The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

Hardly it showed a distinct conspiracy at the highest levels using phony information to start and then continue their baseless investigation meant to harm his election chances and then remove him from office.

 

This is the LW continuing the Obama tradition of using the IRS against political opponents. BTW, that was one of Nixon's articles of impeachment.

 

And the question remains, he was hired for his name, to get contacts into our government representing a foreign company, didn he register as a foreign agent? I believe that was one of the charges against Manafort and others.

If the investigation into the possible corruption has begun it is high time.

 

And that should be relatively easy to determine... I've seen people on here who know how to access that DB to determine that...

And you know what? Not registering could be a valid US charge, that does NOT require Ukraine, as was requested by Trump...

 

What was Jr. selling if not his abilities?

 

In no uncertain words, the inspector general says there was no political conspiracy to undermine Trump's 2016 campaign.

Horowitz did not find "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions" to launch the investigation.

There were no FBI spies planted in Trump campaign

The famed dossier by ex-British spy Christopher Steele was not the reason the investigation was launched,

Horowitz specifically says that Peter Strzok, a former senior counterintelligence officer, and Lisa Page, a former FBI attorney, whom Trump has repeatedly vilified and mocked in crude ways, did not act out of bias or unduly influence the start of the investigation.

The IG's office found that the FBI did not try to recruit members of the Trump campaign as informants, and did not to try infiltrate the campaign itself

No one tapped Trump's phones.

Other than all of them it didn't destroy any Trump conspiracy theories.

 

Don't drop those eggs as you move them from your IG basket to your Durham basket.

 

So according to that your BLOTUS should be facing some SERIOUS hard time in prison because what he has done is MUCH WORSE!

 

I had no interest in following along with a thread that was authored by someone who started the thread by intentionally mischaracterizing the testimony and failing to provide any justification for the claim.

But I did watch most. The testimony demonstrated that the FISA court process needs updating and corrective procedures should be added to limit and prevent future instances of such errors. It also provided additional support for the fact that Trump's conspiracy theories regarding spying against his campaign, regarding the political bias of the investigation, regarding the interference in the 2016 election by Russia and not by Ukraine, and regarding the legal justification for the start of the investigations were exactly conspiracy theories without any evidence.

 

He explicitly concluded that the investigation was justified.

 

We simply don't agree. We could get to the point that we impeach a president for wearing mismatched socks.

 

So when your GOP Senate doesn't remove your BLOTUS they won't be saying that he never committed those Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress CRIMES.

Got it!

 

You always could do that if you get a majority of Congress to go through all of the steps associated with impeachment.

 

Thank you for establishing that you are just making up nonsense again by FAILING to substantiate your allegation.

 

What law was broken? Which serious criminal acts? I've heard a lot of noise but seen no evidence.

 

Sadly that is true and indicative of this time in history.

 

That directive never took place, sorry.

 

I agree... we need to stop talking "criminal" and stick to the 2 articles of impeachment, which, as we all know, do not require officially criminal acts..

Although, if and when the day comes, I firmly believe that whatever the criminal code for Extortion is, it was broken.

But I don't care to argue that until the day comes that charges can be brought.

 

<Rule 3> Questions will be how long did he obstruct, well only a short time. Did they negotiate with the WH like every other congress, well no they needed something to impeach on. Did the courts rule the Subpoenas were valid like is standard procedure, well no the dems didn't take it to court and withdrew them.

This will go down as the biggest political hack job in our history, <Rule 2/3> I guess my question is does that * only last this term or will it also be put by Trump's next term as President?

 

Please have your dems run on this, I'm certain the American public will understand your position with the video attached to every campaign ad.

 

I'm sure you can point to where in that video he relays the directive to stop an investigation. Please. I'm waiting.

And while you are at it, go ahead and tell us why a two ****ing year old video that supposedly is a confession has not even resulted in an investigation, let alone an indictment.

 

Obviously, the person that you are responding to is still (apparently) believing in Utterly DEBUNKED RW Fake Narratives.
(Paging Alex Jones).:smh:

 

Not listening to the hearings I see. It is exactly what they were debating.

 

They are saying the articles do not list impeachable offenses.

 

You have comprehension issues? "I'll be leaving in six hours, if the prosecutor is not fired you're not getting the money"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html