Offical Impeachment Thread

[The Original Tree]

Did they have any hearing today or did dems realize how fucked they are

I think Jimmy Jordan begged for a time out.

It's Pretty exhausting Beating The Truth in to A DemTwat and then getting Schitt Face to Perjure himself on Live TV....AGAIN.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

Yet Trump didn't do either.

 

[The Original Tree]

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

Logic is useless to someone who won't acknowledge the "deliverable" wasn't for an investigation. It was for a public announcement of an investigation. Details are ******* irrelevant and the last thing Trump wants is a quest for the truth. Once the smear is out there, there's no need for an investigation. Trump is leveraging US foreign aid for a smear campaign to use in domestic politics.

Experience should tell you the con man is conning you. Maybe you were born every minute.

He is leveraging aid as he is the Commander in Chief of the military to ensure that Ukraine is not as corrupt as it was in 2016. How is he conning me? It was an open phone call, he released the transcript, the Bidens seem like the con artists to me. Again, I don't see anything that he did as being wrong, you disagree and that is your right, Luis.

Keep spinning until you explain why the "deliverable" was a public statement from Zelensky. Man up.

Yes and as POTUS he has the right to demand this. He wasn't hiding it. He did it in an open forum.


Burisma, a private oil and gas company in Ukraine, announced this week that it has appointed Hunter Biden, the youngest son of US Vice President Joe Biden, to its board of directors.

The company, founded in 2002, is controlled by a former energy official in the government of deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The move has raised some eyebrows in the US, given the Obama administration's attempts to manage the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

"Joe Biden has been the White House's go-to guy during the Ukraine crisis, touring former Soviet republics and reassuring their concerned leaders," writes the National Journal's Marina Koren. "And now, he's not the only Biden involved in the region."

She says that by appointing Hunter Biden head of its legal affairs unit, "Burisma is turning to US talent - and money and name recognition - for protection against Russia".

The younger Mr Biden isn't the only American with political ties to have recently joined Burisma's board. Devon Archer, a former senior advisor to current Secretary of State John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and a college roommate of Mr Kerry's stepson HJ Heinz, signed on in April.

Mr Biden and Mr Archer are also managing partners at Rosemont Seneca Partners, a Washington, DC-based investment company.

Both Mr Biden and Mr Archer have not responded to requests from reporters for comment. In Burisma's press release announcing his hiring, Mr Biden says:

I believe that my assistance in consulting the company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.

All this could be explained simply as a foreign energy company looking to increase its visibility in the US and spur investment, writes the Federalist's Mollie Hemingway. State-controlled companies currently account for 90% of Ukraine's gas production, but this year Burisma became the nation's largest private producer.

Hemingway adds, however, that there may be another, less savoury possibility:

The most disturbing explanation is that the company is attempting to curry favour with the US government by enlisting the services of the close family friend and campaign bundler of the secretary of state and the son of the vice president. After all, Archer notes on one of his company's web pages that his firm's "relationship network creates opportunities for our portfolio companies which then compound to greater outcomes for all parties".

She concludes that this seems like a "cliched movie plot": "a shady foreign oil company co-opts the vice president's son in order to capture lucrative foreign investment contracts".

The White House has emphasised that the vice president's son's new job will have no influence on US foreign policy.

"Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer," Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the vice president, told the Wall Street Journal. "The vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company."

Bullshit. Trump made every effort to hide his request of Ukraine, including, to this day, denying there was a quid pro quo. He used a backchannel of his personal attorney and two currently-indicted associates, who engaged in a smear campaign to remove an Ambassador. The WH hid the call records, in which Trump never mentioned the word corruption, tho he mentioned Biden and Giuliani. A whistleblower report was suppressed.

But, yeah, It's just an honest, above-board effort to root out corruption. The demand for a public statement of a Burisma/Biden investigation is so innocent you can't even conceive of an explanation for it.


Yeah, he didn't pay hush money either.

So what is your Quid Pro Quo Agreement with Putin's Bal Sac?

Does your Chin Serve as his balls rest?

Or are you more of an Ayatollah's Assaholla licker?

Don't you have some Putin Pudding to server your Dead Daddy Al Baghdadi?

Once again whether it is Russian Collusion, or The Ukraine Hoax, your Lies have been exposed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

 

[Lakhota]

Putin obviously has a recording of the Trump/Sondland phone call - so now Putin has even more kompromat to blackmail Trump with. Putin owns Trump.

 

[The Original Tree]

For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

You have to have a victim for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and to move forward with an impeachment. The Victim, The Ukraine, said Nothing Happened.

No, the corrupt intent exposed now is enough to impeach him, and is already enough to convinced enough independent voters that he has got to go.

Hate to tell you this, but you this, but that is not Putin's Hair Gel you have in your hair.

Why do you Foreigners continue to try to convince us that you know WTF you are talking about when we all know your Only Job is to LIE 24-7, 365?

Not only is Trump not going to be impeached, The DemNazi Party has repeatedly outted itself as too dangerous and too reckless to be allowed to have political power. And America will be saying that loud and clear at The Polls for The Next 10 years.

Trump is going to win in a Landslide, and The GOP will be taking back house seats in 2020, and 2022, and extend it's majority in The Senate....

Thanks to people like YOU!

 

[The Original Tree]

Putin obviously has a recording of the Trump/Sondland phone call - so now Putin has even more kompromat to blackmail Trump with. Putin owns Trump.

And Naked Pictures of Eric Ciaramella according to Adam "Got Naked Trump" Schiff

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

So could Schiff and the Bidens

 

[BlindBoo]

Why do you Foreigners continue to try to convince us that you know

Tell me more about how the House of Representatives doesn't impeach anyone.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hate to tell you this, but you this, but that is not Putin's Hair Gel you have in your hair.

Terry? Is that you? "Come on Punky....."

 

[task0778]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

To be honest, the Dems aren't acting too concerned about how this mess affects the entire nation either.

Question: what the EFF is Trump supposed to do? The Dems have been after his ass since the day after the 2016 election, with no actual evidence to base any of their investigations and inquiries on. Has he not released the transcripts of the phone call? Should he not expect reasonable attempts by the Dems to allow him or his people to question the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they deem appropriate?

Question: does Biden get off the hook for whatever he or his son did with respect to Ukraine, because he's running for the Dem nomination? Should we the public not know about whatever took place while Biden was the VP? Why isn't that actually part of his job as President, to look into any possible illegal activities in another country to see if our own laws were broken? Shouldn't he find out?

 

[Olde Europe]

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Let's say, as a self-governing body, the House can give themselves the evidentiary rules they damn please, or none at all. What I did, for the sake of the argument, was to take seriously the rightards' screeching about "inadmissible hearsay", and demonstrate that even while equating the rules of impeachment to the rules of evidence at a criminal trial, they are still losing the argument. Most of the goofs in the House are lawyers or have legal advisors, and they know that their "hearsay" screeching makes no sense whatsoever. It is purely an appeal to the ignorati, and it worked like a charm.

 

[Flopper]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

First off, congress does not need any violation of the law to impeach and remove a person from office. And yes, the impeachment investigation is looking for a crime to charge Trump. That is what impeachment investigations do. There are plenty of wrong doings to sight but they don't have any strong evidence of violation federal statues.

Nixon's impeachment contain no reference to any crime but charged a violation of his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice. At time he resigned the committee was looking at the federal crime of suborning perjury.

Clinton was charged with perjury.

 

[regent]

Day 1:

This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?

The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?

Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.

And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

If the house can muster the votes, they can impeach the president for any reason. Likewise, if the senate has the votes after the house impeaches the president, they can convict/remove him from office for any reason. However, the constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is very unlikely that there will be a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the president without a bipartisan vote. For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box. That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..

Impeachment Occurs in The Senate. The Only thing The House can do is recommend and request an Impeachment of a President. If the Request is unwarranted The Senate can table it and do not even have to consider it.

Sounds like the Republicans have the impeachment of Trump under control. Will they be able to stop people from talking about the impeachment subject if Democrats continue to talk about it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BOMBSHELL

Sondland re-re-re-revised his recollections of the penumbra of the phone call! "After they reminded me they filmed me ******* 14 year old boys and girls, I suddenly recalled Trump told the Russians, er I mean the Ukrianians, 'either investigate Biden or I'll ******* kill you'"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

If the house can muster the votes, they can impeach the president for any reason. Likewise, if the senate has the votes after the house impeaches the president, they can convict/remove him from office for any reason. However, the constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is very unlikely that there will be a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the president without a bipartisan vote. For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box. That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..

Impeachment Occurs in The Senate. The Only thing The House can do is recommend and request an Impeachment of a President. If the Request is unwarranted The Senate can table it and do not even have to consider it.

Sounds like the Republicans have the impeachment of Trump under control. Will they be able to stop people from talking about the impeachment subject if Democrats continue to talk about it?

Nobody is talking about it, it's a total bust

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

If the house can muster the votes, they can impeach the president for any reason. Likewise, if the senate has the votes after the house impeaches the president, they can convict/remove him from office for any reason. However, the constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is very unlikely that there will be a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the president without a bipartisan vote. For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box. That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..

Impeachment Occurs in The Senate. The Only thing The House can do is recommend and request an Impeachment of a President. If the Request is unwarranted The Senate can table it and do not even have to consider it.

Sounds like the Republicans have the impeachment of Trump under control. Will they be able to stop people from talking about the impeachment subject if Democrats continue to talk about it?

Why should we? It's a real vote getter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

First off, congress does not need any violation of the law to impeach and remove a person from office. And yes, the impeachment investigation is looking for a crime to charge Trump. That is what impeachment investigations do. There are plenty of wrong doings to sight but they don't have any strong evidence of violation federal statues.

Nixon's impeachment contain no reference to any crime but charged a violation of his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice. At time he resigned the committee was looking at the federal crime of suborning perjury.

Clinton was charged with perjury.

So this is the precedent you'd like to see set......that a House looks for reasons to impeach a President of the opposing party?

Like I've said repeatedly, if the Democrats want to open up that Pandora's Box, then the shoe fits on both feet.

The Constitution is not a reference guide, it's the law of our land. Impeachment is used for high crimes and misdemeanors, unless you can show me where it says impeachment is for any reason at any time, or if one party wants to overturn the election of the winners of the other party.

 

[Olde Europe]

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

That is actually the dumbest thing I have seen you type in all my time on here, Flopper. Why would the House abrogate its own power to impeach in case there is a majority of the other party in the Senate that has lost all moral bearings? Why would they meekly surrender their own judgment to a body the majority of which has surrendered their judgment and integrity to Trump? Why the heck would they in effect agree with Trump's self-placement above the law in case the Senate majority agrees with a president above the law?

Really...

The House shall look into the evidence, look for Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes or Misdemeanors, and once they have written up their Articles of Impeachment, the House will vote on them. Whatever Articles survive that vote shall be transferred to the Senate. That is how it ought to be, how the Constitution outlines it, and they are not supposed to look to another authority for guidance, and they ought not deface that Constitutional process by what can only be described as cowardly dereliction of duty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Putin obviously has a recording of the Trump/Sondland phone call - so now Putin has even more kompromat to blackmail Trump with. Putin owns Trump.