Trump Tweets at Yovanovitch While She Testifies

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (61 posts)

88
crankaliciousposted 4 years ago
Here's that tweet:

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors."

So President Trump did this while Yovanovitch was testifying. Here are various things this brings up:

1. Is this the stupidest thing a President has ever done? This is pretty much straight up intimidation.
2. Is this the most despicable thing a President has ever done? What did Yovanovitch do to deserve this? Do her job? If Trump wanted her gone, why not just replace her without going on a personal attack? He could have done that.
3. Was Yovanovitch personally responsible for failure in Somalia? (anyone who actually tries to say that Yovanovitch had any culpability in Somalia is a certified moron)
4. Is Yovanovitch just an evil person? I listened to the testimony. Didn't seem like it. She didn't seem to have anything against President Trump. She just seemed mystified why, after serving her country for years, she was being dumped on.
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Trump is corrupt, a sociopath, and dumb as a rock due to his narcissism, which prevents him from recognizing his own folly.
  
  He will be gone soon,one way or another.
  reply report
  88
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The Dow just crossed 28k for the first time ever. Don't be so sure. People care about their bank accounts and retirement funds.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I am not sure. The Russians will interfere in our election on Trump's behalf, and given his unwillingness to do his job and address the issue, it could be worse this time.
  reply report
  88
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it could be worse this time, especially since the Republicans are all deaf, dumb and blind boys (and girls) when it comes to their hero. I believe thinking people all have to be worried about this.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Only because large companies are buying back their own stock.
  
  They are using cash they have repatriated from overseas because of the 2018 tax law. Once those funds wind down, the market is is trouble.
  
  The economy also is slowing quickly. At the current rate of decline, the economy will enter a recession next summer -- which is the exact timing experts predicted a year ago when the tax law passed.
  
  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing … ut-in-2020
  reply report
  79
  Eastwardposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I would expect the same. The tax breaks fueled the buybacks as corporations were already holding record amounts of cash reserves. The markets may be up but now, but things will wind down. In the long-term, the markets appreciate stability and predictability as opposed to white-knuckle Twittercoaster rides.
  reply report
2. 82
  Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  U.S. Code § 1512.Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant:
  
  "(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to —
  
  (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
  
  (2) cause or induce any person to—
  
  (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
  
  (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
  
  (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
  
  (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process...
  
  ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both".
  
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
  
  Definition of an "official proceeding" under this statute:
  
  "(1) the term “official proceeding” means— (A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury; (B) a proceeding before the Congress; (C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or (D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;" (my emphasis)
  
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions … ction:1512
  reply report
  88
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Don,
  
  You know their defense, right?
  
  It's not intimidation if they testified because they obviously weren't intimidated or else they wouldn't have testified.
  reply report
  82
  Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  In that case I would draw their attention to the highlighted sections:
  
  (b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
  
  (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
  
  (2) cause or induce any person to—
  
  (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
  
  (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
  
  (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
  
  (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process...
  
  ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both".
  
  C and D may be relevant to Trump's blanket ban on White House officials providing testimony to the inquiry despite being subpoenaed. Arguably some of those who have refused can legitimately claim executive privilege (though I'd suggest that privilege allows them not to answer specific questions rather than not attend at all) but I think a blanket ban, without knowing what questions will be asked, is on shaky legal ground.
  
  If someone with no valid legal reason does not attend a hearing because of Trump, could it be argued that he has corruptly persuaded another person to be "absent from an official proceeding to which they have been summoned by legal process". Obviously that could only be determined by a court of law, but I don't think it's an unreasonable argument.
  reply report
  94
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I think you may want to consider these rules you've listed apply to a federal trial. This is an impeachment inquiry. Two very different things. According to the United States Constitution, the trial takes place in the Senate.
  reply report
  82
  Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Section 1512 of Title 18 applies to an "official proceeding".
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
  
  An "official proceeding" is defined within the statute as (inter alia) "(B) a proceeding before the Congress;"
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions … ction:1512
  
  A Congressional hearing constitutes a "proceeding before the Congress".
  
  Therefore Section 1512 of Title 18 applies to impeachment inquiry hearings.
  reply report
3. 78
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  My question...Would she have even seen it or read it until after the hearing was completed (if at all)...if it hadn't been brought up and read to her by the chairman?
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Of course she would have been told about it.
  reply report
  88
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So we should charge Schiff with intimidation?
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  That isn't the point. If I say something which you could deem intimidating, if you don't hear it I'm not intimidating you. Her testimony was not delivered with knowledge of the statement so she had no reason to feel intimidated.
  
  Schiff might be guilty of being a gossip monger.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  She had already been intimidated by Trump's saying she was going to go through some things and been removed from her position by him. This wouldn't have affected you at all I suppose?
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  She requested the assignment she has. If Trump were going to intimidate her he'd have made her ambassador to Antarctica.
  reply report
  88
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't peg you for a Trump apologist, but clearly you are. If he didn't mean it to intimidate her, it certainly has that effect on other witnesses. Tell the truth, and the President will lie about you. That's not exactly motivating.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Imagine if it had been Obama trying to intimidate witnesses while they were testifying. The stench would have been great...
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I can't see Obama tweeting. Too much class.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  But would it have bothered you if he did so?
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Under the same circumstances, no. Different circumstances, I don't know.
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  All of Washington lies. I see them all for what they are. What I don't see is Trump as bad as the left makes him sound. He's inappropriate. He's outside of the political box. Could he improve? Definitely. Do I see evidence of law breaking? Not at this juncture.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently you're waiting for him to shoot someone on 5th Avenue.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  What a nonsense answer. You don't seem to understand the question at all, or are simply afraid to.
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You ever wonder why we talk to each other? From my perspective, you deny, deny, sidestep and don't approach the discussion head on. God only knows what you think of me.
  
  Let's don't anymore.
  reply report
4. 81
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Marie Yovanovitch was treated horribly. her testimony would have carried no weight. However, Trump chose to belittle her on national network TV. Showing his narcissistic personality in its full glory.
  
  In the end, I see Marie could now be the first building block of abuse of power charges. Her treatment coupled with possible other like incidents could well prove abuse of power. Of course, there would need to be more such incidences. And there well may be more to come.
  
  I must add, Trump could have chosen not to tweet, and Marie's. testimony would have meant little. In my opinion, this ordeal was the first thing to shake Trump's base. No one that watched Marie testify will forget her face when that tweet was read... Trump meant to be cruel, and this has not gone unnoted.
  reply report
5. 94
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  She is a disgruntled FORMER employee.
  
  "The sole witness at Friday's House Intelligence Committee hearing was the defrocked U.S. Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch - stripped of her position last spring by the president."
  
  https://abc7chicago.com/politics/illino … g/5700726/
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I am watching today. More of the same... No information on facts. More or less nothing but opinions of two witnesses who have nothing of value to offer but their work records.
  reply report
  88
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Wow. Is that really your opinion, Mike? That is cold-blooded. It would be one thing if Trump replaced her, but to malign her first and then replace her just seems cruel.
  reply report
94
Readmikenowposted 4 years ago
reply report
1. 64
  PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The Bidens in the Ukraine reminds me of Clintons, looting and Haiti. Because of all the corruption in the Ukraine there are elderly folks lucky to have a very small old potato to eat. On Sundays maybe a radish. Meanwhile, Hunter probably got a new wedding dress outa the deal. Sad!
  reply report
2. 81
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It is time to get on with the vote for impeachment. This is a waste of time and money. I have never in my many years witnessed such a political scam. One would think the Dem's although have a history of vile politicking would not have gone down this road. Pretty scary to see the Dem party implode right before our eyes.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So you're okay with a Potus holding up much needed aid for his own personal gain? Not surprising, Shar.
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It may be just coincidental. If Biden weren't running for office I believe Trump would still have pushed for investigation.
  
  I can tell you this, though. If Biden wins the White House, unless the democrats take both Houses, there will be a push for an investigation. I,personally, would like to see what's at the bottom of this.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  What Gain? A possible impeachment. None of this makes any sense. He needs no help to win in 2020. The Dem's were giving it to him on a silver platter. And still, are...
  
  Not sure if anyone realized Trump had the right to investigate any form of not only election interference but the right to investigate a citizen that he feels committed a crime in their country.
  
  Imagine if Trump's son after he stepped into office was hired on a board of any foreign country let only Ukraine. Being a bit hypocritical. The Biden's need to be investigated now that we have learned of Hunter taking money from three foreign counties for doing zip... Come on Randy this will need investigating. They are in no way above the law. One way to the other these two need to be investigated.
  
  Trump needs to call for an official investigation on the Biden's.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The obvious is so hard to see, isn't it?
  
  Trump hammered Hillary over and over again about her email server and his fans ate it up. He thinks he can win again by painting his opponent as a criminal. He wanted another "crime" to pin on his next opponent because he doesn't have any actual positive messages, only division and lies.
  
  If you've watched the hearings, especially over the last two days, it is crystal clear that Trump ordered the bribery and everyone knew about it.
  
  This is as simple as it gets, and if his supporters can't see it, it's just more evidence that he can get away with murder and they'll find a way to excuse it.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Biden isn't his opponent yet...He is just a nominee...There are about 20 others as well...they are competing against each other at the moment.
  
  Biden isn't looking very good for being the Democrat pick to date...So why choose him...and not Warren or Sanders? Or does everyone already know that Biden will be the pick regardless?
  
  As it is a favorite line...No one is above the law...
  So what is wrong with an investigation...if innocent...it is all good...and if not...
  The problem is...once the word "investigate" is used...it seems that guilt or lack there of, is determined before the investigation is even started...
  
  And why is it...that everyone freaked out so bad at the mention of Biden Jr., Ukraine, and corruption...it seems most of the Democrat party jumped to the defense of Ukraine and Biden Sr...before anything was really even known about...Even though it is pretty common knowledge that Ukraine was known for corruption and Biden Jr worked for that company...What is it about Trump asking for it to be investigated that caused such a stir? If there is nothing to hide, why not just let Trump "hang" himself with a phony investigation...instead of jumping the gun and pretty much stopping Trump in time to ensure there is no evidence to convict him with impeachment?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "He needs no help to win in 2020."
  
  You don't win the Presidency with a 41% approval rating, a recession on the way and the highest disapproval rating in modern U.S. history.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  LOL Seems like we heard much the same thing 3 years ago - everybody hates Trump (both sides of the aisle), he can never be elected. He'll cause another Great Depression, so nobody would every vote for him. He's a crook so no one would ever vote for him.
  
  We'll see, won't we?
  reply report
  94
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  ...and Hillary is going to win in a landslide...remember that one?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not surprised to see a reply that deflects and exaggerates rather than focus on his low approval rating.
  
  I'll believe facts that come from experts rather than your personal opinion.
  
  Otherwise, yes, he could get re-elected, but only if the Russians rig the election once again.
  reply report
  79
  Eastwardposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Seems this rhetoric has switched to Bernie Sanders for 2020. Both sides say no chance but then you see videos of his massive rallies.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yep. And as the stock market continues its meteoric climb to never seen heights we are told a recession, a nasty one, is just around the corner. That would certainly help the Dem's - are they trying to convince us all of that impending recession in the hopes that the rumors will cause a market crash (hurting everyone in the country) and the fall of the economy?
  reply report
  79
  Eastwardposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The yield curve has been a decent past predictor of recession so there is some potential, but correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. As always, there are a lot of variables at play (including politicians that like to attach themselves to market successes and seize upon market failures). Unfortunately, I think there are plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle that benefit greatly from the occasional market shakeup that ratchets their power up a notch while the power of the people wanes (e.g. conversion of homeowners to renters).
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Hi there Eastwood. I understand your point, but, even considering his "massive rallies," I think Bernie is a fringe candidate, and the fringe is not large enough to carry the ballot.
  
  My opinion is that the 'Center' and Independent voters with combine will one "fringe" or another to carry our next election. I don't think Bernie carries enough of those voters.
  
  I also think Pres. Trump has alienated enough of those Center and Independent voters to lose the election. His base is not large enough to get the job done.
  
  If the Democrats pick a "Center/Moderate" candidate, (amazingly I see Buttigieg as fitting that description, or Biden, or, a late entry Centrist), I predict a Democrat victory in 2020.
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Eastwardposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Hi, GA. I understand your point as well but I don't think Bernie is as fringe as MSM presents him. There seems to be a strong overlapping area of support between people that supported Trump and people that would support Bernie (he even managed to get a fair showing of support on Fox https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/16/bernie- … -hall.html). People fed up with The Establishment played the wild card/Trump card and I think they very well may take a similar chance with Bernie given the opportunity. Although, he still has to overcome the hurdle of the DNC's own resistance to his nomination.
  
  I'm no fan of Biden or Buttigieg and think they will represent corporations over people to a more severe extent than I can stomach. For now, Bernie is the only candidate not accepting corporate money, and that speaks volumes to me. Hoping to have my chance to cast a vote for him, but if he doesn't get the nomination, I guess I'll need to re-evaluate depending on who does.
  
  Also, I just came across this article and interview with Noam Chomsky on the issue: https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chom … HtNOEZ2P0c
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Just my opinion. I will also predict he will win in 2020.
  
  Most approval ratings are up today? Rasmussen's have him at 48%
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … rack_nov20
  
  https://www.newsweek.com/trump-approval … ma-1460076
  
  https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … tle-gallup
  
  Actually your info may be wrong I found these numbers. Actually all the presidents listed have historical poor approval ratings. They all are very close, and Bush gets the trophy.
  
  What is the lowest approval rating for any president?
  Historical comparison
  Order President Lowest approval
  45 Trump 35 (10/29/17, 12/01/17)
  44 Obama 38 (09/05/14)
  43 G. W. Bush 25 (10/05/08, 10/12/08, 11/02/08)
  42 Clinton 37 (06/06/93)
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  His average over time is 41%. Comparing his average to the lowest point of other Presidents isn't reasonable.
  
  And Rasmussen is a Republican polling firm that always is 4-5% higher than everyone else.
  
  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr … l-ratings/
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I did not realize you meant an average approval rating? Here is an article that gives a bit more up to date indication of TRump's approval.
  
  https://news.gallup.com/poll/268493/tru … probe.aspx
  
  In regards to Rasmussen, they certainly did a good job pulling in the 2016 election. Please have a look at the article. Did a great job the night of the election.
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … s_it_right
  reply report
  88
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I would think that anyone who opposes Trump's re-election would try to avoid predicting the future, given how well that worked the last time we tried.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, it went quite well last time. Polls at election time showed that Clinton would win the popular vote by 3%.
  
  She won it by 2%, which is well within the margin of error.
  
  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -5952.html
  reply report
  88
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I just hate it when people try to tell other people how it's going to be based on future predictions. We should be encouraging people to vote, that's it.
  
  CNN is guilty of this - oh, everything points to us winning, so no need to vote!
  
  That said, I was just listening to a recording of Nate Silver. He also had it pretty close. He said his model had Clinton at 270 electoral votes, but that because of the college, she was much more likely to lose than Obama four years prior.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  His approval rating was at 52% last time I checked...
  And the economy is very strong..
  
  People vote because of their wallets...and unless something in the economy changes between now and election time...Trump is probably going to win in a landslide...
  
  The Dem nominees only have a "Stop Trump" campaign strategy...they barely talk about policy...and that is not going to fair well for them...Those in the middle or independent are not seeing anything from the Dem side that explains what the candidates have to offer...Free...doesn't appeal to those who are middle or independent...Stop telling me how much you hate Trump (I already know that part) and tell me what you are going to do to improve this country and my interests. All I have heard so far is "Hate Trump" and free everything, but I am going to tax you heavily for it, even if you don't use it.
  This type of talk isn't doing anything for me, and many, many of the other independent types or those who stay in the middle area of politic policies.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  We're going to get rid of a criminal who should never have been allowed to step foot in the Oval Office. This will do more to improve the country than anything else.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Any actual proof of crimes? Or just hearsay and speculation?
  
  I don't remember him being in criminal court prior to his running?
  
  And didn't HRC even say that she would like to see him run for President back in the day?
  He changed parties from Dem to Rep and became the bad guy...
  
  Actually...what is going to happen (if the Dem's don't change their tactics), is Trump is going to get re-elected and the Dem will end up losing the house as well...
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, don't be so sure. The Dem's in Washington are doing the party no favorite with this impeachment inquiry. Common sense tells one it has no chance of going nowhere and leaves many thinking the Dem's are a nothing but bitter do-nothing party. The candidates offer nothing in the way of plausible agendas. They have scared independence off with all the foolishness. It's not hard to see they won't be able to beat Trump, and it's there own fault. They won't see the inside of the WH for many years.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  As I stated on another thread, I realize there were many ignorant people who voted for Trump the first time, and some of them haven't learned he's a corrupt cretin. So these same people are still here and many still support the criminal.
  reply report
64
PhoenixVposted 4 years ago
There seems to be some information trickling out about Franklin Templeton, the acquisition of Ukrainian Debt, laundering of billions, the source of Hunter Bidens payments for services, indictments of Burisma etc. Maybe someone here can find out more..
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Trump Tweets at Yovanovitch While She Testifies

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Trump Tweets at Yovanovitch While She Testifies

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies