Pelosi backs down

[RIROCKHOUND]

I think smoking gun is a bit much. He has problems as a credible witness, and a lot will come down to how much can be verified.

It certainly begs the question; Rudy claims in asking for the meeting with Zelinsky, that the request was with the consent and knowledge of POTUS.
So was Trump lying when he said he didn't know what Rudy was doing in Ukraine or was Rudy lying about it then?

Plus there is a tangled web if Nunes was meeting with this guy as claimed. Nunes is trying to deflect and pull back, which is not a good look for him.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I think smoking gun is a bit much. He has problems as a credible witness, and a lot will come down to how much can be verified.

It certainly begs the question; Rudy claims in asking for the meeting with Zelinsky, that the request was with the consent and knowledge of POTUS. Plus there is a tangled web if Nunes was meeting with this guy as claimed. Nunes is trying to deflect and pull back, which is not a good look for him.

So was Trump lying when he said he didn't know what Rudy was doing in Ukraine or was Rudy lying about it then?

i’m am very sad to see how far Rudy has fallen. in the wake of 09/11, we were all in awe of the way he dealt with it all. he’s been reduced to a caricature of what he was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m am very sad to see how far Rudy has fallen. in the wake of 09/11, we were all in awe of the way he dealt with it all. he’s been reduced to a caricature of what he was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the sadder part, is that Trump had to know Rudy was involved with these guys, and he still chose to keep him as his personal attorney.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I think smoking gun is a bit much. He has problems as a credible witness, and a lot will come down to how much can be verified.

It certainly begs the question; Rudy claims in asking for the meeting with Zelinsky, that the request was with the consent and knowledge of POTUS.
So was Trump lying when he said he didn't know what Rudy was doing in Ukraine or was Rudy lying about it then?

Plus there is a tangled web if Nunes was meeting with this guy as claimed. Nunes is trying to deflect and pull back, which is not a good look for him.

Bryan, I'll ask you because you're very rational...how many times do you listen to the same exact people say "we've got him THIS time", before you just stop listening?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bryan, I'll ask you because you're very rational...how many times do you listen to the same exact people say "we've got him THIS time", before you just stop listening?

If Moscow Mitch ever allowed witnesses and documents, you might get real close to sealing the deal. Personally, I'd be ok if the senate doesn't remove him from office, provided they look at all the facts, bring in all the witnesses that have first hand knowledge and get all the applicable documents on the record; at least then it's an outcome the public can deal with at the polls.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If Moscow Mitch ever allowed witnesses and documents, you might get real close to sealing the deal. Personally, I'd be ok if the senate doesn't remove him from office, provided they look at all the facts, bring in all the witnesses that have first hand knowledge and get all the applicable documents on the record; at least then it's an outcome the public can deal with at the polls.

The house is charged with making the case.

But I'm fine with the democrats calling Bolton, and the Republicans calling Hunter Biden. Let's investigate, I have no issue with that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The house is charged with making the case.

And now we see that the ranking Republican member of the House Intel committee looks to have been a co-conspirator in what they were investigating.

Any issue with that Jim?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And now we see that the ranking Republican member of the House Intel committee looks to have been a co-conspirator in what they were investigating.

Any issue with that Jim?

i said, let’s investigate it all, including how hunter biden got that job.

Any issue with that Spence? or are we only allowed to investigate republicans?

Spence, how many sad and
solemn occasions have you been to (funerals, perhaps), where they handed out commemorative pens?

i answered your question, grow a pair and answer mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bryan, I'll ask you because you're very rational...how many times do you listen to the same exact people say "we've got him THIS time", before you just stop listening?

The same people? I scan three different news sites most mornings. One is WSJ, so I try to not pigeon hole into one side. But don't confuse 'they didn't get him' with 'Trump did nothing wrong'.....

On this, I listened to this straight from Parnas' mouth.

As I said, it all needs to be verified/corroborated but based on Trump's history of lying about relationships (he can downplay that he was with him all the time, but it sure looks like he knows him) and Rudy's sketchy activities in Ukraine and elsewhere none of it is farfetched.

If nothing was below board, a lot of this should be easily cleared up with all of the folks with key info (Bolton, OMB personnel etc) are allowed to testify.

As Spence reiterated what I said earlier, it is pretty concerning if Parnas really was meeting with Nunes, given his role on impeachment. The timing of this meetings, if they occurred, is now very interesting.... That should be easily verifiable with phone records.

Nunes is trying to spin this, but if you are in his position on the impeachment team, I would have to ask how many random people, which Nunes is basically saying Parnas was, would be calling on his private cell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device