Hot Take: Excitable Adam Schiff Says Senate Can’t Only Rely On House Investigation

So, is Schiff saying that they didn’t actually have the evidence in the House? He’s saying that the House investigation was incomplete and unreliable

Adam Schiff Tells Senate: You Cannot Simply ‘Rely on What Was Investigated in the House’

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) tried to convince the Senate on Wednesday that it had to subpoena more witnesses and documents because it could not “rely on what was investigated in the House.”

Schiff’s odd argument appeared to admit that the House investigation was insufficient, even as fellow House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) claimed that the impeachment case had already been “proven beyond any doubt at all.”

Schiff claimed that it would be unprecedented to hold a Senate trial without witnesses. However, he denied all Republican requests for new witnesses in the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs — which was also unprecedented. (snip)

When asked why the Senate should call more witnesses and documents if the House Intelligence Committee would not release the testimony of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Schiff dodged the query, saying that whatever deficiencies the House may or may not have brought to the Senate were not “sufficient to relieve the Senate of the obligation to have a trial.”

So, he realized later he made a big mistake and tried to correct it. It’s all a clown show. If the house wants a do-over let them come up with new articles. Let’s have a vote right now on the articles submitted.

But Schiff is making this claim despite Nadler saying the case had been “proven beyond any doubt at all.” What case? Abuse of power? Not in the Constitution. Obstruction of Congress? How is that possible when they never voted on an actual impeachment investigation? That makes any demands moot. Further, we have a 5th Amendment for protection. The Executive Branch also has executive privilege. If the Democrats in the House don’t like that, well, tough. Change the Constitution.

And they should all remember that these standards being set can and will boomerang back on them with any future Democrat administration.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

56 Responses to “Hot Take: Excitable Adam Schiff Says Senate Can’t Only Rely On House Investigation”

  1. FunnyThat says:

    The issue I continue to have with this is that the house was tasked with investigating and impeaching the president and then presenting an airtight case to the SENATE who presides as jurors.

    We do not ask jurors to call witnesses and cross-examine them.

    So it was incumbent upon the House to present to the Senate a case that would convince even partial Senators to convict.

    I see evidence Trump considered quid pro quo, but no evidence he demanded it or put it into effect.

    The left would have you believe he did when in fact the evidence is quite clear he did not. I do not like President Trump, but I support him because he does, in fact, do what he says and is attempting to get things done. My personal opinion is Irrelevant. I did not like Obama. He did not get things done. He was very partisan and was murdering people in their homes at night while they slept with over 500 drone strikes.

    I did not demand nor would I have supported an Impeachment of him based upon policy differences, and that is what I see happening here. The deep state does not like Trump’s policy on endless wars and so he must be removed.

    • Zachriel says:

      FunnyThat: We do not ask jurors to call witnesses and cross-examine them.

      Senators are not jurors. The Senate is a court which can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

      FunnyThat: The left would have you believe he did when in fact the evidence is quite clear he did not.

      Multiple lines of evidence support the claim that Trump conditioned military aid on an investigation by a foreign country of his political opponent. Indeed, Bolton is apparently ready to testify to direct knowledge of the scheme.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    trump et al have admitted he did what he was accused of doing. Their stand now is that quid pro quo, soliciting foreign help for an election, is not impeachable as long as the president feels/believes his election is for the good of America. LOL.

    Could a president have his opponent assassinated if he thought America would suffer if the opponent was elected?

    trump supporters conflate the Senate trial of an impeached president with a typical criminal trial. Nope. They are nothing alike. For example, in a criminal trial we do not allow the accused (trump) to openly lobby the jury (Senate).

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Keep making up shit, loser.

      Lolgfy Jeffery https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Chumpchange says:

      @Elwood.

      Then you agree that the Senate trial is a sham?

      I reject outright your interpretation that trump has admitted he did what he is accused of doing.

      That is total BS Elwood. He has done no such thing. IF he admitted doing it they would be burning down Trump Tower right now.

      You are just making stuff up to make people here angry when in reality we are all laughing at your fallacies and of course, your side will lose because of your own point. It is not a FAIR TRIAL. IT is political theatre which is the point the right has made from day one. Schiff and company will lick their wounds for a day and then start the impeachment all over again.

      You know they will Impeach Trump relentlessly until he is gone. You know they will, and while they are doing that, Trump is getting stuff done.

      he is filling the courts with conservatives. OH, and by the way, since Trump has done this have you noticed that the Democrats no longer see the USE for the COURTS. Nancy Pelosi said the house cannot be held hostage by the COURTS>>>>>>>>>>LLOOLLOOLLOOLLOOLLOOLLOOLLOOLL.

      DING. You lose. Thank you for playing though.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Reject all you wish. His “defense” team is now claiming that his quid pro quo was not impeachable.

        tRump was impeached because he attempted to coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation of tRump’s likely 2020 election. Period. The GOP Senate majority has made the calculus that supporting tRump is to their individual and collective advantage. They will acquit him.

        Senate trials of impeachment are not the same as criminal trials, agreed? The jury foreman (Mitch) announced that he would work in lockstep with the accused (tRump) and his “defense” team to ensure, not a speedy trial, but a speedy acquittal! LOL. So of course it was a sham.

        tRump will now turn his attention to rigging the 2020 election, but it’s likely the American people will send a message to him and the GOP. We’ll see. It’s most likely tRump will be a private citizen in 2021, if not before, and will be fighting state charges in NY. It will depend on how likely he will be to lose in Nov.

        If this president can work with a foreign country to rig an election what’s to stop any president from doing that?

        • formwiz says:

          Reject all you wish. His “defense” team is now claiming that his quid pro quo was not impeachable.

          It isn’t because there was no mention of the aid package. We have Bolton’s word on it.

          tRump was impeached because he attempted to coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation of tRump’s likely 2020 election. Period. The GOP Senate majority has made the calculus that supporting tRump is to their individual and collective advantage. They will acquit him.

          I think your Tampax are leaking, sweetie. Period. Trump was impeached because he’s following a pro-American agenda, not a Lefty one.

          Senate trials of impeachment are not the same as criminal trials, agreed? The jury foreman (Mitch) announced that he would work in lockstep with the accused (tRump) and his “defense” team to ensure, not a speedy trial, but a speedy acquittal! LOL. So of course it was a sham.

          Just like Willie’s, right? Who ran the Senate back then?

          tRump will now turn his attention to rigging the 2020 election, but it’s likely the American people will send a message to him and the GOP. We’ll see. It’s most likely tRump will be a private citizen in 2021, if not before, and will be fighting state charges in NY. It will depend on how likely he will be to lose in Nov.

          Democrats rig elections. Trump will win this one like he won the last one.

          Because he carried enough states, and I’d think twice before continuing with that private citizen stuff. His polls have been shooting up since this farce began. He’ ll win and he will not resign.

          As for the Empire State, given the way people living there feel, he may do well enough Andy Cuomo may have to back off.

          If this president can work with a foreign country to rig an election what’s to stop any president from doing that?

          No likelihood, so get Mommy to toss your crying towel in the spin cycle.

    • formwiz says:

      He talked about it to the press 5 months before it happened. The press said nothing.

      And name a President that didn’t do oppo research on his potential opposition.

      Could a president have his opponent assassinated if he thought America would suffer if the opponent was elected?

      I can think of a couple who would have been cheered by the public if they did.

      trump supporters conflate the Senate trial of an impeached president with a typical criminal trial. Nope. They are nothing alike. For example, in a criminal trial we do not allow the accused (trump) to openly lobby the jury (Senate).

      Our resident felon is a noted expert.

      Actually, they are and the accused have lobbied juries before. It’s called PR.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        On assassinating an opponent: I can think of a couple who would have been cheered by the public if they did.

        Another of your bizarro opinions aside, most would agree it should be against the rules, don’t ya think? Or in your wet-dream of an America, should a President be able to assassinate political opponents?

        On Senate “trials” differing from criminal trials: Our resident felon is a noted expert.

        Who’s our resident felon??

  3. Zachriel says:

    formwiz: And name a President that didn’t do oppo research on his potential opposition.

    Opposition research is appropriate. Using the power of the office to coerce a foreign government to damage your political opponent is not.

    formwiz: I can think of a couple who would have been cheered by the public if they did.

    Your answer to Franklin’s admonition: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

  4. Jl says:

    ‘We have so much evidence that I have to continue to lie… https://lidblog.com/schiff-lies-again/

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: We have so much evidence that I have to continue to lie

      Multiple witnesses and documentary evidence support the claim that Trump was tying the release of military aid to an announcement of an investigation of Trump’s political opponent. Bolton appears ready to testify to direct knowledge of the scheme.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        Like Schiff, the kiddiez continue misinform, mislead and outright lie about the “evidence”, same as they did concerning the Russia hoax.

        Beginning to wonder if they are related to Jeffery in some way.

        Lolgfy kiddiez https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Chumpchange says:

        Evidence does not consist of hearsay, I think, I believe, I assumed, I wanna believe, Im pretty sure. We believe, Surely thats what he meant.

        There is NO evidence. NONE. There is only speculation. That is why the dems are desperately grasping at straws now. If you sling enough turds one might stick.

        • Zachriel says:

          Chumpchange: Evidence does not consist of hearsay

          There is direct evidence, such as the phone call from Trump to Sondland. There is also documentary evidence, such as the memo putting Ukraine aid on hold within minutes of the Trump-Zelensky call. And apparently Bolton is a direct witness to the scheme.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Money quotes:

            Sekulow: “After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case… [pauses for response] That’s what you said.”

            Schiff: “We did.”

            Sekulow: “Well then I don’t think we need any witnesses.”

            H/T Danny Lemieux

            Bwaha! Lolgfy kiddiez https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  5. formwiz says:

    If you wonder why Jeffery is blathering on when he knows it’s lost, read this. AP-NORC poll: GOP more fired up for 2020, Democrats anxious..

    And this is Fake News talking.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      The money quote:

      If you cannot run an impeachment, how can you run a government?

      Bwaha! Lolgf loses https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  6. Chumpchange says:

    Thursday, January 30, 2020

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.

    9 points better than Obama on this same day in his presidency.

    But This is the one I like. 13 Keys to the White House Indicate a Republican Win in 2020

    Preliminary Data Suggests That the GOP is in the Lead For the Upcoming Presidential Elections, Measured by The 13 Keys to the White House. What is Needed For a Democratic Victory in 2020?

    If you scroll down you will see that the professor says the Dems need to cut 1.5 off his numbers.

    Look at #10 and #11 now we know why the left is bashing Trump daily over foreign policy.

    Look at #5 and 6. Now we know why they are praying for and screaming about recession.

    Pathetic people that want only misery for Americas so they can win elections. They want all YOU AMERICANS TO LOSE YOUR JOBS so they can get elected. yeah Democrats. What a party.

  7. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Thanks Adam.

    https://tinyurl.com/rb3clr9

    #Lolgf losers https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  8. david7134 says:

    Z,
    You keep going on about witnesses and information and multiple source. Basically you are lying or do not understand the concepts put forth. It is beyond obvious that the Biden family are deep into illegal influence peddling, watch Bondis argument, she has adequate documentation. So, Trump has an obligation to initiate an investigation into the previous administration. Most feel that Obama has one of the most corrupt administration in history. And to make the next election fair and equal he needs to root out the lingering corruption. He is thwarted in this effort due to our broken Jstice department and FBI. Any phone call made by Trump was witnessed by a room full of lawyers as is was correctly determined that not so deep thinking people such as yourself and our two communist troll would not be able to conceive of the notion that the Dems have been so corrupt. Maybe you could suggest a better method of handling the issue.

    Now, if Trump did exchange US goods for legitimate , legal information on the principals involved, that is not against the law. But in this whole charade no one has been able to make
    the link. What you are saying is that Dem elites can no be prosecuted. Don’t you think that Obama and Hillary should be investigated for spying on Trump and influence peddling. If not, why?

    If we did things the way you suggest, we would have a two tiered legal system and if you desire to run an illegal system, just run for office.

    • Zachriel says:

      david7134: It is beyond obvious that the Biden family are deep into illegal influence peddling, watch Bondis argument, she has adequate documentation.

      There is no reasonable indication of criminality in their conduct.

      david7134: So, Trump has an obligation to initiate an investigation into the previous administration.

      Without a reasonable indication of a crime, it is unwarranted to open a formal investigation. Even then, having a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen for breaking U.S. law is inappropriate. Furthermore, investigations are normally done in secret, but Trump wanted a public announcement, clearly for political purposes.

      david7134: Most feel that Obama has one of the most corrupt administration in history.

      No, most don’t feel that, and feeling doesn’t constitute a reasonable indication of a crime.

      david7134: Any phone call made by Trump was witnessed by a room full of lawyers …

      Yeah, and the lawyers reportedly went into a panic after the Trump-Zelensky call.

      david7134: Now, if Trump did exchange US goods for legitimate , legal information on the principals involved, that is not against the law.

      Actually, it is. Under the Impoundment Control Act, it was not under Trump’s authority to delay the funding, or to use it for political pressure. Nor was Trump asking for information, but a public announcement of an investigation.

      david7134: What you are saying is that Dem elites can no be prosecuted.

      Of course they can. An investigation of a U.S. citizen where there is a reasonable indication of a crime should be conducted by U.S. law enforcement, and such an investigation should normally be conducted in secret until sufficient evidence is found to warrant prosecution.

      • david7134 says:

        Z,
        It is beyond evident that you are either lying or have no idea of the subject.

        An investigation into the Biden affairs has been going on for one year at least. Read a book.

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Notice how the kiddiez have backed away from their false claims that the President violated the Impoundment Control Act. It wasn’t mentioned in the impeachment articles.
          Wonder why…

          https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/trumps-ukraine-money-holdup-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-breach-of-the-law/

          Lolgfy kiddiez https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            White House Counsel Patrick Philbin: “If this were a criminal trial in ordinary court and Mr. Schiff had done what he just did… start talking about crimes of bribery and extortion that were not in the indictment, it would’ve been an automatic mistrial.”

            Too bad Roberts is letting Schiff get away with this.

            #Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            By not notifiying Congress, tRump’s hold on the aid was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act.

            The GAO spells out what tRump and the OMB (under his direction) did.

            https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

            Is this violation alone impeachable? Unlikely. But conditioning the release of the funds on Ukraine announcing an investigation of candidate Biden (i.e., the quid pro quo that Mulvaney admitted) made the action impeachable. tRump was trying to influence the 2020 election by soliciting aid from a foreign nation.

            Lolgfy Porterhttps://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: An investigation into the Biden affairs has been going on for one year at least.

          Great place to put a citation to a news article reporting on the investigation.

  9. david7134 says:

    Z,
    I looked up your improvement act. It is typical of a child to throw out something like this, yet it is meaningless. Trump gave the aid, so the act is of no use. In addition, there are so many contingencies that the act is worthless.

    • Chumpchange says:

      The courts are full of lawyers that were JUST SURE something was illegal only to have the judge toss it and toss them out of his court room.

      @David

      We know Biden Admitted on camera that he did a quid pro quo in Ukraine. The very thing they are accusing Trump of doing which he did not. There is no evidence and only WE thinks from the left and their star witnesses.

      Trump fired the ambassador a full year before Biden decided to run for president. So they cannot claim he was investigating a political rival at least with a straight face.

      John Bolton was part of his national security staff so Trump has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his dealings with Bolton and could be expected to throw around ideas and thoughts and not have to worry about them being written in a book. Bolton obviously has turned out to be the neocon douchebag that talked Bush into endless wars in the middle east and now Bolton gets to write a book and get rich while millions around the world bury their sons and daughters.

      In his first primary debate, he made it central to his foreign policy to clean up corruption in foreign countries and to make those countries including NATO pay their fair share.

      He is only doing what he said he would do. Sorry, Biden is a MAFIA WANNABE.

      So right now I have a message to congress. Finish this and get on with the business of protecting us US citizens from the pandemic starting to sweep the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      OR

      Find yourself without a job in 2020, because if they seen to be doing nothing, even democrats when they are burying their children will vote their own out of office. Take that to the bank politicians of both parties.

      END THIS CHARADE and take care of America.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        chumpchange: Trump fired the ambassador a full year before Biden decided to run for president.

        On May 7, 2019 tRump recalled Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from her post in Ukraine.

        Joe Biden announced his candidacy on April 25, 2019.

        If you consult a calendar you will find in 2019 April occurred before May.

        If you recall, sometime in 2018, tRump ordered Lev Parnas (whom tRump claimed not to know) to “Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it,” of Yovanovitch.

        • formwiz says:

          Link?

          Because most of what Parnas said had been disproven.

          And Yovanovitch was mobbed up with Dr Evil and used illegal means to monitor Trump supporters.

          That’s why she got the boot.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            It was a recording. It was in all the papers and networks.

            Links for all your BS about Ambassador Yovanovitch? No wonder you never link any of your dumbass conspiracy lies.

            Lie & Deny, that’s your thing.

        • Kye says:

          The most telling fail of the Parnas claims is that he has no firsthand knowledge to support any of them. What he offers are the opinions of a man indicted for conspiracy, making false statements and falsifying the record.

          Among his 10-point argument that Parnas’ credibility is in serious question and “many of his claims about Trump are dubious or contradicted by other evidence” are these:

          He claimed he acted at Trump’s direction but shortly after the interview, he said he never spoke to the president. He told Maddow he represented himself to Ukrainian officials as the president’s representative, but, in fact, he represented himself as working for the president’s attorney (Giuliani). He told Maddow he conveyed a threat to the Ukrainians unless they cooperated by investigating Joe Biden, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky flatly denies this. He claims Attorney General William Barr was “on the team,” but concedes he never spoke to Barr and didn’t know whether Barr had ever spoken to Ukrainian officials. Parnas was allegedly CNN’s source for the report that Congressman Devin Nunes had gone to Vienna to meet with the former Ukrainian prosecutor when, in fact, Nunes was in Benghazi, Libya at the time.

          • Zachriel says:

            Kye: The most telling fail of the Parnas claims is that he has no firsthand knowledge to support any of them.

            Trump claimed he didn’t know Parnas. The tape proves otherwise.

      • Zachriel says:

        Chumpchange: We know Biden Admitted on camera that he did a quid pro quo in Ukraine.

        Biden did pressure Ukraine, but in furtherance of U.S. policy, in conjunction with the E.U. and international partners, and with bipartisan backing in Congress. Trump pressured Ukraine for personal political gain.

        Chumpchange: Trump fired the ambassador a full year before Biden decided to run for president. So they cannot claim he was investigating a political rival

        Biden announces for President, April 25, 2019
        Fox News poll Biden +11, May 14, 2019
        Yovanovitch removed as Ambassador to Ukraine, May 20, 2019

        • Chumpchange says:

          At Zach. This was Trump telling them to get rid of her ONE FULL YEAR BEFORE BIDEN ANNOUNCES according to the tapes provided by Parnas BEFORE Biden declared.

          YOU LIE AGAIN ZACH!!!!! Stop it!!! Just stop lying for your cesspool dwelling party.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/07/us...

          May 07, 2019 · The Trump administration has recalled the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine abruptly and ahead of her scheduled departure, after she became a target of political attacks by conservative media outlets and …

          DOESNT JIVE WITH HIM ANNOUNCING NOW DOES IT. SHE DID NOT RETURN UNTIL AFTER HE Announced but was recalled PRIOR TO HIM ANNOUNCING.

          Jan 24, 2020 · The partial video and audio recording, first reported by ABC News, appeared to show Parnas telling Trump that Yovanovitch was badmouthing the president at Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2018

          NOT 2019. Spin it how you want. Trump ran on anti-corruption campaign. His first debate set him against the entire Democratic and GOP party by calling YOU OUT for your warmongering and wallowing around in deep state corruption. It was what he ran on.

          Biden DID pressure Ukraine to further US policy. TRUMP DID NOT PRESSURE UKRAINE and there is NO EVIDENCE BY ANYONE other than I THINK, it’s LIKELY etc. to benefit Trump.

          Defend Biden all you want. BIDEN IS A THIEF and now the Ukrainian government has announced an investigation into Biden’s interference in the internal workings of their own government with respects to him forcing the AG to be fired by withholding AID.

          Yeah, its really clear Zach that Biden did nothing Wrong. Tell that to Ukraine.

          • Chumpchange says:

            http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment...

            Nov 15, 2019 · Yovanovitch describes the moment she was recalled Yovanovitch is re-telling the story of the late-night April 2019 phone call she received from the State Department abruptly calling her back to …

            She was given the news in April by her own admission

            It was discovered by the press in May and she did not return till over a month later. I meant to include this to show that Zach is making shit up about Trump and to also show that Parnas and her firing had nothing to do with Trumps deep diving into Ukraine corruption in which billions of dollars given by Obama disappeared into a black hole.

          • Zachriel says:

            Chumpchange: This was Trump telling them to get rid of her ONE FULL YEAR BEFORE BIDEN ANNOUNCES according to the tapes provided by Parnas BEFORE Biden declared.

            That was not what you claimed. You claimed “Trump fired the ambassador a full year before Biden decided to run for president.” The recording shows that Trump lied about knowing Parnas.

    • Zachriel says:

      david7134: Trump gave the aid, so the act is of no use.

      That is incorrect. The Impoundment Control Act does not give the authority to delay an appropriation except in very limited circumstances.

      david7134: In addition, there are so many contingencies that the act is worthless.

      If there is a contingency, that is, if the situation has substantially changed, then the President must inform Congress, which gives Congress the opportunity to weigh in. If Congress doesn’t act, the President must still spend the funds. Instead, the President hid the knowledge from Congress.

  10. Chumpchange says:

    If the democrats want to score BIG HUGE AWESOME POINTS….they can use the Coronavirus and tell the Senate.

    We want to end this now. No witnesses. Lets vote. We have a pandemic and we need to take care of our people instead of focusing on removing the president in the middle of an impending Chaotic worldwide crisis.

    If they do that WE the American people win in the short term and the Democrats score BIG in the polls in November, selflessly giving up impeachment to protect America.

    A great way for the Democrats to save face and the whole world will know what they are doing and if the GOP wants to save their political asses they will reject this and vote for witnesses and guess what. I can’t see a downside for the democrats with this idea.

  11. formwiz says:

    By not notifiying Congress, tRump’s hold on the aid was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act.

    The GAO spells out what tRump and the OMB (under his direction) did.

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

    Is this violation alone impeachable?

    No, because OMB says GAO is full of it and the record shows it usually is.

    Unlikely. But conditioning the release of the funds on Ukraine announcing an investigation of candidate Biden (i.e., the quid pro quo that Mulvaney admitted) made the action impeachable. tRump was trying to influence the 2020 election by soliciting aid from a foreign nation.

    No quid, no pro.

    That’s what Gropin’ Joe did.

    • Zachriel says:

      formwiz: Is this violation alone impeachable?

      No. While Trump was certainly in violation of the law, there are no criminal penalties involved, and few Senators would vote for impeachment just on this one issue. However, breaking the law in order to coerce a foreign power to investigate his political rival is certainly something that could lead to impeachment.

  12. formwiz says:

    It was a recording. It was in all the papers and networks.

    IOW Fake News. Not exactly credible, but, if it was in all the papers, how’s ’bout a link?

    Links for all your BS about Ambassador Yovanovitch? No wonder you never link any of your dumbass conspiracy lies.

    I link all the time. Happy?

    And there’s plenty where that came from.

    Lie & Deny, that’s your thing.

    no, it’s yours because you’re losing on all fronts.

  13. Zachriel says:

    Trump says he doesn’t even know Parnas
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMdamLzaHU&t=23s

    The full video is over an hour long.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sxSGKB3Sj0

  14. Zachriel says:

    formwiz: Happy?

    This accusation by Lutsenko was retracted.

    formwiz: And there’s plenty where that came from.

    Undoubtedly.

  15. Chumpchange says:

    @Zach

    As I suspected Elwood is Zach by another name. Elwood is always here at 5-6 in the morning you never are.

    However, let us discuss what you claimed. I read an article that claimed this of Trump. In reality, I was wrong. However, she was indeed by her own admission recalled by phone in April before Biden announced so the premise stands.

    Also as to this being an impromptu event Parnas tapes dating a full year earlier show Trump saying get rid of her and it is never done. More deep state BS by people that manipulate the president to get him to say things, secretly record his words and then NEVER DO WHAT HE COMMANDS THEM TO DO AS IS HIS RIGHT as their boss.

    You would agree Trump has the right to hire and fire ambassadors and being told the woman says the president is going to be impeached is certainly grounds for removal.

    Additionally, if you look at Yavonovich’s testimony she says that a famous anti-corruption figure in Ukraine was just murdered and she was giving a dinner party in his honor when she got the recall stating the State Department was fearing for her safety.

    ANTI-CORRUPTION was in full swing in the Ukraine led by Trump and this woman supposedly and yet everyone is claiming Trump was not interested in corruption in Ukraine and that only was he interested in Bidens.

    Wrong. Even by Yavonovich’s testimony and you can read it yourself, Trump was deep-diving into Ukraine’s corruption because the US was giving tons of money to the country.

    IT WAS IN THE INTEREST OF THE US TO make sure money going to the UKRAINE was being used for its intended purposes and not ending up in another oligarch’s pockets.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Lil, formwiz, chumpchange, jl and Kye are all TEACH (Porter) sockpuppets. This has been known for a couple of years. Duh. Formwiz is actually a programmed bot, evidenced by the repetitive posts, identical format (grabs a line from a commenter, responds with weak insult; rinse and repeat).

      Dana and david are real.

      • FunnyThat says:

        Someone is really mad that today the Senate will vote no on more witnesses and vote to acquit Trump.

        So now you’re attacking the owner of this blog? I find that a case study in why the democratic party is imploding. Your anger here demonstrates how difficult it has become to defend your party and your ideology as it careens left and out of control.

        • Kye says:

          Similarly, the fact that Elwood can’t have an honest difference of opinion from us without deciding we’re “sock puppets”. I suppose because as the elitist pigs on CNN said we’re just hillbilly, uneducated rednecks so we can’t/shouldn’t be permitted to have our own thoughts. As usual Elwood projects. It is not our side that forces everyone to conform or be destroyed, it’s his.

          Meh, so much for discourse. Talking to Elwood is a lesson in how deeply the Deep State goes and how full of hate for America they have. That’s all they have.

          Trump 2020 86 the Deep State

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Kye,

            We were pushing back on the nonsense that all non-right wingers here are the same commenter.

            As I’ve said many times I’m a hillbilly, and proudly so.

            Every time a conspiracist mentions the Deep State, an angel loses its wings.

    • Zachriel says:

      Chumpchange: Trump was deep-diving into Ukraine’s corruption because the US was giving tons of money to the country.

      There’s a process in place for that. The appropriation for Ukrainian foreign assistance required the Department of Defense to determine whether Ukraine had met specific anti-corruption and transparency guidelines. The Department of Defense twice certified Ukrainian compliance. The President is not authorized under the Impoundment Control Act to impose additional conditions. But if there were some exigency that led to him delaying the aid, then the law requires him to inform Congress. Instead, the White House hid the delay.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        Oh, now it’s the delay.

        Yesterday y’all claimed the funds were withheld.

        Keep backtracking.

        How does losing feel?

        Lolgfy kiddiez https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

Bad Behavior has blocked 7731 access attempts in the last 7 days.