New Evidence Shows Trump Team Offered Ukraine More Than One Quid Pro Quo for Biden Dirt

"I don't know him"......

 

And the dempugs are going to lose the Presidency and house seats in 2020.

 

No, I don't think so. The last one was 45 years ago and there was unanimous agreement in the Senate.

Reference a link to any New evidence presented and if it was accepted during the Clinton trial which this one will be based on.

This time, dems didn't get their act together. What new evidence will they find tomorrow or next week? New stuff isn't added and can't be amended to after the fact. If any witnesses are called they would need to be relevant to the article(s) already presented (the second one is so bogus it will be read but probably thrown out).

Don't like the rules, try again. If so, I'd do it with a more competent House. Schiff and Nadler and Pelosi are finished.

BTY, Pelosi can send an invitation for a State of the Union instead of delaying like she did last year but expect Trump to tell her to take a hike until this BS trial is over. republicans have the ball now and they will score again easily. Republicans Win Again.

 

No, he is a liar like Christine Ford.

Funny how you think Ford was now assaulted by Trump, though. I bet Brett finds that amusing too. File this along with the other "flat earth" conspiracies you love to dream up.

lol

 

This dude tried to proclaim him and Nunes met with Ukrainian govt in Prague or something, funny how Nunnes was on capital hill that day giving interviews.

 

Bill Clinton.

And during Bill Clinton's Senate Trial, three witnesses gave video tape depositions despite the fact that they never testified before the House.

 

I'm going to ask that you provide a citation for Parnas' claim and proof of Nunes' claim.

I believe you are misunderstanding the two statements.

 

Bill was guilty of actual crimes, Trump isn't. It's just angry Democrats that are upset over losing the 2016 election and have vowed to impeach him before he even took office.

 

Sure witnesses but not new testimony. The senate knew in advance and all agreed to hearing their taped depositions. Clinton was 1999, 21 years ago, not 45 as I wrote earlier. Still that will be McConnel's model unless he feels like changing some rules at the option of the Senate, not the House or Pelosi or Schemer who is nothing but a big mouth with no say in what a simple Majority wants.

I'll wait until this all shakes out before commenting much more. I sort of like the current position the president has taken, move for dismissal but after hearing others, I now think a reciprocal agreement is best. Your side can call Bolton at your own risk. You don't know what he's going to say and it might not help your already weak case. I'd like to hear from Biden Jr., Schiff and the fake whistle blower. That's the best way to make sure Trump is fully acquitted, once and for all.

BTY, remind Pelosi that the DOJ is in fact part of the Executive Branch. She doesn't have any say so about Barr or Durham. That's overreach and getting close to her obstruction.

 

GAO concludes OMB violated law in withholding Ukraine aid

 

Not in the impeachment articles, is it? lol

Obama committed far worse abuses and actual crimes, like Bill Clinton did.

 

You should go impeach Obama then!

 

Yes, Trump withholding Ukraine Aid without justification is included in the impeachment articles.

 

Well Played!

 

No, it's not. Articles were written before GAO released such a statement.

 

Nah, he already has the title of Worst President Ever and we have a real President now. Trump is erasing that stain off the map.

 

By covering it up with an even bigger stain. Kind of like putting a bigger dropcloth covered in paint over a paint spill on your floor.

 

I don't consider Red, White and Blue a stain. Sorry that you think that way, though.

 

Means little to nothing. Ho hum

The OMB made clear Thursday, however, that it disagreed with the GAO report.

“We disagree with GAO's opinion," OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said. "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."

Further, a senior administration official said to Fox News that they believed the GAO was trying to insert itself into impeachment at a time when media attention on the matter is high.

"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”

Never ending politics. Lawyers and some radical dem politicians love it. The public has had enough of the dems brand of fairness.

 

GAO concludes that the Obama broke the law.

 

You are really obsessed with Obama, huh?

 

You are really obsessed with Trump, Don Jr., Giuliani, Ukraine, Russia, etc. etc. etc.

 

i guess the House better impeach him again... apart from that so what?

 

withholding the funds as appropriated by congress is explicitly NOT impeachable, the 1974 law has it's own remedy and it's for a lawsuit to be brought up in the DC appeals court.

 

Trump was impeached because he abused his power. The fact that his abuse of power was also illegal is a bonus.