I guess you forgot that Pelosi spoke vigorously against impeachment right up until the Ukraine affair.UNI88 wrote:Sadly true in that the Senate should have a real trial to address the articles. Not true in that a Pelosi presidency scares me as much as a Pence presidency. I'll take Trump over either of those zealots.kalm wrote:
Sadly true.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
kalm wrote:Bwhahahahaha....
Now you're thinking more like me. It was never Dems vs Reps with our elected officials, but the ruling class vs the people.mainejeff2 wrote:I hope that Trump brings everyone down.....the GOP, the Bidens, Russia, Ukraine....the whole lot of them.
Somewhere Hillary is getting her bowl of popcorn ready.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... e-atlanticAccording to close watchers of Gazprom, a chunk of this cash cycled back to Moscow in the form of kickbacks. Another chunk of this money was spent bankrolling Russian political influence in Ukraine. Firtash was one of the two primary patrons of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his political party. (He also bought a television network for the sake of promoting the cause.) This meant that Firtash was also writing the checks that covered the cost of Paul Manafort’s services to Yanukovych. It’s worth pausing to marvel at the narrative symmetry of this scandal: Both Manafort and Parnas shared the same Russian-aligned paymaster.
In 2014, just after a revolution chased Yanukovych from power, the FBI issued an arrest warrant for Firtash. Austrian authorities detained Firtash near his Vienna mansion. The indictment alleged that he had bribed Indian officials on behalf of Boeing, which desperately wanted to acquire rare materials for the construction of its 787 Dreamliner. (McKinsey & Company, the now-vilified consulting firm, apparently vetted Boeing’s decision to work with Firtash and didn’t recommend against it, according to a New York Times investigation.)
When Firtash needed someone to pay his bail—which the Austrians set at $155 million, the highest in the nation’s history—the oligarch Vasily Anisimov, a member of Putin’s inner circle, supplied the cash. Over the past five years, Firtash has successfully battled the Justice Department’s attempts to extradite him. He’s hired an army of American lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants, including the notorious Jack Abramoff and the longtime Bill and Hillary Clinton friend Lanny Davis, as well as the Donald Trump–supporting lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing. His spokesman is Mark Corallo, who worked for Trump’s legal team during the Mueller investigation
Fake news...at least the part about Colonel Sanders.kalm wrote:Here’s another name with ties to Manafort, Lanny Davis, Giulianni, Biden, numerous Trump lawyers, the Queen, The Getty’s, The Rothschilds, and....Colonel Sanders before he went tets up.
Jesus.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... e-atlanticAccording to close watchers of Gazprom, a chunk of this cash cycled back to Moscow in the form of kickbacks. Another chunk of this money was spent bankrolling Russian political influence in Ukraine. Firtash was one of the two primary patrons of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his political party. (He also bought a television network for the sake of promoting the cause.) This meant that Firtash was also writing the checks that covered the cost of Paul Manafort’s services to Yanukovych. It’s worth pausing to marvel at the narrative symmetry of this scandal: Both Manafort and Parnas shared the same Russian-aligned paymaster.
In 2014, just after a revolution chased Yanukovych from power, the FBI issued an arrest warrant for Firtash. Austrian authorities detained Firtash near his Vienna mansion. The indictment alleged that he had bribed Indian officials on behalf of Boeing, which desperately wanted to acquire rare materials for the construction of its 787 Dreamliner. (McKinsey & Company, the now-vilified consulting firm, apparently vetted Boeing’s decision to work with Firtash and didn’t recommend against it, according to a New York Times investigation.)
When Firtash needed someone to pay his bail—which the Austrians set at $155 million, the highest in the nation’s history—the oligarch Vasily Anisimov, a member of Putin’s inner circle, supplied the cash. Over the past five years, Firtash has successfully battled the Justice Department’s attempts to extradite him. He’s hired an army of American lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants, including the notorious Jack Abramoff and the longtime Bill and Hillary Clinton friend Lanny Davis, as well as the Donald Trump–supporting lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing. His spokesman is Mark Corallo, who worked for Trump’s legal team during the Mueller investigation
Parnas is like Epstein. Everyone has been seen with him.mainejeff2 wrote:What's going on with Devin Nunes?
I bet Dershowitz's legal advice will be pro bono in exchange for Trump not mentioning the parties they attended at the place locals refer to as Pedophile Island.kalm wrote:Parnas is like Epstein. Everyone has been seen with him.mainejeff2 wrote:What's going on with Devin Nunes?
It’s what innocent people do. They suppress evidence.Ibanez wrote:What’s this crap I’m hearing that Republicans won’t allow any evidence from the HoR to be used?
Just so we’re clear, McConnell wants a sham trial. WAFJ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What evidence is not being allowed?Ibanez wrote:What’s this crap I’m hearing that Republicans won’t allow any evidence from the HoR to be used?
Just so we’re clear, McConnell wants a sham trial. WAFJ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FYP to highlight the irony.kalm wrote:It’s what innocent people do. They destroy evidence.Ibanez wrote:What’s this crap I’m hearing that Republicans won’t allow any evidence from the HoR to be used?
Just so we’re clear, McConnell wants a sham trial. WAFJ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's not already known? Other than the star chamber stuff the HoR did in the basement of the capitol behind closed doors, which I think even that stuff was eventually leaked out in full, what has not already been publicized? This isn't a regular trial with a jury being unacquainted with the case before sitting down to hear it, this is a political trial where everyone has heard all of this stuff for as long as the impeachment inquiry, and prior to it actually, has been going on.Ibanez wrote:What’s this crap I’m hearing that Republicans won’t allow any evidence from the HoR to be used?
Just so we’re clear, McConnell wants a sham trial. WAFJ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So why even have a trial to begin with?GannonFan wrote:What's not already known? Other than the star chamber stuff the HoR did in the basement of the capitol behind closed doors, which I think even that stuff was eventually leaked out in full, what has not already been publicized? This isn't a regular trial with a jury being unacquainted with the case before sitting down to hear it, this is a political trial where everyone has heard all of this stuff for as long as the impeachment inquiry, and prior to it actually, has been going on.Ibanez wrote:What’s this crap I’m hearing that Republicans won’t allow any evidence from the HoR to be used?
Just so we’re clear, McConnell wants a sham trial. WAFJ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's procedure.kalm wrote:So why even have a trial to begin with?GannonFan wrote:
What's not already known? Other than the star chamber stuff the HoR did in the basement of the capitol behind closed doors, which I think even that stuff was eventually leaked out in full, what has not already been publicized? This isn't a regular trial with a jury being unacquainted with the case before sitting down to hear it, this is a political trial where everyone has heard all of this stuff for as long as the impeachment inquiry, and prior to it actually, has been going on.
I heard it this AM but I don’t know if it’s confirmed. It was all the evidence.CAA Flagship wrote:What evidence is not being allowed?Ibanez wrote:What’s this crap I’m hearing that Republicans won’t allow any evidence from the HoR to be used?
Just so we’re clear, McConnell wants a sham trial. WAFJ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I disagree. It’s a trial. Trump should be able to confront witnesses and evidence Without that, it’s a true coverup.GannonFan wrote:What's not already known? Other than the star chamber stuff the HoR did in the basement of the capitol behind closed doors, which I think even that stuff was eventually leaked out in full, what has not already been publicized? This isn't a regular trial with a jury being unacquainted with the case before sitting down to hear it, this is a political trial where everyone has heard all of this stuff for as long as the impeachment inquiry, and prior to it actually, has been going on.Ibanez wrote:What’s this crap I’m hearing that Republicans won’t allow any evidence from the HoR to be used?
Just so we’re clear, McConnell wants a sham trial. WAFJ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because that's what the Constitution calls for. And it still includes both sides arguing why their view of the evidence and the accusations are either valid or not valid.kalm wrote:So why even have a trial to begin with?GannonFan wrote:
What's not already known? Other than the star chamber stuff the HoR did in the basement of the capitol behind closed doors, which I think even that stuff was eventually leaked out in full, what has not already been publicized? This isn't a regular trial with a jury being unacquainted with the case before sitting down to hear it, this is a political trial where everyone has heard all of this stuff for as long as the impeachment inquiry, and prior to it actually, has been going on.
What's being covered up? We all know what was done at this point. Trump was going to use the money as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate Hunter's deal with Burisma. Legally, he couldn't hold it for more than a month and a half since the fiscal year was coming up, and they held it up for about that long. And when Congress asked about this the White House didn't give them access to anyone and everyone. That's the evidence that is out there, that's the meat of the articles of impeachment, both the abuse of power and the lack of cooperation with Congress. Again, these are not real trials from the standpoint of a regular courtroom, these are political trials and have always been that way. All that's left now is to formally hear both sides of the argument (the trial) and to vote to remove from office or not.Ibanez wrote:I disagree. It’s a trial. Trump should be able to confront witnesses and evidence Without that, it’s a true coverup.GannonFan wrote:
What's not already known? Other than the star chamber stuff the HoR did in the basement of the capitol behind closed doors, which I think even that stuff was eventually leaked out in full, what has not already been publicized? This isn't a regular trial with a jury being unacquainted with the case before sitting down to hear it, this is a political trial where everyone has heard all of this stuff for as long as the impeachment inquiry, and prior to it actually, has been going on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, i'm saying that if the Senate doesn't allow the evidence to be admitted nor all any witnesses to be examined, then they are basically rubber stamping an acquittal. How can you possibly have a trial without presenting any evidence? Yes, we all know what has been said and what not, but evidence still needs to be submitted. It was done so in the Clinton Impeachment.GannonFan wrote:What's being covered up? We all know what was done at this point. Trump was going to use the money as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate Hunter's deal with Burisma. Legally, he couldn't hold it for more than a month and a half since the fiscal year was coming up, and they held it up for about that long. And when Congress asked about this the White House didn't give them access to anyone and everyone. That's the evidence that is out there, that's the meat of the articles of impeachment, both the abuse of power and the lack of cooperation with Congress. Again, these are not real trials from the standpoint of a regular courtroom, these are political trials and have always been that way. All that's left now is to formally hear both sides of the argument (the trial) and to vote to remove from office or not.Ibanez wrote: I disagree. It’s a trial. Trump should be able to confront witnesses and evidence Without that, it’s a true coverup.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is in Congress you know that?Ibanez wrote:It all seems extremely shady to me.
But isn't that just a formality? We're in a 24/7 news world, we've heard this evidence over and over again since this all began. Nothing new is being presented, simply just the formal acknowledgment that the evidence is "submitted". Why does that make a difference? Aren't we just getting hung up on a word rather than examining the evidence that's been in plain sight for months now? If a Senator is going to ignore the evidence it doesn't matter if it's "submitted" or not, they're already going to ignore it. And if a Senator is going to vote either to remove from office or not, they can and will already do that knowing all of this evidence, again, whether it is "submitted" or not. The House Managers get to talk for 24 hours about this evidence, heck, they could read it all if they really wanted to.Ibanez wrote:No, i'm saying that if the Senate doesn't allow the evidence to be admitted nor all any witnesses to be examined, then they are basically rubber stamping an acquittal. How can you possibly have a trial without presenting any evidence? Yes, we all know what has been said and what not, but evidence still needs to be submitted. It was done so in the Clinton Impeachment.GannonFan wrote:
What's being covered up? We all know what was done at this point. Trump was going to use the money as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate Hunter's deal with Burisma. Legally, he couldn't hold it for more than a month and a half since the fiscal year was coming up, and they held it up for about that long. And when Congress asked about this the White House didn't give them access to anyone and everyone. That's the evidence that is out there, that's the meat of the articles of impeachment, both the abuse of power and the lack of cooperation with Congress. Again, these are not real trials from the standpoint of a regular courtroom, these are political trials and have always been that way. All that's left now is to formally hear both sides of the argument (the trial) and to vote to remove from office or not.
It all seems extremely shady to me.
So why even have a trial?GannonFan wrote:But isn't that just a formality? We're in a 24/7 news world, we've heard this evidence over and over again since this all began. Nothing new is being presented, simply just the formal acknowledgment that the evidence is "submitted". Why does that make a difference? Aren't we just getting hung up on a word rather than examining the evidence that's been in plain sight for months now? If a Senator is going to ignore the evidence it doesn't matter if it's "submitted" or not, they're already going to ignore it. And if a Senator is going to vote either to remove from office or not, they can and will already do that knowing all of this evidence, again, whether it is "submitted" or not. The House Managers get to talk for 24 hours about this evidence, heck, they could read it all if they really wanted to.Ibanez wrote: No, i'm saying that if the Senate doesn't allow the evidence to be admitted nor all any witnesses to be examined, then they are basically rubber stamping an acquittal. How can you possibly have a trial without presenting any evidence? Yes, we all know what has been said and what not, but evidence still needs to be submitted. It was done so in the Clinton Impeachment.
It all seems extremely shady to me.
Exactly. Clinton vote in Senate was 0-45 by D's and 50-5 R's. Do we really think anyone voted based on evidence?kalm wrote:So why even have a trial?
True. It’s not a vote on innocence. It’s whether his crimes amount to removing him from office.89Hen wrote:Exactly. Clinton vote in Senate was 0-45 by D's and 50-5 R's. Do we really think anyone voted based on evidence?kalm wrote:So why even have a trial?
