Newtonag said:
Chance/Gary,
Serious question...when Trump is not impeached and is re-elected in November, will you contemplate suicide? I'm actually worried for you(s)
He's been impeached bra.
***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****
965,393 Views |
9220 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Pizza
He's been impeached bra.
Can't wait till Trump is acquitted and Gary Chance runs away to avoid eating all this crow
My bad bro
The comments section... they see Trump the way we see Clinton. It's insane how people draw such different conclusions from the same available information.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478528-parnas-reveals-new-accusations-against-trump-in-maddow-interview#
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478528-parnas-reveals-new-accusations-against-trump-in-maddow-interview#
Like Gary, they only believe what they want to believe. Truth is meaningless.
Chance Chase McMasters said:bmks270 said:
If the letter was given to Trump how did it end up in this photo, apparently unopened?
By taking a picture of it before you deliver it.
Perry Mason is on the case.
Jimmy Valentine said:Rockdoc said:houag80 said:
I truly don't know why staff allows this troll to continue this schtick. It's not like he pays to play.
It ok for a poster to be anti Trump, just like it's ok to be pro Trump. Problem is, he baits posters with hateful rhetoric, trying to get them to catch a ban. Then when he gets a ban, he just logs in on his sock account. Staff knows it but let's him get away with it.
Staff, is this true?
And if it is, can you explain how Rockdoc knows this?
Come on Lot. Let's argue about selling an extra tea.
If you don't know it, you're the only one.
Chance Chase McMasters said:bmks270 said:
If the letter was given to Trump how did it end up in this photo, apparently unopened?
By taking a picture of it before you deliver it.
That's a bit odd.
Because staff had the ability to think.
You should try it before you post
The Libs demands proof here but is just fine with the Dems "evidence" of hearsay and conjecture and "Orange Man Bad!"
The Irony
We See It
The Irony
We See It
My day is complete
Chance Chase McMasters said:Trump appointee Fiona Hill testified as first hand witness to QPQ in WH meeting with the Ukrainians. Bolton and Sondland were present and she immediately reported it to NSA lawyers. It was not disputed when Republicans asked questions. One example of many involving direct testimony and documentary evidence. It was included in the charges listed in Article 1.Quote:
just fine with the Dems "evidence" of hearsay and conjecture
That shovel in your hand needs a new home.
No one is going to care about this. He can fire an ambassador for what they have on their desk. In other words, no reason at all. Especially if they had been there and de-facto would be suspect to a prior corruption at the time of a change of government. If Yovonavitch is all this is about its going to fizzle.
Chance Chase McMasters said:Trump appointee Fiona Hill testified as first hand witness to QPQ in WH meeting with the Ukrainians. Bolton and Sondland were present and she immediately reported it to NSA lawyers. It was not disputed when Republicans asked questions. One example of many involving direct testimony and documentary evidence. It was included in the charges listed in Article 1.Quote:
just fine with the Dems "evidence" of hearsay and conjecture
The problem that you have here is that many of us listened to the testimony first hand instead of relying on lying accounts from MSNBC, CNN, et al. We know that none of the testimony gave anything that would support impeachment. Actually the only first hand witnesses testified that Trump said no QPQ.
The whole Shiff show demonstrated that the dems don't care about the country, just political power. Sad.
Of course, but don't tell chase/Gary. He's on a roll.titan said:
No one is going to care about this. He can fire an ambassador for what they have on their desk. In other words, no reason at all. Especially if they had been there and de-facto would be suspect to a prior corruption at the time of a change of government. If Yovonavitch is all this is about its going to fizzle.
Chance Chase McMasters said:bmks270 said:Chance Chase McMasters said:bmks270 said:
If the letter was given to Trump how did it end up in this photo, apparently unopened?
By taking a picture of it before you deliver it.
That's a bit odd.
It is. Good idea to keep receipts if you're afraid they'll throw you under the bus later.
But Lev is not an innocent bystander, it's starting to look like it was his idea to get rid of Yovanovitch. Giuliani and Parnas were feeding Trump lies trying to get her fired so they could continue their criming unimpeded.
How about this:
That's a bit
I doubt Parnas' claims. He is making accusations without much evidence. It's all hearsay.
He has an envelope, that he (conveniently) photographs (if we accept it is not a forgery), then uses it to accuse Trump, with no evidence of its content.
Here is my hypothesis. Parnas is a swap rat who tried to leverage Trump or his team for his own selfish interests, Trump said F-off and is charging him for his criminal conduct, and now Parnas is going after him.
I see the cockroach is back out tonight!
Let me help, she was corrupt as hell. Hth
Let me help, she was corrupt as hell. Hth
The shear irony of this! Lol Of all the wishful posters you're the king.Chance Chase McMasters said:Quote:
Here is my hypothesis. Parnas is a swap rat who tried to leverage Trump or his team for his own selfish interests
For sure Lev was in it for Lev but the rest of your hypothesis is wishful thinking. Parnas idolized Trump, he had a Trump memorabilia "shrine" in his house. Trump authorized a joint defense agreement with him just 3 months ago.
Cell phone pictures have timestamps and these are seized documents. They were seized at the airport when Parnas was headed to Vienna to continue the "secret mission" while he was still on team MAGA.
It was already reported Sessions lobbied to fire Yovanovitch well before this thing broke.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pete-sessions-appears-to-be-congressman-1-ensnared-in-guiliani-associates-indictment
My "wishful thinking" is also a plausible scenario known as "reasonable doubt."
There is no evidence outside of the word of Lev Parnas. Not enough to convict or impeach. 97% of people who are taking sides and drawing conclusions about Parnas' honesty are doing it based based on their pre-existing bias (good or bad) towards Trump.
The problem you face, and the problem the democrats face, is that the democrats (and most media) for the past 4 years have proven themselves to be fantastical liars. Frankley, if it comes from Schiff's mouth it's a lie. If it comes from Maddow or CNN it's usually deception by omission.
Lev Parnas, making claims after facing criminal charges, doesn't have enough credibility. To impeach Trump more solid evidence is required.
The accusations surrounding the call with Ukraine were proven to be a lie once the transcript was released.
Democrats and the media put forward complete lying lunatics to attack Kavanaugh.
Schiff lies with every sentence he speaks.
Anyone drawing conclusions based on words of democrats or the media or a guy like Lev Parnas are foolish. The most concrete evidence I've seen is a photo of a sealed envelope, that we don't know the contents. And I'm a bit skeptical of that letter and it's contents because taking such a photo is a bit fishy to begin with. The types who'd be so calculated are rarely honest people in my experience.
It's more likely that Parnas is just doing everything he can to save himself from his criminal charges than it is he's making truthful allegations against Trump. It could be both, but there is no evidence except for the word of Parnas.
There is no evidence outside of the word of Lev Parnas. Not enough to convict or impeach. 97% of people who are taking sides and drawing conclusions about Parnas' honesty are doing it based based on their pre-existing bias (good or bad) towards Trump.
The problem you face, and the problem the democrats face, is that the democrats (and most media) for the past 4 years have proven themselves to be fantastical liars. Frankley, if it comes from Schiff's mouth it's a lie. If it comes from Maddow or CNN it's usually deception by omission.
Lev Parnas, making claims after facing criminal charges, doesn't have enough credibility. To impeach Trump more solid evidence is required.
The accusations surrounding the call with Ukraine were proven to be a lie once the transcript was released.
Democrats and the media put forward complete lying lunatics to attack Kavanaugh.
Schiff lies with every sentence he speaks.
Anyone drawing conclusions based on words of democrats or the media or a guy like Lev Parnas are foolish. The most concrete evidence I've seen is a photo of a sealed envelope, that we don't know the contents. And I'm a bit skeptical of that letter and it's contents because taking such a photo is a bit fishy to begin with. The types who'd be so calculated are rarely honest people in my experience.
It's more likely that Parnas is just doing everything he can to save himself from his criminal charges than it is he's making truthful allegations against Trump. It could be both, but there is no evidence except for the word of Parnas.
Chance Chase McMasters said:
You're about 200 pages behind. I suggest some catch up reading if you still think Yovanovitch(who Trump appointed) was the problem here.
The origin of the "Yovanovitch is dirty" story was manufactured by Parnas, Giuliani, Lutsenko, and the Russian mob. They were all feeding disinformation to Trump, Pompeo, and Sessions.Quote:
Firtash's motives aren't hard to grasp. As he fights extradition, he has obvious reasons to want to ingratiate himself with Trump. It was in his interest to see the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, fired, because her work against corruption particularly her support for the reform-minded chief executive of Naftogaz threatened his business interests.
Who is Dmitry Firtash? A Ukrainian oligarch, pro Russian mobster with KGB ties according to the justice department.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/firtashd/df_indictment_final_stamped_6-20-13.pdf
Doesn't matter, firing an ambassador based on lies isn't a big deal.
This thread has been flying, but I'd like to dig deeper into the impoundment theory (gary, chance, whoever).
Reading the latimes piece that was linked like 20 pages ago: Tell me if I got the internal machinations of this Ukraine aid correct.
Congress order the DOD to give money to Ukraine by September 30th. Trump blocks the money from hitting the DOD account for ~ 2 months, but before the deadline, full funds the DOD account for the two months. But because of other laws/internal controls, large lump sums can't just be spent by the DOD in time to reach the apportioned amount, making the executive likely run afoul of the law. This means congress needed a law to extend the time DOD has to spend that money that was paused for 45-60 days.
Does that describe the situation as you see it (gary, chance, whoever)?
Reading the latimes piece that was linked like 20 pages ago: Tell me if I got the internal machinations of this Ukraine aid correct.
Congress order the DOD to give money to Ukraine by September 30th. Trump blocks the money from hitting the DOD account for ~ 2 months, but before the deadline, full funds the DOD account for the two months. But because of other laws/internal controls, large lump sums can't just be spent by the DOD in time to reach the apportioned amount, making the executive likely run afoul of the law. This means congress needed a law to extend the time DOD has to spend that money that was paused for 45-60 days.
Does that describe the situation as you see it (gary, chance, whoever)?
Democrats seem awfully scared of Hunter Biden testifying. Willing to give up calling witnesses so that Hunter Biden is not called to testify?
Quote:
House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., has suggested that, if a trade is needed to secure House witnesses, the managers will not agree to any witnesses if Hunter Biden is part of the deal. If true, is the House prepared to give up on proving its case to protect the Bidens from the ignoble moment of answering questions about the Ukraine contract?
So, asserting his Constitutional right to a defense that includes presenting his own witnesses, is part of a "cover-up" now? Dems are chasing their own tails now.Quote:
Nadler insisted on Face the Nation that all "relevant witnesses must be heard" meaning their witnesses. Yet, if allowing witnesses meant Hunter Biden being called, he suggested that they would reject any deal and any witnesses. He dismissed any negotiation as a cover up: "Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses, or even that witnesses should be negotiated, is part of the cover-up."
As I previously noted, under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, courts will often review possible testimony under the standard of whether "it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, Congress enacted a statute reaffirming the right of the "defense to make any proof that he can produce by lawful witnesses" in cases of treason and capitol cases. This right to present a defense has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court including in the 1967 opinion in Washington v. Texas, where the Court ruled that "the right to offer the testimony of witnesses and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present the defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts . . . Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense."
Featured Stories
See All
71:47
7h ago
1.1k
LiucciCast with Sean Porter: Reuniting with Terrence Frederick
by Billy Liucci
14:31
13h ago
1.5k
9:57
12h ago
2.1k
2:44
1d ago
9.2k
31:28
1d ago
6.8k
Offense in Review feat. Stephen McGee: Texas A&M 21, Arkansas 17
by Billy Liucci