador fully depends on the president," the American diplomat said avoiding a direct answer to the question. To recall, the former Ambassador John Evans was recalled from Armenia in 2006 for his statements on recognition of [the] Armenian Genocide.

---

---

LINK

Secolobo said:

---

---

So based on the now deleted posts we can declare huffington post fake news. Shocked.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Did Barry notify all ambassadors or not? Of those, how many did he fire?

---

Secolobo said:

---

---

This may be a transcription of the alleged Mifsud tape. Per the article above, it states that the audio tape was in English, a fact which appeared very unusual since Mifsud spoke fluent Italian.

Rats. I was hoping Mifsud was still alive but now I doubt it.

Yeah we do suppose.

Remember, Nunes requested Nellie Ohr as a witness for the Impeachment Inquiry. I had assumed the purpose was to refresh everyone's memory that Nellie had revealed Leschenko as a source for Steele's dossier, in order to support Ukraine interfering in the Election as per Trump in his phone call to Zelensky. Well, wouldn't it be something if Ciaramella was feeding Nellie info for Steele's dossier, & that there was a link to Nuland at the State Department, the latter being intimately involved in spreading the dossier. The rabbit hole is bottomless. I've seen several people speculate on Twitter that Ciaramella may be referenced in the upcoming IG report.

Okay, I havent watched this more than once, but it doesn't look to damned good for the QPQ/Extortion/Bribe/jaywalking crowd.

I wasn't sure where to put this, since i was trying to see if Demani was guilty of targeting on the SC player. We'll discuss tomorrow, but it sure seems to be a pretty good amount of coin to the Bidens, but that's just me!

The disappearance of Mifsud is becoming very mysterious.

https://www.scribd.com/document/435319380/Tim-Morrison-close-door-impeachment-hearing-testimony

The transcript of Tim Morrison's testimony to the secret Kangaroo court is finally out. He was someone who actually listened to the Trump-Zelensky telecom. The document is searchable. If you type in Vindman, you will see that the Repubs asked lots of questions to Morrison about him, & the Dems wouldn't let him answer any questions about who Vindman may have or routinely talked to...to prevent finding out who the whistleblower was. So you can assume with high confidence that Vindman talked to the whistleblower. Note in the highlighted section in the tweet above, Morrison had questions about Vindman's judgment & knew people who thought that Vindman was a leaker. (The highlighted section above is from page 82; missing at the bottom is the answer to the question: "Yes." ...but the Dems would not permit him to identify "Who".)

What does it mean impeach Vindman? He's not an official that went through senate confirmation.