[arista]

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I swear Donald looks a bit smaller than he did...he’s shrinking..?...Trump and the Giant Impeachment...

No he still Eats Burgers and KFC

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Jesus, if that's the version they chose to put out, I can't imagine how damaging the real thing must be.

If this was any other president, they would have been impeached a long time ago. The conservatives, centrists and other elements of the right wing are surrendering their own morals just to keep the racist-in-chief in office.

If you are still defending him after this then you have no morals, this is as clear cut as it gets.

Sure you may think that
but its not a proper witness
Watch CNN HD 2PM Smerconish Live
if you get time.


https://news.sky.com/story/rudy-giul...laims-11821359

[bitontheslide]

this investigation is completely different to previous ones against Trump. it's very focused, very rapid (Pompy subpoena for next week) and it's more understandable for the general public. 2 GoP senators have already turned on him. He could struggle to get out of this one, particularly as it implicates so many close to him. Someone will squeal to avoid jail.

[GiRTh]

Agree. The investigation is clearly the work of a few disgruntled employees who've been gathering information over time. Every single thing the whistle blower has said has turned out to be true. Its all down to the Gop though, and with the Lyndsey Grahams of this world Donnie may get out of this an be re-elected but this is a very serious charge that is clearly only the tip of the iceberg.

[Twosugars]

Drain the swamp

[Alf]

Poor old Robert De Niro is losing his marbles.

Never meet your heroes, because they'll just disappoint you.

[arista]

Originally Posted by alf

poor old robert de niro is losing his marbles.

Never meet your heroes, because they'll just disappoint you.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by arista

It's an absolute disgrace that CNN wheels out these mentality Ill celebrities as political commentators.

Just watch the clip, don't even worry about the bad language. My question is, where are his facts and reasons behind his claims?

Even little baby Brian cuts him off and calls for a break. Basically he was just wheeled out to say "Orange man bad"

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

It's an absolute disgrace that CNN wheels out these mentality Ill celebrities as political commentators.

Just watch the clip, don't even worry about the bad language. My question is, where are his facts and reasons behind his claims?

Even little baby Brian cuts him off and calls for a break. Basically he was just wheeled out to say "Orange man bad"

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

But let's say there are facts and reasons, where's his? He's just basically saying Orange man bad, but not giving a reason why he's bad. The show he's on is called "reliable sources" where's his reliable sources for his claims?

I'm sure his performance will be better in the new Scorsese film.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

But let's say there are facts and reasons, where's his? He's just basically saying Orange man bad, but not giving a reason why he's bad. The show he's on is called "reliable sources" where's his reliable sources for his claims?

I'm sure his performance will be better in the new Scorsese film.

He does clearly say it's because of all the crap he's already done and said. which is legitimate.

He's only the guest of the show, no one criticises anyone that goes on Sean Hannity's show, for not being Sean Hannity. Besides, he was asked how he'd respond to fox news if they criticised him for criticising trump (which is a ridiculous thing to have to comment on. News orgs shouldn't be protecting the president), and he said "**** em". What exactly are you struggling to understand?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

It's an absolute disgrace that CNN wheels out these mentality Ill celebrities as political commentators.

Just watch the clip, don't even worry about the bad language. My question is, where are his facts and reasons behind his claims?

Even little baby Brian cuts him off and calls for a break. Basically he was just wheeled out to say "Orange man bad"

Mentally ill for saying something you don't like?

Great logic there.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Alf

But let's say there are facts and reasons, where's his? He's just basically saying Orange man bad, but not giving a reason why he's bad. The show he's on is called "reliable sources" where's his reliable sources for his claims?

I'm sure his performance will be better in the new Scorsese film.

the show took an hour, not a 24/7 show, and i'd love to sum up the reasons why he is bad, but then you would have a longlist of trump tweets in my post

reliable source, twitter and there are people like De Niro, me and others who see it very clear why trump is a bad u.s president

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Mentally ill for saying something you don't like?

Great logic there.

They're nearly all mental cases in Hollywood, it's the life they lead, cutting themselves off from everyday people. They live in cuckoo land.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

He does clearly say it's because of all the crap he's already done and said. which is legitimate.

He's only the guest of the show, no one criticises anyone that goes on Sean Hannity's show, for not being Sean Hannity. Besides, he was asked how he'd respond to fox news if they criticised him for criticising trump (which is a ridiculous thing to have to comment on. News orgs shouldn't be protecting the president), and he said "**** em". What exactly are you struggling to understand?

What does "all the crap" mean? What crap?

Maybe they can invite me on, and I'll say, "all the crap that the Democrats are doing" but I won't have to explain the crap, as long as I get the headline out there, that's all I need to stick.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

What does "all the crap" mean? What crap?

Maybe they can invite me on, and I'll say, "all the crap that the Democrats are doing" but I won't have to explain the crap, as long as I get the headline out there, that's all I need to stick.

If you didn't believe them the first time around, then why would I give you a list of things he has done so you can disbelieve them for a 50th time?

[The Slim Reaper]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...ongdoing-biden

KYIV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s former top law enforcement official says he repeatedly rebuffed demands by President Trump’s personal lawyer to investigate Joe Biden and his son, insisting he had seen no evidence of wrongdoing that he could pursue.
In an interview, Yuri Lutsenko said while he was Ukraine’s prosecutor general he told Rudolph W. Giuliani that he would be happy to cooperate if the FBI or other U.S. authorities began their own investigation of the former vice president and his son Hunter but insisted they had not broken any Ukrainian laws to his knowledge.

Lutsenko, who was fired as prosecutor general last month, said he had urged Giuliani to launch a U.S. inquiry and go to court if he had any evidence but not to use Ukraine to conduct a political vendetta that could affect the U.S. election.

“I said, ‘Let’s put this through prosecutors, not through presidents,’ ” Lutsenko told The Times.

“I told him I could not start an investigation just for the interests of an American official,” he said.

The revelations are at the heart of the House impeachment inquiry into whether Trump improperly delayed congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine while urging leaders there to help find dirt on his political opponents to boost his 2020 reelection bid.

Lutsenko said he met Giuliani twice in person and had numerous conversations with him on the phone. He described the former New York mayor as obsessed with possible misconduct by Biden or his son Hunter.

Both Bidens have denied any wrongdoing, and no evidence has emerged to suggest they broke U.S. laws.

Lutsenko said he told Giuliani that Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Ukraine’s largest natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, while his father was involved in steering Obama administration policy toward Ukraine “could be signs of a conflict of interest” but was not illegal.

Lutsenko’s account is controversial since he is believed to have been one of the original promoters behind the unsubstantiated allegations against Biden. He also complained about Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv who was recalled in May, weeks before her tenure was up.

Yovanovitch had pushed Ukraine’s government to more aggressively crack down on corruption. But the White House considered her insufficiently loyal to Trump, apparently because she resisted pressuring Ukraine on his priorities, and she became a target of conservative critics, including Giuliani.

House investigators have scheduled a deposition with Yovanovitch and four other senior State Department officials as part of the impeachment inquiry.

Among the group is Kurt Volker, who resigned as special U.S. envoy to Ukraine on Friday after the whistleblower account alleged he had helped set up some of Giuliani’s meetings with Ukrainian officials.

Lutsenko said he was eager to cooperate with Giuliani and Trump but did not have sufficient evidence to act on his own.

The former prosecutor said Giuliani dropped the Biden requests at some point last year but apparently saw a new opportunity with the election in April of Volodymyr Zelensky, a former actor and political neophyte who defeated incumbent President Petro Poroshenko.

Lutsenko said Giuliani again began contacting him to sound him out about the new president and gauge whether Zelensky might be more cooperative in going after Democrats. But Lutsenko did not keep his job and was fired in August.

On July 25, Trump spoke to Zelensky by telephone from the White House. According to a declassified memorandum released by the White House last week that reconstructed the conversation, Trump asked Zelensky for a “favor” and urged him to “look into” Biden and his son.

He linked his comments directly to Zelensky’s request to buy U.S. antitank weapons to help counter Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, and the new president’s hopes of securing a White House meeting.

During the 30-minute call, Trump asked Zelensky at least five times to work with Atty. Gen. William Barr in addition to Giuliani.

“I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Atty. Gen. Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it,” Trump told Zelensky. “I’m sure you will figure it out.”

The Justice Department said last week that Barr was not aware of Trump’s comments at the time and that he had no contact with Ukrainian authorities.

Trump also asked Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company that did work for the Democrats in the 2016 election and was the focus of conspiracy theories. The company is based in Irvine, but Trump apparently believed it operated from Ukraine.

A week before the call, Trump had ordered aides to withhold disbursement of nearly $400 million in military and State Department assistance that Congress had approved for Ukraine. He gave no reason for blocking the aid.

Previously, Trump had bragged about having secured the aid, saying it showed he was more supportive of Ukraine than President Obama had been. The funds and material were finally released this month after Congress was notified of a whistleblower complaint involving Trump’s call to Zelensky.

Giuliani has acknowledged broadly asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and defended the move as appropriate. Although he is a private citizen, not a government employee, he has claimed he acted at the State Department’s behest. The State Department has not commented.

“I did not do this on my own, I did it at the request of the State Department — I have a ‘thank you’ from them for doing a good job,” Giuliani said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” He said Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo “was aware of it.”

Lutsenko, 54, met with The Times at a cafe in downtown Kyiv. He spoke quickly and animatedly in Russian and English, at times contradicting his previous public statements.

He said he met unofficially with Giuliani in New York and in Warsaw last year. Other accounts put the New York meeting earlier this year, but he insisted it was January 2018. The Warsaw meeting was in March, he said.

“I went to his office and was there for several hours over three days,” Lutsenko said. “He was certainly prepared.”

Giuliani quickly raised the issue of the Ukrainian gas company that had hired Hunter Biden. Burisma is run by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been under investigation for tax evasion and lives abroad. But once back taxes were paid, Lutsenko said, the case was shelved.

“He was wondering why the case was closed,” he said. “I had to tell him how law enforcement functions here.”

He said his hands were tied and he could not reopen the case just because Trump wanted it.

Trump has suggested that one of Biden’s misdeeds was to demand the firing of Lutsenko’s predecessor, Viktor Shokin, to prevent him from investigating Hunter Biden.

But U.S. and European officials had demanded Shokin’s ouster as part of a crackdown on widespread corruption in the former Soviet republic.

“The thinking was Ukraine could do a lot more” to fight corruption, David Cameron, the British prime minister at the time, said Sunday on CNN.

Giuliani was scheduled to travel to Kyiv in May but canceled the trip when Democrats raised questions about his activities.

Lutsenko served as prosecutor general from May 2016 until last month, when Zelensky had him replaced. Both men are pivotal characters in the Trump impeachment saga.

Lutsenko has had a checkered career. He spent several years in prison on corruption charges that he claimed were trumped up. He was eventually pardoned.

Rivals have accused him of fomenting the Biden allegations in hopes of winning Trump administration support during the Ukrainian election for Poroshenko, the defeated candidate.

The picture that is emerging of Giuliani’s back-channel diplomacy suggests maneuvering that countered and ultimately undermined official U.S. foreign policy.

The U.S. Congress has voiced bipartisan support for Kyiv in its showdown with neighboring Russia, which seized the Crimea region in 2014 and has backed separatists in an armed insurgency in eastern Ukraine.

Trump has been reluctant to criticize Moscow, and last week, when he met Zelensky on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, the president appeared to startle the Ukrainian leader by urging him to settle his differences with Russia.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

If you didn't believe them the first time around, then why would I give you a list of things he has done so you can disbelieve them for a 50th time?

Believe what?

Trump won the election, the establishment didn't like it

The people of the UK voted to leave, the establishment didn't like it.

If anybody is causing division in the Western World, then look at the people who can't and won't accept defeat.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

Believe what?

Trump won the election, the establishment didn't like it

The people of the UK voted to leave, the establishment didn't like it.

If anybody is causing division in the Western World, then look at the people who can't and won't accept defeat.

Has nothing to do with accepting elections. This is what you constantly get wrong. You can't tell me 3 benefits of brexit, and yet you want it because your side won the election. What you do with others is project your own intentions on to the motives of others, and it's not even remotely true.

People aren't against brexit because they lost an election, they are against it to protect their nhs, their standard of living, and in some cases their lives.

Trump doesn't get immunity because he's president, and it's only ever him or his supporters that even mention 2016 repeatedly.

He's being investigated for crimes, not because people are unhappy he won.

[Twosugars]

Lock him up

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Has nothing to do with accepting elections. This is what you constantly get wrong.

People aren't against brexit because they lost an election, they are against it to protect their nhs, their standard of living, and in some cases their lives.

Trump doesn't get immunity because he's president, and it's only ever him or his supporters that even mention 2016 repeatedly.

He's being investigated for crimes, not because people are unhappy he won.

He's being investigated for crimes, not because he's done anything wrong, it's because the Democrats have no winning policies, so they throw dirt and hope some sticks. If the headline is Orange man bad, then most people who ain't that interested just think that Orange man must be bad.

They ain't got nothing on him, they've thrown all of their dirt at him over the past 5 years.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Alf

He's being investigated for crimes, not because he's done anything wrong, it's because the Democrats have no winning policies, so they throw dirt and hope some sticks. If the headline is Orange man bad, then most people who ain't that interested just think that Orange man must be bad.

They ain't got nothing on him, they've thrown all of their dirt at him over the past 5 years.

Asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political opponent is a crime

It makes Nixon look good

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

He's being investigated for crimes, not because he's done anything wrong, it's because the Democrats have no winning policies, so they throw dirt and hope some sticks. If the headline is Orange man bad, then most people who ain't that interested just think that Orange man must be bad.

They ain't got nothing on him, they've thrown all of their dirt at him over the past 5 years.

The democrats are running on platform of a green new deal, free healthcare for everyone, making the wealthy finally pay their fair share, and to reduce the costs of higher education. it's actually Trump/conservatives that don't have anything to run on.

But again, you just ignore what's being said and restate it, as though that gives it extra weight.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

The democrats are running on platform of a green new deal, free healthcare for everyone, making the wealthy finally pay their fair share, and to reduce the costs of higher education. it's actually Trump/conservatives that don't have anything to run on.

But again, you just ignore what's being said and restate it, as though that gives it extra weight.

Like I said, no winning policies.