Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That doesn't make any sense at all....Trump can fire her or any other ambassador anytime he wants for anything he wants whether you approve or not.....still hearing no crime...you had better do better than this....He is on the verge of being indicted.....Parnas wouldn't be allowed in any courtroom to testify to anything due to his lack of integrity and honesty and his willingness to save his own ass....so why do you and the media even bother to bring him up?....how fing ridiculous....
Why does Parnas need to cover his ass?
Keep up, he's already been indictment for funneling foreign money to Republicans.
Indicted Giuliani Ally Has Money-Tied Republicans Seeking Cover
I'll ask again, why does Parnas need to cover his ass? In other words who is he hanging out with that he is in trouble? Nobody can accuse you of being bright, amiright?
ABC: Recording apparently captures Trump discussing Yovanovitch ouster with Parnas, Fruman
What do you hear in this report that I do not?.....I hear nothing illegal at all....and there is that word again....APPEARS.....is that like maybe or might?....jeeze...butthurt snowflakes flailing away at nothing.....
What do I hear that you do not?
Parnas is simply a tool used to pressure/negotiate with the Ukraine government to do a pretend investigation on Biden and get rid of our ambassador to Ukraine who knew (seems everybody in Ukraine knew) what Trump was pursuing a domestic issue related to his own reelection.
No they mustn’tyIt is pointless to poll the general public about legal matters; they are, collectively speaking, idiots.
The time for witnesses is during the impeachment inquiry. If the Democrats want witnesses or new evidence, there is a very easy way to have them. Withdraw the Articles and start over.
Actually, you are wrong. According to the Constitution, the Senate must try, not review the articles of impeachment . In other words they must have witnesses.
The Senate Impeachment Trial: Call the Witnesses or Concede the Facts
An Impeachment Trial Without Witnesses Would Be Unconstitutional
John Roberts Doesn't Have to Play by Mitch McConnell's Rules
Why are there so many thugs and crooks in Trump's orbit?Parnas wouldn't be allowed in any courtroom to testify to anything due to his lack of integrity and honesty and his willingness to save his own ass....so why do you and the media even bother to bring him up?....how fing ridiculous...
We Asked 81 Americans About Impeachment. Here’s What They Had to Say.
And I think that blumberg is a bigger joke than all
You sure have a lot of innocent people reflected in your meme....I wonder if some of them can sue you.....stay off of those hate Trump sites....that meme is absurd.....Why are there so many thugs and crooks in Trump's orbit?Parnas wouldn't be allowed in any courtroom to testify to anything due to his lack of integrity and honesty and his willingness to save his own ass....so why do you and the media even bother to bring him up?....how fing ridiculous...
How many times has Trump been sued or charged with corrupt practices?
Lev Parnas' Strategy Mirrors That Of Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen
"Usually, a person who is facing federal charges keeps a low profile.
"That is not true of Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani.
"He's been giving lots of interviews on cable news lately.
"He's reminiscent of another person who used to be in President Trump's orbit and who was also under indictment.
"That's the president's former lawyer Michael Cohen."
No they mustn’tyIt is pointless to poll the general public about legal matters; they are, collectively speaking, idiots.
The time for witnesses is during the impeachment inquiry. If the Democrats want witnesses or new evidence, there is a very easy way to have them. Withdraw the Articles and start over.
Actually, you are wrong. According to the Constitution, the Senate must try, not review the articles of impeachment . In other words they must have witnesses.
The Senate Impeachment Trial: Call the Witnesses or Concede the Facts
An Impeachment Trial Without Witnesses Would Be Unconstitutional
John Roberts Doesn't Have to Play by Mitch McConnell's Rules
You sure support the most corrupt POTUS in US history; what happens when he's gone?You sure have a lot of innocent people reflected in your meme....I wonder if some of them can sue you.....stay off of those hate Trump sites....that meme is absurd.....
No they mustn’tyIt is pointless to poll the general public about legal matters; they are, collectively speaking, idiots.
The time for witnesses is during the impeachment inquiry. If the Democrats want witnesses or new evidence, there is a very easy way to have them. Withdraw the Articles and start over.
Actually, you are wrong. According to the Constitution, the Senate must try, not review the articles of impeachment . In other words they must have witnesses.
The Senate Impeachment Trial: Call the Witnesses or Concede the Facts
An Impeachment Trial Without Witnesses Would Be Unconstitutional
John Roberts Doesn't Have to Play by Mitch McConnell's Rules
Obviously, you didn’t read my links.
There have been eight other impeachment (presidents and judges), all followed Article ll of the Constitution, they had witnesses. Check it out before you make ignorant comments.
So you're assuming 330,000,000 have been asked. You know what happens when you assume?We Asked 81 Americans About Impeachment. Here’s What They Had to Say.
And I think that blumberg is a bigger joke than all
81? out of 330,000,000? really?
Did Trump tell you that?Those weren’t witnesses. The were opinionated leftists with hearsay tales. They were asked to give proof of a crime and not one could even name a crime. .
House Democrats' strategy was nothing short of genius (Opinion) - CNN
"Finally, House Democrats may have trolled the President. It seems that they knew full well that he would never have been able to resist attacking witnesses, and picked the most sympathetic ones to tell the story.
"The first several witnesses to testify were: Taylor, a 72-year-old Vietnam Veteran; Kent, a diplomat with 27 years of experience; Yovanovitch, a naturalized American woman with 33 years of diplomatic experience; Williams, a member of the vice president's staff; and Vindman, an Army lieutenant colonel still carrying shrapnel from an Iraqi roadside bomb.
"Of course, the President delivered.
"He routinely questioned the credibility of the witnesses and, during Yovanovitch's testimony, unleashed a Twitter attack that some called witness intimidation."
He lied about that too.
Did Trump tell you that?Those weren’t witnesses. The were opinionated leftists with hearsay tales. They were asked to give proof of a crime and not one could even name a crime. .
House Democrats' strategy was nothing short of genius (Opinion) - CNN
"Finally, House Democrats may have trolled the President. It seems that they knew full well that he would never have been able to resist attacking witnesses, and picked the most sympathetic ones to tell the story.
"The first several witnesses to testify were: Taylor, a 72-year-old Vietnam Veteran; Kent, a diplomat with 27 years of experience; Yovanovitch, a naturalized American woman with 33 years of diplomatic experience; Williams, a member of the vice president's staff; and Vindman, an Army lieutenant colonel still carrying shrapnel from an Iraqi roadside bomb.
"Of course, the President delivered.
"He routinely questioned the credibility of the witnesses and, during Yovanovitch's testimony, unleashed a Twitter attack that some called witness intimidation."
He lied about that too.
US
Did Trump tell you that?Those weren’t witnesses. The were opinionated leftists with hearsay tales. They were asked to give proof of a crime and not one could even name a crime. .
House Democrats' strategy was nothing short of genius (Opinion) - CNN
"Finally, House Democrats may have trolled the President. It seems that they knew full well that he would never have been able to resist attacking witnesses, and picked the most sympathetic ones to tell the story.
"The first several witnesses to testify were: Taylor, a 72-year-old Vietnam Veteran; Kent, a diplomat with 27 years of experience; Yovanovitch, a naturalized American woman with 33 years of diplomatic experience; Williams, a member of the vice president's staff; and Vindman, an Army lieutenant colonel still carrying shrapnel from an Iraqi roadside bomb.
"Of course, the President delivered.
"He routinely questioned the credibility of the witnesses and, during Yovanovitch's testimony, unleashed a Twitter attack that some called witness intimidation."
He lied about that too.
US
President Snowflake: Trump Needs a Safe Space in Europe
New ones? You have to go all the way back to the Clinton impeachment.How many Senate impeachment trials have been conducted without witnesses?he time for witnesses is during the impeachment inquiry. If the Democrats want witnesses or new evidence, there is a very easy way to have them. Withdraw the Articles and start over.
Snowflakes get the MOAB dropped on them in just hours.....this place is going to be a spike the football jamboree by next weekend. Except for those who will be loSinG
Snowflakes get the MOAB dropped on them in just hours.....this place is going to be a spike the football jamboree by next weekend. Except for those who will be loSinG
Enjoy the Fall.
Read more.Russia zzzzZZZZZZzzzz...
You could change places with Schiff, make America sleep again
No they mustn’tyIt is pointless to poll the general public about legal matters; they are, collectively speaking, idiots.
The time for witnesses is during the impeachment inquiry. If the Democrats want witnesses or new evidence, there is a very easy way to have them. Withdraw the Articles and start over.
Actually, you are wrong. According to the Constitution, the Senate must try, not review the articles of impeachment . In other words they must have witnesses.
The Senate Impeachment Trial: Call the Witnesses or Concede the Facts
An Impeachment Trial Without Witnesses Would Be Unconstitutional
John Roberts Doesn't Have to Play by Mitch McConnell's Rules
Obviously, you didn’t read my links.
There have been eight other impeachment (presidents and judges), all followed Article ll of the Constitution, they had witnesses. Check it out before you make ignorant comments.
Read more.Russia zzzzZZZZZZzzzz...
You could change places with Schiff, make America sleep again
Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index
"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
"Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016.
"In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network.
"Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November."
Are you surprised that life-long Republican fixers Mueller and Barr said they couldn't find evidence of collusion?
