House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment

[Nostra]

House Democrats released some of the documents provided to the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees on Sunday by Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy, which he received from Manhattan federal prosecutor during the pretrial discovery phase of Parnas’s prosecution on criminal campaign finance charges.

The document dump opens with a handwritten note on a Ritz-Carlton Vienna-branded notepad. “Get Zalensky (sic) to Announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” the note reads.

Another note on a Ritz Carlton Vienna notepad appears to relate to Parnas’ engagement as an “interpreter” for Dmytro Firtash, the Ukrainian gas billionaire. The note contemplates hiring a “lobbiest,” naming two lobbyists as possible options.
READ: House Intel Releases Parnas Docs For Trump Impeachment
..................................................................................................................................
Info in Parnas' possession is a part of the continued release of new information concerning Individual 1's impeachment.
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
..........................................................................................................................................
Submission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate should not preclude any pertinent, previously unknown evidence to be presented during the Senate trial. I'm sure Trumpette's agree with that seeing as they want to see all the evidence pointing to Crooked Donald's innocence. Wait........there isn't any of that. No wonder they don't want the trial to be a thorough examination of the facts.

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....

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 are delusional.

 

[easyt65]

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.

I am sorry if the fact that the Democrats did a piss-poor job conducting their unfair rush to Impeach the President - according to the Democrats' Constitutional expert, the fastest rush to Impeachment based on the weakest Impeachment case in US history - and failed to prove their case.

Perhaps the Democrats should have taken more time, tried harder to be more thorough and tried harder to seek all available evidence, not just throw a one-sided political Impeachment, as they have admitted this is, together.

The fact that the Democrats called for the Impeachment of the President 5 minutes after he took his oath of office then have spent the last 3 years trying to find / manufacture anything they could use to do so speaks volumes.

The fact that Democrats, before ever taking office - without ever seeing the 1st bit of evidence, bragged how they were going to Impeach 'the M*er F*er' speaks volumes.

The fact that Democrats committed Sedition by claiming to have had direct evidence of crimes committed by the President, only to be forced to admit they lied speaks volumes.

The fact that a Democrat leading the Impeachment process attempted to present a false, personally-authored fictional account of the phone call as evidence and was quickly forced to claim he had shared a 'parody' during the Impeachment hearing speaks volumes.

The fact that the IC IG who changed the rules to allow a non-qualifying whistle blower's complaint based on hearsay that had already been dismissed by the DOJ to be expedited afterwards to D-Adam Schiff, who then manufactured this Impeachment, NOW WORKS FOR SCHIFF speaks volumes.

The fact that EVERY 'witness' who testified during the House Intel Committee Impeachment hearings, when asked to do so, could not name 1 crime or 1 Impeachable offense the President supposedly committed speaks volumes.

The fact that the Democrats' own Constitutional Expert testified under oath during the Democrats' Impeachment hearings and declared the President did NOT violate the Constitution, did NOT break any laws, did NOT abuse his power, and that the only ones who HAVE abused their powers have been and continue to be the DEMOCRATS speaks volumes!

- As if to intentionally prove him right, after declaring Trump was SUCH a threat to our nation that he must be removed from office IMMEDIATELY, after the Articles of Impeachment were passed Pelosi refused to release them....COMPLETELY EXPOSING THE FACT THAT THEIR CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS / IS AN IMMEDIATE DANGER WAS / IS A LIE...THAT THIS WAS NEVEFR ABOUT PROTECTING THE REPUBLIC BUT ALWAYS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS SEEKING REVENGE FOR THEIR 2016 LOSS AND GETTING THEIR POWER BACK!

The fact that the Democrats have openly declared, because they all know they have completely FAILED in presenting any legal / Constitutional justification for Impeaching the President, that this Impeachment is PURELY POLITICAL and has nothing to do with actual law / legal rights/processes SPEAKS VOLUMES.

The Democratic Party , in its hatred of the President for defeating Hillary Clinton and depriving them of supreme power and in their rabid obsession with getting that power back, have embraced their evolution from Political Party to the nightmare the Founding Fathers had regarding ghe political, partisan weaponization of the Impeachment process.


IN CASE YOU MISSED IT IN THE NEWS TODAY, RUSSIAN PUTIN-PUPPET PRIME MINISTER DIMITRY MDVEDEV JUST DISSOLVED THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, DECLARING THE ENTIRE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT JUST 'QUIT', LEAVING VLADIMIR PUTIN RUSSIA'S SUPREME LEADER.

THAT IS HOW RUSSIA OVERTHROWS A GOVERNMENT AND ASSUMES DICTATORIAL / SUPREME RULE OVER ITS PEOPLE.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SHOWN THE WAY THEY DO IT IS THROUGH MANUFACTURED FALSE ACCUSATIONS, VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION AND LAW, ILLEGAL SPYING, DEEP STATE OPERATIVES IN POWERFUL POSITIONS THAT CAN SET=PEOPLE UP, CONDUCT A PROVEN ILLEGITIMATE / UN-JUSTIFIED WITH HUNT FOR 3+ YEARS, UNDRMINE A PRESIDENT, ENGAGE IN SEDITION, AND FINALLY - ADMITTEDLY - AFFECT A PURELY POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT THAT DOES NO TMEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF INCLUDING A CRIMINAL ACT OR 'HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS'.


Putin signals power shift as Russian government quits - CNN

.

 

[Nostra]

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?

A doctorate in dumbassery, obviously.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

There is no CIA counsel dumbass! Get your facts straight before running off at the mouth, shit for brains!

Yes there is. God your a dumb ass.

General Counsel — Central Intelligence Agency

That's a general counsel which is the CIA's lawyer. You obviously meant the Intelligence Community Inspector General but were too stupid to recognize your blatant error.

 

[easyt65]

Executive privilege is beig falsely claimed by the Trump Administration for everything he does. Every "executive privilege" case that has gone to court, Trump has lost. Trump is using the courts in the same way he did when he was in business - to stall making any payments whatsoever, to beat down the opposition, and drag it out until the other side gives up, and does what he wants.

Donald Trump uses the courts as part of his strategy to bully and financially destroy those who challenge him. Just as in business, he's losing all of his cases, but the point isn't to win, it's to distract and destroy the other side.

'Trump is wielding power and authorities that President - like Barry - had before him, and he is doing so legally...and successfully defeating the Democrats' continuous coup attempts.....It's not fair. The President is successfully using the courts, which is well within his right to do so, to defeat the Democrats, unlike Barry who lost more cases to the USSC than any modern-day President...and Barry is a self-professed Constitutional expert....Waaaaa!'






https://politicallyincorrecthumor.com/meme-galleries/liberal-meme-gallery/

(BTW snowflake, where is that link to the law you and Schiff claim affords whistle blowers 'anonymity' and 'immunity'?)

 

[easyt65]

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because

1. The Whistle Blower complaint is NOT a 'criminal complaint' - it is a complaint that must be investigated if enough evidence is presented that a crime may have been committed. Again, you liar, the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ reviewed the complaint and DISMISSED it based on the FACTS that 1) No crime was proven to have been committed, 2) there was nio evidence of a crime, and 3) there were no witnesses, only hearsay.

AFTER the DOJ dismissed the complaint, the IC IG, WHO NOW WORKS FOR SCHIFF, changed the rules and expedited the complaint to his new boss who then manufactured the entire non-criminal, completely admitted political Impeachment / coup push being carried out.

 

[j-mac]

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.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

Hmmm...Not so sure about that....He hasn't taken a contempt charge for him like Holder did for Obama...

 

[kyzr]

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.

1. Not allowing hearsay isn't violating any oath. Duh.
2. Stop tap-dancing around the point. We are discussing the constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC. The House can impeach Trump for his orange hair, but that doesn't make it constitutional. The House cannot charge Trump with "Obstruction of the House" when Trump has the right to litigate in the courts. The "accountability" argument is thru the courts, otherwise we have the House abusing its authority.

 

[The Original Tree]

Well, well, isn't that convenient.....But hey, probably made up documents, why not make up the back story as well....

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.

You are in denial of your own immorality, and sin, and racism and of your guilt we can definitely be assured of. You are a bad person. and a lousy human being and do not have the ethical currency to talk about moral values.

Tell us what it is like to serve Evil all the days of your life.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

Thus sayeth Borg 80 Teabagman who serves up his face To Putin's Disgrace.

 

[The Original Tree]

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 is beig falsely claimed by the Trump Administration for everything he does. Every "executive privilege" case that has gone to court, Trump has lost. Trump is using the courts in the same way he did when he was in business - to stall making any payments whatsoever, to beat down the opposition, and drag it out until the other side gives up, and does what he wants.

Donald Trump uses the courts as part of his strategy to bully and financially destroy those who challenge him. Just as in business, he's losing all of his cases, but the point isn't to win, it's to distract and destroy the other side.

How does one ever Falsely Apply Executive Privilege? Either it exists or it does not exist. It isn't a value judgment. It is a Constitutional Right.

Your Biased and Immoral Feelings and Opinions do not matter.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

I am sorry if the fact that the Democrats did a piss-poor job conducting their unfair rush to Impeach the President - according to the Democrats' Constitutional expert, the fastest rush to Impeachment based on the weakest Impeachment case in US history - and failed to prove their case.

Perhaps the Democrats should have taken more time, tried harder to be more thorough and tried harder to seek all available evidence, not just throw a one-sided political Impeachment, as they have admitted this is, together.

The fact that the Democrats called for the Impeachment of the President 5 minutes after he took his oath of office then have spent the last 3 years trying to find / manufacture anything they could use to do so speaks volumes.

The fact that Democrats, before ever taking office - without ever seeing the 1st bit of evidence, bragged how they were going to Impeach 'the M*er F*er' speaks volumes.

The fact that Democrats committed Sedition by claiming to have had direct evidence of crimes committed by the President, only to be forced to admit they lied speaks volumes.

The fact that a Democrat leading the Impeachment process attempted to present a false, personally-authored fictional account of the phone call as evidence and was quickly forced to claim he had shared a 'parody' during the Impeachment hearing speaks volumes.

The fact that the IC IG who changed the rules to allow a non-qualifying whistle blower's complaint based on hearsay that had already been dismissed by the DOJ to be expedited afterwards to D-Adam Schiff, who then manufactured this Impeachment, NOW WORKS FOR SCHIFF speaks volumes.

The fact that EVERY 'witness' who testified during the House Intel Committee Impeachment hearings, when asked to do so, could not name 1 crime or 1 Impeachable offense the President supposedly committed speaks volumes.

The fact that the Democrats' own Constitutional Expert testified under oath during the Democrats' Impeachment hearings and declared the President did NOT violate the Constitution, did NOT break any laws, did NOT abuse his power, and that the only ones who HAVE abused their powers have been and continue to be the DEMOCRATS speaks volumes!

- As if to intentionally prove him right, after declaring Trump was SUCH a threat to our nation that he must be removed from office IMMEDIATELY, after the Articles of Impeachment were passed Pelosi refused to release them....COMPLETELY EXPOSING THE FACT THAT THEIR CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS / IS AN IMMEDIATE DANGER WAS / IS A LIE...THAT THIS WAS NEVEFR ABOUT PROTECTING THE REPUBLIC BUT ALWAYS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS SEEKING REVENGE FOR THEIR 2016 LOSS AND GETTING THEIR POWER BACK!

The fact that the Democrats have openly declared, because they all know they have completely FAILED in presenting any legal / Constitutional justification for Impeaching the President, that this Impeachment is PURELY POLITICAL and has nothing to do with actual law / legal rights/processes SPEAKS VOLUMES.

The Democratic Party , in its hatred of the President for defeating Hillary Clinton and depriving them of supreme power and in their rabid obsession with getting that power back, have embraced their evolution from Political Party to the nightmare the Founding Fathers had regarding ghe political, partisan weaponization of the Impeachment process.


IN CASE YOU MISSED IT IN THE NEWS TODAY, RUSSIAN PUTIN-PUPPET PRIME MINISTER DIMITRY MDVEDEV JUST DISSOLVED THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, DECLARING THE ENTIRE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT JUST 'QUIT', LEAVING VLADIMIR PUTIN RUSSIA'S SUPREME LEADER.

THAT IS HOW RUSSIA OVERTHROWS A GOVERNMENT AND ASSUMES DICTATORIAL / SUPREME RULE OVER ITS PEOPLE.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SHOWN THE WAY THEY DO IT IS THROUGH MANUFACTURED FALSE ACCUSATIONS, VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION AND LAW, ILLEGAL SPYING, DEEP STATE OPERATIVES IN POWERFUL POSITIONS THAT CAN SET=PEOPLE UP, CONDUCT A PROVEN ILLEGITIMATE / UN-JUSTIFIED WITH HUNT FOR 3+ YEARS, UNDRMINE A PRESIDENT, ENGAGE IN SEDITION, AND FINALLY - ADMITTEDLY - AFFECT A PURELY POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT THAT DOES NO TMEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF INCLUDING A CRIMINAL ACT OR 'HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS'.


Putin signals power shift as Russian government quits - CNN

.

100 years ago Schiff and his friend and The Whistle Blowers would have been hung for treason.

Winner:

The fact that the IC IG who changed the rules to allow a non-qualifying whistle blower's complaint based on hearsay that had already been dismissed by the DOJ to be expedited afterwards to D-Adam Schiff, who then manufactured this Impeachment, NOW WORKS FOR SCHIFF speaks volumes.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

1. Not allowing hearsay isn't violating any oath. Duh.
2. Stop tap-dancing around the point. We are discussing the constitutionality of an article of impeachment, and that is the realm of the USSC. The House can impeach Trump for his orange hair, but that doesn't make it constitutional. The House cannot charge Trump with "Obstruction of the House" when Trump has the right to litigate in the courts. The "accountability" argument is thru the courts, otherwise we have the House abusing its authority.

1. The Senate refusing to consider evidence and move to acquit without considering anything is a violation of their oath of impartiality.

2. incorrect. The judiciary has no role in impeachment. The courts can not determine the constitutionality of an article of impeachment. See Nixon v the US 1993 (totally different Nixon).

 

[colfax_m]

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.

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

Hmmm...Not so sure about that....He hasn't taken a contempt charge for him like Holder did for Obama...

Yes, he has.

 

[j-mac]

The Whistle Blower process did NOT allow complaints consisting of hearsay to be quickly elevated to the House Intelligence Committee (D-Schiff)...until the IC IG - who is not working for Schiff - changed the process....AFTER the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ DISMISSED the complain because it did not show a crime committed, presented no evidence, and had no witness.

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

Hmmm...Not so sure about that....He hasn't taken a contempt charge for him like Holder did for Obama...

Yes, he has.

He has? Please by all means show where Barr was found in contempt of Congress....I'll wait.

 

[easyt65]

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

Hmmm...Not so sure about that....He hasn't taken a contempt charge for him like Holder did for Obama...

Yes, he has.

He has? Please by all means show where Barr was found in contempt of Congress....I'll wait.

I love when lyin' snowflakes paint themselves into a corner of which there is no escape. The realization in their eyes the second it hits them is priceless....

 

[colfax_m]

The DoJ disregarded the criminal complaint filed by the CIA counsel because.............Billy the Bagman.
Essentially, the DoJ decided that because a monetary value could not be assigned to the information Trump was trying to extort from Zelensky there was no crime. That legally dubious ruling (exactly what you's expect from Barr since he does nothing but defend everything Trump does) does not remove Trump's guilt for abusing the power of his office.

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

Hmmm...Not so sure about that....He hasn't taken a contempt charge for him like Holder did for Obama...

Yes, he has.

He has? Please by all means show where Barr was found in contempt of Congress....I'll wait.

Last summer. Google it.

Oh hell. I guess I’ll do it for you. Again.

William Barr, Wilbur Ross held in criminal contempt by House

More whack a mole.

 

[The Original Tree]

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

Hmmm...Not so sure about that....He hasn't taken a contempt charge for him like Holder did for Obama...

Yes, he has.

He has? Please by all means show where Barr was found in contempt of Congress....I'll wait.

I love when lyin' snowflakes paint themselves into a corner of which there is no escape. The realization in their eyes the second it hits them is priceless....

They usually run and hide shortly after recognizing their lies have been exposed.

 

[colfax_m]

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

Hmmm...Not so sure about that....He hasn't taken a contempt charge for him like Holder did for Obama...

Yes, he has.

He has? Please by all means show where Barr was found in contempt of Congress....I'll wait.

I love when lyin' snowflakes paint themselves into a corner of which there is no escape. The realization in their eyes the second it hits them is priceless....

Y’all are so misinformed..

Well, at least he didn't declare himself Trump's wingman....lol

He’s done far more for Trump than Holder could ever do for Obama.

Hmmm...Not so sure about that....He hasn't taken a contempt charge for him like Holder did for Obama...

Yes, he has.

He has? Please by all means show where Barr was found in contempt of Congress....I'll wait.

I love when lyin' snowflakes paint themselves into a corner of which there is no escape. The realization in their eyes the second it hits them is priceless....

You should be embarrassed. Maybe you are because I predict you’ll never admit that you’re wrong and instead run off to a safe space where you can remain delightfully misinformed.

 

[berg80]

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.

If someone is not impeached, what good are the articles? They are worth NOTHING.

Let's see you exemptions to to hearsay evidence. You apparently misunderstood them because you cannot seem to grasp simple concepts.

Here they are:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Now, tell us which exceptions to the rule applies.

I expect to hear back from you by the 12th of Neveruary!

Yet another Trumper tries and fails to dismiss the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt.

Republicans blasted 'hearsay' impeachment testimony. But they were in Congress, not court.

Do you even have a defense of Don other than to close your eyes and cover your ears?