Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...the-rest-of-us

Stay tune for Part 2 when John Durham releases his report and the indictments expected to go along with it.

Weird. I searched that entire report and not one mention of Flynn assisting Horowitz's or anyone else's investigation. You said that Flynn DID just that and that you can prove it. ONCE AGAIN YOU LIED AND FAILED TO PROVE THAT YOU DIDN'T LIE.

Do you not find it troubling that John Durham, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, has a legal obligation to determine whether to investigate Trump's spying and putting out hit men on his own ambassador in Ukraine? That's because the one orchestrating it in the U.S. is Robert Hyde, a Connecticut republican and friend of Trump who is running for congress as I write this. That's right, the same guy running the current "investigation" to prove to us that Ukraine interfered in our elections needs to investigate threats to our ambassador from Trump, who was looking to remove that ambassador because she wouldn't help him the way that Barr and Durham are willing with this phony investigation. Only in the Trump administration.

[Unregistered]

Americans who have been wondering why President Trump has taken the extraordinary step of trying to block every document from being released to Congress in his impeachment inquiry need wonder no longer. The new documents released Tuesday evening by the House Intelligence Committee were devastating to Trump’s continuing — if shifting — defense of his Ukraine extortion scandal, just days before his impeachment trial is likely to begin in the Senate. These new documents demolish at least three key defenses to which Trump and his allies have been clinging: that he was really fighting corruption when he pressured Ukraine on matters related to the Biden family; that Hunter Biden should be called as a witness at the Senate impeachment trial; and that there’s no need for a real, honest-to-goodness trial in the Senate.

The most basic principles of constitutional law require relevant information, including documents and executive branch witnesses, to be turned over to Congress in an impeachment proceeding. Particularly because sitting presidents cannot be indicted, impeachment is the only immediate remedy we the people have against a lawless president. For that remedy to have any teeth, relevant information has to be provided. That’s why President James Polk said that, during impeachment, Congress could “penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments … command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial.” No president, not even Richard Nixon, thought he could just say “no” to impeachment. That’s why the House added Article II to Trump’s impeachment: “Obstruction of Congress.” It was a response to an unprecedented attempt by Trump to hide the truth.

The documents released Tuesday show what Trump has been so afraid of. For starters, they prove that Trump’s already-eyebrow-raising claim to have been fighting corruption in Ukraine was bogus. Notes taken by an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, Lev Parnas — now facing federal criminal charges — show what his and Giuliani’s mission was when they got in touch with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: “get Zalensky to Announce that the Biden case will Be Investigated.” Look hard at the real goal here: not to prompt an investigation of Hunter Biden, but to score an announcement of a Biden investigation. Pursuing an announcement, rather than an investigation, makes sense only if Trump’s objective was to dirty the reputation of a leading political rival, Joe Biden.

[Unregistered]

Well, if every subpoena challenge in court by Trump failed, why didn't Dems subpoena Bolton or pursue Mulvaney, both of whom are said to have direct knowledge unlike all the other witnesses?

Well, because if they were to go through the court system their testimony could not be compelled until after the elections. If Trump and the republicans really want Trump impeached or vindicated based on the vote and will of the people in 2020, they should have no problem allowing these two to testify so that the voters could hear from them. But Trump has already said that he would try to block Bolton even if he is called to testify. Obviously afraid of the truth. As are you. If you weren't you wouldn't be hiding behind obstructionist behavior.

Let's remember, Clinton actually testified under oath. Trump is too scared to let anyone in his cabinet testify. The biggest chicken sh*t and scared to no end liar to ever to step foot in the oval office.

[Unregistered]

Are you that dense???

If the House impeachment was sound based on testimony, why was the impeachment, the one that couldn't be delayed according to Schiff and Pelosi, why didn't Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? Please don't give me the BS that it was delayed because Pelosi wanted clarity on rules for Senate trial because obviously she didn't get what she wanted. What is obvious is Dems were desperate to find something to add to the articles of impeachment and they couldn't find anything. The best they could come up with are the Parnas documents which for reasons I already made, a nothingburger that will not affect the Senate trial.



Well, if every subpoena challenge in court by Trump failed, why didn't Dems subpoena Bolton or pursue Mulvaney, both of whom are said to have direct knowledge unlike all the other witnesses?

Not sure we need Mulvaney's testimony. He already admitted to the American people that Trump did precisely what you claim there is no direct evidence of. As you said above about Giuliani, we already knew this. Or is this not direct evidence of Trump conditioning aid on investigations against democrats?


Mulvaney: "So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." Now, there was a report —"

Q: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

Mulvaney: "The look back to what happened in 2016 —"

Q: "The investigation into Democrats."

Mulvaney: "— certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate."

Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

[Unregistered]

Not sure we need Mulvaney's testimony. He already admitted to the American people that Trump did precisely what you claim there is no direct evidence of. As you said above about Giuliani, we already knew this. Or is this not direct evidence of Trump conditioning aid on investigations against democrats?


Mulvaney: "So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." Now, there was a report —"

Q: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

Mulvaney: "The look back to what happened in 2016 —"

Q: "The investigation into Democrats."

Mulvaney: "— certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate."

Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

Yawn....

Once again, old news that went nowhere.

[Unregistered]

Yawn....

Once again, old news that went nowhere.

That's all the Democrats have, to keep revisiting that which we already are aware.

[Unregistered]

Well, because if they were to go through the court system their testimony could not be compelled until after the elections. If Trump and the republicans really want Trump impeached or vindicated based on the vote and will of the people in 2020, they should have no problem allowing these two to testify so that the voters could hear from them. But Trump has already said that he would try to block Bolton even if he is called to testify. Obviously afraid of the truth. As are you. If you weren't you wouldn't be hiding behind obstructionist behavior.

Let's remember, Clinton actually testified under oath. Trump is too scared to let anyone in his cabinet testify. The biggest chicken sh*t and scared to no end liar to ever to step foot in the oval office.

You keep forgetting the Republicans are in charge now. If Democrats wanted impeachment handled differently then they should have taken care of business when they were in control.

[Unregistered]

What impeachment? The Dem debate sets the stage for Trump's reelection.


Brian Williams, MSNBC: "How is this party going to beat Donald Trump?”

David Plouffe, 2008 Obama campaign manager: “Well, it’s going to be really hard. One of the things that I have a great fear of is I think people see his approval ratings and they assume he’s going to be easy to beat. He’s not. He didn’t run a great campaign in ’16. He’s going to run a great campaign this time. One of Facebook’s executives recently said that Donald Trump and his campaign are the best marketers in the world. Not the best political marketing; the best marketing in the world!”

[Unregistered]

Well, because if they were to go through the court system their testimony could not be compelled until after the elections. If Trump and the republicans really want Trump impeached or vindicated based on the vote and will of the people in 2020, they should have no problem allowing these two to testify so that the voters could hear from them. But Trump has already said that he would try to block Bolton even if he is called to testify. Obviously afraid of the truth. As are you. If you weren't you wouldn't be hiding behind obstructionist behavior.

Let's remember, Clinton actually testified under oath. Trump is too scared to let anyone in his cabinet testify. The biggest chicken sh*t and scared to no end liar to ever to step foot in the oval office.

Here is the resolution from the Clinton impeachment trial that passed 100-0 and laid out the process of the trial, including when witnesses could be called.

https://twitter.com/SenatorLankford/...rce%3Dhomepage

[Unregistered]

What impeachment? The Dem debate sets the stage for Trump's reelection.


Brian Williams, MSNBC: "How is this party going to beat Donald Trump?”

David Plouffe, 2008 Obama campaign manager: “Well, it’s going to be really hard. One of the things that I have a great fear of is I think people see his approval ratings and they assume he’s going to be easy to beat. He’s not. He didn’t run a great campaign in ’16. He’s going to run a great campaign this time. One of Facebook’s executives recently said that Donald Trump and his campaign are the best marketers in the world. Not the best political marketing; the best marketing in the world!”

Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large: "If Buttigieg is the best of the debaters among the top six, then the former vice president is the worst. On Tuesday night he consistently seemed to forget or misstate a point, forcing him to go back and restate it to make sure he got it right. It made for a halting performance, in which he came across as less forceful and sure of himself than others on the stage. Biden also spent a lot of time talking about mistakes he had made on past votes -- support for the war in Iraq being the most prominent -- which doesn't strike me as how his campaign wanted him to spend much debate time."

[Unregistered]

Yawn....

Once again, old news that went nowhere.

This isn't old news. This is a fact that destroys your argument that there is no direct evidence of Trump's clear misconduct and his high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mulvaney admitted to precisely what you continue to claim there is no evidence of. The fact that you and the rest of the republicans want to treat it as if it doesn't exist is on you and the republicans. However this turns out, which I am expecting to be with a Trump resignation, the republicans' decision to ignore this and other direct evidence will not be forgotten by us, our children or the history books.

[Unregistered]

Level Parnas and his attorney will be on Rachel Maddow tonight 😆😆😆

[Unregistered]

McConnell has come under criticism for pledging to be in “total coordination” with the White House.

"Do you think [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer is impartial? Do you think [Sen.] Elizabeth Warren is impartial? [Sen.] Bernie Sanders is impartial? So let's quit the charade. This is a political exercise. ... All I'm asking of Schumer is that we treat Trump the same way we treated [President] Clinton." - Mitch McConnell

And you ate this up. The impeachments are completely different.

-Clinton testified under oath. Trump didn't.
-Clinton did not prevent witnesses from testifying. Trump did.
-The house and the senate received a 500 page report from Starr based on interviews, depositions and investigations that spanned over a year.
-Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor or even share any of this information with Congress. A whistle blower told the American people and now Trump would like him to testify.

-Trump's people involved in this scandal have been indicted (Lev and Igor). Trump has tried to prevent them from testifying or offering evidence. The evidence that Lev offered is terrible for Trump.

Big difference between how Clinton and Trump conducted themselves. Trump hid the evidence. Clinton made it available. Trump is afraid to testify. Clinton wasn't. So if republicans are ok with no witnesses or evidence, they'll vote that way and most will understand why.

And before you start telling me that the senate cannot consider evidence or witnesses not considered by the house then I'd ask you to point me to anything in our constitution or any body of law that says this. You can't because it doesn't exist.

It's pretty simple really. If Trump is innocent he should have no concern about testifying under oath.

[Unregistered]

Oh Cons. What to do? What to do? Lol

[Unregistered]

Nancy: “Nobody is happy about impeachment”. “This is a sad day”.

Also Nancy, with a big smile on her face: “Here’s your trophy pen. And here’s your pen. And yours. And yours.”

Shlt even CNN was appalled.

#liberal hypocrisy