Former NSC Russia and Europe expert Fiona Hill puts her finger precisely on the source of the #NunesNonsense we've heard in these #ImpeachmentHearings and from Republicans in general for the last three years.
Will the GOP put country over party?
Ever? pic.twitter.com/6qxCi850zL
— Grant Stern (@grantstern) November 21, 2019
denverboz (11-21-2019),Downinfloflo (11-21-2019),Margarita (11-21-2019),notacon (11-21-2019)
(Sorry Shiva!)
Schiff is doing a masterful job of building the case against Trump that is undeniable. He's cool and deliberate. Smart as can be and used to dealing with the idiot Nunes.
That's why you see Trump and the GOP smearing him with lies and bullcrap. That's all they got!!
Switch onto FOX News.
They don't see it that way and never will.
All this process is doing is preaching to the converted and there are two radically different religions here.
Seems your onto them .... your evaluation of this is spot on.Originally Posted by Haile SpikedLemonade
There will be no converts on either side this day.
In the words of the famous boxer, Jack Jenkins, “don’t take this ass whipping personally”
GO BUFFALO!!
The GOP defense of Trump is in slow-motion collapse. It’s about to get worse.
We know this to be true: Approximately one week passed between President Trump’s decision in mid-July to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, and a phone call on July 26 in which Trump demanded to know from Ambassador Gordon Sondland whether Ukraine would investigate Joe Biden.
Not enough is being made of that chronological confluence. It means we now know that Trump froze the money at around the time he personally directed Sondland to carry out his corrupt pressure on Ukraine to investigate a potential 2020 rival.
This will gain wider attention when David Holmes, a State Department employee who overheard Trump’s July 26 call with Sondland, testifiesThursday to the impeachment inquiry.
The implications this will also be further fleshed out by more testimony on Thursday from Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser on Russia.
Republicans continue to insist there was no connection between the withheld aid and Trump’s corrupt demand that Ukraine carry out his political dirty deeds. Never mind that Sondland actually did convey that message to Ukraine, and that Sondland has now confirmed that overwhelming evidence persuaded him that this is what Trump intended.
The GOP defense is now this: Trump is exonerated, because it hasn’t yet been nailed down beyond any doubt that Trump directly commandedSondland to tell Ukraine that the money was withheld for that corrupt purpose.
Like many other GOP defenses, this one is in slow-motion collapse. And it’s about to get worse.
David Holmes’s testimony
Start with Holmes. He will reiterate his private testimony, which told us Trump said this to Sondland on July 26: “So, he’s going to do the investigations?” To which Sondland replied: “He’s going to do it.”
Hearing this publicly after Sondland’s testimony on Wednesday will be damning. Here’s why: Sondland unequivocally confirmed that Trump was using the White House meeting as leverage to get the investigations he wanted, and that numerous top officials were in on that corrupt scheme.
Now that it has been established that Trump dangled a meeting to force an investigation of Biden, how likely is it that Trump suddenly didn’t intend to use the frozen military aid for that same purpose, at precisely the moment he was both obsessing over that goal and was maximizing his leverage over Ukraine to its highest point yet?
It’s an utterly ludicrous notion.
We know Trump was obsessing over that goal because he personally pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to carry it out on July 25. And the next day he shouted at Sondland over it — which Holmes’s testimony will now dramatize.
Remember that a week earlier, Trump directed acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to freeze the aid, and the rationale for this was concealed from top officials.
Sondland also told us overwhelming evidence persuaded him that Trump’s motive was a corrupt one — that the aid wouldn’t be released until Ukraine did his political bidding. And Ukraine knew the aid had been frozen at the time, a fact that was disclosed on Wednesday by Defense Department official Laura Cooper.
Meanwhile, Sondland also explicitly told us that Mulvaney could testify to that motive in freezing the aid.
In that context, the fact that Trump has blocked Mulvaney from testifying is just profoundly damning. And it will get more so.
Fiona Hill’s testimony
When Hill testifies publicly, she is expected to reiterate her private account of former national security adviser John Bolton’s anger at hearing about this whole corrupt scheme.
On July 10, at the White House, Sondland pressed Ukrainian officials to carry out the investigations Trump wanted. According to Hill’s private testimony, this prompted Bolton to erupt: “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.”
If and when Hill reiterates this, it will underscore the degree to which this whole scheme was already in full swing — in July — and that Trump’s own national security adviser already saw it as corrupt to its core. Only two weeks later, Trump froze the aid.
Hill’s testimony will also serve as a reminder that Bolton himself privately pressed Trump to release the aid, which Trump refused to do. Bolton had numerous conversations directly with Trump over this topic. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, Trump’s motive was overwhelmingly clear to Bolton?
In that context, the blockade on Bolton’s testimony is also profoundly damning.
The GOP defense: 2+2=5
At this point, Trump and Republicans have been reduced to arguing that, because Trump said to Sondland in September that there was “no quid pro quo,” that makes it true. But at the same time, Trump both said that Zelensky must do his bidding and that Zelensky must do it of his own accord. That’s how crime bosses communicate corrupt directives while maintaining plausible deniability for it.
Beyond that, however, this whole defense will become much more ludicrous in light of what we’re about to hear.
Let’s be clear: The GOP defense is that Trump is entirely innocent because it hasn’t yet been confirmed that he explicitly ordered the ringleader of his scheme to expressly tell Ukrainian officials that Trump, in effect, wassoliciting a bribe from them, even though Sondland did convey this message, at what he fully understood to be Trump’s direction.
We now know Trump ordered the aid frozen at precisely the time he was deeply preoccupied with getting Ukraine to investigate Biden; that he had already used one official act as leverage to secure this; that many around him saw the developing scheme as corrupt, with some (Bolton) directly communicating with him over the frozen aid but getting blocked from testifying about it; and that the ringleader of his scheme (Sondland) understood his intentions perfectly.
As Sondland agreed, he understood this as plainly as he knows that 2+2=4.
The Republican defense is that you should ignore all these widely known facts. It’s that 2+2=5.
Margarita (11-21-2019)
That is not to say that Trump did not clearly commit a crime.
He did.
It is just that his supporters don't care that he did.
They want him to remain in power regardless.
I get it.
And there lies the trouble with Trump's chances. The cultist base is only about 30%...maybe 35% of the voting public. The majority of Americans already don't believe a word he says and are eager to vote against him. The 2018 & 2019 election proved that fact.
Trump is in deep trouble. Every single state has moved negatively against him by a MINIMUM of ELEVEN POINTS.
Impeachment is going to make those numbers get even WORSE. He's toast.
What if it doesn't?
What if voters believe Trump committed a crime and still vote for him?
reality and you should get better acquainted ..... converse with Spike more he'll get you there.
This could be no fun for Nunes if true, It could also help explain his utter lack of confidence and constipation.
This is coming from Lev Parnas's lawyer.
Lev Parnas Helped Rep. Devin Nunes’ Investigations
The indicted Giuliani associate helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for the Republican congressman in 2018.
Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018, Parnas’ lawyer Ed MacMahon told The Daily Beast.
]Nunes aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help Nunes’ investigative work. MacMahon didn’t specify what those investigations entailed.
Nunes is the top Republican on the House committee handling the impeachment hearings—hearings where Parnas’ name has repeatedly come up.
Congressional records show Nunes traveled to Europe from Nov. 30 to Dec. 3, 2018. Three of his aides—Harvey, Scott Glabe, and George Pappas—traveled with him, per the records U.S. government funds paid for the group’s four-day trip, which cost just over $63,000. The travel came as Nunes, in his role on the House Intelligence Committee, was working to investigate the origins of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election-meddling.
Parnas’ assistance to Nunes’ team has not been previously reported. A spokesperson for Nunes did not respond to requests for comment
https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-pa...investigations
When is Mark Sandy gonna testify or his testimony released?
Maybe he ignored his subpeona like the folks in the White House?
The really important question is, When will the whistleblower show up..And end this hoax.
Blondie (11-21-2019),Haile SpikedLemonade (11-21-2019),notacon (11-21-2019)
But, I don't base my opinion on my personal feelings or interactions with Americans....I look at the facts, and trust the numbers.
Before you come back with "the numbers showed that Hillary would win"...Actually, the numbers were pretty accurate in 2016. She won by about 3,000,000 votes (a little over two points which is pretty close to what the polls said before the election) and Trump only "won" because of 77,000 total votes in three states that cast a total of 13,622,423. That's a margin of .005%.
The "reality" is that Trump's 2016 election was a one in million fluke.
And THAT was when what Trump would DO as president was actually not known. All he did was lie and lie and lie. Now, he has a record to defend. The lies will catch up to him.
You want to delude yourself into thinking that a .005% margin means he'll win in 2020???? And that the FACTS of his massive decline on popularity in EVERY SINGLE STATE is NOT in "reality"?!?!?!
Well...then you are more gullible than I thought.
Last edited by notacon; 11-21-2019 at 12:52 PM.
Tons of video showing dems getting school over this Russian thingy, especially harris and AOC LOL
Margarita (11-21-2019),TacklingDummy (11-21-2019)
I'm looking forward to the republicans questioning her..
She's ready to throw down.
Margarita (11-21-2019)
Disclaimer: The sentiment expressed in this post is strictly for entertainment purposes only.
Blondie (11-21-2019),Lucidvizion (11-21-2019),notacon (11-21-2019)
To the Canadian
But, I don't base my opinion on my personal feelings or interactions with Americans....I look at the facts, and trust the numbers.
Before you come back with "the numbers showed that Hillary would win"...Actually, the numbers were pretty accurate in 2016. She won by about 3,000,000 votes (a little over two points which is pretty close to what the polls said before the election) and Trump only "won" because of 77,000 total votes in three states that cast a total of 13,622,423. That's a margin of .005%.
The "reality" is that Trump's 2016 election was a one in million fluke.
And THAT was when what Trump would DO as president was actually not known. All he did was lie and lie and lie. Now, he has a record to defend. The lies will catch up to him.
You want to delude yourself into thinking that a .005% margin means he'll win in 2020???? And that the FACTS of his massive decline on popularity in EVERY SINGLE STATE is NOT in "reality"?!?!?!
Well...then you are more gullible than I thought.
Now back to you briefly the POPULAR VOTE MEANS NOTHING so there you go.
Turn it into a popularity contest and that would change everything especially how the candidates campaign ..... totally different strategy.
Are you in my basement?
ticatfan (11-21-2019)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
