When Giuliani works directly with Ukrainian prosecutors, is he doing so as Trump's personal lawyer or as a special emissary of the White House? When Joe DiGenova helps (while not even on anyone's payroll) is he doing so for Trump or for the White House? Rudy G seems to dodge in and out of this relationship, just working on behalf of the Presidency when it suits his argument, and then as a personal lawyer when that suits his argument. And that is at the heart of his problem -- they want to say this effort is done in the interests of the state to stop corruption (which justifies holding aid), but then do work through non-state representatives who clearly have Trump's personal goals as their mandate.
This narrative that Clinton was impeached for hearsay is funny. He was impeached for lying under oath (he was also disbarred for this one) and obstruction of justice.
Who cares? Clinton isn't on trial here. Let's deal with Trump, who has described himself committing a crime.
There were multiple post stating Clinton was impeached for hearsay which was wrong. Some impressionable young people post here that may not know the actual history and take that as the truth. I corrected the misstatement for their benefit. As for the rest of it?? Good luck with that. You and the rest of the crew smell blood in the water just like you did with Russia. You were all so sure about Russia but you were dead wrong. You are getting caught up in the echo chamber again spouting the opinions of the talking heads rather than using common sense (or elementary reading comprehension for that matter). You are setting yourself up for disappointment here yet again. I am too busy for a back and forth right now due to issues tied to the Imelda flooding where I work and a previously planned business trip the rest of this week so you get the last word here. Fire away.
It would be disingenuous to say Linda Tripps recorded Lewinsky tapes were not key evidence in the impeachment proceedings. They were released by the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment inquiry, by who? You guessed it, Lindsey Graham. ///for the young people Though in this case it doesn't even matter, you have best evidence, by who? You guessed it, Donald J. Trump (though just as true and more fun to say, Rudy Giuliani)
There is no Lewinsky involvement without Tripp's hearsay. I made no predictions about Russia and there is damning evidence regarding Russia which you continue to ignore.
Listen or read the transcript - very interesting on the process and what they think happen. This seems to also suggest a cover up.
love the pinky ring...absolutely classic serious you can't make this up. we will look back on this period as the trump years and unfortunately wont remember much else except pinky rings, diversions, straight tomfoolery. wow. Nice memory smh.. take a breath and a hot second to look around folks! perhaps with all this stupidity and ridiculousness that it has spurred some sort of shift in opposite? People finally looking to shift to something like climate talk or other big things..? The notion of doing opposite or better? This is like that period where you hit rock bottom. I could argue we arent even close to rock bottom but when you are seeing pinky rings and exec privilege you start to hope we were close. corrupt.af
Perfect example of how wingnut trump supporters like mollie at the federalist dishonestly re-spin the argument that... luckily fact checkers are always there to point out the lies.
The standard operating procedure of trump defenders, lie, the lie gets picked up and amplified by trump and republican defenders, the lie gets fact-checked, then ignore the fact-check, then lie again.... and the next time some cites sean davis and/or the federalist... Last Thursday, Sean Davis of the conservative news site The Federalist broke an explosive revelation. The Intelligence Community had secretly changed a requirement in its whistle-blower statute to allow whistle-blowers to report secondhand allegations, whereas firsthand knowledge had been required before. This suspicious rule change allegedly allowed the whistle-blower to accuse President Trump of misconduct despite lacking firsthand knowledge of said conduct. The shocking exposure of yet another Deep State plot quickly became the foundation for Trump’s defenders as they fanned out across the media. “The hearsay rule was changed just a short period of time before the complaint was filed,” claimed Senator Lindsey Graham. The whistle-blower “has no firsthand knowledge,” charged Congressman Jim Jordan on CNN, and when host Jake Tapper noted that firsthand knowledge is not required to file a complaint, Jordan shot back that this was only “because they changed the form. You used to.” Meanwhile, Trump demanded, in all caps, “WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT?” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed, “Just days before the Ukraine whistleblower came forward, the IC secretly removed that requirement from the complaint form,” and promised that Republicans would “not rest until we have answers.” They had answers. They just didn’t like them. Actual experts in intelligence law immediately pointed out that Davis’s reporting was false and was based on a simple misreading of a change in the wording of a form. Then yesterday, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, Trump appointee Michael Atkinson, posted a short statement online correcting Davis. Using heavily bureaucratized language and the patient and polite tone city officials use to assure the local gadfly that the water department is not sending alien nodes through his plumbing, the I.G. made a few basic points. First, the rules governing whistle-blowers have not changed. At all.
