House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Your not so clever attempt to avoid having to show the corroborated testimony of all 17 witnesses who testified in the House inquiry, all of whom contributed to the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, can be disqualified as hearsay totally failed. Article 1 is very much alive.

Ever bit of evidence except that of Ambassador Sondland was hearsay, and his testimony was exculpatory.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. Agree "hearsay" can be evidence, if allowed. However, it can be excluded legitimately, which you seem not to accept.

2. Not sure by what authority you presume to call Dershowitz wrong, he my be on Trump's team, and was a Harvard law professor??? My contention is that even though the House can impeach for any reason, constitutional or not, a crime or not, the senate can see thru the bullshit and acquit if they deem fit.

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I put your lies in red text.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I never stated in any conclusive fashion that hearsay is always allowed. You, however, have stated it cannot be considered evidence.

I can call Dershowitz wrong if I want. It’s a free country. He’s made a career at help rich and famous people evade the consequences of their actions. He’s doing it again. If all you have is an appeal to authority, I guess you’ve run out of arguments.

The Senate can’t see through anything. The Republicans firmly have their eyes shut and trying to prevent having to see any evidence against Trump. They’re operating out of a desire to remain ignorant.

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, what?



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

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

Republicans: None of the witnesses have direct first hand knowledge.

Dems: So let’s talk to witnesses with direct first hand knowledge.

Republicans: No.

Democrats: We can take you to court to make sure these witnesses testify, but we all know we will lose and that will take a long time to get thought the courts, so we will just charge Trump with obstruction of Congress, which doesn't even exist.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, what?



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

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

Republicans: None of the witnesses have direct first hand knowledge.

Dems: So let’s talk to witnesses with direct first hand knowledge.

Republicans: No.

You're conflating apples and oranges. As a matter of proper legal evidentiary predicate, the testimony given to date, other than Sonland, is inadmissible in a federal proceeding under Rule 802. It is an entirely separate point that even if, arguendo, the testimony of people like Bill Taylor were sufficient to establish the position being advanced by Democrats, it still does not raise a valid impeachable offense warranting removal from office under Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.

I don’t know if you listened to the testimony but very little of the testimony given actually was hearsay. Much of it generated circumstantial evidence against Trump but very little was actually hearsay. If the other witnesses don’t testify, much of what is hearsay is allowable under rule 804, witness not available.

Witness not available means "dead".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The transcript vindicates Trump, as does the President of the Ukraine.

Sondland changed his story. Vindland, Volker, and Yaovanavich were nothing but hearsay witnesses. Bolton and Parnas are not witnesses at all.

Want to try again?

1. I'm assuming that the senate votes to exclude "all hearsay evidence". That basically removes Article-1 and the "abuse of power" claim.

2. You can call Dershowitz wrong, but most senators would value his opinion over yours. If you read both articles you see that the president does have the constitutional right to take the House subpoenas to court, and that is NOT IMPEACHABLE, it is NOT "obstruction of the House". Article 2 is DOA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The transcript vindicates Trump, as does the President of the Ukraine.

Sondland changed his story. Vindland, Volker, and Yaovanavich were nothing but hearsay witnesses. Bolton and Parnas are not witnesses at all.

Want to try again?

Vindland was on the phone call. Volker was part of Sondland’s pressure campaign and Bolton was sending everyone to talk to lawyers.

Bolton resigned/was fired for his behaviour in these series of events. Two top officials of the Office of Budget Management refused to carry out Trumps orders and quit. Marie Yovanovitch was removed because she wouldn’t let Guliani do his dirty work.

And you’re covering your eyes and ears and pretending all of this never happened. The transcript alone says it did.

Who are the two OMB officials and how did I miss their testimony?

 

[kyzr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure Mick got an earful for that presser and those 3-reasons. I could have come up with much better reasons.
I tend to agree with your answer #1, except that I'm not sure ALL NATO countries contributed to Ukraine.

All of the witnesses said that the Ukraine is still a corrupt place. But as you say in #2, the US gave aid in the prior years. My excuse here is that Trump gave the aid in 2019 and did not get anything for it.

The #3 "interference" refers to Op-Eds written in major newspapers by Ukrainians as well as other stuff, read link below, but not on the scale of Russia's interference.
The facts behind GOP claims about Ukraine and 2016 likely to surface this week

 

[berg80]

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

Your not so clever attempt to avoid having to show the corroborated testimony of all 17 witnesses who testified in the House inquiry, all of whom contributed to the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, can be disqualified as hearsay totally failed. Article 1 is very much alive.

Ever bit of evidence except that of Ambassador Sondland was hearsay, and his testimony was exculpatory.

Every bit of evidence we have from the 17 House inquiry witnesses and the bevy of information that has come out since the inquiry ended fits together seamlessly. The fact pattern has been well established. The information in the form of text messages, contemporaneous notes, e-mails, and recordings provided more granular detail but tell the same story. Trump is guilty.
BTW, anyone who claims Sondland's testimony was exculpatory after he testified that there absolutely was a quid pro quo and that "everyone was in the loop" is delusional.

 

[berg80]

Democrats: We can take you to court to make sure these witnesses testify, but we all know we will lose

And you base that opinion on what given that Trump has lost every case so far pertaining to his illegal efforts to obstruct the investigation?

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me why you condone any of this?

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

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

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

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

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

Shokin was fired for decades. It wasn’t illegal for Biden to work for Burisma. The illegal activity alleged by y’all is the firing of Shokin.

it’s sad when y’all are so confused I have to explain your own argument to you.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me why you condone any of this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. you’re going in rumor and innuendo. I’m going on the on the record statements by the DoJ.

2. The law doesn’t say what you’re alleging. They did miss the window and millions of dollars were never sent. Congress was never notified.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not only unprecedented, its also bullshit.

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

They weren’t. You don’t have any facts.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

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

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

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

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

Shokin was fired for decades. It wasn’t illegal for Biden to work for Burisma. The illegal activity alleged by y’all is the firing of Shokin.

it’s sad when y’all are so confused I have to explain your own argument to you.

I never claimed it was "illegal" for Hunter Biden to take all that money from Burisma for a no show job that he had zero qualifications for...I simply pointed out how corrupt the whole thing was. Shokin was fired for decades? What does that even mean? I assume it's an attempt to cover for the fact that you didn't know Hunter Biden only gave up the Burisma board job a little more than 3 months ago? Talk about "confused"? Your arguments in this string are about as confused as you can get!

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

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

Shokin was fired for decades. It wasn’t illegal for Biden to work for Burisma. The illegal activity alleged by y’all is the firing of Shokin.

it’s sad when y’all are so confused I have to explain your own argument to you.

I never claimed it was "illegal" for Hunter Biden to take all that money from Burisma for a no show job that he had zero qualifications for...I simply pointed out how corrupt the whole thing was. Shokin was fired for decades? What does that even mean? I assume it's an attempt to cover for the fact that you didn't know Hunter Biden only gave up the Burisma board job a little more than 3 months ago? Talk about "confused"? Your arguments in this string are about as confused as you can get!

You’re saying it wasn’t illegal it was corrupt? That’s idiotic. Corruption is illegal silly.

Sorry for the bad auto correct. Shokin was fired years ago. That’s what you’re claiming is illegal. If you’re claiming Trump needed to look into illegal activity, then the actual illegal activity was years ago. That’s all I’m saying. Stop crawfishing.

 

[berg80]

MOSCOW — Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption.

But in a be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment, veteran observers of Ukrainian politics said that the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had played an important role in balancing competing political interests, helping maintain stability during a treacherous era in the divided country’s history.

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.
Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

AT THE TIME OF SHOKIN'S FIRING HE HAD SHUT DOWN THE INVESTIGATION IN TO BURISMA. IOW, HE WAS NOT INVESTIGATING HUNTER BIDEN.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Democrats: We can take you to court to make sure these witnesses testify, but we all know we will lose

And you base that opinion on what given that Trump has lost every case so far pertaining to his illegal efforts to obstruct the investigation?

See that's the funny thing about Impeachment Article 2...the House charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress (I'll admit that's a new one) despite the Supreme Court taking up the issue of whether the subpoenas are legally valid and enforceable. Since the Supreme Court is the law of the land and has yet to rule, how can he be removed from office for obstructing congress based on fighting the subpoenas in court? Short answer: he can't and won't. That Article of Impeachment will likely be dismissed for that reason. I wouldn't be surprised if Pelosi held the Articles of Impeachment hoping the Supreme Court would rule in the meantime, but it's ended up taking too long.

Justices to take up battle over Trump financial documents - SCOTUSblog

 

[berg80]

See that's the funny thing about Impeachment Article 2...the House charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress (I'll admit that's a new one)

What's new about it?

Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton both faced impeachment over obstruction of justice
Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton both faced impeachment over obstruction of justice

 

[berg80]

Pelosi addresses the idea of testimony from Lev Parnas.
Pelosi addresses the idea of testimony from Lev Parnas.

 

[lennypartiv]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy

Won't do your side any good. Rudy is aware of this Parnas guy, Rudy will testify if necessary and clarify things for the Senate so they can still acquit Trump.