BOMBSHELL!!!! BOMBSHELL!!!! BOMBSHELL!!!!
Ppppphhhhttttt
- Jackie S
- 01-17-2020, 04:28 PM
- WTF
- 01-17-2020, 04:52 PM
Tell the WHOLE story about ol' shady LEVI...So poor Rudy is victim of a hoax.
Just a small part of the story...
For example, while Parnas is trying to paint himself as a lackey of Rudy Giuliani, the opposite is true. Parnas actually sought out and paid for Giuliani’s “services” and was looking to get rid of former Ambassador Yovanovitch for his own reasons. It was Parnas who first brought up the issue, not anyone connected to Trump. The more you read his indictment and look at the timeline, the more obvious it is that Parnas is not a victim, but a mastermind who fed bad information to Giuliani in order to benefit himself.
He has ZERO credibility...like you. Originally Posted by bb1961
Is that like someone falling victim to overseeing a murder he wanted to happen....only to find out he had been conned?
- Redhot1960
- 01-17-2020, 05:31 PM
- bambino
- 01-17-2020, 07:33 PM
Parnas is the sequel to Avenatt.
- HedonistForever
- 01-17-2020, 08:08 PM
It is amusing how excited Jaxson and these Democrats get every time they think they have a new Cohen.
-------------will "implicate" Trump. Trouble is, implicating and proving a crime are two very different things. Not only do Republicans not give the indicted proven liar Parnas any credence, it seems some of the Democratic prosecutors don't hold him in high regard either.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...t-trial-099781
As to Parnas testifying. What would he testify to? That Trump knew exactly what he and Guilani were doing? OK, so Trump knew what they were doing. No matter how many ways you look at it and dissect it, it will always come back to the same argument. Is there absolute factual proof that Trump knew he was breaking a law by asking the President of Ukraine to investigate the possibility of corruption by the Bidens. Remember, there is no evidence ( that I am aware of ) that President Zelinsky knew aid was being held up because Trump sure as hell didn't say that in the phone call and President Zelinsky is on record saying he didn't know it and never felt pressured to do anything. The aid was released without any investigation and it was released in the time line Congress had set up.
-------------will "implicate" Trump. Trouble is, implicating and proving a crime are two very different things. Not only do Republicans not give the indicted proven liar Parnas any credence, it seems some of the Democratic prosecutors don't hold him in high regard either.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...t-trial-099781
But Democrats — in particular, those who will be presenting the case to the Senate — were relatively subdued as they reacted to the revelations on Thursday, noting that Parnas, who faces serious legal jeopardy for alleged campaign-finance crimes, should not be presumed to be trustworthy.
Oh man, don't tell that to Jaxson, he'll be heart broken!
“I don’t know how it changes the case because we certainly start with someone who has had his issues,” Demings said of Parnas, adding that he “started on the wrong side” and might be “trying to right [his] wrongs.”
That sound like the Democratic prosecutor thinks Parnas has "bombshell" testimony?
“We’re listening — and not making any judgments,” Demings said. “I haven’t put him in any category yet.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, was similarly noncommittal, saying in a statement that his panel was “continuing to review his interviews and the materials he has provided to evaluate his potential testimony in the Senate trial.”
As to the GAO saying they think Trump broke the law
“I don’t think that changes anything,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said of the non-partisan Government Accountability Office report.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went further, arguing that GAO got it wrong when the agency concluded the White House violated the Impoundment Control Act by declining to notify Congress of the delay in appropriated funds.
“I think they misunderstand the law. I think presidents withhold money all the time, move money around,” Paul said. “I think there’s a great deal of latitude to what presidents do. So I think they’ve misinterpreted the law.”
Does that mean Sen. Paul is correct? Nope. Just means there are difference of opinions and until a court can decide who is correct, the GAO's opinion can not be presented as a fact, well, it can and it can be argued by the other side that it is not a fact and where does that get you? Certainly not a legal determination that Trump broke the law.Oh man, don't tell that to Jaxson, he'll be heart broken!
“I don’t know how it changes the case because we certainly start with someone who has had his issues,” Demings said of Parnas, adding that he “started on the wrong side” and might be “trying to right [his] wrongs.”
That sound like the Democratic prosecutor thinks Parnas has "bombshell" testimony?
“We’re listening — and not making any judgments,” Demings said. “I haven’t put him in any category yet.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, was similarly noncommittal, saying in a statement that his panel was “continuing to review his interviews and the materials he has provided to evaluate his potential testimony in the Senate trial.”
As to the GAO saying they think Trump broke the law
“I don’t think that changes anything,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said of the non-partisan Government Accountability Office report.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went further, arguing that GAO got it wrong when the agency concluded the White House violated the Impoundment Control Act by declining to notify Congress of the delay in appropriated funds.
“I think they misunderstand the law. I think presidents withhold money all the time, move money around,” Paul said. “I think there’s a great deal of latitude to what presidents do. So I think they’ve misinterpreted the law.”
As to Parnas testifying. What would he testify to? That Trump knew exactly what he and Guilani were doing? OK, so Trump knew what they were doing. No matter how many ways you look at it and dissect it, it will always come back to the same argument. Is there absolute factual proof that Trump knew he was breaking a law by asking the President of Ukraine to investigate the possibility of corruption by the Bidens. Remember, there is no evidence ( that I am aware of ) that President Zelinsky knew aid was being held up because Trump sure as hell didn't say that in the phone call and President Zelinsky is on record saying he didn't know it and never felt pressured to do anything. The aid was released without any investigation and it was released in the time line Congress had set up.
- eccieuser9500
- 01-17-2020, 09:16 PM
Patrick Leahy: Congress must defend the separation of powers
https://vtdigger.org/2020/01/17/patr...ion-of-powers/
Trump associates who have been sent to prison or faced criminal charges
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=68358219
And Now We Know EXACTLY Why Rex Tillerson Called Trump A 'F*cking Moron'
https://www.wonkette.com/and-now-we-...-f-cking-moron
https://vtdigger.org/2020/01/17/patr...ion-of-powers/
If Trump disagreed with Congress’s appropriation, he could have vetoed the bill. He did not. Thereafter, he could have proposed a “rescission” to block the aid under the ICA, which requires congressional approval. He did not. Or, with congressional notification, he could have deferred the funds — but only for specific reasons under the Impoundment Control Act that the GAO found did not apply. He did not attempt this either. As the GAO opinion makes clear, the president chose a fourth option, one that violated the law.
Trump associates who have been sent to prison or faced criminal charges
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=68358219
Critics have called into question Trump team's vetting process for top officials during the early state of the administration, and last year leaked Trump transition vetting documents showed a host of top officials with problematic issues in their background that raised "red flags," according to Axios.
Some other experts, on the contrary, say recent past administrations have faced fewer criminal charges than Trump because prosecutors were not as aggressive.
And Now We Know EXACTLY Why Rex Tillerson Called Trump A 'F*cking Moron'
https://www.wonkette.com/and-now-we-...-f-cking-moron
Tillerson was reportedly the only one who finally opened his mouth to put the interloper illegitimate president in his place, and he did it several more times in the coming months, including one time in the Sit Room when he just absolutely lost it because Trump again went on a tirade about needing to "get our money back" in exchange for our troop deployments.
Anyway, one two skip a few, and after the meeting, Rex Tillerson called Trump a "fucking moron," because Trump is a fucking moron.