Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[ChrisL]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

1st witness is the whistleblower.......

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's not his sister.

Any sibling of Schitt would have killed themselves by the time they were 10.

 

[Zorro!]

The American People are disgusted by this.

In 285 Days you are going to be taught a lesson you will never forget.

Schiff needs repercussions for lying under oath.

The Top Seven Lies Adam Schiff Has Told to Boost Impeachment

Lying Schiff's Top Seven lies, so far
​

7. Promoting the bogus Steele dossier he knew was not credible:

Any idiot who read the Clinton-funded Steele dossier and known it wasn’t credible. Schiff knew the information in it was uncorroborated and full of inaccuracies, embellishments, and lies. Nevertheless, he promoted the dossier as a legitimate piece of anti-Trump intelligence. Rolling Stone even noted that the report “is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI ‘provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.’”
​

6. His repeated claims of having “ample evidence” of collusion

On several occasions, Adam Schiff declared there was “ample evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and that he had seen it. "There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you're willing to see it," Schiff said back in February 2018. "If you want to blind yourself, then you can look the other way.” Schiff was lying every time he claimed to have seen evidence of collusion. Schiff's goal of impeaching Trump would have to wait for another lie.
​

5. Denying FISA abuse even though he knew it happened

Back in 2017, then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) revealed that evidence of FISA "abuse" had been uncovered by investigators. "We have had an ongoing investigation into DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI since mid-summer for both FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] abuse and other matters that we can't get into too much. But it is very concerning," he said.

A couple of months later, the House Intelligence Committee released a memo on surveillance abuses by the Obama administration. For Schiff, any abuse of the FISA court system might undermine any impeachment narrative that might present itself with regard to the 2016 election and Russian collusion. So, Schiff had to mock the Nunes memo relentlessly to keep the message on track. Schiff denied that any abuses had occurred in his own memo released shortly thereafter. As the ranking Democrat on the committee at the time, Schiff had access to the same information as Nunes, so he knew the Nunes memo was accurate.
​

4. Lying about having contact with the whistleblower

PolitiFact isn’t exactly known for being fair to Republicans, but when Adam Schiff claimed, "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower," during an interview on MSNBC in September 2019, they couldn’t exactly cover for him when it was revealed by the New York Times that Schiff’s staff had been colluding with the whistleblower and was aware of the whistleblower’s concerns in advance of them going public. “While it was not publicly known that Schiff’s committee had communicated with the whistleblower ahead of the complaint’s filing, Schiff knew the truth,” explained Politifact. “When given the chance to say that the whistleblower had reached out to a committee aide, he did not.”
​

3. Misrepresenting a key text message

Schiff "mischaracterized" impeachment evidence that was used during the House Democrats’ impeachment investigation. In a letter sent to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, Schiff claimed that Giuliani associate Lev Parnas "continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky," which was based on a text message from Parnas to Giuliani that read "trying to get us mr Z." The rest of the exchange was redacted, but Schiff clearly knew that the redacted portion made it clear that “mr Z” actually referred to Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.
​

2. Claiming Ambassador Sondland’s testimony proved there was a quid pro quo

On Tuesday, Schiff once again told a whopper by misrepresenting Ambassador Sondland’s testimony. “Ambassador Sondland also said...that—we’re often asked ‘was there a quid pro quo?’ the answer is ‘yes there was a quid pro quo,’ there was an absolute quid pro quo,” Schiff said.​

Here’s the problem: by Sondland’s own testimony, he didn’t know definitively that there was a quid pro, he was presuming there was.​

1. His fictional version of the Trump-Zelenksy phone call

Adam Schiff, when claiming to read the transcript on the House floor, fabricated the entire transcript into something far more sinister than it actually was.

Criticism over the deception caused him to backpedal and claim that his reading of the transcript was meant as a parody.

“If the conversation were as damning as Schiff et al would like, he would have simply read directly from it, instead of making up dialogue,” Fox News’s Brit Hume wisely observed it a tweet. “Probably not surprising in light of the extravagant collusion claims he made for 2 years.”​

And that was just today....

Well, i don't know if He will "Go to Hell" for ever or face indictment for lying under oath, but Adam Schiff did a good job laying it out today. It's a wrap for the day.

I am totally disgusted by this rather EXPENSIVE political circus that we are all paying for, to remove a legitimately elected president with very questionable "evidence." And they told us that they had "overwhelming evidence." I felt this was a lie from the beginning, and they have proven that.

Schiff lies like a rug.

 

[Zorro!]

Schiff needs repercussions for lying under oath.

Schiff is trying to sell that Alan Dershowitz is not a reputable attorney and knows nothing about the Constitution.

Schiff is a Lying Whore, who will burn in Hell for his wicked lies and wicked life.

Remember:

We are Going on 4 years of The Democrats trying to oust the president since November 2016 yet The President:

Turned over 1 Million Documents
Allowed 3,500 Interviews
Complied with 500 Suboenas

And Provided 2 Transcripts of two phone calls that made out Adam Schiff and the two Whistle Blowers as Liars.

The Top Seven Lies Adam Schiff Has Told to Boost Impeachment

Lying Schiff's Top Seven lies, so far
​

7. Promoting the bogus Steele dossier he knew was not credible:

Any idiot who read the Clinton-funded Steele dossier and known it wasn’t credible. Schiff knew the information in it was uncorroborated and full of inaccuracies, embellishments, and lies. Nevertheless, he promoted the dossier as a legitimate piece of anti-Trump intelligence. Rolling Stone even noted that the report “is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI ‘provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.’”
​

6. His repeated claims of having “ample evidence” of collusion

On several occasions, Adam Schiff declared there was “ample evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and that he had seen it. "There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you're willing to see it," Schiff said back in February 2018. "If you want to blind yourself, then you can look the other way.” Schiff was lying every time he claimed to have seen evidence of collusion. Schiff's goal of impeaching Trump would have to wait for another lie.
​

5. Denying FISA abuse even though he knew it happened

Back in 2017, then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) revealed that evidence of FISA "abuse" had been uncovered by investigators. "We have had an ongoing investigation into DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI since mid-summer for both FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] abuse and other matters that we can't get into too much. But it is very concerning," he said.

A couple of months later, the House Intelligence Committee released a memo on surveillance abuses by the Obama administration. For Schiff, any abuse of the FISA court system might undermine any impeachment narrative that might present itself with regard to the 2016 election and Russian collusion. So, Schiff had to mock the Nunes memo relentlessly to keep the message on track. Schiff denied that any abuses had occurred in his own memo released shortly thereafter. As the ranking Democrat on the committee at the time, Schiff had access to the same information as Nunes, so he knew the Nunes memo was accurate.
​

4. Lying about having contact with the whistleblower

PolitiFact isn’t exactly known for being fair to Republicans, but when Adam Schiff claimed, "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower," during an interview on MSNBC in September 2019, they couldn’t exactly cover for him when it was revealed by the New York Times that Schiff’s staff had been colluding with the whistleblower and was aware of the whistleblower’s concerns in advance of them going public. “While it was not publicly known that Schiff’s committee had communicated with the whistleblower ahead of the complaint’s filing, Schiff knew the truth,” explained Politifact. “When given the chance to say that the whistleblower had reached out to a committee aide, he did not.”
​

3. Misrepresenting a key text message

Schiff "mischaracterized" impeachment evidence that was used during the House Democrats’ impeachment investigation. In a letter sent to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, Schiff claimed that Giuliani associate Lev Parnas "continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky," which was based on a text message from Parnas to Giuliani that read "trying to get us mr Z." The rest of the exchange was redacted, but Schiff clearly knew that the redacted portion made it clear that “mr Z” actually referred to Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.
​

2. Claiming Ambassador Sondland’s testimony proved there was a quid pro quo

On Tuesday, Schiff once again told a whopper by misrepresenting Ambassador Sondland’s testimony. “Ambassador Sondland also said...that—we’re often asked ‘was there a quid pro quo?’ the answer is ‘yes there was a quid pro quo,’ there was an absolute quid pro quo,” Schiff said.​

Here’s the problem: by Sondland’s own testimony, he didn’t know definitively that there was a quid pro, he was presuming there was.​

1. His fictional version of the Trump-Zelenksy phone call

Adam Schiff, when claiming to read the transcript on the House floor, fabricated the entire transcript into something far more sinister than it actually was.

Criticism over the deception caused him to backpedal and claim that his reading of the transcript was meant as a parody.

“If the conversation were as damning as Schiff et al would like, he would have simply read directly from it, instead of making up dialogue,” Fox News’s Brit Hume wisely observed it a tweet. “Probably not surprising in light of the extravagant collusion claims he made for 2 years.”​

And that was just today....

Well, i don't know if He will "Go to Hell" for ever or face indictment for lying under oath, but Adam Schiff did a good job laying it out today. It's a wrap for the day.

Oh, he's a liar, but the Speech and Debate clause protects him against indictment for anything he says on the floor of Congress.

 

[White 6]

Schiff needs repercussions for lying under oath.

Schiff is a Lying Whore, who will burn in Hell for his wicked lies and wicked life.

Remember:

We are Going on 4 years of The Democrats trying to oust the president since November 2016 yet The President:

Turned over 1 Million Documents
Allowed 3,500 Interviews
Complied with 500 Suboenas

And Provided 2 Transcripts of two phone calls that made out Adam Schiff and the two Whistle Blowers as Liars.

The Top Seven Lies Adam Schiff Has Told to Boost Impeachment

Lying Schiff's Top Seven lies, so far
​

7. Promoting the bogus Steele dossier he knew was not credible:

Any idiot who read the Clinton-funded Steele dossier and known it wasn’t credible. Schiff knew the information in it was uncorroborated and full of inaccuracies, embellishments, and lies. Nevertheless, he promoted the dossier as a legitimate piece of anti-Trump intelligence. Rolling Stone even noted that the report “is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI ‘provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.’”
​

6. His repeated claims of having “ample evidence” of collusion

On several occasions, Adam Schiff declared there was “ample evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and that he had seen it. "There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you're willing to see it," Schiff said back in February 2018. "If you want to blind yourself, then you can look the other way.” Schiff was lying every time he claimed to have seen evidence of collusion. Schiff's goal of impeaching Trump would have to wait for another lie.
​

5. Denying FISA abuse even though he knew it happened

Back in 2017, then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) revealed that evidence of FISA "abuse" had been uncovered by investigators. "We have had an ongoing investigation into DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI since mid-summer for both FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] abuse and other matters that we can't get into too much. But it is very concerning," he said.

A couple of months later, the House Intelligence Committee released a memo on surveillance abuses by the Obama administration. For Schiff, any abuse of the FISA court system might undermine any impeachment narrative that might present itself with regard to the 2016 election and Russian collusion. So, Schiff had to mock the Nunes memo relentlessly to keep the message on track. Schiff denied that any abuses had occurred in his own memo released shortly thereafter. As the ranking Democrat on the committee at the time, Schiff had access to the same information as Nunes, so he knew the Nunes memo was accurate.
​

4. Lying about having contact with the whistleblower

PolitiFact isn’t exactly known for being fair to Republicans, but when Adam Schiff claimed, "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower," during an interview on MSNBC in September 2019, they couldn’t exactly cover for him when it was revealed by the New York Times that Schiff’s staff had been colluding with the whistleblower and was aware of the whistleblower’s concerns in advance of them going public. “While it was not publicly known that Schiff’s committee had communicated with the whistleblower ahead of the complaint’s filing, Schiff knew the truth,” explained Politifact. “When given the chance to say that the whistleblower had reached out to a committee aide, he did not.”
​

3. Misrepresenting a key text message

Schiff "mischaracterized" impeachment evidence that was used during the House Democrats’ impeachment investigation. In a letter sent to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, Schiff claimed that Giuliani associate Lev Parnas "continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky," which was based on a text message from Parnas to Giuliani that read "trying to get us mr Z." The rest of the exchange was redacted, but Schiff clearly knew that the redacted portion made it clear that “mr Z” actually referred to Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.
​

2. Claiming Ambassador Sondland’s testimony proved there was a quid pro quo

On Tuesday, Schiff once again told a whopper by misrepresenting Ambassador Sondland’s testimony. “Ambassador Sondland also said...that—we’re often asked ‘was there a quid pro quo?’ the answer is ‘yes there was a quid pro quo,’ there was an absolute quid pro quo,” Schiff said.​

Here’s the problem: by Sondland’s own testimony, he didn’t know definitively that there was a quid pro, he was presuming there was.​

1. His fictional version of the Trump-Zelenksy phone call

Adam Schiff, when claiming to read the transcript on the House floor, fabricated the entire transcript into something far more sinister than it actually was.

Criticism over the deception caused him to backpedal and claim that his reading of the transcript was meant as a parody.

“If the conversation were as damning as Schiff et al would like, he would have simply read directly from it, instead of making up dialogue,” Fox News’s Brit Hume wisely observed it a tweet. “Probably not surprising in light of the extravagant collusion claims he made for 2 years.”​

And that was just today....

Well, i don't know if He will "Go to Hell" for ever or face indictment for lying under oath, but Adam Schiff did a good job laying it out today. It's a wrap for the day.

Oh, he's a liar, but the Speech and Debate clause protects him against indictment for anything he says on the floor of Congress.

Well, I guess he and the President will both get off then. No worries, right?

 

[Zorro!]

Schiff needs repercussions for lying under oath.

Schiff is trying to sell that Alan Dershowitz is not a reputable attorney and knows nothing about the Constitution.

Schiff is a Lying Whore, who will burn in Hell for his wicked lies and wicked life.

Remember:

We are Going on 4 years of The Democrats trying to oust the president since November 2016 yet The President:

Turned over 1 Million Documents
Allowed 3,500 Interviews
Complied with 500 Suboenas

And Provided 2 Transcripts of two phone calls that made out Adam Schiff and the two Whistle Blowers as Liars.

The Top Seven Lies Adam Schiff Has Told to Boost Impeachment

Lying Schiff's Top Seven lies, so far
​

7. Promoting the bogus Steele dossier he knew was not credible:

Any idiot who read the Clinton-funded Steele dossier and known it wasn’t credible. Schiff knew the information in it was uncorroborated and full of inaccuracies, embellishments, and lies. Nevertheless, he promoted the dossier as a legitimate piece of anti-Trump intelligence. Rolling Stone even noted that the report “is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI ‘provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.’”
​

6. His repeated claims of having “ample evidence” of collusion

On several occasions, Adam Schiff declared there was “ample evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and that he had seen it. "There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you're willing to see it," Schiff said back in February 2018. "If you want to blind yourself, then you can look the other way.” Schiff was lying every time he claimed to have seen evidence of collusion. Schiff's goal of impeaching Trump would have to wait for another lie.
​

5. Denying FISA abuse even though he knew it happened

Back in 2017, then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) revealed that evidence of FISA "abuse" had been uncovered by investigators. "We have had an ongoing investigation into DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI since mid-summer for both FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] abuse and other matters that we can't get into too much. But it is very concerning," he said.

A couple of months later, the House Intelligence Committee released a memo on surveillance abuses by the Obama administration. For Schiff, any abuse of the FISA court system might undermine any impeachment narrative that might present itself with regard to the 2016 election and Russian collusion. So, Schiff had to mock the Nunes memo relentlessly to keep the message on track. Schiff denied that any abuses had occurred in his own memo released shortly thereafter. As the ranking Democrat on the committee at the time, Schiff had access to the same information as Nunes, so he knew the Nunes memo was accurate.
​

4. Lying about having contact with the whistleblower

PolitiFact isn’t exactly known for being fair to Republicans, but when Adam Schiff claimed, "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower," during an interview on MSNBC in September 2019, they couldn’t exactly cover for him when it was revealed by the New York Times that Schiff’s staff had been colluding with the whistleblower and was aware of the whistleblower’s concerns in advance of them going public. “While it was not publicly known that Schiff’s committee had communicated with the whistleblower ahead of the complaint’s filing, Schiff knew the truth,” explained Politifact. “When given the chance to say that the whistleblower had reached out to a committee aide, he did not.”
​

3. Misrepresenting a key text message

Schiff "mischaracterized" impeachment evidence that was used during the House Democrats’ impeachment investigation. In a letter sent to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, Schiff claimed that Giuliani associate Lev Parnas "continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky," which was based on a text message from Parnas to Giuliani that read "trying to get us mr Z." The rest of the exchange was redacted, but Schiff clearly knew that the redacted portion made it clear that “mr Z” actually referred to Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.
​

2. Claiming Ambassador Sondland’s testimony proved there was a quid pro quo

On Tuesday, Schiff once again told a whopper by misrepresenting Ambassador Sondland’s testimony. “Ambassador Sondland also said...that—we’re often asked ‘was there a quid pro quo?’ the answer is ‘yes there was a quid pro quo,’ there was an absolute quid pro quo,” Schiff said.​

Here’s the problem: by Sondland’s own testimony, he didn’t know definitively that there was a quid pro, he was presuming there was.​

1. His fictional version of the Trump-Zelenksy phone call

Adam Schiff, when claiming to read the transcript on the House floor, fabricated the entire transcript into something far more sinister than it actually was.

Criticism over the deception caused him to backpedal and claim that his reading of the transcript was meant as a parody.

“If the conversation were as damning as Schiff et al would like, he would have simply read directly from it, instead of making up dialogue,” Fox News’s Brit Hume wisely observed it a tweet. “Probably not surprising in light of the extravagant collusion claims he made for 2 years.”​

And that was just today....

Debunking Trump’s Impeachment with One Simple Thought Experiment.

Let’s pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let’s pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let’s pretend he’s Joe Biden (R), former Vice President under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently? Literally everything.

Instead of impeaching Trump, they’d be praising him (although perhaps reluctantly) for his non-partisan willingness to look into Republican malfeasance. Adam Schiff would hold months worth of hearings, looking back into the Bush Administration in ways he’d never dare look back into Obama’s. The Democrat-controlled press would be 24/7 Biden! Biden! Biden! Jerry Nadler would have to go back to, I dunno, eating mayonnaise with an ice cream scoop.

 

[Zorro!]

Schiff needs repercussions for lying under oath.

The Top Seven Lies Adam Schiff Has Told to Boost Impeachment

Lying Schiff's Top Seven lies, so far
​

7. Promoting the bogus Steele dossier he knew was not credible:

Any idiot who read the Clinton-funded Steele dossier and known it wasn’t credible. Schiff knew the information in it was uncorroborated and full of inaccuracies, embellishments, and lies. Nevertheless, he promoted the dossier as a legitimate piece of anti-Trump intelligence. Rolling Stone even noted that the report “is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI ‘provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.’”
​

6. His repeated claims of having “ample evidence” of collusion

On several occasions, Adam Schiff declared there was “ample evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and that he had seen it. "There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you're willing to see it," Schiff said back in February 2018. "If you want to blind yourself, then you can look the other way.” Schiff was lying every time he claimed to have seen evidence of collusion. Schiff's goal of impeaching Trump would have to wait for another lie.
​

5. Denying FISA abuse even though he knew it happened

Back in 2017, then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) revealed that evidence of FISA "abuse" had been uncovered by investigators. "We have had an ongoing investigation into DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI since mid-summer for both FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] abuse and other matters that we can't get into too much. But it is very concerning," he said.

A couple of months later, the House Intelligence Committee released a memo on surveillance abuses by the Obama administration. For Schiff, any abuse of the FISA court system might undermine any impeachment narrative that might present itself with regard to the 2016 election and Russian collusion. So, Schiff had to mock the Nunes memo relentlessly to keep the message on track. Schiff denied that any abuses had occurred in his own memo released shortly thereafter. As the ranking Democrat on the committee at the time, Schiff had access to the same information as Nunes, so he knew the Nunes memo was accurate.
​

4. Lying about having contact with the whistleblower

PolitiFact isn’t exactly known for being fair to Republicans, but when Adam Schiff claimed, "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower," during an interview on MSNBC in September 2019, they couldn’t exactly cover for him when it was revealed by the New York Times that Schiff’s staff had been colluding with the whistleblower and was aware of the whistleblower’s concerns in advance of them going public. “While it was not publicly known that Schiff’s committee had communicated with the whistleblower ahead of the complaint’s filing, Schiff knew the truth,” explained Politifact. “When given the chance to say that the whistleblower had reached out to a committee aide, he did not.”
​

3. Misrepresenting a key text message

Schiff "mischaracterized" impeachment evidence that was used during the House Democrats’ impeachment investigation. In a letter sent to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, Schiff claimed that Giuliani associate Lev Parnas "continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky," which was based on a text message from Parnas to Giuliani that read "trying to get us mr Z." The rest of the exchange was redacted, but Schiff clearly knew that the redacted portion made it clear that “mr Z” actually referred to Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.
​

2. Claiming Ambassador Sondland’s testimony proved there was a quid pro quo

On Tuesday, Schiff once again told a whopper by misrepresenting Ambassador Sondland’s testimony. “Ambassador Sondland also said...that—we’re often asked ‘was there a quid pro quo?’ the answer is ‘yes there was a quid pro quo,’ there was an absolute quid pro quo,” Schiff said.​

Here’s the problem: by Sondland’s own testimony, he didn’t know definitively that there was a quid pro, he was presuming there was.​

1. His fictional version of the Trump-Zelenksy phone call

Adam Schiff, when claiming to read the transcript on the House floor, fabricated the entire transcript into something far more sinister than it actually was.

Criticism over the deception caused him to backpedal and claim that his reading of the transcript was meant as a parody.

“If the conversation were as damning as Schiff et al would like, he would have simply read directly from it, instead of making up dialogue,” Fox News’s Brit Hume wisely observed it a tweet. “Probably not surprising in light of the extravagant collusion claims he made for 2 years.”​

And that was just today....

Well, i don't know if He will "Go to Hell" for ever or face indictment for lying under oath, but Adam Schiff did a good job laying it out today. It's a wrap for the day.

Oh, he's a liar, but the Speech and Debate clause protects him against indictment for anything he says on the floor of Congress.

Well, I guess he and the President will both get off then. No worries, right?

They have no case against the President.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Nadler is like George Castanza turned up to 11

 

[Zorro!]

FORMER BILL CLINTON ADVISOR MARK PENN: Democrats Need to End This Partisan Impeachment.

George Washington’s farewell address about the excesses of partisanship was never truer than today. As America’s only truly independent president, Washington predicted that the growth of factionalism would undermine the execution of our laws and that the “alternate domination” of one party over another would lead to efforts to “exact revenge” and “raise false alarms.”​

Let us not forget that the Trump administration suffered through a two-year special counsel investigation based almost entirely on opposition research from the other party, and that this imbroglio stems from the other party believing it had now in turn found information that would turn the political tables. It is all exactly as George Washington foretold.​

 

[The Purge]

Trump Impeachment Lawyer: The Democrats Have Made "A Stunning Admission

 

[easyt65]

Dems argued the nation must be protected from Russia...

They did not say this when Barry made a promise to Putin to be more flexible through Medvedev.

They did not say this when Barry helped hand over uranium to Russia.

They did not say this when Barry made it easy for Putin to annex Crimea by withholding lethal military aid Ukraine needed to defend itself from Russia

They did not say this when Barry's administration was knowingly using Russian-authored Counter-Intelligence propaganda sold / given to them by a known partisan, Trump-hating, lying foreign spy to commit FISA Court abuses and illegally spy on Trump and his team to affect the outcome of a US election

They did not say this when Russia was using Social Media to dupe snowflakes into organizing and marching for them in 2016...

They did not say this when leftist extremist groups like Antifa, BLM, and the Black Fist were taking Russian money to spread racial division and violence...

They did not say that when Hillary took millions from the KGB Bank

 

[easyt65]

BTW....why to leftist nut jobs remember / acknowledge the fact that the Mueller report / testimony already destroyed their false narrative of Russian Collusion...?!

Repeating the accusation only makes them look stupid / desperate / criminal.

 

[easyt65]

If the US needs to be protected from Russia, why do Democrats keep protecting Hunter Biden, w/o was hired as a Board member of a known corrupt Ukraine energy company owned by a notorious Ukrainian criminal known for working with Putin? Why do they keep defending the VP's son, who was selling Burisma access to his father?!

If the US needs to be protected from Russia, why do Democrats keep protecting Joe Biden, who gave a videotaped confession of extorting the previous Ukraine PM, one in which he implicated President Obama as having been involved...which Nadler confirmed yesterday?!

 

[The Purge]

Attorneys General ask Senate to reject articles of impeachment

 

[The Purge]

(THIS LINKS WITH THE NEW INFO LAURA INGRAHAM DROPPED TONIGHT - )

VIDEO AT Ingraham investigation: Emails expose what Obama admin knew about Bidens and Burisma

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This explains it. Anti-Trump CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella filed his second-hand “whistleblower” complaint against President Trump after speaking with Adam Schiff’s team in September.

Ciaramella claimed he was concerned about President Trump’s discussion of Hunter Biden during his call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

Now we know why Ciaramella was so concerned. According to White House visitor logs Eric Ciaramella was hosting the January 19, 2016 White House meeting where Ukrainian officials were told to drop the investigation into Hunter Biden.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Investigative reporter John Solomon at The Hill reported in April on the January 2016 meeting between Ukrainian officials and Obama officials at the White House.

The other case raised at the January 2016 meeting, Telizhenko said, involved Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was paying then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as both a board member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15, bank records show.

According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine’s chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut down.

According to Stephen McIntyre the demand that Ukrainian top prosecutor Viktor Shokin be fired as a condition for IMF loan almost certainly originated with Biden staff. The demand was first announced to Ukrainian prosecutors at a January..

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com

 

[protectionist]

LOL! Who would have thunk that the whistleblower was a filthy Democrat Dirty Tricks Operative?

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump.

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
January 22, 2019

Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.

This might be the most important post of the whole month. This should be an O

LOL! Who would have thunk that the whistleblower was a filthy Democrat Dirty Tricks Operative?

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump.

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
January 22, 2019

Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.

LOL! Who would have thunk that the whistleblower was a filthy Democrat Dirty Tricks Operative?

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump.

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
January 22, 2019

Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.

This should be an OP. This is much too important to be only a single post buried on page 54, of a very general thread about impeachment.

 

[protectionist]

(THIS LINKS WITH THE NEW INFO LAURA INGRAHAM DROPPED TONIGHT - )

VIDEO AT Ingraham investigation: Emails expose what Obama admin knew about Bidens and Burisma

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This explains it. Anti-Trump CIA whistleblower Eric Ciaramella filed his second-hand “whistleblower” complaint against President Trump after speaking with Adam Schiff’s team in September.

Ciaramella claimed he was concerned about President Trump’s discussion of Hunter Biden during his call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

Now we know why Ciaramella was so concerned. According to White House visitor logs Eric Ciaramella was hosting the January 19, 2016 White House meeting where Ukrainian officials were told to drop the investigation into Hunter Biden.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Investigative reporter John Solomon at The Hill reported in April on the January 2016 meeting between Ukrainian officials and Obama officials at the White House.

The other case raised at the January 2016 meeting, Telizhenko said, involved Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was paying then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as both a board member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15, bank records show.

According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine’s chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut down.

According to Stephen McIntyre the demand that Ukrainian top prosecutor Viktor Shokin be fired as a condition for IMF loan almost certainly originated with Biden staff. The demand was first announced to Ukrainian prosecutors at a January..

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com

What do you mean by "almost" ? Airhead Biden blurted it out on video for the whole world to see - HIM point blank bragging about threatening and extorting the Ukranians.

 

[protectionist]

I think once the trial has gone to the jury that you don’t start the trial back up again just to satisfy the prosecutions demands of fairness.

100 senators aint no jury ya dumbass -

DDDUUUURRRRRR

In this case, 100 senators are the jury, although it could well be said that there is no jury, because there is no trial, because this whole thing is just another assinine example of Democrat goofballs playacting to their base for votes.

 

[easyt65]

ADAM'S ALARM
House Dem warns weary senators Trump out to steal 2020 election, Russia could attack US

.