House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment

Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....:113:
So......Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY. His lawyer has been asking the SDNY to allow him to release documents to the House Intel Committee, permission for which was granted on a limited amount of documents. That is why the House didn't receive the documents until Sunday. The info, if it can be verified, is obviously pertinent to the impeachment proceeding so members of the committee wanted to make sure they would be passed along to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.

In some ways these documents provide more questions than answers. Obviously the material needs to be authenticated. BUT, LIKE ALL THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED THUS FAR, IT POINTS TO TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHEME TO EXTORT ZELENSKY FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.
Let's look at your so called evedince.
You have things from, shall we be kind and call him a shifty person, that not only unverified but really too good to be true. It comes out after the trial has taken place.
It is brought out by a fellow that claimed for years that he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia that has never seen the light of day. We will call this person, again to be kind, questionable. So in short we have unverified material that a shifty person has that they should not have but somehow has. The material shows up late and is somehow like the shining light from above. It comes from a questionable source. Do you see anything at all strange?

Now let's look at your idea that it needs to be brought up during the Senate phase. Unless it can be verified it is just junk. It holds no value.
You want witnesses called by the jury you want something of no value added to the case. 250 years of juris prudence tells us that that can not be done legally. But let's lay that aside for one moment. Why stop with the witnesses the democrats want? I want Watters on the stand, find out why she called for Trump to be impeached so early. Put Pelosi on the stand, find out why she has been trying to impeach for 21/2 years. Put Shiff on, way too many questions to type here. Put Biden on the stand, too many questions to type. Same with 44. In fact let's get most of the democrat party on the stand, we need to get to the bottom of every donor, every kickback, every bribe. We need to know every trip, hotel room, every meal not paid for by them. Let's drag this thing out for the next ten years. Hillary would make a great witness, so would Bill and his Tarmac meting.

But in reality you people have told us for years so many times that you have the smoking gun. The Steele dosiier, Mueller, Stormy Daniels to name just a few. We have heard from every conspiracy left rag, website that you have him now so many times no one pays attention.
So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.

Facts? Facts were already argued in the House impeachment proceedings. Let me put it words you might understand, You don't get a "do-over" because you blew your load in your pants. The prom queen is not going to wait around for you to get it up again. She will go off with the star quarterback to her bells rung!
The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.


Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....:113:
So......Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY. His lawyer has been asking the SDNY to allow him to release documents to the House Intel Committee, permission for which was granted on a limited amount of documents. That is why the House didn't receive the documents until Sunday. The info, if it can be verified, is obviously pertinent to the impeachment proceeding so members of the committee wanted to make sure they would be passed along to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.

In some ways these documents provide more questions than answers. Obviously the material needs to be authenticated. BUT, LIKE ALL THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED THUS FAR, IT POINTS TO TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHEME TO EXTORT ZELENSKY FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.
Let's look at your so called evedince.
You have things from, shall we be kind and call him a shifty person, that not only unverified but really too good to be true. It comes out after the trial has taken place.
It is brought out by a fellow that claimed for years that he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia that has never seen the light of day. We will call this person, again to be kind, questionable. So in short we have unverified material that a shifty person has that they should not have but somehow has. The material shows up late and is somehow like the shining light from above. It comes from a questionable source. Do you see anything at all strange?

Now let's look at your idea that it needs to be brought up during the Senate phase. Unless it can be verified it is just junk. It holds no value.
You want witnesses called by the jury you want something of no value added to the case. 250 years of juris prudence tells us that that can not be done legally. But let's lay that aside for one moment. Why stop with the witnesses the democrats want? I want Watters on the stand, find out why she called for Trump to be impeached so early. Put Pelosi on the stand, find out why she has been trying to impeach for 21/2 years. Put Shiff on, way too many questions to type here. Put Biden on the stand, too many questions to type. Same with 44. In fact let's get most of the democrat party on the stand, we need to get to the bottom of every donor, every kickback, every bribe. We need to know every trip, hotel room, every meal not paid for by them. Let's drag this thing out for the next ten years. Hillary would make a great witness, so would Bill and his Tarmac meting.

But in reality you people have told us for years so many times that you have the smoking gun. The Steele dosiier, Mueller, Stormy Daniels to name just a few. We have heard from every conspiracy left rag, website that you have him now so many times no one pays attention.
So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.


You've done to the term "facts" exactly what you did to the term "racist", and that is bastardized it so, that it is now meaningless....Congrats.
Trumpette's are just as much in denial about racism as they are about the facts of Don's guilt. No surprise.
 
I have a doctorate but not in law.

given your extensive experience in law and government, you must be able to point to a law or rule that backs up what you claim.
Can you?

You obviously have a doctorate but are dumb as a post when it comes to quoting the post to which you are replying.

You can't point to a law backing up your claim. I don't have to do so. That is the prosecution's responsibility upon which they "clutched-up".
I can’t point to a law that I’m claiming doesn’t exist. You’re claiming new evidence cannot be introduced into the Senate trial. That’s false. You can’t point to a law or rule stating such.
 
If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.


Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....:113:
So......Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY. His lawyer has been asking the SDNY to allow him to release documents to the House Intel Committee, permission for which was granted on a limited amount of documents. That is why the House didn't receive the documents until Sunday. The info, if it can be verified, is obviously pertinent to the impeachment proceeding so members of the committee wanted to make sure they would be passed along to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.

In some ways these documents provide more questions than answers. Obviously the material needs to be authenticated. BUT, LIKE ALL THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED THUS FAR, IT POINTS TO TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHEME TO EXTORT ZELENSKY FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.


You said it yourself....IF it's verified....Sorry, that is not the Senate's job in this....Y'all had your chance in the House, and chose to put together a flimsy, BS case for impeachment, and Democrats voted, on a partisan line, because of their hatred of Trump, not because anything the house committees put forth anything of substance, so whe you lose it in the Senate, you'll have to live with that, as well as the repercussions of this whole crap infested whine fest y'all have been on for 3 years now...
You folks are beating this "it's not the Senate's job" meme to death. We are talking about the most consequential thing a Senate can do. Contemplate the impeachment of a prez. All the evidence that is available needs to be presented. The fact that Repubs don't want it to be speaks volumes about their fear of being exposed in violating their oath if they acquit.

You still have no proof this evidence even exists. If it did, what does it prove? Nothing.

Even if it was damning, the Democraps would need to vote to withdraw the impeachment and start over.
 
I have a doctorate but not in law.

given your extensive experience in law and government, you must be able to point to a law or rule that backs up what you claim.
Can you?

You obviously have a doctorate but are dumb as a post when it comes to quoting the post to which you are replying.

You can't point to a law backing up your claim. I don't have to do so. That is the prosecution's responsibility upon which they "clutched-up".
I can’t point to a law that I’m claiming doesn’t exist. You’re claiming new evidence cannot be introduced into the Senate trial. That’s false. You can’t point to a law or rule stating such.

The Senate rules will be set next week. Do you think that Republicans would be stupid enough to let Democraps have room to fuck up the process in the Senate like they did in the House?
 
Let's look at your so called evedince.
You have things from, shall we be kind and call him a shifty person, that not only unverified but really too good to be true. It comes out after the trial has taken place.
It is brought out by a fellow that claimed for years that he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia that has never seen the light of day. We will call this person, again to be kind, questionable. So in short we have unverified material that a shifty person has that they should not have but somehow has. The material shows up late and is somehow like the shining light from above. It comes from a questionable source. Do you see anything at all strange?

Now let's look at your idea that it needs to be brought up during the Senate phase. Unless it can be verified it is just junk. It holds no value.
You want witnesses called by the jury you want something of no value added to the case. 250 years of juris prudence tells us that that can not be done legally. But let's lay that aside for one moment. Why stop with the witnesses the democrats want? I want Watters on the stand, find out why she called for Trump to be impeached so early. Put Pelosi on the stand, find out why she has been trying to impeach for 21/2 years. Put Shiff on, way too many questions to type here. Put Biden on the stand, too many questions to type. Same with 44. In fact let's get most of the democrat party on the stand, we need to get to the bottom of every donor, every kickback, every bribe. We need to know every trip, hotel room, every meal not paid for by them. Let's drag this thing out for the next ten years. Hillary would make a great witness, so would Bill and his Tarmac meting.

But in reality you people have told us for years so many times that you have the smoking gun. The Steele dosiier, Mueller, Stormy Daniels to name just a few. We have heard from every conspiracy left rag, website that you have him now so many times no one pays attention.
So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.

Facts? Facts were already argued in the House impeachment proceedings. Let me put it words you might understand, You don't get a "do-over" because you blew your load in your pants. The prom queen is not going to wait around for you to get it up again. She will go off with the star quarterback to her bells rung!
The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.

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

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

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

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".
There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

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

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

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards
 
Last edited:
Let's look at your so called evedince.
You have things from, shall we be kind and call him a shifty person, that not only unverified but really too good to be true. It comes out after the trial has taken place.
It is brought out by a fellow that claimed for years that he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia that has never seen the light of day. We will call this person, again to be kind, questionable. So in short we have unverified material that a shifty person has that they should not have but somehow has. The material shows up late and is somehow like the shining light from above. It comes from a questionable source. Do you see anything at all strange?

Now let's look at your idea that it needs to be brought up during the Senate phase. Unless it can be verified it is just junk. It holds no value.
You want witnesses called by the jury you want something of no value added to the case. 250 years of juris prudence tells us that that can not be done legally. But let's lay that aside for one moment. Why stop with the witnesses the democrats want? I want Watters on the stand, find out why she called for Trump to be impeached so early. Put Pelosi on the stand, find out why she has been trying to impeach for 21/2 years. Put Shiff on, way too many questions to type here. Put Biden on the stand, too many questions to type. Same with 44. In fact let's get most of the democrat party on the stand, we need to get to the bottom of every donor, every kickback, every bribe. We need to know every trip, hotel room, every meal not paid for by them. Let's drag this thing out for the next ten years. Hillary would make a great witness, so would Bill and his Tarmac meting.

But in reality you people have told us for years so many times that you have the smoking gun. The Steele dosiier, Mueller, Stormy Daniels to name just a few. We have heard from every conspiracy left rag, website that you have him now so many times no one pays attention.
So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.

Facts? Facts were already argued in the House impeachment proceedings. Let me put it words you might understand, You don't get a "do-over" because you blew your load in your pants. The prom queen is not going to wait around for you to get it up again. She will go off with the star quarterback to her bells rung!
The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.

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

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

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

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".
There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

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

Where did you hear that bullshit?

Nixon was never impeached dumbass.

The legal remedy is for the House to sue the White House in federal court. They said, "It will take too long! We have to hurry because Trump is a threat to national security and then sat on the impeachment for about a month while they mustered their forces and found out (finally) that they were going to laughed out of the Senate, finally saying, "Oh, fuck it! We already fucked up, so we might as well take our lumps and get it over with!"
 
I have a doctorate but not in law.

given your extensive experience in law and government, you must be able to point to a law or rule that backs up what you claim.
Can you?

You obviously have a doctorate but are dumb as a post when it comes to quoting the post to which you are replying.

You can't point to a law backing up your claim. I don't have to do so. That is the prosecution's responsibility upon which they "clutched-up".
I can’t point to a law that I’m claiming doesn’t exist. You’re claiming new evidence cannot be introduced into the Senate trial. That’s false. You can’t point to a law or rule stating such.

The Senate rules will be set next week. Do you think that Republicans would be stupid enough to let Democraps have room to fuck up the process in the Senate like they did in the House?

I expect most Senate Republicans to try their best and prevent anything incriminating from reaching their trial, which is a violation of their oath.

The question is whether enough Republicans want to get the truth or not.

Either way, there’s nothing preventing the Senate from introducing or hearing testimony or evidence that was not considered by the House.
 
If Schiff had this, why didn't he subpeona Parnas in his clown show?

I think Schiff made this up....

Schiff just received these documents from Lev Parnas' lawyer today.

Parnas was arrested just as the Ukranian Scandal broke, and initially both Lev and Igor refused to cooperate with prosecutorsand refused to provide information to the government. But then Dumb Donald did his usual "I don't even know these guys" disavowel he does whenever any of his minions get caught doing illegal shit.

Lev's feelings were incredibly hurt. He thought he had a special relationship with Trump. When Trump dissed him on national television, Lev got mad, changed lawyers, and started cooperating with the feds. This evidence is the result of Lev's hissy fit that Donnie didn't defend him.


Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....:113:
So......Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY. His lawyer has been asking the SDNY to allow him to release documents to the House Intel Committee, permission for which was granted on a limited amount of documents. That is why the House didn't receive the documents until Sunday. The info, if it can be verified, is obviously pertinent to the impeachment proceeding so members of the committee wanted to make sure they would be passed along to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.

In some ways these documents provide more questions than answers. Obviously the material needs to be authenticated. BUT, LIKE ALL THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED THUS FAR, IT POINTS TO TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHEME TO EXTORT ZELENSKY FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.


You said it yourself....IF it's verified....Sorry, that is not the Senate's job in this....Y'all had your chance in the House, and chose to put together a flimsy, BS case for impeachment, and Democrats voted, on a partisan line, because of their hatred of Trump, not because anything the house committees put forth anything of substance, so whe you lose it in the Senate, you'll have to live with that, as well as the repercussions of this whole crap infested whine fest y'all have been on for 3 years now...
You folks are beating this "it's not the Senate's job" meme to death. We are talking about the most consequential thing a Senate can do. Contemplate the impeachment of a prez. All the evidence that is available needs to be presented. The fact that Repubs don't want it to be speaks volumes about their fear of being exposed in violating their oath if they acquit.

And you idiots were supposed to put that evidence together in the House....You failed because it was so urgent....Face it, y'all screwed yourselves, and now want to blame it on the Senate for not going along with your railroad job....
 
So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.

Facts? Facts were already argued in the House impeachment proceedings. Let me put it words you might understand, You don't get a "do-over" because you blew your load in your pants. The prom queen is not going to wait around for you to get it up again. She will go off with the star quarterback to her bells rung!
The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.

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

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

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

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".
There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

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

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

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

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

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.
 
Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....:113:
So......Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY. His lawyer has been asking the SDNY to allow him to release documents to the House Intel Committee, permission for which was granted on a limited amount of documents. That is why the House didn't receive the documents until Sunday. The info, if it can be verified, is obviously pertinent to the impeachment proceeding so members of the committee wanted to make sure they would be passed along to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.

In some ways these documents provide more questions than answers. Obviously the material needs to be authenticated. BUT, LIKE ALL THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED THUS FAR, IT POINTS TO TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHEME TO EXTORT ZELENSKY FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.
Let's look at your so called evedince.
You have things from, shall we be kind and call him a shifty person, that not only unverified but really too good to be true. It comes out after the trial has taken place.
It is brought out by a fellow that claimed for years that he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia that has never seen the light of day. We will call this person, again to be kind, questionable. So in short we have unverified material that a shifty person has that they should not have but somehow has. The material shows up late and is somehow like the shining light from above. It comes from a questionable source. Do you see anything at all strange?

Now let's look at your idea that it needs to be brought up during the Senate phase. Unless it can be verified it is just junk. It holds no value.
You want witnesses called by the jury you want something of no value added to the case. 250 years of juris prudence tells us that that can not be done legally. But let's lay that aside for one moment. Why stop with the witnesses the democrats want? I want Watters on the stand, find out why she called for Trump to be impeached so early. Put Pelosi on the stand, find out why she has been trying to impeach for 21/2 years. Put Shiff on, way too many questions to type here. Put Biden on the stand, too many questions to type. Same with 44. In fact let's get most of the democrat party on the stand, we need to get to the bottom of every donor, every kickback, every bribe. We need to know every trip, hotel room, every meal not paid for by them. Let's drag this thing out for the next ten years. Hillary would make a great witness, so would Bill and his Tarmac meting.

But in reality you people have told us for years so many times that you have the smoking gun. The Steele dosiier, Mueller, Stormy Daniels to name just a few. We have heard from every conspiracy left rag, website that you have him now so many times no one pays attention.
So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.


You've done to the term "facts" exactly what you did to the term "racist", and that is bastardized it so, that it is now meaningless....Congrats.
Trumpette's are just as much in denial about racism as they are about the facts of Don's guilt. No surprise.


Oh brother....Weak dude.....Come on back when you develop a cogent response...
 
Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....:113:
So......Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY. His lawyer has been asking the SDNY to allow him to release documents to the House Intel Committee, permission for which was granted on a limited amount of documents. That is why the House didn't receive the documents until Sunday. The info, if it can be verified, is obviously pertinent to the impeachment proceeding so members of the committee wanted to make sure they would be passed along to the Senate along with the Articles of Impeachment.

In some ways these documents provide more questions than answers. Obviously the material needs to be authenticated. BUT, LIKE ALL THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED THUS FAR, IT POINTS TO TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCHEME TO EXTORT ZELENSKY FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.
Let's look at your so called evedince.
You have things from, shall we be kind and call him a shifty person, that not only unverified but really too good to be true. It comes out after the trial has taken place.
It is brought out by a fellow that claimed for years that he had absolute proof that Trump conspired with Russia that has never seen the light of day. We will call this person, again to be kind, questionable. So in short we have unverified material that a shifty person has that they should not have but somehow has. The material shows up late and is somehow like the shining light from above. It comes from a questionable source. Do you see anything at all strange?

Now let's look at your idea that it needs to be brought up during the Senate phase. Unless it can be verified it is just junk. It holds no value.
You want witnesses called by the jury you want something of no value added to the case. 250 years of juris prudence tells us that that can not be done legally. But let's lay that aside for one moment. Why stop with the witnesses the democrats want? I want Watters on the stand, find out why she called for Trump to be impeached so early. Put Pelosi on the stand, find out why she has been trying to impeach for 21/2 years. Put Shiff on, way too many questions to type here. Put Biden on the stand, too many questions to type. Same with 44. In fact let's get most of the democrat party on the stand, we need to get to the bottom of every donor, every kickback, every bribe. We need to know every trip, hotel room, every meal not paid for by them. Let's drag this thing out for the next ten years. Hillary would make a great witness, so would Bill and his Tarmac meting.

But in reality you people have told us for years so many times that you have the smoking gun. The Steele dosiier, Mueller, Stormy Daniels to name just a few. We have heard from every conspiracy left rag, website that you have him now so many times no one pays attention.
So.............what you want is to turn the Senate trial in to a shitshow, just like what the nutbag Repubs in the House wanted to do. You want to muddy the waters with shit in order to distract from the facts. I know why. Because all the facts say Trump is guilty of the accusations made in the articles of impeachment.
What pertinence to the facts does M. Water's opinion of Trump have? NONE.


You've done to the term "facts" exactly what you did to the term "racist", and that is bastardized it so, that it is now meaningless....Congrats.
Trumpette's are just as much in denial about racism as they are about the facts of Don's guilt. No surprise.
upload_2020-1-15_9-45-56.png
 
We’re going to impeach Trump because of a motel notepad lol poor democrats haha
 
Facts? Facts were already argued in the House impeachment proceedings. Let me put it words you might understand, You don't get a "do-over" because you blew your load in your pants. The prom queen is not going to wait around for you to get it up again. She will go off with the star quarterback to her bells rung!
The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.

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

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

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

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".
There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

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

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

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

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

The judiciary has basically no role in impeachment. The power of impeachment is solely vested in the Congress. Implicit in this power is the ability to investigate and oversee the executive. The Constitution does so because without it we have a king, not a president. Trump is trying to make his administration above all accountability. That’s the opposite of what the founders intended.
The Investigation is Over. The Senate will review the House's work and find it lacking and vote down HR-1.
 
We’re going to impeach Trump because of a motel notepad lol poor democrats haha
Maybe they can lift some fingerprints off of the notepad or carbon date it to prove Trump Wrote it in The Future, or something? Probably find Adam Schiff's Drool on it.
 
Facts? Facts were already argued in the House impeachment proceedings. Let me put it words you might understand, You don't get a "do-over" because you blew your load in your pants. The prom queen is not going to wait around for you to get it up again. She will go off with the star quarterback to her bells rung!
The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.

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

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

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

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".
There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

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

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

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

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

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

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

It's far more than just scribbled notes. Text messages, emails all corroborate the case Democrats have been making. Are you going to claim those are false as well?
What case?
If you don’t know by now, I doubt anything I can do will change that.
Obviously, Trumpette's are increasingly annoyed as more and more evidence corroborates the fact that Trump directed a scheme to extort Ukraine..................and got caught.


Extort? You don't know what that word means, do you? Even the Democraps abandoned that albatross before impeachment proceedings ever began because it was a non-starter. Even they know that would fly like a lead balloon.
You're delusional. The accusation is included in Article I.

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents
within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested4 —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. 5

These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.
 
Where did you hear that bullshit?

The federal rules of evidence. Read a book you illiterate dumb shit.

Nixon was never impeached dumbass.

Never said he was but there were articles of impeachment. Read a damn book. What the hell did you do for 21 years?

The legal remedy is for the House to sue the White House in federal court. They said, "It will take too long! We have to hurry because Trump is a threat to national security and then sat on the impeachment for about a month while they mustered their forces and found out (finally) that they were going to laughed out of the Senate, finally saying, "Oh, fuck it! We already fucked up, so we might as well take our lumps and get it over with!"

There is more than one legal remedy. Impeachment works just fine.

Look, Trump is trying to corrupt the election by using his office to affect his opponents. Your argument is to take it to the courts, a process which will take years. So basically we can find out if he cheated in the election after the election? To put it lightly, that’s idiotic.
 
The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.

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

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

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

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".
There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

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

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

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

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

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

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

Executive privilege can’t be used to cover up impeachable offenses. US v Nixon. Read a book.
 
The only thing preventing more evidence from being included in the Senate proceeding is Mitch McTreason. There are no procedural, legal, constitutional, or ethical impediments other than Repub's desire that no more damning evidence be presented than there already has been.

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

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

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

As Professor Turley said, "there was an abuse of power, by the House of Representatives".
There’s no such thing as “Senate rules of evidence”. There are federal court rules of evidence which does allow hearsay in a great many instances.

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

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

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

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

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

Executive privilege is decided by the courts. Once again you wave your GED at us!
There is precedent as to what EP can cover.

The term “executive privilege” was not used until the 1950s. The doctrine’s contours were unclear until a 1974 Supreme Court case. In U.S. v. Nixon, President Richard Nixon was ordered to deliver tapes and other subpoenaed materials to a federal judge for review. The justices ruled 9-0 that a president’s right to privacy in his communications must be balanced against Congress’ need to investigate and oversee the executive branch.

U.S. v. Nixon is also widely understood to mean that executive privilege cannot be used to cover up wrongdoing. That view was endorsed by current U.S. Attorney General William Barr during his Senate confirmation hearing.
One lesson of U.S. v. Nixon is that an executive privilege claim is particularly weak when Congress has invoked its power to remove a president from office through impeachment, said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri.
In the impeachment context, “virtually no part of a president’s duties or behavior is exempt from scrutiny,” Bowman said.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-to-block-congressional-probes-idUSKCN1S80P1

Has Duplicitous Don even invoked EP or is he still relying on the completely baseless claim of absolute immunity?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top