Russian Defector Outs Rudy Guilianis
- Thread starter LibbyP
- Start date
Same. Did chuckle at him hoodwinking the same Bernie Bro that 'doesn't believe Project Veritas propaganda'.
Lev Parnas has been indited for Fraud and Money Laundering.
He then decided to try to buy his way out by throwing Trump under the bus for Bull-Schiff...
Upcoming impeachment witness Lev Parnas is a known liar when it comes to information about US aid to Ukraine, according to Ukrainian officials.
https://newspunch.com/ukranian-officials-schift-show-special-witness-lev-parnas-liar/
He then decided to try to buy his way out by throwing Trump under the bus for Bull-Schiff...
Upcoming impeachment witness Lev Parnas is a known liar when it comes to information about US aid to Ukraine, according to Ukrainian officials.
https://newspunch.com/ukranian-officials-schift-show-special-witness-lev-parnas-liar/
Michael Cohen
Stormy Daniels
Michael Avenatti
Gen Flynn
Robert Mueller
Omarosa
John Bolton
When will the sheep learn?
The National Inquirer and the Globe said they were credible sources?
The Collusion News Network said it without equal.
#fakenews
The nyslims hasn’t seen the transcript
It’s doesn’t matter it’s not impeachable
The Constitution requires high crimes and misdemeanors. None yet. And Bolton will provide one? Unlikely.
Nothing done or implied is impeachable and that is the truth. Good point, Sir.
This is why I don't waste my time arguing with libs like @DGlockUF @BSC911 and @LizardGrad89. They won't listen and the facts will shortly come out to prove your case anyway, so why waste your time?
It's the House's job to investigate and provide the evidence.
It;s the Senate's job to hear the house's evidence and vote on it.
It's NOT the Senate's job to call more witnesses.
This fiasco should end by Friday if the Senate does it's job correctly on the weak non-bipartisan excuse for evidence that was provided by the House.
The House didn't get it right from the get-go.
We'll soon see if the Senate can get their part right...
It;s the Senate's job to hear the house's evidence and vote on it.
It's NOT the Senate's job to call more witnesses.
This fiasco should end by Friday if the Senate does it's job correctly on the weak non-bipartisan excuse for evidence that was provided by the House.
The House didn't get it right from the get-go.
We'll soon see if the Senate can get their part right...
RINOs (Trump haters) may prevent the Senate from properly doing it's job.
Let me help you out in understanding what high crimes and misdemeanors means with the following copy and paste:
"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons.[5] Toward the end of the 1700s, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor...was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.[6]
The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust".[7] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself".[7] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[1][8]
Hope this helps.
It's not so much that you won't argue, it's that you make crazy statements without an ounce of proof or facts. Prove or retract, that's all I'm saying.
How long until Dewlilly finishes this report? There have been like 10 so far on this topic, will the Republicans stop calling for new ones if they finally get one they like?
The Senate's job is a fair trial. I would say the biggest barrier to that are the Trump lovers, not the haters.
When was the last time you saw a trial and the jury foreman was doing his best to keep witnesses off the stand?
Beats me. Some yahoo the Republicans have trotted out to write a "report" to contradict all the reports written by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the special prosecutor, the Justice Department and God knows who else. You know, the guy you keep telling us to "keep watching" over.
Maybe you can help we the ignorant out some more.
You'll define for us math's simplest equation.
You'll define for us the simplest of the seven components of critical thinking.
You'll tell us the number among us who have a fear of heights.
The "ignorant" among us can answer these questions, among those which you can't.
Last edited:
I think you mean John Durham. Then again you get your information from such shit sources you may have heard there is a Dewilly, who knows. I think you sound like a Dewilly right about now.
So you're saying the prosecution didn't make it's case, and needs to call more witnesses?
If the dems didn't make their case, why did the case leave the House? Doesn't that mean this sham should be thrown out immediately?
See what happens when you think for yourself?
Rush just played a soundbyte from D Richard Blumenthal who yesterday admitted that there was NO EVIDENCE for the dem's case and that is why we NEED WITNESSES.
If there was no evidence for the dem's case, then it never should have left the House. Right, @LizardGrad89?
If there was no evidence for the dem's case, then it never should have left the House. Right, @LizardGrad89?
In the Constitution, it's 'The FULL HOUSE' that can begin an Impeachment Inquiry.
NOT the 'Speaker of the House.'
And NOT any 'Committee of the House.'
They can only begin by a VOTE of the FULL HOUSE on the question of an Impeachment.
This was NOT done. Pil-O-See unconstitutionally took it upon herself to begin the inquiry.
She alone then delegated the inquiry to Bull-Schiff and his Intelligence committee.
(should have gone to the Judicial committee,,, AFTER a vote of the Full House)
This is why the Executive refused any and all subpoenas that were issued before a vote of the FULL House on Impeachment. Because they were ALL LEGALLY INVALID.
Any Demorat dares to invoke 'Fair Trial or Fair Treatment' after denying them to the President for the entire House Inquiry??? WTF over....
The Impeachment Inquiry was incorrectly begun by a clueless Pil-O-See...
It was incorrectly delegated to Bull-Schiff who took it to a secure basement bunker.
All Republicans were disallowed to even be present, much less participate.
When they finally brought out their privately coached witnesses for public display:
The President couldn't have legal council present.
The President couldn't cross examine Demorat witnesses.
The President couldn't call any defense witnesses.of his own.
And that's just the 'tip of the iceberg' of the Demorats unfairness....
Oh BTW. Where is the so-called 'whistleblower' that started all this crap, after he got coached up in private by ole Bull-Schiff?
NOT the 'Speaker of the House.'
And NOT any 'Committee of the House.'
They can only begin by a VOTE of the FULL HOUSE on the question of an Impeachment.
This was NOT done. Pil-O-See unconstitutionally took it upon herself to begin the inquiry.
She alone then delegated the inquiry to Bull-Schiff and his Intelligence committee.
(should have gone to the Judicial committee,,, AFTER a vote of the Full House)
This is why the Executive refused any and all subpoenas that were issued before a vote of the FULL House on Impeachment. Because they were ALL LEGALLY INVALID.
Any Demorat dares to invoke 'Fair Trial or Fair Treatment' after denying them to the President for the entire House Inquiry??? WTF over....
The Impeachment Inquiry was incorrectly begun by a clueless Pil-O-See...
It was incorrectly delegated to Bull-Schiff who took it to a secure basement bunker.
All Republicans were disallowed to even be present, much less participate.
When they finally brought out their privately coached witnesses for public display:
The President couldn't have legal council present.
The President couldn't cross examine Demorat witnesses.
The President couldn't call any defense witnesses.of his own.
And that's just the 'tip of the iceberg' of the Demorats unfairness....
Oh BTW. Where is the so-called 'whistleblower' that started all this crap, after he got coached up in private by ole Bull-Schiff?
Last edited:
@DGlockUF @bradleygator @LizardGrad89 @BSC911 well everyone knows who he is now. LMAO!
I almost feel sorry for you guys for continuing to do this to yourselves. Almost.
I see the word accused. I don't see the word convicted.
Still America, bub, no matter how much you try to make it Russia.
Ok, let me try to explain to you how this works, since you obviously have zero clue.
The House is the Grand Jury. They are not looking at guilt or innocence, only if there is standing for a trial. If they decide it should go to trial, it goes to trial, where the merits of the case are decided.
Now let me explain how witnesses work. Witness testimony is considered evidence. So if there are witnesses, there is evidence.
Really, you make this too easy.
Correct, even the liberals in Russia would have known better than to pull this stunt.
Senate is Judge, Jury and Executioner...Roberts is just there to keep order and remove the VP from the conflict of interest involving a trial of the President...any action he takes or ruling he makes can be over ruled by a simple majority of Senators under rule for impeachments. The House is merely the prosecution. They bring their case and present it. Their witnesses have already testified and testimony registered. They didn't even give the president a chance in the House at a fair defense.
They the House aka prosecution must ask the Judge, aka the Senate if they want new witnesses. It is not the Senates job to call them or look for new evidence or to go on fishing expeditions. If they decide no new witnesses are needed then that is their right as Judge. As Jury they need 2/3rds to convict and as executioner they remove if that is the case.
Dems in the Senate want to act as if they are part of the prosecution by aiding the dems in the House. Sorry not their job. They are Jurors and Judgements will come from the majority. Also not them.
Nadless and Sh*tty should be told no and a vote taken on removal. No one knows whats in Bolton's book for sure and no witness should be called based in speculation by hostile third parties pushing an unprovable narrative.
Thanks to Mark Levin a video of Bolton refuting everything that is ALLEGED to be in the book has surfaced. If the allegations of what was said in the book are true then he lied in the interview or in the book. That one story is false would call his entire credibility into question and such evidence would be suspect at that point.
However I will say I feel the media is again lying as they have for almost 3 and a half years and I would bet there is no such passages in the book or they are out of context/exaggerated or as in the case of Sondland a perception not based in actual verbatim conversations.
Lastly, even if true and verbatim, it is clear that Trump never actually put the squeeze on Zelensky so even if he thought about a quid pro quo he never followed though in it because Zelensky was never explicitly threatened/bribed/cajoled/ or even sweet talked into any action aka the quid.
They the House aka prosecution must ask the Judge, aka the Senate if they want new witnesses. It is not the Senates job to call them or look for new evidence or to go on fishing expeditions. If they decide no new witnesses are needed then that is their right as Judge. As Jury they need 2/3rds to convict and as executioner they remove if that is the case.
Dems in the Senate want to act as if they are part of the prosecution by aiding the dems in the House. Sorry not their job. They are Jurors and Judgements will come from the majority. Also not them.
Nadless and Sh*tty should be told no and a vote taken on removal. No one knows whats in Bolton's book for sure and no witness should be called based in speculation by hostile third parties pushing an unprovable narrative.
Thanks to Mark Levin a video of Bolton refuting everything that is ALLEGED to be in the book has surfaced. If the allegations of what was said in the book are true then he lied in the interview or in the book. That one story is false would call his entire credibility into question and such evidence would be suspect at that point.
However I will say I feel the media is again lying as they have for almost 3 and a half years and I would bet there is no such passages in the book or they are out of context/exaggerated or as in the case of Sondland a perception not based in actual verbatim conversations.
Lastly, even if true and verbatim, it is clear that Trump never actually put the squeeze on Zelensky so even if he thought about a quid pro quo he never followed though in it because Zelensky was never explicitly threatened/bribed/cajoled/ or even sweet talked into any action aka the quid.
No the Senate is the jury. The judge is the judge. There is no executioner because there is only one outcome for a guilty verdict, no need for a judge to hand down a sentence.
Note how they have lawyers doing all the talking? That's because it's a TRIAL.
Nope the Senate as a whole acts as the Judge. Roberts is basically a figure head substitute for the VP who normally presides over impeachments. VP was constitutionally excluded from this roll since a conviction makes him president. Just a minor conflict of interest.
And in a normal court a jury cant override the judges decisions from the bench but the Senate can.
Note that it will be McConnell and the pubs that ultimately decide on any new witnesses. Jurors don't do that Judges do. This is not a normal trial or court room because of the 3 roles played by the Senate. The House which the founders knew would sometimes be ruled by the passions of fools aka democrats/leftist/socialists was purposelessly given the job of grand jury and prosecution.
The trusted body of supposed thinkers sent to the legislature via the states legislatures later subverted by the mob under the 17th amendment pretty much handles this case to ferret out the political motives of the House from actual crimes.
It then weighs the crime if there is one vs the politics involved and determines if the balance between the two warrants removal. Clinton the perjurer and only legitimately impeached president was acquitted of his impeachable offense due to the political inclinations of the democrats... they are corrupt unscrupulous b*stards who let a clearly guilty Clinton skate because they could get away with it.
Tell us the name of the person who you think is the judge. Please please PLEASE say you think it's John Roberts LMAO!
