Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Impeachment Thread

No Excuses

By No Excuses
in The Tailgate

Impeachment  

198 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?


Recommended Posts

Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

Hyde should be in front of FBI or Secret Service agents.  He intimated to a third party that he was physically and electronically surveilling - essentially stalkking - a U.S. ambassador in a foreign country.  Investigators should be quickly determining whether he or someone close to him was in Ukraine during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Just observing, I see a lot of people acting as though it's a proven fact that Hyde was personally stalking the Ambassador, over there.  Something which I would assume would be hard to do.  (Don't ambassadors have people assigned to detect and prevent spies and things?)  And which I assume would be hard to prove, if it did happen.  (Assuming nobody got caught at it, at the time.)  

 

Is this really the cold, proven, fact, here?  Or are we maybe jumping a little, just because it is something that is believable?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just observing, I see a lot of people acting as though it's a proven fact that Hyde was personally stalking the Ambassador, over there.  Something which I would assume would be hard to do.  (Don't ambassadors have people assigned to detect and prevent spies and things?)  And which I assume would be hard to prove, if it did happen.  (Assuming nobody got caught at it, at the time.)  

 

Is this really the cold, proven, fact, here?  Or are we maybe jumping a little, just because it is something that is believable?  

 

In private correspondence Hyde was giving supposedly real time accounts of surveillance of Ambassador Yovanovich. The supposed surveillance included monitoring of her phone and computer. The correspondence also hinted at more nefarious things than simply stalking/spying. That demands investigating. 

 

It may be nothing more than a drunken, sick joke Hyde was playing at the time.  I would prefer authorities investigate to make sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

 

In private correspondence Hyde was giving supposedly real time accounts of surveillance of AmbassadorYovanovich. The supposed surveillance included monitoring of her phone and computer. The correspondence also hinted at more nefarious things than simply stalking/spying. That demands investigating. 

 

And now he's claiming it was drunk talk. Jokes. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, twa said:

Maybe Senator if I get tired of working for a living.

 

Me and Cruz might turn your hair gray.

Doubt it. I just registered as a Republican. I want a congressman who loves guns, hates facts, is going to make life miserable for brown people, let Donald Trump go all the way with him on a first date, and promises to make fart noises every time a Democrat is speaking. I think that sort of thing is terribly clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PCS

PCS

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just observing, I see a lot of people acting as though it's a proven fact that Hyde was personally stalking the Ambassador, over there.  Something which I would assume would be hard to do.  (Don't ambassadors have people assigned to detect and prevent spies and things?)  And which I assume would be hard to prove, if it did happen.  (Assuming nobody got caught at it, at the time.)  

 

Is this really the cold, proven, fact, here?  Or are we maybe jumping a little, just because it is something that is believable?  

What Dan said and then these from this article. 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15/democrats-demand-state-release-info-surveillance-yovanovitch-099321

Quote

Democrats demand probe of claims Yovanovitch was tracked

The revelations offered a new twist ahead of Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

It's not clear whether the systems in place for protecting U.S. diplomats from on- and offline surveillance would have discovered the monitoring of Yovanovitch — if it indeed incurred.

A former U.S. ambassador said the State Department needs more funding to improve its cybersecurity, but that its physical security protocols are "very good."

"All of that said, they’re not necessarily going to be looking for threats from a guy running for Congress in Connecticut," the former ambassador said. "To get info on a U.S. person, especially one who is friends with the president, would require jumping through a lot of legal hoops."

 

Diplomatic security "would always tell you about a potential threat, but this was an American, so they probably didn’t even know about it," the former ambassador said.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul agreed. “What’s so odd about this is that it’s allegedly an American who’s doing the surveilling, so who do you go to?” he said. “Hyde also made it sound like somebody was on the inside helping them. As you would imagine, certainly in Russia, we were always wary of the possibility that somebody on the embassy staff could be compromised.”

 

A former senior State Department security official agreed that a threat coming from a fellow U.S. citizen might be more challenging to spot and that there would be additional legal hurdles to investigate it. But the former security official also said some of Hyde's claims appear puffed up, in part because it doesn't take all that much to track the location of a U.S. ambassador overseas.

U.S. ambassadors are generally fairly open about their whereabouts in their host country. They travel in armored vehicles and are often impossible to miss, the former security official said.

 

Quote

It's not clear if Hyde had Yovanovitch's cell phone number, but he could have simply called it to figure out that it was turned off. Less clear was how he would know that her computer was off.

 

*Click Link For More* 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, PCS said:

Ms Hennessey is correct of course. Looking at this as a mob trial,(with SDNY in mind that's not hard to do). 

 

Recall a comment along the lines of "When you're prosecuting the Godfather, very few of your witnesses are going to be saints."  

 

Don't just believe a single thing he tells you.  But use it as a lead, to tell you where to look, to verify it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PCS

PCS

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/EOXjHNVXUAAoqeI.mp4

~~~~~~~~~

 

Holy cow.  Bombshells tonight.

 

Barr and Pence should be sweating a bit.  And Pompeo and Rick Perry are on deck.

 

Parnas downplayed, though, the Hyde bit about monitoring Yovanovich.  Weird, though, that those texts about monitoring her went on for SEVEN DAYS. 

Said he was strange and always drunk. Considering the implications in those texts with Hyde,I can see why Parnas downplayed him. He's in enough trouble already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...