To IMPEACH ????

[AnnaE]

Must be difficult for you just having dialup in the back woods of the Kootenay..

Facebook to slow to load for you? :lol:

Guess again.

 

[AnnaE]

Exactly , comparison from 40 years ago don’t really give the whole story .

In case you hadn't noticed, the graph includes the entire story between the late 60's and 2018. You can look and pick out which years you want to compare.

 

[Mockingbird]

Are you a prosecutor? Maybe it was Mockingbird for all I know , did you post under that name before ?

Nope, not a prosecutor, more of a photographer actually. Did I post under Mockingbird before? Well I have a number of posts to date so logic dictates that yes, I have posted under this name before. Not quite sure where you're going with that thinking.

 

[spilledthebeer]

See above.


And if Trump gets a second term then what happens to the US is deserved, and it won't be pretty.

I guess Serryh obtained that opinion about the Yankee future..............


from the SAME OUT OF FOCUS CRYSTAL BALL THAT ASSURED HIM............................



THAT TRUMP WOULD BE SUCCESSFULLY IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And yet I SAID THREE YEARS AGO THAT TRUMP WOULD DIE IN RIPE OLD AGE.....................


BEFORE LIE-berals pinned anything on him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-berals are so messed up they cannot even COUNT BALLOTS IN IOWA......................


WITHOUT CAUSING CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And yet the idiots claim the right to run the country??????????????????????


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cliffy]

Nope, not a prosecutor, more of a photographer actually. Did I post under Mockingbird before? Well I have a number of posts to date so logic dictates that yes, I have posted under this name before. Not quite sure where you're going with that thinking.

Pigs think? That's funny.

 

[AnnaE]

There was only hearsay and innuendo, and votes along party lines in both houses . It was shoddy political theatre and IMO will backfire on the Dems . Time will tell .

It was made shoddy by Trump & company disallowing some of the evidence.

 

[Twin_Moose]

That's where doubt enters into this for me, what his true intentions were. I think it was expected by political strategists that Biden would run in 2018, it was likely in the air at the very least as he looked to be the best the Dems had to offer, which really is shortsighted on the Dems. Giulaini could have been there at that time looking for what you mention, yes, that is possible? But again Giulaini because of the contacts he ran with and with info (more to come?) backed up with recordings coming out from camp Parnas this whole picture is yet to be painted.
It will be more telling when all investigative findings (that can be) are made available to the public and so the questions we all ask may be answered.
Tripped over evidence? Okay. But the problem there is that Shokin was actually removed because he wasn't doing enough to investigate corruption, including that of Burisma. So why would Biden want him removed for "investigating Burisma" when in fact he wasn't. I have a hard time with that.
I'm curious if you have read the Mueller report? I only ask because I have a copy and have peeked at it but have not read it as of yet.

Let's not forget this happened a couple years before Trump took office, and the file was open

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”
He added: “I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine” and that he couldn’t describe the evidence further.

I'm curious if you have read the Mueller report? I only ask because I have a copy and have peeked at it but have not read it as of yet

Just the summary, the only refute to the summary is that the proof is probably hidden in redaction

 

[Walter]

It was made shoddy by Trump & company disallowing some of the evidence.

Schiff should make public the transcript of the 18th house witness.

 

[Twin_Moose]

It was made shoddy by Trump & company disallowing some of the evidence.

And I suppose the House investigation and hearing wasn't a shoddy partisan process?

 

[AnnaE]

Schiff should make public the transcript of the 18th house witness.

What would be the point? The Senate would still disallow the other witnesses.

 

[AnnaE]

And I suppose the House investigation and hearing wasn't a shoddy partisan process?

I think so, but then since the Senate had already decided to be partisan and vote in Trump's favour, what would be the point?

 

[Twin_Moose]

Schiff should testify under oath his own involvement in the scheme, curious why he didn't present the inquiry findings to the judicial committee where he would have been under oath.

 

[Mockingbird]

Let's not forget this happened a couple years before Trump took office, and the file was open
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived
Just the summary, the only refute to the summary is that the proof is probably hidden in redaction

That article was good, thanks for it, it certainly looks at this from another pov. We could easily go back and forth with conflicting news articles on this ever evolving case but I digress. I suppose it's ultimately the job of the investigators and courts to try and navigate the convoluted mess that it is. Can that even happen though? Or will the facts get lost in the political mud.

Yeah I read the summary as well, and came to the same conclusion re the heavy redaction.

 

[Walter]

What would be the point? The Senate would still disallow the other witnesses.

They heard from the other 17 witnesses.

 

[Twin_Moose]

I think so, but then since the Senate had already decided to be partisan and vote in Trump's favour, what would be the point?

The house ran their inquiry and hearings first and it was voted by non partisan to not impeach, what should the Senate make of those results. Didn't Nadler say that any court would only take 3 minutes to find him guilty? So why did 1 Dem. vote no, 1 chose not to vote, and 1 not only voted no but switched to the Rep. party because of it?

 

[AnnaE]

They heard from the other 17 witnesses.

Not all the witnesses, though.

 

[AnnaE]

The house ran their inquiry and hearings first and it was voted by non partisan to not impeach, what should the Senate make of those results. Didn't Nadler say that any court would only take 3 minutes to find him guilty? So why did 1 Dem. vote no, 1 chose not to vote, and 1 not only voted no but switched to the Rep. party because of it?

The Senate was decided before even the first witnesses were called.

 

[Twin_Moose]

That article was good, thanks for it, it certainly looks at this from another pov. We could easily go back and forth with conflicting news articles on this ever evolving case but I digress. I suppose it's ultimately the job of the investigators and courts to try and navigate the convoluted mess that it is. Can that even happen though? Or will the facts get lost in the political mud.
Yeah I read the summary as well, and came to the same conclusion re the heavy redaction.

Problem is it cannot be any further unredacted by Barr or he could go to jail, that's why they are/were in court I'm not sure where that case is at right now.

 

[Mockingbird]

Schiff should testify under oath his own involvement in the scheme, curious why he didn't present the inquiry findings to the judicial committee where he would have been under oath.

I say every one of them involved in this whole thing should be required to put all of their cards on the table, but with government as corrupt it is, that's a pipe dream at best. I think we all would be stunned at the level of corruption all of them are likely involved in.

 

[Mockingbird]

Problem is it cannot be any further unredacted by Barr or he could go to jail, that's why they are/were in court I'm not sure where that case is at right now.

Yeah, I'm not sure either. Maybe this whole impeachment mess was meant to distract from that whole mess haha.