House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment

[Oldstyle]

So we have stuff from a left rag that claims notes which could have been written by anyone is earth shattering news.

Geesh. You've become so conditioned to reject anything that adds to the evidence of Trump's guilt it's like a reflex reaction.

WASHINGTON — On the eve of a historic impeachment trial, new details emerged of President Trump’s campaign to solicit political interference from Ukraine, intensifying pressure on Senate Republicans to include witness testimony and additional documents in their proceeding.

Even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a Wednesday vote to name House prosecutors and send the articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump to the Senate for the long-awaited start of the trial, Democrats released a tranche of previously unseen records that bolstered their case.

It included dozens of pages of notes, text messages and other records provided to the Intelligence Committee by Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, detailing work the men did in Ukraine on behalf of the president.

Among them were handwritten notes scrawled on a sheet of hotel paper at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Vienna that mention getting President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to announce an investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, and a May 2019 letter from Mr. Giuliani requesting a meeting with Mr. Zelensky in which he said Mr. Trump had “knowledge and consent” of his actions.
House to Send Impeachment Charges to Senate as New Evidence Emerges

It's fine to be skeptical about some of the info until its authenticity can be verified. But dismissing it out of hand is..........oh wait...........it's what Trumpers do with incriminating evidence that is revealed.

We're "skeptical" because you on the left have lied about this stuff so often it's become farce at this point! How many times do you think a rational person should believe you when time after time you're shown to have lied? You think anyone should believe anything that comes out of Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler or Nancy Pelosis mouths at this point? Why?

It's far more than just scribbled notes. Text messages, emails all corroborate the case Democrats have been making. Are you going to claim those are false as well?

What case? That Trump asked the Ukraine to look into apparent corruption by Joe Biden? That he also asked them to look into apparent collusion between the Democrats and elements in the Ukraine meddling in our elections? I'm not going to claim that ANY of that is "false"...what I'm going to state quite emphatically is that none of it is an impeachable offense! If it is then kindly explain why the Obama Administration looking into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians (which they KNEW was based on lies paid for by the Clinton campaign!) wasn't an impeachable offense five years ago!

Did Obama order the DoJ to investigate the Trump campaign when the DoJ had no interest or intention to do so? Did Obama order the DoJ to work with campaign staff from Clinton to keep them informed of the status? Did Obama demand the DoJ announce the investigation into the Trump campaign? Did Obama prevent anyone from discussing these matters with Congress?

The answer to all these questions is no. That’s the difference.

You had high ranking members of the FBI, the CIA and the NSA conspiring with the Clinton campaign against Trump! That's unprecedented in the history of our elections and it all happened on Barack Obama's watch.

 

[kyzr]

They can vote to remove all hearsay evidence if they choose. Doing so would be a violation of their oath of impartiality.

Dershowitz helped Epstein avoid paying for his actions. He got OJ off the hook for murder. Tell me why they should listen to him.

Show me where the Constitution says that Trump can fight subpoenas in court because I can show you where the Constitution says they can impeach him.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

Sondland was the dumbest fucking millionaire I ever saw, he had no clue WTF he was testifying to. The GOP congressmen did a great job unwinding his testimony.

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're arguing what - the witnesses aren't adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukrainian President.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Lets try this again...
1. There was no crime, period, full stop. There was no extortion, Trump asked Zelensky to have his guy work with Barr.
2. Trump has every right to withhold the military aid temporarily, its in the law, and he released it within the allotted window.
3. Oh please, prove Trump asked for "dirt" in exchange for aid, you can't, stop lying. Trump gave them Javelin anti-tank weapons when the democrats just sent "blankets", and the hot war ended in 2015, its been a sniper war since then.
4. Stop the shit with "helping" Russia too. Trump has them sanctioned. Obama was more "flexible" with Russia, not Trump.
5. The impeachment Articles are a joke and will be dismissed. Trump will be acquitted and re-elected. Enjoy the next 5 or so years.

1. Trump never involved Barr. He may have said that but clearly didn’t mean it. He only involved Rudy.
2. The law does not say anything about a temporary hold. His actions were without any legal justification and their legality is highly questionable. He didn’t actually release it in the window. Many millions were never allocated because they didn’t have enough time. The administration was caught lying about this.
3. He didn’t give them javelins. He allowed them to buy them. It’s just a nit pick though. Either way, he demonstrated we aren’t a reliable partner.

1. In the call he did mention Barr and Rudy. I have no clue if Barr should (or wanted to) get involved in Burisma, he seems to have enough on his plate with the FBI and Crossfire Hurricane.
2. The law says that he needs to be sure there is no corruption before he sends the money. You're right, it doesn't mention a hold. Point being Trump has some flexibility to not send the money. I'm sure we'll get into the weeds about that law during the trial, and what Trump did or didn't do correctly..
3. During the Ukraine "hot war" with Russia (2014-2015) the Obama admin did NOT send them lethal aid. Trump did send Javelins, thats a much more reliable partner than Obama.
Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed
"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million."

 

[colfax_m]

Geesh. You've become so conditioned to reject anything that adds to the evidence of Trump's guilt it's like a reflex reaction.

WASHINGTON — On the eve of a historic impeachment trial, new details emerged of President Trump’s campaign to solicit political interference from Ukraine, intensifying pressure on Senate Republicans to include witness testimony and additional documents in their proceeding.

Even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a Wednesday vote to name House prosecutors and send the articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump to the Senate for the long-awaited start of the trial, Democrats released a tranche of previously unseen records that bolstered their case.

It included dozens of pages of notes, text messages and other records provided to the Intelligence Committee by Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, detailing work the men did in Ukraine on behalf of the president.

Among them were handwritten notes scrawled on a sheet of hotel paper at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Vienna that mention getting President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to announce an investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, and a May 2019 letter from Mr. Giuliani requesting a meeting with Mr. Zelensky in which he said Mr. Trump had “knowledge and consent” of his actions.
House to Send Impeachment Charges to Senate as New Evidence Emerges

It's fine to be skeptical about some of the info until its authenticity can be verified. But dismissing it out of hand is..........oh wait...........it's what Trumpers do with incriminating evidence that is revealed.

We're "skeptical" because you on the left have lied about this stuff so often it's become farce at this point! How many times do you think a rational person should believe you when time after time you're shown to have lied? You think anyone should believe anything that comes out of Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler or Nancy Pelosis mouths at this point? Why?

It's far more than just scribbled notes. Text messages, emails all corroborate the case Democrats have been making. Are you going to claim those are false as well?

What case? That Trump asked the Ukraine to look into apparent corruption by Joe Biden? That he also asked them to look into apparent collusion between the Democrats and elements in the Ukraine meddling in our elections? I'm not going to claim that ANY of that is "false"...what I'm going to state quite emphatically is that none of it is an impeachable offense! If it is then kindly explain why the Obama Administration looking into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians (which they KNEW was based on lies paid for by the Clinton campaign!) wasn't an impeachable offense five years ago!

Did Obama order the DoJ to investigate the Trump campaign when the DoJ had no interest or intention to do so? Did Obama order the DoJ to work with campaign staff from Clinton to keep them informed of the status? Did Obama demand the DoJ announce the investigation into the Trump campaign? Did Obama prevent anyone from discussing these matters with Congress?

The answer to all these questions is no. That’s the difference.

You had high ranking members of the FBI, the CIA and the NSA conspiring with the Clinton campaign against Trump! That's unprecedented in the history of our elections and it all happened on Barack Obama's watch.

It’s not only unprecedented, its also bullshit.

 

[colfax_m]

1. How would voting to disallow hearsay evidence violate any oath of impartiality? That is standard practice for evidence, its also in the whistleblower law. Article-1 is dead.

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution says exactly what the USSC says it says. If the USSC says that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, like the House's tax subpoena, then that is what the Constitution says, period. Article-2 is still dead.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're aruging what - the witnesses aren''t adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukranian President.

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

Sondland was the dumbest fucking millionaire I ever saw, he had no clue WTF he was testifying to. The GOP congressmen did a great job unwinding his testimony.

The transcript is not "hearsay evidence". Sondland, Vindland and Volker are not "hearsay witnesses". John Bolton is not a "hearsay witness". Lev Parnas is not a "hearsay witness". Maria Yovanavich is not a "hearsay witness".

Neither article is dead, and once again you're not defending the President's actions, you're arguing what - the witnesses aren't adequate, what. Tossing out lies to confuse the issues.

Why can't you defend what Trump did? Why are you only going after process? Why is no one saying that Trump did a good thing trying to extort the Ukrainian President.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Lets try this again...
1. There was no crime, period, full stop. There was no extortion, Trump asked Zelensky to have his guy work with Barr.
2. Trump has every right to withhold the military aid temporarily, its in the law, and he released it within the allotted window.
3. Oh please, prove Trump asked for "dirt" in exchange for aid, you can't, stop lying. Trump gave them Javelin anti-tank weapons when the democrats just sent "blankets", and the hot war ended in 2015, its been a sniper war since then.
4. Stop the shit with "helping" Russia too. Trump has them sanctioned. Obama was more "flexible" with Russia, not Trump.
5. The impeachment Articles are a joke and will be dismissed. Trump will be acquitted and re-elected. Enjoy the next 5 or so years.

1. Trump never involved Barr. He may have said that but clearly didn’t mean it. He only involved Rudy.
2. The law does not say anything about a temporary hold. His actions were without any legal justification and their legality is highly questionable. He didn’t actually release it in the window. Many millions were never allocated because they didn’t have enough time. The administration was caught lying about this.
3. He didn’t give them javelins. He allowed them to buy them. It’s just a nit pick though. Either way, he demonstrated we aren’t a reliable partner.

1. In the call he did mention Barr and Rudy. I have no clue if Barr should (or wanted to) get involved in Burisma, he seems to have enough on his plate with the FBI and Crossfire Hurricane.
2. The law says that he needs to be sure there is no corruption before he sends the money. You're right, it doesn't mention a hold. Point being Trump has some flexibility to not send the money. I'm sure we'll get into the weeds about that law during the trial, and what Trump did or didn't do correctly..
3. During the Ukraine "hot war" with Russia (2014-2015) the Obama admin did NOT send them lethal aid. Trump did send Javelins, thats a much more reliable partner than Obama.
Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed
"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million."

1. We don’t know how Barr felt about getting involved because he was never informed in any way whatsoever. So we are supposed to believe Trump was acting to root out corruption but failed to involved law enforcement. It fails to pass any smell test.
2. You can’t point to where the law says that because it doesn’t. Think about it for 2 seconds and you’ll see it makes no sense. No corruption? How does anyone claim there is no corruption? The idea that he was ensuring there was no corruption in Ukraine by getting them to investigate Biden is irrational. As if that happens to be the one and only case of corruption that remains. Oh, and that corruption took place years ago. Oh, and it just so happens that one and only case involves his political opponent. What flexibility he does have still requires him to notify Congress. He didn’t because he didn’t want anyone else to find out what he was up to. Everyone was told to keep their mouths shut. Clearly a sign that this was on the up and up. It fails the smell test yet again.

 

[kyzr]

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

Sondland was the dumbest fucking millionaire I ever saw, he had no clue WTF he was testifying to. The GOP congressmen did a great job unwinding his testimony.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Lets try this again...
1. There was no crime, period, full stop. There was no extortion, Trump asked Zelensky to have his guy work with Barr.
2. Trump has every right to withhold the military aid temporarily, its in the law, and he released it within the allotted window.
3. Oh please, prove Trump asked for "dirt" in exchange for aid, you can't, stop lying. Trump gave them Javelin anti-tank weapons when the democrats just sent "blankets", and the hot war ended in 2015, its been a sniper war since then.
4. Stop the shit with "helping" Russia too. Trump has them sanctioned. Obama was more "flexible" with Russia, not Trump.
5. The impeachment Articles are a joke and will be dismissed. Trump will be acquitted and re-elected. Enjoy the next 5 or so years.

1. Trump never involved Barr. He may have said that but clearly didn’t mean it. He only involved Rudy.
2. The law does not say anything about a temporary hold. His actions were without any legal justification and their legality is highly questionable. He didn’t actually release it in the window. Many millions were never allocated because they didn’t have enough time. The administration was caught lying about this.
3. He didn’t give them javelins. He allowed them to buy them. It’s just a nit pick though. Either way, he demonstrated we aren’t a reliable partner.

1. In the call he did mention Barr and Rudy. I have no clue if Barr should (or wanted to) get involved in Burisma, he seems to have enough on his plate with the FBI and Crossfire Hurricane.
2. The law says that he needs to be sure there is no corruption before he sends the money. You're right, it doesn't mention a hold. Point being Trump has some flexibility to not send the money. I'm sure we'll get into the weeds about that law during the trial, and what Trump did or didn't do correctly..
3. During the Ukraine "hot war" with Russia (2014-2015) the Obama admin did NOT send them lethal aid. Trump did send Javelins, thats a much more reliable partner than Obama.
Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed
"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million."

1. We don’t know how Barr felt about getting involved because he was never informed in any way whatsoever. So we are supposed to believe Trump was acting to root out corruption but failed to involved law enforcement. It fails to pass any smell test.
2. You can’t point to where the law says that because it doesn’t. Think about it for 2 seconds and you’ll see it makes no sense. No corruption? How does anyone claim there is no corruption? The idea that he was ensuring there was no corruption in Ukraine by getting them to investigate Biden is irrational. As if that happens to be the one and only case of corruption that remains. Oh, and that corruption took place years ago. Oh, and it just so happens that one and only case involves his political opponent. What flexibility he does have still requires him to notify Congress. He didn’t because he didn’t want anyone else to find out what he was up to. Everyone was told to keep their mouths shut. Clearly a sign that this was on the up and up. It fails the smell test yet again.

1. Last I heard Barr or Durham was following the money. No clue if that leads to any indictments. Time will tell. There was a lot of Ukrainian money flying around the globe since the Ukraine was so corrupt.
The money machine: how a high-profile corruption investigation fell apart

2. I saw the text of the law on TV, I can't find that specific law online. He only had to notify congress if he missed the window to transfer the aid.
Trump and Mulvaney aren't using that as an excuse to delay sending the aid anyway. Here's Mulvaney's 3 reasons for withholding the aid:
Trump–Ukraine scandal - Wikipedia
During an October 17 press conference, White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said he "was involved with the process" of the freezing of military aid. Mulvaney gave his account of why Trump decided to hold back military aid to Ukraine. One, Trump felt the other European countries were not doing enough. Two, Trump felt Ukraine was a "corrupt place" which included having "corruption related to the DNC server" with regard to "what happened in 2016". As a result, reporter Jonathan Karl told Mulvaney "what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: 'Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well'." Mulvaney replied to Karl: "We do that all the time with foreign policy ... Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy." Later in the press conference, Mulvaney quoted a third reason on why military aid was frozen—they had yet to cooperate with a U.S. Justice Department investigation into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

 

[Dragonlady]

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

Sondland was the dumbest fucking millionaire I ever saw, he had no clue WTF he was testifying to. The GOP congressmen did a great job unwinding his testimony.

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Lets try this again...
1. There was no crime, period, full stop. There was no extortion, Trump asked Zelensky to have his guy work with Barr.
2. Trump has every right to withhold the military aid temporarily, its in the law, and he released it within the allotted window.
3. Oh please, prove Trump asked for "dirt" in exchange for aid, you can't, stop lying. Trump gave them Javelin anti-tank weapons when the democrats just sent "blankets", and the hot war ended in 2015, its been a sniper war since then.
4. Stop the shit with "helping" Russia too. Trump has them sanctioned. Obama was more "flexible" with Russia, not Trump.
5. The impeachment Articles are a joke and will be dismissed. Trump will be acquitted and re-elected. Enjoy the next 5 or so years.

1. Trump never involved Barr. He may have said that but clearly didn’t mean it. He only involved Rudy.
2. The law does not say anything about a temporary hold. His actions were without any legal justification and their legality is highly questionable. He didn’t actually release it in the window. Many millions were never allocated because they didn’t have enough time. The administration was caught lying about this.
3. He didn’t give them javelins. He allowed them to buy them. It’s just a nit pick though. Either way, he demonstrated we aren’t a reliable partner.

1. In the call he did mention Barr and Rudy. I have no clue if Barr should (or wanted to) get involved in Burisma, he seems to have enough on his plate with the FBI and Crossfire Hurricane.
2. The law says that he needs to be sure there is no corruption before he sends the money. You're right, it doesn't mention a hold. Point being Trump has some flexibility to not send the money. I'm sure we'll get into the weeds about that law during the trial, and what Trump did or didn't do correctly..
3. During the Ukraine "hot war" with Russia (2014-2015) the Obama admin did NOT send them lethal aid. Trump did send Javelins, thats a much more reliable partner than Obama.
Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed
"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million."

1. We don’t know how Barr felt about getting involved because he was never informed in any way whatsoever. So we are supposed to believe Trump was acting to root out corruption but failed to involved law enforcement. It fails to pass any smell test.
2. You can’t point to where the law says that because it doesn’t. Think about it for 2 seconds and you’ll see it makes no sense. No corruption? How does anyone claim there is no corruption? The idea that he was ensuring there was no corruption in Ukraine by getting them to investigate Biden is irrational. As if that happens to be the one and only case of corruption that remains. Oh, and that corruption took place years ago. Oh, and it just so happens that one and only case involves his political opponent. What flexibility he does have still requires him to notify Congress. He didn’t because he didn’t want anyone else to find out what he was up to. Everyone was told to keep their mouths shut. Clearly a sign that this was on the up and up. It fails the smell test yet again.

1. Last I heard Barr or Durham was following the money. No clue if that leads to any indictments. Time will tell. There was a lot of Ukrainian money flying around the globe since the Ukraine was so corrupt.
The money machine: how a high-profile corruption investigation fell apart

2. I saw the text of the law on TV, I can't find that specific law online. He only had to notify congress if he missed the window to transfer the aid.
Trump and Mulvaney aren't using that as an excuse to delay sending the aid anyway. Here's Mulvaney's 3 reasons for withholding the aid:
Trump–Ukraine scandal - Wikipedia
During an October 17 press conference, White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said he "was involved with the process" of the freezing of military aid. Mulvaney gave his account of why Trump decided to hold back military aid to Ukraine. One, Trump felt the other European countries were not doing enough. Two, Trump felt Ukraine was a "corrupt place" which included having "corruption related to the DNC server" with regard to "what happened in 2016". As a result, reporter Jonathan Karl told Mulvaney "what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: 'Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well'." Mulvaney replied to Karl: "We do that all the time with foreign policy ... Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy." Later in the press conference, Mulvaney quoted a third reason on why military aid was frozen—they had yet to cooperate with a U.S. Justice Department investigation into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Mulvaney's three reasons are all bullshit. Big stinking piles of bullshit.

1. European Countries are not doing enough: The EU has contributed far more for the defence of the Ukraine that the United States, and have consistently given more aid to the Ukraine than the USA, since the Ukraine was first invaded by Russia. Trump could have had this question asked and answered at any time with a simple call to the State Department.

2. The Ukraine was a "corrupt place": Trump gave military aid, including Javellin missiles, to the Ukraine in 2018, without questioning corruption in the Ukraine. Why now? And if Trump was worried about corruption now, under the new President, why was he asking only for investigations of things that happened years ago, long before Zelensky was elected, and only those things involving his political opponents? Why is Trump only interested in corruption if it involves the DNC or the Bidens? Utter bullshit.

3. COMPLETE AND TOTAL BULLSHIT. There was never an indication of Ukrainian interference in the US election. There is no intelligence to this effect, and the only source of such a story, comes from a Russian propaganda story. The Pentagon had issued a certificate that the Ukraine met the anti-corruption requirements for the military aid in April, so this is Mulvaney trying to cover his very exposed ass.

 

[Dragonlady]

Again I say to you, the corruption and danger to the national security shown by Donald Trump knows no bounds. Last week, he assassinated a high ranking member of a foreign government so he could play the hero and avoid impeachment.

He nearly drew the nation into yet another pointless war in order to derail this impeachment. But of course all of the 1000 post a month "Americans" think war with Iran is a good idea. And they cheer anything that involves smacking around others and acting tough. They're not the ones who will be going to war. They'll be high fiving each other virtually from some bunker in St. Petersburg.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Again I say to you, the corruption and danger to the national security shown by Donald Trump knows no bounds. Last week, he assassinated a high ranking member of a foreign government so he could play the hero and avoid impeachment.

He nearly drew the nation into yet another pointless war in order to derail this impeachment. But of course all of the 1000 post a month "Americans" think war with Iran is a good idea. And they cheer anything that involves smacking around others and acting tough. They're not the ones who will be going to war. They'll be high fiving each other virtually from some bunker in St. Petersburg.

He killed 2 recognized terrorists (recognized by Obama and even the UN), including the PMF terrorist who was present and oversaw at the two-day siege of our (not your) embassy in Baghdad 2 days earlier, and the terrorist who coordinated it...they were in the same car at the time of the drone strike. But go ahead and characterize him as an austere foreign official, and by all means apologize to Iran for their shooting down of the civilian airliner that killed over 60 Canadians. Par for the course with you lot.

 

[Oldstyle]

We're "skeptical" because you on the left have lied about this stuff so often it's become farce at this point! How many times do you think a rational person should believe you when time after time you're shown to have lied? You think anyone should believe anything that comes out of Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler or Nancy Pelosis mouths at this point? Why?

It's far more than just scribbled notes. Text messages, emails all corroborate the case Democrats have been making. Are you going to claim those are false as well?

What case? That Trump asked the Ukraine to look into apparent corruption by Joe Biden? That he also asked them to look into apparent collusion between the Democrats and elements in the Ukraine meddling in our elections? I'm not going to claim that ANY of that is "false"...what I'm going to state quite emphatically is that none of it is an impeachable offense! If it is then kindly explain why the Obama Administration looking into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians (which they KNEW was based on lies paid for by the Clinton campaign!) wasn't an impeachable offense five years ago!

Did Obama order the DoJ to investigate the Trump campaign when the DoJ had no interest or intention to do so? Did Obama order the DoJ to work with campaign staff from Clinton to keep them informed of the status? Did Obama demand the DoJ announce the investigation into the Trump campaign? Did Obama prevent anyone from discussing these matters with Congress?

The answer to all these questions is no. That’s the difference.

You had high ranking members of the FBI, the CIA and the NSA conspiring with the Clinton campaign against Trump! That's unprecedented in the history of our elections and it all happened on Barack Obama's watch.

It’s not only unprecedented, its also bullshit.

So Clapper, Brennan, Page & Strzok weren't conspiring with the Clinton campaign? The facts don't back you up on that, Colfax.

 

[SmokeALib]

Again I say to you, the corruption and danger to the national security shown by Donald Trump knows no bounds. Last week, he assassinated a high ranking member of a foreign government so he could play the hero and avoid impeachment.

He nearly drew the nation into yet another pointless war in order to derail this impeachment. But of course all of the 1000 post a month "Americans" think war with Iran is a good idea. And they cheer anything that involves smacking around others and acting tough. They're not the ones who will be going to war. They'll be high fiving each other virtually from some bunker in St. Petersburg.

Where do you get this sewage?

 

[Oldstyle]

Again I say to you, the corruption and danger to the national security shown by Donald Trump knows no bounds. Last week, he assassinated a high ranking member of a foreign government so he could play the hero and avoid impeachment.

He nearly drew the nation into yet another pointless war in order to derail this impeachment. But of course all of the 1000 post a month "Americans" think war with Iran is a good idea. And they cheer anything that involves smacking around others and acting tough. They're not the ones who will be going to war. They'll be high fiving each other virtually from some bunker in St. Petersburg.

They killed a car full of terrorists. People in Iran are cheering the man's death because he was the tool the mullahs used to suppress dissent by the Iranian people. Iran backing attacks on our embassy nearly drew us into another pointless war...Trump's response to their aggression backed them down. That's not "acting tough" that's BEING tough! Compare that to Barry drawing a red line in the sand and then backing down when Assad crossed that line! THAT is "acting tough" and then being a wuss!

 

[Oldstyle]

Except the only witness with any direct communication with Trump to testify on this issue to date (Sonland) testified only that it was his "belief" that Trump wanted to tie the money to the Burisma investigation, but when pressed, he testified that he asked Trump what he wanted, and Trump told him "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelenski to do the right thing."

The testimony of the other witnesses was based on a series of further and further downstream communication starting with Sonland's "belief," which comes across like an example of the game Telephone. By way of example, Bill Taylor's basis for his "clear understanding" in his opening statement was essentially as follows:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"
​

Um, what?



As Jordan aptly put it, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.”

And since you will predictably claim I'm making up the above referenced Sondland testimony, here's the video (very short) of his testimony to that effect so you can listen to Sodnland saying this from his own lips:

Beautiful post, thank you! I love that sentence Jim Jordan put up as "evidence" of Bill Taylor's "clear understanding:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky"

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

Sondland was the dumbest fucking millionaire I ever saw, he had no clue WTF he was testifying to. The GOP congressmen did a great job unwinding his testimony.

I can defend Trump's actions to the extent that Professor Turley stated that these impeachment Articles are "an abuse of power", by the House.
I'm going after process because Trump does not deserve to be impeached. There were technically no crimes or impeachable offenses.

Trump crossed a line going for oppo research, but it should not be an impeachable offense. That was not a crime, Ukraine got the money and did not do any favors for Trump. By comparison, Hillary actually paid Russians to create the Steele Dossier full of lies about Trump, and that was okay, didn't even make Mueller's radar during the investigation into Russian interference in 2016.

The call transcript is not impeachable. Sondland cannot provide any direct evidence on Trump, he "presumed" stuff. What he actually heard was "I want nothing". Vindland and Volker didn't have any direct evidence either, they can just agree with the transcript.
John Bolton is bound by "Executive Privilege" so ask away.
Lev Parnas never spoke directly with Trump, so no real evidence.

Article-1 is dead due to lack of evidence. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Article-2 is dead because the USSC said that Trump has the right to take House subpoenas to court, aka "due process".

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Lets try this again...
1. There was no crime, period, full stop. There was no extortion, Trump asked Zelensky to have his guy work with Barr.
2. Trump has every right to withhold the military aid temporarily, its in the law, and he released it within the allotted window.
3. Oh please, prove Trump asked for "dirt" in exchange for aid, you can't, stop lying. Trump gave them Javelin anti-tank weapons when the democrats just sent "blankets", and the hot war ended in 2015, its been a sniper war since then.
4. Stop the shit with "helping" Russia too. Trump has them sanctioned. Obama was more "flexible" with Russia, not Trump.
5. The impeachment Articles are a joke and will be dismissed. Trump will be acquitted and re-elected. Enjoy the next 5 or so years.

1. Trump never involved Barr. He may have said that but clearly didn’t mean it. He only involved Rudy.
2. The law does not say anything about a temporary hold. His actions were without any legal justification and their legality is highly questionable. He didn’t actually release it in the window. Many millions were never allocated because they didn’t have enough time. The administration was caught lying about this.
3. He didn’t give them javelins. He allowed them to buy them. It’s just a nit pick though. Either way, he demonstrated we aren’t a reliable partner.

1. In the call he did mention Barr and Rudy. I have no clue if Barr should (or wanted to) get involved in Burisma, he seems to have enough on his plate with the FBI and Crossfire Hurricane.
2. The law says that he needs to be sure there is no corruption before he sends the money. You're right, it doesn't mention a hold. Point being Trump has some flexibility to not send the money. I'm sure we'll get into the weeds about that law during the trial, and what Trump did or didn't do correctly..
3. During the Ukraine "hot war" with Russia (2014-2015) the Obama admin did NOT send them lethal aid. Trump did send Javelins, thats a much more reliable partner than Obama.
Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed
"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million."

1. We don’t know how Barr felt about getting involved because he was never informed in any way whatsoever. So we are supposed to believe Trump was acting to root out corruption but failed to involved law enforcement. It fails to pass any smell test.
2. You can’t point to where the law says that because it doesn’t. Think about it for 2 seconds and you’ll see it makes no sense. No corruption? How does anyone claim there is no corruption? The idea that he was ensuring there was no corruption in Ukraine by getting them to investigate Biden is irrational. As if that happens to be the one and only case of corruption that remains. Oh, and that corruption took place years ago. Oh, and it just so happens that one and only case involves his political opponent. What flexibility he does have still requires him to notify Congress. He didn’t because he didn’t want anyone else to find out what he was up to. Everyone was told to keep their mouths shut. Clearly a sign that this was on the up and up. It fails the smell test yet again.

Years ago? Hunter Biden didn't give up that high paying board job until Democrats started trying to make this whole farce an "impeachable offense"! Last October to be exact! He also quit the board job he had in China shortly thereafter when that little "arrangement" was exposed. Or did you forget about THAT case? Or the board job that Hunter Biden got with Amtrak? The truth, Colfax...is that Hunter Biden has been cashing in on his father's political power FOR DECADES!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

No wonder...blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....

Actually, I think it would be great if you removed him.

1. Pence is president (spare me the "he's in it too bullshit" he's a choirboy). He's going to get more done and you'll be for Donnie.
2. You'll gavanize the right and you'll be trashed in the house and senate.
3. We'll own SCOTUS for years (especially after we remove Kagen).

So please...have at it.

Oh...and number 4.

I'll bet there will be some gun battles over it if it happens. And there will be some dead left wingers afterwards. I call that even more upside.

Please....proceed.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Thank you. I also loved the last exchange in that video:

Sonland: "Second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to."

Jordan: "We got that" (nodding and smiling)

Sondland was the dumbest fucking millionaire I ever saw, he had no clue WTF he was testifying to. The GOP congressmen did a great job unwinding his testimony.

None of your purported legal arguments hold water, especially your argument that since the extortion plan failed and the Ukraine CB got the money, no harm, no foul.

1. Asking the Ukraine for ANYTHING in exchange for the military aid, is illegal. Trump does not have the legal authority to withhold the aid.

The desperate comparison to Hillary isn’t comparable. Hillary wasn’t the President of the United States asking for a foreign government for dirt on her opponents in advance of the election, in exchange for foreign aid to fight a hot war.

Again Trump illegally asked a foreign country to investigate his opposition political party for dirt he could use to help Russia. Why is Trump trying to clear Russia in the DNC hacking.

You’re arguing process questions on the impeachment of a President who is spending taxpayer money to investigate Russian propaganda and proven conspiracy theories and jeopardizing the safety and security of your nation while so doing.

Tell me why you condone any of this?

Lets try this again...
1. There was no crime, period, full stop. There was no extortion, Trump asked Zelensky to have his guy work with Barr.
2. Trump has every right to withhold the military aid temporarily, its in the law, and he released it within the allotted window.
3. Oh please, prove Trump asked for "dirt" in exchange for aid, you can't, stop lying. Trump gave them Javelin anti-tank weapons when the democrats just sent "blankets", and the hot war ended in 2015, its been a sniper war since then.
4. Stop the shit with "helping" Russia too. Trump has them sanctioned. Obama was more "flexible" with Russia, not Trump.
5. The impeachment Articles are a joke and will be dismissed. Trump will be acquitted and re-elected. Enjoy the next 5 or so years.

1. Trump never involved Barr. He may have said that but clearly didn’t mean it. He only involved Rudy.
2. The law does not say anything about a temporary hold. His actions were without any legal justification and their legality is highly questionable. He didn’t actually release it in the window. Many millions were never allocated because they didn’t have enough time. The administration was caught lying about this.
3. He didn’t give them javelins. He allowed them to buy them. It’s just a nit pick though. Either way, he demonstrated we aren’t a reliable partner.

1. In the call he did mention Barr and Rudy. I have no clue if Barr should (or wanted to) get involved in Burisma, he seems to have enough on his plate with the FBI and Crossfire Hurricane.
2. The law says that he needs to be sure there is no corruption before he sends the money. You're right, it doesn't mention a hold. Point being Trump has some flexibility to not send the money. I'm sure we'll get into the weeds about that law during the trial, and what Trump did or didn't do correctly..
3. During the Ukraine "hot war" with Russia (2014-2015) the Obama admin did NOT send them lethal aid. Trump did send Javelins, thats a much more reliable partner than Obama.
Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed
"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million."

1. We don’t know how Barr felt about getting involved because he was never informed in any way whatsoever. So we are supposed to believe Trump was acting to root out corruption but failed to involved law enforcement. It fails to pass any smell test.
2. You can’t point to where the law says that because it doesn’t. Think about it for 2 seconds and you’ll see it makes no sense. No corruption? How does anyone claim there is no corruption? The idea that he was ensuring there was no corruption in Ukraine by getting them to investigate Biden is irrational. As if that happens to be the one and only case of corruption that remains. Oh, and that corruption took place years ago. Oh, and it just so happens that one and only case involves his political opponent. What flexibility he does have still requires him to notify Congress. He didn’t because he didn’t want anyone else to find out what he was up to. Everyone was told to keep their mouths shut. Clearly a sign that this was on the up and up. It fails the smell test yet again.

Years ago? Hunter Biden didn't give up that high paying board job until Democrats started trying to make this whole farce an "impeachable offense"! Last October to be exact! He also quit the board job he had in China shortly thereafter when that little "arrangement" was exposed. Or did you forget about THAT case? Or the board job that Hunter Biden got with Amtrak? The truth, Colfax...is that Hunter Biden has been cashing in on his father's political power FOR DECADES!

Hunter was totally qualified.

I'll bet Pelosi would let him give her the next botox injection she needs (in her chin) if he can produce a medical certificate.

 

[Lakhota]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

More great news!

 

[Crixus]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

It will be funny watching you retards scream at the sky again.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

It will be funny watching you retards scream at the sky again.

The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Oooh...

Ooooooh....

Ooooooooh.....

Call me.....Call me....

I have evidence that Trump wanted to bomb Canada and make it the 51-56th states.........

I can produce all kinds of documents.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The House impeached Trump on the "evidence" it had and passed two Articles:

Article-2 should be dismissed immediately because the USSC voided it when they took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. Trump does in-fact have the right to legal remedies and that is NOT "obstruction of the House". There is no such thing. That charge is moronic and an "Abuse of Power" by the House.
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

Article-1 can be litigated in trial, but all of the "hearsay" evidence needs to be thrown out per senate rules of evidence. So Article-1 can't be proven and Trump will be acquitted.

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".

There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

Obstruction of Congress was one of the articles against Nixon. It exists because Congress says it exists. Trump is abusing his power by refusing to cooperate with Congress. This is legal remedy for Congress to exert their constitutional authority to investigate and oversee the executive.

1. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and can exclude "hearsay" evidence. All it takes is 51 votes, which Mitch has.
2. You are wrong. The House is NOT the Executive's boss. They are co-equal branches of government. The Judiciary breaks ties as seen in the link I provided. Article-2 is VOID. Read these articles and provide links to disprove if you can, because your opinion isn't worth anything:
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

We don’t know what Mitch has. They can exclude evidence if they want, but that’s mostly because they’re willing to violate their oaths to be impartial.

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.

Executive privilege is decided by the courts. Once again you wave your GED at us!

Executive privilege is beig falsely claimed by the Trump Administration for everything he does. Every "executive privilege" case that has gone to court, Trump has lost. Trump is using the courts in the same way he did when he was in business - to stall making any payments whatsoever, to beat down the opposition, and drag it out until the other side gives up, and does what he wants.

Donald Trump uses the courts as part of his strategy to bully and financially destroy those who challenge him. Just as in business, he's losing all of his cases, but the point isn't to win, it's to distract and destroy the other side.

Trump has lost exactly ZERO court cases of executive privilege because there hasn't been one yet, dumbass!