You’re just making shit up. The House’s impeachment was legal and constitutional. Executive privilege doesn’t apply to cover up wrongdoing.
Alan Dershowitz, among the most respected legal scholars in the country, disagrees that the impeachment is right or legal several times a week in televised panel discussions. As do Jonathan Turley and several other legal scholars.
Democrats' impeachment attempt is well known nationwide as a political stunt, and the rapid declining support of it in the polls manifests most Americans see that. And as Turley said, House Democrats are guilty of exactly the abuse of power they accuse Trump of, in impeaching Trump.
Turley argued that democrats should have pursued the courts but he has also said contrary to Trump’s latest rant to the contrary, Trump was really impeached by the House. And going through the courts will take years. He’ll lose but it will buy him lots of time. Trump in your mind is fighting to block information that exonerates him. And it’s not even a principled legal stance that you would extend to a democrat.
Turley argued that democrats should have pursued the courts but he has also said contrary to Trump’s latest rant to the contrary, Trump was really impeached by the House. And going through the courts will take years. He’ll lose but it will buy him lots of time. Trump in your mind is fighting to block information that exonerates him. And it’s not even a principled legal stance that you would extend to a democrat.
The consensus is the Democrats have already lost, and it's just a matter of Pelosi admitting the battle is lost, and letting the Senate make its ruling ending impeachment.
As for what Turley said, he was answering what other legal scholars have said, that if Pelosi doesn't pass on the House impeachment charges to the Senate, then impeachment didn't really happen. Turley said that impeachment has occurred regardless. And in contrast to Turley's opinion, Trump-hating Noah Feldman, Harvard Law School professor who sat right next to Turley in the House impeachment hearings on December 4th, commented publicly he was in a panic that the impeachment is *NOT* official until Pelosi submits it to the Senate. So there is some dispute whether the current state of the process is officially impeachment or not.
Here is what Turley said in House impeachment hearings on December 4th:
He clearly says that Democrats are the ones abusing their power, by pursuing a partisan impeachment, not even trying to get a bipartisan consensus, and rushing to judgement.
Consensus of who? The people who don't want any first hand testimony and documents? Most of the polling I've seen show most people recognize Trump did something wrong with his call to Zelensky. Keeping evidence out of trial isn't going to be winner for republicans.
Consensus of who? The people who don't want any first hand testimony and documents? Most of the polling I've seen show most people recognize Trump did something wrong with his call to Zelensky. Keeping evidence out of trial isn't going to be winner for republicans.
Consensus of legal experts and Constitutional lawyers. Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley. Laura Ingraham, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Kenneth Starr and Robert Ray, who both in turn oversaw the Whitewater special investigation. Jenna Ellis, constitutional lawyer who was giving opinion about Trump impeachment for the last year, and now works for the Trump campaign. Former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing, who also have been widely interviewed for 2 years and now represent the president. Mark Levin, who was the Justice Department chief of staff during the Reagan years. Sydney Powell, who also worked on the Whitewater investigation, worked on many cases handled and maliciously prosecuted by Mueller, Comey, Fitzgerald and others in Comey's FBI, worked on the Arthur Andersen and Enron cases, whose case on appeal reversed FBI convictions in those cases in a 9-0 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court for its injustice, and is currently working to similarly reverse the conviction of Michael Flynn.
Plus other high profile lawyers, former FBI directors and assistant directors, and U.S. attorneys, whose names escape me now. But highly accomplished lawyers and law enforcement people who are certainly in a position to give a highly informed opinion on the subject.
And regarding the polls, I always assume they are weighted in the Democrat favor, but even so, it's right down the middle, and has been losing ground since Schiff lost control of his closed-door SCIF-room hearings and selective leaks to the 93% anti-Trump liberal media.
As we've discussed since 2012, liberal pollsters tend to select a sampling of the population that over-represents Democrats 15% greater than their actual ratio of the population. And only use an accurate sampling in the week of an election. We all know how innacurate that sampling was in November 2016.
(CNN)More than 500 legal scholars signed on to a letter published Friday accusing President Donald Trump of having "engaged in impeachable conduct" in his dealings in Ukraine.
"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," they 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." The letter comes after four other legal scholars testified at the first House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing Wednesday, with three of them making the case for impeaching Trump. The dozens of academics -- hailing from a variety of educational institutions including Yale, Columbia and Rutgers -- said in the letter that they were not taking a stance on whether Trump committed a crime. ....
(CNN)More than 500 legal scholars signed on to a letter published Friday accusing President Donald Trump of having "engaged in impeachable conduct" in his dealings in Ukraine.
"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," they 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."
And by the way, CNN is possibly the single most partisan network, and never misses an opportunity to destroy their own credibility. By a Harvard study, CNN and NBC share 93% negative coverage of Trump. The highest of all the partisan-liberal media.
The letter comes after four other legal scholars testified at the first House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing Wednesday, with three of them making the case for impeaching Trump. The dozens of academics -- hailing from a variety of educational institutions including Yale, Columbia and Rutgers -- said in the letter that they were not taking a stance on whether Trump committed a crime. ....
How many can you cite WB?
And yet anyone who looks at the July 25th phone transcript can plainly see that Trump didn't do anything wrong.
And Zelensky's multiple televised interviews confirm that he was under absolutely no pressure from Trump.
So the 500 signatures by "legal scholars" is still just another lying Democrat stunt, by "legal scholars" who just happen to be Democrats and Hillary Clinton voters.
From Reuters... More than 700 scholars pen letter urging House to impeach Trump
Because they are 700 Democrat partisans who want Trump removed by whatever illegitimate means. And they know that not passing the impeachment legislation on to the Senate instantly kills their longshot scheme.
Consensus of legal experts and Constitutional lawyers. Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley. Laura Ingraham, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Kenneth Starr and Robert Ray, who both in turn oversaw the Whitewater special investigation. Jenna Ellis, constitutional lawyer who was giving opinion about Trump impeachment for the last year, and now works for the Trump campaign. Former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing, who also have been widely interviewed for 2 years and now represent the president. Mark Levin, who was the Justice Department chief of staff during the Reagan years. Sydney Powell, who also worked on the Whitewater investigation, worked on many cases handled and maliciously prosecuted by Mueller, Comey, Fitzgerald and others in Comey's FBI, worked on the Arthur Andersen and Enron cases, whose case on appeal reversed FBI convictions in those cases in a 9-0 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court for its injustice, and is currently working to similarly reverse the conviction of Michael Flynn.
Plus other high profile lawyers, former FBI directors and assistant directors, and U.S. attorneys, whose names escape me now. But highly accomplished lawyers and law enforcement people who are certainly in a position to give a highly informed opinion on the subject.
No one too important, just the most respected legal scholar in the United States, who teaches at Harvard law school.
Who is also (like Jonathan Turley) a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton, but still respects the rule of law, even when it goes against his party of choice.
From Reuters... More than 700 scholars pen letter urging House to impeach Trump
Because they are 700 Democrat partisans who want Trump removed by whatever illegitimate means. And they know that not passing the impeachment legislation on to the Senate instantly kills their longshot scheme.
So consensus only mattered until I sighted the hundreds of legal scholars that don't agree with the couple you sighted. Got it. Oh and you can render such quick judgements on all of them too.
From Reuters... More than 700 scholars pen letter urging House to impeach Trump
Because they are 700 Democrat partisans who want Trump removed by whatever illegitimate means. And they know that not passing the impeachment legislation on to the Senate instantly kills their longshot scheme.
So consensus only mattered until I sighted the hundreds of legal scholars that don't agree with the couple you sighted. Got it. Oh and you can render such quick judgements on all of them too.
No, this is the same kind of stunt Democrats have been pulling since at least when W. Bush was president, where they have a long list of "scholars", lawyers, military officers, economists, state department officials, or somesuch (who by the oddest coincidence all happen to be Democrats!) condemn something a Republican president did to be worse than the rise of the Antichrist, and sign a showy petition to that effect that means nothing. All it really means is that they're Democrat partisans trying to damage a Republican president.
As I recall, Alan Dershowitz was asked about such a petition two months ago, and he said even if they were all accomplished lawyers and judges, they still are not competent to make such a declaration because they are not part of the proceedings and familiar with the details of the case.
Cracks began to appear Wednesday in congressional Democrats' support for Nancy Pelosi’s prolonged delay in sending articles of impeachment to the Senate, with several lawmakers saying it's time for the House speaker to get on with it.
Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., said she voted last month to impeach President Trump over urgent concerns about his conduct and argued that handing the case over to the Senate is the right thing to do.
“I trust the speaker's judgment, but I voted on these articles when they were presented because I felt that we were at a point where it needed to happen,” said Hayes, a freshman member. “So personally, I'd like them to go forward.”
Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats began to question whether Pelosi’s delay strategy undermines their argument that Trump’s conduct warrants serious and urgent attention.
“We are reaching a point where the articles of impeachment should be sent,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told reporters Wednesday.
Other senators questioned what kind of leverage Pelosi has over the Senate.
“I respect the fact that she is concerned about the fact about whether or not there will be a fair trial. But I do think it is time to get on with it,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told Politico.
Although House Democrats voted to impeach Trump on Dec. 18, Pelosi declined to promptly send the articles over to the Senate for a trial over concerns that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was coordinating with the White House and tilting the playing field -- as Democrats sought assurances that the Senate would call certain witnesses. McConnell, R-Ky., has made no such promises, insisting that the trial begin and lawmakers determine how to proceed on potential testimony later.
Coordinating the same way House and Senate Democrats were coordinating with the Clinton White House in 1998?
Man, the double-standard Democrats hold Republicans to never lets up. But meanwhile, the vindictiveness of Democrats and the abandonment of the rule of law is becoming increasingly clear, even to Democrat leaders. I was a bit surprised when Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) even said it was time to hand over the House impeachment legislation to the Senate.
Again, the hypocrisy just screams, how urgent Democrats were to rush through impeachment, and now Pelosi is cynically manipulating and holding on to that House impeachment vote for clearly cynical political manipulation purposes.
Speculation is that Pelosi is partly delaying impeachment to aid Joe Biden's candidacy, as most of the other candidates are Senators who have to suspend their campaigns and return to Washington to attand the impeachment hearings, now delayed to occur right before the Iowa Caucus and Super Tuesday primaries. Pelosi is also speculated to be delaaying impeachment to make a Senate trial compete with Trump's state of the union address. Steve Bannon has suggested that Trump delay his state of the union until after the impeachment, so as to bypass that landmine.
Democrats never miss an opportunity to demonstrate they have absolutely no ethics. In this case screwing their own, to give advantage to Biden. Just as they rigged the primary for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi drew criticism Wednesday for handing out commemorative pens -- with her name on them -- after signing a resolution to transmit two articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate for trial.
To critics, the tone of the event seemed celebratory -- a far cry from December, when Pelosi wore black and insisted on the House floor it was a “solemn” day before the Democrat-controlled body voted to impeach the president on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress allegations. Later, she even cut short two rounds of cheers from Democrats when the articles were adopted.
“Nancy Pelosi’s souvenir pens served up on silver platters to sign the sham articles of impeachment,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham tweeted in response. “She was so somber as she gave them away to people like prizes.”
“You know what you hand out pens for? Accomplishments. Like, say, signing a historic trade deal with China,” Republican National Committee spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington added, referencing Trump — who on the same day as Pelosi's impeachment signing entered a landmark trade agreement with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He in the East Room of the White House.
Trump maintains the House impeachment effort -- based on accusations that he pressured Ukraine to launch an investigation into his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, in exchange for U.S. military aid -- is a “hoax” and claims he is a victim of a political “witch hunt” led by Pelosi. He is the third president in U.S. history to be impeached.
“So it's fitting that Democrats are handing out pens for their sole accomplishment: impeachment. Democrats have done NOTHING for the American people,” Harrington added.
Before the signing Wednesday, aides set out two small trays containing more than two dozen black pens emblazoned with Pelosi's signature. She entered the room and sat at a table with the documents and pens before her. House prosecutors and the committee chairmen who had worked on Trump's impeachment were standing around her. Pelosi picked up each pen, signed a bit, and handed each one to a lawmaker. Sometimes, she was smiling.
“Embarrassing spectacle - Pelosi using sterling silver platters and handing out ceremonial pens to everyone in sight, made it ridiculously theatrical and so tacky and clownish. What goofballs,” Mark Simone, a conservative radio host, tweeted. “Impeachment is so “Prayerful” that Pelosi was handing out pens in celebration. Pathetic,” Benny Johnson, chief creative officer for Turning Point USA, added.
Yet more evidence that the Democrats are not serious about impeachment, that they don't believe Trump is actually guilty of what they allege without evidence. That it's all for show, for the liberal media cameras and lying narrative, no substance, just PR, just to smear Trump.
Meanwhile, as Democrats play their lying games that the American public isn't even listening to, Trump in the same 24 hours signed the two biggest trade deals of his presidency : 1) with China, and 2) a USMCA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, that guarantees economic growth through at least the next year.
That's on top of President Trump's negotiated trade deals with Japan, Korea, Central and South America, and Europe.
Among Trump's other vast accomplishments:
Rebuilding our military from the devastation Barack Obama left it in, where 50% of our military planes were grounded and not combat ready. Where military servicemen were dying on a regular basis due to dangerously slashed military spending and training.
And with Trump's policy month after month for 3 years, continuously producing the best economic numbers the country has seen in at least 50 years, particularly benefiting the lowest 25% of wage earnerss, including blacks, hispanics, women, people under 30, and even improved lives for released prison inmates.
A nation energy-independent and a net exporter of oil for the first time in 70 years. Now we truly can just walk away from the Middle East, if we choose to.
Religious freedoms restored.
The most accomplished and transformative president since at least FDR.
But Democrats are screaming a lying narrative, because lies are all they have.
Meanwhile, Trump is actually rebuilding the country. As Dems try to destroy it, in their efforts to destroy Trump.
When it’s okay to withhold foreign aid to try to force a country to help Trump win an election I can’t imagine you really being bothered about pens. And you know Trump is toast when witnesses and documents happen.
When it’s okay to withhold foreign aid to try to force a country to help Trump win an election I can’t imagine you really being bothered about pens. And you know Trump is toast when witnesses and documents happen.
That's a very distorted point of view of witholding economic activity with governments who murder U.S. citizens, murder thousands of their own citizens, as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, and China do. Sanctions are a way to non-lethally pressure them toward better behavior. In the case of Iran, that government has killed 1,500 of its own protesting citizens in the last month. Obama sent his own presidential campaign advisors to Israel to aid Netanyahu's political opponent, directly interfering in a foreign election, but even so collossally failed. Netanyahu, for all the interference, was re-elected. He would have been justified to send Mossad to kill Obama.
You seem unaware that Obama and other past presidents used sanctions and other federal powers (less effectively) to force actions of nations worldwide as well. Was Obama, using the same economic sanctions tools, also trying "to force a country to help [Obama] win an election"?
No, because you would never hold your deceitful party to the same standard. Even when they deliver pallettes with billions in cash to an Iranian terrorist state, so they can use it to wage terrorism against the U.S., and never for a day stop chanting "death to America". Literally, the same day the cash was delivered!
It’s very clear Trump was doing the withhold for his own self interests WB. This isn’t “the other side does it too” thing. And he did so while Ukraine is fighting our foe and trying to protect it’s democracy. Evil and corruption right in front of your eyes.
It’s very clear Trump was doing the withhold for his own self interests WB. This isn’t “the other side does it too” thing. And he did so while Ukraine is fighting our foe and protect it’s democracy. Evil and corruption right in front of your eyes.
There is absolutely no evidence of that. FOUR different investigations, concluding with the Mueller report, found no basis for further criminal investigation.
And then this utter crapola about Ukraine. It has no basis other than as a liberal talking point to smear Trump. The trancribed Trump/Zelensky phone call disproves it. Zelensky's own account in multiple televised interviews is likewise that it was a very friendly call, no blackmail, no intimidation, no quid pro quo, no interruption of aid to Ukraine.
It's a complete sham by Democrats, just to smear Trump, and polls show that no one even cares to even listen to the Democrats' lies at this point. They can rant their slanders all they want, no one cares, no one is even listening any more. No named accusers. No crimes or spoecific allegations. Nothing Trump even needs to defend against. All Democrats have done is further assure Trump's re-election. Despite how vicious the Democrat slanders are of Trump, it's on some level funny, how much they've blown themselves up.
Uh no. Anybody willing to testify under oath has provided evidence. Unlike in Clinton’s impeachment, Trump has tried to block and gag all witness and documents to hide his corruption. I know you hate the other side so much you’re satisfied with the shitbag’s lies and corruption but he’s not going to be able to keep the lid on forever. Bolton and other’s should be able to testify. Otherwise it’s a sham trial that will just aid Trump in a temporary coverup.
Uh no. Anybody willing to testify under oath has provided evidence. Unlike in Clinton’s impeachment, Trump has tried to block and gag all witness and documents to hide his corruption. I know you hate the other side so much you’re satisfied with the shitbag’s lies and corruption but he’s not going to be able to keep the lid on forever. Bolton and other’s should be able to testify. Otherwise it’s a sham trial that will just aid Trump in a temporary coverup.
Actually, it was YOUR party, the Democrats, in the House hearings who prevented any exculpatory witnesses and testimony that would have prevented this factless narrative from ever reaching the Senate for a trial. Adam Schiff had hearings mostly behind closed doors, and then leaked daily to his buddies in the liberal media any salacious exerpts that appeared to support his impeachment narrative, but only appeared to when twisted and selectively leaked outside their full context.
But like I said, the public doesn't care. And all the viciousness the Democrats can unleash won't make them care. The public sees this impeachment drive for the contrived manufactured lying narrative and pointless exercise that it is.
Uh no. Anybody willing to testify under oath has provided evidence. Unlike in Clinton’s impeachment, Trump has tried to block and gag all witness and documents to hide his corruption. I know you hate the other side so much you’re satisfied with the shitbag’s lies and corruption but he’s not going to be able to keep the lid on forever. Bolton and other’s should be able to testify. Otherwise it’s a sham trial that will just aid Trump in a temporary coverup.
Actually, it was YOUR party, the Democrats, in the House hearings who prevented any exculpatory witnesses and testimony that would have prevented this factless narrative from ever reaching the Senate for a trial. Adam Schiff had hearings mostly behind closed doors, and then leaked daily to his buddies in the liberal media any salacious exerpts that appeared to support his impeachment narrative, but only appeared to when twisted and selectively leaked outside their full context.
But like I said, the public doesn't care. And all the viciousness the Democrats can unleash won't make them care. The public sees this impeachment drive for the contrived manufactured lying narrative and pointless exercise that it is.
Are you unaware that Trump is blocking all the witnesses and documents that he can? As to what the public wants, any polling I’ve seen shows that the public wants a fair Senate trial with witnesses. I think you hope the public doesn’t care because you know Trump is guilty.
Trump has been more cooperative with investigators than either the Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton white houses were. They have been extremely forthcoming with thousands of documents. They have only witheld those witnesses that they felt potentially compromise internal secrets of the White House, might compromise Trump and his inner circle's opinion of foreign leaders, and their inner strategy in dealing with foreign governments.
I find it amazing that your side, the Democrat Bolsheviks, have the audacity to allege unfairness in the trial proceedings of the Republican-led Senate, when the Republican standard for a trial is the bipartisan standard of the Bill Clinton impeachment trial in 1999. And the Republicans have even made conccessions that make it less favorable to Trump than it was toward Clinton.
Even more amazing for Democrats to allege unfairness in the Senate trial, when you consider how incredibly Democrat-partisan and unfair proeedings were a few weeks ago in the Democrat-led House!
Trump is guilty of nothing. Democrats cling to a deliberate smear of Trump, partisanly dividing the country just in a vain hope they can damage Trump and cost him a few points in the polls leading into Nov 2020. But that is already backfiring: Gallup: 51% OF VOTERS NOW WANT IMPEACHMENT TO END https://news.gallup.com/poll/271691/trump-approval-inches-support-impeachment-dips.aspx
At this point, I'm confident Trump will win in Nov 2020, and he will gain Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. Democrats are vicious liars, a majority of voters now see that, and based on that deceit Dems will be pounded into the dirt in Nov 2020. Polls by the most accurate predictors of the last few elections were already predicting a clear Trump re-election a year ago. Trump's victory in 2020 is twice as assured now. Thanks Dems!
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.
If the lawless Bolsheviks who run the Democrat party has won both a Senate majority as well as their House majority in Nov 2018, they could have rubber-stamped an impeachment all the way through both houses without evidence, and then found a contrived reason for similarly impeaching and removing Vice President Pence, to seat a President Pelosi.
What scares me most is not the fanaticism of the Democrat leadership that is perfectly willing to do this. What terrifies me even more is the millions of grassroots Democrats who are perfectly OK with this lawless power grab. For now, that path is blocked, but unless the Democrat leadership changes, I'm very concerned that there eventually will be a pendulum-swing to the Democrats sometime after 2024, at which point if the current fanatics run the Democrat party, they could bring to power a fanaticism to rival the French Revolution and the the subsequent Reign of Terror. If indoctrinated Democrats continue with the same level of CNN/MSNBC/Ocasio-Cortez/Maxine Waters level of zeal they currently exhibit. They not only want to gain power and do crazy stuff, they want to purge from power, and even from employment, following the future path of Black Lives Matter and Antifa perhaps even from life, anyone who disagrees with them. And that's under the current leadership of crazies like Schumer and Pelosi. Clearly, even as hardcore nutso as they visibly are, the Ocasio-Cotez's and the Pressley's and the Hakkim Jeffries and Ilhan Omars, would lead this country on an even bolder path to destruction. And certainly, the purge and destruction of anyone who disagrees with them.
We've already seen the feelers put out for this with Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting Tea Party and grassroots conservatives to unfairly win the 2012 election. Now we've seen the same thing on an even bolder authoritarian scale in 2016 and ongoing, using FBI, DOJ, CIA and other law enforcement to target, destroy, and run surveillance on a presidential campaign. AND THEN EVEN ON AN INAUGURATED PRESIDENT! And despite that it doesn't get any more serious than that, millions of M E M's out there are perfectly OK with that, no problem. With the next wave of Democrats openly calling for even more violent intolerance. As I've cited already repeatedly, Democrats are already responding to those calls for intolerant escalation.
With that already in acceptance for the grassroots Democrat/Left, what is to stop the even more fanatical Democrats in Washington, if elected, from shutting down all dissenting thought and shipping us off to concentration camps. Euphemistically called "re-education centers". I seem to recall someone close to Obama having some thoughts in that direction.
Every step where Democrats react with indifference about the fanaticism in their own party, we come closer to this.
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.
Since these hearings began, Democrats for all their slanders and false narrative have never been able to get past these four basic facts that prove Trump did nothing wrong. 1) the July 25th transcript proves there was no intimidation/quid pro quo/intimidation/whatever in the call. 2) President Zelensky himself has made clear over and over in videotaped news interviews there was no pressure on him from Trump. 3) The aid was witheld for about 6 or 7 weeks and was released on Sept 11th, well before the Sept 30th deadline, no interruption of aid to Ukraine. No "Ukranians dying", as liar Schiff alleges. 4) The aid was released without the press conference that Trump requested, so Ukraine was not forced to capitulate to any conditions to receive aid.
All the other posturing and hyperventilating by Democrats during the House investigation, and now Rep. Adam "piece of" Schiff bloviating on and on for endless hours during the Senate trial that no one is listening to, has presented any actual evidence of anything that challenges those facts. Just conspiracy theories, slanders, and wild speculation.
There is no case. Period. As in a court where there is insufficient evidence, Justice John Roberts should simply dismiss the case. But I guess the Democrats want to press the issue and destroy themselves, while in the process boosting Trump's poll numbers even more, pissing off voters by pressing something so factless and contrived.
Trump has been more cooperative with investigators than either the Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton white houses were. They have been extremely forthcoming with thousands of documents. They have only witheld those witnesses that they felt potentially compromise internal secrets of the White House, might compromise Trump and his inner circle's opinion of foreign leaders, and their inner strategy in dealing with foreign governments.
I find it amazing that your side, the Democrat Bolsheviks, have the audacity to allege unfairness in the trial proceedings of the Republican-led Senate, when the Republican standard for a trial is the bipartisan standard of the Bill Clinton impeachment trial in 1999. And the Republicans have even made conccessions that make it less favorable to Trump than it was toward Clinton.
Even more amazing for Democrats to allege unfairness in the Senate trial, when you consider how incredibly Democrat-partisan and unfair proeedings were a few weeks ago in the Democrat-led House!
Trump is guilty of nothing. Democrats cling to a deliberate smear of Trump, partisanly dividing the country just in a vain hope they can damage Trump and cost him a few points in the polls leading into Nov 2020. But that is already backfiring: Gallup: 51% OF VOTERS NOW WANT IMPEACHMENT TO END https://news.gallup.com/poll/271691/trump-approval-inches-support-impeachment-dips.aspx
At this point, I'm confident Trump will win in Nov 2020, and he will gain Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. Democrats are vicious liars, a majority of voters now see that, and based on that deceit Dems will be pounded into the dirt in Nov 2020. Polls by the most accurate predictors of the last few elections were already predicting a clear Trump re-election a year ago. Trump's victory in 2020 is twice as assured now. Thanks Dems!
Trump is the first President to 100 percent not comply with providing documents and witnesses for an impeachment. You can lie and throw shit at the other side but that reflects on your character. According to polling about 75 percent want a fair trial that includes witnesses and documents that Trump is obstructing. If Republicans in the senate go ahead and engage in covering up for Trump I’m good with voters judging their corruption too. Looking at the midterm results and some special election results I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re back to bitching about the deficit and the rigged 2020 election when Trump and trash get tossed out on their corrupt asses.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) speaking to reporters on the Capitol steps just perfectly said: "What Trump is being charged with 'Contempt of Congress' for, is what we used to call separation of powers"
In other words, where the President and Congress have a dispute, both sides take it to court for a legal decision on what the law says. Now with the Democrats' Bolshevik revolution, the president exercising his Constitutional right to challenge the law in court is twisted by Democrats into an alleged crime.
Trump is the first President to 100 percent not comply with providing documents and witnesses for an impeachment. You can lie and throw shit at the other side but that reflects on your character. According to polling about 75 percent want a fair trial that includes witnesses and documents that Trump is obstructing. If Republicans in the senate go ahead and engage in covering up for Trump I’m good with voters judging their corruption too. Looking at the midterm results and some special election results I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re back to bitching about the deficit and the rigged 2020 election when Trump and trash get tossed out on their corrupt asses.
As I just said above, Trump has disputed the Democrats' unlawful abuses, lawfully through the courts, exercising his Constitutional rights.
Further, Trump has cooperated more with House and Senate investigators than either Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton before him. He has released thousands of documents. Trump unprecedentedly released the classified transcript of his July 25th phone call with Zelensky, the leader of a foreign state! TWO phone calls with Zelensky, actually. Trump has only been uncooperative with a House investigation that was absurdly unfair, where his White House counsel was not even permitted to attend! Rep. Adam Schiff's twisting of the facts, closed door sessions, deliberate lies and distortions of the facts, delayed release of even the transcripts of closed-door sessions, and in some casess NEVER releasing closed door transcripts to allow Trump to defend himself against kangaroo-court allegations. The entire basis for this impeachment, "the Whistleblower", a k a Eric Ciaramella, a raabid Democrat partisan CIA analyst and favored boy of the Obama administration, is still officially not identified, and so Trump is denied the ability to even know and face his accuser. AND ACCUSED OF WHAT?!? No identifiable crime. Rep Adam Schiff alleged he was unaware of the Whisleblower until his whistleblower report was submitted to the House Intelligence Committee, but in truth the Whistleblowers report was crafted FOR SEVERAL WEEKS PRIOR, and BY THE STAFF OF ADAM SCHIFF'S OFFICE! The even hand-picked whistleblower Eric Ciaramelaa's lawyer for him!
It's a lie. It's ALL lies. And the American public now sees the Democrats' vicious deceit.
What you just said above about 75% bla bla bla is just gobbledygook propaganda I didn't even understand. I just cited and linked what the most recent poll says. According to the Gallup poll, 51% oppose Trump's impeachment and removal.
And I didn't lie. I've sourced my opinion, chapter and verse. You have lied, trying to twist reality to conform with your rabidly anti-Trump point of view. Lying, if only to yourself.
Trump is trying to hide his corruption with his obstruction that you try to call a “dispute”. The founding fathers wanted checks and balances. And you were lying only to yourself (at best) when you tried shoveling the shit that Trump’s been the most cooperative when the opposite is true. He’s blocking every bit of evidence that he can. It won’t last.
Trump is trying to hide his corruption with his obstruction that you try to call a “dispute”. The founding fathers wanted checks and balances. And you were lying only to yourself (at best) when you tried shoveling the shit that Trump’s been the most cooperative when the opposite is true. He’s blocking every bit of evidence that he can. It won’t last.
A lot of insults in your remarks, but absolutely no facts.
EVERYTHING the Democrats have been saying in hearings is lying narrative. And only Democrats consumed by partisan hate believe it. Democrats say over and over" "It's beyond dispute..." as if saying that makes their lies any more true.
Answer a few questions, M E M:
1) What crime , *SPECIFICALLY*, did Donald Trump commit? There is no crime listed. I already explored that above. "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are not actual or specific crimes. It's total B.S. the Dems made up, because there's nothing specific Pelosi could credibly accuse Trump of.
2) Who are his accusers? Can you even name them? And based on the fact that you CAN'T even name them, why should we believe a word they say? They are proven Democrat partisans, who can't even pretend for the length of these impeachment proceedings the last few months to be neutral players. Ambassador Marie Jovanovich, Alexander Vindman, Fiona Hill, Bill Taylor, and the centerpiece unnamed coward "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramela, are all vocal Democrat partisans who clearly support Hillary Clinton and Obama and despise Trump. They have no credibility whatssoever.
3) What is the >>>evidence<<< against Donald Trump? You can't name it, because it's all hearsay and opinions. No facts. I can tell you what the evidence is for Donald Trump's innocence: (A) The transcript of the July 25th phone call, and releaded previouss Trump/Zelensky phone call. and (B) Zelensky's repeated videotaped interviews, saying there was absolutely nothing in Trump's phone call that was intimidating, coercive, blackmailing, quid pro quo, or otherwise hostile.
It's all smoke and mirrors on the part of Democrats. It's a slander, a hustle, a political coup, a Democrat insurrection to try and remove Trump by any illegal and vicious means. Because they can't beat Trump by any honest means. The beauty of it is, with all their abused federal power, and the liberal Newspeak media behind them, they are still losing to the truth.
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.
Huge news. The Hillary supporters in FBI and DOJ deliberately and fraudulently obtained the warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and presidential administration.
As Donald Trump began his meteoric rise to the presidency, the Obama White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington to coordinate ongoing anti-corruption efforts inside Russia’s most critical neighbor. The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ).
The agenda suggested the purpose was training and coordination. But Ukrainian participants said it didn’t take long — during the meetings and afterward — to realize the Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump. U.S. officials “kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united,” said Andrii Telizhenko, then a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington tasked with organizing the meeting.
Telizhenko, who no longer works for the Ukrainian Embassy, said U.S. officials volunteered during the meetings — one of which was held in the White House’s Old Executive Office Building — that they had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions. That 2014 investigation was led by the FBI and focused heavily on GOP lobbyist Paul Manafort, whose firm long had been tied to Trump through his partner and Trump pal, Roger Stone.
Agents interviewed Manafort in 2014 about whether he received undeclared payments from the party of ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and whether he engaged in improper foreign lobbying. The FBI shut down the case without charging Manafort.
Telizhenko said he couldn’t remember whether Manafort was mentioned during the January 2016 meeting. But he and other attendees recalled DOJ officials asking investigators from Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) if they could help locate new evidence about the Party of Regions’ payments and its dealings with Americans. “It was definitely the case that led to the charges against Manafort and the leak to U.S. media during the 2016 election,” he said.
That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama administration’s intervention. Spokespeople for the NSC, DOJ and FBI declined to comment. A representative for former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice did not return emails seeking comment.
Nazar Kholodnytskyy, Ukraine’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told me he attended some but not all of the January 2016 Washington meetings and couldn’t remember the specific cases, if any, that were discussed. But he said he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of political meddling in the U.S. election. Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort — a ledger showing payments from the Party of Regions — was known to Ukrainian authorities since 2014 but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly NABU, after Manafort was named Trump’s campaign chairman: “Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious.”
Kholodnytskyy said he explicitly instructed NABU investigators who were working with American authorities not to share the ledger with the media. “Look, Manafort’s case is one of the cases that hurt me a lot,” he said. “I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding Paul Manafort."
“For me it was the first call that something was going wrong and that there is some external influence in this case. And there is some other interests in this case not in the interest of the investigation and a fair trial,” he added. Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general’s international affairs office, said that, shortly after Ukrainian authorities returned from the Washington meeting, there was a clear message about helping the Americans with the Party of the Regions case.
“Yes, there was a lot of talking about needing help and then the ledger just appeared in public,” he recalled. Kulyk said Ukrainian authorities had evidence that other Western figures, such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, also received money from Yanukovych’s party. But the Americans weren’t interested: “They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else.”
Manafort joined Trump’s campaign on March 29, 2016, and then was promoted to campaign chairman on May 19, 2016. NABU leaked the existence of the ledgers on May 29, 2016. Later that summer, it told U.S. media the ledgers showed payments to Manafort, a revelation that forced him to resign from the campaign in August 2016.
A Ukrainian court in December concluded NABU’s release of the ledger was an illegal attempt to influence the U.S. election. And a member of Ukraine’s parliament has released a recording of a NABU official saying the agency released the ledger to help Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The other case raised at the January 2016 meeting, Telizhenko said, involved Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was paying then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as both a board member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15, bank records show.
According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine’s chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut down. The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested the meetings in January 2016, but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions.
"Unfortunately, the Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, D.C., was not invited to join the DOJ and other law enforcement-sector meetings," it said. It said it had no record that the Party of Regions or Burisma cases came up in the meetings it did attend. Ukraine is riddled with corruption, Russian meddling and intense political conflicts, so one must carefully consider any Ukrainian accounts.
But Telizhenko’s claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort probe as the 2016 election ramped up is supported by the DOJ’s own documents, including communications involving Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Nellie Ohr and Steele worked in 2016 for the research firm, Fusion GPS, that was hired by Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to find Russia dirt on Trump. Steele wrote the famous dossier for Fusion that the FBI used to gain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Nellie Ohr admitted to Congress that she routed Russia dirt on Trump from Fusion to the DOJ through her husband during the election.
DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ prosecutors specializing in international crimes to the discovery of the “black ledger” documents that led to Manafort’s prosecution. “Reported Trove of documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions’ Black Cashbox,” Nellie Ohr wrote to her husband and federal prosecutors Lisa Holtyn and Joseph Wheatley, attaching a news article on the announcement of NABU’s release of the documents.
Bruce Ohr and Steele worked on their own effort to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, who had a soured business relationship with him. Deripaska was “almost ready to talk” to U.S. government officials regarding the money that “Manafort stole,” Bruce Ohr wrote in notes from his conversations with Steele. The efforts eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked Deripaska if he could help prove Manafort was helping Trump collude with Russia. Deripaska laughed off the notion as preposterous.
Previously, Politico reported that the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington assisted Clinton’s campaign through a DNC contractor. The Ukrainian Embassy acknowledges it got requests for assistance from the DNC staffer to find dirt on Manafort but denies it provided any improper assistance. Now we have more concrete evidence that the larger Ukrainian government also was being pressed by the Obama administration to help build the Russia collusion narrative. And that onion is only beginning to be peeled.
But what is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed in the Mueller report.
_____________________________________
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports
So... why is Trump on trial again?
It seems to me the "collusion" and abuse of federal power was all within the Obama administration, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, and their zealots in the FBI and DOJ.
Trump is on trial because he tried to use foreign aid for his own personal gain and than tried and is still trying to obstruct all the witness and documents showing his corruption. Unacceptable and if your party makes themselves accessories than voters should boot them out too. You can get back to bitching about the deficit again.
Abuse of power is certainly an impeachable offense. I would note Trump’s team is trying to make this argument because the facts make the case for abuse of power. And also they are continuing the obstruction by blocking testimony and evidence from people like Bolton. That’s what guilty people do. Trump originally claimed he was blocking all this evidence because the democrats controlled the House. No surprise that he lied and is still blocking all the evidence he can now that it’s a republican controlled Senate.
Bolton is apparently spilling the beans on Trump in his upcoming book. The stuff leaking out is damming of course. I don’t think it will make a difference in the impeachment “trial” but it might in the upcoming election.
Trump is on trial because he tried to use foreign aid for his own personal gain and than tried and is still trying to obstruct all the witness and documents showing his corruption. Unacceptable and if your party makes themselves accessories than voters should boot them out too. You can get back to bitching about the deficit again.
Abuse of power is certainly an impeachable offense. I would note Trump’s team is trying to make this argument because the facts make the case for abuse of power. And also they are continuing the obstruction by blocking testimony and evidence from people like Bolton. That’s what guilty people do. Trump originally claimed he was blocking all this evidence because the democrats controlled the House. No surprise that he lied and is still blocking all the evidence he can now that it’s a republican controlled Senate.
No, Trump is on trial because Democrats by every reliable prediction are going to get slaughtered in the Nov 2020 election, and Democrats see slandering Trump with contrived Ukraine allegations as the best long-shot chance to possibly diminish Trump's popularity enough to have a hail-Mary snowball's chance in hell of winning.
All the evidence presented is that Trump DID NOT use foreign policy for his own personal gain. Trump campaigned and won on eliminating waste and corruption in foreign aid, and has consistently done the same with multiple other nations as he has with Ukraine.
Ukraine in particular is quantifiably the third most corrupt nation on earth, and therefore warrants the extra scrutiny Trump gave it before sending aid there. Multiple officials in the Obama administration as well cited corruption there and advised caution in giving funds to Ukraine. Which gives legitimacy to everything Trump has done with Ukraine. Trump witheld aid to Ukraine for about 7 weeks, long enough to verify that newly elected president Zelensky is the reformer he campaigned as and person of integrity, before releasing U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Trump is not trying to "hide" documents and testimony "proving his corruption". Trump is protecting presidential executive privelege, where the strategy, knowledge and opinions of Trump and his advisors could be made public, which would expose Trump's hand in dealing with foreign governments, and expose those who advise him in confidence. If all that were forcibly revealed to the public, no advisor would want to speak freely in giving the best advice to Trump or any future president, for fear their honest thoughts and advice would be exposed at a later time.
"Abuse of power" is horseshit, an indictment that lacks any specific crime, because THERE IS no crime Democrats can credibly allege.
The facts: 1) Trump's July 25th phone call, classified until Trump released it, the first time any president has released such a classified phone call, shows no coercion, no quid pro quo, no intimidation, no demands on Trump's part in exchange for aid.
2) Zelensky's repeated public and televised interviews make clear it was a very routine phone call, no coercion, no quid pro quo, no intimidation, a very friendly routine diplomatic phone call.
3) The aid to Ukraine was released Sept 11th, long before the Sept 30th deadline.
4) the aid was released without Ukraine honoring Trump's request for a Zelensky press conference announcing an aggressive campaign to weed out corruption.
5) Democrats, including Rep. Al Green, have repeatedly said that it was necessary to impeach Trump to prevent him from getting re-elected in Nov 2020, because without impeachment Trump will win. Slandering Trump with a false impeachment narrative is their only potential path to victory in November. Hence the lying impeachment narrative.
6) Democrats failed to make a case for impeachment, and rushed through a 100% partisan Democrat impeachment vote, with the partisan goal of getting it done by Christmas. They trampled on Trump's right to legal counsel in House hearings, and rejected any exculpatory evidence or witnesses that would have proven Trump's innocence. In protection of his rights, Trump did not cooperate. The Democrats rammed through impeachment anyway, along straight partisan lines, several Democrats siding with Republicans, against Pelosi. And then Pelosi sat on the articles of impeachment for a month, for partisan political reasons. Now that the House failed to make the case for impeachment that was their responsibility, they are pressuring the Senate to do what they failed to.
All the lying, all the false narrative, all the violation of Constitutional rule of law, is by the Democrats. Trump is following his constitutional rights, through the rule of law pursuing his legal rights.
Democrats are pushing impeachment, knowing it is a lie from the outset, just because they are a majority in the House and can ram it through as a majority, but knowing it is a lie, just because they can. Their vicious abuse of power, and their majority in the House, will end in November. Voters can plainly see what House Democrats are doing, and voters are pissed off about it. Democrat have officially become the Bolshevik party, but they've overplayed their hand. And exposed, they will be driven from office.
Bolton is apparently spilling the beans on Trump in his upcoming book. The stuff leaking out is damming of course. I don’t think it will make a difference in the impeachment “trial” but it might in the upcoming election.
This is another whiff of a scandal that the Democrats and their allies in the liberal media are jumping at, like kitties on catnip. But they will be disappointed at the end, just as they've been dissappointed with every other false lead they've hyped.
Nothing has been revealed, no facts, no quotes from Bolton's forthcoming book. The leak clearly came from Bolton's staff. The book, sight-unseen, has spiked in book sales with the publicity. Do the math, it's a publicity stunt. Interesting that Alexaander Vindman's twin brother is also employed by the national security council, and iss the point man in the position to sign off on Bolton's book being OK for public release. Gee, I'm sure that's just the wildest of coincidences, no deep state alignment against Trump at all.
What you call nothing looks to be Bolton’s first hand account that confirms Trump withholding the foreign aid that congress passed for his own personal gain. The nation is watching what the GOP controlled Senate is doing. A trial without Bolton testifying would be a transparent sham.
