Obviously somebody hearing Trump on a phone call talking to Sondland about investigating Biden is exactly new evidence. It's right there in front of your face WB. And where are the republicans who want the WH to hand over the documents and texts that in your mind should exonerate Trump?
It's exactly hearsay. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said, at least 95% of these hearings would be thrown out as hearsay the moment it got out of Schiff's House committee, and into a Senate trial.
The hard evidence is the transcribed phone call. What we've seen in these hearings is second, third and fourth-hand opinion hearsay about that transcribed call.
...
Lindsey sure turned into Trump's little bitch, lol. Outside of the republican cult hearsay doesn't mean anything you don't like though. In the real world somebody hearing Trump saying something is actually first account testimony. Lindsey has made it clear that he's going to put party over country when he declared he wouldn't read the transcripts of testimony that displeases his boss.
If you weren't so brainwashed, you would realize Lindsey Graham is citing the rule of law. You can't criminally punish and destroy someone just because you wish they were guilty, and because it helps your Democrat party.
The same situation as with Brett Kavanaugh a year ago.
And Nicholas Sandmann and the Covington, KY high school kids your side wanted to lynch.
And wanting to abolish the electoral college (because it keeps them from winning elections)
And wanting to stack the U S Supreme Court (because elections and rule of law have allowed more Republican-appointed judges, that obstructs their far-left goals)
And they open borders (because that again provides more Democrat voters, and a permanent Democrat majority. If illegals voted overwhelmingly Republican, Democrats would be rabidly in support of border security, building a wall, and deporting illegals)
The Democrats have completely lost their minds, and side now against all the institutions and Constitutional protections this country has been built on for over 200 years. They have become the Bolshevik party, and they're pretty unapologetic about it. Insane. They support policies that guarantee we will fragment as a nation and destroy ourselves, for their short-term political gain.
The hearings today with E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland have Democrat leaders and the 93% anti-Trump media all excited over Sondland's half-baked testimony, which proves nothing, and is in truth just Sondland's opinion with no facts to back it up. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham in their respective shows tonight ripped his statements to shreds.
Harvard scholar, studied under Daniel Pipes, Council On Foreign Relations... and then in her opening statement chastised the House Committee members during her hearings not to make any mention of Ukraine as having interfered in the 2016 U.S. election, as she sees that as a complete fiction that shouldn't even be dignified with questions! Yeah, this lady is a Hillary Clinton voter for sure.
The then-Ukranian ambassador wrote an editorial in 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton. The Ukranian embassy in the U.S. absolutely did deed information to the Russia Dossier of Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS, which absolutely did get back-doored through Nellie Ohr/Bruce Ohr in DOJ, and Comey and McCabe in the FBI. Despite the narrative Fiona Hill would like to front. Ukranian interference in the U.S. election was definitely there, and the previous Ukrainian goverment was clearly a Democrat ally highly invested in Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 election.
The new Ukranian president was elected on an anti-corruption platform, and the Ukrainian parliament is likewise 80% reformers, but let's be honest that Ukraine had players who were definitely doing their part to influence the 2016 election, and they were definitely Hillary Clinton allies.
The Russians definitely were making an even greater effort (greater than th Ukranians) to influence the 2016 election in other ways (and even that for all their efforts had very little if any influence, with about $100,000 of internet ads, against a Hillary Clinton campaign that spent $2 billion on ads. And Russia played both sides, also contributing to the Russia Dossier and propagandizing against Trump, with allegations of Trump caavorting with urinating Russian hookers in a Moscow hotel room and so forth. Democrats like to allege that Russians were an ally of Trump, but the truth is the Russians' goal was to undermine U.S. voters confidence in the elections, regardless of who won. And with Trump's massively increased military aid to Ukraine, the Russiaans at this point likely wish Hillary Clinton had won the election.
Regardless, their wish in 2016 was that Trump would win instead of Hillary, and their oh-so-calculated orchestrations to help "Russian assett" Donald Trump win still had them believing Hillary Clinton would win in 2016, and Russia had elaborate propaaganda planss to undermine Hillary as president. But Russian interference was so ineffective that they expected Hillary to win regardless of their interference, and they were as surprised as anyone on election night, when Trump won a landslide electoral victory in 2016.
So Fiona Hill's attempt to slinece any mention of Ukrainian 2016 election interference makes me distrust her testimony from the outset. She's clearly a globalist, a neocon, and not a Trump supporter, and that became clear in the 8 minutes of her opening statement.
It should also be pointed out that *ALL* these witnesses are Adam Schiff's picks, that any of the witnesses House Republicans wanted subpoenaed were rejected. All witnesses in these hearings are strictly Democrat picks, and only inadvertantly will any of these witnesses present opinions or evidence that supports or exculpates Trump.
David Holmes is testifying alongside Fiona Hill. That he served in the Ukraine embassy alongside Bill Taylor, and describes himself as a great supporter of Marie Yovanovich (Yovanovich, who openly bashed Trump in front of other staff before she was fired in March 2019, and planned a victory party for Hillary Clinton's presumed election win in 2016) makes pretty clear where Holmes' allegiances are. The phone call Holmes partially overheard again is spun by Holmes against Trump. But all it really shows is that Zelensky and Trump had shared anti-corruption goals, not that Trump exerted any intimidation or undue influence over Zelensky. And ultimately is just a hearsay confirmation of what was in the July 25th transcribed Trump/Zelensky phone call, despite the best efforts to spin it otherwise.
Trump to Sondland (that Sondland oddly omitted from his 23-page opening statement at the hearing): "I don't want quid pro quo, I want Zelensky to do the right thing, what he campaigned on [investigating and eliminating corruption]."
and
All four of Sondland's attorneys were career-long partisan Democrat loyalists, one of whom cited gave over $130,000 in campaign donations to Democrats over the years. So 1) Sondland is either a Democrat partisan himself, or 2) Sondland was given advice against his own best interests by his Democrat partisan lawyers, to damage Trump. And/or 3) Sondland, a wealthy businessman has been enormous pressure and intimidation of Leftist mob protestors who are threatening and hurting his private businesses and livelihood, and may have testified the way he did because of those concerns.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) just made a great commentary on the "disproven myth" that Fiona Hill alleges: That Alexandra Chalupa (a Democrat operative who fed information from the Ukranian embassy into the Fusion GPS/Russia Dossier, and from there into the DOJ and FBI in 2016, influencing the election) was on the Republican list of witnesses for the hearings, that Adam Schiff prevented from Republicans being able to have appear and cross examine.
Because Democrats are only interested in what supports their lying narrative, not uncovering the true facts.
Press conference yesterday of Rep. Jim Jordan(R-OH) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), on the bottom line of testimony and evidence that exonerates President Trump. And of Rep. Adam Schiff's doing his damnest to exclude witnesses and cross examination, to obscure the truth.
As if the July 25 phone call transcript didn't already show what the truth was beforehand, despite Adam Schiff's best efforts to muddy the waters.
1) by the July 25th transcript, a friendly conversation, no intimidation, no "quid pro quo", no intimidation, no blackmail. 2) by Kurt Volker's and backhandedly by Gordon Sondland's testimony, no quid pro quo, no preconditions for Trump to release Ukraine aid. 3) Aid was ultimately released without Ukranian president Zelensky giving a press conference.
And everything else is just lying Democrat insinuation, wild speculation and hearsay.
I love, LOVE, this clip! Where Rep. Jim Jordan busts Adam Schiff for breaking in on this question of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
Rep. Schiff gets jumpy and hysterical because he says the question is "dangerously close" to revealing who the Whistleblower is (a k a, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, that every House member on that panel already knows, as does anyone intelligent enough to do a google-search for "whistleblower's name", despite that the liberal media is not publicizing it.)
REP. JIM JORDAN [to Schiff:] "Mr Chairman, I don't see how this is outing the Whistleblower. The witness [Vindman] has testified that he doesn't know who the whistleblower is. You have said... even though no one believes you... you have said you don't know who the whistleblower is. So how is this outing the whistleblower, to find out who this individial is [that Vindman disclosed the content of the July 25th phone Trump/Zelensky phone call to]."
If Adam Schiff doesn't know who the whistleblower is, how does he know exactly what questions will reveal his identity? To the point that he freaks out and stops Jordan's questioning.
It's quite obvious Schiff knows EXACTLY who the whistleblower is. And no, no one believes Schiff.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) outlines well the unanswered quesions, even after 5 days of hearings with top security officials, who clearly were in the same inner circle as the Whistleblower:
Obviously somebody hearing Trump on a phone call talking to Sondland about investigating Biden is exactly new evidence. It's right there in front of your face WB. And where are the republicans who want the WH to hand over the documents and texts that in your mind should exonerate Trump?
It's exactly hearsay. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said, at least 95% of these hearings would be thrown out as hearsay the moment it got out of Schiff's House committee, and into a Senate trial.
The hard evidence is the transcribed phone call. What we've seen in these hearings is second, third and fourth-hand opinion hearsay about that transcribed call.
...
Lindsey sure turned into Trump's little bitch, lol. Outside of the republican cult hearsay doesn't mean anything you don't like though. In the real world somebody hearing Trump saying something is actually first account testimony. Lindsey has made it clear that he's going to put party over country when he declared he wouldn't read the transcripts of testimony that displeases his boss.
If you weren't so brainwashed, you would realize Lindsey Graham is citing the rule of law. You can't criminally punish and destroy soimeone just because you wish they were guilty, and because it helps you Democrat party.
The same situation as with Brett Kavanaugh a year ago.
And Nicholas Sandmann and the Covington, KY high school kids your side wanted to lynch.
And wanting to abolish the electoral college (because it keeps them from winning elections)
And wanting to stack the U S Supreme Court (because elections and rule of law have allowed more Republican-appointed judges, that obstructs their far-left goals)
And they open borders (because that again provides more Democrat voters, and a permanent Democrat majority. If illegals voted overwhelmingly Republican, Democrats would be rabidly in support of border security, building a wall, and deporting illegals)
The Democrats have completely lost their minds, and side now against all the institutions and Constitutional protections this country has been built on for over 200 years. They have become the Bolshevik party, and they're pretty unapologetic about it. Insane. They support policies that guarantee we will fragment as a nation and destroy ourselves, for their short-term political gain.
Lindsey lost any shred of credibility when he announced he wasn't going to read the transcripts of testimony while trying to shut down the impeachment proceedings. History will show that he and many others worked to protect a corrupt president.
By S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 21, 2019
A larger share of American voters now oppose the impeachment effort against President Trump, revealed a new poll released Thursday.
An Emerson College national survey found 45% of voters oppose impeachment, compared to 43% that support it.
That’s a reversal of public opinion from the same poll in October before House Democrats held public hearings to showcase their impeachment case against Mr. Trump. In October, 48% supported impeachment and 44% opposed it.
“The biggest swing is among Independents, who oppose impeachment now 49% to 34%, which is a reversal from October where they supported impeachment 48% to 39%,” said the pollsters.
Mr. Tump’s approval rating also increased to 48%, a bounce from 43% approval last month.
As the true facts become known, despite Rep. Adam Schiff's best efforts to hide them, public opinion is shifting. People know they've been lied to by the Democrats.
Lindsey lost any shred of credibility when he announced he wasn't going to read the transcripts of testimony while trying to shut down the impeachment proceedings. History will show that he and many others worked to protect a corrupt president.
I saw Graham interviewed 2 nights ago, if I recall on Tucker Carlson.
He half-jokingly said he's still fully reading the Mueller report and then will digest the 600 pages finally released from Adam Schiff's closed-door hearings depositions, and Graham commented on how Senate and House members are buried in lengthy reports, soon to be followed by even more new reports from DOJ inspector general Horowitz, U S attorney John Durhaam, and attorney general William Barr.
No doubt your Media Matters propaganda and other liberal sources (96% of the media at last count) demonize Lindsey Graham, without shedding light on how many Democrats haven't read this material, or how many legislation bills they vote on without having read them.
Lindsey made a point of saying he wasn't reading the transcripts while he was scurrying around trying to stop the House impeachment inquiry. Not really great principles imho. I believe he recently met with Trump with other republican senators to coordinate the likely impeachment trial. Not even an attempt to act like a potential juror. To busy trying to protect the corruption.
“Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore," Putin said at an economic forum in Moscow, according to the Associated Press. "Now they’re accusing Ukraine.”
“Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore," Putin said at an economic forum in Moscow, according to the Associated Press. "Now they’re accusing Ukraine.”
So that would be your party, the Democrats, doing the propagandist bidding of Vladimir Putin?
“Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore," Putin said at an economic forum in Moscow, according to the Associated Press. "Now they’re accusing Ukraine.”
So that would be your party, the Democrats, doing the propagandist bidding of Vladimir Putin?
Also, as Devin Nunes' own Congressional report on the Russian 2016 election interference attempts (which Nunez re-entered into record during this week's hearings), Republicans have never alleged that either Ukraine alone interefered in the 2016 U.S. election, or not even that a majority of 2016 interference came from Ukraine, only that there were several prominent Ukranian officials in the pre-Zelensky government who directly interfered, participated in the Fusion GPS "Russia Dossier" and clearly wanted Hillary Clinton to win.
Lindsey made a point of saying he wasn't reading the transcripts while he was scurrying around trying to stop the House impeachment inquiry. Not really great principles imho. I believe he recently met with Trump with other republican senators to coordinate the likely impeachment trial. Not even an attempt to act like a potential juror. To busy trying to protect the corruption.
Asked and answered.
As I said, I told you what Graham actually said, that there are a lot of reports recently released to read. Your version sounds like a Media Matters spin taken out of context to demonize him.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser -- enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.
The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News that Horowitz's comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on Dec. 9. "That's locked," Graham said.
The new evidence concerning the altered document, which pertained to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.
But the Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved worked "beneath" Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.
"The person under scrutiny has not been identified but is not a high-ranking official — they worked beneath former deputy assistant director Peter Strzok, according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public," The Post wrote in its now-deleted paragraph.
The paper eventually added a correction to the bottom of its piece, reading, "Correction: An earlier version of this story erroneously stated that the FBI employee being investigated for altering a document worked underneath former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok. The employee was a low-level lawyer in the Office of General Counsel and did not report to the deputy assistant director."
Nevertheless, Horowitz reportedly found that the FBI employee was involved enough in the FISA process to falsely state that he had "documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis" for the FISA warrant application, the Post reported. Then, the FBI employee allegedly "altered an email" to substantiate his inaccurate version of events. The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.
In its initial 2016 FISA warrant application, the FBI flatly called Page "an agent of a foreign power."
Sources told Fox News last month that U.S. Attorney John Durham's separate, ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation -- and that Horowitz's report will shed light on why Durham's probe has become a criminal inquiry.
Durham has reportedly taken up Horowitz's findings concerning the falsified FISA document, meaning the ex-FBI lawyer who made the changes is now under criminal investigation. The Post indicated, however, that the document was not central to the legality of the FISA warrant obtained against Page.
Republicans have long argued that the FBI's alleged FISA abuses, which came as the bureau aggressively pursued ultimately unsubstantiated claims of criminal links between the Trump team and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, were politically motivated. In recent months, a series of unearthed documents has strengthened those claims.
Just nine days before the FBI applied for its first FISA warrant to surveil Page, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application, according to internal text messages previously obtained by Fox News.
The 2016 messages, sent between Lisa Page and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also revealed that bureau brass circulated at least two anti-Trump blog articles, including a Lawfare blog post sent shortly after Election Day that called Trump possibly "among the major threats to the security of the country."
Fox News is told the texts were connected to the ultimately successful Page application, which relied in part on information from British ex-spy Christopher Steele – whose anti-Trump views are now well-documented – and cited Page’s suspected Russia ties. In its warrant application, the FBI inaccurately assured the FISA court on numerous occasions that media sources independently corroborated Steele's claims, and did not clearly state that Steele worked for a firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Much of the Steele dossier has been proved discredited or unsubstantiated, including the dossier's claims that the Trump campaign was paying hackers in the United States out of a non-existent Russian consulate in Miami, or that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to conspire with Russians. Special Counsel Robert Mueller also was unable to substantiate the dossier's claims that Carter Page had received a large payment relating to the sale of a share of Rosneft, a Russian oil giant, or that a lurid blackmail tape involving the president existed.
Despite being accused by the FBI of being a Russian agent in the FISA application, and being secretly surveilled for more than a year, Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing. He has since sued numerous actors -- including the DNC -- for defamation related to claims that he worked with Russia.
"OI [Office of Intelligence] now has a robust explanation re any possible bias of the chs [confidential human source] in the package," Lisa Page wrote to McCabe on Oct. 12, 2016. "Don't know what the holdup is now, other than Stu's continued concerns."
It's unclear whether the confidential source in question was Steele or another individual. "Stu" was an apparent reference to Stuart Evans, then the DOJ's National Security Division deputy assistant attorney general. In one previously unearthed and since-unredacted text message, Strzok texted Page that he was "Currently fighting with Stu for this FISA" in late 2016.
Page is not the only Trump official to allege misconduct by the FBI. Last month, an explosive court filing from Michael Flynn’s legal team alleged that FBI agents manipulated official records of the former national security adviser’s 2017 interview that led to him being charged with lying to investigators. Flynn's attorneys demanded the FBI search its internal "Sentinel" system to find more evidence of allegedly doctored files.
Newly released text messages involving text messages between Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page revealed that Page -- who was not present for the Flynn interview -- had apparently made "edits" to the so-called "302" witness report in the case, which was key to Flynn's prosecution on a false statements charge. Page told Strzok on February 10, 2017 that she “gave my edits to Bill to put on your desk.”
Horowitz told congressional lawmakers in an October letter that his investigation and ensuing report were nearing their conclusion.
The "lengthy" draft report "concerns sensitive national security and law enforcement matters," Horowitz wrote in the letter, adding that he anticipated "the final report will be released publicly with few redactions."
Horowitz noted that he did not anticipate a need to prepare or issue "separate classified and public versions of the report."
"After we receive the final classification markings from the Department and the FBI, we will then proceed with our usual process for preparing a final report, including ensuring that appropriate reviews occur for accuracy and comment purposes," Horowitz wrote in the letter. "Once begun, we do not anticipate the time for that review to be lengthy."
As usual, the facts point to a conspiracy and cover-up revealed by incriminating texts by Strzok, Page, McCabe and other players in the FBI, along with other collaborative hiding of the true facts by CIA and other intelligence, and the ever-Zealous anti-Trump Newspeak media.
All this week, over nothing but opinion and hearsay, from witnesses like Alexander Vindman and Gordon Sondland and Fiona Hill, who revealed nothing were secribed by the media as "bombshell" and "IED". And when actual revelations like this are revealed, the media doesn't even want to report it.
The above is >>>>>FAR<<<<< more "bombshell", "explosive" and "I E D" a revelation than anything revealed in two weeks of empty and uneventful impeachment hearings.
And the liberal media definitely don't want to hold to account their lying cocksmoker brethren at the Washington Post. For more than 10 years, from the "Journo-list" exposure of 2008, to the 2016 Wikileaks internal DNC e-mails that revealed how the media were asking permission from the Hillary Clinton campaign to run a story and perfectly willing to spike it if asked by the Hillary campaign, so as not to damage her campaign with anything too compromising, and countless media exposures in between, it's clear how untrustworthy and Democrat-partisan the liberal media consistently is.
And even more scary, how Democrat-partisan the FBI, CIA, National Security Council, and State Department and its embassy staffers abroad are.
From USA Today... " WASHINGTON – Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters on Tuesday he does not plan to read the newly released transcripts of testimony in the House impeachment inquiry, calling the entire process an illegitimate "sham."
"I've written the whole process off," Graham said, according to CBS News and The Associated Press. "I think this is a bunch of B.S."
Every major news outlet carried this story from the looks of a google search. So you are incorrect WB. When testimony started showing evidence of a quid pro quo Lindsey did say he wasn't going to read the transcripts he had previously demanded be made public. He is truly Trump's little bitch these days.
That's a ton of evidence for the liberal media to sweep under the rug and pretend doesn't exist, while they pursue their factless Trump impeachment narrative.
And it's pissing off a lot of voters, as the polls reflect.
Whether the Dems and collaborative lying media sell it as "quid pro quo", or awkwardly shift the lying narrative to focus-group selected words like "bribery", "extortion", "coersion", or the Dems' latest desperate reach for a new narrative, "contempt of congress" and "obstruction of justice"... their snake oil continues to not sell to the public.
From USA Today... " WASHINGTON – Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters on Tuesday he does not plan to read the newly released transcripts of testimony in the House impeachment inquiry, calling the entire process an illegitimate "sham."
"I've written the whole process off," Graham said, according to CBS News and The Associated Press. "I think this is a bunch of B.S."
Every major news outlet carried this story from the looks of a google search. So you are incorrect WB. When testimony started showing evidence of a quid pro quo Lindsey did say he wasn't going to read the transcripts he had previously demanded be made public. He is truly Trump's little bitch these days.
Graham clearly has a familiarity with what is being said in the House impeachment hearings, and doesn't have to read every word of it.
And even if he didn't read it, the news media, both liberal and conservative, has made clear there is no evidence, the most damning things said by Alexander Vindman, Gordon Sondland, Fiona Hill and David Holmes are ultimately just their opinions and speculations, without evidence. Many testifying didn't even listen in on the Trump/Zelensky phone call that is the genesis of all this!
So Graham's assessment that it's all "B.S." is accurate, and one shared by a majority of American voters polled. While he is aware of content of the hearings, he is right not to dwell too much on it.
Let's be clear, Lindsey said he wasn't reading them. I don't give a shit what Trump's little bitch says at this point to protect his guy. There isn't the slightest appearance of somebody trying to act as a potential juror.
Apparently the WH did a review turning up emails trying to justify the hold on the foreign aid after the fact. WP
And there's reporting that Nunes was also involved in the dirt digging for the Biden's. The illusion the GOP is maintaining shatters once the documents and testimony gets out. And the terrible part is you guys know it. This would be the stuff that would exonerate the president if he hadn't been trying to shake down a foreign country yet I hear little or no support from republicans to get that information.
“Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore," Putin said at an economic forum in Moscow, according to the Associated Press. "Now they’re accusing Ukraine.”
So that would be your party, the Democrats, doing the propagandist bidding of Vladimir Putin?
I think your smart enough and aware of current events to know how silly your being there. Just this Sunday I watched Wallace on his show ask senator Kennedy about the Russia/Ukraine election interference stuff and Kennedy went with a "we don't know" answer on it. Our intelligence as Chris Wallace brought up does know though. Because it's embarrassing though to Trump we get republicans parroting Russian troll farms garbage.
“Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore," Putin said at an economic forum in Moscow, according to the Associated Press. "Now they’re accusing Ukraine.”
So that would be your party, the Democrats, doing the propagandist bidding of Vladimir Putin?
I think your smart enough and aware of current events to know how silly your being there. Just this Sunday I watched Wallace on his show ask senator Kennedy about the Russia/Ukraine election interference stuff and Kennedy went with a "we don't know" answer on it. Our intelligence as Chris Wallace brought up does know though. Because it's embarrassing though to Trump we get republicans parroting Russian troll farms garbage.
Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, yes.
And he said we (the nation, the media, FBI/CIA intelligence, the Washington elite) don't know, because WE DON'T KNOW! He laid out several possible scenarios, within the parameters of what is known. Kennedy is one of my favorite Senators because of his common sense approach and witty colloquialisms.
As Sen. Kennedy and others have said, the true goal of the Russians with their interference in 2016 was to undermine confidence in the elections, no matter which party won the election. And the Democrats are advancing that Russian goal EVERY DAY since Trump won the election.
The Mueller report (and a 10-month FBI counter-intelligence investigation, and a House investigation, and a Senate investigation, preceding the final Mueller report) ALL said there was no Trump/Russia collusion, and that Russia for all their efforts did not affect the outcome of the election. In point of fact, the Russians' intercepted communications show that they thought Hillary Clinton would win, and they were preparing to launch attacks on her credibility and undermine her as president. THAT's how much the Russians orchestrated a Trump victory. They couldn't even predict accurately who the winner would be.
As Tucker Carlson said, the Russians spent about $100,000 on internet ads, about what a typical local auto dealership spends annually on advertising. And even with those ads, a viewer had to click on the ad to even see the Russian propaganda. Against a $2 billion Hillary Clinton campaign that outspent even Trump's campaign by a ratio of 2-to-1, that $100,000 was insignificant.
What has been significant is the 3 years of House/Senate Democrats and the allied 93% anti-Trump media selling the Russians' propaganda talking points every day for 3 years since before Trump was inaugurated. And then incredibly, blaming Trump for causing the lack of public confidence in our system.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I did not see (in the closing minutes) that Wallace presented anything resembling absolute proof of what he alleged. Wallace just alleged that NSC official Fiona Hill in testimony said so, and Kennedy said her opinion was offered as fact.
Fiona Hill is, I think, quite clearly a Hillary Clinton voter, and part of a club within the State Department (including House committee witnesses Vindman, Taylor, Holmes and Kent)that is hostile to and undermining President Trump's policy. Fiona Hill also said in a published editorial in 2015 that the U.S. should not offer armed assistance to the Ukranians.
I also see Wallace as one of many on Fox News who is a liberal, if not a liberal partisan, along with the recently resigned Shepard Smith, Judge Nick Napolitano, and (one I respect a lot) pulitzer-winning forme N Y Times reporter Judith Miller. While Fox certainly has its hardline conservative opinion shows, I think Wallace and others show Fox News presents both sides, and not invested in selling a narrative as the other mainstream networks.
Actually Wallace stated what all our intelligence has found. It's Trump and company that ends up downplaying the findings. Kennedy when he says he doesn't know actually does know because even the republican lead investigation came up with the same conclusion. Chris Wallace isn't a liberal. These days though if a conservative doesn't tow the Trump partisan line on a lot of things they get labeled as such. He's still a serious journalist who can't just go with the lies.
Rep. Adam Schiff, who has led the charge for 3 years now for impeachment, who has alleged he had "absolute proof" that Trump was guilty of Russia collusion that he could not present publicly (an allegation destroyed by the Mueller Report)... over the weekend in an interview asked if he would vote for impeachment now says he "will talk to his constituents" before he decides to vote for impeachment.
If Demcorats vote for impeachment, it will be completely without evidence. Popular opinion began to turn against the House Demcorats over the last 2 weeks, as witnesses like Alexander Vindman, George Kent, William Taylor, David Holmes, Fiona Hill and others had nothing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, NO EVIDENCE to support their allegations of "quid pro quo" by Trump in his conversation witht he Ukranian president.
Many Republicans have said since Friday that the impeachment push by the House Democrats is over, that even if they deceitfully still vote for impeachment, it is so vissibly false to the American public that it will only further damage the Democrats in the 2020 election.
Many have speculated that the House Democrats at this point cannot even get the votes within their own House majority to push forward impeachment. Schiff's waffle here, after 3 years of vigorous allegations of "absolute proof" for impeachment are the latest manifestation that the ground is crumbling underneath them.
Sondland's testimony as well as others is evidence even if you don't want to admit it. And any obstruction article would certainly be worthy. Do you really think Trump is blocking records and testimony that he thinks would actually clear him? How would that even make sense?
Actually Wallace stated what all our intelligence has found. It's Trump and company that ends up downplaying the findings. Kennedy when he says he doesn't know actually does know because even the republican lead investigation came up with the same conclusion. Chris Wallace isn't a liberal. These days though if a conservative doesn't tow the Trump partisan line on a lot of things they get labeled as such. He's still a serious journalist who can't just go with the lies.
Quote it!
Wallace did not say that. I just posted the Youtubed video of it above.
And what you say about "if a conservative doesn't tow the Trump partisan line on a lot of things they get labeled as such" is horseshit.
It has been cited that for most of Trump's campaign and presidency, even among conservative pundits on Fox, the majority of conservatives are never-Trumper conservatives. Some I can think of offhand are Guy Benson, Jonah Goldberg, Ben Shapiro, Nick Napolitano, Richard Lowry (National Review), and even Glenn Beck, who became a Trump supporter based on Trump's accomplishments, Beck converting about a year after Trump's inauguration. That even on Fox News, never-Trumper conservative opinion is represented in a far greater ratio on-air than it exists among Republican voters nationwide. There are many Trump conservative critics on Fox I can respect as having honest well-thought-out disagreement on aa particular issue, rather than just regarding them partisanly anti-Trump. But there certainly are never-Trumpers as well.
I'd put Wallace in the same category as Tim Russert on Meet The Press, where he is a good reporter but still a liberal, and while perhaps unconsciously slipping in a partisan spin here and there, he gets away with it because he is a respected journalist.
I used to feel the same about Charlie Rose, that (circa 1998-2007) whatever his political views, Rose during interviews came across as neutral. But in the Obama years Charlie Rose became an unquestionable partisan, anti-Trump and anti-Republican.
Wallace isn't in the blatant-partisan category yet, but in just the last few weeks during the impeachment hearings, it annoyed me how Wallace in post-hearings commentary each day just absolutely couldn't bring himself to say that the Democrats at any point had a bad day in the hearings, or that Dems and witnesses had failed to make a case and present evidence of crimes by Trump.
Alan Dershowitz, a liberal attorney, is able to acknowledge that visible loss by the Dems more than "objective/neutral" Chris Wallace.
From the FOX transcript... "WALLACE: Well, let me interrupt to say -- the entire intelligence community says it was Russia.
KENNEDY: Right, but it could also be Ukraine. I'm not saying that I know one way or the other. I'm saying that Ms. Hill is entitled to her opinion but no rebuttal evidence was allowed to be offered."
Sondland's testimony as well as others is evidence even if you don't want to admit it. And any obstruction article would certainly be worthy. Do you really think Trump is blocking records and testimony that he thinks would actually clear him? How would that even make sense?
Gordon Sondland had no proof!
Sondland basically said that is my opinion. To which the Republican House member questioning him said: ""And that is nothing."
The next closest thing to actual evidence was David Holmes saying he overheard a portion of a cel-phone call of Sondland, a call that that was not on speaker-phone, where he could allegedly hear a portion of what Trump shouted over the phone. Which Trump made fun of, saying he has tried many times to overhear other's cel phone calls, and this was impossible. Even if Holmes had heard anything, it was at best only pieces of the total conversation. And I believe he is a partisan/deepstate Demcorat, just trying to damage Trump. As is Fiona Hill. As is Gregory Kent. As is William Taylor. As is, most obviously, Marie Yovanovich. Who actually held a Hillary Clinton victory party on election night 2016, in addition to pressing the Ukranian government with a list of Democrat-friendly compaanies they were instructed not to investigate for corruption. In addition to her being overheard by both Ukranian and State Department/embassy officials making pre- and post-election disparaging remarks about Trump.
Only opinions and speculation, and fourth-hand gossip were presented at the impeachment hearings, no actual "evidence". And then Republicans were not allowed to call their own witnesses, present exculpatory evidence, and often were shut down by Schiff when they tried to ask cross-examination questions!
Mark Levin last night on his Life Liberty Levin program cited that the U.S. Constitution was based on the British Magna Carta, and that Schiff broke not only Donald Trump's Constitutional rights, but every one of the Magna Carta rights that existed prior to the U.S. Constitution for 500 years!
Trunp does not have the right to face his accuser, the right to even know who his accuser is (the whistleblower/rat, Eric Ciaramella), does not have the basic right to call witnesses in his defense, does not have the right to cross examine witnesses presented by his opposition, does not have the right to present exculatory evidence proving his innocence... everything is controlled by Adam Schiff and the other Democrats, and when House Republicans like Nunes, Jordan, Stefanik, Ratcliffe, Turner, Wenstrup and others asked questions that exposed the truth, Schiff raised his voice and shut them down.
But even through all these layers of Democrat hijacking of the process and deception, the American public ses through it, and that is already showing up in the polls, in Trump's favor.
Detailing the Magna Carta basis for Constitutional law in the U.S., and the deprivation of due process to Donald Trump during this impeachment inquiry. And the quoted Constitutional standard for impeachment that is not being followed.
You use the word standard for a constitutional process that has only been applied to 3 presidents. Impeachment is a constitutional process and democrats are following what is in the constitution. Trump trying to block testimony and documents clearly isn't a principled stance. He's not a king nor above the law. And really how does it make sense to you that he wouldn't want his people testifying and documents released? After all in your world it would clear him. I think you know otherwise though. Sadly most of your party seems willing to support and protect the corruption as he faces no pressure from republicans to follow the law. Subpoena's are apparently okay to ignore if you don't want to.
I like Hilton's populist approach on his show, where he is critical of corruption in both parties. He focuses a lot on "the swamp" of campaign finance/lobbyist corruption, and establishment elistism tht infects both parties.
His insights from the impeachment hearings over the last week: 1) According to hearings testimony of both Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland (quoted) State Department diplomats themselves tried to extort public guarantees from Ukraine they would pursue anti-corruption investigations, to try and change Trump's opinion of giving aid to Ukraine . 2) The State DEepartment and NSC bureaucrats testifying say they are not partisan. But beyond Democrat and Republican partisanship, they clearly are partisans for the establishment elite, in opposition to reformers like Trump and his administration. Territorially lashing out at Trump and anyone who challenges their establishment policy. 3) The lying joint narrative of both House Democrats and their allies in the liberal media, that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden just because he is a 2020 political rival. When in fact, Trump has very legitimate reasons for wanting Biden investigated, because Biden, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign interfered in the 2016 election while he was Vice President, manipulated events so that his son was put on the board of Burisma (one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine, that was also under investigation by Obama officials since 2014). And that Trump's duty as executive is to root out that kind of corruption and enforce our laws, such as investigating Burisma/Biden corruption that was criticized in the news media and the Obama administration, long before Trump was even a presidential candidate. Until they (Dems and the media)changed their narrative and accused Trump of personal motives, for pursuing exactly what they themselves had criticized before Trump was even president! That Trump has abundant legitimate basis for asking Ukraine to investigate The Bidens and Burisma, not because of political opportunism regarding 2020, but because the Joseph Biden had enormous political power over Ukraine and enriched his son with that power, and openly boasted (on video!) about using that power to stop the investigation of his son with the threat of witholding $1.5 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine. That even The Obama administration and the liberal media had previously investigated before Trump became president. The ironies abound.
I'd also add that regardless of the negative press Biden has received over his son and Ukraine, Biden has been gradually declining in the polls since he entered in April, that Trump never needed to eliminate Biden with dirt from Ukraine, Biden's daily gaffs would eventually eliminate him as a candidate, even if there were no Ukraine story. "Creepy" woman and girl groping Joe, gaff-prone Joe, what city am I in Joe, beat the shit out of violence toward women Joe. The only thing that has kept Biden afloat is how crazy-left the other Democrat candidates are, so that Democrat voters who really have no enthusiasm for Biden cling to him as a moderate who they see as the only prayer of beating Trump in Nov 2020.
From yesterday's judicial ruling.... ""It is clear to this court for the reasons explained above that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist," Jackson said in her ruling.
"Presidents are not kings," she added.
"This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control," Jackson said. "Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the people of the United States. ... "
He needs to testify under oath as well as the other players in holding the Ukrainian foreign aid.
I find it an infuriating slander, and really hard to believe, that Rudy Giuliani, who prosecuted the Mafia heads and had his life threatened by them, that even in those extreme circumstances he wouldn't cave in to intimidation or a payoff, but that he would be involved in something along those lines now in a place as piddly and blatantly corrupt as Ukraine.
Giuliani was in Ukraine collecting his own facts because he couldn't rely on the information on Ukraine that had been shelved and buried away from him by the Deep State FBI and DOJ to protect the Dems and hurt Trump, so he went to Ukraine to get information unfiltered, directly from the source.
As with A G William Barr and U.S. attorney John Durham, House and Senate Democrats are maliciously attacking Giuliani to defame him in advance and destroy his credibility, so that whatever he reveals later will not be believed.
Your vicious, unprincipled scorched-earth Democrat party at work. The same treatment given to Brett Kavanaugh and Nicholas Sandmann, and of course, to Trump and any official of the Trump administration. Par for the Bolshevik Democrat course.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I find it hard to believe someone with a personal fortune of $45 million would ever feel the need, or take the risk, of doing anything self-defaming or criminal to rake in a few hundred thousand more. Particularly someone of Giuliani's impeccable law enforcement background.
