Jump to content

Professor Pigworth

Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Professor Pigworth

  1. So, to sum up, there won't be any witnesses or documents or other evidence allowed like in any other trial in history and the defense attorneys are arguing on procedure and miscellaneous grievances, not on the merits of the case against their client, yet Donald is completely and utterly innocent and this is all just a hoax. The hour of 1 p.m., the designated time for the start of President Trump’s impeachment trial, came and went. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was in the Capitol, cooling his heels. But the Senate remained in recess. Half an hour later, we found out why: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and his Senate Republicans had been rewriting the trial rules on the fly, minutes before bringing them to the floor for a vote. They are quite literally making things up as they go along. Public pressure on moderate Republican senators had, for the moment, forced McConnell to soften a couple of the most egregious trial rules — notably, a plan that would have forced the case to be argued in the middle of the night — but it did nothing to slow McConnell’s pell-mell rush to acquit. McConnell, who during a break in proceedings Tuesday huddled with White House counsel Pat Cipollone, succeeded in rebuffing, along party lines, efforts to call witnesses and demand documents that Trump withheld. Why such a hurry? The answer became apparent as soon as Trump’s lawyers opened their mouths for the first time during the impeachment proceedings. They shouted. They spouted invective. They launched personal attacks against the impeachment managers. But they offered virtually nothing in defense of the president’s conduct, nor anything but a passing reference to Ukraine. “These Articles of Impeachment … are not only ridiculous, they are dangerous to our republic,” declared Cipollone. “It's ridiculous,” he added. “It's ridiculous! It's ridiculous,” he repeated, for those who may have missed the point. “They’re here to steal two elections — it’s buried in the small print of their ridiculous articles of impeachment,” he alleged. Cipollone closed with a request to “end this ridiculous charade.” But he didn’t rest his case there. He and his colleagues built on this playground-worthy argument: “Outrageous!” “No crime!” “No case!” “False allegations!” “Concocted!” “Hypocrisy!” “They don’t have the guts!” “A complete fake!” Here were the president’s men, in the flesh, occupying a factual universe all their own. “The president was not allowed to have a lawyer present” in House proceedings, said the presidential lawyers who refused to be present in House proceedings. “They ask you to trample on executive privilege,” they said, even though Trump hasn’t invoked executive privilege. The impeachment managers have “evidence … that we haven’t been allowed to see,” said the White House officials who blocked the release of all documents. Day One offered the starkest of contrasts: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and his impeachment managers framing their case in somber terms and painstaking detail — and the other side responding with what amounted to an extended reading of Trump’s tweets. Most of the 53 Senate Republicans are lawyers, so they had to be aware that what they were getting from the White House did not amount to a defense. Their body language suggested they wanted the whole thing to end — quickly. Patrick Toomey (Pa.) chewed his reading glasses. Marco Rubio (Fla.) chewed at a fingernail. Ted Cruz (Tex.) slouched in his chair.Tim Scott (S.C.) studied the ceiling. Bill Cassidy (La.) sent for a fresh glass of water, though his was not empty. John Hoeven (N.D.) yawned. So did Lindsey Graham (S.C.). The White House’s case is unlikely to improve from here. Also appearing for Trump will be Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, lately members of Jeffrey Epstein’s defense team. Dershowitz has already distanced himself from the brief the White House filed. And the New York Times reported that one of the lawyers cited in Trump’s brief has called the White House argument “constitutional nonsense” and “sophistry.” Republicans find themselves defying public opinion in their attempts to avoid testimony. A CNN poll found that 69 percent of Americans say witnesses should testify in the trial, including 48 percent of Republicans. Trump himself said in December that he wants White House officials “to testify in the Senate where they’ll get a fair trial.” But Trump is now trying so hard to avoid witnesses that the White House is working on backup plans to silence them even if the Senate votes for testimony. Tuesday’s arguments made clear why: The White House has no substantive defense. Rather, it has grievances. Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow stood at the lectern with a notebook full of what looked like ransom notes: typed pages full of scrawls in the margins, with scribbled note cards haphazardly interspersed. Like Cipollone, he shouted. He attacked two of the impeachment managers. He attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). He ricocheted from Eric Holder to Peter Strzok to the “failed” Russia investigation. Cipollone returned to the lectern with yet another complaint. The House’s case, he declared, “is too much to listen to, almost.” But he didn’t attempt a refutation. No wonder McConnell can’t be done with this trial fast enough. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/21/white-house-defense-is-well-there-isnt-one/
  2. So, no witnesses can be called and no documents and other evidence can be entered. Nothing wrong with that. Sounds fair to me. If anyone thinks otherwise, they must be suffering from TDS. Really, why even have a trial when the phone call was known to be perfect? Obviously it's all just a hoax. How do you impeach someone for doing a great job? The economy's never been better. Have you seen the latest unemployment statistics and stock-market indicators?
  3. Straight J, Great to hear from you. I feel like this is my lucky day and that joy is now in the air! And it's all thanks to you. I can't tell you how happy I am to receive a personalized message from this board's most respected, learned and influential poster. Thank you, thank you for noticing me. And, above all, many thanks are owed to you for your kind advice that I have carefully read and studied. I hope to follow it to the letter and be a better poster as a result. But my ultimate aim is to be able to please you and to even emulate you in various wholesome ways. I can tell you that I really and truly envy you for the vast store of knowledge that you have accumulated from watching WWF matches and great movies and great music videos and reading through great assorted conspiracy theories promulgated by enlightened citizens like you who want the truth to be known. (People who think that knowledge is to be found in, say, books, are out-of-touch twats, ain't they?) Those are excellent frames of reference to draw from when debating others. Seriously, my friend: is there anything you don't know? I see what you did in changing Donald Trump's name to "Chump," and I'm loving it. That's the sort of out-of-the-box thinking and originality for which you are known and celebrated. Please would you write to me more often to offer me advice on how to be more like you? You're also welcome to write regular progress reports on how I'm doing, if it's not too much to ask. Straight J, you're a special human being, far above the common muck, and don't ever let anyone say otherwise. Now I can't write any more because I'm so excited about the possibility of receiving a reply from you. Your friend and admirer, PP xx
  4. Donald certainly does deserve more credit for being so successful at running a criminal enterprise and timing it just right when it comes to cutting ties with associates who are about to be indicted or exposed for their illegal activities.
  5. What's this? Yet another of Donald's goons is said to have lost credibility and is no longer on friendly terms with Donald? And Lev seemed like such a nice, capable goon, too, who wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty when given various assignments by Donald. Just look how happy Donald and his goon looked together here during happier times, just about at the time when Lev Parnas won Donald's coveted goon-of-the-month award: That's really sad that they're no longer on speaking terms after being so close for so long. Word is that things have gotten so bad that Donald is even refusing to admit that Lev was ever one of his favorite goons. And Lev, for his part, is so aggrieved at being turned out into the cold that he isn't even any longer using Donald's criminal-defense lawyer that Donald so kindly lent to him. Whatever could have happened to cause these two kindred spirits to have such a dramatic falling out?
  6. Do you really want me to list all the many, many, many, many instances of Donald Tя☭mp siding with Putin or taking actions that were favorable to Vlad? Because I'm pretty sure that it would fill almost a whole page of this thread. I'll just list one, which is quite shameful and for which there should not be any excuse for. Every American and allied intelligence agency in the world concluded with absolute certainty that Putin was to blame for interfering in the 2016 election. Yet Donald, who has access to all that information at his fingertips, including whatever is classified, took Putin at his word when he said, "Nyet. I didn't do it." No, one more. There's also Tя☭mp's ongoing efforts to weaken NATO. Don't you think Putin is very pleased with that? But sure, he, Donald, took out an Iranian general, the results of which haven't been much so far, but that cancels out all the many instances of when Donald did Putin's bidding. As for the very few other instances of Donald doing something contrary-- usually indirectly-- to the interests of Putin, well, Sack, it's a big and complex world. It would be hard for Donald to do every little thing on behalf of Putin. And then maybe even some of his gullible, fawning supporters who naively think he gives two shits about them might begin to take notice. By the way, how's the military service of the great patriot, Donald, who likes to surround himself with generals and who is so amazing that he's earned the right to berate top military and cabinet officials at the Pentagon? Let's hear what he had to say at a meeting there in 2017, shall we? “I want to win,” he [Tя☭mp] said, according to the excerpt. “I wouldn’t go to war with you people.” “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.” That's a hell of a morale booster, ain't it? And that's a hell of a commander-in-chief, don't you think? And let's not forget, for anyone who believes that the Trumps are or ever have been about service-- of any kind-- to the country instead of being about making money and taking advantage of others:
  7. With all due respect to the person who wrote this, Donald Trump is no patriot. He's the very definition of an un-American traitor. There's a rich trove of evidence to suggest that he owes his allegiance to the leader of a hostile foreign power. Namely, Vladimir Putin. Not only did Trump seek foreign interference in the 2016 election (through the Russians) on his behalf, but he has again been caught doing it in advance of the 2020 election, this time with the help of the Ukrainians.
  8. Thank you for your input on this subject, Donald fans. It's interesting that on the one hand you believe almost everything that comes out of the mouth of a confirmed serial liar and criminal like Donald Trump, yet, on the other hand, wave away the belief of 97% of modern-day scientists, NASA, NATO and hundreds of governmental and non-governmental agencies around the world that confirm that global warming is a serious threat to us all. And all you have to do is to put your trust in a complex, well-coordinated international conspiracy theory that tells you a fact is not really a fact and common sense is not to be believed. Would you also like to debate whether the earth is round or flat? What about whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun? That would be another pleasant way to pass the time.
  9. The world is headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions. Meanwhile, there are actually still climate-change deniers out there, including a certain corrupt, Putin-installed president and failed businessman who routinely conflates weather with climate and touts "clean coal." Let's see. I guess there's also "clean oil"... "clean gas"... "clean pollution"... "clean toxic waste." It's all good. It's all clean. Nothing really to worry about. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that a crass, ignorant failed businessman knows more than all the climate experts about climate change. And there'll never be a piper to pay, right Donald death-cult followers? "The moment of crisis has come" in efforts to tackle climate change, Sir David Attenborough has warned. According to the renowned naturalist and broadcaster, "we have been putting things off for year after year". "As I speak, south east Australia is on fire. Why? Because the temperatures of the Earth are increasing," he said. Sir David's comments came in a BBC News interview to launch a year of special coverage on the subject of climate change. Scientists say climate change is one of several factors behind the Australian fires; others include how forests are managed and natural patterns in the weather. Sir David told me it was "palpable nonsense" for some politicians and commentators to suggest that the Australian fires were nothing to do with the world becoming warmer. "We know perfectly well," he said, that human activity is behind the heating of the planet. What does Sir David mean by 'the moment of crisis'? He's highlighting the fact that while climate scientists are becoming clearer about the need for a rapid response, the pace of international negotiations is grindingly slow. The most recent talks - in Madrid last month - were branded a disappointment by the UN Secretary-General, the British government and others. Decisions on key issues were put off and several countries including Australia and Brazil were accused of trying to dodge their commitments. "We have to realise that this is not playing games," Sir David said. "This is not just having a nice little debate, arguments and then coming away with a compromise. "This is an urgent problem that has to be solved and, what's more, we know how to do it - that's the paradoxical thing, that we're refusing to take steps that we know have to be taken." What are those steps? Back in 2018, the UN climate science panel spelled out how the world could have a reasonable chance of avoiding the most dangerous temperature rises in future. It said that emissions of the gases heating the planet - from power stations and factories, vehicles and agriculture - should be almost halved by 2030. Australia has been badly hit by bushfires Instead the opposite is happening. The release of those gases is still increasing rather than falling and the key gas, carbon dioxide, is now in the atmosphere at a level far above anything experienced in human history. As Sir David put it: "Every year that passes makes those steps more and more difficult to achieve." Why does this matter right now? This year is seen as a vital opportunity to turn the tide on climate change. The UK is hosting what's billed as a crucial UN summit, known as COP26, in Glasgow in November. Ahead of that gathering, governments worldwide are coming under pressure to toughen their targets for cutting emissions. That's because their current pledges do not go nearly far enough. Assuming they are delivered as promised (and there's no guarantee of that), there could still be a rise in the global average temperature of more than 3C by the end of the century, compared to pre-industrial levels. The latest assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lays bare the dangers of that. It suggests that a rise of anything above 1.5C would mean that coastal flooding, heatwaves and damage to coral reefs would become more severe. And the latest figures show that the world has already warmed by just over 1C. What happens next? As things stand, further heating looks inevitable. "We're already living in a changed world," according to Professor Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading, a scientist whose depictions of global warming have often gone viral on social media. He uses bold coloured stripes to show how much each year's temperature is above or below average - different shades of red for warmer and blue for colder.The designs now adorn T-shirts, scarves and even a tram in Germany. At the moment, Prof Hawkins uses dark red to denote the highest level of warming, but regions such as the Arctic Ocean have seen that maximum level year after year. Such is the scale of change that he's having to search for new colours. "I'm thinking about adding dark purple or even black", he told me, to convey future increases in temperature. "People might think climate change is a distant prospect but we're seeing so many examples around the world, like in Australia, of new records and new extremes." What else is on the environmental agenda this year? The natural world, and whether we can stop harming it. While most political attention will be on climate change, 2020 is also seen as potentially important for halting the damage human activity is having on ecosystems. Sir David has a blunt explanation for why this matters: "We actually depend upon the natural world for every breath of air we take and every mouthful of food that we eat." World leaders are being invited to the Chinese city of Kunming for a major conference on how to safeguard Nature. The northern white rhino (seen here) is down to just two animals, making it "functionally" extinct A landmark report last year warned that as many as one million species of animals, insects and plants are threatened with extinction in the coming decades. A more recent study found that the growth of cities, the clearing of forests for farming and the soaring demand for fish had significantly altered nearly three-quarters of the land and more than two-thirds of the oceans. One of the scientists involved, Prof Andy Purvis of the Natural History Museum in London, says that by undermining important habitats, "we're hacking away at our safety net, we're trashing environments we depend on". He points to the impact of everything from the use of palm oil in processed food and shampoo to the pressures created by fast fashion. And while the need for conservation is understood in many developed countries, Prof Purvis says "we've exported the damage to countries too poor to handle the environmental cost of what they're selling to us". The gathering in Kunming takes place in October, a month before the UN climate summit in Glasgow, confirming this year as crucial for our relations with the planet. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51123638
  10. The corruption of Trump and his cronies runs so deep, it's hard to keep track of everything. I seem to remember now that Devin Nunes too had some sort of shady connection with Lev Parnas, Rudy, etc., in relation to the Ukraine. And this came out right in the middle of the Congressional hearings related to Donald's impeachment a few weeks ago when he was serving as the ranking member. But it's all really very, very innocent, I'm sure. Ah, here's an article on that: The Nunes Crew Is Neck-Deep in the Ukraine Scandal Several of the congressman’s current and former staffers have surfaced in connection with the controversy. During the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings last month, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the panel’s ranking member, angrily decried the process. He called the proceedings a “drug deal” concocted by the Democrats for TV ratings and claimed Donald Trump had done nothing wrong in his attempt to get Ukraine to launch investigations that might help his political prospects. All the while, Nunes failed to disclose his own mysterious role in the scandal, which first began to emerge when the Daily Beast reported on the California Republican’s alleged ties to Lev Parnas, the indicted Florida businessman who assisted Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, in his dirt-digging efforts in Ukraine. When the House Intelligence Committee released its report on its impeachment inquiry at the beginning of December, Nunes’ involvement in the controversy became even clearer. Not only did the report include phone records indicating calls between Nunes and numbers associated with Giuliani and Parnas (Nunes claims the Parnas calls actually came from a number associated with Parnas’ wife and that he spoke with “someone,” he does not recall who), it also indicated deep ties between Nunes’ office and the White House. At least three former Nunes staffers currently work in the White House. A onetime National Security Council staffer in the Trump White House, meanwhile, currently works for Nunes. The names of all of these officials have surfaced in recent months in connection with the Ukraine scandal, and three of them were mentioned in the intelligence committee report. Kash Patel, a member of Nunes’ intelligence committee staff, left that role in February to join the Trump administration as a senior adviser on the National Security Council. Politico reported in October that the former Nunes aide (whose responsibilities on the NSC do not involve Ukraine policy) supplied Trump with information on Ukraine that influenced the president’s belief that the country colluded with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 election—a debunked conspiracy theory that the White House and other members of the GOP are still running with. Patel contends that he never spoke with Trump about Ukraine-related matters and has filed a lawsuit against Politico over the story, claiming defamation. But evidence of Patel’s alleged involvement in the Ukraine scandal popped up again during the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings. Fiona Hill, a former top NSC official specializing in Russia and Europe, testified that she was told that Trump “may want to speak to Kash” concerning “some materials related to Ukraine.” Hill got the impression that Trump believed Patel was the NSC’s Ukraine director (his job focused on counterterrorism) and said she unsuccessfully tried to clarify if he “had some special…representational role on Ukraine.”According to Hill, Patel had a close relationship to both Trump and Nunes. According to call logs obtained by the intelligence committee and included in its report, Patel communicated with Giuliani on May 10, less than an hour after Giuliani spoke with Kurt Volker, the former US special envoy to Ukraine. If Patel sounds familiar, that is because it is not the first time his name has surfaced in connection with a controversial effort to advance the president’s political interests. While working for Nunes, he helped to author a controversial and misleading four-page memo that made a number of disputed assertions concerning how the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to investigate former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. The memo appeared to be aimed at derailing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and it was declassified by Trump over objections from the FBI. Michael Ellis, who worked for Nunes for a year as a lawyer on the intelligence committee, is one of the two White House officials who fed Nunes the intelligence files that became the basis of the controversial memo that Patel helped author. Ellis joined the White House in March of 2017 as the deputy counsel to the NSC’s top lawyer, John Eisenberg. The House Intelligence Committee sought the testimony of both Ellis and his boss in its impeachment inquiry, but the men are among 10 administration officials who have refused to comply with congressional subpoenas. Eisenberg was alerted in late July by two senior aides that Gordon Sondland, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, was improperly pressuring Ukrainian officials to investigate the Bidens. According to the New York Times, Eisenberg and Ellis decided that what Sondland was doing wasn’t a big deal and not worth telling Trump: Another Nunes staffer who appeared in the intelligence committee’s report is Derek Harvey. Before joining Nunes’ staff, Harvey was tapped by Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, to serve in the White House as the NSC’s Middle East director. Harvey was dismissed from that role in July 2017 by Flynn’s successor, H.R. McMaster. According to the intelligence committee report, Harvey communicated with Giuliani on May 8, the same day that Giuliani spoke with the White House, Parnas, and John Solomon, a former opinion columnist at The Hill who stoked right-wing conspiracy theories about Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election. But as CNBC reported on November 24—in an article cited in the intelligence committee report—Harvey’s involvement in the Ukraine scandal may go deeper. Parnas’ attorney told CNBC that some of Nunes’ aides scrapped a trip to Ukraine to meet with two Ukrainian prosecutors earlier this year when they realized they would have to disclose the trip to Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Once they came to that realization, they asked Parnas to set up Skype and phone meetings with the officials. As a result, Harvey, according to Parnas’ attorney, spoke with the two Ukrainian prosecutors over Skype and in a phone call in March of this year. Though that particular trip never happened, Harvey, along with Nunes and two other aides, took a trip to Europe in 2018 that; CNN reported this trip allegedly included a stopover in Vienna, where Nunes met with former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Shokin has been accused of corruption and has promoted the unfounded claim that he was removed from office due to his investigation into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company on whose board Hunter Biden served. One of the other Nunes aides on that Europe trip, according to congressional records, was Scott Glabe, who at the time was the deputy staff director on the House Intelligence Committee. His tenure under Nunes overlapped with Patel’s, and he joined the White House a couple of weeks after Patel did. Nunes has denied ever meeting Shokin or visiting Vienna during his 2018 trip, but an attorney for Parnas told CNN that his client says otherwise and is willing to testify before Congress. In response to the reporting, Nunes filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN and threatened to sue the Daily Beast. Neither Patel, Ellis, Harvey, or Glabe responded to a request for comment about their connection to the current Ukraine scandal. Joseph Bondy, Parnas’ attorney, also did not respond to a request to elaborate on his client’s claims about Nunes’ entanglement in current matters involving Ukraine. Nunes, for his part, has dismissed his involvement in the Trump-Ukraine debacle as a campaign to smear him by the “totally corrupt” news media. But—as with the Trump administration’s efforts to sandbag investigations into the Trump-Russia scandal—the fingerprints of Nunes and his current and former aides appear to be all over the Ukraine controversy. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/the-nunes-crew-is-neck-deep-in-the-ukraine-scandal/
  11. Trump, speaking about--and lying about-- knowing Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, October 10: "I don't know those gentlemen. Now it's possible I have a picture with them because I have a picture with everybody. ... Somebody said there may be a picture or something at a fundraiser or somewhere. But I have pictures with everybody. ... I don't know, maybe they were clients of Rudy. You'd have to ask Rudy." From an October 2 message from Donald's lawyer confirming that Donald's statement above is a lie and that he certainly knows them very well:
  12. Ho-hum. Just another day in the life of the most corrupt, incompetent, dysfunctional, shallow, anti-science, anti-education, buffoonish, anti-American, disgustingly self-centred president in history: the criminal known as Donald Trump. The Stunning New Texts, Documents, and Impeachment Evidence Released by the House, Explained Rudy Giuliani’s fixer, Lev Parnas, turned over documents. They’re very ugly. The House Intelligence Committee quietly released a new batch of impeachment inquiry evidence Tuesday evening: documents provided by Rudy Giuliani’s fixer for Ukraine, Lev Parnas. And boy, are they ugly. The documents, which include Parnas’s handwritten notes, copies of text messages, and other correspondence, reveal some new information — including that Giuliani claimed to be acting with President Trump’s “knowledge and consent” in his communications with the Ukrainian government. One handwritten note of Parnas’s, scribbled on Ritz-Carlton hotel stationery, clearly states his main objective in his dealings with Ukraine: to get Ukraine’s president to announce “the Biden case will be investigated.” The documents also provide the strongest evidence yet that there was a corrupt understanding involving prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko (a Ukrainian official in the previous regime). Lutsenko offered to investigate Burisma and the Bidens — and, in exchange, he insisted that US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, whom he had clashed with, be fired. He made this quid pro quo clear in his messages to Parnas. But most disturbing of all is a set of messages Parnas received from a person named Robert F. Hyde, a Republican congressional candidate. Hyde texted Parnas that he had people tracking Yovanovitch’s movements closely in Ukraine. He claimed he could tell whether her phone and computer were off. And he wrote: “If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces.” (It is not yet clear whether these claims by Hyde were true.) There’s relatively little about Trump specifically here — Parnas was a degree removed from the president — but the overall takeaway is that the effort to get dirt on Biden stunk to high heaven of corruption. Who is Lev Parnas again? Lev Parnas is a Soviet-born US citizen now living in Florida who donated large sums of money to Republicans in recent years and became a close associate of Giuliani. Parnas and his colleague Igor Fruman ended up serving as Giuliani’s “fixers” in his search for dirt that would help Trump politically in Ukraine. They talked to Ukrainian officials and tried to help Giuliani get documents and meetings. In October, though, Parnas and Fruman were indicted by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York on charges of campaign finance law violations, regarding those hundreds of thousands of dollars they donated to Republicans in 2018. Since then, Fruman has been quiet — but Parnas went public, claiming through his lawyer that he had important information about the impeachment inquiry that Democrats would want. The judge in Parnas’s case gave him permission to turn over some of the evidence prosecutors had obtained to House impeachment investigators. He has done so — and this is our first look at some of what he provided. Giuliani told the Ukrainians he was acting on Trump’s behalf First off, the documents make clear that Giuliani told the Ukrainians he was acting at Trump’s behest. He wrote a letter to Zelensky dated May 10, 2019, while Zelensky was still president-elect and shortly before he was inaugurated, asking for a meeting. “In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you,” Giuliani wrote. Giuliani did not explain what the meeting was about — but the letter’s date is one day after Giuliani told the New York Times he would soon be traveling to Kyiv to try to get the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens and supposed Ukraine interference in the 2016 election. Giuliani also wrote in the letter that he would be accompanied on the trip by Victoria Toensing, a conservative lawyer involved in the dirt-digging effort (whom Giuliani described as “very familiar with this matter”). The documents also reveal that when Parnas and Fruman came under scrutiny in the impeachment inquiry (but before his arrest), Trump personally approved his former lawyer John Dowd’s representation of the pair. That’s according to an email from Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow. Sekulow will be among Trump’s defense team in his Senate trial. An intriguing note from Parnas Another interesting tidbit is a note — which the House Intelligence Committee says Parnas has confirmed he wrote — laying out an apparent to-do list. It includes: The note reads: “get Zalensky to Annonce that the Biden case will be Investigated.” That is, get Ukraine’s new president to announce an investigation of the Bidens. This is significant because several Trump administration officials, such as Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, have long claimed they only discussed the possibility of investigating Burisma, the natural gas company whose board Hunter Biden sat on. But here is Parnas openly referring wanting Ukraine to investigate “the Biden case,” just as Trump said he wanted on his infamous July 25 phone call with Zelensky. The circumstances in which the note was written — notably, the date and who Parnas may have been talking to while he scribbled the note — are unclear. An understanding tying Yovanovitch’s firing to Biden dirt Another batch of the evidence pertains to communications Parnas had with Yuriy Lutsenko, who served as Ukraine’s prosecutor general under Zelensky’s predecessor. To recap: A prologue, of sorts, to the impeachment saga occurred in March 2019 when Giuliani, Parnas, and various corrupt Ukrainians launched a smear campaign against the US ambassador in Kyiv, Marie Yovanovitch. These (translated) messages suggest that Lutsenko was demanding Yovanovitch’s firing — and that he communicated to Parnas that, in return, he would make allegations about “B.” Above, Lutsenko tells Parnas that “if you don’t make a decision about Madam— you are bringing into question all my allegations. Including about B.” (“Madam” clearly means Yovanovitch, and “B” is shorthand for either Burisma or Biden, as later messages make clear.) Lutsenko soon writes about “testimony about transfers to B,” and then about “copies of payments from Burisma to Seneca.” (Rosemont Seneca Partners is the consulting firm Hunter Biden co-founded.) He also complains how Parnas can’t get rid of someone female, to which Parnas responds, “She’s not getting away.” A Parnas associate claimed to be surveilling Yovanovitch — and asked if he wanted “her out” Finally, and most disturbingly, is a set of messages Parnas exchanged with a person named Robert F. Hyde, a controversial Republican congressional candidate in Connecticut who has spent time at Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s DC hotel. Parnas sent Hyde tweets and articles from prominent conservative media personalities — such as Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Dan Bongino — disparaging Yovanovitch and suggesting she was disloyal. “Can’t believe Trumo [Trump] hasn’t fired this bitch,” Hyde responded. “I’ll get right in that.” About 13 hours later, Hyde reported back to Parnas: “She under heavy protection outside Kiev.” Then, two days later he said he had “guys” there who could “do” something — and that he now knew Yovanovitch’s whereabouts, and that her phone and computer were off. Hyde went on: “They are willing to help if we/you would like a price.” He added: “Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money... what I was told.” The next day, Hyde reported back that Yovanovitch would not be moved, and that his contacts were asking “what is the next step.” He added, ominously: “If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces.” A few days after that, Hyde reported he had “a person inside,” and asked if Parnas still needed “intel” or if they should “stand down.” In these messages, there is no response from Parnas after that, for nearly two months. These messages certainly seem to suggest that Hyde was having Yovanovitch surveilled — and that one ominous message asking “if you want her out” may imply something much darker. ABC’s Katherine Faulders reached Hyde for comment, and he said he was “absolutely not” threatening to harm Yovanovitch. And it is unclear whether Hyde — about whom little is known, other than that he owned a landscaping company in Connecticut — truly had these capabilities, or whether it was some sort of bizarre attempt at braggadocio. But it certainly seems to be something law enforcement should look into. https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21066219/impeachment-lev-parnas-evidence-ambassador
  13. Trolling? Is that what it is? And do you think that the president of the US or of any country should be doing that? Doesn't it demean the office and make him look like a buffoon who is not to be taken seriously? Don't you expect better than that from your president?
  14. Yes, it was absurd that Obama won the prize. It was completely undeserved. I think he was nominated after being in office for just three months or something like that. When he didn't turn it down, I lost all respect for him. But you're missing the point of the article. Donald didn't do squat to deserve the award for bringing peace to Eritrea and Ethiopia. He was simply hogging the limelight and pretending that he had done something and was deserving of the award. What do you think of that? Aren't you ashamed of him for doing that? Or do you think that it doesn't really matter because it's not like he's a real president anyway and is more of a clown-in-chief who's there for the laughs and good times or something?
  15. The really, really funny thing is how many times Donald has told bald-faced lies right in the faces of his supporters and said "Believe me" and even still, after all this time and all the many instances he's been proven to have lied and lied badly and blatantly, they still continue to believe him and stand by him. If stupid were money, they'd all be rich.
  16. People who deserve the Nobel Peace Prize ahead of Donald: 1. Ethiopian President Abiy 2. President Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea 3. United Arab Emirates officials who brokered the peace talks 4. Saudi Arabians who also helped out 5. Some random drunk guy sleeping in the street and vomiting all over himself after drinking all night and then rambling incoherently like Donald is known to do. Trump Says He Deserves Nobel Peace Prize, Not Abiy Ahmed US President Donald Trump seems to think that he was overlooked for last year's Nobel Peace Prize. Why, what did he say? "I'm going to tell you about the Nobel Peace Prize, I'll tell you about that. I made a deal, I saved a country, and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country. I said: 'What, did I have something do with it?' Yeah, but you know, that's the way it is. As long as we know, that's all that matters... I saved a big war, I've saved a couple of them." A video clip of him talking to supporters at a campaign event in Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday evening was shared on Twitter: Report End of Twitter post by @atrupar Who was he talking about? Although he did not name the Nobel Peace Prize winner or the country, it is clear that Mr Trump was referring to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Mr Abiy, 43, is Africa's youngest head of government. Image copyrightAFP IMr Abiy has been praised for introducing a series of reforms He came into office in April 2018 after months of anti-government protests forced his predecessor to resign. Mr Abiy has introduced massive liberalising reforms to Ethiopia, shaking up what was a tightly controlled nation. He freed thousands of opposition activists from jail and allowed exiled dissidents to return home. He has also allowed the media to operate freely and appointed women to prominent positions. And in October last year, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - the only head of state to win the prize since Mr Trump was elected in 2016. Why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize? The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Mr Abiy was honoured for his "decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea". The two countries fought a bitter border war from 1998-2000, which killed tens of thousands of people. Although a ceasefire was signed in 2000, the neighbours technically remained at war until July 2018, when Mr Abiy and Eritrea's President Isaias Afwerki signed a peace deal. So for two decades, the long border was closed, dividing families and making trade impossible. The Nobel Committee said it hoped the peace agreement would help to bring about positive change to the citizens of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Since the peace deal with Eritrea, Mr Abiy has also been involved in peace processes in other African countries, the committee said. Did Trump help broker peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea? Not really -- the US's influence in the peace talks was minimal. The United Arab Emirates, which has a lot of influence in the Horn of Africa, was key in helping to bring the two parties together, says the BBC's former Ethiopia correspondent, Emmanuel Igunza. Saudi Arabia also played a key role in helping end the dispute. The peace deal helped bring back Eritrea from the cold after sanctions were imposed in 2009. The UN Security Council lifted the sanctions in November 2018, four months after the peace deal was signed. Why did Trump make the comments now? This is not clear, given that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on 11 October last year, and Mr Abiy gave his acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway, on 10 December. Interestingly, Mr Trump has not officially congratulated Mr Abiy but his daughter, Ivanka Trump, who serves as his senior adviser, and the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have done so. However, Mr Trump has publicly said he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for, among other things, his efforts to convince North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un to give up nuclear weapons. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149
  17. Thank you, Sackman, for making sense out of what I previously thought was the rambling, incoherent drivel of a confused old man posing as a leader. I understand better now why Donald's your special hero and why you're so excited and aroused by him. And speaking of Donald's world, here's his customized world map on the wall of his office:
  18. "You know we have a world, right?" If I were one of Donald's fans and was in the crowd listening to him say that, I'm sure I would be just as impressed as my fellow supporters, and it would give me something profound to contemplate on the way home from the rally.
  19. There's something charming and perhaps wonderfully magical about one of Donald's most loyal shills continually finding fault with [insert most anyone not named Donald] doing something objectionable or behaving buffoonishly, yet at the same time is completely and blissfully unaware of anything objectionable or buffoonish that Donald has ever done in his life.
  20. The $700 billion bank bail-outs of 2008, Donald's massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the ongoing subsidies of farmers who would otherwise be ruined by Donald's hair-brained trade wars. Are these all examples of socialism?
  21. Donald Supporters, Can you help me out with something? I was wondering if you could explain to me why Donald and his staff steadfastly refused to release any and all relevant documents and refused to allow key witnesses to testify at Donald's impeachment hearings in the House and will now do the same for the Senate trial. Isn't that kind of strange, considering, as we all know, how incredibly and amazingly innocent he is and how perfect his shake-down--as some would call it-- call to the Ukrainian leader was? Well, that's a strange sort of innocent, if you ask me. Shouldn't Donald, if he is incredibly and amazingly innocent and has done nothing wrong, want to prove his innocence by allowing complete transparency? Yet it's the furthest thing from transparency that could be imagined. Isn't that odd? And isn't it peculiar that Moscow Mitch (as some cynical liberal-bastard critics might call him) has already said that an innocent verdict in the Senate is a foregone conclusion and that, by the way, he's working closely with the White House to coordinate a common defense strategy? And this despite that Mitch swore an oath to defend the Constitution and to be an impartial juror? Well, that strikes me as strange. Really, really strange. How about you?
  22. Of course it absolutely and positively and definitely was for Donald's benefit. When exactly did he become concerned about corruption? I'll answer that. He's never, in all his life, been interested in fighting corruption. Never at any moment in time. Talking about fighting corruption and draining the swamp at his rallies is just something he says for the sake of it to his lovely MAGA supporters who after all this time still haven't noticed that they're constantly being fed lies and being laughed at by the mafia president. Can you point to any other examples in his life where he was so concerned about corruption? Can you even name any other specific companies in the Ukraine besides the one associated with the Bidens that he has ever expressed concern about? No? Then this is just example No. 3,541 of why Donald is a fraud.
  23. It is as simple as this. Anyone who still defends Donald Trump after everything that is now known about him is defending a lowlife lying POS who has willfully violated the law, his oath of office and the Constitution in an effort to advance his own personal interests and Vladmir Putin's interests over US national interests. Just look at how Donald's face lights up when he sees his true love and master that he's beholden to: And as for the 2020 election, keep this in mind, because it's never been truer:
×
×
  • Create New...