| There are 26 comments on this blog. |
|
|
If true, this is very serious. Surveillance, then a mob style hit on the Ambassador.? I do recall they had to rush her out of the Ukraine. The main question is the credibility of the sources. But if Giuliani is involved Trump is in really hot water.
|
|
|
Yes. If true. One of the players, a Republican Office seeker named Hyde , apparently had mental health issues. He allegedly reported on her whereabouts. So his credibility is an issue.
|
|
|
If you listen to the interview with Rachel Maddow... he says things that help and hurt the arguments of both sides. It will be fun watching both Repubs and Dems claim the statements they like are “true and accurate” while the ones they don’t are the bogus rants of an unreliable witness!
|
|
|
dayum! that guy is about to get epsteined.
|
|
|
Devin Nunes is a dirt bag too...lmao
|
|
|
Trump will still be POTUS after all is said and done.
The Senate won't convict him. This has always been a partisan witch hunt.
The articles of impeachment state, ABUSE OF POWER and OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS.
Some constitutional legal scholars say that these charges are not high crimes
and misdemeanors, necessary to remove the POTUS.
Anyway, I have a better crystal ball that most of you. I got mine at Goodwill.
It's better and cheaper. LOL
Most of you bought yours at Walmart. 
|
|
|
@crane_op, you've done some homework!  <
Trump 2020
|
|
|
Sorry Dems, when you wake up a year from today, Donald Trump will still be your president.
And he'll be rehearsing the inauguration address he will give on Jan. 20, 2021.
Instead of constantly criticizing the President, why don't you tell us who your favorite Dem candidate is, and why that candidate's policies will be good for the country?
|
|
|
It's amazing that the Dems and the media seem to be taking the word of a guy they deem to be a "shady" character. I guess it's convenient for them to do so.
|
|
|
They are all calculated, this is a publicity stunt just like how Rain. It'll rain for a day or two and that's it!
|
|
|
Just curious, is there anyone in this administration or involved in this that isn't considered shady? Asking for a friend...
Let witnesses be called, let a triall commence , and see what the evidence is. ...is that not the least we can ask for?
Im getting so weary of every person who has something damning to say about Trump is either, "shady, out to get him, or a liar"... Trump has surrounded himself with the "best people", his words, not mine..yet when they disagree with him they are suddenly the worst.
Although I have problems with John Bolton being too hawkish I would certainly welcome listening to what he has to say. as he so far seems to be one person who acted in the good of the country. Although I believe his ideas are misguided, I will give him integrity points.
And as for Parnas, acting in self interest and the truth are not mutually exclusive. Time and dates of his documentation certainly seem to hold up. His documents are readily available online, look for yourself. And it seems Ambassador Yovanavitch was correct to be concerned ....
My huge problem with this is the obstruction. When subpoenas are ignored, when I hear legislators say their minds are made up and nothing will change(all the while being under oath of impartial justice..how exactly can you be impartial when you already have your mind made up?) , when witnesses won't be called. You and I could never just ignore a supoena.
My oath was taken to the Constitution not a person or a party.
Are you going to defend one man who fancies himself above the laws of the land , just to annoy the "other side"? A man who believes the other two branches of the government are negligible? A man who thinks himself king?.. Or are you going to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Pick one, you can't choose both. If you think you can, please go back and re-read (or read) the Constitution.
|
|
|
Libertine:
The only problem with your suggestion is that troubling document for the left, called the US Constitution. It specifically calls for the house to determine if they want to impeach any President based on High Crimes and Misdemeanors and the funny thing the two very weak articles of impeachment by the Democrats, (not one Rep vote), does not allege that President Trump broke any specific law at any level, let alone the very high bar of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Finally, the house made its case, now it is the time for Senate to say yeah or nay if the House has proven its case and had provided clear evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. You may not like it but that is what the Constitution calls for and that is what was done for both President Nixon and President Clinton.
By the way, The Independent counsel in President Clinton's case provided evidence that Clinton was guilty of breaking 11 laws (and he did have to give up his law license because of that evidence), but the Senate voted that it was not enough to impeach him, i.e. throw him out of office.
In 10 months the people will decide whether Trump remains President and that will give everybody who dislikes Trump the opportunity to remove him from office!
|
|
|
“Let witnesses be called, let a triall commence , and see what the evidence is. ...is that not the least we can ask for?”
My questions are:
1. Why didn’t you ask this question during the impeachment hearings... where this was supposed to happen.
2. Do you mean he was impeached... without “the evidence” being presented?
It seems there was such a rush to have an impeachment... they wouldn’t slow down for actual evidence and witnesses. I realize the argument is, “Trump blocked the witnesses.” But the reality is, Congress could have had a judge decide concerning witnesses... but that didn’t fit the political timeline.
Now... that it has been decided that Trump is impeached... let’s have the trial to prove it. Doesn’t that sound bass ackwards.
The House voted to impeach on whatever witnesses and evidence they had. Now they should make their case.
|
|
|
By the way... I believe Trump is guilty as fuck concerning trying to strong arm the Ukrainian President. Its obvious there was some benefit in it for him politically... but I am sure the House didn’t prove that was his Primary motivation... which is the only thing that could make it a crime.
If we start prosecuting politicians because there was some personal political benefit in their decisions... the line will be LOONG and Distinguished.
The problem is... this isn’t about what I think. It’s about what can be proven.
It wasn’t proven... but they voted anyway. Now they have to live with it.
|
|
|
Agreed that the Dems did a poor job of not getting Bolton at least to testify . If I were the Dems now I would worry about his testimony now since Trump assassinated the Iranian General. Bolton has high praise for the President after this.
There is just too much coming out now from Parnas and others for it to be swept under the rug. Trump may be better off having Bolton and even Parnas testify now. The sh** might hit the fan in coming months that could make things worse.
|
|
|
That’s fair Crane op
|
|
|
fuck the constitution - let's go back to the articles of confederation
|
|
|
and Nixon was impeached butt never tried!!
knowing his number was up he cut and ran
and High Crimes and Misdemeanors is not a really high bar, hell most of us commit misdemeanors daily - at least I do
|
|
|
and what saved Clinton in his trial?
Monica testified that he never spoke to her about her testimony
he did her, but he didn't try (according to her) to stop her from testifying or to get her to lie
don't really have a point here, butt I thought it was interesting
|
|
|
So Trump gets impeached, Pence takes over and then gets impeached and your new President is Pelosi....... Legal’s rejoice (oh shit! What a bad trip that was).
|
|
|
"he says things that help and hurt the arguments of both sides"
i notice that too. I say call all the witnesses except Hunter Biden and let the chips fall where they may. Hunter Biden wasn't involved in Trump holding back the Ukrainians aid and that why he was impeached.
|
|
|
If all this "new evidence" has any credibility why was it not brought forth in the Congressional hearing ? Seriously.
Regardless of the outcome of the Senate trial this Impeachment hearing done by Congress under Pelosi's watch will go down in history as a huge clusterfuck of a puppet show.
|
|
|
McConnell is going to say the POTUS didnt break any laws. Nothing to the level of removal. The dems are still trying to remove trump because they lost in 2026. All the witnesses dems want to call have only hearsay testimony. Then try to dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of evidence. Then take a vote. They'll do this because it gives cover to Republicans without having a trial.
|
|
|
I know Lev's got some damaging info but theres something about him I just don't trust.
The whole reason he's in the picture is because Rudy G thought he could help get dirt on Joe Biden so what dirt did he find out? Does he have anything thats real or is it all just a big ball of bullshit this guy came up with to try to have friends in high places aka Rudy and Trump.
|
|
|
OB69, you living in an alternate universe?
Tricky Dick was NOT impeached
He left office prior to impeachment after key Republicans told him they couldn't back his play after the Supremes ordered the smoking gun tape released. He was mentally unbalanced.
If you're interested in reading about a champion grifter, check out "Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite", a good read about the Biden Five stealing your money.
Lev Parnas is just another Hail Mary nothing burger by the media that's just realized the circus is leaving town pretty soon and they're about to be forced to sell ad time using real news. And, that means fewer deck chairs on the Titanic as journalists try to find real jobs.
Good laugh today when NYT announced their endorsements, who the fuck cares?
|
|
|
^^^^
Sounds like some interesting reading material. I like your take on Lev Parnas and agree. He and all this "new evidence" is a smoke screen that the Dems hope the Senate and the American people get lost in. I doubt McConnell and the Senate majority will step very far into that quagmire.
And "DUDE"...
"I know Lev's got some damaging info".. is that your Ouija board talking?...
"But theres something about him I just don't trust.""" Couldnt agree more
"... to get dirt on Joe Biden so what dirt did he find out?" That's sorta why its suggested to put Hunter Biden on the stand.
|
| There are 26 comments on this blog. |
