Adam Schiff has pursued Donald Trump with a religious fervor. He desperately want Trump out of office and will resort to just about anything to that end. Of late he is conducting secret impeachment proceedings, having failed to produce his mysterious Russian collusion evidence. In his zeal he has made a gigantic error- his “whistleblowers.”
#1- Eric Ciaramella
- registered democrat
- Contacted Schiff’s office first
- Had whistleblower forms changed just for him
- worked for John Brennan
- worked with Alexandra Chalupa, who sought and obtained 2016 Ukranian election in interference
- worked for Joe Biden
- left post at NSC under cloud of leaking
- authored the “Putin told Trump to fire Comey” story
- disapproved of Trump foreign policy
- He lied about Trumps’s phone call: “I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’ s support of Ukraine.” Trump made no such demand.
- Actively worked with Ukraine against Giuliani and Trump
- He thinks he controls foreign policy
This from the article: “he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy…” There is a huge fallacy in this. Anyone know what it is? https://t.co/L1Jfgck6G2
— Brit Hume (@brithume) November 2, 2019
Vindman clearly does not understand government. Foreign policy is what the President wants it to be, not what he or Ciaramella want it to be.
Why was Vindman, an 0-5, engaging in unsanctioned foreign policy discussions with Ukrainian officials behind the back of the President of the United States?
There is nothing remotely OK with that.
— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) October 29, 2019
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1189186557929897984
Neither Ciararmella nor Vindman had a problem with Joe Biden threatening to withhold aid to the Ukraine unless the prosecutor investigating the company on whose board Hunter Biden sat was fired.
Neither was bothered by the inherent Ukrainian corruption.
This is why I doubt that democrats will actually impeach Trump, but rather try to cause death by a thousand leaks.
If Trump is impeached, this all moves to the Senate where the GOP rules. A trial would include subpoenas – of Ciaramella and Vindman. It would mean testifying under oath. It would mean questions-
Did John Brennan ask them to spy on Trump?
Were they in contact with John Brennan during this time?
What was Joe Biden’s role in all of this?
What did obama know and when did he know it?
Is hillary clinton involved?
It is no wonder Ciaramella got cold feet but it’s too late. Schiff made a yuge error dragging them into this. Now they’re fair game.
When you actively undermine the President from within you are not a whistleblower. You’re a criminal.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
And to the surprise of absolutely no one…
@Deplorable Me: Does anyone think he will allow republican questions that might reveal some truth, or stop leading his so called witnesses once he is in front of cameras? Reading a transcript it was like a Hannity interview. At least seeing it will allow the interpretation of body language, and voice inflection, are they squirming or verbally, you know, trying to keep on the impeachment script.
In Hills transcript she defended Soros, implying anyone questioning his connections was anti-semetic. (hunny he was on the nazi’s side) Unlike the fired Ukrainian ambassador she didnt say Hannity got her friend fired, (Hannity suggested he would sue for defamation) but fox news and John Soloman.
Why are they attacking the Press are they trying to kill the first amendment for the press?
@kitt: Schitt says he won’t investigate “sham claims”. Now, THAT’S funny.
@Deplorable Me: Sham Claims that US tax dollars were funneled into a corrupt company that hired a powerful politicians drug addled kid? Who or what entity actually says where aid is funneled, majority of State Department and USAID-administered assistance is channeled to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like Concern Worldwide. STFU I thought is was for the countries , its for NGOs? How many NGOs is Soros involved in here and overseas? How are our interests served by giving them our tax dollars?
How does this help any Presidents foreign policy? Investigating this could be very enlightening. What NGOs in Ukraine did aid go to during Barrys admin?
@kitt: The whole thing is a Schamm.
Schiff is going to keep the House impeachment investigation steady on course.
Trump and his enablers can whine all they want about not being allowed to interrogate the whistleblower. It’s nothing more than another bullshit effort to discredit the process by pretending it’s something other than an entirely legitimate and absolutely necessary investigation.
How many truly significant witnesses has the White House ordered to unlawfully defy congressional subpoenas to come forward and testify?
Where’s the outrage about that?
@Deplorable Me: Do you think Hill doesnt want Soros demonized is because of the many millions his NGOs siphon out of US coffers world wide?
Trump confidante Roger Stone broke the bombshell in May 2017, revealing that Hill was serving as Soros’ mole under the supervision of former NSA adviser H.R. McMaster.
The video below shows Trump confidante Roger Stone in July 2017 warning that he was told he would be “targeted for annihilation” by the FBI for exposing the mole.
Stone was raided by the FBI and arrested in January.
Fiona Hill worked for the George Soros Open Society Institute from 2000-2006, just 13 years ago.
Pulling people like this and the suspected WB fired for leaking then welcomed back by the CIA, into the White House inner circle is why McMasters was canned.
@Greg:
Seperation of powers, national security. We cant let Schiff know anything about confidences in the White House. Schiff is a proven security risk was regularly releasing information about closed door meetings to the press. Not the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth but cherry picked BS the media spun as bombshells.
Pretty much nothing burgers.
Roger Stone has been indicted for witness tampering, obstructing an official proceeding, and five counts of making false statements. He’s a cartoon character with a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back. I won’t speculate about the psychology involved with that any more than about Rudy’s penchant for wearing blond wigs and fishnet stockings, but he probably knows some interesting Russians.
@Greg:
Yeah, the course towards the outcome he has already arrived at. Let’s not get this confused with anything just or Constitutional. More like the People’s Court that tried the July 20, 1944 conspirators. No witnesses supporting the defendants were allowed and the results were predetermined.
Police state crap. Third world banana republic police state.
This “process” has no semblance or resemblance to anything justice related. To hell with the Constitution, Democrats can’t risk having voters decide between Trump and one of their dumbass idiots; impeach Trump on fabricated charges backed by hearsay and opinion or, at least, slander him with an impeachment “inquiry”. IF justice is served, your Democrats are in a world of trouble.
Well, NONE. NO ONE with direct knowledge of the call (but for the biased, leaking, disloyal hack Vindman) have been called. The Democrat’s entire case is built upon opinion and gossip. The only SOLID evidence (the transcript) disproves all accusations.
Why did Schitt meet with the “whistle blower” before the complaint was filed and help him get lawyers? Then, why did Schitt lie about it?
Which happens to be some of the infractions Schitt has committed. Coincidence?
In the context of the impeachment process, he’s the equivalent of a prosecuting attorney. Unlike Trump’s enablers and tools, he doesn’t see his duty to the American people as covering the President’s posterior.
@Greg: Your homophobic comments aside, I pointed out what the Russian expert and star witness said about Mr Steele. in another thread,
Fiona Hill the mole
“And also, the point that actually hasn’t come out and,
again, why I’ve been very cross in the media, is that the
President was attacked as well because the Russians sought
to discredit him. (She is an expert on Russia,I guess no more invites to DNC events)
Isnt it time to stop imagining Russians under your bed and in your closet?
@Greg:
In any context you wish to use, he’s a dickhead. He’s an unscrupulous liar. He is pursuing impeachment on Trump for what Biden, not Trump, did. Like the entire Russian collusion farce (which, I remind you, Schitt said he had evidence PROVING Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016), every bit of “evidence” is a fabrication.
Schitt sees his duty to his party and moving the US towards a socialist police state. He should be tried for treason when this is disposed of, along with everyone else that supported impeachment based on the evidence on hand.
@Deplorable Me:
Seriously that must be tongue in cheek. Even a prosecuting attorneys witnesses are allowed cross examination by the accused attorneys, except in Shifty weasel zippers kangaroo, charade investigation.
The Prosecuting attorney does not get to approve in advance witnesses for the defense, nor decide what line of defense the defendants attorney shall be entertained.
@Greg:
The equivalent of a prosecuting attorney? Explain. How does Schiff have the authority to prosecute anyone? What court does he serve?
Judas H. Priest, Comrade Greggie, you just make shit up as you go along.
You’re a f***king idiot.
@retire05, #65:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, of the Constitution: “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/impeachment-hearings-republicans-plan-to-put-biden-and-democrats-on-trial-and-schiff-is-not-happy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
Schitt is deathly afraid of open hearing where Republicans can present the evidence of the ongoing coup. If Schitt fails to achieve his goal of destroying Trump, either through impeachment or just innuendo, Schitt himself will be destroyed and he knows it. He and Pelosi have staked everything on this impeachment, which is why they’ve dropped any pretext of having an actual reason to impeach or conducting a fair and honest hearing.
We see what Pelosi REALLY thinks of ethics, or ANY Democrat, for that matter (save those with the courage to vote against this insult to the Constitution). I hope the Republicans have a trick up their sleeve to disrupt this phony display of witch hunting until Schitt is forced to allow them their witnesses.
@Greg: I notice you avoided answering my questions in #60. That speaks volumes as to how legal, fair and Constitutional you REALLY think this insult to our country is.
@kitt:
In a trial.
In. A. Trial.
This is not a trial.
It is possible that there will be a trial, and at that trial different rules will obtain.
You either don’t understand the difference between and impeachment hearing and a trial, despite having it explained to you more than once, or you choose to pretend not to understand. Either way: not a good look.
@Deplorable Me, #67:
It was a rudely stated question, but if you want an answer…
Most likely the whistleblower consulted with Schiff because he or she knew how dangerous going public with such information would be and wanted an assurance of anonymity. The legitimacy of such a concern has been borne out by Trump’s fixation on exposing that person’s identity, when doing so could put the person in danger of retaliation, or even violence.
You might recall that one of the things Barr’s DoJ did early on was to roll out a legal opinion that the whistleblower wasn’t actually protected by whistleblower provisions. That had to be reassuring.
@Greg:
Comrade Greggie, I know you fancy yourself a legal expert and you can bastardize (twist) that clause anyway you want, but it does not give the chair of a committee judicial prosecution powers.
Schitt-for-brains is in trouble. He has denied the opposition party in calling the witnesses they have chosen. Now he, like you, can make up all the bullshit excuses for that he wants, but the fact remains, the American people will see though his excuses like a cheating husband. And remember, Schitt-for-brains has made public comments, not on the floor of the House, that are not protected by the Constitution, and even then, those comments made on the floor of the House of Representatives are not totally protected speech as has been ruled on by the USSC.
W]e expressly leave open for consideration when the case arises a prosecution which, though possibly entailing inquiry into legislative acts or motivations, is founded upon a narrowly drawn statute passed by Congress in the exercise of its legislative power to regulate the conduct of its members.
I see a court in Schitt-for-brains future, as a defendant, if there is any justice left in our nation.
@Greg: @Greg: #66 They have no such power granted through the impeachment process, The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Article 3 section 1
The Prosecutor argument is inane and unconstitutional.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. No where is there an amendment that says Schifty weasel zippers can act as prosecutor.
@Greg:
That’s not the weakest bullshit you’ve ever thrown out, but it’s right up there with the weakest of them. To be a “whistle blower” he needs to follow the whistle blower protocol and he didn’t. Instead, he got together with the slimiest weasel in Congress and carefully coordinated how they can use the hearsay he had to promote impeachment. Then, Schitt’s staff got equally slimy lawyers (one a kiddie porn defender) and THEN he went to the IG (that had already changed the whistle blowing rules to allow bullshit to be considered “evidence”).
No, wrong answer. The reason they gathered together in secret meetings was to plan the continuance of the coup.
Now, why did Schitt LIE about meeting and coordinating with the gossip? See the problem? Your weak-ass bullshit doesn’t work in light of the fact that Schitt LIED about it. He LIED because this not only negates the “whistle blowing” aspect of what Ciaramella was involved in but also looks crooked, corrupt and seditious as hell. Which it, of course, is.
@retire05:
Well, people with eyes and brains will see through it, but the new breed of Democrat, anti-American, anti-Constitution and police state supporting, will just love it. The ends, you know, justifies the means so when the means are denying due process, lying about the process, coaching witnesses, denying the defense witnesses and fabricating accusations is totally acceptable to Greg and his fellow seditionists. As I said, Greg trying to ignore the questions I posed (and his weak attempt at justifying Schitt’s lying) clearly proves he not only knows this is a total farce and sham but doesn’t care as long as Democrats can grasp power again and finish the destruction Obama started.
@Deplorable Me:
No, actually it was well beyond that, he was the dark barrister of a very prolific pedophile, a groomer of little girls for the lecherous un-natural desires of many powerful, evil men that he could then blackmail. But of course the gag reflex inducing details are held secret by ABC news.
Perfect for guy Schiffs needs so after his staff wrote the complaint WB was referred a lawfirm, specializing in blowers. Willard Schiff then set his rats in motion to Ukraine.
Note no one that was actually on the call filed any complaint.
@retire05, #69:
You seem to fancy yourself someone who understands statements written in plain, clear English, but a growing body of evidence suggests otherwise. Understanding plain English is the only claim I make for myself. One doesn’t need a law degree to understand what the words mean.
The House of Representatives is the ONLY body empowered by the Constitution to initiate impeachment actions against a president; it is ALSO empowered by the Constitution to appoint officers to oversee such actions. That’s what the words mean:
The reason House democrats are currently entrusted with that power is because voters recently took it out of the hands of House republicans. A majority of Americans do not approve of Donald Trump.
@Greg: Hence the need for speed to impeach before the election. Cant trust those pesky voters, once bitten twice shy.
@Greg:
Since you feel that way, if you ever get sued, serve as your own legal counsel. Get ready to lose.
That means EVERY member of the House of Representatives. Not one POS from California.
To “oversee”, not serve as prosecuting attorney as well as legal counsel for the Democrat friendly witnesses as Schitt-for-brains did with Vindman.
Schitt-for-brains doesn’t want to let Republicans call their own witnesses. What is he afraid of? And why do you hate your own country, Comrade Greggie Goebbels? When did you become a turn coat?
@Greg:
But the SENATE prosecutes the impeachment.
Wrong. 92% of the media coverage does not approve of Trump. Impeachment, meanwhile, is losing popularity… mainly because of Schitt.
This is a great assessment of Schitt and why Ciaramella should be called as a witness, as well as the others Schitt is denying.
https://townhall.com/columnists//kevinmccullough/2019/11/10/why-republicans-must-subpoena-eric-ciaramella-n2556225
With Republicans defending 23 Senate seats in 2020 while the Democratic Party will be defending only 12, Trump’s Senate allies are going to bet all of the GOP’s chips on the man who bankrupted his Atlantic City casino.
@Greg: Schitt and Pelosi are losing that for them. People see what scummy liars they are and the more hearings you have, the more of their lies and corruption is exposed. You refuse to see it, so remember: you WERE warned.
@retire05, #75:
Republicans have no witnesses to call with information relevant to the matter at hand. What they want to do is call in people to change the subject. They’re not going to be allowed to do so.
How many subpoenaed witnesses has Trump kept from showing up? The reason the House has sole constitutional authority to impeach and to appoint its own officers is to keep a president from shutting an impeachment process down. Trump can go pound sand. Or tweet up a storm, as the case may be.
Maybe Mother McConnell can save him in the Senate.
@Greg:
Whether or not Biden committed extortion to kill the Burisma investigation, how much interference in the 2016 election was committed and who in the DNC was involved are ALL relevant matter, pertinent to asking Zelensky to assist in investigating. It is also exactly the kind of information Pelosi, Schitt and the rest of the Democrats don’t want exposed. For, not only will it be devastating to Democrats but it also proves Trump was doing exactly what he should have been doing with aid and corruption investigations.
Who has received a legal subpoena and not shown up?
Democrats are, beyond any argument, cowards and liars.
@Greg: You will never get the vote in the house with the procedures and rules Nancy and Adam have concocted. Thats a fact jack.
From Vox 85 to 88 % approval rating only counting republicans that vote.
Its not a good idea to piss off your voters by trying to impeach their approved of Prez.
Most recently, Mick Mulvaney failed to respond timely.
Mick Mulvaney defies subpoena, skips impeachment deposition
On the same day, John Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, and Robert Blair also failed to respond.
Here’s the Deadline Countdown for Every Trump Impeachment Subpoena Issued So Far
@kitt:
All it takes to pass an impeachment resolution in the House is a simple majority vote of those present. Every republican in the House could refuse to vote and the resolution could still pass. It’s going to the Senate.
In the Senate it takes a 2/3 super-majority to remove a president from office—but again, that’s of those present.
@Greg: Aint gonna happen, a fact jack. Making the meetings public may change Schiffs despotic behavior.
The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senate’s exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump. And he would not have to look far to find the constitutional arguments and the flexibility to revise Senate rules and procedures to accomplish this purpose.
The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate “the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.
Round file Willards conspiracy theory..
@Greg: Until Schitt opens the hearings, allows Republicans full access to all the privileges and information Democrats have and allow Republicans to call the witnesses they want, this is an illegitimate procedure. Disgusting you can’t admit that.
Democrats committed the corruption. Not Trump. Democrats are trying to get rid of Trump before that fact is exposed and they have NO faith that any of the dopes they are running can do it.
Speaking of witnesses with information relevant to the issue at hand, what does Mulvaney have to do with Ukraine? Far less than Hunter Biden. Far, far less than the “whistle blower”. Not to mention the fact that in the past, Democrats were quite comfortable with defying subpoenas. This is nothing new nor, particularly in the case of Schitt’s (not the House’s) subpoenas, necessarily illegal.
@Greg:
Then why did the Democrats call David Hale, Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker if they did not have (to quote you) information relevant to the matter at hand?
Are you saying that the Republicans have no right to recall an existing witness?
How about Hunter Biden and his partner, Devon Archer, who were actually involved in Ukrainian corruption? No information relevant to what Ukraine was doing while Trump was a candidate? Oh, what about those meetings with John Kerry’s staff?
@retire05:
No, what he’s saying is that there are no Republicans that have impeachment as a priority and will break any law, tell any lie, concoct any accusation to get to that point. The fact that more Democrats have not denounced this travesty only tells us that the Democrat party has gone full-on totalitarian socialist police state.
@M.: Yet it isn’t kitt claiming Schiff has all the powers of a prosecutor, is it? No, it’s not a trial; it’s SUPPOSED to be fact gathering but, instead, it is just generating and collecting propaganda.
What’s not a good look is not knowing the difference between facts, truth, justice and evidence and what Schiff is foisting on the American people. That’s a pretty stupid look.
@Deplorable Me, #86:
From The Guardian, November 8, 2019 – Mick Mulvaney: new testimony draws Trump chief of staff into Ukraine scandal
This is the same guy who also openly acknowledged the existence of a quid pro quo factor during a press conference.
@Greg: But what does Mulvaney know about the phone call? Nothing; he is Chief of Staff, he knows what he is told (which does put him on par with Schitt’s star witnesses who only have knowledge of gossip) but he’s not part of establishing or carrying out policy.
Both Biden’s should be witnesses, as well as Schiff himself, as they hold the key to whether or not Trump’s request for assistance in investigations was valid. What Schiff wants is to have no one speak that is not a rabid partisan with hearsay and a determination to see Trump impeached.
Without the Republican’s list of witnesses, Schitt’s little theater of the absurd is even more absurd and illegitimate.
@Greg: I already pointed out to you that he(Sondland) did no such thing. Repetitious lies does not make it true.
Sondland: No, you’re incorrect… Trump doesn’t want a quid pro quo.
The USA must pay closer attention to the NGOs our tax dollars get handed out to, determine if their mission is the same as our agenda.
I say if there was no hanky panky with Joe and his spawn no problem why are you so terrified that it gets investigated?
Much more interested in Chalupa’s dealings in the Ukraine.
A little read for you https://pjmedia.com/trending/did-biden-save-this-ukraine-firm-responsible-for-1-8b-in-missing-aid-his-son-is-on-the-board/
Quid Pro Joe was warned more than once.
Check the date of the article Big joe joined the race May 01, 2019 this investigation isnt new just for Trumps campaign.
Seriously… What would you consider to be acceptable evidence? A written contract signed in blood by Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, witnessed by the Pope and António Guterres?
Why do I suspect even that would not convince some people?
@Greg: Well not this pope 😉
Hearsay and opinion is not evidence remove all that and lay it out.
@Greg: Well, what ISN’T evidence is hearsay, rumor and opinion. What IS evidence is documentation or first-hand observation by someone credible. Democrats don’t seem to seek out anyone credible, only biased, rabid Trump-hating Democrats.
What do YOU consider evidence? A video of Biden BRAGGING about doing exactly what you accuse Trump of doing? Hillary LYING on video, before Congress, about having classified information on her unsecured, secret, private server? US and Mexican citizens being killed with “Fast and Furious” guns? What does it take to convince YOU?
@Deplorable Me: He just stuck his fingers in his ears and yells lalalalala not listening
Russians too close to clinton Mueller arrests them then…
The Obama administration wasted no time in sending the ten spies back to Russia. The U.S. exchanged them for four Russian nationals on July 10, less than two weeks after their arrest.
Waller charged that Clinton “folded America’s strong hand of cards. The US had ten relatively young, highly trained Russian spies in custody with immense, fresh knowledge of SVR statecraft.”
In exchange, the U.S. got Igor Sutyagin (an arms control researcher whom Amnesty International classified as a political prisoner), Sergei Skripal (a Russian military intelligence official convicted of spying for Britain), Aleksandr Zaporozhsky (a Russian intelligence operative imprisoned for cooperating with the U.S.), and Gennady Vasilenko (a KGB officer suspected of being a double agent).
“Clinton didn’t want leverage,” Waller argued. “She wanted the issue to go away. She toiled feverishly to get the 10 Ghost Stories spies back to Moscow as quickly as possible. She accepted whatever Putin would give her to pass off as a face-saving swap.”
After the $2.35 million check cleared the foundation account of course.
@kitt, #94:
What, then, would constitute acceptable and sufficient evidence, if the sworn testimony of multiple people inside the administration who had personal knowledge of the situation isn’t?
We’re being asked to disbelieve military aid was being withheld to leverage Ukraine into providing dirt on Trump’s political enemy, when every bit of information available points to that as the only reasonable conclusion. Insiders have clearly stated they understood release of the aid to be contingent upon a public announcement of an investigation of Biden.
@Greg:
What part of hearsay don’t you understand? They don’t have knowledge of anything that they didn’t hear second hand… from people that don’t have direct knowledge themselves.
OK, so by your definition of proof, you are lying when you say that Hillary didn’t take $150 million in bribes to authorize the sale of uranium t a company controlled by Russia. Because, someone (numerous people) in and around the incident SAYS she did (plus, there’s her authorizing the sale and taking $150 million from Russians, but let’s ignore that right now). All that is needed is for someone to SWEAR they believe she did, just like all you need to believe Trump extorted Ukraine is for someone to swear they believe he did.
Right?
You say Trump wanted dirt on Biden, others say he wanted Ukraine to investigate what he actually SAID he did, finding out WHY he did it. It just so happens Biden made himself a candidate; by the way, TRUMP is a candidate. You are using the Congress to get dirt (or fabricate it out of thin air) on Trump. Why was it OK for the Obama administration to use FISA, the FBI, the CIA, Russia, England, Italy and Australia to get dirt on Trump when he was a candidate before? Your convictions don’t stand up to scrutiny, Greg. All you care about is Democrats grasping power, no matter how.
@kitt: There WILL be an indictment from The House—There WILL be a trial in The Senate–Much damning evidence will be presented from Trump appointees.. Trump Will be ACQUITTED in contentious trial.
All are waiting for I.G. Blockbuster
Meanwhile primaries play out—-There will be no clear leader after First 3 Sanders edges Biden and Mayor Pete in Iowa–Warren wins New Hampshire–Biden South Carolina—-This will go all the way to The Convention.—
Winner beats wounded Trump in close election.. Trump claims foul and is reluctant to step down as his Trumpeteers FA-ERS scream bloody murder.
Hope all had a great Veterans Day—The TRUE one percenters
Semper Fi Tulsi 2020
@Greg: So now Burisma is Biden? Sir we have no evidence that Biden wrote any checks out of the account where 1.8 billion dollars vanished. He was a face used to prop up the horridly corrupt company.
If Biden Sr were aware of the corruption you bet he was and stopped investigation of the corruption while providing additional tax payers dollars we would like to know his motives for doing so. As Chelsea proved you can get a crooked politicians kid a job anywhere.
The senate is looking into how much the State Department was aware of.
No, opinions of life long government cogs used to the previous admins corruption but did not whistle, are not sufficient, bring documentation.
When the transcript of the call was put in front of the Marine he was asked to point out this quid pro quo, uh he couldnt find it in the call. The only witness with first hand knowledge. He lied, lost his job and his honor and disgraced the Marines by wearing his uniform while doing so.
The transcript provided by the President is the only hard evidence so far presented.