Well this is interesting, are you sure Floridaman did nothing?

The House Intelligence Report mentions Devin Nunes FIFTY TIMES.

He was in repeated communication with indicted Giuliani associate and Ukrainian Lev Parnas.

Congressman Nunes is a fact witness.

"The president informed every department for which we sought records — the State Dept. the Office of Management and Budget ... the Defense Department, his own White House personnel — to refuse to turn over a single document."

The phone calls are listed starting around the 154th page

It contains new evidence of phone calls between Giuliani and Nunes back in April.

Why was Devin Nunes calling Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas?

OMB initiating calls to Giuliani starting in April

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

Yeah Rudy having multiple calls to the budget department, nothing inappropriate about that right guys?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Phone records are putting the one perfect call defense out the window, I think Rudy, Nunes and others better lawyer up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s fun watching you guys get all lathered up over nothing. Guess you haven’t learned anything from Russian collusion, kavanaugh and the countless other times you’ve predicted trump doom over the past few years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it’s far more fun to watch you guys spin round and round at each new batch of evidence comes out. These are actual phone records secured by supoena to AT&T, so explain if your can why Trumps personal attorney is calling and receiving calls from OMB in April, that should be entertaining for us all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Got Stripers;1181029]

These are actual phone records secured by supoena to AT&T


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wOW!!!
[size=1][i]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That’s your explanation wow, I was expecting a more detailed explanation of why a personal attorney, without any position or government job might be calling and receiving multiple calls from the department controlling the military aid. Or why on the same day he also had numerous calls with the White House, maybe it was a last minute cabinet posting 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That’s your explanation wow, I was expecting a more detailed explanation of why a personal attorney, without any position or government job might be calling and receiving multiple calls from the department controlling the military aid. Or why on the same day he also had numerous calls with the White House, maybe it was a last minute cabinet posting 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So tell us what the calls were and what law was broken.

Really that’s the defense, what law was broken, no you tell me why a private attorney should be calling or getting calls from the OMB. The conspiracy keeps expanding and the defense is getting more desperate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really that’s the defense, what law was broken, no you tell me why a private attorney should be calling or getting calls from the OMB. The conspiracy keeps expanding and the defense is getting more desperate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Don’t entertain the paid troll. They aren’t there to dabble in facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really that’s the defense, what law was broken, no you tell me why a private attorney should be calling or getting calls from the OMB. The conspiracy keeps expanding and the defense is getting more desperate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, you're the one making a big deal about it. Why should I be the one to say what the calls were about? Maybe there were discussions like those that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch had on the tarmac.

Hey, you're the one making a big deal about it. Why should I be the one to say what the calls were about? Maybe there were discussions like those that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch had on the tarmac.

Ok so you have no defense I got it, no surprise, those calls are almost impossible to defend, so to expect a guy on striped bass to come up with one is a big stretch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok so you have no defense I got it, no surprise, those calls are almost impossible to defend, so to expect a guy on striped bass to come up with one is a big stretch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that's it.

Ok so you have no defense I got it, no surprise, those calls are almost impossible to defend, so to expect a guy on striped bass to come up with one is a big stretch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have absolutely no clue what they were about and your panties are in a bunch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s just another piece of the puzzle the picture is almost in perfect focus and you guys are so predictable spouting the party line and defense, but I do find it amusing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I need to find this party line. It sounds like fun
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In lawsuit against CNN, Devon Nunes says network should have known Parnas was "a renowned liar, a fraudster, a hustler, an opportunist with delusions of grandeur..." Not good timing given phone records in intel report.
Perhaps he should have warned them, it might be based on personal experience doing whatever they did together.
Just what was their relationship business or personal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh my
🙀🤡🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Individual 1 is in the phone log also
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🙀🤡🙀
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

While the details of these communications aren't known, their simple existence undercuts the contention of some presidential defenders that Giuliani was operating independently of senior administration officials.


Wow some republicans caim rudy was acting independently of senior administration officials But he was never on a Republican witness list will he be on the Senate's List..... But they want Biden's son to testify ....

Republicans are looking only at Their Base in the polls not the evidence, they are living up to their name the party of NO

The four year Benghazi investigation and the two year Hillary email investigation resulted in zero indictments. The mueller investigation resulted in 23 indictments and I suspect there are a number coming at the end of this process, the phone records would fit in well on a made for TV show on bringing down the mob on racketeering charges.

Facts don’t matter to the GOP, look at the way they continue to put forth the Ukraine not Russia meddled in 2016 narrative. The FBI, the CIA, all intelligence agencies and the state department now coming out to again confirm there is zero evidence to support that conspiracy theory. It’s all about fabricating a cover story for what everyone was doing for Trump’s personal benefit in the 2020 election, if this were a private criminal trial, I guarantee the defense would be talking plea deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wound up for another round...:happy:

What cat got your tongue, when the right on this board starts responding with one liners, it’s because like the GOP; there just is no defense in light of the overwhelming evidence. You don’t even need to hear these phone calls, when they weave in perfectly with all the testimony to date. It will be more conspiracy theories or hey get over it the president can do whatever he wants, just ask Barr.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

vent baby vent....

The four year Benghazi investigation and the two year Hillary email investigation resulted in zero indictments.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe because the FBI agent in charge of the email
investigation, sent a text to his FBI agent/mistress, where he explicitly said “we’ll stop Trump from becoming president.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe because the FBI agent in charge of the email
investigation, sent a text to his FBI agent/mistress, where he explicitly said “we’ll stop Trump from becoming president.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean the investigation and announcement that likely cost the Dems the election?
Not the investigation that was kept secret till after the election, that likely would have cost the Trumplicans the election?

maybe because the FBI agent in charge of the email
investigation, sent a text to his FBI agent/mistress, where he explicitly said “we’ll stop Trump from becoming president.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

touting more conspiracies I am amazed at the power you think theses people had based on Text messages and their positions

but when it comes to Sworn statements all from multiple people all with a clear understanding on Trumps intent and their positions your go back in your hole :faga:

The phone records indicate that Nunes and Guiliani were in touch regularly last April, just when Giuliani was working a foreign policy back channel to try to convince Ukraine to open an investigation into the Bidens.

Nunes also had conversation with Parnas, the Giuliani associate who was helping in the effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens...

Not sure how they explain this away
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

touting more conspiracies I am amazed at the power you think theses people had based on Text messages and their positions

but when it comes to Sworn statements all from multiple people all with a clear understanding on Trumps intent and their positions your go back in your hole :faga:

what conspiracy theory? We have Strzoks text, what i posted, is what he texted to his mistress. And he was leading investigations into Hilary and Trump.

Power I “think he had”? He was
leading those investigations. I can’t prove his investigation reflected political bias, any more than you can prove there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What cat got your tongue, when the right on this board starts responding with one liners, it’s because like the GOP; there just is no defense in light of the overwhelming evidence. You don’t even need to hear these phone calls, when they weave in perfectly with all the testimony to date. It will be more conspiracy theories or hey get over it the president can do whatever he wants, just ask Barr.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
^^^^^^ This

It's the Nunes fart joke defense.

Lets just see how it plays out. I am sure glad Congress has chosen to spend countless man hours and tens of millions of hard earned tax dollars in this bull #^&#^&#^&#^&. Thank God the country pretty much runs itself. As an independent vote for the candidate that I think will do the best. Last time it was The Donald, before that Mitt and before that Obama. If the Dems want to win the presidency that give us (independents) someone that doesn't sound glib about giving away health care or college with no plan to pay for it. They are making it too easy for Trump, who by the way has been doing a pretty fair job. He is not getting impeached, it just is not going to happen. But lets just keep playing this game. Like I said thank God the country runs itself because there is no-one behind the wheel in Congress right now.

I think he will be impeached, but he will not be removed and as a fellow independent, I’m hoping for better choices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Turley torpedoed the Democrap impeachment fantasy today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think he will be impeached, but he will not be removed and as a fellow independent, I’m hoping for better choices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary is mulling jumping in so there you go
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Turley torpedoed the Democrap impeachment fantasy today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What a shock you might see it that way, no different then every other defense of Cheetos drug deal. He will be impeached in the house, then you can applaud the GOP handling of the senate trial. He will then be able to proudly wear that badge of honor into the 2020 campaign, which surely will make the 2016 run look like a church picnic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what conspiracy theory? We have Strzoks text, what i posted, is what he texted to his mistress. And he was leading investigations into Hilary and Trump.

no Peter Strzok, who helped lead the bureau’s investigation of Russian interference


Power I “think he had”? He was
leading those investigations. I can’t prove his investigation reflected political bias, any more than you can prove there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you do love making things up.. any more than you can prove there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine.

wow you just can't except the evidence can you .. All Trump needed to do was let people testify .. he refused and they (republicans) haven't disproved anything ( just saying it was just a phone call isn't a defense )

Turley torpedoed the Democrap impeachment fantasy today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this guy

On Wednesday, Turley argued there was no proof that President Donald Trump broke a specific law related to the Ukraine scandal and therefore should not be impeached.

But in 1998, Turley made the opposite case, telling Congress during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings that Clinton's actions didn't need to violate any laws in order to be impeachable conduct.

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," he wrote in a 2014 op-ed for The Washington Post.


some torpedo

you do love making things up.. any more than you can prove there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine.

wow you just can't except the evidence can you .. All Trump needed to do was let people testify .. he refused and they (republicans) haven't disproved anything ( just saying it was just a phone call isn't a defense )
I think Jim did except the evidence.🤐🤠👤
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this guy

On Wednesday, Turley argued there was no proof that President Donald Trump broke a specific law related to the Ukraine scandal and therefore should not be impeached.

But in 1998, Turley made the opposite case, telling Congress during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings that Clinton's actions didn't need to violate any laws in order to be impeachable conduct.

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," he wrote in a 2014 op-ed for The Washington Post.


some torpedo

you have no idea what he said yesterday do you?

What cat got your tongue, when the right on this board starts responding with one liners, it’s because like the GOP; there just is no defense in light of the overwhelming evidence. You don’t even need to hear these phone calls, when they weave in perfectly with all the testimony to date. It will be more conspiracy theories or hey get over it the president can do whatever he wants, just ask Barr.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably all sorts of criminal plotting going on in these lengthy phone conversations :D

you have no idea what he said yesterday do you?

I heard him clear as day i also heard Republicans ask them who they(experts) voted for donations if any a solid line of questions.. about everything except impeachment but in typical fashion Republicans l hang their hat on the needle in the haystack guy..

Whos opening statement says that Mr. Trump should not be impeached

Then Republicans complained the other 3 came with their minds made up..... of course they did they law professor.. not jurors
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I heard him clear as day i also heard Republicans ask them who they(experts) voted for donations if any a solid line of questions.. about everything except impeachment but in typical fashion Republicans l hang their hat on the needle in the haystack guy..

Whos opening statement says that Mr. Trump should not be impeached

Then Republicans complained the other 3 came with their minds made up..... of course they did they law professor.. not jurors
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^^^^I have no idea what this means but....

democraps choose great "experts"...surely the dems could have found a few who were not lefty unhinged loons


"Here, in Pamela Karlan, we have a person with so many chips on her shoulders that she is fortunate to have shoulders. Her record, augmented by her own words, presents a deep-seated leftist bias in her politics — so extreme that even Obama would not name her to a judgeship, deeming even Sonia Sotomayor more “moderate.” Karlan, reminiscent of Inspector Javert’s single-minded pursuit of Jean Valjean in Les Misérables, has been going after Donald Trump from day one of his presidency — and even from before. She is on record, even before Mr. Trump became president, as saying about him that “I can’t think of one who had such an across-the-board combination of ignorance, indifference and defiance.” She is on record, even before he began, as questioning whether or not he would last four years in the presidency and mocking his “Trumpian standards.” She publicly released an open letter warning him — again, even before he took office — that she and her ilk “feel a responsibility to challenge you in the court of public opinion, and we hope that those directly aggrieved by your administration will challenge you in the courts of law.”


by contrast the republican witness, turley, didn't vote for trump...has some serious issues with trump.... and had reasonable issues with the process

let the dempcrap debacle continue...best thing that ever happened for the trump re-election effort :rotflmao:

this is a great article for the bunched panties crowd :)


"If you think Trump’s behavior is the worst in American history, you might be insane."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-hearings-presidential-misconduct-historical-perspective/

If Floridaman thinks he's home free and no one can do anything to stop him if he gets thru this.......

If the Senate doesn’t vote to convict Trump, or tries to monkey with his trial, he can be retried in the new Senate should he win re-election. Double jeopardy protections do not apply. And the Senators voting on impeachment in the next months know this.

at least you have something left to cling to...

Here is a simple Yes or No question, that no Trumplican politician has answered:

Is it ever OK for a president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival?

Here is a simple Yes or No question, that no Trumplican politician has answered:

Is it ever OK for a president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival?

Hunter Biden is not a political rival. And it is OK for a President to ask a foreign power to whom we give money to investigate alleged and systemic corruption, which may also include corruption by U.S citizens (even if they are political rivals) and corrupt attempts to "interfere" with our elections.

Tell me you didn’t expect that answer 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if it’s wrong for a president to ask a foreign govt to investigate a political rival, how about senators? we have seen the letter that senate democrats sent to ukraine asking them
to investigate Manafort and Trump.

So it’s wrong for a president, but ok for senators?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell me you didn’t expect that answer 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did.

Only so many deep state conspiracy theories one can follow, even Barr can’t follow and now it appears cant prove them true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only so many deep state conspiracy theories one can follow, even Barr can’t follow and now it appears cant prove them true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well . . . that was easy to follow. Not sure where it took us . . . but very clear.

Hunter Biden is not a political rival. And it is OK for a President to ask a foreign power to whom we give money to investigate alleged and systemic corruption, which may also include corruption by U.S citizens (even if they are political rivals) and corrupt attempts to "interfere" with our elections.
So Yes and Floridaman NEVER worried about corruption till Ukraine, Biden and the Crowdstrike myth. Just think how stupid that is?
“When the National Republican Congressional Committee realized its emails were hacked, it called in a familiar firm: CrowdStrike, the same company the Democratic National Committee used in 2016 when suspected Russian hackers stole emails to sow electoral chaos.

The decision to employ CrowdStrike raised eyebrows amid remaining questions about the company's performance in 2016, but several cybersecurity experts are pushing back on suggestions that the firm botched the DNC response, allowing more emails to be taken.

“Their reputation is warranted and they are very good. They have worked for both parties for years now,” said Nicholas Weaver, a computer security expert at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Criticism of CrowdStrike's job in both cases is unfair. They are an incident response team: You bring them in AFTER the manure has hit the 3 MW wind turbine. So it is unfair to complain about a mess,” Weaver said in an email.

Few details are available about the NRCC hack, which reportedly lasted three months. CrowdStrike, which also worked with the NRCC before the hack, said in a statement it was asked in April to respond after the email intrusion was detected by another company.”

Bunch of fools

Funny not a single elected person will say Yes it is acceptable, the Trumplicans witness yesterday said it was not “perfect”
Will it be acceptable if it’s a dem calling for the investigation of Jared dealing with China while Ivanka gets trademarks?
The bailout of 666 Fifth Ave, such a prescient address for this administration.
The prince, princess and baron are untouchable?
Or Floridaman letting Erdogan into Syria to protect his investments in Ankara?
Slimiest man elected ever.
You just keep believing in the Creature from the Gold Lagoon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

👍🏽🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Yes and Floridaman NEVER worried about corruption till Ukraine, Biden and the Crowdstrike myth. Just think how stupid that is?
“When the National Republican Congressional Committee realized its emails were hacked, it called in a familiar firm: CrowdStrike, the same company the Democratic National Committee used in 2016 when suspected Russian hackers stole emails to sow electoral chaos.

The decision to employ CrowdStrike raised eyebrows amid remaining questions about the company's performance in 2016, but several cybersecurity experts are pushing back on suggestions that the firm botched the DNC response, allowing more emails to be taken.

“Their reputation is warranted and they are very good. They have worked for both parties for years now,” said Nicholas Weaver, a computer security expert at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Criticism of CrowdStrike's job in both cases is unfair. They are an incident response team: You bring them in AFTER the manure has hit the 3 MW wind turbine. So it is unfair to complain about a mess,” Weaver said in an email.

Few details are available about the NRCC hack, which reportedly lasted three months. CrowdStrike, which also worked with the NRCC before the hack, said in a statement it was asked in April to respond after the email intrusion was detected by another company.”

Bunch of fools

Funny not a single elected person will say Yes it is acceptable, the Trumplicans witness yesterday said it was not “perfect”
Will it be acceptable if it’s a dem calling for the investigation of Jared dealing with China while Ivanka gets trademarks?
The bailout of 666 Fifth Ave, such a prescient address for this administration.
The prince, princess and baron are untouchable?
Or Floridaman letting Erdogan into Syria to protect his investments in Ankara?
Slimiest man elected ever.
You just keep believing in the Creature from the Gold Lagoon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing that you've said in this screed changes my answer to your yes or no question.

Hunter Biden is not a political rival.



they keep ignoring this simple fact...nor is burisma(nor gropin' joe probably:hihi:)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_ president_trump-6957.html


democraps are going to vote to impeach a president with no clear public support(waning in fact)...no republican support and perhaps some democrats voting against...this is OUTSTANDING!!:jester:

i know we keep ignoring the fact military aid was withheld to announce an investigation that really didn’t have to happen and to secure a White House meeting; this simple fact we know to be true, but we must tow the party line

In your head, I pulled it out, I know it hurts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In your head, I pulled it out, I know it hurts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wow...you are worse than re-pete.....

Colludy says: Schiffs impeachment is a FARCE because

The conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden, in 2016, that has not been resolved and until it is will be a major obstacle...to the US assisting Ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms.
The American people will learn that Biden & other Obama administration officials, contributed to the increased level of corruption in Ukraine between 2014 to 2016.
This evidence will all be released very soon.

What Colludy just admitted was that they were asking for dirt on Biden. Colludy is currently in Ukraine desperately trying to manufacture evidence along with some Ukrainian kid who claims he will be the next ambassador to the USA.
Ukraine says WTF?
Maybe Russia will release the tapes of Colludy, Floridaman, Nunes and Parnas soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍔🤐🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Colludy says: Schiffs impeachment is a FARCE because

The conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden, in 2016, that has not been resolved and until it is will be a major obstacle...to the US assisting Ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms.
The American people will learn that Biden & other Obama administration officials, contributed to the increased level of corruption in Ukraine between 2014 to 2016.
This evidence will all be released very soon.

What Colludy just admitted was that they were asking for dirt on Biden. Colludy is currently in Ukraine desperately trying to manufacture evidence along with some Ukrainian kid who claims he will be the next ambassador to the USA.
Ukraine says WTF?
Maybe Russia will release the tapes of Colludy, Floridaman, Nunes and Parnas soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So much for detbuch argument about little biden not running for office . When trump just said VP Biden

I am sure. Seeing he detbuch and the rest of the biden bandwagon here . Seeing they don't mind Trump accusing an American private citizen of wrong doing outside normal legal proceedings
But poor kavanaugh ...

Its clear there are no crimes or misdemeanors that could ever be applied to Trump .. unless he went after guns maybe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Abstract
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there is "compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden, in 2016," the infrastructure exists to have it thoroughly and impartially investigated.

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

Nate Silver
✔
@NateSilver538
· Nov 26, 2019
Finally getting a few more impeachment polls and the notion that the numbers are moving against Democrats isn't looking so hot. +4 spread on supporting impeachment/removal, which is similar to the peak in October.https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/ …

80 % of Americans could want him gone republicans would still sell out to the base , evidence be damned

I am hoping for justice so Wayne,PeteF and GS can go back to normal and Spence can go back to #^&#^&#^&#^&s.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you think the Trumplicans are "fighting corruption" better look at their allies in the fight.

Andrii Telizhenko and Rudy Giuliani are in Kyiv, Ukraine. At midnight, they are across the street from the Premier Palace Hotel, owned by close Putin ally, Russian oligarch Alexander Babakov. Hotel known as den for Kremlin agents & Babakov is alleged Russian intel himself. https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/kremlin-house-ukrainian-empire-of-top-putin-ally.html
Investigations also show that Babakov used a proxy to interfere in 2017 French elections, securing a 9.4-million-euro loan for French National Front, the far-right, Kremlin-friendly political party in France headed by Marine Le Pen. That same proxy owns (on paper) this hotel.
Babakov, widely seen as one of Putin's henchmen responsible for hybrid war against Ukraine, has been able to evade sanctions here. He appears to have significant business holdings, including a big portion of the country's electricity supply. This is what Ukraine is up against.

Also in Babakov-owned Premier Palace hotel tonight in Kyiv, Ukraine, Rudy Giuliani met controversial lawmaker Aleksandr Dubinsky, who is loyal to former employer, Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky... facing London court trial over alleged $5.5bn PrivatBank fraud.

If you’re already not clear that they are pushing all their chips onto the table, then you might need to be. Whatever metaphor works for you, but if there was something being held back, it’s time to stop.

It’s unlikely Barr is going to become a hero.

From the start, before the details emerged, it’s been pretty much suspect they were playing a zero sum game.
Now it’s crystal clear that it’s an all or nothing for them - for all of them.
Dangerous times.

More in the local newspaper

https://www.kyivpost.com/

maybe they aren't all insane....


(CNN)Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, one of two Democrats to vote against formalizing the impeachment inquiry, said he plans to vote against all the articles of impeachment "unless there's something that I haven't seen, haven't heard before."

He warned Democrats to "be careful what you wish for" and he added that impeachment "is tearing the nation apart. ... And I want to bring people together."

maybe they aren't all insane....


(CNN)Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, one of two Democrats to vote against formalizing the impeachment inquiry, said he plans to vote against all the articles of impeachment "unless there's something that I haven't seen, haven't heard before."

He warned Democrats to "be careful what you wish for" and he added that impeachment "is tearing the nation apart. ... And I want to bring people together."

Again finding a needle in the haystack presenting it as conclusively evidence Trump didnt do anything wrong

What a shock Van Drew, whose district voted for Trump in 2016...

Its all about him keeping his job.. its a gamble
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no conclusive evidence being presented.
But let me guess...you believe her or them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah Rudy having multiple calls to the budget department, nothing inappropriate about that right guys?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OOPS..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/doubts-surface-over-giuliani-white-house-budget-office-calls-11575588060

More than 500 legal scholars have signed on to an open letter asserting that President Trump committed “impeachable conduct” and that lawmakers would be acting well within their rights if they ultimately voted to remove him from office.

The signers are law professors and other academics from universities across the country, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Michigan and many others. The open letter was published online Friday by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.


“There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress,” the group of professors wrote. “His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Thursday that the House of Representatives would begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump, a day after the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from four constitutional scholars on the matter. Three law professors who were called for that hearing by Democrats argued that Trump’s behavior was impeachable, while one invited by Republicans argued that the process was moving too quickly.

Those who signed on to the Protect Democracy letter said they “take no position on whether the President committed a crime.” Earlier this year, Protect Democracy gathered signatures for a similar letter, in which hundreds of former federal prosecutors signed on to a statement asserting that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against Trump — if he were not a sitting president.

“But conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable,” the group of professors wrote. “Impeachment is a remedy for grave abuses of the public trust.”

The group noted in particular that Trump’s conduct seemed to be directed at affecting the results of the 2020 election, and thus it was not a matter that could be left to voters at the polls.

The impeachment inquiry has focused on what Democratic lawmakers say were Trump’s efforts to pressure his Ukrainian counterpart to announce an investigation into a potential 2020 rival, former vice president Joe Biden, in exchange for a White House meeting and the release of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid. Trump has rejected Democrats’ allegation that he engaged in any sort of corrupt quid pro quo.

“Put simply, if a President cheats in his effort at re-election, trusting the democratic process to serve as a check through that election is no remedy at all,” the professors wrote. “That is what impeachment is for.”

Because Democrats control the House, Trump will almost surely be impeached. The matter would move then to the Senate for a trial to see if he should be removed from office. There, it seems unlikely that Trump would be ousted. The Senate is GOP-controlled, and two-thirds of senators would have to vote against the president.

yawn

They are just jealous
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/wall-to-wall-impeachment-coverage-is-not-changing-any-minds-heres-how-journalists-can-reach-the-undecided/2019/12/05/a04aa658-16c3-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html


this is a great article...the hearings and all the dutiful impeachment media coverage isn't changing any minds...

what can the media do to change these minds????