Rudy to Begin Revealing Top Level Democrats Making Millions of Dollars Selling Their Public Office

[jknowgood]

So if Trump's boy got the same deal, would you say the same?

I was just reading an article on the Biden's. Joe's brother always worked with him one way or another. His brother got a VIP job with a construction company. What luck too, that construction company got the bid for a 1.5 billion dollar housing project contract in Iraq from our federal government. Like Hunter, this guy had no experience in housing.

This whole family is corrupt it seems.

Republicans run the Justice Department

What are they waiting for?

1. Get your facts straight and verified and your ducks in a row.

2. Do they have confirmation, or are they waiting for more information?

3. In politics, timing is everything.

should the DOJ actions be based on political timing?

well, roy, it sure was for the last admin. but you liked it then.

sucks when you let it go for your side and it comes back to you like a bad used car.

We know, Obama's cash for clunkers deal. Took good used cars off the market.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The one who relayed the details of the call to the so-called whistleblower. It's never happened before as long as I can remember.

That doesn’t make them a spy. That was a person with authorization and need to be on the phone call.

It’s never happened because it’s never needed to happen before. These were hardly the only people who were alarmed by Trump’s conversation. This was even referred to the DoJ who pretended to care for like 5 seconds.

We have the transcript. We know what was said. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said yet alone an impeccable offense. The spy is a deep stater. If speculation is correct who he is, he was in a meeting with Ukraine officials at the White House during DumBama, discussing how they could stop Trump.

He was working for more than the government, he was working for the Democrat party.

Theres much more to the story than the transcript, obviously, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that by now. It’s telling that they released the transcript but hold everything else back. It’s as if that’s the least incriminating thing they could release.

There was no spy. Not by any definition of the word.

Sure there was. This guy has been a diehard Democrat since he got into government. Remember, the commies were swearing from day one they were going to impeach Trump, so it's no accident that it happened. Not only is this the weakest case for impeachment in history; first impeachment without a crime, but the commies are willing to bet all-or-nothing to try and reverse the vote of the people.

This guy was working for the deep state. He was looking for the stupidest thing (which this is) to forward to the front line.

jimminee cricket ray, please stop....

this is the strongest case for impeachment in your or my lifetime....

a statutory crime is not needed to impeach, in fact... there were no statutory crimes when the founders wrote the constitution, nor for the next 65 years after our independence.

High crimes and misdemeanors means a breach of the public trust through an abuse of the power we gave them.... it could be an improper use of the power we trusted them with, or a criminal offense....primarily one that affects the job we've given to them to do.... it does not HAVE TO BE one or the other, it can be either of those type of things.

AND, the articles of impeachment for both Nixon and Johnson, were articles for Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Congress and NOT criminal offenses.

Clinton was the EXCEPTION in impeachments, with having a crime committed, not the norm.

For your information, Nixon was never impeached. He did send his people to the DNC headquarters to bust in and gather information. I suggest you get a copy of G Gordon Liddy's version of what actually happened. What he instructed his people to do was a crime.

As I stated so many times, abuse of power and obstruction are generalizations that could apply to any past President in history. Thanks to the commies, they will now apply to all Presidents in the future--crime or not. For instance, DumBama withheld documents from the Republican House. Joe was representing DumBama when he actually did a quid pro quo to take the pressure off of his son; a personal favor.

And when Republicans return the favor, I don't want to see you here making a single complaint, because your people started this game.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you think the U.S. president should take an interest when there seems to be a kickback of U.S. aid funds to a U.S. citizen whose family was in charge of allocating the aid?

NONE of that happened... you've been fed a lie, if it isn't you just making it up???

You have no way of knowing if it happened or not. The same way that you have no way of knowing why Trump wanted the matter looked into. You can't use supposition when it comes to Trump and assume you know his mind and then try to claim that the obvious appearance of conflict of interest regarding Biden is nothing to see. Not without trashing your own credibility.

I thought Trump informed us that the president and Vice President are exempt from conflicts of interest?

That would be news to me if he did. So you'd be cool if Eric Trump took a high pay no show job on a company's board that was benefiting heavily from U.S aid?

Its true. Trump informed us when he took office. It’s good too because Trump’s rife with conflicts.

Burisma wasn’t benefiting heavily from US aid.

In the last days of the Obama administration, Vice President Joe Biden took a "swan song" trip to Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt country where he had been the administration's "point person." On the eve of this trip, the country announced it would end a criminal investigation into a company connected to the loss of $1.8 billion in aid funding — a company whose board of directors included Biden's son Hunter.

The Biden family's dealings with this Ukrainian company involved getting one of the country's most notorious mob bankers, Ihor Kolomoisky, off the U.S. government visa ban list. Under Biden's leadership, $3 billion in aid went to Ukraine, and his son's company was implicated in the disappearance of $1.8 billion of that money.

Did Biden Save This Ukraine Firm Responsible for $1.8B in Missing Aid? His Son is on the Board...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The one who relayed the details of the call to the so-called whistleblower. It's never happened before as long as I can remember.

That doesn’t make them a spy. That was a person with authorization and need to be on the phone call.

It’s never happened because it’s never needed to happen before. These were hardly the only people who were alarmed by Trump’s conversation. This was even referred to the DoJ who pretended to care for like 5 seconds.

We have the transcript. We know what was said. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said yet alone an impeccable offense. The spy is a deep stater. If speculation is correct who he is, he was in a meeting with Ukraine officials at the White House during DumBama, discussing how they could stop Trump.

He was working for more than the government, he was working for the Democrat party.

Theres much more to the story than the transcript, obviously, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that by now. It’s telling that they released the transcript but hold everything else back. It’s as if that’s the least incriminating thing they could release.

There was no spy. Not by any definition of the word.

Sure there was. This guy has been a diehard Democrat since he got into government. Remember, the commies were swearing from day one they were going to impeach Trump, so it's no accident that it happened. Not only is this the weakest case for impeachment in history; first impeachment without a crime, but the commies are willing to bet all-or-nothing to try and reverse the vote of the people.

This guy was working for the deep state. He was looking for the stupidest thing (which this is) to forward to the front line.

It’s not a reverse of the vote, obviously.

He went through the proper channels to submit his findings. He went through more than one proper channel after the administration suppressed his first report to the general counsel. Characterizing him as a spy is nonsense. You’re suggesting that every whistleblower be labeled as such.

We don't know any of that because those two have been hidden from questioning by the Republicans, and hidden from the American public.

You leftist talk about Trump hiding something, when the people who are hiding the most in this case are the commies. I want to know who this person was that listened to the phone call. I want to know why he needed a whistleblower in the first place. I want to hear (under oath) the rat testify that he had no contact with Schiff Face right up to the point of impeachment. I want to know who the lawyer was that wrote the actual complaint. I want to know all of this.

 

[ChrisL]

Quid Pro Joe: Biden's Brother's Firm Was Handed $1.5bn Iraq Contract

A Deadly Foreign Policy for Kicks?
Make no mistake: What Joe Biden did in 2011 is hardly less scandalous.

It was in June of that year that HillStone International, a relatively new homebuilding concern, landed a $1,500,000,000 contract to build homes in Iraq.

Vice President Biden’s brother, James Biden, had landed an executive position at HillStone just months earlier.

To understand just how grave, how corrupt, how unseemly this is, consider the backdrop to Biden’s 2011 family deal-making.

Starting in 2009, just after then Vice President Biden took oversight of the Obama administration’s Iraq policy, the U.S. began to withdraw from a mangled Iraq.

The withdrawal, completed in 2011, only made things worse for the people of Iraq.

In 2012, Richter’s father boasted to the Fox Business Network: “People who have important names tend to get in the door easier,” and even joked that if James Biden “had the name Obama he would get in the door easier.”

The same year, the New York Post’s Charles Gasparino reported on what he called a “good deal for [Hillstone International], a relative newcomer to building homes — and for James Biden, who as one partner will get a good share of that $1.5 billion.”

 

[ChrisL]

The one who relayed the details of the call to the so-called whistleblower. It's never happened before as long as I can remember.

That doesn’t make them a spy. That was a person with authorization and need to be on the phone call.

It’s never happened because it’s never needed to happen before. These were hardly the only people who were alarmed by Trump’s conversation. This was even referred to the DoJ who pretended to care for like 5 seconds.

We have the transcript. We know what was said. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said yet alone an impeccable offense. The spy is a deep stater. If speculation is correct who he is, he was in a meeting with Ukraine officials at the White House during DumBama, discussing how they could stop Trump.

He was working for more than the government, he was working for the Democrat party.

Theres much more to the story than the transcript, obviously, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that by now. It’s telling that they released the transcript but hold everything else back. It’s as if that’s the least incriminating thing they could release.

There was no spy. Not by any definition of the word.

Sure there was. This guy has been a diehard Democrat since he got into government. Remember, the commies were swearing from day one they were going to impeach Trump, so it's no accident that it happened. Not only is this the weakest case for impeachment in history; first impeachment without a crime, but the commies are willing to bet all-or-nothing to try and reverse the vote of the people.

This guy was working for the deep state. He was looking for the stupidest thing (which this is) to forward to the front line.

jimminee cricket ray, please stop....

this is the strongest case for impeachment in your or my lifetime....

a statutory crime is not needed to impeach, in fact... there were no statutory crimes when the founders wrote the constitution, nor for the next 65 years after our independence.

High crimes and misdemeanors means a breach of the public trust through an abuse of the power we gave them.... it could be an improper use of the power we trusted them with, or a criminal offense....primarily one that affects the job we've given to them to do.... it does not HAVE TO BE one or the other, it can be either of those type of things.

AND, the articles of impeachment for both Nixon and Johnson, were articles for Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Congress and NOT criminal offenses.

Clinton was the EXCEPTION in impeachments, with having a crime committed, not the norm.

Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

House Democrats have announced the grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on which they plan to seek the impeachment of President Trump. Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

That danger is now coming to pass, as House Democrats seek for the first time in American history to impeach a president without having at least some bipartisan support in Congress. Nor can they find any support in the words of the Constitution, or in the history of its adoption. A majority of the House is simply making it up as they go along in the process, thus placing themselves not only above the law but above the Constitution.

In doing this, they follow the view of Representative Maxine Waters who infamously declared that, when it comes to impeachment, “there is no law.” From her view, shared by some others, the criteria for impeaching a president is whatever a majority of the House says it is, regardless of what the Constitution mandates. This reductionistic and lawless view confuses what a majority of the House could get away with, if there is no judicial review, and what the mandated duty of all House members is, which is to support, defend, and apply the Constitution as written, not as it can be stretched to fit the actions of an opposition or controversial president.

If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

 

[iceberg]

I was just reading an article on the Biden's. Joe's brother always worked with him one way or another. His brother got a VIP job with a construction company. What luck too, that construction company got the bid for a 1.5 billion dollar housing project contract in Iraq from our federal government. Like Hunter, this guy had no experience in housing.

This whole family is corrupt it seems.

Republicans run the Justice Department

What are they waiting for?

1. Get your facts straight and verified and your ducks in a row.

2. Do they have confirmation, or are they waiting for more information?

3. In politics, timing is everything.

should the DOJ actions be based on political timing?

well, roy, it sure was for the last admin. but you liked it then.

sucks when you let it go for your side and it comes back to you like a bad used car.

We know, Obama's cash for clunkers deal. Took good used cars off the market.

Roy Fuchs put em on his lot.

 

[ChrisL]

Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.

He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.

There’s just one problem.

Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.

And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.

In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.

The memos raise troubling questions:

1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma's American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?"

2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?

Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.

Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.


More at link below.

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story

 

[Care4all]

What spies were listening into Trump’s phone call?

The one who relayed the details of the call to the so-called whistleblower. It's never happened before as long as I can remember.

That doesn’t make them a spy. That was a person with authorization and need to be on the phone call.

It’s never happened because it’s never needed to happen before. These were hardly the only people who were alarmed by Trump’s conversation. This was even referred to the DoJ who pretended to care for like 5 seconds.

We have the transcript. We know what was said. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said yet alone an impeccable offense. The spy is a deep stater. If speculation is correct who he is, he was in a meeting with Ukraine officials at the White House during DumBama, discussing how they could stop Trump.

He was working for more than the government, he was working for the Democrat party.

Theres much more to the story than the transcript, obviously, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that by now. It’s telling that they released the transcript but hold everything else back. It’s as if that’s the least incriminating thing they could release.

There was no spy. Not by any definition of the word.

Sure there was. This guy has been a diehard Democrat since he got into government. Remember, the commies were swearing from day one they were going to impeach Trump, so it's no accident that it happened. Not only is this the weakest case for impeachment in history; first impeachment without a crime, but the commies are willing to bet all-or-nothing to try and reverse the vote of the people.

This guy was working for the deep state. He was looking for the stupidest thing (which this is) to forward to the front line.

So Ray,

What is Trump being impeached for? What's he on trial for? What was Trump charged with?

 

[Care4all]

Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.

He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.

There’s just one problem.

Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.

And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.

In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.

The memos raise troubling questions:

1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma's American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?"

2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?

Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.

Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.


More at link below.

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story

John Soloman

Pleaseeeee!

He's part of the Giuliani and Goon gang.....

Part of the whole scam From the beginning, Parnus fed Solomon most of Solomon's fake and false propaganda.

He's even been mentioned in the impeachment trial.

 

[DOTR]

GP ^ | January 23,2020 | Cristina Laila

President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani dropped a bomb Thursday morning warning that he is going to start revealing documents related to the Biden family’s corrupt and criminal dealings in the Ukraine and elsewhere around the world.

Later Thursday evening, Rudy revealed that he’s going to start hitting the swamp tomorrow and unleash on top level Democrats who sold their public office for millions of dollars!

Rudy also said Democrat officials conspired with foreign officials to “destroy” the Trump candidacy!

“Starting tomorrow we will begin cracking through the Swamp media’s cover-up of TOP level Democrats selling their public office, resulting in multi-millions, in Ukraine and the conspired attempt with foreign officials to “destroy” the Trump candidacy,” Rudy said in a tweet.

Rudy Giuliani ✔ @RudyGiuliani Starting tomorrow we will begin cracking through the Swamp media’s cover-up of TOP level Democrats selling their public office, resulting in multi-millions, in Ukraine and the conspired attempt with foreign officials to “destroy” the Trump candidacy.

---------------

Just in time for the Republicans to take the Senate Floor.for their defense of president Trump...
What a coincidence........ROTFLMFAO, now where is the popcorn?

Were any of you wondering why the serfs here suddenly started begging “censure and let’s be done!”?

 

[Care4all]

That doesn’t make them a spy. That was a person with authorization and need to be on the phone call.

It’s never happened because it’s never needed to happen before. These were hardly the only people who were alarmed by Trump’s conversation. This was even referred to the DoJ who pretended to care for like 5 seconds.

We have the transcript. We know what was said. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said yet alone an impeccable offense. The spy is a deep stater. If speculation is correct who he is, he was in a meeting with Ukraine officials at the White House during DumBama, discussing how they could stop Trump.

He was working for more than the government, he was working for the Democrat party.

Theres much more to the story than the transcript, obviously, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that by now. It’s telling that they released the transcript but hold everything else back. It’s as if that’s the least incriminating thing they could release.

There was no spy. Not by any definition of the word.

Sure there was. This guy has been a diehard Democrat since he got into government. Remember, the commies were swearing from day one they were going to impeach Trump, so it's no accident that it happened. Not only is this the weakest case for impeachment in history; first impeachment without a crime, but the commies are willing to bet all-or-nothing to try and reverse the vote of the people.

This guy was working for the deep state. He was looking for the stupidest thing (which this is) to forward to the front line.

jimminee cricket ray, please stop....

this is the strongest case for impeachment in your or my lifetime....

a statutory crime is not needed to impeach, in fact... there were no statutory crimes when the founders wrote the constitution, nor for the next 65 years after our independence.

High crimes and misdemeanors means a breach of the public trust through an abuse of the power we gave them.... it could be an improper use of the power we trusted them with, or a criminal offense....primarily one that affects the job we've given to them to do.... it does not HAVE TO BE one or the other, it can be either of those type of things.

AND, the articles of impeachment for both Nixon and Johnson, were articles for Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Congress and NOT criminal offenses.

Clinton was the EXCEPTION in impeachments, with having a crime committed, not the norm.

Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

House Democrats have announced the grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on which they plan to seek the impeachment of President Trump. Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

That danger is now coming to pass, as House Democrats seek for the first time in American history to impeach a president without having at least some bipartisan support in Congress. Nor can they find any support in the words of the Constitution, or in the history of its adoption. A majority of the House is simply making it up as they go along in the process, thus placing themselves not only above the law but above the Constitution.

In doing this, they follow the view of Representative Maxine Waters who infamously declared that, when it comes to impeachment, “there is no law.” From her view, shared by some others, the criteria for impeaching a president is whatever a majority of the House says it is, regardless of what the Constitution mandates. This reductionistic and lawless view confuses what a majority of the House could get away with, if there is no judicial review, and what the mandated duty of all House members is, which is to support, defend, and apply the Constitution as written, not as it can be stretched to fit the actions of an opposition or controversial president.

If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

he's wrong.... And no one, not a single scholar agrees with him.....

They agree with the opposite dershowitz opinion Alan gave years back.

 

[Norman]

The one who relayed the details of the call to the so-called whistleblower. It's never happened before as long as I can remember.

That doesn’t make them a spy. That was a person with authorization and need to be on the phone call.

It’s never happened because it’s never needed to happen before. These were hardly the only people who were alarmed by Trump’s conversation. This was even referred to the DoJ who pretended to care for like 5 seconds.

We have the transcript. We know what was said. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said yet alone an impeccable offense. The spy is a deep stater. If speculation is correct who he is, he was in a meeting with Ukraine officials at the White House during DumBama, discussing how they could stop Trump.

He was working for more than the government, he was working for the Democrat party.

Theres much more to the story than the transcript, obviously, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that by now. It’s telling that they released the transcript but hold everything else back. It’s as if that’s the least incriminating thing they could release.

There was no spy. Not by any definition of the word.

Sure there was. This guy has been a diehard Democrat since he got into government. Remember, the commies were swearing from day one they were going to impeach Trump, so it's no accident that it happened. Not only is this the weakest case for impeachment in history; first impeachment without a crime, but the commies are willing to bet all-or-nothing to try and reverse the vote of the people.

This guy was working for the deep state. He was looking for the stupidest thing (which this is) to forward to the front line.

So Ray,

What is Trump being impeached for? What's he on trial for? What was Trump charged with?

I recall it being something about him being Orange and Bad.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is now Saturday, Rudy said he was going to release stuff on Friday...anyone have a link to all the stuff he released?

 

[rightwinger]

Good for Rudy

But it does nothing to exonerate the illegal actions of the President

Wah! Wah! Wah!
Democrats do it too

Except that nobody has presented proof that Trump did what Biden did.

Biden operated publicly and out in the open

If not for a whistle blower......Trump would have gotten away with it

 

[Vel]

The one who relayed the details of the call to the so-called whistleblower. It's never happened before as long as I can remember.

That doesn’t make them a spy. That was a person with authorization and need to be on the phone call.

It’s never happened because it’s never needed to happen before. These were hardly the only people who were alarmed by Trump’s conversation. This was even referred to the DoJ who pretended to care for like 5 seconds.

We have the transcript. We know what was said. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said yet alone an impeccable offense. The spy is a deep stater. If speculation is correct who he is, he was in a meeting with Ukraine officials at the White House during DumBama, discussing how they could stop Trump.

He was working for more than the government, he was working for the Democrat party.

Theres much more to the story than the transcript, obviously, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that by now. It’s telling that they released the transcript but hold everything else back. It’s as if that’s the least incriminating thing they could release.

There was no spy. Not by any definition of the word.

Sure there was. This guy has been a diehard Democrat since he got into government. Remember, the commies were swearing from day one they were going to impeach Trump, so it's no accident that it happened. Not only is this the weakest case for impeachment in history; first impeachment without a crime, but the commies are willing to bet all-or-nothing to try and reverse the vote of the people.

This guy was working for the deep state. He was looking for the stupidest thing (which this is) to forward to the front line.

So Ray,

What is Trump being impeached for? What's he on trial for? What was Trump charged with?

Trump was impeached because butt hurt democrats can't get over losing the 2016 election and know that they can't beat him in the 2020. Nothing more no matter how liberals cry and spin.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good for Rudy

But it does nothing to exonerate the illegal actions of the President

Wah! Wah! Wah!
Democrats do it too

Except that nobody has presented proof that Trump did what Biden did.

Biden operated publicly and out in the open

If not for a whistle blower......Trump would have gotten away with it

Gotten away with what??? He didn't do anything and he didn't get anything.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Good for Rudy

But it does nothing to exonerate the illegal actions of the President

Wah! Wah! Wah!
Democrats do it too

Except that nobody has presented proof that Trump did what Biden did.

Biden operated publicly and out in the open

If not for a whistle blower......Trump would have gotten away with it

Gotten away with what??? He didn't do anything and he didn't get anything.

According to this thread his personal lawyer has a whole lot of dirt he got from the Ukraine that will be used to do nothing but attack his chief rivals in the coming election. That seems like something.

 

[progressive hunter]

Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.

He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.

There’s just one problem.

Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.

And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.

In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.

The memos raise troubling questions:

1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma's American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?"

2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?

Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.

Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.


More at link below.

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story

John Soloman

Pleaseeeee!

He's part of the Giuliani and Goon gang.....

Part of the whole scam From the beginning, Parnus fed Solomon most of Solomon's fake and false propaganda.

He's even been mentioned in the impeachment trial.

in otherwords you cant refute the message so you attack the messenger,,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The one who relayed the details of the call to the so-called whistleblower. It's never happened before as long as I can remember.

That doesn’t make them a spy. That was a person with authorization and need to be on the phone call.

It’s never happened because it’s never needed to happen before. These were hardly the only people who were alarmed by Trump’s conversation. This was even referred to the DoJ who pretended to care for like 5 seconds.

We have the transcript. We know what was said. There was nothing wrong with what Trump said yet alone an impeccable offense. The spy is a deep stater. If speculation is correct who he is, he was in a meeting with Ukraine officials at the White House during DumBama, discussing how they could stop Trump.

He was working for more than the government, he was working for the Democrat party.

Theres much more to the story than the transcript, obviously, and if you’ve been paying attention, you’d know that by now. It’s telling that they released the transcript but hold everything else back. It’s as if that’s the least incriminating thing they could release.

There was no spy. Not by any definition of the word.

Sure there was. This guy has been a diehard Democrat since he got into government. Remember, the commies were swearing from day one they were going to impeach Trump, so it's no accident that it happened. Not only is this the weakest case for impeachment in history; first impeachment without a crime, but the commies are willing to bet all-or-nothing to try and reverse the vote of the people.

This guy was working for the deep state. He was looking for the stupidest thing (which this is) to forward to the front line.

So Ray,

What is Trump being impeached for? What's he on trial for? What was Trump charged with?

As I stated, he is being impeached for doing the things DumBama actually did. He is withholding documents from the Congress. Republicans took it to court, the Democrats impeached. He's accused of trying a quid pro quo. He didn't do that, but DumBama did, and Biden bragged about it. The Republicans didn't do a thing because they are not commies, and realized that it's been done many times in our past. Republicans would only impeach for real reasons, such as a crime like in the Clinton case.