DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: Unbreakable

Oh boy oh boy! Parnas spilled the beans!

Five takeaways from Parnas's Maddow interview

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...ddow-interview#

Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas revealed new accusations against President Trump and his administration in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Wednesday night.

A day after the House published evidence provided by Parnas for the Senate impeachment trial, Parnas unveiled his take on what has been going on behind the scenes with the White House’s Ukraine policy.

Giuliani’s associate connected Trump directly to the controversy and pressure campaign in Ukraine to get the country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who sat on the board of the Ukrainian company Burisma.

Here are some of the accusations that Parnas made:

1. He claimed Trump threatened to withhold more than just military aid from Ukraine

Parnas claimed that the president threatened to withhold all aid from Ukraine if it did not publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens, and he delivered that “very harsh message” to Ukrainian officials on behalf of Giuliani and Trump.

“The message was: It wasn’t just military aid. It was all aid,” he said. “Basically the relationship would be sour. We would stop giving them any kind of aid.”
The associate to the president’s personal attorney said the aid was clearly contingent on U.S. demands, primarily the launch of an investigation into the Bidens. Parnas's claims counter what Trump has said, which is that there was no explicit quid pro quo between him and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

2. He implicated Attorney General Barr, saying he “had to have known everything”

Giuliani’s associate continued by connecting Attorney General Bill Barr to the pressure campaign, saying that Giuliani had contacted the attorney general about the attempts to get Ukraine to announce a Biden investigation

“Barr had to have known everything,” he said. “Attorney General Barr was basically on the team."

A Justice Department spokesperson told Maddow that the claim was “100 percent false.” The spokesperson repeated the same statement to The Hill.

3. “Trump knew exactly what was going on”

Parnas also directly connected Trump to the Ukraine pressure campaign to investigate the Bidens, saying the president “knew exactly what was going on.”

Maddow asked Parnas about that “main inaccuracy or the main lie being told” that he felt he could correct.

He responded: “That the president didn’t know what was going on. President Trump knew exactly what was going on.”

Parnas continued, saying that he would not act without “the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president,” and added that Trump’s claim that he doesn't know Parnas is a lie.

4. He alleged Pence skipped Zelenksy's inauguration because of Ukraine pressure campaign

Parnas accused Vice President Mike Pence of being in the know, adding that the vice president's planned trip to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy’s inauguration was canceled because the country refused to announce a Biden investigation.

“Oh, I know 100 percent,” Parnas said. “It was 100 percent.”

When Maddow asked if the vice president knew his visit was involved in a “quid pro quo,” Parnas quoted Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s comments during the impeachment inquiry: “Everybody was in the loop.”

Maddow said her show reached out to Pence for comment but did not receive a response.

5. He asserted that the Ukraine campaign “was never about corruption [but] strictly about Burisma”

Giuliani’s associate also claimed that the White House’s call for a Ukrainian investigation “was never about corruption." Instead, it was focused solely on Burisma.

"And that was another thing that they were looking into, but it was never about corruption," Parnas said. "It was never — it was strictly about Burisma, which included Hunter Biden and Joe Biden."

Parnas's assertion negates the White House’s claims that the administration was attempting to root out corruption when Trump asked Zelensky to examine Biden’s past.

_________

Don’t you just love it when the henchmen squeals?

But wait! There’s more!

‘He knows who I am’: Lev Parnas says Devin Nunes was ‘involved in getting all this stuff on Biden’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/16/parnas-nunes-ukraine/

Well, looks like the witnesses need to also include Parnas, Nunes, Barr, and Pence.

Drip, by drip, by drip. The swamp is filling up. The GOP’ers won’t call any witnesses now.

Giuliani is a political STD. A gift that keeps on giving.

Parnas is that guy that was indicted, is currently out on bail, and owned a business called Fraud inc., right?

Trumps biggest problem as President is that he didn't and doesn't understand the constitution. I don't think a president needs a deep understanding, but he needs to hire folks that do and can keep him on the straight and narrow. Then he has to listen to them.

Trump failed at that.

Trump has hired the most bias people that will kiss his butt all the way to hell.

As for Parnas, He was believable, but he's also an indicted guy. So he has skin in the game.

The thing about Parnas is that he has documents and emails and texts and letters etc, that tend to prove his points.

There is also the thing that has him saying almost the same things that the witnesses were saying in the house hearings.

It's like he's backing up the testimony we heard.

Lots of things that make me believe that Parnas has to be investigated "bigly" to determine if he's got the goods on Trump and the Trump Crime Family.

Time will tell.

FWIW, I think the Senate will provide a sham trial, I believe Trump will then say he was completely cleared of all wrong doing (that won't be true, but he'll say it)

It's a shame that the republican party has turned into the wimpy kinda people. What a shame. I was a registered republican, but no more..

If you say so ... he's the same guy who was working for/with Giuliani and Trump.

To be fair - there is a lot of very subjective content in there. I am not saying it's all not true - I am sure it isn't. But this goes to what is provable in a court of law. Personally I find Sondland's and Yovanovitch's testimony more compelling and damning. We need to have Bolton testify.

Yes, the guy who worked along side Giuliani at fraud inc.

I think parnas is important because the republicans demanded first hand knowledge, and parnas is one of 4-5 people with first hand knowledge.

I think it was Fraud Guarantee inc., but you are correct. He's also Rudy's right hand man in the Ukraine stuff, did get indicted, and and got a real sore ass when Trump claimed not to know him after all he did for Giuliani on Trump's behalf. So now he's flipping and seems to have supporting collaborative documentation/records. Sooooooo....

Ukraine opens criminal probe into possible surveillance of ex-US ambassador

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/...ance/index.html

Hey guys! Trump finally got Ukraine to launch an investigation!

White House hold on Ukraine aid violated federal law, congressional watchdog says

Jan. 16, 2020 at 9:58 a.m. EST
The White House violated federal law in its hold on security aid to Ukraine last year, according to a decision by a congressional watchdog released on Thursday and reviewed by The Washington Post.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, found the Trump administration violated a law that governs how the White House disburses money approved by Congress.

The GAO decision comes as the Senate prepares for the impeachment trial of President Trump, a process set to begin Thursday.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the decision states. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.”

Last month, the Democratic-controlled House impeached Trump on charges of abusing the power of his office in a pressure campaign against Ukraine.

Trump has attacked the impeachment charges as politically motivated. White House budget officials have defended their power to stop the money from being given to the Defense Department, arguing both congressional lawmakers and executive branch officials routinely demand delays on funding already signed into law.

The report brings new scrutiny to a chain of events at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget last year. When top White House officials gave directives to the Pentagon to withhold aid for Ukraine, some OMB officials objected, warning the halt could be improper. At least two officials resigned, in part over concerns about the Ukraine money.

White House officials were withholding the security aid at a time when Trump was pressing Ukraine’s new leader to announce an investigation into Joe Biden’s son. Emails released in late December showed that a senior budget official directed the Defense Department to hold off on the aid less than two hours after Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The president and White House have strongly denied any wrongdoing over the hold on security assistance. The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, told Congress that he believed there was a connection between the aid and Trump’s desire for Ukraine to announce investigations.

The GAO found that the administration broke the Impoundment Control Act — a 1974 law that provides a mechanism for the executive branch to request that Congress reconsider a funding decision that’s been signed into law.

“This bombshell legal opinion from the independent Government Accountability Office demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who requested GAO write the report in December.

The GAO report was widely expected to stay away from the specific House impeachment charges. House lawmakers impeached Trump on two counts, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Lawmakers alleged that the president abused the power of his office in withholding the money as leverage to pressure Zelensky into publicly announcing investigations that would undermine a political rival, and then obstructed the investigation into those actions.

The release of the GAO decision, one day after the House voted to send its articles of impeachment to the Senate, may give political ammunition to congressional Democrats hoping to portray the president and his administration as willing to stretch the law for political gain.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has characterized the House articles of impeachment as flimsy, and it is unlikely there are enough votes in the Senate to remove Trump from office. Trump has “done nothing wrong,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Wednesday.

The controversy has for months focused attention on the White House budget office over its central role in delaying the aid.

The administration has previously disagreed with the GAO’s findings, including last year when GAO said the White House violated federal spending law during the government shutdown by allowing popular park sites to stay open.

In cases of a violation, the most the GAO can do is sue the administration to release money, which has happened only once-- in the 1970s. The lawsuit was later dismissed when the funds were released.

Several administrations have been slapped by the GAO, including that of George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. In general, the administrations were cited for freeing funds for spending, making lawsuits unnecessary. Most recently, in December 2018, the GAO said the Department of Homeland Security illegally withheld $95 million appropriated for the Coast Guard to support national security efforts. The funds were eventually released.

OMB first began discussing the aid to Ukraine on June 19, the day Trump learned of the assistance from an article in the Washington Examiner.

OMB extended a temporary hold on the aid eight times in August and September before Trump agreed to its release under pressure to do so from Vice President Pence and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Sept. 11, having already been informed about a whistleblower complaint about the aid hold and Ukraine pressure campaign and in the wake of a Sept. 9 announcement by three Democratic-controlled House committees that they were probing whether the aid was withheld to pressure Ukraine for political purposes.

Democrats have alleged that OMB overstepped its legal authority in restricting the funds. The White House cannot legally substitute its policy judgment over a decision signed into law by Congress.

“If the executive branch violates the [Impoundment Control Act] with impunity, then Congress loses its power to direct the expenditures of federal funds and any program authorized in law could be defunded by Executive fiat,” Van Hollen wrote in a letter to Gene L. Dodaro, comptroller general of the GAO, in December.

In a legal memo released in December, OMB’s top lawyer defended the hold as legal and within the bounds of precedent.

“For decades, OMB has routinely used its apportionment authority to prevent funds from being used,” OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta wrote in a December memo to GAO.

“Often, in managing appropriations, OMB must briefly pause an agency’s legal ability to spend those funds for a number of reasons, including to ensure that the funds are being spent efficiently, that they are being spent in accordance with statutory directives, or to assess how or whether funds should be used for a particular activity.”

Critics said President Trump has given other explanations for stalling the aid.

In September, on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly session, Trump told reporters his concern was corruption. “We want to make sure that country is honest,” he said. “It’s very important to talk about corruption. If you don’t talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?”

The following day, he suggested he blocked the aid because European countries weren’t providing their fair share of aid Ukraine.

“OMB was withholding the funds as part of an extortion scheme to pressure Ukraine,” said Sam Berger, a former senior attorney at OMB during the Obama administration. “That’s illegal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...b96b_story.html


Well let's hear how Trump and the GOP spin this.

Ok, is Parnas also the guy who received a million dollars in November from Russia and ran it through his wife to cover it up?

Are you ignoring the elephant in the room as you probe the edges for a way out? lmao

A way out of what?

I am simply looking over your witness like I did with Michael Avenatti and Michael Cohen who are serving time in prison for lying among other things.

It all started with corrupt people making "accusations" which you assured us was "proof".

Yall have a history of pulling this sort of thing.

Bolton has to be called as a witness for starters.

Last night and the GAO report today are massive.

Government watchdog concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/...-aid/index.html

The Government Accountability Office says the Trump administration broke the law when it withheld US security aid to Ukraine last year that had been appropriated by Congress -- an issue at the center of the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

The GAO, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, said in a decision issued Thursday that the White House budget office violated the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law that limits the White House from withholding funds that Congress has appropriated.
The latest on President Trump's impeachment
The latest on President Trump's impeachment
The Office of Management and Budget told the GAO it "withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent 'in a manner that could conflict with the President's foreign policy,'" said Thomas Armstrong, the GAO's general counsel.
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the GAO wrote. "OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."
The decision will add fuel to the Democratic allegations that Trump's conduct ran afoul of the law when the his administration withheld $400 million in security aid to Ukraine while the President and his team pushed Ukraine to open an investigation into the President's political rivals.
The GAO decision comes as the President's Senate impeachment trial is set to begin on Thursday, with Senate Democrats pushing for Republicans to allow additional witnesses and documents to be considered during the trial.
"This bombshell legal opinion from the independent Government Accountability Office demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump Administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine. The publicly available evidence also shows that the President himself ordered this illegal act," Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, said in a statement. "The GAO's independent findings reinforce the need for the Senate to obtain all relevant documents and hear from key fact witnesses in order to have a fair trial."
OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said the budget office disagrees with the GAO's decision.
"OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law," Semmel said.
Trump administration officially put hold on Ukraine aid same day as Trump call
Trump administration officially put hold on Ukraine aid same day as Trump call
The White House budget office notified federal agencies that the Ukraine aid was being withheld at the direction of the President on July 18, 2019, according to testimony from the House's impeachment inquiry. The aid was formally withheld on July 25, when OMB official Michael Duffey, a political appointee, took over the decision from Mark Sandy, a career budget official.
The hold on the aid was extended nine times until a decision on September 11 to release it, which came as Congress was ramping up investigations for the delay and after a whistleblower report had been filed alleging that the aid was being withheld by the President as he sought for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, even though there's no evidence that either broke the law.
The White House budget office told the GAO that the money was withheld because they were reviewing the programs, meaning the delay wasn't subject to the Impoundment Control Act. But the GAO rejected that argument.
"OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay," GAO wrote. "OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. OMB's assertions have no basis in law."
House Appropriations Chair Nita Lowey of New York said that the GAO "confirmed what congressional Democrats have understood all along: President Trump abused his power and broke the law by withholding security assistance to Ukraine."
"Given that this illegal conduct threatened our security and undermined our elections, I feel even more strongly that the House has chosen the right course by impeaching President Trump," Lowey said in a statement.

_________________

North, it aint looking good for Trump.

The Senate is not responsible to run the House investigation for them or continue it. That part is finished. The Senate can base their trial on the evidence found by the House.

If the House doesn't like the verdict, they can re-investigate and bring new impeachment articles to the Senate for a new trial.

Nobody can pull their heads out of the potus’s butt. He’ll be fine.

Funny that this is the same kind of BS coming out of the White House this morning. Imagine that.

The Truth has a way of coming out again and again unless it is deliberately suppressed.

Yep ... the GOP’ers “anything he has first hand knowledge of is now fake” he was indicted carrying out what trump wanted him to do. But it’s fake. It never ceases to amaze me how many dumasses will take the fall for this pos potus. It’s comical.

There is hope for you yet as you admit your witnesses are dumb....

Yes - that's why Trump is being impeached.

Like everyone else Trump surrounds himself with. Next you'll be saying, "Well you can't listen to him, he was a part of the Trump machine."

Six either in prison or awaiting sentencing. Guliani under investigation. Parnas a close associate of Guliani. I can see why you don't wish to believe Parnas. He is a part of the Trump circle of crooks.

Trump violated law by withholding Ukraine aid: Government watchdog

The hold coincided with Trump's demands that Ukraine investigate the Bidens.

President Donald Trump's hold on security assistance to Ukraine was illegal, according to the federal government's independent watchdog.

The new determination by the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, comes as the Senate is set to take up the articles of impeachment against Trump, which were delivered from the House on Wednesday.

Last June, Trump placed a hold on $214 million of security assistance from the Pentagon for Ukraine, as it battles Russian-led separatists in its eastern provinces. The White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, told Congress, which had passed the budget law appropriating those funds, that they were being withheld to ensure they weren't spent "in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy."

But GAO said that the executive branch can't use that kind of policy reason to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.

"OMB violated the [law] when it withheld" the Ukraine assistance "for policy reasons," the report concludes.

Trump has always maintained he's done nothing illegal. A spokesperson for OMB said the agency disagreed with the GAO findings.

"We disagree with GAO's opinion," the spokesperson, Rachel Semmel, said in a statement. "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."

The GAO is an independent, nonpartisan watchdog agency that investigates the federal government on behalf of Congress, taking up requests on behalf of both Republicans and Democrats.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters the GAO decision "reinforces again the need for documents and eyewitnesses in the Senate" impeachment trial.

"This bombshell legal opinion from the independent Government Accountability Office demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump Administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who originally requested the GAO investigation. "This violation of the law reflects a contempt for the Constitution and was a key part of his corrupt scheme to abuse the power of the presidency for his personal political purposes."

Trump had placed a hold on a total of $391 million of security assistance to Ukraine and has provided various reasons for doing so -- including that he was concerned the money would be well-spent and not used for corruption or that European allies have not contributed enough to Ukraine's security. The European Union has provided more than €15 billion in loans and grants to Ukraine, according to the bloc, with an additional €134 million in humanitarian assistance for the ongoing conflict.

The other portion of the $391 million came from the State Department, and the GAO is still investigating whether its funds were withheld for legitimate reasons, but said that the department and OMB have failed to comply with their investigation.

The GAO issued its decision as chief Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman took the podium at a press briefing. He said while he had "not had a chance to look at it or talk to our lawyers in the building" he is "sure we'll be looking at it."

He also for the first time said that Ukraine had now received all of the aid appropriated to it for fiscal year 2019, including a portion that was not distributed before the fiscal year ran out at the end of September.

Asked if the Defense Department was looking to do anything differently given it was "such a mess" getting the aid to Ukraine, Hoffman told reporters he "would not characterize it as a mess."

"I believed that we were able to get the aid out the door as we were intended to, so I would not characterize it as a mess," he said. "We were able to get – as Congress requested and as we were instructed to do – the aid went out the door and went to Ukraine and is being available to the Ukrainian people in their own defensive efforts."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-vi...ory?id=68327172

Fake news or Deep State ... take your pick. Or maybe you are simply a commie and terrorist lover for questioning the President that God gave us?

The GAO is wrong.

Just ask the OMB, (The Office of Management and Budget)

The OMB made clear Thursday, however, that it disagreed with the GAO report.

“We disagree with GAO's opinion," OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said. "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."

Further, a senior administration official said that they believed the GAO was trying to insert itself into impeachment at a time when media attention on the matter is high.

"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”

Mmmmm hmmmm.

Six buddies in prison or awaiting sentencing and you're still with the nothing to see here crowd.

And guess who made a visit to Hyde’s house and office today?

Washington (CNN)The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee admitted Wednesday to speaking on the phone with a key figure in the Ukraine scandal after previously saying such a conversation would have been "very unlikely."

The new revelation by California Rep. Devin Nunes comes after Democrats raised questions about his impartiality on investigating the Ukraine matter before impeachment articles were approved in December against President Donald Trump.
Last month, Democrats released phone records as part of their impeachment inquiry showing that Nunes and a top aide had exchanged multiple phone calls, at key moments, with Lev Parnas and other allies of President Donald Trump who were digging up dirt in Ukraine about Trump's political rivals, primarily former Vice President Joe Biden. The Democratic report identified at least four calls or attempted calls between Nunes and Parnas, an associate of the President's attorney Rudy Giuliani, including a call in April 2019 that lasted longer than eight minutes.
At the time, Nunes didn't deny a conversation had taken place but cast doubt on the Democrats' report.
"You know, it's possible," Nunes told Fox News when asked if he had ever spoken with Parnas. "But I haven't gone through all my phone records. I don't really recall that name."
"I remember the name now because he has been indicted," he added. "You know and I'll go back and check all my records, but it seems very unlikely that I would be taking calls from random people."
On Wednesday, Parnas gave a series of interviews, including one to CNN's Anderson Cooper, in which he directly implicated Trump in the Ukraine scandal, disputing previous White House claims that overtures made by Trump and his allies to Ukraine were about rooting out corruption and not furthering his 2020 prospects. Speaking to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Parnas said he recalled talking to Nunes and that he had met him several times but that "we don't have too much of a relationship."
Giuliani associate implicates Trump in Ukraine scheme
Giuliani associate implicates Trump in Ukraine scheme
Asked about Parnas by Fox News' Martha MacCallum on Wednesday, Nunes confirmed that he had spoken with the Soviet-born businessman as Democrats had indicated.
"Yeah, and if you recall, that was brand new when that had come out when I came on your show. Because I just didn't know the name -- this name Parnas," Nunes said. "So, you know, what I always like to remind people is, you know, we are dealing with people every day. We're an oversight committee. So we have incoming calls that come to my office, to my cell phone, et cetera, et cetera."
He continued: "And then you know now that he had called my cell phone and I didn't know his name. I didn't remember the name. But I did remember going back, looking at where I was at the time. Because you know you can do that now. You actually know where you physically are. Checked it with my records and it was very clear. I remember that call, which was very odd, random. Talking about random things. And I said, 'Great, you know, just talk to my staff' and boom, boom, boom. Which is normal, standard operating procedure."
When the House was considering impeachment charges against Trump last year, Nunes was among the most visible Republicans defending the President, often repeating conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims about Biden's dealings in Ukraine and foreign interference in the 2016 US election. CNN has reported that the US intelligence community believes that some of the theories Nunes endorsed, especially that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election, originated from Russian operatives as part of an orchestrated disinformation campaign.
Democrats have questioned Nunes' impartiality for years. He was forced to step back from leading the committee's Russia investigation in 2017 amid a controversy about his back-channel coordination with White House officials. The House Ethics Committee looked into whether he also had publicly revealed classified information but eventually cleared him in that matter.

Parnas part 2 on Maddow now. Perry knew, he just got outed.

So if this is a real trial than can the Senate call Adam Schiff to the stand? What about Joe, Hunter Biden? I'd summon those three immediately just to start of the proceeding.

These impeachment hearings are kind of amusing I guess.

At the end of the day it will be a massive waste of time just like the Mueller investigation (which no one seems to want to talk about anymore). You guys were all steam ahead on that for years, lol.

You couldn't beat Trump in 2016, you're not going to beat him now, and you're not going to beat him in 2020. Trump will win again in 2020 but this time by a landslide.

We AGREE! I'll explain why:

The Senate (McConnell mostly) sets the rules for the impeachment trial. At first McConnell wanted no witnesses and a quick trial lasting two weeks or less. But the delay caused by Pelosi holding up the transfer of the articles of impeachment to the Senate from the House of Reps allowed pressure to build from the public for a fair and complete trial including witnesses and ALL evidence. Several GOP Senators have now said they would like to see witnesses. So now McConnell is boxed in to allowing a vote on allowing witnesses.

How the vote on allowing witnesses and or new evidence works will still have to be addressed. Both sides could call for an equal amount of witnesses, including the Bidens and Schift for the GOP. However it will be a game of tit for tat... The Dems would also get to call Bolton, Giuliani, Parnas, etc. Additionally, the vote could allow for restriction like relevance, or strictly recalling witnesses that testified in the house prior to the articles being drafted, etc.

The House Impeachment Managers, who will act as Prosecutors, will layout the case against Trump and they will definitely introduce evidence that has come in after the articles were passed. The Parnas info, new media reports, and new documentation will all be introduced and should be investigated further. This will again box in McConnell and the GOP to either try to block the new evidence OR to allow it along with witnesses and documentation. If they try to block it, the House would just start new hearings teeing up a second possible impeachment and making Senate GOP look like they are complicit in a cover up. McConnell will not be able to bully his way to the finish line without huge backlash and causing further issues for Trump. So I expect him to do what he can to limit new evidence and witnesses but ultimately I think both will be allowed.

Both sides are in for surprises and a rollercoaster ride IMHO. Dems will be looking for one of three outcomes. They would like to see the new evidence along with what they have be so compelling that it forces the GOP to convict and remove Trump. OR if they can create enough public outrage with the evidence that the GOP and Trump see no way to save face without turning on each other forcing Trump to decide to resign like Nixon rather than risk being removed by the boxed in GOP Senate. Going in, both of those scenarios are longshots at best but McConnell and others made a huge mistake saying they had predetermined the outcome with some 80% of the public wanting a fair and complete trial. If public sentiment swings toward removing Trump and they don't do it, there will be hell to pay in November. This is where you need to remember that McConnell wants to be Senate Majority Leader MORE than he wants to protect Trump.

The last and most likely outcome for dems is to cause enough damage to Trump AND the GOP by laying out a very convincing case against Trump only to have the GOP appear to protect him, attempt to cover up, or ignore public outrage and not convict. This again will tee up a very bad November for the GOP and open the door for more house investigations and a whole new impeachment of Trump in 20121, if he were to win.

The GOP and McConnell want to get through this with as little damage as possible being caused to Trump, but more importantly the party. The best outcome for them would be complete exoneration of Trump and everyone else involved. This is highly unlikely at this point and just claiming exoneration will not work this time. With all the currently known evidence the damage will fall somewhere on the GOP side. The second best outcome will be to retain Trump in office by limiting the damage to him personally and making others like Mulvaney and Giuliani out to be the guilty parties. This 'fall guy' scenario will allow McConnell to save the GOP from major damage and give Trump reasonable cover to run strong in November. The third scenario is self preservation, and it would be bad for Trump. McConnell and the Senate GOP would have to decide that there is no way out that will save face and not do major damage to the GOP other than removing Trump or having him resign. This is unlikely but possible not knowing how the public is going to react to new evidence or the overall trial. Nixon was looking safe at the beginning of hearings only to have the public sentiment swing wildly toward removal as facts came out in public hearings.

The last rule that really matters and something I think we can expect a fight over. The Senate has limited press coverage of the Trial. If 100% of the trail is not publically broadcast, dems will have a hayday screaming cover up. I think McConnell wants to avoid allowing coverage to limit the public sentiment damage to the GOP and Trump. So there will be a fight over this early on IMHO.

Trump again denied knowing Lev Parnas. So Parnas' lawyer posted more robust proof.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-again-denied-knowing-lev-082300872.html

Lololol

Anything new from Parnas last night?

As for calling the Biden's and Schiff to be witnesses in the impeachment .... I mean that's just idiotic talk.

Schiff - maybe because the looney GOP are convinced he orchestrated the whistle blower (I think Schiff is too smart for that regardless if you think he's a weenie). It's still idiotic but you could make a case for it .... if Schiff needs to be a witness then Nunes most certainly needs to be on the stand too - he's the guy talking to KEY individuals at the heart of the investigation ... denying all knowledge then suddenly remembering after the proof comes out.

The Bidens? That's pure Trump Parroting and garbage speak. The Biden's have absolutely nothing to do with the POTUS withholding funds (illegally) and coercing the Ukrainians to undermine his political opponents. . . . Nada. Zip ..... 1000% deflection and creating a bogey man for the Trump followers who are too simple to engage their own brain cells. If Hunter Biden needs investigating - if he's done something wrong ... investigate him, lock him up if he's guilty .... but he has NOTHING to do with Trump except as a deflection. Every time a Trump suppoprter brings up Biden in response to Trump's impeachment - you know they are brain washed. End of.

Parnas claimed trump pushed for former Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin to get a visa because he thought he had dirt in Biden.

Also says he didn’t think Biden did anything wrong.

Trump expected to add Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to impeachment defense team

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/politics/...tarr/index.html

Can we have jim nantz and tony romo doing the commentary?