New Audio Evidence of Trump & Giuliani Corruption and Official Misconduct

[struth]

Giuliani is some very serious legal trouble here. When this is combined with all the other likely upcoming charges against Rudy, he'd better get himself the best lawyer he can find because he's sure going to need help staying out of prison.

And in case anyone misses the point, any criminal conspiracy to commit a crime which is planned and executed by a lawyer and his client effectively negates any protections of a lawyer/client privileged and confidential communication.

I certainly hope that Giuliani is fully prepared for when Trump disavows any knowledge of what his lawyer was doing because that's been Trump's MO for decades.

Exclusive: New audio of 2019 phone call reveals how Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate baseless Biden conspiracies

Never-before-heard audio, obtained exclusively by CNN, shows how former President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Rudy Giuliani relentlessly pressured and coaxed the Ukrainian government in 2019 to investigate baseless conspiracies about then-candidate Joe Biden.

www.cnn.com

What a read. They sure are a dirty bunch.

Telling the Ukraines to hire a non corrupt prosecutor is a crime to you?

That's not, but trying to get a foreign national to eliminate a political rival is.

Lock him up!

what's the code section?

The only people I know that have actually hired a foreign national to "eliminate" a political rival is the DNC and Clinton when they hired Steele....don't you remember that?

No, I don't remember that. My recollection is that Hillary hired Fusion GPS, an American based firm.

GPS Fusion, who then hired a foreigner. The fact that the process is one step remove doesn't get her off the hook. If it did, then candidates could pour unlimited amounts into foreign firms with the simple expedient of having their law firm spend the money.

Of course it does, unless you can show she was involved in the hiring of Christopher Steele. Just because you don't understand the law doesn't mean Hillary broke it.

what law are you referring to?

the principal-agent relationship and the law makes her responsible for her agents actions

 

[struth]

Giuliani is some very serious legal trouble here. When this is combined with all the other likely upcoming charges against Rudy, he'd better get himself the best lawyer he can find because he's sure going to need help staying out of prison.

And in case anyone misses the point, any criminal conspiracy to commit a crime which is planned and executed by a lawyer and his client effectively negates any protections of a lawyer/client privileged and confidential communication.

I certainly hope that Giuliani is fully prepared for when Trump disavows any knowledge of what his lawyer was doing because that's been Trump's MO for decades.

Exclusive: New audio of 2019 phone call reveals how Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate baseless Biden conspiracies

Never-before-heard audio, obtained exclusively by CNN, shows how former President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Rudy Giuliani relentlessly pressured and coaxed the Ukrainian government in 2019 to investigate baseless conspiracies about then-candidate Joe Biden.

www.cnn.com

What a read. They sure are a dirty bunch.

Telling the Ukraines to hire a non corrupt prosecutor is a crime to you?

That's not, but trying to get a foreign national to eliminate a political rival is.

Lock him up!

So Trump wasn't allowed to investigate any Democrat?

Do you understand how fucking stupid you are?

LOL

You're fucking moronicness is growing. Fucking moron, he could have legally investigated Biden had he gone through the Department of Justice. Instead, he chose to do it illegally by getting a foreign national to investigate Biden.

what law requires someone to go the dept of justice?

 

[Lastamender]

Giuliani is some very serious legal trouble here. When this is combined with all the other likely upcoming charges against Rudy, he'd better get himself the best lawyer he can find because he's sure going to need help staying out of prison.

And in case anyone misses the point, any criminal conspiracy to commit a crime which is planned and executed by a lawyer and his client effectively negates any protections of a lawyer/client privileged and confidential communication.

I certainly hope that Giuliani is fully prepared for when Trump disavows any knowledge of what his lawyer was doing because that's been Trump's MO for decades.

Exclusive: New audio of 2019 phone call reveals how Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate baseless Biden conspiracies

Never-before-heard audio, obtained exclusively by CNN, shows how former President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Rudy Giuliani relentlessly pressured and coaxed the Ukrainian government in 2019 to investigate baseless conspiracies about then-candidate Joe Biden.

www.cnn.com

What a read. They sure are a dirty bunch.

Telling the Ukraines to hire a non corrupt prosecutor is a crime to you?

That's not, but trying to get a foreign national to eliminate a political rival is.

Lock him up!

So Trump wasn't allowed to investigate any Democrat?

Do you understand how fucking stupid you are?

LOL

You're fucking moronicness is growing. Fucking moron, he could have legally investigated Biden had he gone through the Department of Justice. Instead, he chose to do it illegally by getting a foreign national to investigate Biden.

what law requires someone to go the dept of justice?

None.

 

[struth]

Giuliani is some very serious legal trouble here. When this is combined with all the other likely upcoming charges against Rudy, he'd better get himself the best lawyer he can find because he's sure going to need help staying out of prison.

And in case anyone misses the point, any criminal conspiracy to commit a crime which is planned and executed by a lawyer and his client effectively negates any protections of a lawyer/client privileged and confidential communication.

I certainly hope that Giuliani is fully prepared for when Trump disavows any knowledge of what his lawyer was doing because that's been Trump's MO for decades.

Exclusive: New audio of 2019 phone call reveals how Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate baseless Biden conspiracies

Never-before-heard audio, obtained exclusively by CNN, shows how former President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Rudy Giuliani relentlessly pressured and coaxed the Ukrainian government in 2019 to investigate baseless conspiracies about then-candidate Joe Biden.

www.cnn.com

What a read. They sure are a dirty bunch.

Telling the Ukraines to hire a non corrupt prosecutor is a crime to you?

That's not, but trying to get a foreign national to eliminate a political rival is.

Lock him up!

what's the code section?

The only people I know that have actually hired a foreign national to "eliminate" a political rival is the DNC and Clinton when they hired Steele....don't you remember that?

No, I don't remember that. My recollection is that Hillary hired Fusion GPS, an American based firm.

sure and they hired a subcontractor on her behalf...mike steele who worked directly for the campaign to specifically get OR on Trump in foreign countries

fyi Rudy is an american.

 

[Leo123]

The OP obviously doesn't realize that CNN is an arm of the DNC. From the OP's link:

"All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out," Giuliani said, according to the audio. "... Somebody in Ukraine's gotta take that seriously."
The new audio demonstrates how Giuliani aggressively cajoled the Ukrainians to do Trump's bidding. And it undermines Trump's oft-repeated assertion that "there was no quid pro quo" where Zelensky could secure US government support if he did political favors for Trump.

That there that I put in italics is not supported by the statement they published just above. Honesly do any of you TDSers actually READ what you post?

 

[Mustang]

The OP obviously doesn't realize that CNN is an arm of the DNC. From the OP's link:

"All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out," Giuliani said, according to the audio. "... Somebody in Ukraine's gotta take that seriously."
The new audio demonstrates how Giuliani aggressively cajoled the Ukrainians to do Trump's bidding. And it undermines Trump's oft-repeated assertion that "there was no quid pro quo" where Zelensky could secure US government support if he did political favors for Trump.

That there that I put in italics is not supported by the statement they published just above. Honesly do any of you TDSers actually READ what you post?

It's not difficult at all to see what was going on. In fact, it's very easy.

Despite the fact that Trump called Biden weak, among other names like Sleepy Joe, he understood that Biden was his most formidable potential opponent. As a consequence, Trump wanted to sully Biden's name in the minds of the American electorate which could very well cost him hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions. But the American judicial system was not going to engage in a sham investigation because evidence is required, and a politically motivated prosecution could lead to corruption charges, disbarment, and prison time for anyone who participated in such a scheme.

But Ukraine had a history of corruption, and they were also desperate for US military and financial aid. As a result, Trump used his personal attorney working outside of any formal gov't authority like the State Dept. to convey a quid pro quo message to Ukrainian President Zelensky about how to smooth the way to get the aid his country desperately needed. This is a good place to note that Giuliani wasn't trying to get Zelensky to actually really DO anything. He was instructing Zelensky on what to SAY, including the dubious claim that the evidence already existed.

["All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out,"}

But that wasn't quite enough for Trump because he also wanted the Ukrainians to admit to interfering in the 2016 election against Trump despite the fact that they weren't involved at all. Finally, Giuliani said that "the Biden thing has to be run out" meaning they wanted it to be dragged out as long as possible, preferably until the point that Biden lost the nomination to Bernie Sanders who Trump knew would be a much easier opponent to defeat, or up to the 2020 election just in case Biden won the nomination despite the smear campaign.

This was a full court press by Trump and Giuliani outside of any formal US Gov't avenues of contact between sovereign states. But the Ukrainians didn't take the bait, and Trump continued to withhold the aid until a formal abuse of power complaint was made by Major Vindman who had listened in on the call at which point Trump knew that the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, and he released the previously approved military aid in an effort to make it appear that there was no quid pro quo.

See how easy that was!

 

[struth]

The OP obviously doesn't realize that CNN is an arm of the DNC. From the OP's link:

"All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out," Giuliani said, according to the audio. "... Somebody in Ukraine's gotta take that seriously."
The new audio demonstrates how Giuliani aggressively cajoled the Ukrainians to do Trump's bidding. And it undermines Trump's oft-repeated assertion that "there was no quid pro quo" where Zelensky could secure US government support if he did political favors for Trump.

That there that I put in italics is not supported by the statement they published just above. Honesly do any of you TDSers actually READ what you post?

It's not difficult at all to see what was going on. In fact, it's very easy. Despite the fact that Trump called Biden weak, among other names like Sleepy Joe, he understood that Biden was his most formidable potential opponent. As a consequence, Trump wanted to sully Biden's name in the minds of the American electorate which could very well cost him hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions. But the American judicial system was not going to engage in a sham investigation because evidence is required, and a politically motivated prosecution could lead to corruption charges, disbarment, and prison time for anyone who participated in such a scheme.

But Ukraine had a history of corruption, and they were also desperate for US military and financial aid. As a result, Trump used his personal attorney working outside of any formal gov't authority like the State Dept. to convey a quid pro quo message to Ukrainian President Zelensky about how to smooth the way to get the aid his country needed. This is a good place to note that Giuliani wasn't trying to get Zelensky to actually really DO anything. He was instructing Zelensky on what to SAY, including the dubious claim the evidence already existed.

["All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out,"}

But that wasn't quite enough for Trump because he also wanted the Ukrainians to admit to interfering in the 2016 election against Trump despite the fact that they weren't involved at all. Finally, Giuliani said that "the Biden thing has to be run out" meaning they wanted it to be dragged out as long as possible, preferably until the point that Biden lost the nomination to Bernie Sanders who Trump knew would be a much easier opponent to defeat, or up to the 2020 election just in case Biden won the nomination despite the smear campaign.

This was a full court press by Trump and Giuliani outside of any formal US Gov't avenues of contact between sovereign states. But the Ukrainians didn't take the bait, and Trump continued to withhold the aid until a formal abuse of power complaint was made by Major Vindman who had listened in on the call at which point Trump knew that the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, and he released the previously approved military aid in an effort to make it appear that there was no quid pro quo.

the DoJ was already investigating the Xiden crime syndicate

Trump didn’t make that public, we found that out after the election

 

[Mustang]

The OP obviously doesn't realize that CNN is an arm of the DNC. From the OP's link:

"All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out," Giuliani said, according to the audio. "... Somebody in Ukraine's gotta take that seriously."
The new audio demonstrates how Giuliani aggressively cajoled the Ukrainians to do Trump's bidding. And it undermines Trump's oft-repeated assertion that "there was no quid pro quo" where Zelensky could secure US government support if he did political favors for Trump.

That there that I put in italics is not supported by the statement they published just above. Honesly do any of you TDSers actually READ what you post?

It's not difficult at all to see what was going on. In fact, it's very easy. Despite the fact that Trump called Biden weak, among other names like Sleepy Joe, he understood that Biden was his most formidable potential opponent. As a consequence, Trump wanted to sully Biden's name in the minds of the American electorate which could very well cost him hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions. But the American judicial system was not going to engage in a sham investigation because evidence is required, and a politically motivated prosecution could lead to corruption charges, disbarment, and prison time for anyone who participated in such a scheme.

But Ukraine had a history of corruption, and they were also desperate for US military and financial aid. As a result, Trump used his personal attorney working outside of any formal gov't authority like the State Dept. to convey a quid pro quo message to Ukrainian President Zelensky about how to smooth the way to get the aid his country needed. This is a good place to note that Giuliani wasn't trying to get Zelensky to actually really DO anything. He was instructing Zelensky on what to SAY, including the dubious claim the evidence already existed.

["All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out,"}

But that wasn't quite enough for Trump because he also wanted the Ukrainians to admit to interfering in the 2016 election against Trump despite the fact that they weren't involved at all. Finally, Giuliani said that "the Biden thing has to be run out" meaning they wanted it to be dragged out as long as possible, preferably until the point that Biden lost the nomination to Bernie Sanders who Trump knew would be a much easier opponent to defeat, or up to the 2020 election just in case Biden won the nomination despite the smear campaign.

This was a full court press by Trump and Giuliani outside of any formal US Gov't avenues of contact between sovereign states. But the Ukrainians didn't take the bait, and Trump continued to withhold the aid until a formal abuse of power complaint was made by Major Vindman who had listened in on the call at which point Trump knew that the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, and he released the previously approved military aid in an effort to make it appear that there was no quid pro quo.

the DoJ was already investigating the Xiden crime syndicate

Trump didn’t make that public, we found that out after the election

Syndicate? That's hilarious.

 

[JimH52]

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

Another day, another.....

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

There's going to be a reckoning, and I reckon that Giuliani isn't going to like it one bit. Feel free to send him money for his defense.

Can't you clowns give it a rest for one day?....Just one?

Right after you clowns stop screaming about "stolen elections".

So basically, never, despite the fact that all the evidence and truth is on our side.

What evidence? I keep hearing people talk about evidence when they're standing at a microphone somewhere, but it's never presented when they're in a court of law. Why do you think that is?

Risk of sanctions and/or disbarment. Same reason reputable firms all turned tail and Donnie was stuck with maniacal has beens like Rudy, Sidney & Lin Wood.

Believe it or not, here's what we're expected to believe: No evidence is presented! That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

NO, jackass, why do you imbeciles lie to yourselves constantly making up shit you want to hear so you can believe it?

No significant evidence was permitted to be presented. In most of the cases, when the attorney's went before the judges to try the cases, the judge looked over the court briefing first and found various tortured technical reasons such as date of filing or by who or about who, etc., and decided outright not to even try the case.

Not one case was dismissed for lack of evidence. A court's declining to hear a case or dismissal of it off the court docket has nothing to do with there being a lack of evidence since the case would have to go forward first and be tried to some extent in order to make that determination in the first place!

By not trying the case, whatever evidence the prosecution had or intended to present was never investigated nor vetted. So the JUDGE had control over the evidence presented, not the prosecution! Which only makes sense since the judge himself is not the trier of facts and relies upon experts, witnesses and testimony between both sides to determine the outcome.

Liar, here's a case that was thrown out due to lack of merit...

Nevada Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Trump lawsuit to overturn Nevada election result

Documents filed Monday ask the high court to reverse Judge James Todd Russell's finding on Friday that the legal team for six Republican electors failed to prove the Nov. 3 election was swayed by fraudulent or illegal votes.

www.rgj.com

​

They filed a case claiming dead people voted, others voted in Nevada and another state, and many weren't registered to vote.​

​

The judge threw it out because they had no evidence to demonstrate any of that upon the first motion to dismiss by the defendant...​

​

"Contestants' claims fail on the merits ... or under any other standard," the judge said in his 35-page ruling.​

​

... so then the plaintiff filed an appeal... ALL 6 Justices ruled unanimously against them and upheld the lower court's ruling.​

​

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the six justices said. “We are not convinced they have done so.”​

​

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.​

Again, they didn't look at any evidence:

The state Republican party issued a statement complaining the appeal was decided on written filings submitted only hours before, and that Trump campaign attorneys didn’t get a chance to make oral arguments before the court. The statement accused the justices of rushing to judgment and failing to adequately consider evidence.​

Fucking moron, their case was tossed from the first court because they proved to be incapable of showing the could demonstrate the accusations in their claim. For example, they claimed dead people voted in the election. The judge asked them to demonstrate evidence of that and their evidence turned out to be a list of dead people who were still on the voter rolls. That offered zero evidence of voting in the election.

Lack of merit.

Case dismissed.

Plus, even the trump enabler, Barr was unable to find enough fraud to change the election outcome. He called trump a "deposed King ranting." Ha Ha!

 

[JimH52]

The OP obviously doesn't realize that CNN is an arm of the DNC. From the OP's link:

"All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out," Giuliani said, according to the audio. "... Somebody in Ukraine's gotta take that seriously."
The new audio demonstrates how Giuliani aggressively cajoled the Ukrainians to do Trump's bidding. And it undermines Trump's oft-repeated assertion that "there was no quid pro quo" where Zelensky could secure US government support if he did political favors for Trump.

That there that I put in italics is not supported by the statement they published just above. Honesly do any of you TDSers actually READ what you post?

It's not difficult at all to see what was going on. In fact, it's very easy.

Despite the fact that Trump called Biden weak, among other names like Sleepy Joe, he understood that Biden was his most formidable potential opponent. As a consequence, Trump wanted to sully Biden's name in the minds of the American electorate which could very well cost him hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions. But the American judicial system was not going to engage in a sham investigation because evidence is required, and a politically motivated prosecution could lead to corruption charges, disbarment, and prison time for anyone who participated in such a scheme.

But Ukraine had a history of corruption, and they were also desperate for US military and financial aid. As a result, Trump used his personal attorney working outside of any formal gov't authority like the State Dept. to convey a quid pro quo message to Ukrainian President Zelensky about how to smooth the way to get the aid his country desperately needed. This is a good place to note that Giuliani wasn't trying to get Zelensky to actually really DO anything. He was instructing Zelensky on what to SAY, including the dubious claim that the evidence already existed.

["All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out,"}

But that wasn't quite enough for Trump because he also wanted the Ukrainians to admit to interfering in the 2016 election against Trump despite the fact that they weren't involved at all. Finally, Giuliani said that "the Biden thing has to be run out" meaning they wanted it to be dragged out as long as possible, preferably until the point that Biden lost the nomination to Bernie Sanders who Trump knew would be a much easier opponent to defeat, or up to the 2020 election just in case Biden won the nomination despite the smear campaign.

This was a full court press by Trump and Giuliani outside of any formal US Gov't avenues of contact between sovereign states. But the Ukrainians didn't take the bait, and Trump continued to withhold the aid until a formal abuse of power complaint was made by Major Vindman who had listened in on the call at which point Trump knew that the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, and he released the previously approved military aid in an effort to make it appear that there was no quid pro quo.

See how easy that was!

In other words, this was a Mafia hit job in the White House.

 

[Leo123]

Looks like the OP's little fantasy, fairy tale story has brought out all the cave dwelling TDSers. LOL

 

[DrLove]

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

Another day, another.....

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

There's going to be a reckoning, and I reckon that Giuliani isn't going to like it one bit. Feel free to send him money for his defense.

Can't you clowns give it a rest for one day?....Just one?

Right after you clowns stop screaming about "stolen elections".

So basically, never, despite the fact that all the evidence and truth is on our side.

What evidence? I keep hearing people talk about evidence when they're standing at a microphone somewhere, but it's never presented when they're in a court of law. Why do you think that is?

Risk of sanctions and/or disbarment. Same reason reputable firms all turned tail and Donnie was stuck with maniacal has beens like Rudy, Sidney & Lin Wood.

Believe it or not, here's what we're expected to believe: No evidence is presented! That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

NO, jackass, why do you imbeciles lie to yourselves constantly making up shit you want to hear so you can believe it?

No significant evidence was permitted to be presented. In most of the cases, when the attorney's went before the judges to try the cases, the judge looked over the court briefing first and found various tortured technical reasons such as date of filing or by who or about who, etc., and decided outright not to even try the case.

Not one case was dismissed for lack of evidence. A court's declining to hear a case or dismissal of it off the court docket has nothing to do with there being a lack of evidence since the case would have to go forward first and be tried to some extent in order to make that determination in the first place!

By not trying the case, whatever evidence the prosecution had or intended to present was never investigated nor vetted. So the JUDGE had control over the evidence presented, not the prosecution! Which only makes sense since the judge himself is not the trier of facts and relies upon experts, witnesses and testimony between both sides to determine the outcome.

Liar, here's a case that was thrown out due to lack of merit...

Nevada Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Trump lawsuit to overturn Nevada election result

Documents filed Monday ask the high court to reverse Judge James Todd Russell's finding on Friday that the legal team for six Republican electors failed to prove the Nov. 3 election was swayed by fraudulent or illegal votes.

www.rgj.com

​

They filed a case claiming dead people voted, others voted in Nevada and another state, and many weren't registered to vote.​

​

The judge threw it out because they had no evidence to demonstrate any of that upon the first motion to dismiss by the defendant...​

​

"Contestants' claims fail on the merits ... or under any other standard," the judge said in his 35-page ruling.​

​

... so then the plaintiff filed an appeal... ALL 6 Justices ruled unanimously against them and upheld the lower court's ruling.​

​

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the six justices said. “We are not convinced they have done so.”​

​

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.​

Again, they didn't look at any evidence:

The state Republican party issued a statement complaining the appeal was decided on written filings submitted only hours before, and that Trump campaign attorneys didn’t get a chance to make oral arguments before the court. The statement accused the justices of rushing to judgment and failing to adequately consider evidence.​

Fucking moron, their case was tossed from the first court because they proved to be incapable of showing the could demonstrate the accusations in their claim. For example, they claimed dead people voted in the election. The judge asked them to demonstrate evidence of that and their evidence turned out to be a list of dead people who were still on the voter rolls. That offered zero evidence of voting in the election.

Lack of merit.

Case dismissed.

Plus, even the trump enabler, Barr was unable to find enough fraud to change the election outcome. He called trump a "deposed King ranting." Ha Ha!

Yep!

 

[Oddball]

The OP obviously doesn't realize that CNN is an arm of the DNC. From the OP's link:

"All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out," Giuliani said, according to the audio. "... Somebody in Ukraine's gotta take that seriously."
The new audio demonstrates how Giuliani aggressively cajoled the Ukrainians to do Trump's bidding. And it undermines Trump's oft-repeated assertion that "there was no quid pro quo" where Zelensky could secure US government support if he did political favors for Trump.

That there that I put in italics is not supported by the statement they published just above. Honesly do any of you TDSers actually READ what you post?

The hell you say?!?....Aggressively cajoling?!?

Who does Rudy think he is, an LDS missionary?

 

[Leo123]

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

Another day, another.....

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

There's going to be a reckoning, and I reckon that Giuliani isn't going to like it one bit. Feel free to send him money for his defense.

Can't you clowns give it a rest for one day?....Just one?

Right after you clowns stop screaming about "stolen elections".

So basically, never, despite the fact that all the evidence and truth is on our side.

What evidence? I keep hearing people talk about evidence when they're standing at a microphone somewhere, but it's never presented when they're in a court of law. Why do you think that is?

Risk of sanctions and/or disbarment. Same reason reputable firms all turned tail and Donnie was stuck with maniacal has beens like Rudy, Sidney & Lin Wood.

Believe it or not, here's what we're expected to believe: No evidence is presented! That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

NO, jackass, why do you imbeciles lie to yourselves constantly making up shit you want to hear so you can believe it?

No significant evidence was permitted to be presented. In most of the cases, when the attorney's went before the judges to try the cases, the judge looked over the court briefing first and found various tortured technical reasons such as date of filing or by who or about who, etc., and decided outright not to even try the case.

Not one case was dismissed for lack of evidence. A court's declining to hear a case or dismissal of it off the court docket has nothing to do with there being a lack of evidence since the case would have to go forward first and be tried to some extent in order to make that determination in the first place!

By not trying the case, whatever evidence the prosecution had or intended to present was never investigated nor vetted. So the JUDGE had control over the evidence presented, not the prosecution! Which only makes sense since the judge himself is not the trier of facts and relies upon experts, witnesses and testimony between both sides to determine the outcome.

Liar, here's a case that was thrown out due to lack of merit...

Nevada Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Trump lawsuit to overturn Nevada election result

Documents filed Monday ask the high court to reverse Judge James Todd Russell's finding on Friday that the legal team for six Republican electors failed to prove the Nov. 3 election was swayed by fraudulent or illegal votes.

www.rgj.com

​

They filed a case claiming dead people voted, others voted in Nevada and another state, and many weren't registered to vote.​

​

The judge threw it out because they had no evidence to demonstrate any of that upon the first motion to dismiss by the defendant...​

​

"Contestants' claims fail on the merits ... or under any other standard," the judge said in his 35-page ruling.​

​

... so then the plaintiff filed an appeal... ALL 6 Justices ruled unanimously against them and upheld the lower court's ruling.​

​

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the six justices said. “We are not convinced they have done so.”​

​

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.​

Again, they didn't look at any evidence:

The state Republican party issued a statement complaining the appeal was decided on written filings submitted only hours before, and that Trump campaign attorneys didn’t get a chance to make oral arguments before the court. The statement accused the justices of rushing to judgment and failing to adequately consider evidence.​

Fucking moron, their case was tossed from the first court because they proved to be incapable of showing the could demonstrate the accusations in their claim. For example, they claimed dead people voted in the election. The judge asked them to demonstrate evidence of that and their evidence turned out to be a list of dead people who were still on the voter rolls. That offered zero evidence of voting in the election.

Lack of merit.

Case dismissed.

Plus, even the trump enabler, Barr was unable to find enough fraud to change the election outcome. He called trump a "deposed King ranting." Ha Ha!

Yep!

View attachment 498897

Dr. Love says "Look I posted pictures!!" Sad little TDSer....

 

[JimH52]

Looks like the OP's little fantasy, fairy tale story has brought out all the cave dwelling TDSers. LOL

trump Humper Alert!

 

[Faun]

Giuliani is some very serious legal trouble here. When this is combined with all the other likely upcoming charges against Rudy, he'd better get himself the best lawyer he can find because he's sure going to need help staying out of prison.

And in case anyone misses the point, any criminal conspiracy to commit a crime which is planned and executed by a lawyer and his client effectively negates any protections of a lawyer/client privileged and confidential communication.

I certainly hope that Giuliani is fully prepared for when Trump disavows any knowledge of what his lawyer was doing because that's been Trump's MO for decades.

Exclusive: New audio of 2019 phone call reveals how Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate baseless Biden conspiracies

Never-before-heard audio, obtained exclusively by CNN, shows how former President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Rudy Giuliani relentlessly pressured and coaxed the Ukrainian government in 2019 to investigate baseless conspiracies about then-candidate Joe Biden.

www.cnn.com

What a read. They sure are a dirty bunch.

Telling the Ukraines to hire a non corrupt prosecutor is a crime to you?

That's not, but trying to get a foreign national to eliminate a political rival is.

Lock him up!

what's the code section?

The only people I know that have actually hired a foreign national to "eliminate" a political rival is the DNC and Clinton when they hired Steele....don't you remember that?

No, I don't remember that. My recollection is that Hillary hired Fusion GPS, an American based firm.

GPS Fusion, who then hired a foreigner. The fact that the process is one step remove doesn't get her off the hook. If it did, then candidates could pour unlimited amounts into foreign firms with the simple expedient of having their law firm spend the money.

Of course it does, unless you can show she was involved in the hiring of Christopher Steele. Just because you don't understand the law doesn't mean Hillary broke it.

Of course it doesn't, you brain dead turd. She was obviously involved since she paid to have him hired. The claim that she wasn't aware of the fact doesn't pass the smell test.

What you're saying is that people can hire law firms to do what would be illegal to do themselves.

Only a total douchebag would accept that argument.

Fucking moron, she paid Fusion GPS. That is not evidence she was involved with Fusion's decision to hire Steele.

she’s responsible for who she employees

Possibly, but she didn't employ Christopher Steele, so as far as the law is concerned, she's good.

 

[struth]

Giuliani is some very serious legal trouble here. When this is combined with all the other likely upcoming charges against Rudy, he'd better get himself the best lawyer he can find because he's sure going to need help staying out of prison.

And in case anyone misses the point, any criminal conspiracy to commit a crime which is planned and executed by a lawyer and his client effectively negates any protections of a lawyer/client privileged and confidential communication.

I certainly hope that Giuliani is fully prepared for when Trump disavows any knowledge of what his lawyer was doing because that's been Trump's MO for decades.

Exclusive: New audio of 2019 phone call reveals how Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate baseless Biden conspiracies

Never-before-heard audio, obtained exclusively by CNN, shows how former President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Rudy Giuliani relentlessly pressured and coaxed the Ukrainian government in 2019 to investigate baseless conspiracies about then-candidate Joe Biden.

www.cnn.com

What a read. They sure are a dirty bunch.

Telling the Ukraines to hire a non corrupt prosecutor is a crime to you?

That's not, but trying to get a foreign national to eliminate a political rival is.

Lock him up!

what's the code section?

The only people I know that have actually hired a foreign national to "eliminate" a political rival is the DNC and Clinton when they hired Steele....don't you remember that?

No, I don't remember that. My recollection is that Hillary hired Fusion GPS, an American based firm.

GPS Fusion, who then hired a foreigner. The fact that the process is one step remove doesn't get her off the hook. If it did, then candidates could pour unlimited amounts into foreign firms with the simple expedient of having their law firm spend the money.

Of course it does, unless you can show she was involved in the hiring of Christopher Steele. Just because you don't understand the law doesn't mean Hillary broke it.

Of course it doesn't, you brain dead turd. She was obviously involved since she paid to have him hired. The claim that she wasn't aware of the fact doesn't pass the smell test.

What you're saying is that people can hire law firms to do what would be illegal to do themselves.

Only a total douchebag would accept that argument.

Fucking moron, she paid Fusion GPS. That is not evidence she was involved with Fusion's decision to hire Steele.

she’s responsible for who she employees

Possibly, but she didn't employ Christopher Steele, so as far as the law is concerned, she's good.

of course she did. she was the principal...under agency law she’s responsible

she also took and accepted the information knowing where it came from

 

[Oddball]

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

Another day, another.....

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

There's going to be a reckoning, and I reckon that Giuliani isn't going to like it one bit. Feel free to send him money for his defense.

Can't you clowns give it a rest for one day?....Just one?

Right after you clowns stop screaming about "stolen elections".

So basically, never, despite the fact that all the evidence and truth is on our side.

What evidence? I keep hearing people talk about evidence when they're standing at a microphone somewhere, but it's never presented when they're in a court of law. Why do you think that is?

Risk of sanctions and/or disbarment. Same reason reputable firms all turned tail and Donnie was stuck with maniacal has beens like Rudy, Sidney & Lin Wood.

Believe it or not, here's what we're expected to believe: No evidence is presented! That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

NO, jackass, why do you imbeciles lie to yourselves constantly making up shit you want to hear so you can believe it?

No significant evidence was permitted to be presented. In most of the cases, when the attorney's went before the judges to try the cases, the judge looked over the court briefing first and found various tortured technical reasons such as date of filing or by who or about who, etc., and decided outright not to even try the case.

Not one case was dismissed for lack of evidence. A court's declining to hear a case or dismissal of it off the court docket has nothing to do with there being a lack of evidence since the case would have to go forward first and be tried to some extent in order to make that determination in the first place!

By not trying the case, whatever evidence the prosecution had or intended to present was never investigated nor vetted. So the JUDGE had control over the evidence presented, not the prosecution! Which only makes sense since the judge himself is not the trier of facts and relies upon experts, witnesses and testimony between both sides to determine the outcome.

Liar, here's a case that was thrown out due to lack of merit...

Nevada Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Trump lawsuit to overturn Nevada election result

Documents filed Monday ask the high court to reverse Judge James Todd Russell's finding on Friday that the legal team for six Republican electors failed to prove the Nov. 3 election was swayed by fraudulent or illegal votes.

www.rgj.com

​

They filed a case claiming dead people voted, others voted in Nevada and another state, and many weren't registered to vote.​

​

The judge threw it out because they had no evidence to demonstrate any of that upon the first motion to dismiss by the defendant...​

​

"Contestants' claims fail on the merits ... or under any other standard," the judge said in his 35-page ruling.​

​

... so then the plaintiff filed an appeal... ALL 6 Justices ruled unanimously against them and upheld the lower court's ruling.​

​

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the six justices said. “We are not convinced they have done so.”​

​

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.​

Again, they didn't look at any evidence:

The state Republican party issued a statement complaining the appeal was decided on written filings submitted only hours before, and that Trump campaign attorneys didn’t get a chance to make oral arguments before the court. The statement accused the justices of rushing to judgment and failing to adequately consider evidence.​

Fucking moron, their case was tossed from the first court because they proved to be incapable of showing the could demonstrate the accusations in their claim. For example, they claimed dead people voted in the election. The judge asked them to demonstrate evidence of that and their evidence turned out to be a list of dead people who were still on the voter rolls. That offered zero evidence of voting in the election.

Lack of merit.

Case dismissed.

Plus, even the trump enabler, Barr was unable to find enough fraud to change the election outcome. He called trump a "deposed King ranting." Ha Ha!

Yep!

View attachment 498897

Dr. Love says "Look I posted pictures!!" Sad little TDSer....

 

[Leo123]

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

Another day, another.....

Another day, another.....


View attachment 498387

There's going to be a reckoning, and I reckon that Giuliani isn't going to like it one bit. Feel free to send him money for his defense.

Can't you clowns give it a rest for one day?....Just one?

Right after you clowns stop screaming about "stolen elections".

So basically, never, despite the fact that all the evidence and truth is on our side.

What evidence? I keep hearing people talk about evidence when they're standing at a microphone somewhere, but it's never presented when they're in a court of law. Why do you think that is?

Risk of sanctions and/or disbarment. Same reason reputable firms all turned tail and Donnie was stuck with maniacal has beens like Rudy, Sidney & Lin Wood.

Believe it or not, here's what we're expected to believe: No evidence is presented! That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

NO, jackass, why do you imbeciles lie to yourselves constantly making up shit you want to hear so you can believe it?

No significant evidence was permitted to be presented. In most of the cases, when the attorney's went before the judges to try the cases, the judge looked over the court briefing first and found various tortured technical reasons such as date of filing or by who or about who, etc., and decided outright not to even try the case.

Not one case was dismissed for lack of evidence. A court's declining to hear a case or dismissal of it off the court docket has nothing to do with there being a lack of evidence since the case would have to go forward first and be tried to some extent in order to make that determination in the first place!

By not trying the case, whatever evidence the prosecution had or intended to present was never investigated nor vetted. So the JUDGE had control over the evidence presented, not the prosecution! Which only makes sense since the judge himself is not the trier of facts and relies upon experts, witnesses and testimony between both sides to determine the outcome.

Liar, here's a case that was thrown out due to lack of merit...

Nevada Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Trump lawsuit to overturn Nevada election result

Documents filed Monday ask the high court to reverse Judge James Todd Russell's finding on Friday that the legal team for six Republican electors failed to prove the Nov. 3 election was swayed by fraudulent or illegal votes.

www.rgj.com

​

They filed a case claiming dead people voted, others voted in Nevada and another state, and many weren't registered to vote.​

​

The judge threw it out because they had no evidence to demonstrate any of that upon the first motion to dismiss by the defendant...​

​

"Contestants' claims fail on the merits ... or under any other standard," the judge said in his 35-page ruling.​

​

... so then the plaintiff filed an appeal... ALL 6 Justices ruled unanimously against them and upheld the lower court's ruling.​

​

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the six justices said. “We are not convinced they have done so.”​

​

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.​

Again, they didn't look at any evidence:

The state Republican party issued a statement complaining the appeal was decided on written filings submitted only hours before, and that Trump campaign attorneys didn’t get a chance to make oral arguments before the court. The statement accused the justices of rushing to judgment and failing to adequately consider evidence.​

Fucking moron, their case was tossed from the first court because they proved to be incapable of showing the could demonstrate the accusations in their claim. For example, they claimed dead people voted in the election. The judge asked them to demonstrate evidence of that and their evidence turned out to be a list of dead people who were still on the voter rolls. That offered zero evidence of voting in the election.

Lack of merit.

Case dismissed.

Plus, even the trump enabler, Barr was unable to find enough fraud to change the election outcome. He called trump a "deposed King ranting." Ha Ha!

Yep!

View attachment 498897

Dr. Love says "Look I posted pictures!!" Sad little TDSer....

View attachment 498911

Yeah they're meme stealers too. Absolutely no creativity at all. That's what hatred does to them.

 

[Mustang]

The OP obviously doesn't realize that CNN is an arm of the DNC. From the OP's link:

"All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out," Giuliani said, according to the audio. "... Somebody in Ukraine's gotta take that seriously."
The new audio demonstrates how Giuliani aggressively cajoled the Ukrainians to do Trump's bidding. And it undermines Trump's oft-repeated assertion that "there was no quid pro quo" where Zelensky could secure US government support if he did political favors for Trump.

That there that I put in italics is not supported by the statement they published just above. Honesly do any of you TDSers actually READ what you post?

It's not difficult at all to see what was going on. In fact, it's very easy.

Despite the fact that Trump called Biden weak, among other names like Sleepy Joe, he understood that Biden was his most formidable potential opponent. As a consequence, Trump wanted to sully Biden's name in the minds of the American electorate which could very well cost him hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions. But the American judicial system was not going to engage in a sham investigation because evidence is required, and a politically motivated prosecution could lead to corruption charges, disbarment, and prison time for anyone who participated in such a scheme.

But Ukraine had a history of corruption, and they were also desperate for US military and financial aid. As a result, Trump used his personal attorney working outside of any formal gov't authority like the State Dept. to convey a quid pro quo message to Ukrainian President Zelensky about how to smooth the way to get the aid his country desperately needed. This is a good place to note that Giuliani wasn't trying to get Zelensky to actually really DO anything. He was instructing Zelensky on what to SAY, including the dubious claim that the evidence already existed.

["All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out,"}

But that wasn't quite enough for Trump because he also wanted the Ukrainians to admit to interfering in the 2016 election against Trump despite the fact that they weren't involved at all. Finally, Giuliani said that "the Biden thing has to be run out" meaning they wanted it to be dragged out as long as possible, preferably until the point that Biden lost the nomination to Bernie Sanders who Trump knew would be a much easier opponent to defeat, or up to the 2020 election just in case Biden won the nomination despite the smear campaign.

This was a full court press by Trump and Giuliani outside of any formal US Gov't avenues of contact between sovereign states. But the Ukrainians didn't take the bait, and Trump continued to withhold the aid until a formal abuse of power complaint was made by Major Vindman who had listened in on the call at which point Trump knew that the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, and he released the previously approved military aid in an effort to make it appear that there was no quid pro quo.

See how easy that was!

In other words, this was a Mafia hit job in the White House.

Except for the fact that the mafia is too smart to risk having incriminating evidence recorded on a phone call.