US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Last edited:
In a way, it's similar to the play during the Kavanaugh hearing. Feinstein sits on the info from Blasey-Ford for a couple of months, just to spring it at the last moment. The Senate Republicans don't back down, so they are forced to play the hand and have Blasey-Ford testify rather than the rumor wreck Kavanaugh's chances. It looked fishy, but may have worked, but the sped Avenatti with his exceptional client and the other supposed rape victims add too much salt to the brew, making the entire thing look like politically motivated bullshit.

They just pile up unverified innuendo hoping the volume of "maybes" lead people to accept the "maybes" as "guiltys".

It has been interesting to watch their rage grow as their tactics begin to fail.

Remember these tactics are the same that they've used for decades to discredit and back off the GOP or anyone that doesn't meet their standards.

The impact dried up during their attack on Roy Moore. He wouldn't back down. He went to Fox. Trump's involvement in that race drew national attention to the issue which is NEVER what the left wants.

They are constantly fabricating evidence and narratives. That only works when a few people know about it and most of those people are on your side.

Allred, who should be disbarred for her actions, showed up with a yearbook. She claimed it was all the evidence that was needed to prove Roy Moore was the bad man they said he was but the yearbook didn't hold up. The handwriting was disputed and it turns out wasn't Moore's. People began to clamor for the yearbook to be turned over and Allred shrunk claiming there was no need because Moore was banned from a local mall for being a pervert! That claim was never proved in fact no mall manager asked could corroborate the claim.

Moore was not going away so the DNC fell back to Plan B and began busing assets in to knock on doors and register voters. I put that in italics because I'm fairly certain that thanks to non-existent VoterID laws they stuffed ballot boxes with out-of-state actors.

In the end Moore was defeated but it was a Pyrrhic Victory. The DNC had run their playbook under the spotlight instead of in the shadows and people noticed. Certain slinky spined senators started acting up a bit.

I firmly believe that the failure to completely obliterate Moore(who still has multiple lawsuits pending against the women who came out against him which are currently being blocked until a defamation case from one of the women is resolved((read as they are hoping Moore dies before the women lose their cases)) played a direct role in how the Kavanaugh fiasco played out.

Remember Moore was smeared for months leading up to an election for sexually touching someone decades ago. Now, let's see if this sounds familiar: Moore was accused of sexually touching someone who provided evidence that they refused to allow anyone else to have access to and couldn't provide any witnesses to corroborate their accusation.

How odd!

Edit for: I almost forgot that part of the tactic is to confate the concept of multiple accusers with some kind of corroboration for each accusation. While that may work when you are talking about thousands of altar boys nationwide it doesn't work with two to twenty sketch women being paid for their accusations.
 
Last edited:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi identified seven impeachment managers on Wednesday — the group that will act as the prosecution team presenting the House Democrats' case in the Senate trial.

This diverse group includes some familiar faces from key House committees that conducted the House inquiry, but also some lesser-known members whom Pelosi says she picked because of their legal backgrounds.

"The emphasis is on litigators. The emphasis is on comfort level in the courtroom," Pelosi said.

Read the resolution designating the managers.

The group is expected to present the articles to the Senate on Thursday, which includes reading the text of the two articles the House approved in December on the Senate floor.

The Senate is expected to approve an organizing resolution on Tuesday that specifies how many hours the managers will have to present their case as well as how much time the president's defense team will have to make its arguments.

The Managers:

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He was tapped by Pelosi to be the point person on the impeachment inquiry in September immediately after she announced her decision to move forward with the probe.

Schiff conducted both closed-door depositions with administration witnesses as well as open hearings and is a close ally of the speaker's. He crafted the report on his panel's investigation that followed a whistleblower's complaint that the president conditioned military aid to Ukraine on a public commitment from the government that it would probe former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler's panel crafted the two articles of impeachment against the president after the intelligence committee completed its investigation.

Nadler oversaw the panel's hearing on those articles and was a member of the Judiciary Committee during then-President Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., is senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. She served as a committee aide during House's impeachment proceedings for President Richard Nixon and also was a member of the panel during the Clinton impeachment.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the fourth-ranking House Democratic leader as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Before he ran for office, Jeffries was a litigator in private practice in New York. He's viewed as a rising star in Democratic leadership.

Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., is member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. She served as Orlando's chief of police after a long career in the department — becoming the first woman to hold that post before she ran for Congress.

Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., is a freshman who served as an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike other impeachment managers, Crow does not serve on any of the panels that conducted the impeachment inquiry.

But Crow was one of seven freshmen with national security backgrounds who co-wrote a column in the Washington Post in September arguing it was time to move forward with impeachment. Like Jeffries, he worked as a attorney in private practice before he ran for Congress.

Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. She served as judge in Houston. Pelosi stressed that Garcia was the first Hispanic person and first women elected to the county commissioner's court. She was also the first Latina elected to represent her district in Congress.

The impeachment managers are expected to split which of them presents the various arguments of the House's case in the first part of the Senate trial.

Articles of impeachment

Article 1 of the House resolution alleges the president abused his power because he used his position to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election in the Ukraine affair. Article 2 outlines how Democrats believe the president obstructed Congress by blocking administration officials from providing testimony or documents.

Trump and many Republican supporters reject the basis for impeachment. Not only did Trump ultimately release the funds for Ukraine that had been frozen for a time last year, Ukraine's president did not agree to conduct the investigation that Trump wanted into the Bidens.

Republicans control the majority in the Senate and they're expected to vote to acquit Trump on both charges, permitting him to keep his office at the conclusion of the trial.


 

Attachments


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi identified seven impeachment managers on Wednesday — the group that will act as the prosecution team presenting the House Democrats' case in the Senate trial.

This diverse group includes some familiar faces from key House committees that conducted the House inquiry, but also some lesser-known members whom Pelosi says she picked because of their legal backgrounds.

"The emphasis is on litigators. The emphasis is on comfort level in the courtroom," Pelosi said.

Read the resolution designating the managers.

The group is expected to present the articles to the Senate on Thursday, which includes reading the text of the two articles the House approved in December on the Senate floor.

The Senate is expected to approve an organizing resolution on Tuesday that specifies how many hours the managers will have to present their case as well as how much time the president's defense team will have to make its arguments.

The Managers:

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He was tapped by Pelosi to be the point person on the impeachment inquiry in September immediately after she announced her decision to move forward with the probe.

Schiff conducted both closed-door depositions with administration witnesses as well as open hearings and is a close ally of the speaker's. He crafted the report on his panel's investigation that followed a whistleblower's complaint that the president conditioned military aid to Ukraine on a public commitment from the government that it would probe former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler's panel crafted the two articles of impeachment against the president after the intelligence committee completed its investigation.

Nadler oversaw the panel's hearing on those articles and was a member of the Judiciary Committee during then-President Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., is senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. She served as a committee aide during House's impeachment proceedings for President Richard Nixon and also was a member of the panel during the Clinton impeachment.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the fourth-ranking House Democratic leader as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Before he ran for office, Jeffries was a litigator in private practice in New York. He's viewed as a rising star in Democratic leadership.

literally all the head honchos plus some chaff from CA and NY. They aren't even trying to make their pathetic attempt to oversee the senate anything but blatantly partisan.
 
Last edited:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi identified seven impeachment managers on Wednesday — the group that will act as the prosecution team presenting the House Democrats' case in the Senate trial.

This diverse group includes some familiar faces from key House committees that conducted the House inquiry, but also some lesser-known members whom Pelosi says she picked because of their legal backgrounds.

"The emphasis is on litigators. The emphasis is on comfort level in the courtroom," Pelosi said.

Read the resolution designating the managers.

The group is expected to present the articles to the Senate on Thursday, which includes reading the text of the two articles the House approved in December on the Senate floor.

The Senate is expected to approve an organizing resolution on Tuesday that specifies how many hours the managers will have to present their case as well as how much time the president's defense team will have to make its arguments.

The Managers:

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He was tapped by Pelosi to be the point person on the impeachment inquiry in September immediately after she announced her decision to move forward with the probe.

Schiff conducted both closed-door depositions with administration witnesses as well as open hearings and is a close ally of the speaker's. He crafted the report on his panel's investigation that followed a whistleblower's complaint that the president conditioned military aid to Ukraine on a public commitment from the government that it would probe former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler's panel crafted the two articles of impeachment against the president after the intelligence committee completed its investigation.

Nadler oversaw the panel's hearing on those articles and was a member of the Judiciary Committee during then-President Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., is senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. She served as a committee aide during House's impeachment proceedings for President Richard Nixon and also was a member of the panel during the Clinton impeachment.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the fourth-ranking House Democratic leader as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Before he ran for office, Jeffries was a litigator in private practice in New York. He's viewed as a rising star in Democratic leadership.

Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., is member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. She served as Orlando's chief of police after a long career in the department — becoming the first woman to hold that post before she ran for Congress.

Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., is a freshman who served as an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike other impeachment managers, Crow does not serve on any of the panels that conducted the impeachment inquiry.

But Crow was one of seven freshmen with national security backgrounds who co-wrote a column in the Washington Post in September arguing it was time to move forward with impeachment. Like Jeffries, he worked as a attorney in private practice before he ran for Congress.

Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. She served as judge in Houston. Pelosi stressed that Garcia was the first Hispanic person and first women elected to the county commissioner's court. She was also the first Latina elected to represent her district in Congress.

The impeachment managers are expected to split which of them presents the various arguments of the House's case in the first part of the Senate trial.

Articles of impeachment

Article 1 of the House resolution alleges the president abused his power because he used his position to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election in the Ukraine affair. Article 2 outlines how Democrats believe the president obstructed Congress by blocking administration officials from providing testimony or documents.

Trump and many Republican supporters reject the basis for impeachment. Not only did Trump ultimately release the funds for Ukraine that had been frozen for a time last year, Ukraine's president did not agree to conduct the investigation that Trump wanted into the Bidens.

Republicans control the majority in the Senate and they're expected to vote to acquit Trump on both charges, permitting him to keep his office at the conclusion of the trial.



Do they think making these people managers means they cannot be called? Schiff is going to be called to testify if anyone is taking this shit seriously as are Nadler and Pelosi.

They literally engineered this bullshit and must be called.
 
Going after the 8% isn't as crazy as it sounds though, since the farther to the extreme someone is the more active they are politically since those types tend to have their political affiliation and activism wrapped up in their identity. So that 8% can easily sway elections if the more moderate people simply don't show up.

The only reason the DNC is really hurting is because the progressives have metastasized so badly through their endless purity spiraling that their rhetoric has begun to offend the moderates enough to vote against them for the moment.
Also it's easier to persuade extremists that the ends justify the means, and ensure that all the gateway positions (social media mods, education, the media, 90%+ of pop culture production, the ballot counters &c.) are staffed by them. Sure there aren't that many of them in absolute terms, but the ability to "find" hundreds of straight-ticket Dem ballots in a knapsack or subliminally re-align the basic values of Western culture (as far as most media consumed by the youth is concerned) to support your political cause is a strong electoral force multiplier.
 
They aren't even trying to hide the fact that their pathetic attempt to oversee the senate is blatantly partisan.
Fixed that for you.

Also this is probably late, but:


House Dems release new impeachment evidence related to indicted Giuliani associate
It also includes a previously undisclosed May 2019 letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The House Intelligence Committee released new evidence on Tuesday related to the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, including information turned over by Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

The release, which reflects the unfinished nature of the House’s impeachment inquiry, comes ahead of an expected House vote on Wednesday to formally send the impeachment articles to the Senate for a trial.

Story Continued Below

“Despite unprecedented obstruction by the president, the committee continues to receive and review potentially relevant evidence and will make supplemental transmittals,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote Tuesday to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose panel is responsible for compiling the complete record of the investigation ahead of the Senate’s trial.
Story Continued Below

The material released on Tuesday contains several handwritten notes, emails, encrypted messages, and other documents that underscore the close relationship between Parnas and Giuliani, who was actively pursuing an effort last year to push the Ukrainian government to announce investigations targeting Trump’s political rivals. The documents also complicate one of Trump’s oft-stated defenses of his actions toward Ukraine.
A previously undisclosed May 2019 letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is among the tranche of documents the Democrat-led committee made public on Tuesday.

In the letter, which was obtained from Parnas’ cell phone that was turned over the Intelligence Committee on Sunday, Giuliani asked for a half-hour meeting with Zelensky as the former New York City mayor was pursuing investigations targeting former Vice President Joe Biden — and Giuliani made clear that he was acting with Trump’s “knowledge and consent” and in his capacity as a “personal” attorney for the president. Trump, though, has stated that he was acting on behalf of the U.S. government when he allegedly pushed for the investigations.

“In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday, May 13th or Tuesday, May 14th.”
- Letter from Rudy Giuliani

“In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday, May 13th or Tuesday, May 14th,” Giuliani wrote in the letter, which was obtained from a screenshot contained on Parnas’ phone.

Story Continued Below


One of the documents included in the disclosure is a handwritten note by Parnas that states: “Get Zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.” Another refers to Lanny Davis, the attorney representing Trump’s former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen: “Get rid of Lanny Davis (nicely!)”

Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was also a frequent target in text messages between Parnas and his allies. In some texts, it appeared that Yovanovitch’s very movements were being tracked amid a rising frustration that she was not already ousted.

Trump ultimately recalled her from Ukraine amid a Giuliani-led smear campaign against her; when that moment came, State Department officials told her to leave the country immediately.
Trump referred to Yovanovitch as “bad news” in a July 25 phone call with Zelensky and said she was “going to go through some things.”

“Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch’s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing,” said Lawrence S. Robbins, an attorney for Yovanovitch, in a statement. “We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened.”
Both Giuliani and Parnas were subpoenaed as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Giuliani has refused to comply, while Parnas was granted permission from a federal judge earlier this month to release the contents of his devices, which were seized by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York when he was arrested, to the Intelligence Committee in compliance with the subpoena.

Parnas was arrested on Oct. 9 at Dulles International Airport outside Washington. He was charged with campaign finance violations involving the steering of foreign dollars into American elections. Parnas has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Ahead of Schiff’s disclosure on Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi cited new evidence that had emerged in the weeks since the House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, including new emails indicating that senior Trump administration officials were worried that the president’s order to freeze critical military aid to Ukraine was potentially illegal, to justify her decision to delay the formal transmission of the impeachment articles across the Capitol.

Pelosi has also pointed to other significant developments in Democrats’ case, including former White House national security adviser John Bolton’s expressed willingness to testify before the Senate.
MOST READ
Lev Parnas
  1. House Dems release new impeachment evidence related to indicted Giuliani associate
  2. Why Voters Are Nervous About Amy Klobuchar
  3. Why tonight’s debate could be a doozy
  4. Trump tries scripting a made-for-TV drama out of his impeachment trial
  5. Pelosi and McConnell finally break impeachment impasse
Story Continued Below


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated earlier Tuesday that the crux of the trial will begin next Tuesday, while senators are expected to be sworn in later this week. The House is expected to pass a resolution on Wednesday that names the House’s impeachment managers, triggering the formal start of the Senate’s trial.
IMPEACHMENT TODAY
The House is set to vote Wednesday to send impeachment articles to the Senate.
Who supports Trump’s conviction in the Senate?
See how each House member voted on impeachment
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Read all impeachment coverage »
Schiff said the new evidence shows that Parnas “communicated extensively by phone and messaging applications” with Giuliani and senior Ukrainian officials.

“These communications, often in Russian, demonstrate that Mr. Parnas served as a direct channel between President Trump’s agent, Mr. Giuliani, and individuals close to President Volodymyr Zelensky,” Schiff wrote.
The evidence also includes a letter from Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, in which he indicates that Trump authorized another attorney — John Dowd, who previously represented Trump — to serve as counsel to Parnas and Igor Fruman, another Giuliani associate who was arrested and indicted last year on similar charges.

The White House and Giuliani did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
 
Fixed that for you.

Also this is probably late, but:


House Dems release new impeachment evidence related to indicted Giuliani associate
It also includes a previously undisclosed May 2019 letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The House Intelligence Committee released new evidence on Tuesday related to the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, including information turned over by Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

The release, which reflects the unfinished nature of the House’s impeachment inquiry, comes ahead of an expected House vote on Wednesday to formally send the impeachment articles to the Senate for a trial.

Story Continued Below

“Despite unprecedented obstruction by the president, the committee continues to receive and review potentially relevant evidence and will make supplemental transmittals,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote Tuesday to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose panel is responsible for compiling the complete record of the investigation ahead of the Senate’s trial.
Story Continued Below

The material released on Tuesday contains several handwritten notes, emails, encrypted messages, and other documents that underscore the close relationship between Parnas and Giuliani, who was actively pursuing an effort last year to push the Ukrainian government to announce investigations targeting Trump’s political rivals. The documents also complicate one of Trump’s oft-stated defenses of his actions toward Ukraine.
A previously undisclosed May 2019 letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is among the tranche of documents the Democrat-led committee made public on Tuesday.

In the letter, which was obtained from Parnas’ cell phone that was turned over the Intelligence Committee on Sunday, Giuliani asked for a half-hour meeting with Zelensky as the former New York City mayor was pursuing investigations targeting former Vice President Joe Biden — and Giuliani made clear that he was acting with Trump’s “knowledge and consent” and in his capacity as a “personal” attorney for the president. Trump, though, has stated that he was acting on behalf of the U.S. government when he allegedly pushed for the investigations.



“In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday, May 13th or Tuesday, May 14th,” Giuliani wrote in the letter, which was obtained from a screenshot contained on Parnas’ phone.

Story Continued Below


One of the documents included in the disclosure is a handwritten note by Parnas that states: “Get Zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.” Another refers to Lanny Davis, the attorney representing Trump’s former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen: “Get rid of Lanny Davis (nicely!)”

Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was also a frequent target in text messages between Parnas and his allies. In some texts, it appeared that Yovanovitch’s very movements were being tracked amid a rising frustration that she was not already ousted.

Trump ultimately recalled her from Ukraine amid a Giuliani-led smear campaign against her; when that moment came, State Department officials told her to leave the country immediately.
Trump referred to Yovanovitch as “bad news” in a July 25 phone call with Zelensky and said she was “going to go through some things.”

“Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch’s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing,” said Lawrence S. Robbins, an attorney for Yovanovitch, in a statement. “We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened.”
Both Giuliani and Parnas were subpoenaed as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Giuliani has refused to comply, while Parnas was granted permission from a federal judge earlier this month to release the contents of his devices, which were seized by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York when he was arrested, to the Intelligence Committee in compliance with the subpoena.

Parnas was arrested on Oct. 9 at Dulles International Airport outside Washington. He was charged with campaign finance violations involving the steering of foreign dollars into American elections. Parnas has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Ahead of Schiff’s disclosure on Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi cited new evidence that had emerged in the weeks since the House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, including new emails indicating that senior Trump administration officials were worried that the president’s order to freeze critical military aid to Ukraine was potentially illegal, to justify her decision to delay the formal transmission of the impeachment articles across the Capitol.

Pelosi has also pointed to other significant developments in Democrats’ case, including former White House national security adviser John Bolton’s expressed willingness to testify before the Senate.
MOST READ
Lev Parnas
  1. House Dems release new impeachment evidence related to indicted Giuliani associate
  2. Why Voters Are Nervous About Amy Klobuchar
  3. Why tonight’s debate could be a doozy
  4. Trump tries scripting a made-for-TV drama out of his impeachment trial
  5. Pelosi and McConnell finally break impeachment impasse
Story Continued Below


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated earlier Tuesday that the crux of the trial will begin next Tuesday, while senators are expected to be sworn in later this week. The House is expected to pass a resolution on Wednesday that names the House’s impeachment managers, triggering the formal start of the Senate’s trial.
IMPEACHMENT TODAY
The House is set to vote Wednesday to send impeachment articles to the Senate.
Who supports Trump’s conviction in the Senate?
See how each House member voted on impeachment
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Read all impeachment coverage »
Schiff said the new evidence shows that Parnas “communicated extensively by phone and messaging applications” with Giuliani and senior Ukrainian officials.

“These communications, often in Russian, demonstrate that Mr. Parnas served as a direct channel between President Trump’s agent, Mr. Giuliani, and individuals close to President Volodymyr Zelensky,” Schiff wrote.
The evidence also includes a letter from Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, in which he indicates that Trump authorized another attorney — John Dowd, who previously represented Trump — to serve as counsel to Parnas and Igor Fruman, another Giuliani associate who was arrested and indicted last year on similar charges.

The White House and Giuliani did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
You took the opposite approach to correcting it to what I was trying to say that I did, but I appreciate it, dude!
 
No shit Yovanovitch was being monitored. Wasn't she suspected as being a bagman for the Dem-Ukraine corruption engine?
Ahead of Schiff’s disclosure on Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi cited new evidence that had emerged in the weeks since the House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, including new emails indicating that senior Trump administration officials were worried that the president’s order to freeze critical military aid to Ukraine was potentially illegal, to justify her decision to delay the formal transmission of the impeachment articles across the Capitol.
'Potentially'? It's either illegal or it's not, you stupid horse-faced bitch. Cite the law he violated, or fuck off.
 
No shit Yovanovitch was being monitored. Wasn't she suspected as being a bagman for the Dem-Ukraine corruption engine?

'Potentially'? It's either illegal or it's not, you stupid horse-faced bitch. Cite the law he violated, or fuck off.
Pretty much everything is illegal now so it's just a matter of time of figuring it out.
 
So Trump used his private attorney to tried to strong-arm a foreign leader into investigating his political opponent, and it's in writing. How are you Drumphtards still in denial about this?

it still all hinges on whether or not that political opponent took bribes from a foreign entity.

even if biden didnt, a hint of corruption would warrant an investigation.

and so far there's a lot pointing to corruption. son of the vpotus getting a do nothing job is paid millions, and then vootus threatens to withhold aid to fire a prosecutor who claims to be investigating the company his son worked at.

seems suspicious.

e: the guy giving up these notes also said he was asked to investigate Biden before Biden knew if he was running for president.
 
Last edited:
So Trump used his private attorney to tried to strong-arm a foreign leader into investigating his political opponent, and it's in writing. How are you Drumphtards still in denial about this?

"If you don't fire the prosecutor investigating the shady company my crackhead son works for, you're not getting the billion dollars in foreign aid." - current front-runner for the Democrat nomination. <- this is perfectly fine. "Could you look into shady shit the previous administration openly bragged about" <- this is impeachment worthy? Keep pushing. I'm sure this will all work out well for your kind in the future if Trump is removed from office. Absolutely no chance of you being dragged from your home and strung up. No chance at all.
 
So Trump used his private attorney to tried to strong-arm a foreign leader into investigating his political opponent, and it's in writing. How are you Drumphtards still in denial about this?

The president is obligated to deal with threats to the American people. A US former vice-president who appears to be conspiring with foreign entities to profit is dirty enough to not only warrant investigation, but it requires it. It doesn't matter whatsoever that Biden is his political opponent and it never should.

If you smell like shit, dogs are gonna sniff.
 
It has been interesting to watch their rage grow as their tactics begin to fail.

Remember these tactics are the same that they've used for decades to discredit and back off the GOP or anyone that doesn't meet their standards.

The impact dried up during their attack on Roy Moore. He wouldn't back down. He went to Fox. Trump's involvement in that race drew national attention to the issue which is NEVER what the left wants.

They are constantly fabricating evidence and narratives. That only works when a few people know about it and most of those people are on your side.

Allred, who should be disbarred for her actions, showed up with a yearbook. She claimed it was all the evidence that was needed to prove Roy Moore was the bad man they said he was but the yearbook didn't hold up. The handwriting was disputed and it turns out wasn't Moore's. People began to clamor for the yearbook to be turned over and Allred shrunk claiming there was no need because Moore was banned from a local mall for being a pervert! That claim was never proved in fact no mall manager asked could corroborate the claim.

Moore was not going away so the DNC fell back to Plan B and began busing assets in to knock on doors and register voters. I put that in italics because I'm fairly certain that thanks to non-existent VoterID laws they stuffed ballot boxes with out-of-state actors.

In the end Moore was defeated but it was a Pyrrhic Victory. The DNC had run their playbook under the spotlight instead of in the shadows and people noticed. Certain slinky spined senators started acting up a bit.

I firmly believe that the failure to completely obliterate Moore(who still has multiple lawsuits pending against the women who came out against him which are currently being blocked until a defamation case from one of the women is resolved((read as they are hoping Moore dies before the women lose their cases)) played a direct role in how the Kavanaugh fiasco played out.

Remember Moore was smeared for months leading up to an election for sexually touching someone decades ago. Now, let's see if this sounds familiar: Moore was accused of sexually touching someone who provided evidence that they refused to allow anyone else to have access to and couldn't provide any witnesses to corroborate their accusation.

How odd!

Edit for: I almost forgot that part of the tactic is to confate the concept of multiple accusers with some kind of corroboration for each accusation. While that may work when you are talking about thousands of altar boys nationwide it doesn't work with two to twenty sketch women being paid for their accusations.
Another thing from the Moore election was the RUSSIAN BOTs that were "supporting" Roy Moore were found to be manufactured by the pretend experts on pretend Russian election interference, New Knowledge, so they fucked that bit of their playbook as well.

These people are scum.
 
Back