web analytics

The Pelosi Scam

By Patrick Van Roy On January 13th, 2020

The conspiracy version……. Nancy with the scary face has finally conceded she has no influence on the Impeachment now that the House has completed it’s sham charging “hearings”.  So why the delay….. simple to fix the Primary.

The Hearing in the Senate requires that all Senators must be present during it. The Hearing will cause Sanders, Warren, Booker, and Klobuchar to miss both the Iowa Caucus on Feb 3, and possibly New Hampshire on Feb 15th. Leaving only Biden and Buttigieg able to carry on their campaigns.

124 Responses to “The Pelosi Scam”

  1. Does it require that? I was under the impression that Senate rules required a quorum not full attendance.

  2. Full attendance….. they are the Jury.

  3. So what happens of they don’t turn up?

  4. Nothing. It is mandatory and Senators miss hearings. However, the nature of this hearing would suggest full attendance. The Dems might agree to suspend campaigning at timed when the Senators attend, but I don’t know if they will agree.

  5. Should say it is not mandatory.

  6. It doesn’t make any sense that 100 plus people have to be present at a trial , Or that otherwise the trial is delayed

    Where does it say that?

  7. If a senator is sick or is delayed in travel then the process stops,

    Does not make sense

  8. They have to attend.

    You’re running for President of the United States but you’re going to be the Jury on for the current one and not show up for the Hearing.

    And of course it would be totally legit to cast your vote after refusing to sit for the hearing.

    I do believe it is mandatory by the rules, but even if it weren’t the drones may accept a Senator casting their vote after ignoring the hearing the majority of the country will however ridicule them for it.

  9. They would not be permitted to campaign. You can’t do it. The jury can’t go about their own business, The jury can’t do anything involving the case while they’re sitting and hearing it. They can’t even discuss Impeachment while they are sitting as the Jury.

  10. It will cause major logistical problems for Sanders Warren and Booker

    Though I will be president before Booker gets the job

  11. When you say they will not be permitted do you mean legally or politically? Will they be in legal trouble, formal trouble or will it be legally allowed but just cause controversy?

  12. Cory Booker has ended his campaign.

  13. It is still vague as to what it will all consist of. The Republicans won’t be calling witnesses. The Senators will no doubt all attend, but I suspect we aren’t looking at a “trial” as much as a simple vote.

  14. The Republicans have already made up their mind so they should just vote right away

    The leader of the Senate has already said that he’s not impartial And that he’s in cahoots with The defendant

  15. I met Booker once at NY Penn Station

    Nice guy

  16. It takes 51 votes to set the rules, the Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats.

    Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski can easily demand that there will be witnesses and a full hearing which is very likely. The 3 of them will never vote to just dismiss.

    The only person who can end this without a hearing is the Chief Justice. He could just dismiss it for lack of evidence. The odds of him doing so are slim to none though.

  17. I’m nearly certain he can’t dismiss it. The Senate has to vote. Where did you get the information he could dismiss it?

  18. Pretty sure it was from a panel with Chris Wallace. Can’t remember who was making the statement. A high end Lawyer talking head.

    The Chief Justice could reach a summery finding that the House haven’t made their case for the charges. The conversation was brought on due to the second article that the House is bringing. The Obstruction of Justice charge.

    It can be dismissed on it’s face. To have obstruction of Justice for withholding either documents or witnesses in a presidential impeachment you have to have a court ruling.

    The President has Executive Privilege that he can assert over anything or anyone called but he has to make that claim in court in response to a House Subpoena.

    The House did not Subpoena a single Person or Document. They said “We will not be tied up with games in the Court” They then created a list of Witnesses and documents they wanted, but never Subpoenaed, and charged “Obstruction”.

    The Charge of Obstruction is dismissed summarily.

    The debate was then if he could just dismiss them both, the conclusion was yes.

    The Chief Justice will never just dismiss the whole thing. Roberts wouldn’t set such a precedent.

  19. It is simply untrue to say that a Congressional subpoena needs to be filed in court to be enforceable.

    Anyone saying the Chief Justice can dismiss the charges who also relies on the subpoena court argument can be automatically excluded.

  20. Patrick – only the Senate can dismiss (or convict). I think the panelist was wrong. The Chief Justice serves more as a figurehead at this. I think upon further review you’ll agree.

  21. I think the point is moot, but where the Senate has to vote the CJ is there to rule on legal procedure. The problem the House has is there are no broken Laws here. The charges are purely political.

    Seamus the House has to file Subpoenas. The President is Entitled to exert Executive Privilege. The Court then decides where it applies and where it does not. This is set Precedent from Watergate, and Clinton’s Impeachment. The President was denied Due Process to Exert Privilege he can’t be held on Obstruction on documents and witnesses that were never asked for.

  22. “Seamus the House has to file Subpoenas.”

    Where does it say the House has to file subpoenas in court?

  23. Mr President you’re accused of Obstruction…. Obstruction of what. I never received a request for any witnesses or documents……

    The Democrats sent no requests or subpoenas to the White House. I guess if you can’t read their minds as to what and who they want you’re guilty of obstruction……..

  24. Nonsense. The House subpoenaed Mike Pompeo, Gordon Sondland, Mike Pence, Rudy Giuliani, Mark T. Esper, Mick Mulvaney, and Rick Perry. All but Gordon Sondland refused to testify and Sondland refused to provide documents.

  25. no they did not.

    I know you don’t believe me but on every example they put forth as obstruction they refused to put in official requests or subpoenas for.

    Don’t take my word for it take John Bolton’s. He has said several times in the press Subpoena me so the court can rule.

    Look up Adam Schiff saying he won’t issue subpoenas because he doesn’t want to “waste time” while the courts take forever to decide what they can and can not have.

    sorry you’re wrong.

  26. John Bolton wasn’t subpoenaed. Mike Pompeo, Gordon Sondland, Mike Pence, Rudy Giuliani, Mark T. Esper, Mick Mulvaney, and Rick Perry, as well as a series of other people were subpoenaed. Here is a copy of Pompeo’s:

    https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf

  27. According to this poll, 66% of americans want Bolton to testify at the senate impeachment trial.

    Trump is the first defendant in history to prevent witnesses who would clear his name from testifying, as he did in the House proceedings. Now McConnell is saying he won’t hear witnesses who could clear the president.

    Why would an innocent man prevent first witness testimony that would lead to his exoneration?

  28. US budget deficit topped $1 trillion in 2019 for the first time in seven years.

    Explain that.

  29. and they didn’t take it to the court Seamus the white house response was no take us to court which are the procedures set forth by every Presidential Impeachment. The House has to go to the court to compel.

    They refused to follow the Rules and Procedures for a subpoena for Presidential Documents and the Testimony of Advisors.

    There are Legal steps that take place the House requests, the WH denies, the House goes to the court and their request is ruled on. Then and ONLY THEN if the WH doesn’t comply can the be held to the charge of obstruction.

    The House Skipped “the House goes to the court and their request is ruled on” and charged Obstruction…… that is not Obstruction, it’s political bullshit.

    Seamus the House is done. There will be a hearing, and the President will be found innocent or guilty the Dems will have their Impeachment and Trump will have his vindication.

    Not because of Politics, but because of the LAW. There was no obstruction and there is no crime on the phone call.

    but hey you go right on believing what you choose. In 295 days the only Jury that counts will convene and decide.

  30. Daphne, on January 13th, 2020 at 9:43 PM Said: Edit Comment
    US budget deficit topped $1 trillion in 2019 for the first time in seven years.

    Explain that.

    Democrats control the House….. they control the purse. They’re not cutting spending. Learn how your government works Daphne it may help you find a point.

  31. Trump won’t be vindicated by a party line vote.

  32. it was Bipartisan not to charge him……

  33. They need 20 Republicans to vote to convict…… never gonna happen. Not without a crime.

  34. McConnell and Graham work complete idiots for saying that they were partisans Who would be working with trumps legal henchmen

    They Announced before hand that they would be violating their oath And that they would be guiding a sham trial That will be credible to no one

  35. Were

  36. Republicans controlled the house when the last tax bill was cut. The senate has been sitting on 300 democrat house bills.

    The problem isn’t dem spending, it’s with the gop tax bill.

  37. “and they didn’t take it to the court Seamus the white house response was no take us to court which are the procedures set forth by every Presidential Impeachment. The House has to go to the court to compel.”

    A subpoena is valid as soon as it is issued. Failure to follow it results in contempt of Congress. Now contempt of Congress has three avenues.

    Avenue a) The Speaker of the House refers the matter to the U.S. attorney with instructions to impanel a grand jury for prosecution. However U.S. attorneys work for the executive branch and the executive branch can refuse to refer the matter to the grand jury (especially when the obstruction of justice is by a member of the executive branch).

    Avenue b) – and this what you are erroneously clinging to – A civil lawsuit by the House asking a court to enforce a subpoena. In such a case the an executive branch member can contest the subpoena “based on a governmental privilege or objection the assertion of which has been authorized by the executive branch of the Federal Government”.

    Avenue c) A dormant, but still present power, inherent contempt of Congress. Under inherent contempt proceedings, the House has its own ability to enforce its subpoena, normally by having the Sergeant-At-Arms arrest the person and detain them until they testify.

    In McGrain v. Daugherty the Supreme Court held that under the Constitution, Congress has the power to compel witnesses and testimony “to obtain information in aid of the legislative function.

    Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution”.

    Avenue a requires the subpoena to be enforced by the executive branch. Avenue b requires the subpoena to be enforced by the judicial branch. Avenue c has it enforced by the legislative branch. All of those avenues related to subpoena enforcement. The subpoena compels a person to provide testimony and documents, and the avenues are how Congress compels people to abide by the subpoena. None of them relate to the validity of the subpoena in the first place.

    The House subpoenaed Mike Pompeo, Gordon Sondland, Mike Pence, Rudy Giuliani, Mark T. Esper, Mick Mulvaney, and Rick Perry to provide documents. That subpoena compelled them to do so. That there was no further compulsion to abide by the subpoena doesn’t change that they were subpoenaed to provide those documents. They failed to do so, at the instruction of the President. The President obstructed Congress in their investigation, which is a high crime.

  38. I take note that Troll does not address the witness issue. Why not let those who could exonerate Trump testify? Why would the president prevent them from testifying?

  39. Yes he speaks in riddles when That subject comes up

  40. He’s a cult member.

  41. Daphne I have addressed it, and there is no Troll, unless you want to be refered to as “The Cow” try using my name.

    If they decide to go the witness route witnesses will be called and where exerted executive privilege will be ruled on by the CJ.

    The WH wants witnesses that alone should scare the crap out of most of you if you thought it out. Bolton may not give the testimony that you think.

    However Precedent has long been set that Presidential advisors can’t be compelled to testify, and it’s not a matter of whether they can clear or convict.

    It has been ruled by the supreme court that they can’t be compelled for the exact reason that Trump has stated. You can’t call a Presidential advisor and compel testimony because no President would ever be able to get advice if the advisors can be forced to testify as to what they said. It would destroy all Presidents ability to seek advice. The rule exists to protect the office.

  42. A subpoena is valid as soon as it is issued. Failure to follow it results in contempt of Congress. Now contempt of Congress has three avenues.

    Not in the Case of Congress vs The Executive….. it decided Law.

  43. What decided law? Name specific cases.

  44. John Bolton has volunteered to testify

    No compulsion required

  45. Echoing Phantom…Bolton has volunteered to testify.

    Trump blocked all other first hand witnesses from testifying.

    Why would an innocent man block favorable witnesses who would exonerate him?

  46. The Chief Justice won’t rule on them, he has NO VOTE in the Senate. If he sees an issue he will refer it to the Senate to vote on (even procedurally). He is really a figurehead in this matter. We don’t have the VP there cause the founding lads realized it wouldn’t look good to have the guy potentially taking over the office presiding over the trial. Check it out you’ll see.

  47. Phantom, on January 13th, 2020 at 10:18 PM Said: Edit Comment
    John Bolton has volunteered to testify

    No compulsion required

    It’s not up to him and he has said so repeatedly he has said go to the court to get a ruling.

    No Mahons he will rule, the legal aspects are not up to a vote.

    Seamus it was decided during the Watergate Hearings. Look it up. While you’re at it look up executive privilege.

  48. Daphne, on January 13th, 2020 at 10:22 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Echoing Phantom…Bolton has volunteered to testify.

    Trump blocked all other first hand witnesses from testifying.

    Why would an innocent man block favorable witnesses who would exonerate him?

    I repeat…..

    However Precedent has long been set that Presidential advisors can’t be compelled to testify, and it’s not a matter of whether they can clear or convict.

    It has been ruled by the supreme court that they can’t be compelled for the exact reason that Trump has stated. You can’t call a Presidential advisor and compel testimony because no President would ever be able to get advice if the advisors can be forced to testify as to what they said. It would destroy all Presidents ability to seek advice. The rule exists to protect the office.

  49. And John Bolton will voluntarily testify

    No Compulsion required

  50. “Seamus it was decided during the Watergate Hearings. Look it up. While you’re at it look up executive privilege.”

    It was decided that Congress lost its subpoena power to investigate the executive? Nonsense. Congress possesses the power of subpoena and does not require the permission of either of the other two branches to use it.

  51. You all act like there is no settled Law on the rules of Presidential Impeachments, but there is, there’s a ton of it.

    The House ignored the rules and the Law, the Senate won’t.

    Why do you think they have said they will follow the same rules that Clinton was tried under?

    Because it’s settled Law.

  52. What rules? Where are they written down? Be specific.

  53. It was decided that Congress lost its subpoena power to investigate the executive? Nonsense. Congress possesses the power of subpoena and does not require the permission of either of the other two branches to use it.

    When it concerns the Executive Branch that does not apply.

    Congress and the Executive are equal….. neither can compel the other.

  54. Seamus, on January 13th, 2020 at 10:42 PM Said: Edit Comment
    What rules? Where are they written down? Be specific.

    The Library of Congress, National Archives, under Presidential Impeachment.

  55. “When it concerns the Executive Branch that does not apply.”

    Where was that decided? Again be specific.

  56. “The Library of Congress, National Archives, under Presidential Impeachment.”

    Where? I’m sure you have a link.

  57. your best bet is through the Cornell Law Library. They are the public access…..

    A comment from Dershowitz regarding obstruction.

    Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

  58. a little bit from Bowdoin

    In chronological order …

    House Resolution 611, Articles of impeachment. “Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors”. H.Res. 611, received in the Senate, 19 December 1998. Available in govinfo.

    Chief Justice administers oath. Congressional Record, Senate, 7 January 1999, p. 274. Available in HeinOnline and govinfo.

    Senate Resolution 16, governing impeachment proceedings. “To provide for issuance of a summons and for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States”, S. Res. 16, agreed to Senate, 8 January 1999. Available in govinfo.

    Senate Resolution 30, governing impeachment proceedings. “Relative to the procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton”, S. Res. 30, agreed to Senate, 28 January 1999. Available in govinfo.

    Trial of William Jefferson Clinton. Congressional Record, Senate, 14 January 1999 – 8 February 1999, pp. 357-2026. Available in HeinOnline and govinfo.

    Managers’ presentation of their case. Congressional Record, Senate, 14 January 1999, pp. 521-553. Available in HeinOnline and govinfo.

    Presentation of case for the President. Congressional Record, Senate, 19-21 January 1999, pp. 1055-1221. Available in HeinOnline and govinfo.

    Votes on Articles of Impeachment. Congressional Record, Senate, 12 February 1999, pp. 2376-2377. Available in HeinOnline and govinfo.

    you can use that as a map as to where to find the rules that Clinton was tried under and proposed for Trump to be tried under.

  59. Managers’ presentation of their case

    well pat you sure got crap managers in the GOP
    They can’t get their act together in this trail even to select the managers
    what a bunch of inept bluffers — I guess when they’re up for re-election thinking people will remember that when in the hour of need , they sat on their hands and shuffled with something.
    can’t say what that member they were shuffling as its x-rated ..
    what a shower eh?

  60. Kurt you shouldn’t smoke that stuff and comment…… The GOP has no problem appointing managers. The Dems have to appoint the managers from the House to present the case.

  61. Patrick – he won’t rule. The Constitution leaves it to the Senate. If he determines a ruling is needed he will refer it to the Senate who will then vote on any ruling.

  62. Mahons can you rule on this:
    who appoints managers in the trial
    House or Senate
    pat has it wrong, the house is done when it passes the case to the senate
    its my understanding senate appoints managers
    but i don’t have a degree in con law like pat, nor am I a lawyer

    gotta be simple this question yeah 😉

  63. The House appoints them. I believe they will come from the Judiciary Committee.

  64. alrighty mahons ty

    in a separate related development re: witness’s palmer wonders

    “In a surprise development tonight, Donald Trump and his White House are now telling CBS News that based on their headcount, the Republican Senate will indeed force witnesses to be called. This is remarkable on two fronts. First, the Trump regime doesn’t tend to acknowledge reality in general. Second, by publicly admitting this, Trump and his goons are further increasing the odds that it’ll happen.

  65. oh dear pat, more prison sentences coming to GOP

    “Back when Donald Trump was first launching his 2016 campaign for president, Chris Collins was the first Republican Congressman to endorse him. Since that time, Collins has been indicted for insider trading, he’s resigned, and he’s pleaded guilty. Now prosecutors have announced how much prison time they’re seeking in his case, and let’s just say that it isn’t pretty.”

    “Of course the second Republican Congressman to endorse Donald Trump was Duncan Hunter, and he’s also since been indicted, forced to resign, and convinced to plead guilty. Hunter is also headed to prison, with prosecutors seeking a minimum of a one year sentence.”

    is it a record in the USA of how many of Trumps goons end up in the slammer ? lmao
    the party of morality ? too funny ..

    a record to be proud of ? hmmnn?

    not to mention lev parnas has an iphone full of goodies – and it a Rudy Butt-Dial

    Interesting times ahead .. lotts guys going down pat, in real time
    not conspiracy stuff, actual indictments and prison sentences
    you know the stuff you dream about for Obama and Comey, but is not gonna happen EVER

    nighty night

  66. Mahons, on January 13th, 2020 at 11:56 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick – he won’t rule. The Constitution leaves it to the Senate. If he determines a ruling is needed he will refer it to the Senate who will then vote on any ruling.

    We are having a misunderstanding of words here that I’m missing or you’re totally missing what I’m talking about…. let me reword what I’m saying.

    The Rules are voted on and decided before the hearing begins. As it stands now they are going to follow the rules that were established for the Clinton trial any tweeks will be ironed out but their shouldn’t be any.

    Once the hearing begins and the senators are Oathed in as Jurors the CJ makes all rulings from that point. It is handled like a criminal jury trial. Prosecution vs Defense with the Judge Ruling over the argument, what is admissible and what is not what objections are overruled and what are sustained. He isn’t going to stop the hearing and have the JURY vote on any ruling.

    Once the Trial begins the only time the Senators will vote is on innocence or guilt.

  67. You still haven’t addressed why Trump has prevented witnesses from testifying who can clear him.

    Why would Trump prevent first hand testimony from his own staff and appointed secretaries?

  68. because it would set the precedent of being able to call a Presidential Advisor. It would cause irreparable damage to the office of the Presidency.

    That is the reason the Supreme Court gave.

  69. I appreciate the response Patrick but I have to disagree that the CJ would make rulings as if it was a criminal trial. I suppose we can wait and see.

  70. no a good reasonable conversation.

  71. It’s a brilliant move by Pelosi, let the mcconnel monkeys run their Mickey mouse trial on these lesser charges and later when the real charges are in prosecuted the public will demand a real trial

  72. pat new slogan for GOP 2020
    Jailhouse Rocks 😉

  73. if was GOP I wouldn’t talk to much about the LAW when 50% of my side are either in jail or going to jail. Nah I’d pound the table and hype up conspiracy theories and hoaxes
    oh wait ..lol – enter Rudy — stage left .. he’s the clown of the GOP circus.
    Never witness a more corrupt, hopeless administration.. many many key posts are not even filled – empty offices are the new normal .. Terrible indictment . Its over soon i reckon

  74. Emerald Pimpernel, on January 14th, 2020 at 2:41 AM Said: Edit Comment
    It’s a brilliant move by Pelosi, let the mcconnel monkeys run their Mickey mouse trial on these lesser charges and later when the real charges are in prosecuted the public will demand a real trial

    EP will that before or after the Election ?

  75. “With President Trump facing an impeachment trial over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, Russian military hackers have been boring into the Ukrainian gas company at the center of the affair, according to security experts.

    The Russian attacks on Burisma appear to be running parallel to an effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information in the analog world that could embarrass the Bidens, according to an American security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. The spies, the official said, are trying to penetrate Burisma and working sources in the Ukrainian government in search of emails, financial records and legal documents.” NY Times

    This matter should be thoroughly investigated now and the impeachment suspended until the House considers the findings. It may be that should be an additional charge. Russia is interfering to benefit Trump. They put their stooge in the White House and are actively working for his reelection. This is a very serious matter because it is an attempt to influence the election this November. The Russians helped Trump in the 2016 election, they must be stopped from doing so in the upcoming election.

  76. to be expected NY’er
    but for GOP the only thing worse than the evil of Russia is the democrats
    so nothing will happen about this, beyond words spoken and written + tweeted
    sadly, this is the state of USA politics
    a once proud nation , run by a corrupt mafia/Trump regime of liars law breakers and scoundrels happy to be assfucked by Russia – in public too .!

  77. My understanding of the rules are that the Chief Justice can issue rulings but that any ruling can been objected to by any Senator. It then goes to a simple majority vote in the Senate.

  78. there’s room for Bolton to testify as Trump had no conversations with Bolton that concerned national security, other than his own actions jeopardizing it.

    Oh the polls in key states look like they’ll force GOP to call witnesses

    A poll from Hart Research that reveals 63% of voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina will be highly disappointed if their senators vote against allowing witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial. If they vote against that, those senators can kiss their seats goodbye. Politico also reported on the Morning Consult poll, which shows that 57% of all voters want the Senate to call witnesses, including 56% of Independents and even 40% of Republicans. It’s looking more and more like Mitch McConnell had better go along with having a real trial in the Senate and not some sham proceeding.

  79. Rudy wants in

    Giuliani lobbying to join Trump’s impeachment defense

    Part of the Trump team + Dershowitch, maybe Trowdy
    Hannity ? A character witness .. ( joke )

    https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/14/giuliani-lobbied-join-white-house-impeachment-defense-trump-ebof-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

  80. Seamus – that is essentially correct. I believe Roberts would take the option of referring rulings to the Senate instead of directly ruling to preserve the appearance of impartiality.

  81. More Russian collusion?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51103556

  82. fox news will find out head of that security firm donated $10 to a democrat super-pac
    story buried and forgotten .. its an easy play .. vile ofc ..

    Parnas has another of the big smoking guns

    “the latest reminder that Bill Barr, despite his position as Attorney General and his sociopathic criminal ambition, can’t just magically do whatever he wants. If that were the case, Barr would have found a way to make the Lev Parnas mess go away a long time ago. Instead, Lev is working with the House to create a whole new problem for Barr”

    House of cards ..

    no-one in the administration can control all these separate threads coming together

  83. yeah between the Dems and their Russian handlers trying to see what evidence is in Burisma computers that might implicate them all.

  84. Well, the Trump administration colluded with the Russkies prior to the original election so it stands to reason they’d do the same with any forthcoming re election?

  85. As difficult I’m sure this may be for our American friends to get it is worth pointing out that America is not at the centre of everything.

    Burisma is one of the largest natural gas producers in Ukraine. Likely this is more to do with Russia-Ukraine stuff than Russia-America stuff.

  86. That’s correct

    This is a dirty company in a dirty industry being attacked by a dirty country led by a dirty leader

    It is part of the campaign that’s been going on for at least 10 years, Well before Hunter Biden got that fake job

  87. Paul McMahon, on January 14th, 2020 at 1:19 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Well, the Trump administration colluded with the Russkies prior to the original election so it stands to reason they’d do the same with any forthcoming re election?

    I can’t believe you are still shilling that bull…… 19 Democrat Lawyers, 40 FBI Agents, and a Special Prosecutor PROVED Trump did not “Collude”…… yet here you are still beating a dead horse.

    and you want to be taken seriously ?

  88. Collusion was proved. It was however concluded that said collusion was not illegal.

  89. nope sorry the SP said NO Collusion PERIOD…..

    Seamus go watch the clip I just put up for you.

  90. No, he didn’t.

    Secondly, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

  91. When did Mueller say that

  92. First Half of the Mueller Report NO COLLUSION

    Mueller Report Findings: No Collusion, Can’t Exonerate On …
    https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191
    Mar 24, 2019 · Mueller Report Findings: No Collusion, Can’t Exonerate On Obstruction Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein prepared a …

    “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Barr wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees on Sunday afternoon.

    That was despite “multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” he wrote.

    keep drinking the koolaid guys

  93. Which is William Barr’s spin on the Special Counsel’s report and is frankly a lie. Whereas I quoted directly from the report itself.

  94. I can’t believe you are still shilling that bull

    You mean that Trump Jr, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort didn’t meet with a Russian translator, lawyer and publicist hoping to get dirt on the Beast and then lied about it?

  95. no it’s not Barrs spin… sorry. Do you believe if he “Colluded” or for that matter if Mueller found anything that they wouldn’t have impeached over it ? That was the plan, and they screwed the pooch.

    So we have a Laughable “Abuse of Power” and a fake “Obstruction”. The professionals trying to bring him down found nothing, but as your refusal to grasp that proves…. their propaganda campaign worked on you lot… lol

  96. So Trump Jr didn’t admit that he met the Russians in order to get information about Hilary?

  97. Secondly, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

    That is a direct quote from Mueller’s report. Not Barr’s lies but a direct quote. Collusion was proven, but the type of collusion was not illegal.

  98. Which is the dirty country with the dirty leader?

    I suspect I know your answer but I wonder if there isn’t 2 answers

  99. Do you think that Pat actually believes these ‘alternative facts’ stories himself or just that he believes he can bluff others with them?

  100. Ok Mueller found collusion and obstruction….. but it’s the generosity of Pelousy to pass on those charges that you all say were proven to instead bring impeachment over a phone call…

    LMAO….. oh ok that sounds sound.

  101. Pat, are you suggestint that Trump Jr didn’t admit that he met the Russians in order to get information about Hilary?

    Did that not happen?

    Mueller

    identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign

    and then wrote a letter to Barr rebuking his summary of Mueller’s findings.

    Did that not happen either?

  102. Russia is the dirty country with the dirty leader.

    It is a country entirely run by criminals than has invaded a much weaker neighbor that Cannot defend itself

    The US is the lost and divided country with a dirty leader who snuck in against the wishes of most voters

  103. Like it phantom but to add
    It’s looking like the criminal Trump invaded his own country against a weaker democratic party and has created a divided country.

    Law and order is of no interest to Putin or Trump . We should be worried .

  104. The country was divided before

    Democrats are no bargain either

  105. Kurt Trump is a result of a totally different divide.

    Trump got elected playing the divide between Washington and the American Worker and the Illegal Immigrant. He got the Union Rank and File vote, that’s what got him elected. Without the Union Vote he wouldn’t have won.

    AFTER he won the Dems went scorched Earth to cover the crimes they committed under Obama, but the elected Republicans hated him just as much as the Dems.

  106. Mahons, on January 13th, 2020 at 10:25 PM Said: Edit Comment
    The Chief Justice won’t rule on them, he has NO VOTE in the Senate. If he sees an issue he will refer it to the Senate to vote on (even procedurally).

    Mahons you’re right I was wrong.

  107. omg – Trump goes so far as hiring goons to do bad things to the ex-Ambassador
    Yankovitch. she with an impeccable record, one who was following national security policy in Ukraine and was not part of the rudy guiliani drug deal.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/parnas-associate-tracked-ousted-ambassadors-movements-in-kyiv-docs

  108. Mahons you’re right I was wrong

    Good man Pat, I like a person who can admit when he’s made a mistake.

    You’re also incorrect about Barr’s assetion regarding collusion in the Mueller investigation. Or rather Barr was incorrect with his assetion regarding collusion in the Mueller investigation

  109. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current prosecutor general, said that neither Hunter Biden nor Burisma were now the focus of an investigation. He added, however, that he was planning to offer details to U.S. Attorney General William Barr about Burisma board payments so American authorities could check whether Hunter Biden paid U.S. taxes on the income […]

    Lutsenko said his prosecutors are now looking at Zlochevsky and dozens of other Ukrainians as part of one of the country’s biggest criminal investigations, which was begun in 2014

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens

    What? So the investigation into Burisma wasn’t shut down after all?

    That kinda banjaxes the ‘theory’ pushed by the madman from Aberdeen about an investigation ending because of the prosecuter being removed and discredits any of the allegations made by Trump and his disciples?

    Obviously a Uke Deep State whitewash.

  110. Good man Pat.

    It is worth pointing out that the only ruling that Chief Justice Rehnquist issued during the Clinton trial was to admonish House manager Bob Barr for referring to Senators as jurors. Rehnquist’s ruling was that the Senate is not a jury but the court in its entirety in cases of impeachment.

    Something backed up by Article III of the constitution which states that “the trial of all crimes, except in the cases of impeachment, shall be by jury”.

    Something Democrat commentators should remember when comparing McConnell and Graham’s collusion with the White House to that of a juror conspiring with defence counsel.

  111. Impeachment trials start with the Senators taking an oath to be impartial.

    https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/1_1868ImpeachmentRules.pdf

    McConnell and Graham have given full notice that they intend to violate that oath. They’re not hiding it.

    When Trump is acquitted, no honest person can say that he has been vindicated.

    The fix is in.

  112. Patrick – I’d be prepared to cut and paste that line. (I kid, I kid).

  113. hey it happens

  114. So Phantom if McConnell and Graham have violated their oath as Jurers why doesn’t the same apply to Bernie, Harris, Pocahontas, and Spartacus ?

  115. Phantom the Mormon senator romney said he wants to hear from witnesses and expects to be asked to vote on that .
    Every one with even a fleeting interest in justice the law trial process evidence fairness and so on would want to hear what Bolton has to say.
    Let it be so

  116. Bolton is liable to backfire as a witness for the prosecution, be careful what you wish for.

  117. It’s been suggested Trump could use executive privelege to deny bolton. But that is countered by the proviso he doesn’t or can’t answer questions pertaining to national security. This is one to watch as clearly Bolton will want to speak freely also the trial demands it . But you can be sure the GOP will be using that cover excuse as much as possible . Be interesting this . To

  118. It’s been suggested Trump could use executive privelege to deny bolton. But that is countered by the proviso he doesn’t or can’t answer questions pertaining to national security. This is one to watch as clearly Bolton will want to speak freely also the trial demands it . But you can be sure the GOP will be using that cover excuse as much as possible . Be interesting this . To

  119. Maybe pat . Hey we shud have a trial thread now this one is a settled matter 🥳

  120. Bolton was a personal advisor to the President Kurt he can’t be compelled to testify he can be allowed to testify if the President chooses and only if the President chooses….. so think

  121. Bernie and the others have not said that they will violate their oath the way that McConnell and Graham have.

  122. They have all said on the campaign trail that he’s guilty….. no real jury would seat any of them

  123. They haven’t said that they will dishonor their oath the way that your McConnell and Graham have.

    They should recuse themselves.

    How would the perp react to that?

  124. If we start recusing any of them I could list reasons for the majority of both sides to be recused……

    And the Turtle and Mrs McCain aren’t mine……. 😉

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.