Rudy: not only would I testify, I would love to try the case as well

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're welcome to feel that way, but the real question is, will Piglosi feel that way? Hmmmm.

That makes no sense.

Once again, Rudy will spout whatever shit he wants. But he won't do it under oath.

"Will Piglosi feel that way" doesn't connect to that statement whatsoever. Maybe you confused yourself with all the responses you're giving?

You must not understand. When Piglosi forwards the articles of impeachment to the Senate, it's in the Republican's hands. It's out of her control. Mitch is the boss then.

That means the case can be dismissed, Mitch can hold a vote, and Mitch can call witnesses. He can do virtually anything he wants. And yes, Mitch can call on Rudy to testify and ask what he found in Ukraine.

So now the pressure is on Piglosi. Does she start this process she can't control, or does she not and take the safe road of keeping them indefinitely?

You're confusing me with someone else.

Me: Rudy will spout whatever shit he wants. But he won't do it under oath.
You: Will Piglosi feel that way?

Doesn't make sense.

Sure it does. Will Nancy pants take the chance that Rudy will not testify under oath?

View attachment 297917

So "Will Piglosi feel that way?" is supposed to mean "Will Nancy pants take the chance that Rudy will not testify under oath?"

That wasn't implied.

It can be implied that way if you were on the other side of the leadership. Is Rudy bluffing, and will they call his bluff if that's so?

 

[busybee01]

Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, said he would be willing to testify in a Senate impeachment trial if asked and would "love to try the case" if given the opportunity.

"I would testify. I would do demonstrations. I'd give lectures. I'd give summations," Giuliani said Tuesday night when asked about the possibility during a New Year's Eve celebration at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

"Or, I'd do what I do best: I'd try the case. I'd love to try the case," he said. "I don't know if anybody would have the courage to give me the case, but if you give me the case, I will prosecute it as a racketeering case, which I kind of invented anyway."

The former prosecutor said it had been 30 years since he tried such a case, "but let's see if I can still do it."

Trump impeachment: Rudy Giuliani willing to testify in Senate trial

Sounds like a pretty confident guy. Is he bluffing? Is he calling ass on Piglosi to go ahead and send the articles to the Senate and see what happens?

Without a doubt, nobody would let Rudy try the case, but his statement suggests he would be working very closely with Trump's defense. In light of Hunter's problems involving the paternity suit, criminal investigations of money laundering that include Burisma, and his tax lien,it certainly is looking like team Trump may have something on the Biden's.

He has every bit of information against the dems in Ukraine. ALL OF IT. And it’s extremely damning. The dems are done whether Rudy tries the case or not.

The GOVERNMENT has to have probable cause to investigate Biden's and a Judge has to approve....And the presidents impeachment trial

IS NOT ABOUT THE BIDEN'S or anything they did....And YOU can NOT go after them in TRUMPs impeachment trial, impeachment is NOT a criminal trial, it would be unconstitutional.

If the Biden's committed all f these crimes that you falsely claim, then the DOJ goes after them, giving them their constitutional rights, they will be prosecuted in a court of law, with their own defense team of lawyers to defend them.


YOU KNOW THAT...

Biden's can't help Trump get out of the charges against him, unless he has witnesses and evidence for his own defense.... accusing someone else of a different crime in his own impeachment is not a defense for his own crimes.

It's completely lawless and another abuse of govt power.

You have absolutely no clue how the legal process works in this country, which is something that seems common among the left. When you’re accused of a crime you have the absolute right to face your accuser and provide whatever evidence you need to defend your position. If that means calling Biden to testify, so be it. Dems say trump investigated Biden for nothing more than to damage his reputation politically. Trump says he did it to investigate corruption. If trump can prove corruption then the case is closed. How else does the defendant prove their case other than subpoenaing witnesses and evidence?

How is it possible that you people are this clueless to the process of justice in this country?

You have no idea how the legal process works in this country. A impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Trump was given the opportunity to participate but declined to participate. You cannot call witnesses that are irrelevant. Biden is irrelevant to the issue. The government is bound by laws no matter what the goal is. Trump had no right to ask for a investigation of a political rival. That is exactly what it is.

You are clueless.

 

[busybee01]

The burden of proof isn’t even on the defendant it’s on the accuser. All trump has to do is show corruption and the case is closed. If the dems have the proof all they need to do is proceed to the senate and provide the proof.

What are you democrats so afraid of?

The burden of proof is on Trump. He has to have evidence. There is not enough information for the DOJ to open a investigation so there clearly is not enough for Ukraine to open one.

 

[busybee01]

How are people stupid enough to believe that Rudy is going to testify?

Remember when Trump said he was willing to testify? They're all talk.

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

Ray, she's eaten Trumps lunch several times in public and at the White House. You probably saw the famous photograph of her point her finger at him across the table, while all the Republicans on his side were looking down or away and Trump had a visibly shocked look of a kid that was being called down by the teacher. She's got her faults, but she ain't worried about Rudy.

Yea, I remember that photo op. But let me explain something to you:

The Democrats went into Defcon One mode once they learned that Trump may be onto Biden. That's the reason for this lie of an impeachment. The Biden's have something going on there in Ukraine, and the Democrats seemingly will do whatever it takes to stop any peeking into that situation.

Hunter is a drug addict, kicked out of the military; a man with no experience in the energy field, and of all the people in the world to choose from, Hunter gets this lucrative job that paid 80K a month. He didn't know the field, didn't know the country, didn't speak the language, but he mysteriously got this job his father was overseeing.

Trump is not on to anyone. The Bidens have nothing going on and there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If there was then the DOJ could open a investigation.

Rush Limbaugh was a addict as well as Hunter Biden. It is a sickness. The fact is that Warren Buffet sat on the Board of Directors of Heinz and he knows nothing about ketchup. There is no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything illegal in getting the position. The Board of Directors does not run the company. They do not have to know anything about the field the company is in. If Biden was protecting his sun he would not have wanted the corrupt prosecutor who closed the investigation into Burisma removed.

 

[Siete]

The burden of proof isn’t even on the defendant it’s on the accuser. All trump has to do is show corruption and the case is closed. If the dems have the proof all they need to do is proceed to the senate and provide the proof.

What are you democrats so afraid of?

The burden of proof is on Trump. He has to have evidence. There is not enough information for the DOJ to open a investigation so there clearly is not enough for Ukraine to open one.

just think of all the people Rudi questioned during his Ukraine investigation - they will be more than happy to come to the US and testify under oath

RIGHT AFTER HE DOES.

 

[busybee01]

Maybe? lol

He won't testify. He'll spout whatever shit he wants, but he won't do it under oath.

You're welcome to feel that way, but the real question is, will Piglosi feel that way? Hmmmm.

That makes no sense.

Once again, Rudy will spout whatever shit he wants. But he won't do it under oath.

"Will Piglosi feel that way" doesn't connect to that statement whatsoever. Maybe you confused yourself with all the responses you're giving?

You must not understand. When Piglosi forwards the articles of impeachment to the Senate, it's in the Republican's hands. It's out of her control. Mitch is the boss then.

That means the case can be dismissed, Mitch can hold a vote, and Mitch can call witnesses. He can do virtually anything he wants. And yes, Mitch can call on Rudy to testify and ask what he found in Ukraine.

So now the pressure is on Piglosi. Does she start this process she can't control, or does she not and take the safe road of keeping them indefinitely?

You're confusing me with someone else.

Me: Rudy will spout whatever shit he wants. But he won't do it under oath.
You: Will Piglosi feel that way?

Doesn't make sense.

Sure it does. Will Nancy pants take the chance that Rudy will not testify under oath?

View attachment 297917

Republicans don't want Rudy testifying.

 

[Dana7360]

Like the Senate trial is not a sham already

First Mitch admits he is not going to be impartial and will coordinate the trial details with the White House

Now, Rudy says he wants to be the prosecutor

They are making our whole system more of a joke than they already have.

 

[busybee01]

What is the whistleblower going to tell you that is not in his written complaint that has been independently investigated?

Demanding the whistleblower be exposed is just harassment

Not at all. I would like the non-whistleblower to disclose who gave him the information and for what reason? Why didn't the informer approach Schiff himself? Who wrote the complaint? Because anybody that read it clearly stated it was written by a lawyer, and not him or her. Who did he first approach with this information? Did he ever have conversations or meetings with Schiff Face, who claimed not to know who the WB was yet alone conspire with him.

And I'm sure there are other things I didn't think of that should be known.

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

The whistleblower is a real whistleblower. That is why he is receiving protection. Secondly we also know McConnell is even more corrupt than Trump and he has the lowest approvals of anyone in Washington.

No, he is not a real whistleblower, and no, whistleblowers are not guaranteed any protection.

The fact that he is receiving federal protection shows that he is a whistleblower as recognized by the federal government.

 

[busybee01]

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

You are a good little Nazi stormtrooper. The IG found the complaint to be credible and it has been backed up with other witnesses. The whistleblower's motives are not germane. Nobody in their right mind could not look at the call and find that Trump wanted a foreign country to investigate a political rival. None of the people you mention are relevant witnesses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not at all. I would like the non-whistleblower to disclose who gave him the information and for what reason? Why didn't the informer approach Schiff himself? Who wrote the complaint? Because anybody that read it clearly stated it was written by a lawyer, and not him or her. Who did he first approach with this information? Did he ever have conversations or meetings with Schiff Face, who claimed not to know who the WB was yet alone conspire with him.

And I'm sure there are other things I didn't think of that should be known.

Someday, he'll probably write a book. There is nothing he can tell the Senate that will weigh on Trumps innocence or guilt as people who sat in on the call could not tell better, but that ain't happening.

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

The whistleblower is a real whistleblower. That is why he is receiving protection. Secondly we also know McConnell is even more corrupt than Trump and he has the lowest approvals of anyone in Washington.

No, he is not a real whistleblower, and no, whistleblowers are not guaranteed any protection.

The fact that he is receiving federal protection shows that he is a whistleblower as recognized by the federal government.

Look......I'll even use one of your very own sources:

The 'Whistleblower' Probably Isn't

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It could happen if Mitch wants that testimony. Two things here: first, the whistleblower is not a real whistleblower at all. That's been determined already. Secondly, even if he or she was, there are no protections of anonymity for a whistleblower meaning that Schiff Face cannot stop Mitch from bringing that person to the Senate to testify.

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

You are a good little Nazi stormtrooper. The IG found the complaint to be credible and it has been backed up with other witnesses. The whistleblower's motives are not germane. Nobody in their right mind could not look at the call and find that Trump wanted a foreign country to investigate a political rival. None of the people you mention are relevant witnesses.

In that transcript, you will not find the word "investigate." Trump asked Zelensky to "look into it" which was the phrase he used. He also asked that he do so as a favor. A favor is doing something for somebody with no expectation of a return.

An official investigation is a different matter altogether.

 

[Dana7360]

Mitch can be impartial even if talking with the White House council.

Oh please Ray.
Mitch has said the following:

My job is to make Obama a one-term President
I will obstruct any Legislation from Democrats and NEVER give Obama a win.
My mind is made up, and I'll work with the WH in the Senate Trial.

Nope, Moscow Mitch is NEVER impartial.

So explain how that's not impartial. If Mitch decides just to take a vote, or throw it out with no witnesses at all, then his mind is already made up from the Schiff show. Everybody knows what a farce that was, and that this is the weakest case for impeachment in history; an impeachment with no crimes committed. The same exact thing that will happen to the next commie President with a Republican majority in the House.

Moscow Mitch takes an OATH under God and signs it, that he will be IMPARTIAL, not have his mind made up, BEFORE hearing all the evidence in the trial, before casting his vote.

Mitchy baby, needs to recuse himself, so does Lindsey Graham, who takes the same oath under God... to be impartial, see and hear all the evidence in the trial, before making their DECISION...

Moscow Mitchy said to everyone viewing FOX, that he would NOT be impartial, is working hand in hand with the defendant's (Trump's) lawyers and would deliver an acquittal FOR Trump.... that ain't impartial.... that is a Mafioso,

THE FIX IS IN, SHAM TRIAL! And this foolish man touting this, leads the whole trial.... sheesh.

Shame on all of you that accept that, and poor Trump... he'll forever be known as the President who was acquitted in a SHAM, FIX IS IN, trial. instead of really being acquitted by a fair trial in the Senate, as Clinton was... is that what you really want?

Yes it is.

As long as trump and his followers can say he was acquitted.

That's all trump and his followers care about

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or like when Schiff face said the whistleblower was going to testify?

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

Ray, she's eaten Trumps lunch several times in public and at the White House. You probably saw the famous photograph of her point her finger at him across the table, while all the Republicans on his side were looking down or away and Trump had a visibly shocked look of a kid that was being called down by the teacher. She's got her faults, but she ain't worried about Rudy.

Yea, I remember that photo op. But let me explain something to you:

The Democrats went into Defcon One mode once they learned that Trump may be onto Biden. That's the reason for this lie of an impeachment. The Biden's have something going on there in Ukraine, and the Democrats seemingly will do whatever it takes to stop any peeking into that situation.

Hunter is a drug addict, kicked out of the military; a man with no experience in the energy field, and of all the people in the world to choose from, Hunter gets this lucrative job that paid 80K a month. He didn't know the field, didn't know the country, didn't speak the language, but he mysteriously got this job his father was overseeing.

Trump is not on to anyone. The Bidens have nothing going on and there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If there was then the DOJ could open a investigation.

Rush Limbaugh was a addict as well as Hunter Biden. It is a sickness. The fact is that Warren Buffet sat on the Board of Directors of Heinz and he knows nothing about ketchup. There is no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything illegal in getting the position. The Board of Directors does not run the company. They do not have to know anything about the field the company is in. If Biden was protecting his sun he would not have wanted the corrupt prosecutor who closed the investigation into Burisma removed.

There is enough there to suspect a lot of things that went on. First off, Shokin's interview where he stated he was investigating Hunter, and also stated that's the reason he was fired. Now we have this criminal investigation of money laundering and Burisma in the US, which is related to his paternity lawsuit. The guy hasn't paid his taxes in five years, another suspicious matter.

Warren is not some ambulance chaser. He is an experienced businessman, and a very wealthy one at that like Trump. Of course it's no problem if he sat on a board of a product he was unfamiliar with. He certainly didn't do it for the money.

 

[busybee01]

The whole reason for any and all trials against someone in court, is to discern the TRUTH.

The American people deserves to know the truth.

Exactly. So there should be no problem with the defense calling witnesses.

Calling witnesses pertinent to the defendant's charges and his defense showing he did not committed the charged with articles of impeachment....


It's not about whether Biden's were crooks or not.

If they were, they will have their own trial.

He can't justify his own alleged crimes, by pointing out alleged crimes of others... You do realize those games like that are not played in a trial?

Did Trump do what he was charged with, or not? That is the truth we are after....in the trial.

Trump knows the WB and Biden's can not help him in his defense of his article charges, and is only calling for them to testify even though they can't help,

Because he knows he will be denied those irrelevant witnesses...

But then can claim to his ignorant to the law followers...

That since he can't have his two irrelevant witnesses, the prosecution should not be allowed their REVELANT witnesses.

This whole shenanigans of his is TO PREVENT ANY WITNESSES against him from being able to testify under oath... by him claiming he can't have his witnesses, so no one can have them.

You have a very distorted view of the legal process. If Joe Biden was indeed embezzling tax money, that proves that trump was simply trying to uncover corruption. That in and of itself would blow the democrats case out of the water. Any jury worth a shit would see that and acquit. And then at that point joe Biden now has his own problems to deal with as prosecution now targets him.

Get it now? Or are you still going to be a moron?

You have a distorted view of the legal process. There is not one shred of evidence to support your claim. You do not get to make unproven claims. Any jury would see right through what you are trying to do. The fact that the DOJ has seen no reason to investigate Biden shows there is no evidence.

 

[busybee01]

I agree that they probably could call "the whistle blower", but it would be a pointless wasted of time, no longer relevant or effective, like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube before sitting down in the dentist's chair.

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

Are you still claiming a “perfect” phone call?
A phone call that got a president impeached

It would be like claiming Clinton got a perfect blowjob

Yes, the phone call that the commies lied about. Trump never told Zelensky you better do X, or else. That's what Biden did, not Trump. Biden was not and is not Trump's contender. Biden is the contender of fellow Democrats running for the nomination.

It was all a pack of lies.

You are the one who is giving us a pack of lies.

Trump talked about all the money we give them and there are several things we would like you to do. Trump made it vey clear that he wanted a phony investigation into Biden. Biden is the biggest threat to Trump and Trump clearly knows that. The policy that was enunciated by Biden was coordinated with the State Department, our allies and the IMF and supported by ordinary Ukrainians.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know we are dealing with Democrats, but we used to live by the code of the accused being able to face his accuser. This is part of the cabal that's been going on since DumBama was in the White House. They are all in cahoots with each other. The person that gave the so-called whistleblower this information is a spy for the Democrats, and it needs to be learned who that is and why they did it. Same for the person they claim to be the whistleblower.

So what we have here is not only the weakest case for impeachment in history; one without a crime, but also the only impeachment where the accuser remained anonymous the entire time. Such a serious event should have all cards face up on the table, not this clandestine operation to undermine a sitting US President.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd see liberals protesting and possible riots in every city.

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

Are you still claiming a “perfect” phone call?
A phone call that got a president impeached

It would be like claiming Clinton got a perfect blowjob

Yes, the phone call that the commies lied about. Trump never told Zelensky you better do X, or else. That's what Biden did, not Trump. Biden was not and is not Trump's contender. Biden is the contender of fellow Democrats running for the nomination.

It was all a pack of lies.

You are the one who is giving us a pack of lies.

Trump talked about all the money we give them and there are several things we would like you to do. Trump made it vey clear that he wanted a phony investigation into Biden. Biden is the biggest threat to Trump and Trump clearly knows that. The policy that was enunciated by Biden was coordinated with the State Department, our allies and the IMF and supported by ordinary Ukrainians.

Trump made no threat of US aid. That's the point. You have an impeachment here based on assumptions instead of actual words or intent. Biden is no threat to Trump. The man can't even face the right way on a stage. He doesn't know what state he's in. He's a gaff a minute. Biden would be the easiest opponent to run against out of the clown car.

 

[busybee01]

Did he say that? If so, I never heard it. He's been pretty clear about wanting to protect the whistleblower.

You probably didn't read all the posts in the thread, but I said early on I don't know if Rudy will testify, whether they will let him testify, or if he's simply challenging Piglisi and Schiff. I don't think they will let him run the hearing if they have one though.

It may very well be that Rudy wants to see if he can pressure Piglosi into not forwarding the articles to the Senate in fear of what he might have.

Schiff: Trump-Ukraine whistleblower agrees to testify before Congress

Ray, she's eaten Trumps lunch several times in public and at the White House. You probably saw the famous photograph of her point her finger at him across the table, while all the Republicans on his side were looking down or away and Trump had a visibly shocked look of a kid that was being called down by the teacher. She's got her faults, but she ain't worried about Rudy.

Yea, I remember that photo op. But let me explain something to you:

The Democrats went into Defcon One mode once they learned that Trump may be onto Biden. That's the reason for this lie of an impeachment. The Biden's have something going on there in Ukraine, and the Democrats seemingly will do whatever it takes to stop any peeking into that situation.

Hunter is a drug addict, kicked out of the military; a man with no experience in the energy field, and of all the people in the world to choose from, Hunter gets this lucrative job that paid 80K a month. He didn't know the field, didn't know the country, didn't speak the language, but he mysteriously got this job his father was overseeing.

Trump is not on to anyone. The Bidens have nothing going on and there is not one shred of evidence to support that. If there was then the DOJ could open a investigation.

Rush Limbaugh was a addict as well as Hunter Biden. It is a sickness. The fact is that Warren Buffet sat on the Board of Directors of Heinz and he knows nothing about ketchup. There is no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything illegal in getting the position. The Board of Directors does not run the company. They do not have to know anything about the field the company is in. If Biden was protecting his sun he would not have wanted the corrupt prosecutor who closed the investigation into Burisma removed.

There is enough there to suspect a lot of things that went on. First off, Shokin's interview where he stated he was investigating Hunter, and also stated that's the reason he was fired. Now we have this criminal investigation of money laundering and Burisma in the US, which is related to his paternity lawsuit. The guy hasn't paid his taxes in five years, another suspicious matter.

Warren is not some ambulance chaser. He is an experienced businessman, and a very wealthy one at that like Trump. Of course it's no problem if he sat on a board of a product he was unfamiliar with. He certainly didn't do it for the money.

What Shokin said is irrelevant. He clearly has every reason to get even with Biden. The DOJ has already looked at this and seen nothing illegal. This is one Ukrainian anti-corruption activist who disagrees with you and Giuliani.

Daria Kaleniuk‏ @dkaleniuk
Replying to @OliverBullough
Thank you @OliverBullough - indeed it’s insane to use UKRAINE as a ball at the AMERICAN national political field. Prosecutor Shokin did not open the case on Zlochevskyi & Burisma. He dumped it. And he was fired for being corrupt and failing prosecution reform @kenvogel

12:52 PM - 2 May 2019

She also states that Shokin was corrupt and there was no investigation of Burisma. Several GOP Senators like Ron Johnson also wrote a letter about standing against corruption in Ukraine. They had no problem with what Biden did. It is only now when Biden poses a major threat to Trump's re-election that attacks on Biden start. She's talking about you buddy boy when she talks about the American political field. China also knows what this is all about. They refused to get involved in domestic politics.

Warren knows nothing about running a company like Heinz. He does not need to as Boards of Directors do not run companies. Accepting money for sitting on a board is illegal? Give us the statute. Joe Biden released his taxes when he was VP and has released all of his tax returns for the last 20 years. Trump has not. Who is trying to hide something?

 

[busybee01]

You are confusing "whistle blower" with accuser. He only blew the whistle, so others could know something was up. He lost significance very shortly after he put through the paperwork properly through chain of responsibility, making sure it got to people who would be empowered to look into it, without sweeping it under the rug.

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

Are you still claiming a “perfect” phone call?
A phone call that got a president impeached

It would be like claiming Clinton got a perfect blowjob

Yes, the phone call that the commies lied about. Trump never told Zelensky you better do X, or else. That's what Biden did, not Trump. Biden was not and is not Trump's contender. Biden is the contender of fellow Democrats running for the nomination.

It was all a pack of lies.

You are the one who is giving us a pack of lies.

Trump talked about all the money we give them and there are several things we would like you to do. Trump made it vey clear that he wanted a phony investigation into Biden. Biden is the biggest threat to Trump and Trump clearly knows that. The policy that was enunciated by Biden was coordinated with the State Department, our allies and the IMF and supported by ordinary Ukrainians.

Trump made no threat of US aid. That's the point. You have an impeachment here based on assumptions instead of actual words or intent. Biden is no threat to Trump. The man can't even face the right way on a stage. He doesn't know what state he's in. He's a gaff a minute. Biden would be the easiest opponent to run against out of the clown car.

You are giving us another pack of lies.

Trump is not going to make a direct threat. He was making his point when he said the US was giving them a lot of money. The Ukrainians were well aware of the fact that Trump was threatening to withhold military aid if Ukraine didn't open a investigation of Biden. That was even before the phone call. Even Karl Rove is aware of the fact that Biden poses the greatest danger even though I don't agree with his statement Biden is the only one who can beat Trump. Biden would defeat Trump.

 

[busybee01]

Problematic can be impeachable. Your assertion was that no one could look at the transcript and see a problem, but that’s obviously not true since we have a lot of testimony from Trump staff to the contrary and the fact that they locked the transcript down so it wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside their little circle of trust.

Trump sure as hell looks like he did what he’s accused of. Biden and Obama didn’t.

Spies! You’re so over dramatic. People working in the White House blew the whistle on Trump’s corruption and they did so legally. And now Trump and his supporters want revenge because the American people know what Trump did.

Biden and DumBama didn't? I asked these questions of Care, and you respond with that? You mean to tell me that Biden didn't give Ukraine a quid pro quo? I have evidence he did. You mean to tell me that Obama didn't use executive privilege to not give documentation to the US Congress? I have evidence he did exactly that.

Biden did engage in a quid pro quo with Ukraine as part of an overall foreign policy with that country to encourage them to reform and overcome their corruption. He did it for the benefit of US foreign policy, not an individual personal benefit as did Trump.

Obama did assert executive privilege with Congress after having handed over thousands upon thousands of documents and having witnesses testify dozens of times in the congressional probe. Trump has blocked any and all requests and subpoenas from the House, which is a huge difference.

Saying Trump did it for personal reasons is like saying Joe did the same, by having the prosecutor who was investigating the firm his son worked for making 80K a month. I call that personal. Furthermore, there was no personal gain of any kind for Trump given Biden was not his opponent in the race. It's a Democrat lie.

The prosecutor was not investigating the firm his son worked for.

If Biden isn’t an opponent of Trump, why is Trump running campaign ads against him?

The prosecutor said the exact opposite. According to Shokin, he was in the process of investigating money laundering by Hunter, and was about to confiscate Burisma assets. Now we find out a criminal investigation in the US started for the same reasons. Plus Hunter has owed back taxes for the last five years, and amazingly enough, the IRS never went after him. No fines, no accumulated interest, nothing.

Shokin is a liar. There was no investigation of Hunter Biden and the investigation into Burisma was closed. There is no criminal investigation of Hunter Biden. Maybe the reason that the IRS didn't go after him was because they don't have a case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's irrelevant. What needs to be known is why this informant went to authorities with such weak information. Nobody in their right mind could listen (or read) that phone call and say there was anything wrong, yet alone criminal or impeachable.

Was this person in the cabal, and who told him or her to look for anything that can help them create this lie about the President? This is an inside job. Given the fact it was knee-jerk to the interest of Trump looking into the Biden corruption, I would say that everything needs to be known about the genesis of this case.

So it's all relevant. After the testimony of the WB and informant that listened to the call, then Schiff needs to take the stand and swear under oath to what this is really all about. Why did the Democrats panic to the point of bringing up such a phony impeachment charge when they learned about Trump's interest in the Biden's? We need to know what they are hiding.

Are you still claiming a “perfect” phone call?
A phone call that got a president impeached

It would be like claiming Clinton got a perfect blowjob

Yes, the phone call that the commies lied about. Trump never told Zelensky you better do X, or else. That's what Biden did, not Trump. Biden was not and is not Trump's contender. Biden is the contender of fellow Democrats running for the nomination.

It was all a pack of lies.

You are the one who is giving us a pack of lies.

Trump talked about all the money we give them and there are several things we would like you to do. Trump made it vey clear that he wanted a phony investigation into Biden. Biden is the biggest threat to Trump and Trump clearly knows that. The policy that was enunciated by Biden was coordinated with the State Department, our allies and the IMF and supported by ordinary Ukrainians.

Trump made no threat of US aid. That's the point. You have an impeachment here based on assumptions instead of actual words or intent. Biden is no threat to Trump. The man can't even face the right way on a stage. He doesn't know what state he's in. He's a gaff a minute. Biden would be the easiest opponent to run against out of the clown car.

You are giving us another pack of lies.

Trump is not going to make a direct threat. He was making his point when he said the US was giving them a lot of money. The Ukrainians were well aware of the fact that Trump was threatening to withhold military aid if Ukraine didn't open a investigation of Biden. That was even before the phone call. Even Karl Rove is aware of the fact that Biden poses the greatest danger even though I don't agree with his statement Biden is the only one who can beat Trump. Biden would defeat Trump.

Biden barely stands a chance against the other Socialists yet alone Trump. If this economy continues, nobody will be able to beat him. That's besides the fact that unless the commies can produce a crystal ball where they knew Biden was going to be his opponent, the claim Trump talked about Biden for political reasons is moot.

Also this "Trump made a point" is another mind reading claim by the commies. Nobody knows what's in the individuals mind but the individual. That's why a direct threat (like Biden made with his quid pro quo) is needed for a justified impeachment. This impeachment is unjustified. It's more assuming and suppositions. In a real court of law, the judge would throw the case out before it started.