IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?
ridski said:
Jaytee said:
drummerboy said:
Parnas is either the smoothest fu**er on the planet, or he's telling the truth.
He better be in front of a house committee ASAP.
He is very believable. We need a couple more of them to come forward.
I wouldn’t necessarily buy everything he’s saying. He’s happy to lie about anything that gives him a better deal.
Yeah, of course. But the thing is that he didn't stumble and nothing was terribly outlandish, given what we already know.
As far as a deal - well, he's not going to get an offer after today, right? And that would mean he's already been offered a deal, and he's already told this story to the Feds. But I would assume MSNBC's lawyers would have vetted that before the interview, and would have revealed any deal.
I think.
What do I know?
Great interview! When you have recordings, emails, texts and documents to show as evidence, that's powerful. How can Trump and his swamp people now continue with their claim of a coup? The connection to Firtash is significant. Part 2 tonight? This is much more fun than the debates.
on a side note ( Morganna the kittens were Hunter and Raveena)
If the Senate says that they don't want to hear from this guy, it's a cover-up.
Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani who has been implicated in an alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, says, "President Trump knew exactly what was going on."
"He was aware of all my movements. I wouldn't do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president. I have no intent, I have no reason to speak to any of these officials," Parnas, who faces campaign finance charges, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in an interview that aired Wednesday night.
"I mean, they have no reason to speak to me. Why would President Zelenskiy's inner circle or Minister Avakov or all these people or President Poroshenko meet with me? Who am I? They were told to meet with me. And that's the secret that they're trying to keep. I was on the ground doing their work," Parnas said.
Giuliani associate Parnas says Trump 'knew exactly what was going on'
"President Trump, we have good news and bad news."
"What's the good news?"
"Ukraine is going to open an investigation in cooperation with the FBI."
"Fantastic! What's the bad news?" Ukrainian police open probe of possible surveillance of ambassador and invite FBI to participate https://t.co/vy0BRBL37I
Was that Lev Parnas attorney staring down Rachel Maddow during the interview? I swear he did not blink or turn his focus away from Maddow the whole interview.
Parnas has a paper, text and email trail. Wonder if he kept any voicemail messages.
What's hilarious, Giuliani wants to put himself on the clowns Impeachment Defense Team. SMDH!
ridski said:
I wouldn’t necessarily buy everything he’s saying. He’s happy to lie about anything that gives him a better deal.
many of his claims corroborate the sworn testimony of impeachment witnesses, so those are quite credible. The rest of what he's saying, who knows?
nohero said:
If the Senate says that they don't want to hear from this guy, it's a cover-up.
Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani who has been implicated in an alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, says, "President Trump knew exactly what was going on."
"He was aware of all my movements. I wouldn't do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president. I have no intent, I have no reason to speak to any of these officials," Parnas, who faces campaign finance charges, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in an interview that aired Wednesday night.
"I mean, they have no reason to speak to me. Why would President Zelenskiy's inner circle or Minister Avakov or all these people or President Poroshenko meet with me? Who am I? They were told to meet with me. And that's the secret that they're trying to keep. I was on the ground doing their work," Parnas said.Giuliani associate Parnas says Trump 'knew exactly what was going on'
I said before I was against rushing the impeachment. Nixon's took months. It built a case while building support.
Pelosi resisted impeachment. Finally, she allowed it when pushed hard. Whereupon it was rushed.
Impeachment takes work. It takes away from the many embassy Washington parties, parties industry elites, etc. Where the elite preen while air kissing each other and while showing their multi thousand dollar outfits. Parties none of you would ever be invited to.
The vacuousness of our society is shown when the crumbs of a quickie impeachment causes so many to swoon in adoration of Pelosi, et al.
I'm in the camp of wishing they had waited a while longer to vote on impeachment. I think the courts would have ruled that the Congressional subpoenas were legit and more Administration members would have had to testify. Or Trump could have defied the courts and backed into an even more blatant Obstruction situation.
I think it's pretty clear he's done some bad stuff which warrants removal from office. But I think there would have been a better chance of that happening with a longer investigative process. Right now I think there's a 0.001% chance of him getting removed from office. Maybe if the House had waited a little longer and pressed their case in the courts, it would increase a hundredfold.
I keep hearing journalists and pundits talking about how bad it is simply to he impeached. But I think if and when he's found not guilty in the Senate he'll flip that script into something which benefits him.
mrincredible said:
I'm in the camp of wishing they had waited a while longer to vote on impeachment. I think the courts would have ruled that the Congressional subpoenas were legit and more Administration members would have had to testify. Or Trump could have defied the courts and backed into an even more blatant Obstruction situation.
...
It's not being talked about much, but the courts are pretty obviously slow-walking all of the House investigation cases. Given the import of the impeachment, they could easily rule in a couple of weeks - instead they're taking months. I mean, you'd think SCOTUS would take these cases up on a priority basis, as they have in the past. Why aren't they (besides the obvious "let's help the Repubs").
drummerboy said:
It's not being talked about much, but the courts are pretty obviously slow-walking all of the House investigation cases. Given the import of the impeachment, they could easily rule in a couple of weeks - instead they're taking months. I mean, you'd think SCOTUS would take these cases up on a priority basis, as they have in the past. Why aren't they (besides the obvious "let's help the Repubs").
Ick. Just a taste of what the courts would look like in another four years of trump appointments.
On the other hand, instead of still dithering in the House, for more witnesses, the best case to date showed an impeachable offense. Now it's with the Senate, and with new witnesses and evidence spilling out every day, the senators have a choice: look for the truth, or go with the cover-up.
drummerboy said:
It's not being talked about much, but the courts are pretty obviously slow-walking all of the House investigation cases. Given the import of the impeachment, they could easily rule in a couple of weeks - instead they're taking months. I mean, you'd think SCOTUS would take these cases up on a priority basis, as they have in the past. Why aren't they (besides the obvious "let's help the Repubs").
I think partisanship is one factor, but I think there's also institutional biases and incentives at play. The courts are in general not eager to get into disputes between Congress and the Executive (which is why when justices do seem eager to jump in, it's newsworthy). When the courts do get involved, they have a bias toward the Executive, so in this case we have three biases reinforcing each other -- an institutional hesitancy to dive into inter-branch disputes, a preference for the claims of the executive, and this particular court's composition making them naturally more disposed toward the president's party -- all of which are indulged by slow-walking these cases.
From the point of view of Congress, I think this also strengthens the case for Pelosi's decision not to wait for the courts. They are in no hurry and, when and if they finally do make a ruling, there's a decent chance it would not be to Congress's benefit.
White House hold on Ukraine aid violated federal law, congressional watchdog says
(WaPo)
The White House violated federal law in its hold on security aid to Ukraine last year, according to a decision by a congressional watchdog released on Thursday.
The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, found the Trump administration violated a law that governs how the White House disburses money approved by Congress
...
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the decision states. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.”
Heard in Washington: Mitch McConnell replies to GAO finding that the administration broke the law:
phenixrising said:
Was that Lev Parnas attorney staring down Rachel Maddow during the interview? I swear he did not blink or turn his focus away from Maddow the whole interview.
Parnas has a paper, text and email trail. Wonder if he kept any voicemail messages.
Yes! That stare was in Artificial Intelligence terrain! Confronted by him I would have given away state secrets. Ex KGB?
There were voicemail messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15/house-democrats-parnas-evidence-099413
“This is historic. It’s the first time anyone has ever used the phrase ‘Trump knew exactly what was going on.’” — STEPHEN COLBERT
nohero said:
On the other hand, instead of still dithering in the House, for more witnesses, the best case to date showed an impeachable offense. Now it's with the Senate, and with new witnesses and evidence spilling out every day, the senators have a choice: look for the truth, or go with the cover-up.
Its not dithering, its getting the facts. Did you think the many months of Nixon impeachment was dithering?
Its also allowing the courts to rule that the Trump acolytes can be forced to appear for the impeachment hearings.
Pelosi rushed it. Its no longer her problem. For her its back to party time.
This is what happens when you rush:
For the Senators Who Will Judge Trump, an Incomplete Story to Consider
Do not expect the Republican senate to dig deep.
BG9 said:
nohero said:
On the other hand, instead of still dithering in the House, for more witnesses, the best case to date showed an impeachable offense. Now it's with the Senate, and with new witnesses and evidence spilling out every day, the senators have a choice: look for the truth, or go with the cover-up.
Its not dithering, its getting the facts. Did you think the many months of Nixon impeachment was dithering?
Its also allowing the courts to rule that the Trump acolytes can be forced to appear for the impeachment hearings.
Pelosi rushed it. Its no longer her problem. For her its back to party time.
This is what happens when you rush:
For the Senators Who Will Judge Trump, an Incomplete Story to Consider
Do not expect the Republican senate to dig deep.
What more do you think the House should have done? If they had tried to get witnesses like Mulvaney to testify it would have taken months of waiting for the courts to rule.
Meanwhile, Trump just added Ken Starr, Robert Ray and Alan Dershowitz to his legal team.
drummerboy said:
Meanwhile, Trump just added Ken Starr, Robert Ray and Alan Dershowitz to his legal team.
it's obvious they are casting this as a TV show, with the cherry-picked highlights to run on Fox News and OAN.
Ms. Lewinsky weighs in
this is definitely an “are you ******* kidding me?” kinda day.
ridski said:
I heard Pam Bondi is joining the team, too.
who's next, Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer? Harvey Birdman?
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
Meanwhile, Trump just added Ken Starr, Robert Ray and Alan Dershowitz to his legal team.
it's obvious they are casting this as a TV show, with the cherry-picked highlights to run on Fox News and OAN.
And Pam Bondi.
Yes, this Pam Bondi—no relation to @josephabondy. #LetLevSpeak #LevRemembers #TheyAllKnew
mrincredible said:
Right now I think there's a 0.001% chance of him getting removed from office. Maybe if the House had waited a little longer and pressed their case in the courts, it would increase a hundredfold.
If they waited and it did increase a hundredfold the chance would still only be 0.1%, so it's a completely moot point.
And yes, after he is acquitted he will spin it into 'complete exoneration' or some other nonsense. Surely if they hadn't impeached him the line would have been something like "I'm so good they wouldn't even try to impeach me". The lesson is that no one can let what Trump will say dictate their actions.
Red_Barchetta said:
If they waited and it did increase a hundredfold the chance would still only be 0.1%, so it's a completely moot point.
I am glad you got my little joke.
mrincredible said:
Red_Barchetta said:
If they waited and it did increase a hundredfold the chance would still only be 0.1%, so it's a completely moot point.
I am glad you got my little joke.
Thank you, both, for rounding 0.101%.
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
I wouldn’t necessarily buy everything he’s saying. He’s happy to lie about anything that gives him a better deal.