Trump Tweets at Yovanovitch While She Testifies

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (61 posts)
  1. crankalicious profile image94
    crankaliciousposted 20 months 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.

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 20 months 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.

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 20 months 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.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 20 months 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.

          1. MizBejabbers profile image90
            MizBejabbersposted 20 months 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.

        2. profile image0
          promisemposted 20 months 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

          1. Eastward profile image90
            Eastwardposted 20 months 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.

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 20 months 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

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 20 months 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.

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 20 months 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.

          1. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 20 months 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.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 20 months 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.

    3. DoubleScorpion profile image80
      DoubleScorpionposted 20 months 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?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image59
        Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        Of course she would have been told about it.

      2. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        So we should charge Schiff with intimidation?

        1. Live to Learn profile image79
          Live to Learnposted 20 months 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.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image59
            Randy Godwinposted 20 months 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?

            1. Live to Learn profile image79
              Live to Learnposted 20 months 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.

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 20 months 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.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image59
                  Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  Imagine if it had been Obama trying to intimidate witnesses while they were testifying. The stench would have been great...

                  1. Live to Learn profile image79
                    Live to Learnposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    I can't see Obama tweeting. Too much class.

                2. Live to Learn profile image79
                  Live to Learnposted 20 months 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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image59
                    Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                    Apparently you're waiting for him to shoot someone on 5th Avenue. tongue

              2. Randy Godwin profile image59
                Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                What a nonsense answer. You don't seem to understand the question at all, or are simply afraid to.

                1. Live to Learn profile image79
                  Live to Learnposted 20 months 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.

    4. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 20 months 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.

    5. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 20 months 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/

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 20 months 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.

      2. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 20 months 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.

  2. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 20 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14761577.jpg

    1. PhoenixV profile image65
      PhoenixVposted 20 months 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!

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 20 months 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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image59
        Randy Godwinposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        So you're okay with a Potus holding up much needed aid for his own personal gain? Not surprising, Shar.

        1. Live to Learn profile image79
          Live to Learnposted 20 months 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.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 20 months 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.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 20 months 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.

            1. DoubleScorpion profile image80
              DoubleScorpionposted 20 months 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?

          2. profile image0
            promisemposted 20 months 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.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 20 months 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?

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                ...and Hillary is going to win in a landslide...remember that one?

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 20 months agoin reply to this
              2. profile image0
                promisemposted 20 months 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.

              3. Eastward profile image90
                Eastwardposted 20 months 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.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 20 months 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?

                  1. Eastward profile image90
                    Eastwardposted 20 months 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).

                2. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 20 months 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

                  1. Eastward profile image90
                    Eastwardposted 20 months 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

            2. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 20 months 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)

              1. profile image0
                promisemposted 20 months 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/

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 20 months 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

                2. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 20 months 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.

                  1. profile image0
                    promisemposted 20 months 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

            3. DoubleScorpion profile image80
              DoubleScorpionposted 20 months 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.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image59
                Randy Godwinposted 20 months 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.

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image80
                  DoubleScorpionposted 20 months 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...

                2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 20 months 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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image59
                    Randy Godwinposted 20 months 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.

  3. PhoenixV profile image65
    PhoenixVposted 20 months 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..

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)