- The Les Parnas interview

- OMB email about withholding funds

- GAO saying withholding funds was illegal

- The Bolton manuscript

Obviously coordinated stunts.

Think about this.  If Trump was trying to get Bolton and the fired US Ambassador to Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma when they say, HOW COULD THE INVESTIGATION BE MOTIVATED TO HURT A POLITICAL OPPONENT WHEN BIDEN HAD NOT ANNOUNCED HE WAS RUNNING THEN?

Trump has been consistent about trying to find out what happened in Ukraine regarding 2016 election interfering since long before Biden was a candidate for 2020.  So, any accusations Trump is using this to unfairly dig up dirt on a political opponent is totally false.  It's logically impossible based on the info reported over the last week.

In trying to resuscitate their impeachment case, the Dems have proven their theory of Trump's motivations completely false.

Biden announced he was running for president in April 2019. Trump's request for an investigation was made in July 2019. 

And on your previous point, impeachment does not have to be for a criminal violation.

Biden announced he was running for president in April 2019. Trump's request for an investigation was made in July 2019. 

And on your previous point, impeachment does not have to be for a criminal violation.

Trump was RECORDED saying to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch on April 30, 2018 -- more than a year before your stated date.

Trump supposedly said he wanted the Ukraine President to investigate Russia meddling the 2016 election as it relates to Barisma and Biden -- according to today's "bombshell" from Bolton.  That was August 2019.  That conversation has no bearing on the case,  since no other witness has testified Trump ever said that.  In fact, Sondland testified Trump told him in August, "I want nothing ... I only want Zelensky to do the right thing."  Unless Bolton recorded the exchange, he's just a disgruntled ex-employee trying to gin up hype to sell books.  If he has this info before, don't you think the House would have pushed to get Bolton to testify instead of DROPPING the subpoena?

Your continued harping on a technical debate point (which has never been used in US history until the Schiff Show) is noted.  Every other impeachment included charges that at least one federal law was broken.  These articles are vague and, according to testimony today, unconstitutional.

Let me guess, Santa Claus? 

Col. Vindhams brother...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Col. Vindhams brother...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Sorry, being sarcastic.

I just finished watching Professor Alan Dershowitz impeachment presentation on the constitutionality of the 2 impeachment articles. It is over an hour, but worth watching if this is interesting to you. It is powerful in the fact he is a liberal and a constitutional scholar. His completely non partisan interpretation of the constitution (whose interpretation he came to before the impeachment started) comes to the conclusion that the articles of impeachment are not up to the standards and the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. I would think to those that really think the Democrats have any sort of case whatsoever will be swayed after watching this. He literally blows their case completely out of the water.

Not watching this circus joke, but read one of the defense guys brought up Øbowel's :

"I'll have more flexibility after the election"  as a very clear quid pro quo that did not bother democrats in the slightest.

I don't watch Maddow or MSNBC, much of what I got was from the arguments made by the prosecution side that I listened to live.

It was just a figure of speech about Maddow.  But pretty much all the fake news agencies have been running the same story with the same key phrases being used.  I stopped getting info from them when they started to push the fake Russia story.  Now with the internet, there are many sources of real info that can be accessed by the public.  You just have to know how to search.  Googling and using the first page of links is most likely not a good search.

So everything the prosecution said, is what has been said on the fake news.  Of which I looked into and have been total BS.  No new info was released that was previously kept classified.

Democratic Senators Admit Impeachment Trial Has No “Evidence”

https://thegreggjarrett.com/dem-senators-admit-impeachment-trial-has-no-evidence/

Warren and Durbin?

Anyone with half a brain and no animosity towards the president already sees there is no evidence here.

Col. Vindhams brother...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

"Oh say can you see...."

Democratic Senators Admit Impeachment Trial Has No “Evidence”

https://thegreggjarrett.com/dem-senators-admit-impeachment-trial-has-no-evidence/

Warren and Durbin?

Anyone with half a brain and no animosity towards the president already sees there is no evidence here.

Given the comments by the MSM and Democrats in the Senate, as well as many Republican Senators, it would seem to me there are a ton of people who make politics their profession who haven't been keeping up with the House impeachment circus.  They seem to be shocked that Schiff is lying about having "overwhelming and compelling evidence" of Trump being a national security threat, threat to our democracy/republic, threat to our elections, etc, etc.

Trump was RECORDED saying to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch on April 30, 2018 -- more than a year before your stated date.

Trump supposedly said he wanted the Ukraine President to investigate Russia meddling the 2016 election as it relates to Barisma and Biden -- according to today's "bombshell" from Bolton.  That was August 2019.  That conversation has no bearing on the case,  since no other witness has testified Trump ever said that.  In fact, Sondland testified Trump told him in August, "I want nothing ... I only want Zelensky to do the right thing."  Unless Bolton recorded the exchange, he's just a disgruntled ex-employee trying to gin up hype to sell books.  If he has this info before, don't you think the House would have pushed to get Bolton to testify instead of DROPPING the subpoena?

Your continued harping on a technical debate point (which has never been used in US history until the Schiff Show) is noted.  Every other impeachment included charges that at least one federal law was broken.  These articles are vague and, according to testimony today, unconstitutional.

I was simply correcting the incorrect notion that a crime is necessary for an impeachment for no other purpose than for accuracy sake. I don't care whether that hurts Trump or helps him.

Trump may have indeed wanted to fire Yovanovitch long before this but I don't see how that proves the point he couldn't be motivated to hurt Biden. If you are only talking about Yovanovitch then I would have to concede your point but I was talking about the request to investigate the bidens that was made to Ukraine. Biden was already clearly a strong candidate by the time Trump made the request. Maybe Trump had this whole idea in his head and just waited until a bad time to execute it, who knows?

It was just a figure of speech about Maddow.  But pretty much all the fake news agencies have been running the same story with the same key phrases being used.  I stopped getting info from them when they started to push the fake Russia story.  Now with the internet, there are many sources of real info that can be accessed by the public.  You just have to know how to search.  Googling and using the first page of links is most likely not a good search.

So everything the prosecution said, is what has been said on the fake news.  Of which I looked into and have been total BS.  No new info was released that was previously kept classified.

When I was listening to the prosecution arguments they used lots of recordings straight from the witnesses to help build their case so I know that it wasn't citing some fake news source.

But again, what lends credibility to me is that the defense isn't contesting those statements. Instead they mostly just attached procedure, presidential authority, and justification for the request. I think that if the arguments made by the prosecution were so easily proven false the defense would have attacked them.

When I was listening to the prosecution arguments they used lots of recordings straight from the witnesses to help build their case so I know that it wasn't citing some fake news source.

But again, what lends credibility to me is that the defense isn't contesting those statements. Instead they mostly just attached procedure, presidential authority, and justification for the request. I think that if the arguments made by the prosecution were so easily proven false the defense would have attacked them.

Im sure youre aware that anyone can make a statement. But it doesnt mean its true.

Have u connected the dots to these "witnesses"? Are there any alterior motives or relationships with groups/people who want to see trump impeached since day 1 of office?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

When I was listening to the prosecution arguments they used lots of recordings straight from the witnesses to help build their case so I know that it wasn't citing some fake news source.

But again, what lends credibility to me is that the defense isn't contesting those statements. Instead they mostly just attached procedure, presidential authority, and justification for the request. I think that if the arguments made by the prosecution were so easily proven false the defense would have attacked them.

The defense did prove those witness statements false -- by playing the ENTIRE video clip of the statement, not just the out-of-context, incomplete statement Schiff and Nadler wanted everyone to focus on.

You should get the whole story instead of basing your opinions on lying, cheating, TDS-riddled Democrats who swore to impeach Trump since before he was inaugurated.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/25/watch_live_president_trumps_legal_team_begins_defense_opening_statement.html

Im sure youre aware that anyone can make a statement. But it doesnt mean its true.

Have u connected the dots to these "witnesses"? Are there any alterior motives or relationships with groups/people who want to see trump impeached since day 1 of office?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I am sorting through that. I know that many Trump supporters will try to find even the slightest bias so they can justify not listening to what they testified to.

I don't necessarily believe everything they said to be 100% true but nor do I automatically believe every claim they are lying or have some other motive. I certainly don't believe Trump innocent just because someone heard him say there were no strings attached. A competent person would know to throw out things like that so witnesses could later say they heard him say it.

Where is there evidence that any of the witnesses were lying? Not saying they didn't but I haven't seen evidence of it. And to be clear, evidence of bias isn't proof of a lie.


For Flapp,
Playing the whole clip doesn't show the witnesses to be lying it only adds more context to the statement to keep a democrat from cherry picking the best part for them.

I didn't focus on all the righteous pontificating stuff the democrats were throwing in, I was focusing on the specific facts and testimony for my opinion. I don't have to like the opposing team in the super bowl but I can still admit they are skillful in their play. Democrats assembled a pretty good case here.

I am sorting through that. I know that many Trump supporters will try to find even the slightest bias so they can justify not listening to what they testified to.

I don't necessarily believe everything they said to be 100% true but nor do I automatically believe every claim they are lying or have some other motive. I certainly don't believe Trump innocent just because someone heard him say there were no strings attached. A competent person would know to throw out things like that so witnesses could later say they heard him say it.

Where is there evidence that any of the witnesses were lying? Not saying they didn't but I haven't seen evidence of it. And to be clear, evidence of bias isn't proof of a lie.


For Flapp,
Playing the whole clip doesn't show the witnesses to be lying it only adds more context to the statement to keep a democrat from cherry picking the best part for them.

I didn't focus on all the righteous pontificating stuff the democrats were throwing in, I was focusing on the specific facts and testimony for my opinion. I don't have to like the opposing team in the super bowl but I can still admit they are skillful in their play. Democrats assembled a pretty good case here.

You have to learn to read.

I said the MANGERS (Schiff, Nadler, etc) are lying, not the witnesses.  The witness statements presented by the House Managers are cherry-picked, out-of-context and often contradicted in later testimony.  They presented the narrative-friendly soundbites and ignored the rest.

The statements used were false -- that doesn't mean the statements were lies.  They were presented to the Senate in a dishonest manner.

You only have to listen to the 2 hour opening statement from Saturday to understand.  I challenge you to watch.  If you burst into flames, I'll pay for your dry cleaning.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?468504-1/senate-impeachment-trial-day-6-opening-defense-arguments

I am sorting through that. I know that many Trump supporters will try to find even the slightest bias so they can justify not listening to what they testified to.

Democrats assembled a pretty good case here.

As opposed to rabid TDSers who are essential “f Trump” for everything, even if they agree it’s positive. I’m not a big fan of Trump, but the opposition is rabid and blind to facts.

Good case? Are you serious? I was once on a jury where the prosecution’s case was “liar liar, pants on fire...I know you’re guilty but I can’t prove it”.

I mean there are things that def stink, but did you even listen to the hypocrisy DOCUMENTED...  as in they said those very words not that long ago in Clinton’s impeachment... 

As opposed to rabid TDSers who are essential “f Trump” for everything, even if they agree it’s positive. I’m not a big fan of Trump, but the opposition is rabid and blind to facts.

Good case? Are you serious? I was once on a jury where the prosecution’s case was “liar liar, pants on fire...I know you’re guilty but I can’t prove it”.

I mean there are things that def stink, but did you even listen to the hypocrisy DOCUMENTED...  as in they said those very words not that long ago in Clinton’s impeachment...

When even the MSM is saying Trump is winning impeachment, it's rather ridiculous to opine that the House put on a good case.

They told a good story, made from a patchwork of factoids and connected with the thinnest of threads.   

It took the President's team less than two hours to sever those threads.

The House repeated their story over and over and over and over.  They seemed to think the more times they repeated their conclusions, the more likely the jury would remember those and overlook the fact that they forgot to back them up with actual evidence.

They told a good story, made from a patchwork of factoids and connected with the thinnest of threads.

Quoting of a WaPo article as evidence was super strong... [sarcasm\]

But seriously, if the strength of a case based on opinion (which was actually later countered) and that’s a good case, oh brother...

Quoting of a WaPo article as evidence was super strong... [sarcasm\]

But seriously, if the strength of a case based on opinion (which was actually later countered) and that’s a good case, oh brother...

Correct.  I think EEF sees/hears what he wants to see/hear. 

Never mind there is the IG's testimony transcript taken in the "bunker in the basement" that still hasn't been released to the Republicans/Trump's team, and was not part of the Senate trial.

Why not?  What could there be in that deposition that Schiff doesn't want anyone to hear? 

Perhaps the facts that lead the IG to conclude the complaint by the informant was not only inconsistent with the investigation's facts, but it may also detail why the IG judged the informant to have political bias -- something that factored into why the IG did not treat the complaint as 100% credible?

Perhaps the transcript includes the informant's account of how he contacted Schiff's staff (maybe even Schiff himself), while Schiff is still maintaining he has no idea who the informant is.   

When there's a hidden record of the FIRST PERSON to have received and investigated the complaint that started this whole impeachment still being kept away from EVERYBODY involved, it makes you wonder.  If it was BAD for Trump, I guarantee it would have been front and center last week.  We can only assume it's bad for Schiff's case.