I saw the start of her opening statement which was a “please feel sorry for me” story. The tears will follow.
She was fired, and now she gets an opportunity to sling dirt at the guy that fired her?!
I just smh at the lack of credibility.
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?
The third question could vary from witnes to witness.
16. Did you, at anytime during your tenure as Ambassador, meet with or have electronic conversations with Mister Christopher Steele? Did you debrief the Secretary regarding that meeting/conversation?
and here are a few more from another posting:
1. Is it common practice for Ambassadors to call the President directly?
2. Is it common practice to use unsecured cell phones to talk to the President?
3. Is it common practice to talk to the President on an unsecured cell phone while in a public place?
4. Did he have the thing on speaker phone, or did the staffer just hear one side of the conversation?
5. Who called who?
The banality and rot within our government is much worse than even I thought.
Good questions. Did someone submit them to Jim Jordan or another GOP House member?
Q: “Why was Ukraine the the number one donor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and where did the money come from?”
I sure hope that the 'pubs tear her apart!
If she gets this question wrong, there's no reason to ask her anything else.
More like 43 questions, but good ones regardless.
Bttt
Uh... Joe Biden/Hunter Biden/Burisma/Democrats were being investigated before Donald Trump became President. The Dems even tried to halt the investigation, including today's impeachment witness who in her position of power, tried to tell the Ukrainian government WHOM they could NOT INVESTIGATE.
She just lied. She said under oath that Lutsenko recanted.
He did not.
A butt hurt Ambassador.
This is the best they got?
She is crying.
F them.
Boo hoo
This is how her testimony will affect the Department of State:
1. Presidents will no longer trust career Ambassadors.
2. The lives of State Dept. officials will become much more chaotic.
3. Everyone’s lives at State will become much more insecure
4. The Executive will gradually de-fund State
5. Foreign governments will know they can unseat Ambassadors and Presidents.
6. The “biggest” of these foreign governments will adhere to the principles of international Marxism.
7. The leftist regime of State will not recognize that they contributed to the decline of American influence.
8. Officers as government officers do will celebrate “huge challenges.”
9. More wars and diplomatic campaigns will ensue. More Democrats will be elected to promote “understanding” and Govt will re-fund State.
10. The U.S. will suffer, the American taxpayer will suffer, and the State Dept. official will benefit from increased power and funding.
Fighting hard for her pension...
I think there is only one question she should be asked.
When did the investigation into corruption involving Burisma start in the Ukraine ?
My question is “What was the US Ambassador doing involving herself in the internal running of Ukraine’s governance?” Everything I heard this woman say was that she was heavily involved in Ukraine’s law enforcement and perhaps even in their elections. She seemed to have her fingers into a lot of the internal affairs of Ukraine, not just representing the US with the government that happened to be in power as she found it, but rather trying to CHANGE things there.
I noticed several times in the Ambassador’s testimony, when she was answering questions, that her eyes shifted distinctly down and to the left. This is a well known sign of lying. . . a sign she is making up her answers as she unconsciously looks toward the imaginative side of the brain as she composes her replies. It was obvious as a red flag waving and jumping up and down proclaiming that ‘I am am lying now!’ She has obvious tells. When she was consulting memory, she would look up and to the right, another pattern of looking toward the area of the brain when consulting real memories.
It was telling that she prefaced her comments by telling the committee members that she really knew NOTHING about events preceding or following her tenure as ambassador, but then answered questions on events, obviously speculating on possible “facts” and making up responses as though she did have authoritative answers to Democrat queries that were dispositive. She most often looked down and to the left during the answering of these type of questions.
In addition, she seems to be enamored of the EXISTING policy put in place by Obama’s State Department, not what President Trump and the new Secretary of State was attempting to do. You can see why a president would want to use a secondary channel of diplomacy out side of the Department of State when the bureaucrats inside the department are part of the “resistance” to his administration, blocking and countering his policies at every opportunity because they disagree with them, or just because they are politically opposed to his political party. We have never seen such a concerted effort by unelected apparatchiks doing such behavior before.