web analytics

Ukraine, and WHY Ukraine

By Patrick Van Roy On November 8th, 2019

Why is the country of Ukraine at the heart of the fake Impeachment ? Let me give you my analysis.

The Ukraine is a new issue for most of you. President Trumps Phone Call the Democrats say is reason for Impeachment because they say it’s a Quid Pro Quo, and a Quid Pro Quo against a political rival. That’s the charge as of today, it will not be the reason they Impeach. That will be Obstruction of Congress.

Let’s just get this out of the way shall we. Ok the accusation is Trump did the above, but Biden did the same thing and bragged about it on TV. Now what Trump did was not illegal, odds are Bidden has written permission from Obama to do what he did. As long as he does he has his get out of jail free card…. If not oh well, but unlike everyone with Trump I’ll give Joe the benefit of doubt.

Why Ukraine ?

Ukraine was heavily involved in the Framing of Donald Trump. The old corrupt government of Ukraine worked hand in hand with Obama, the Clinton’s and the DNC in creating the false narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians. The Ukrainians were heavily involved in the cover up of the DNC server hack, and it is where Steel compiled his Russian disinformation. Not to mention during the Obama Administration $7 Billion Dollars worth of Aid went missing during that time.

Now the single biggest mistake Trump has made since becoming President is not following Tradition. Every President when he first takes office fires everyone from the previous administration if the White House has changed parties. Trump did not do this, so his administration is littered with Obama’s people. It has hurt him on every front.

Every “witness” called by Schiff that has testified is an Obama holdover and totally Anti-Trump. Now as the testimony of these cretins are released you can see the direction they are pushing this in. Everyone is pissed because Trump has ran an end run around the Embassy in the Ukraine simply because he trusted no one that worked there. Instead Trump has been dealing with the Ukrainians through Rudy Giuliani. This has totally pissed off the State Dept and others including Bolton who was not in the Guiliani circle and the fact that he didn’t know what they were doing he felt was a personal insult.

Trump using Giuliani the say is a crime…. bullS*** Every President since Washington has employed private emissaries to deal with Foreign Nations when they wanted to keep the dealings in a controlled small group. To act that this is irregular or in anyway criminal is just sheer stupidity.     Foreign policy is the Sole Domain of the sitting President. Congress has only one duty involving Foreign Policy and that’s the Senate and voting on Treaties period. Obama even sidestepped that process and nobody called for his impeachment.

The Barr/Durham investigation will show why Trump has dealt with the Ukranians the way he has.

And that’s why all this is centered around Ukraine.

103 Responses to “Ukraine, and WHY Ukraine”

  1. Why is the country of Ukraine at the heart of the fake Impeachment ?

    Easy, because Don Don the Golden witheld aid from them in an attempt to solicit their help against a domestic political rival. I believe you previously tried to such such an action was blackmail?

    There was really no need for such an elongated ‘it’s a fake, a sham. They all hate Trump’ garble.

  2. Every “witness” called by Schiff that has testified is an Obama holdover and totally Anti-Trump. Now as the testimony of these cretins are released you can see the direction they are pushing this in.

    Culture war. So they cannot be believed, they are all lying 100%

    Instead Trump has been dealing with the Ukrainians through Rudy Giuliani. This has totally pissed off the State Dept and others including Bolton who was not in the Guiliani circle and the fact that he didn’t know what they were doing he felt was a personal insult.

    LOL

    So Bolton is now a (potential) traitor as well and Crooked Rudy is the only Trump toady patriot left standing. Even “Attorney General” Barr has refused to give his boss a clean bill of health, i.e. unlike Patrick he has refused to pre-judge the outcome of the investigation. Watch out for this traitor to be sacked soon. They’ll love it on Fox.

  3. I didn’t say Bolton was a traitor I said he was pissed because he was cut out.

  4. “Let me give you my analysis.”

    Let me regurgitate some right wing/Fox News/conspiracy loon talking points.

  5. I didn’t say Bolton was a traitor

    But he will be a traitor if he testifies, right?

  6. No why would that make him a traitor ?

  7. FewsOrange, on November 8th, 2019 at 8:36 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “Let me give you my analysis.”

    Let me regurgitate some right wing/Fox News/conspiracy loon talking points.

    No FO that is YOUR opinion…. the above is mine.

  8. No why would that make him a traitor ?

    If Bolton’s evidence confirms what everyone already knows, that there was a quid pro quo, he would soon be denounced as a traitor by Trump and his toadies at Fox-Limbaa-Breitbart-Jones. They would make it out as his revenge on Trump for denying him his wars.

    And you know it.

  9. David Hale served also under GW Bush. As did William Taylor. Both are highly respected. Gordon Sondland is a major Trump donor and a Republican who never served with the Obama Administration.
    Do you think people don’t have easy access to facts?

  10. Mahons

    They are all traitors, you need to get with the programme.

  11. pat you lost me when you claimed the witnesses we’re all anti-Trump and Obama stooges.
    Man they were all hand picked and worked for Trump in high office.

    Why can’t you accept that something happened and these honorable men and women felt deeply uncomfortable with that, and their consciences compelled them to testify.

  12. Why can’t you accept that something happened and these honorable men and women felt deeply uncomfortable with that, and their consciences compelled them to testify.

    Culture war logic demands that all of these guys are Democrats and therefore liars. End of.

  13. it’s not a culture war unless one side of “the culture’ is for a lack of Law and come to think of it yeah I guess that pretty much describes both the democrats and their supporters.

    They framed a man as a traitor and it failed, now they are putting him on trial with no representation or rights, so yeah I guess it is a culture war.

  14. Putting him on trial with no representation or rights

    That’s simply not true.

  15. This is one of the looniest posts I have read in a long time.

  16. Why is that NYr ?

  17. Paul do both the prosecuting side and the defense side have EQUAL authority…. NO

    The defense have to ask the prosecution for “permission”, sorry that’s not due process that’s fascist tyranny.

  18. now lets take a walk down what most of you are calling conspiracy lane shall we.

    I’m going to post an article from April by John Solomon who you like to relate to Qanon or Alex Jones, but these are just some of his credentials….

    John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.

    Now if you think that’s a conspiracy kook you go right on thinking it while you ride your unicorn you believe I’m riding one, but ask yourself what if he’s not a conspiracy kook what if… as he has been paid for and has had a sparkling reputation as an investigative reporter for several decades my god what if he’s telling you facts….. and the facts he has investigated firsthand has brought him to the opinions in this article.

    Time of course will tell, but here and remember this article was written LONG BEFORE the Phone Call.

    Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don’t you want our evidence on Democrats?
    BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/07/19 07:30 AM EDT

    Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes. But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act.

    Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

    “We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

    One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulyk said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior, pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych.

    Ukrainian businessmen “authorized payments for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government,” he told me. “In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.” That company is tied to one or more prominent Democrats, Ukrainian officials insist.

    In another instance, he said, Ukrainian authorities gathered evidence that money paid to an American Democrat allegedly was hidden by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) during the 2016 election under pressure from U.S. officials. “In the course of this investigation, we found that there was a situation during which influence was exerted on the NABU, so that the name of [the American] would not be mentioned,” he said.

    Ukraine is infamous for corruption and disinformation operations; its police agencies fight over what is considered evidence of wrongdoing. Kulyk and his bosses even have political fights over who should and shouldn’t be prosecuted. Consequently, allegations emanating from Kiev usually are taken with a grain a salt.

    But many of the allegations shared with me by more than a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials are supported by evidence that emerged in recent U.S. court filings and intelligence reports. The Ukrainians told me their evidence includes:

    Sworn statements from two Ukrainian officials admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton. The effort included leaking an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort;

    Contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump;

    Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukraine relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings;

    Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers;

    Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. Embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil;

    Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.
    Ukrainian officials say they don’t want to hand the evidence to FBI agents working in Ukraine because they believe the bureau has a close relationship with the NABU and the U.S. Embassy. “It is no secret in Ukrainian political circles that the NABU was created with American help and tried to exert influence during the U.S. presidential election,” Kulyk told me.

    Kulyk’s boss, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, told me he has enough evidence — particularly involving Biden, his family and money spirited out of Ukraine — to warrant a meeting with U.S. Attorney General William Barr. “I’m looking forward to meeting with the attorney general of the United States in order to start and facilitate our joint investigation regarding the appropriation of another $7 billion in U.S. dollars with Ukrainian legal origin,” Lutsenko said.

    I wrote last week that Biden, in 2016, pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma.

    Kulyk confirmed Ukraine is investigating that alleged incident: “We have evidence and witnesses stating that Joe Biden applied pressure on Ukrainian law enforcement to stop the investigation.”

    Ukrainians officials have gone public in recent days with their frustrations after months of trying to deliver the evidence quietly to the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) fizzled. Unable to secure visas from the U.S. Embassy, some Ukrainian law enforcement officials sought backdoor channels, Kulyk said.

    One of those avenues involved reaching out last fall to a former federal prosecutor from the George W. Bush years, according to interviews. He delivered a written summary of some of the Ukrainian allegations to the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, along with an offer to connect U.S. investigators with individuals purporting to have the evidence. There was no response or follow-up, according to multiple people directly familiar with the effort.

    More recently, President Trump’s private attorney Rudy Giuliani — former mayor and former U.S. attorney in New York City — learned about some of the allegations while, on behalf of the Trump legal team, he looked into Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.

    Since then, Lutsenko and others have talked with other American lawyers about helping to file U.S. legal action to recover money they believe was wrongly taken from their country.

    “It’s like no one at DOJ is listening. There is some compelling evidence that should at least be looked at, evaluated, but the door seems shut at both State and Justice,” said an American who has been contacted for help and briefed on the evidence.

    State Department officials declined to address whether they denied or slow-walked visas for Ukrainian officials. “Visa records are confidential under U.S. law; therefore, we cannot discuss the details of individual visa cases,” a department spokesperson said.

    Ukraine’s evidence, if true, would mark the first documented allegation of Democrats receiving assistance from a foreign power in their efforts to help Clinton win the 2016 election.

    “It looks like there is some evidence emerging that there could have been a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine to secure their preferred American president during the 2016 race,” said a former top intelligence official who now advises the Trump administration on intelligence policy.

    There is public-source information, in Ukraine and in the United States, that gives credence to some of what Ukrainian prosecutors allege.

    A court in Ukraine formally concluded that law enforcement officials there illegally tried to intervene in the 2016 U.S. election by leaking documents of Manafort’s business dealings after he was named Trump’s campaign chairman. And a Ukrainian parliamentarian released a purported tape recording of a top Ukrainian law enforcement official bragging that he was responsible for the leak and was trying to help Clinton win.

    Lutsenko told Hill.TV in an interview aired last week that he has opened a criminal investigation into those allegations.

    Nellie Ohr, wife of a senior Justice official and a researcher for the Fusion GPS opposition research firm, testified to Congress last year that some of Fusion GPS’s research on Trump-Russia ties came from a Ukrainian parliamentarian. The Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump.

    Although Ohr acknowledged the Ukrainian source, lawmakers did not press her to be more specific.

    And Politico reported in 2017 on evidence of Ukraine’s U.S. embassy helping the Clinton campaign to discredit Trump. “A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia,” the newspaper reported.

    Separately, the conservative nonprofit Citizens United last month filed a lawsuit seeking to force the State Department to disclose all information it possesses about Hunter Biden and his business partners involved with Ukraine-based Burisma Holdings.

    If Ukrainian prosecutors can augment their allegations with real evidence, there could be a true case of collusion worth investigating.

    The only question is why the U.S. government so far hasn’t taken interest — and whether Attorney General Barr will change that.

    That was written 7 months ago….. did any of you read it ? Funny how everything discussed in it 7 months ago is just now being discussed in the rest of the Press and it’s not like this information was buried on some obscure rightwing site. The Hill is the daily paper for people who work on the Hill that is their target audience. The members and staff of Congress. Now at the same time that this information aired is when Barr brought in Durham the DOJ’s internal affairs prosecutor and Trump sent Rudy to Ukraine to work outside Embassy channels and with damn good reason if the allegations are true.

    Now you can all be giddy as children over your unicorn hunt, but me I’m going to wait and see which side produces evidence and which side gets indictments served on them.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats

  19. “… I’m going to wait…”
    But you haven’t, really. You’ve been fighting a defensive, rearguard action since this story emerged, defending Trump and playing down/dismissing the other side at every turn. You are as partisan in this as anyone else. Be honest about it.

  20. Paul do both the prosecuting side and the defense side have EQUAL authority…. NO

    Please explain in detail how the prosecution & defence aren’t equal

    The defense have to ask the prosecution for “permission”, sorry that’s not due process that’s fascist tyranny

    Every point in the above claim is absolutely untrue. The defence don’t have to ‘ask for permission’ They have to demonstrate how the witnesses they call are relevant to the investigation. That’s due process and a million universes away from ‘fascist tyranny’.

    However your initial comment:

    Putting him on trial with no representation or rights

    Is completely fabricated as if he has ‘no representation or rights’ please explain why he has the right to be represented by that defence that you speak of above?

    The above quote demonstrably illustrates how Republicans are attempting to use procedure & process as a fig leaf to cover King Don Don’s illegal improprieties.

  21. This just sounds like a load of conspiracy nonsense to me.

  22. of course it does Dave, because you’ve only followed one side of the story.

    The next year we will know what is true and what is not.

  23. Please explain in detail how the prosecution & defence aren’t equal

    The defense have to ask the prosecution for “permission”, sorry that’s not due process that’s fascist tyranny

    Every point in the above claim is absolutely untrue. The defence don’t have to ‘ask for permission’ They have to demonstrate how the witnesses they call are relevant to the investigation. That’s due process and a million universes away from ‘fascist tyranny’.

    However your initial comment:

    No Paul you are wrong….. If you don’t get it you don’t get it…. I obviously can’t get you to understand that in our system the defence does not have to run witnesses or anything past the prosecutors it’s not how Due Process works.

  24. I’m not wrong and the standard, ‘you don’t get it because you’re not American’ doesn’t work here.

    They don’t have to ‘ask permission’ They have to demonstrate that the witness they want to testify must give testimony relevant to the investigation. If the testimony is refused by the Chair they can then appeal to the committee and if the committee further refuses they can then apply to have the decision judicially reviewed by the appropriate courts.

    That’s proper procedural due process.

    However your initial comment […]

    Is completely fabricated as if he has ‘no representation or rights’ please explain why he has the right to be represented by that defence that you speak of above?

    So, what is it? Does he have ‘no representation or rights’ or is his defence representation unequal?

    Do you admit that these are two absolutely contradictory claims and that you are wrong in at least one?

  25. Seimi, on November 9th, 2019 at 10:43 AM Said: Edit Comment
    “… I’m going to wait…”
    But you haven’t, really. You’ve been fighting a defensive, rearguard action since this story emerged, defending Trump and playing down/dismissing the other side at every turn. You are as partisan in this as anyone else. Be honest about it.

    No, I said way back when Mueller was doing his investigation if they find anything lock him up, and I’ll hand out the pitchforks and torches…. Mueller found nothing and this farce isn’t following the Law.

    If the Dems want to impeach, fine impeach. This however is a Kangaroo Court a sham cake and circus for the masses.

    As with the Mueller investigation this is a process in search of a crime… that’s not how our system is supposed to work. And even if it was Hillary Clinton being railroaded without Due Process I would be objecting.

    If you’re going to Prosecute someone you follow the rules, if you can’t follow the rules…. you become the enemy.

  26. By arguing that the whole process is flawed and illegal, you are and have been defending Trump. Can you not admit to that? Everything you have written about this has been an attempt to discredit the other side.

  27. The process is neither flawed nor illegal. They’ve tried discrediting the withesses and now that that’s failed they’re trying to discredit the process.

  28. Paul

    I know, I’m just pointing out that, far from ‘waiting to see…’, PaTroll has been arguing for one side from the very start.

  29. it is both flawed and illegal, and I have only been pushing for Law and Order.

    I can’t help the FACT that Trump has done nothing wrong as the investigations plural have shown every time.

    Seimi talking with David, he’s said he hasn’t received our emails…. trying to solve it….

  30. it is both flawed and illegal, and I have only been pushing for Law and Order.

    That’s not how it comes across. Just sayin’.

    Seimi talking with David, he’s said he hasn’t received our emails…. trying to solve it….

    Cheers for the update.

  31. Patrick Van Roy,

    of course it does Dave, because you’ve only followed one side of the story.

    I followed your links Patrick is that not the other side of the story?

    The next year we will know what is true and what is not.

    I’m not so sure about that Patrick. This reminds me of pizzagate, which was also a load of nonsense.

  32. It is both flawed and illegal, and I have only been pushing for Law and Order

    Please explain in detail how it is both ‘flawed and illegal’

  33. Trump has done wrong things. The only question is has he done illegal or impeachable things

    Using the full power of the executive branch to personally attack political adversaries of the president appears wrong and is wrong.

    At an absolute minimum Trump should have recused himself, and should never have involved his personal lawyer, the non governmental employee Rudy.

    This was misconduct by most anyone’s definition.

  34. This bad conduct by Trump, this trying to put a presidents political opponents in prison- was never tried By any previous president, not even Nixon

    There was no attempt to have any proper process to any of it. It was announced beforehand in front of huge enraged mobs

    The more I think of this entire matter, The more I think that the Hunter Biden job Disqualifies Joe Biden as a president. Joe Biden did not try to discourage his son from taking that fake job.

    Biden should resign as a candidate and Trump should resign as president.

  35. While it may not be criminal it’s my understanding that elisting the aid of a foreign power against a domestic political opponent is illegal? (hence the screams of ‘no crime’ from the Trump supporters).

    I also understand that an impeachment charge may not necessarily be based on illegality?

  36. Using the full power of the executive branch to personally attack political adversaries of the president appears wrong and is wrong.

    Was it wrong for Obama to do it to Trump ?

  37. Pat, some questions for you to ponder:

    So, what is it? Does he have ‘no representation or rights’ or is his defence representation unequal? Do you admit that these are two absolutely contradictory claims and that you are wrong in at least one? […]

    Please explain in detail how it is both ‘flawed and illegal’

  38. Obama -did not -do it toTrump

    There was incredibly unusual level of contact between a campaign and Russians – Which You as far as I know have never addressed,- And those direct contacts were what was investigated. That investigation was proper, And Obama wasn’t personally involved in it.

    You don’t think that Russian involvement in a political campaign should be investigated?

    Obama didn’t call for prosecution. Obama didn’t scream about it. In front of hate filled mobs.

    Your president did wrong during the campaign And he does wrong now

    Hate filled mobs

  39. The Chris Steele dossier had nothing to do whatsoever with Obama.

    I think that the level of untruths, fabrications and misinformation spread by the president, his administration & supporters is absolutely unprecedented.

    He really is a fucking dolt:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-border-wall-colorado/

  40. Pat

    Quit being so naïve about this entire thing

    Trump has been lying to you for two or three years, and you’re not challenging any of it

  41. Like father like son:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50338236

    Has there ever been a bigger clan of self-indulgent, egotistical, narcissistic pricks?

  42. phantom/paul

    didn’t know GOP Congressmen and excusers were fans of Pink Floyd

    “You are only coming through in waves
    Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying..
    ….
    I have become comfortably numb”

    say what? I can’t hear you

  43. first Paul then Phantom

    So, what is it? Does he have ‘no representation or rights’ or is his defence representation unequal? Do you admit that these are two absolutely contradictory claims and that you are wrong in at least one? […]

    Please explain in detail how it is both ‘flawed and illegal’

    What detail do you need? It is not equal. This is a black and white issue which you and others don’t seem to get. There are no greys here. Not Equal means no representation and no rights.

    All Americans are EQUAL under the Law that doesn’t change because someone is the President.

    As I have said we let murderers that have been caught dead to rights, no doubts they did it walk free because someone just one person involved in the case didn’t follow the rules and procedures of the court.

    You’re saying Trump deserves to be treated with less rights than a murderer.

  44. No Trump family member for four generations or more has ever served his country in the military

    They refuse to do it. I’ve never seen anything like it

    Again, the grandfather was expelled from Germany for refusing military service In the early part of the 20th century

    It’s a family tradition, Like them much loved song says

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ji_byLzeBk

  45. Pat

    You had a big giggle when they did this to Clinton for no good reason

    Here, there is a good reason for all of it

  46. Phantom, on November 9th, 2019 at 4:12 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Obama -did not -do it toTrump

    There was incredibly unusual level of contact between a campaign and Russians – Which You as far as I know have never addressed,- And those direct contacts were what was investigated. That investigation was proper, And Obama wasn’t personally involved in it.

    You don’t think that Russian involvement in a political campaign should be investigated?

    Obama didn’t call for prosecution. Obama didn’t scream about it. In front of hate filled mobs.

    Your president did wrong during the campaign And he does wrong now

    Hate filled mobs

    You’ve really drank the koolaid haven’t you….

    Each contact with a russian operative was setup by Fusion GPS which means it was orchestrated by the FBI in conjunction with Nellie Ohr.

    No Obama didn’t scream he schemed with the beast.

    They had a foreign spy create a file with Russian disinformation and they set a honey trap for a green staffer using american and foreign cia/nsa assets they then used that created info to start a counter espionage investigation they leaked the dossier to the press and every other person they thought would spread it with John McCain’s help and then after the stories they leaked began to appear in the Press they took everything they created out of whole cloth to a FISA Judge and said we believe the Trump campaign is committing Treason and we want to surveil them. They did it 4 times.

    and over the next year people are going to go to jail for it and it will happen long before they ever find a crime committed by Trump.

  47. What detail do you need?

    I need you to explain to me how it’s not equal.

    You’ve already incorrectly tried to suggest that the defence have to ‘ask permission’ to call a witness which I suspect you’re going to attempt to spin into your claim.

    We’ve both read the procedural scope of the hearings and both know that the only onus is on the defence to demonstrate that they will only call witnesses to give testimony directly relevant to the hearing. If this is rejected by the Chair they can then appeal it to the committee and if this is further rejected it can be judicially reviewed by the appropriate court.

    So please, explain to me in detail how they’re ‘not equal’, and while you’re at it:

    So, what is it? Does he have ‘no representation or rights’ or is his defence representation unequal? Do you admit that these are two absolutely contradictory claims and that you are wrong in at least one? […]

    Please explain in detail how it is both ‘flawed and illegal’

    If you could explain that too.

  48. Phantom those in the FBI who don’t go to jail for what they did to Trump will eventually go to jail for fixing the Hillary Espionage case.

  49. Paul did the Republicans just today have to submit a list of witnesses to Schiff for his approval…? The Answer is YES….. I rest my case.

  50. Holy cow you’re really a conspiracy guy now

    Allan has to take a backseat

    Even if what you say is true, why did trump have his people meet with Russian intelligence figures?

    In America Europe and the Seychelles ?

    Would you have said yes to those meetings?

  51. Paul did the Republicans just today have to submit a list of witnesses to Schiff for his approval

    Absolutely standard procedure to submit a list of witnesses to the committee Chair.

    The Answer is YES….. I rest my case.

    What case? There is no case to answer.

    And, yet again:

    So, what is it? Does he have ‘no representation or rights’ or is his defence representation unequal? Do you admit that these are two absolutely contradictory claims and that you are wrong in at least one? […]

    Please explain in detail how it is both ‘flawed and illegal’

  52. Phanto do you want to take bets…… that when the indictments for FISA ever finally hit that’s exactly how it’s going to play out ?

    Even if what you say is true, why did trump have his people meet with Russian intelligence figures?

    Because Trump is stupid as in green…… Cruz, or any other Politician would have known better.

    Just like not firing everyone when his administration came in. He’s green he’s no politician and I really don’t think he understands politics.

  53. Absolutely standard procedure to submit a list of witnesses to the committee Chair.

    This is NOT a Committee. This is a criminal investigation and evidentiary hearing. Each side INFORMS the other who they are going to call.

    Neither side in a legitimate Impeachment ASKS the otherside who the can or can not call. We have 3 Impeachments that have set the Precedents.

    The Democrats are running a sham which is why every witness that says I want a court to decide whether or not Schiff’s Subpoenas are valid Schiff declines to argue it in court.

    This is Cake and Circus nothing else and the people are going to decide whether or not they are going to get away with it or not in 359 days.

  54. He has played dirty in business and he played dirty in politics

    I wouldn’t meet with Russian intelligence agencies for any reason whatsoever. Would,you?

    His people did, Again and again and again

  55. I’d never meet with them, but Politicians do all the time Phantom.

    Every candidate gets approached most for legitimate reason a good many for not so innocent. As a Conservative if I was running for office I would just assume any outside govts contact was a setup by someone, but that’s me.

    But the nation has a history of it. Teddy went to the Soviets to undermine Reagan. None of this is new.

    The only thing NEW here is the Obama administration didn’t do it with cutouts. The employed the FBI/CIA/NSA to do it and when Hillary lost they shit themselves and all this nonsense is to prevent what they did from ever being prosecuted.

    I think and hope they failed and people will go to jail for this abuse of our system.

  56. This is a criminal investigation and evidentiary hearing

    A criminal investigation? The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are criminal investigators?

    This was / is a preliminary evidential hearing. Yet another piece of missinformation / fabrication and attempted hiding behind procedure.

    A fourth time:

    So, what is it? Does he have ‘no representation or rights’ or is his defence representation unequal? Do you admit that these are two absolutely contradictory claims and that you are wrong in at least one? […]

    Please explain in detail how it is both ‘flawed and illegal’

  57. Each side INFORMS the other who they are going to call.

    The nine Republican members who make up some 41% of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are already aware of who has given testimony in closed session.

  58. an IMPEACHMENT Inquiry is a Criminal investigation sorry thems the rules…. and we have 3 sets of Impeachment investigations/inquiries/hearings that have all been ruled on by the Supreme court.

    Paul you’re touting the Democrat speaking points, sorry dude that crap doesn’t flush.

    You can continue to spout it, they’re going to and they will Vote and Impeach him for Obstruction of Congress they’ve already said it and I believe them.

    I also think that this will both hurt them and the country. In my view both History and the electorate are not going to look kindly on all this.

    We will find out next November, but this farce will get much worse before then.

  59. The nine Republican members who make up some 41% of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are already aware of who has given testimony in closed session.

    I could laugh, but I won’t……

    Paul the Republicans had to submit a list of Witnesses that THEY want to call in the Open HEARING and Schiff can say no you can’t call this one or that one…. That is NOT Due Process, it is a DENIAL of Rights.

    Sell it anyway you want it’s a Kangaroo Court led by a Bobble Head Clown and history will not be kind.

  60. An IMPEACHMENT Inquiry is a Criminal investigation sorry thems the rules

    Here you are Pat:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/02/trumps-defenders-need-stop-pretending-impeachment-is-criminal-trial/

    It’s a preliminary evidential hearing and it’s,

    absolutely standard procedure to submit a list of witnesses to the committee Chair

    and

    The nine Republican members who make up some 41% of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are already aware of who has given testimony in closed session

    It being a criminal investigation or not is irrelevant to that point. If you disagree please explain why it is.

    Fifth time,

    So, what is it? Does he have ‘no representation or rights’ or is his defence representation unequal? Do you admit that these are two absolutely contradictory claims and that you are wrong in at least one? […]

    Please explain in detail how it is both ‘flawed and illegal’

  61. Schiff can say no you can’t call this one or that one…. That is NOT Due Process, it is a DENIAL of Rights

    Stating this over and over again won’t make it any less incorrect. Once more:

    We’ve both read the procedural scope of the hearings and both know that the only onus is on the defence to demonstrate that they will only call witnesses to give testimony directly relevant to the hearing. If this is rejected by the Chair they can then appeal it to the committee and if this is further rejected it can be judicially reviewed by the appropriate court.

    So, what ‘rights’ are being denied but more specifically how is his right of defence being denied as you previously claimed?

  62. I said early in this discussion: “This is one of the looniest posts I have read in a long time.” It has gotten only more loony. Here are some points to introduce reality:

    1. US intelligence services were right to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election because of all the contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians. If they had not done so, they would have been negligent.

    2. Carter Page needed to be investigated because of his Russian connections and lies about the same.

    3. If a US politician is contacted by a foreign government official, especially of a hostile power, he should report that contact to the FBI.

    4. The House committees are conducting an investigation prior to drawing up articles of impeachment and adhering to the appropriate rules.

    5. The Democrats hold the majority in the House and are acting accordingly.

    6. Trump asked the president of a foreign country for a “favor” which included digging for dirt on a likely political opponent. That violates his oath of office. Trump did it for personal gain not in the national interest.

  63. NYr everyone one of your points is nonsense and right off of the Democrat talking points.

    Those are their lies and propaganda, and you’ve bought it hook line and sinker.

  64. Guys and Ladies if any pop in. You are all arguing the talking points of the Democrats just as you accuse me of spouting conspiracy and Republican talking points.

    The next year will show who is right, but don’t act like your talking points are right they are just that talking points.

    The Democrats are going to vote to impeach, they have NO CRIME so their main push is going to be Obstruction.

    While that unfolds members of the Obama Administration are going to go to jail.

    The election is going to be the Judge and Jury.

  65. PVR

    “NYr everyone one of your points is nonsense and right off of the Democrat talking points.” What matters is that they are true. If they happen to be somebody’s talking points is irrelevant. Labeling something “talking points” of some political party is downgrading them. It is the veracity that counts. If you disagree present credible counterarguments.

  66. So while it is fashionable at the moment for some to argue that President Trump is removable from office simply if it is proved that he abused the power of his office during his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Constitution requires more. To ignore the requirement of proving that a crime was committed is to sidestep the constitutional design as well as the lessons of history. A well-founded article of impeachment therefore must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime constitutes an abuse of the President’s office.

    The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime.

    https://time.com/5720748/impeachment-trump-flawed-legal-theory/

  67. Interesting

    Fresh evidence has also emerged of attempts by the Kremlin to infiltrate the Conservatives by a senior Russian diplomat suspected of espionage, who spent five years in London cultivating leading Tories including Johnson himself….

    The committee’s report is based on analysis from Britain’s intelligence agencies, as well as third-party experts such as the former MI6 officer Christopher Steele….

    Christopher Steele became famous in the United States as the author of a “dossier” that claimed Russians had been “cultivating, supporting, and assisting” Donald Trump “for at least 5 years.”

    Now Steele is back, claiming that the Russians have been cultivating the Tories and Boris Johnson for . . . five years.

    Matt Taibbi
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/christopher-steele-britain-insanity-909539/

  68. That’s right Pat, the cold war enemy ( now revived ) wants to screw with all the west democracies – proven beyond doubt.

    So why would you be supporting a narrative that gives succour to Russia, re: Rudy/Trump attempts to frame up Ukraine as being the baddie behind 2016 interference.

    Why would you do that against your own country? Its a TREASONOUS Plot

    If I were running the investigation, it would be bribery and treason I’d be pushing for not just obstruction. You’re lucky you just got Schiff on the phone-call. I’d have alot more folks swinging and yes that means more coffins the undertakers have to build, just like in the spaghetti westerns –

    stick with facts and it all fits together nicely.

    if you see straight pat, you’ll get your mojo back

    “Hang ’em first, try ’em later.”

    According to the myth, Roy Bean named his saloon and town after the love of his life, Lily Langtry, a British actress he’d never met. Calling himself the “Law West of the Pecos,” he is reputed to have kept a pet bear in his courtroom and sentenced dozens to the gallows, saying “Hang ’em first, try ’em later.” Like most such legends, separating fact from fiction is not always so easy.

    Read more: https://www.desertusa.com/desert-people/judge-roy-bean.html#ixzz64sqUyjkk

  69. “NYr everyone one of your points is nonsense and right off of the Democrat talking points.” What matters is that they are true. If they happen to be somebody’s talking points is irrelevant. Labeling something “talking points” of some political party is downgrading them. It is the veracity that counts. If you disagree present credible counterarguments.

    They aren’t true though…..

    Lets go over your points one by one shall we…

    1. US intelligence services were right to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election because of all the contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians. If they had not done so, they would have been negligent.

    True and False. It is the inteligence agencies job, but what they are supposed to do is what they did with the Hillary campaign and notify them that they are trying to be infiltrated. They told her campaign, but said nothing to the Trump campaign. That alone blows this point up, but the icing on the cake is every “Russian” contact with the Trump campaign was setup by the CIA and Fusion GPS.

    2. Carter Page needed to be investigated because of his Russian connections and lies about the same.

    Page was set up and has 100 Million dollar Law suit going over it. Lets see who wins shall we.

    3. If a US politician is contacted by a foreign government official, especially of a hostile power, he should report that contact to the FBI.

    True and nowhere has it said they didn’t. It’s never been charged. It is however the FBI’s job to inform the campaign if they think this is happening. They did NOT with Trump, they did with Hillary.

    4. The House committees are conducting an investigation prior to drawing up articles of impeachment and adhering to the appropriate rules.

    That’s just laughable bullshit.

    5. The Democrats hold the majority in the House and are acting accordingly.

    True, but they are not acting constitutionally, absolute power corrupts and the Dems prove that fact everytime they are in power.

    6. Trump asked the president of a foreign country for a “favor” which included digging for dirt on a likely political opponent. That violates his oath of office. Trump did it for personal gain not in the national interest.

    Shear spin and ignorance. That is the dem spin… what did you copy that out of the times or the guardian?

  70. Item 3 is complete nonsense

    Neither Trump nor his associates have ever said that they notified the FBI

    If they had done so, they would’ve made that exculpatory fact public ages ago

    They clearly did -not- do the right thing in that situation

  71. Phantom can you point to where anyone has charged that they didn’t ?

  72. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/12/trump-fbi-foreign-information-1362788

    Mr Cochran, Your president has made it fairly clear that even if he was approached by a foreign power with campaign information in the —next— election he wouldn’t report it to the FBI.

    I think that we all know that he didn’t do the right thing in 2016. He didn’t do the right thing then because he never does the right thing.

  73. Guys and Ladies if any pop in. You are all arguing the talking points of the Democrats just as you accuse me of spouting conspiracy and Republican talking points.

    Every comment I have made on Ukraine has been to demonstrate how the procedural processes you have raised are either incorrections or missinformation and not ‘Republican talking points’

  74. so no charge of it…… spin from politico.

    If the campaign didn’t cross their t’s and dot their i’s on this it would have been part of the original accusations, and I have not seen that from Schiff or Pelosi. If they could add that to the list they would have.

  75. Every comment I have made on Ukraine has been to demonstrate how the procedural processes you have raised are either incorrections or missinformation and not ‘Republican talking points’

    wrong

  76. Pat

    You’re not seeing the truth here

    And you know damn well that they never reported it to the FBI

    Trump would never do such a thing

    He is a complete sneak, And he always has been

  77. Not seeking

  78. Wrong

    Afraid not Pat, like your points regarding the hearings you’re wronghere too.

    If you care to raise one of you alegations regarding the hearings I’ll explain to you why you’re incorrect.

  79. Phantom you may be right, I just haven’t seen that particular charge from anyone in power

  80. Paul you believe this is legitimate and following the rules….. sorry buddy, but that’s just wrong.

  81. Pat, rather than just tell me it’s wrong explaing to me why you think it’s wrong.

    I’m going to state this again:

    We’ve both read the procedural scope of the hearings and both know that the only onus is on the defence to demonstrate that they will only call witnesses to give testimony directly relevant to the hearing. If this is rejected by the Chair they can then appeal it to the committee and if this is further rejected it can be judicially reviewed by the appropriate court

    That is correct and standard procedure. It you think it’s incorrect please explain why.

    You have alsp previously stated that Trump was ‘being put on trial’ with ‘no representation or rights’ and then stated that his defence is unequal. This demonstrates either your chicanery or unawareness of the issue.

  82. We’ve both read the procedural scope of the hearings and both know that the only onus is on the defence to demonstrate that they will only call witnesses to give testimony directly relevant to the hearing. If this is rejected by the Chair they can then appeal it to the committee and if this is further rejected it can be judicially reviewed by the appropriate court

    That process right there is blasphemy. It is in total violation of the principals of american society.

    The accused has EQUAL rights until PROVEN guilty. No man has to ask his accusers to justify his defence. He is being denied the most important basic right, the right of self defense.

    The defense can call a clown car full of brightly feathered midgets if it chooses the prosecutions job is to show their irrelevance ON THE STAND they have no say to decide beforehand who is or who is NOT relevant to the defense.

    That my Irish friend is the core of American culture.

    ALL MEN ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW.

  83. PVR

    In reply to your comments on my points above:

    1. The US intelligence services correctly assumed there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. When conducting an investigation you don’t inform those being investigated midway that they are being investigated. There is no valid parallel with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    3. If they reported it to the FBI, the FBI would have let that be known. And, as Phantom said above the Trump people surely would have as well.

    4. This initial House investigation is looking into whether there are grounds for impeachment according to the constitutional specification of ‘bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors’. It is their prerogative on how to do so.

    6. Trump’s very words show he was attempting to extort the Ukrainian president. It is evident, not even ambiguous.

  84. Well I guess we will just watch the events of the next 358 days, then the jury will give it’s verdict.

    It’s going to be an interesting year.

  85. Pat see the bigger picture

    Let’s be generous Trump got cleared of collusion even though there were meetings with Russians and he did call wikileaks to dump on Hilary we saw in on TV.
    But let’s just say he’s on the clear .

    Now all the agencies concluded Russia interfered both republican and democrat agreed with that . With me so far ?

  86. No man has to ask his accusers to justify his defence

    It’s not ‘justifying his defence’,it’s determining wheither the evidence is admissable, as a judge would in a criminal trial.

    The defense can call a clown car full of brightly feathered midgets if their evidential testimony is relevant and admissable.

  87. Patrick

    Commentators on CNN and MSNBC have made the point many times that Trump and his people never reported these Russian contacts with the FBI

    The Trump people have never denied that

  88. never heard it from the ELECTED political opposition…. what the pundits say is irrelevant

  89. SCHIFF REJECTS GOP CALLS FOR HUNTER BIDEN TO TESTIFY, SAYS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WON’T PROBE ‘SHAM’ CLAIMS
    BY CHRISTINA ZHAO ON 11/9/19 AT 4:23 PM EST

    SHAM….. no Due Process

    The defence is being prevented from presenting their defense.

    https://www.newsweek.com/schiff-rejects-gop-calls-hunter-biden-testify-says-impeachment-inquiry-wont-probe-sham-claims-1470839

  90. SHAM….. no Due Process

    The defence is being prevented from presenting their defense

    Both allegations are incorrect.

  91. Due process is irrelevant. The rights of a criminal defendant are irrelevant to this matter. This is not a criminal investigation. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.

  92. wrong

  93. What criminal penalty will Trump suffer if convicted?

  94. Wrong

    No Pat, Seamus is right.

    I’ve already told you yesterday that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence aren’t criminal investigation decttives.

  95. *detectives

  96. They House of Representatives is conducting an Impeachment of the President of the United States.

    There are rules, procedures, and Supreme Court rulings on how an Impeachment of a President is conducted.

    The Democrats have chosen to not follow those rules, procedures, and Supreme Court rulings.

    They believe in doing so they can undue the last election and win the next one.

    The PEOPLE will be the Judge and Jury and you may feel that the President isn’t entitled to Due Process. Well you nor I are going to get the final say. Me and one or two other will add our two cents with our votes but the 3 americans on this sites votes will be only single droplets adding to the flood on one side or the other.

    That flood may not break the direction you think, it might but it just as easily could not. We have a year, actually less. The first Primary is in February. several of those running for President will have to be in the Senate for the Hearing.

    I guess they’ll have to just stop campaigning.

  97. The Democrats have chosen to not follow those rules, procedures, and Supreme Court rulings

    Incorrect.

    You may feel that the President isn’t entitled to Due Process

    No one thinks that and repeating no DP won’t make it true.

  98. Pat you’re only claiming the process is rigged because you know the POTUS has no defense.
    It’s not a criminal trial
    Paul Seamus concur as I suspect mahons and phantom Dave and others.
    Lol we know the lawyer trick man you must think we’re fools

  99. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/pound_the_table

    There’s an old legal aphorism that goes, “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

    I rest my case

    Weds 3pm GMT let’s smack this pony.

  100. Simple question pat
    Who is America’s Ally?
    Ukraine or Russia?

  101. Remember the other day when Richard Shelby of Alabama claimed that what Trump did wasn’t “against the law” or “a crime?” Guess what, Shelby? If something is illegal, then it is very much a crime.Let’s call Trump’s actions what they are: extortion.
    There you have it Pat, you asked for the crime: extortion
    Now are you going to get real and join in the calls for his punishment ?
    you’re either for the law or against it ?
    Which is it to be man ?

  102. it’s called Foreign Diplomacy

  103. it’s called Foreign Diplomacy

    There are rules about that , everyone knows the limits
    Sacred is protecting the constitution , free and fair elections
    shame how that cornerstone you once were proud of, doesn’t bother you guys at all no more

    The GOP has the fog machine turned up to 11. They can sling all the bullshit they want, it doesn’t alter the truth. Donald Trump engaged in Bribery & Extortion of a foreign country for his own personal benefit. Period.
    Game over – bar the shouting , and there’ll be plenty of that.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.