The saddest thing is (that objectively) these people are losers!
So Don Lemon has issued an explanation (but not an apology) for his ridiculous behavior the other night. For anyone not paying attention, Don Lemon was interviewing two Trump haters (Wajahat Ali and Rick Wilson) when Wilson into a bigoted tirade, making fun of Trump supporters as people who couldn't spell, couldn't do math, didn't understand geography, and then declaring that Trump supporters "mock" the "elites" for knowing such stuff.
Now the saddest part of this is that Don Lemon is objectively a loser. He loses every night to his competition, and his entire network is a network of losers. That is just a fact. CNN is a rating disaster and a rating joke (although nobody at CNN seems to be laughing about that).
And let's not forget that the President was a better and more successful host of a television show (doing it in his spare time) than Don Lemon is doing it as his job full time. Sorry Don, if you are so smart, why are you such an objective loser at your job?
So Lemon's "statement" was the idea that he was not laughing at the people who were the butt of the joke, but rather he was laughing at the "joke" itself. Not sure how you can separate the two, but it's the Don Lemon explanation, non-the-less.
The guy is even a loser at issuing an apology!
94 comments:
CNN and MSNBC are no longer credible news sources.
But rabid TDS deniers wrap themselves in them.
CNN is hanging in by a thread and after the next election MSNBC viewership will likely follow.
BREAKING FAKE NEWS would be their break-ins if they were honest.
And their lawsuits are piling up, nice win Covington !
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
FOR DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THIS!
BUT IT IS BETTER TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE
ALMOST EIGHT MINUTE SEGMENT (SEE BELOW)
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=npr+reporter+sayhs+pompeio+cursed&view=detail&mid=6E42031DDD65F61727086E42031DDD65F6172708&FORM=VIRE
Well, I'd like to thank both of you. I just watched the longer version and I'm still laughing! But there were some seriously important points made in all that. So thanks!
Senator Dianne Feinstein
@SenFeinstein
The LA Times misunderstood what I said today. Before the trial I said I'd keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.
Tim Pool
@Timcast
Yeah yeah blame the newspaper quoting you
“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday. “That was my view and it still is my view.”
If the FAKE NEWS media wasn't carrying water for this FARCE and Den Senators (as well as House dems) had any integrity we never would be were we are. But hopefully an enraged public will fix this in November.
TRUMP 2020
Oh and actual transcribed interview:
https://twitter.com/alaynatreene/status/1222292293371224064/photo/1
Fuck off weird assed pederast
LOL
We're laughing at clown Trump and the sycophantic gang of yes men and yes women he has surrounded himself with.
Mike Pompeio is coming across like a pompous ass these days as he struggles to defend what someone with his intelligence has got to know is misleading.
Erin Burnett
@ErinBurnett
“It’s quite extraordinary that their defense has come down to this thin read: which is - yes, he did it, but we’ve been able to find one criminal defense lawyer who says that’s not enough. That’s pretty weak stuff.” @RepAdamSchiff
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
You'd think an anchor on the network that just bashed tens of millions of Republican voters as illiterate, knuckle-dragging imbeciles would know the difference between "reed" and "read."
This is CNN
The questions and answers today will probably be QUITE interesting.
Who is jamesnewleaf?
Steph - Text TRUMP to 88022
@steph93065
What are the chances that Trump told Bolton what he didn't tell Mike Pence, Mick Mulvaney, the ambassadors or anyone else....NOT one person heard Trump say what Bolton claims he said. And Bolton was iced out for a while before he left.
This is all bullshit.
How true
Dan Bongino
@dbongino
John Bolton is a snake, who willingly played right into the police-state Democrats hands in the impeachment sham. He’s an embarrassment & a back stabber who sold out the one guy willing to give him a shot. He will be a GOP pariah from this point forward. I hope the $ was worth it
The higher this pile of impeachment shit rises the more the dems will eventually fall.
And probably sooner than later.
Should be a GREAT DAY of questions and ANSWERS though !!!
"You could put half of Trump's supporters in what I call the basket of deplorables."
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Clinton was WRONG. Today it would be MORE than half.
Just show shat a PIECE of SHIT the "reverend" james boswell is.
never ending.
until his soon approaching last week breathe
Who's your DADDY little jimmy???
ROFLMFAO !!!
* weak
ROFLMFAO !!!
Anybody who is enjoying the laughs in the video above should take a look at THIS.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-a-confederacy-of-dunces-defends-trump-77695557544
I'M STILL LAUGHING.
Tim Donnelly
@PatriotNotPol
The Senates roll more closely matches deliberations than a trial. The fact finding was supposed to have been done in the House.
dems trying to obscure their highly partisan and unfair house process, and hide behind the non-stop lying Adam Schiff. He needs to be put under oath just about his Russian collusion and FISA lies.
Unbelievable he is a committee chairman of such an important committee. But I'm sure he is going to be prominent in Trump TV adds this election.
And Trumps has a TON of money and the TRUTH behind him. Thanks for all the material Schiff. Goodbye dems !!!
J K Fryman
@JosephKFryman
FBI Director Wray apologizes for illegal wire tapping of then Candidate Trump and others...
https://twitter.com/JosephKFryman/status/1222228347641528327
Rightwing_Vet
@Rightwing_Vet
Remember when Trump made this accusation and the MSM, Dems and late night shows all laughed at him? Trump supporters remember.
and in unison all called them Trump lies and rang up huge totals
Well look who the ACTUAL LIARS WERE !!!
and who carried water for the actual liars..
NOT ALL CLOWNS ARE REPUBLICANS
Manchin Says Hunter Biden Is a Relevant Witness -- BUT I WOULDN'T CALL HIM
January 29, 2020 at 9:43 am EST
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told MSNBC that he believes Hunter Biden is a relevant witness in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.
Said Manchin: “You know, I think so. I really do. I don’t have a problem there, because this is why we are where we are. Now, I think that he could clear himself. Of what I know and what I’ve heard, but being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information is wrong — no matter if you’re a Democrat or Republican, and not go home and say well, I protected one. No. If it’s relevant, then it should be there.”
However, Manchin later told the Washington Post thathe would not support calling Joe Biden as a witness, saying that was a “bridge too far.”
I'd be ashamed of being "pastor"james boswell, normal Illinois and post under JAMESFUCKINGDADDY too if I was you. Guess it says a lot about you.
Maybe someone will occasionally actually read you, nah, they're not as dumb as you "smart" elitists.
ROFLMFAO !!!
Hey did you see the ad CHT put up?
howling !!!
I wonder how much of this SCAM impeachment is that people like Schiff know that Durham and Barr have devastating indictments coming and Obama officials should be spending lengthy time in jail unless they really muddy up the water.
And are sacrificing themselves to create a defense narrative that any prosecution is just retaliation???
Obama Crime Syndicate
Steph - Text TRUMP to 88022
@steph93065
Give Trump team 18 witnesses like the democrats had, THEN we can talk about more democrat witnesses
That would be fair, and hey, what ever happened to the 18th witness, IC IG Atkinson and his testimony. Only 17 transcripts were released. Fact witness. Under oath.
Transparency dems????? Pretty sure that will be a question with follow-ups !!!
TRUMP LAWYERS GROSSLY CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER AS THEY CONCLUDE FIRST PHASE OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/28/trump-lawyers-contradict-one-another-as-they-conclude-first-phase-of-impeachment-trial/23911594/
Trump lawyers contradict one another as they conclude first phase of impeachment trial
WASHINGTON — The president’s top White House lawyer has repeatedly told the Senate that Trump did nothing wrong in withholding aid to Ukraine, even as other lawyers on his defense team directly contradicted that assertion over the last two days. HEY YOU GUYS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT STUPID!
In the opening moments of the Senate impeachment trial last Tuesday, some of Pat Cipollone’s first words were that the president “has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.”
Cipollone asserted again on Saturday that Trump “did absolutely nothing wrong.”
But on Monday, Trump lawyer Robert Ray, who is working with Cipollone on the president’s defense, said something very different when addressing the Senate.
“I know that many of you may come to conclude, or may have already concluded, that the call was less than perfect,” said Ray, referring to the president’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian president.
Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do him “a favor” and investigate Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a rival for the presidency.
Trump has repeatedly described this call as “perfect.”
But Ray, in one of the most noteworthy moments of the president’s defense, took a position contrary to Trump and even to Cipollone. Ray said Trump had NOT ACTED PERFECTLY AT ALL.
“It would have been better, in attempting to spur action by a foreign government in coordinating law enforcement efforts with our government, to have done so through proper channels,” Ray said. “While the president certainly enjoys the power to do otherwise, there is consequence to that action, as we have now witnessed. After all, that is why we are all here.”
Ray went on to say, however, that Trump’s actions were not “clearly and unmistakably impeachable as an abuse of power.” NOT IF YOU'RE BLIND.
Ray defended Trump’s leaning on Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens. “There can be no serious question that this president, or any president, acts lawfully in requesting foreign assistance with investigations into possible corruption, even when it might potentially involve another politician.” AND AN AMERICAN ELECTION?
The reason that there are conflicting messages from Trump’s team is because many Republican senators believe Trump is guilty of acting badly but don’t want to remove him from office, either because they don’t think he should be or because they fear the political consequences of doing so, or some combination of those things, as multiple Republican sources have told Yahoo News. ALSO BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOLD THEIR SOULS TO TRUMP'S UNPRINCIPLED LYING.
Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., said in December, he thought the president’s actions in pressuring Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe Biden was “inappropriate” but “not impeachable.”
Alan Dershowitz, a well-known CRIMINAL defense attorney, continued Ray’s line of reasoning Monday night, arguing that presidents can only be removed from office for committing a crime.
“Purely noncriminal conduct, including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, are outside the range of impeachable offenses,” Dershowitz argued.
And Republican senators repeated this message on Tuesday. “The question is not whether, I think, a phone call was perfect, or whether something was advisable or not. The question is: Is this an impeachable offense?” asked Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.
Trump’s insistence that he has done nothing wrong is the reason for his legal team’s bifurcated — and sometimes incoherent — messaging: He’s innocent, but if he did it, you can’t impeach him for it.
But Trump’s defense team has multiple audiences to satisfy: the public, Republican senators and the president himself.
The public, and primarily Republican voters, like to hear that the impeachment process has been a partisan witch hunt, and that there are open-ended questions about Biden that justified Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine.
The Republican senators need to have a constitutional and legal argument to justify voting for acquittal, especially given the fact that there is substantial evidence that Trump did what he is accused of in the articles of impeachment that the House passed on Dec.18.
And the president wants to hear his own line repeated back to him, that he is completely innocent. Cipollone, it should be noted, did not repeat his claim on Tuesday that the president did nothing wrong.
But Jay Sekulow, another member of Trump’s legal team, did carry forward the arguments made by Ray and Dershowitz during the last day of opening arguments for the president’s defense.
Sekulow dismissed the idea of testimony by Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, and said it would be “inadmissible.” Bolton reportedly submitted a book manuscript to the White House for review, in which he alleges Trump told him to block Ukraine aid to gain help in the 2020 election.
“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, even if true, would rise to the level of abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Sekulow said.
The day ended rather abruptly, giving senators a welcome break ahead of what promises to be a grueling next few days. YEP. IT'S DIFFICULT TO DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE.
Cipollone played a few clips of Democrats railing against impeachment from 20 years ago, and then sat down before the clock had even struck 3 p.m.
The media clips played by Cipollone were a jarring way to conclude opening arguments. The trial will now move to two days of questions submitted in writing by senators, and then the debate over whether to call witnesses on Friday, in what’s expected to be another lengthy session that could stretch past midnight. The outcome Friday will determine whether the trial ends Saturday or stretches into next week.
Cipollone stood in the well of the Senate as an aide showed video from two current House impeachment managers. First there was Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., decrying “a narrowly voted impeachment.” Then there was Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., criticizing the “partisan use of impeachment.” Both were in the House in 1998, when the lower chamber impeached then-President Bill Clinton.
Cipollone then played Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. — who was in the House then as well — yelling about the Clinton impeachment being “a coup d’etat” that would “haunt this body and the country forever.” Markey, talking to Yahoo News afterward, said he stood by that quote, and that the Clinton impeachment belonged in “family court,” while the Trump impeachment is a proper matter for the U.S. Senate.
Finally, Cipollone played video of the current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who said two decades ago that the Clinton impeachment had “lowered the bar on impeachment so much” that in the future it would “be used as a routine tool to fight political battles.”
"My fear,” Schumer said then, is that when a Republican wins the White House, Democrats will demand payback.”
The TV screen went blank, and Cipollone looked directly at Schumer, who sat at the front of the Senate chamber a few feet in front of him. “You were right,” Cipollone said, prompting audible laughter in the chamber. “But I’m sorry to say you were also prophetic.”
The Trump team’s subtext was clear: This is all about a political animus.
“You can’t view this case in a vacuum,” Sekulow told the Senate during the most lengthy presentation of the day. Sekulow painted a picture of a Trump presidency under assault from hostile forces at the FBI and in the political establishment going back to the 2016 election.
Sekulow talked about the FBI probe into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, the role played by the infamous Steele dossier, which alleged nefarious connections between Trump and Moscow, and abuses at the FBI in obtaining warrants for surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Sekulow’s presentation, in particular, toggled between the three arguments the Trump team has made in defense of the president: Democrats are just out to get Trump; Trump was justified to withhold aid to Ukraine; and even if he wasn’t justified in doing so, and EVEN IF HE ABUSED HIS POWER, he shouldn’t be impeached. IF OBAMA'S DEFENDERS HAD EVER ARGUED THAT!
The impeachment charges “must be rejected,” Sekulow said, “even if there was a quid pro quo, which we have clearly established there was not.”
OH REALLY? LET'S GET BOLTON IN HERE TO HELP US STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT!!!
This blog is beginning to live up to its claim:
The Coldheartedtruth
"Where the truth doesn't just follow the Trump crowd"
Is Jane done with his Avalanche of spam?
Well Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Stupidity...
Apparently some people are not aware of the interesting possibility that exist that more than one defense is available. This is especially true when the prosecution puts together such a shoddy case that they have several holes in their argument.
- The fact that this is a political impeachment is valid.
- The fact that the allegations are not an impeachable offense is valid.
- The fact that there is legitimate reasons to investigate Burisma is valid.
- The fact that Democrats brought a incomplete case from the House is valid.
- The fact that the aid was released without concessions is valid.
The interesting thing about all of this is that you have seven attorneys (some of the most respected and biggest legal names out there) and suddenly a bunch of media members and politicians are trying to argue that they made a bad legal defense?
The reality is that they made the exact sort of defense that will convince GOP Senators, supporters of the President, and conservatives in general that Democrats are woefully short of making a valid case for impeachment.
Democrats and the media wanted Trump and his team to play the game that the Democrats wanted them to play... which was to make it about whether they could bring silly charges of non-impeachable behavior that didn't actually happen and somehow prove that even though it didn't happen, that he "tried" or maybe even just "wanted" it to happen.
While some GOP people played into that trap (recent Andrew McCarthy article slams them for this)... Trump's legal team did not. They stuck to the things that Democrats cannot argue away.
Obviously... your media won't like it. They especially are irritated by the fact that the Trump team stuck to their guns (and were not distracted by the NYT "bombshell" - because it never really affected their arguments). Both the Democrats and the media "really" thought that was a big game changer...
But it was only so if Trump and his team was dumb enough to play the game by the silly rules that the Democrats wanted to play it by.
LET'S GET BOLTON IN HERE TO HELP US STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT!!!
So can Bolton prove that the case wasn't political? Can Bolton prove that this was an impeachable offense? Can Bolton show us that investigations were actually announced somewhere that we are not aware of? Can Bolton prove that Hunter Biden and his job with Burisma is on the up and up?
Because unless he can prove all that...
He is basically a worthless witness!
Netflix just announced layoffs. Obama strikes again.
😁Consumer confidence soared to a five-month high in January, according to the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index.
The index rose to 131.6 in January, the Conference Board said Tuesday. That is well-above the 127.8 expected. December was revised up to 128.2 from the earlier reported 126.5.😁
Can Bolton prove that, contrary to Trump's claim, the President personally told him that he was going to keep withholding aid to Ukraine until he got the asked for investigation of a political opponent? (And since then has been lying about it to the American people?)
Well, I guess he can say,
Yes, he did, or
No, he didn't.
That's worthless?
Until recently Bolton was regarded by the right as well as the left as a hawkish but honest and truthful proponent for strong military action.
These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. -- from The American Crisis by Thomas Paine, December 1776
Bolton was regarded as a hawkish proponent of military action. Honest and truthful was debated many times.
These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. -- from The American Crisis by Thomas Paine, December 1776
I AGREE! VOTE DEM, PATRIOTS! HONEST MEN AND WOMEN WILL THANK YOU!
Sorry Reverend Hypocrite...
You can ask and answer that question a 1000 times...
And the impeachment attempt is still political, it still doesn't involve an impeachable crime, the alleged quid-pro-quo still never actually happened, an investigation into Burisma is still a legitimate thing to ask Ukraine about, and the House still didn't bring a complete case to the Senate.
John Bolton could provide us with first hand information that he took a shit this morning, and it will make the same amount of difference to the most pressing issues...
Jones Suggests Witness Vote Will Influence His Final Vote
January 29, 2020 at 10:32 am EST
Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) suggested to CBS News that decision on witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial could influence his final vote on acquittal.
Said Jones:
“It could very well! I think it’s a real problem when President Trump starts attacking every witness that is supposed to come here… Quite frankly, some people would argue it shows his guilt under Article Two.
_____________
WELL SAID, PATRIOT!
CH SAYS the alleged quid-pro-quo still never actually happened
_______
Even if Bolton says it did according to Trump's own words and has notes he took during meetings indicating that others were in the room when Trump said so?
Ch, YOU are the water carrier here.
Reverend Hypocrite , I like it.
SLIGHT IMPROVEMENT:
Even if Bolton says that according to Trump's own words the President demanded a quid pro quo favor of Ukraine and Bolton has notes he took during meetings indicating that others were in the room when Trump said so?
Leave it to Reverend Hypocrite, to fail to understand the following.
"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. -- from The American Crisis by Thomas Paine, December 1776"
My interpretation of Paine's words for this particular time that tries our souls:
"These are the times that try men's and women's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his or her country by not telling the truth, but those who speak truthful testimony deserve the love and thanks of all who care and love what our country represents -- government of, by, and for the people, not of, by and for the privileged alone.
or, the privileged few.
These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. -- from The American Crisis by Thomas Paine, December 1776
Attempt to re-wrte the above failed Spectacularly by Reverend Hypocrite
😊Three moderate Democrat senators — Joe Manchin (WV), Doug Jones (AL), and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) —may ultimately vote to acquit President Donald Trump in the upper chamber’s impeachment trial, according to a new report.😊
Sorry Reverend Hypocrite...
But I have been making the exact same arguments since the beginning... one that you have just continued to ignore as if it didn't matter.
How ironic (or is it) that the seven Trump attorneys made the same arguments that I have made all along. Apparently I was smart enough to see this defense coming or could it be that it was just ver obvious to anyone willing to see it?
Have I NOT repeated over and over and over again the same points?
That the allegations even if true were not impeachable. (Dershowitz)
That if you appeased this sort of political impeachment that every President could be impeached. (Starr)
That the concept that investigations into Burisma was unwarranted and that allegations against Hunter Biden were "debunked" was complete nonsense. (Bondi)
The there was no actual quid pro quo consummated, meaning the main allegations (even if had they been wrong, which they were not) never actually "happened" (Sekulow)
So... ask yourself, Reverend Hypocrite!
How come I saw this coming... and you just believe that the entire trial (and subsequent acquittal) would be about proving or not proving the allegations?
Biden Cast doubt on his health .
Might not live thru term.
"I tried to rob the bank but was not successful so that means I cannot legally be prosecuted for attempted robbery."
If I WERE a hypocrite, I might argue that.
You bore the shit out of everyone pederast
Republicans Fear Impeachment Witness Domino Effect
January 29, 2020 at 12:02 pm EST
“With the critical vote looming on Friday on whether to call new witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial, Senate Republicans are coalescing around the idea that it is better to risk looking like they ignored relevant evidence than to plunge the Senate into an open-ended inquiry and anger President Trump,” the New York Times reports."
OH GOODNESS! LET US NOT ANGER TRUMP!
“After a private party meeting on Tuesday, top Republicans were increasingly confident on Wednesday that they could hold off witnesses, according to people close to Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, who insisted on anonymity to characterize private discussions. And some were saying publicly that part of their reasoning was that allowing any witnesses would open the floodgates and tie up the Senate indefinitely, though the eventual outcome — Mr. Trump’s acquittal — remains the same.”
______________
They better hear those questions before they decide on that. "Looking like they ignored relevant evidence" could prove fatal to their 2020 hopes.
White House Warns John Bolton Not to Publish Book
January 29, 2020 at 12:10 pm EST
The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, CNN reports.
“The letter comes as President Trump attacks Bolton on Twitter and as Bolton’s lawyer accuses the White House of corrupting the vetting process for Bolton’s book by sharing the contents of the book with those outside the National Security Council’s Records Management Division.”
_______________
Maybe the White House better inform John Bolton that his freedom of speech rights have been suspended and he cannot appear on radio/TV talk shows or consent to be interviewed by any of the media.
Insipid I
Inspired.
Munch, munch, munch
ROFLMFAO !!!
James stop spamming the damn board
Durable Goods ⬆️
Three Democrat Senators move to Block Witnesses .
I enjoy hearing from James. He's a lot more interesting than most of you who throw in your lame remarks.
James where is John Bolton today?
Do you know?
I do.
You fucking talking to yourself pederast
He is, he slipped and used "jamesnewleaf" moniker
"I tried to rob the bank but was not successful so that means I cannot legally be prosecuted for attempted robbery."
Let's start with the reality that a President has legal authority to set the terms and conditions for aid... so doing so isn't akin to committing a crime. He can also legally talk to the Ukrainian President about corruption issues (as he did in his call). The two of them can have a completely legal conversation about Burisma and that investigation. There is nothing illegal about these types of things.
But if you are getting technical about when "planning a crime" is considered "criminal" - the answer is that you must go beyond creating a plan. You can talk about it. You can even write it down. You can create spread sheets and diagrams. You can involve other people in your plans.
But the requirement is that you must actually make a tangible step towards committing the crime. In the analogy regarding the bank, you would likely have to have gone to the point of doing something that is otherwise considered above and beyond legal... such as walking in with a gun. If, at that point you decide that there was three security guards instead of two and want to call it off, but someone notices your gun... then the plans you had made would probably work in favor of an attempted crime charge.
So Bolton would have to actually have first hand tangible knowledge that the President initiated contact with Zelensky (or other Ukrainian officials) to make some sort of demand.
If Bolton says he Trump told him that he had and Trump says he neither told Bolton or that he initiated any deal with Zelensky... the Burden would be on Bolton to prove that the tangible action took place (not just that he talked about it).
Would you bet your mortgage that Bolton has something other than a claim that he heard something (which can simply be denied by the President)? Would you bet that he has some documentation, something from the Ukrainians, or some sort of proof of a deal?
Oh wait...
Sorry Reverend Hypocrite...
For a moment there I forgot I was talking to a liberal about Trump. You probably don't believe you need any actual "proof" of anything. Just someone saying something without proof is good enough to convict someone.
The old "he said" "Trump said" "always" goes in favor of "he said". No further proof necessary!
Right?
If the President thinks that the Burisma issue is a high crime he should have directed the FBI to investigate the allegations of corruption.
Hunter Biden is a private citizen. The house committee or the Senate committee has the authority to conduct an investigation into the allegations of corruption.
Doesn't have the authority to conduct an investigation.
Scott A**hole. if the President thinks that the Burisma issue is a high crime he should have directed the FBI to investigate the allegations of corruption.
Hunter Biden is a private citizen. The house and Senate don't have any jurisdiction on the allegations of corruption in Burisma.
It would look like a dictatorship attack on a possible political opponent.
It's called testimony.
If the President thinks that the Burisma issue is a high crime he should have directed the FBI to investigate the allegations of corruption.
Really... and what jurisdiction does our FBI have in Ukraine?
This is no different than Obama/Lynch asking Ukraine to investigate Paul Manafort (as a Russian spy) which led Manafort to resigning when the Ukrainians leaked it.
But wait...
I forgot I was talking to a liberal....
Obama has shit that smells like roses and everything he did was legitimate. We must assume that Trump does everything with corrupt intent and leave it on Trump to himself innocent!
Attempted bribery is a crime but very difficult to convince a judge or jury.
Impeachable?
Of course.
Can he be convicted? Highly unlikely.
What jurisdiction does our Congress have in Ukraine Scott A**hole?
Attempted bribery is a crime but very difficult to convince a judge or jury.
But apparently really easy to convince a Trump hater when you accuse Trump of doing so... even if it isn't bribery, isn't illegal, isn't unwarranted, is impeachable, isn't proven... because it didn't happen.
if Barack Obama had tried to get [former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev] to do an investigation of Mitt Romney you would support impeachment.
Hypocrisy is Trumpism stage four brain cancer.
Bolton said that bribery took place in the White House staff meeting. First hand knowledge is not hearsay.
Roger how ya doing?
You probably would agree with this.
Dershowitz argues that “abuse of power” is not a category of behavior that can be impeachable. He admits he previously believed the opposite, and that the vast majority of constitutional scholars believe the opposite, but claims to have delved into it and discovered that they are all wrong. Dershowitz has conceded that even if Trump handed Alaska over to Vladimir Putin, that would not be an impeachable offense.
Can Andy Reid finally win the Super Bowl?
I'm hoping so.
Can Andy Reid finally win the Super Bowl?
Saw a great picture of coach Reid with a MAGA hat.
Not now, Roger just came out in support of the Chiefs, that are doomed.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
What jurisdiction does our Congress have in Ukraine Scott A**hole?
Ukraine (12978) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
TIAS
OFFICE OF TREATY AFFAIRS
https://www.state.gov/12978
Law Enforcement: Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaty signed at Kiev July 22, 1998; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate November 10, 1999 (Treaty Doc. 106-16, 106th Congress, 1st Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations September 27, 2000 (Senate Executive Report No. 106-24, 106th Congress, 2d Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate October 18, 2000; Ratified by the President January 5, 2001; Ratified by Ukraine February 10, 2000; Ratifications exchanged February 27, 2001; Entered into force February 27, 2001. With annex.
The President: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty
Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the
Treaty''), signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that
the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and
consent to ratification.
Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an
exchange of notes under which the Treaty is being provisionally
applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual
assistance in criminal matters. Provisional application would
cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal
matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have
entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty
with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the
United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and
prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be
self-executing and will not require new legislation.
Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major
types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including
taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing
documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or
identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring
persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing
requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings
related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets,
restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other
form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested
State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal
offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters,
which may be civil or administrative in nature.
Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided
without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute
an offense under the laws of the Requested State.
Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not
intended to create rights in private parties to obtain,
suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution
of a request.
Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central
Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the
Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be
the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney
General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the
Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General.
The article provides that the Central Authorities shall
communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the
Treaty.
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text?overview=closed
Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which a
Requested State's Central Authority may deny assistance under
the Treaty. A request may be denied if it relates to a military
offense that would not be an offense under ordinary criminal
law. A further ground for denial is that the request relates to
a political offense (a term expected to be defined on the basis
of that term's usage in extradition treaties). In addition, a
request may be denied if its execution would prejudice the
security or similar essential interests of the Requested State,
or if it is not made in conformity with the Treaty.
Before denying assistance under Article 3, the Central
Authority of the Requested State is required to consult with
its counterpart in the Requesting State to consider whether
assistance can be given subject to such conditions as the
Central Authority of the RequestedState deems necessary. If the
Requesting State accepts assistance subject to these conditions, it is
required to comply with the conditions. If the Central Authority of the
Requested State denies assistance, it is required to inform the Central
Authority of the Requesting State of the reasons for the denial.
Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written
requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information
required in each request. The article permits other forms of
requests in emergency situations but requires written
confirmation within ten days thereafter unless the Central
Authority of the Requested State agrees otherwise.
Article 5 requires the Central Authority of the Requested
State to execute the request promptly or to transmit it to the
authority having jurisdiction to do so. It provides that the
competent authorities of the Requested State shall do
everything in their power to execute a request, and that the
courts or other competent authorities of the Requested State
shall have authority to issue subpoenas, search and arrest
warrants, or other orders necessary to execute the request. The
Central Authority of the Requested State must make all
arrangements for representation of the Requesting State in any
proceedings arising out of an assistance request.
Under Article 5(3), requests are to be executed in
accordance with the laws of the Requested State except to the
extent that the Treaty provides otherwise. However, the method
of execution specified in the request is to be followed except
insofar as it is prohibited by the laws of the Requested State.
Article 5(4) provides that if the Central Authority of the
Requested State determines that execution of the request would
interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, prosecution,
or proceeding in that State, it may postpone execution or,
after consulting with the Central Authority of the Requesting
State, impose conditions on execution. If the Requesting State
accepts assistance subject to the conditions, it shall comply
with such conditions.
Article 6 apportions between the two States the costs
incurred in executing a request. It provides that the Request
State shall pay all costs, except for the following items to be
paid by the Requesting State: fees of expert witnesses, costs
of interpretation, translation and transcription, and
allowances and expenses related to travel of persons pursuant
to Articles 10 and 11. If during the execution of the request,
it becomes apparent that extraordinary expenses will be
entailed, the Central Authorities shall consult to determine
the terms and conditions under which execution may continue.
Article 7 requires the Requesting State to comply with any
request by the Central Authority of the Requested State that
information or evidence obtained under the Treaty not be used
for proceedings other than those described in the request
without its priorconsent. Further, if the Requested State's
Central Authority asks that information or evidence furnished under
this Treaty be kept confidential or be used in accordance with
specified conditions, the Requesting State must use its best efforts to
comply with the conditions. Once information is made public in the
Requesting State in accordance with either or these provisions, no
further limitations on use apply. Nothing in the article prevents the
use or disclosure of information to the extent that there is an
obligation to do so under the Constitution of the Requesting State in a
criminal prosecution. The Requesting State is obliged to notify the
Requesting State in advance of any such proposed use or disclosure.
Article 8 provides that a person in the Requesting State
from whom testimony or evidence is requested pursuant to the
Treaty shall be compelled, if necessary, to appear and testify
or produce items, documents and records. The article requires
the Central Authority of the Requested State, upon request, to
furnish information in advance about the date and place of the
taking of testimony or evidence pursuant to this Article.
Article 8(3) further requires the Requested State to permit
the presence of persons specified in the request and to permit
them to question the person giving the testimony or evidence.
In the event that a person whose testimony or evidence is being
taken asserts a claim of immunity, incapacity, or privilege
under the laws of the Requesting State, Article 8(4) provides
that the testimony or evidence shall be taken and the claim
made known by written notification to the Central Authority of
the Requesting State for resolution by its competent
authorities. Finally, in order to ensure admissibility of
evidence in the Requesting State, Article 8(5) provides a
mechanism for authenticating evidence that is produced pursuant
to or that is the subject of testimony taken in the Requested
State.
Article 9 requires that the Requested State provide the
Requesting State with copies of publicly available records in
the possession of government departments and agencies in the
Requesting State. The Requested State may further provide
copies of any documents, records or information in the
possession of a government department or agency, but not
publicly available, to the same extent and under the same
conditions as it would provide them to its own law enforcement
or judicial authorities. The Requested State has the discretion
to refuse to execute, entirely or in part, such requests for
records not publicly available. Article 9(3) provides that
records produced pursuant to this Article shall, upon request,
be certified by the appropriate form attached to the request.
Article 9(3) also provides that no further authentication shall
be necessary for admissibility into evidence in the Requesting
State of official records pursuant to this Article.
Article 10 provides a mechanism for the Requesting State to
invite the voluntary appearance in its territory of a person
located in the Requested State shall indicate the extent to
which the expenses will be paid. It also states that the
Central Authority of the Requesting State has discretion to
determine that a person appearing in the Requesting State
pursuant to this Article shall not be subject to service of
process or be detained or subjected to any restriction of
personal liberty by reason of any acts or convictions that
preceded his departure from the Requested State. Any safe
conduct provided for by this article ceases seven days after
the Central Authority of the Requesting State has notified the
Central Authority of the Requested State that the person's
presence is no longer required, or if the person has left the
Requesting State and voluntarily returns to it.
Article 11 provides for temporary transfer of a person in
custody in the Requested State or in a third State to the
Requesting State for purposes of assistance under the Treaty
(for example, a witness incarcerated in the Requested State may
be transferred to have his deposition taken in the presence of
the defendant), provided that the person in question and the
Central Authorities of both States agree. The article also
provides for voluntary transfer of a person in the custody of
the Requesting State to the Requested State for purposes of
assistance under the Treaty (for example, a defendant in the
Requesting State may be transferred for purposes of attending a
witness deposition in the Requesting State), if the person
consents and if the Central Authorities of both States agree.
Article 11(3) further establishes both the express
authority and the obligation of the receiving State to maintain
the person transferred in custody unless otherwise agreed by
both Central Authorities. The return of the person transferred
is subject to terms and conditions agreed to by the Central
Authorities, and the sending State is not required to initiate
extradition proceedings for return of the person transferred.
The person transferred receives credit for time served in the
custody of the receiving State.
Article 12 establishes the authority of the Requested State
to authorize transit through its territory of a person held in
custody by a third State whose appearance has been requested by
the Requesting State. The Requested State further has the
authority and the obligation to keep the person in custody
during transit. The Parties retain discretion to refuse to
grant transit of their own nationals, however.
Article 13 requires the Requested State to use its best
efforts to ascertain the location or identity of persons or
items specified in a request.
Article 14 obligates the Requested State to use its best
efforts to effect service of any document relating, in whole or
in part, to any request for assistance under the Treaty. A
request for the service of a document requiring a person to
appear in the Requesting State must be transmitted a reasonable
time before the scheduled appearance. Proof of service is to be
provided in the manner specified in the request.
Article 15 obligates the Requested State to execute
requests for search, seizure, and delivery of any item to the
Requesting State if the request includes the information
justifying such action under the laws of theappropriate. The
Central Authority of the State receiving such information is required
to inform the Central Authority that provided the information of any
action taken.
Article 17 also obligates the Contracting States to assist
each other to the extent permitted by their respective laws in
proceedings relating to forfeiture of the proceeds and
instrumentalities of offenses, restitution to victims of crime,
and collection of fines imposed as sentences in criminal
prosecutions. This may include action to temporarily immobilize
the proceeds or instrumentalities pending further proceedings.
The Contracting State having custody over proceeds or
instrumentalities of offenses is required to dispose of them in
accordance with its laws. Either Contracting State may transfer
all or part of such assets, or the proceeds of their sale, to
the extent permitted by the transferring State's laws and upon
such terms as it deems appropriate.
Article 18 states that assistance and procedures provided
in the Treaty shall not prevent either Contracting State from
granting assistance to the other Contracting State through the
provisions of other applicable international agreements or
through the provisions of its national law. The Contracting
States may also provide assistance pursuant to any bilateral
arrangement, agreement, or practice which may be applicable.
Article 19 provides that the Central Authorities of the
Contracting States shall consult, at times mutually agreed, to
promote the most effective use of the Treaty, and may agree
upon such practical measures as may be necessary to facilitate
the Treaty's implementation.
Article 20 provides that the Treaty is subject to
ratification and the instruments shall be exchanged at
Washington as soon as possible. The Treaty enters into force
upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. Article 20
further provides that either Contracting State may terminate
the Treaty by written notice to the other Contracting State,
with termination to be effective six months following the date
of notification.
A Technical Analysis explaining in detail the provisions of
the Treaty is being prepared by the United States negotiating
delegation, consisting of representatives from the Departments
of Justice and State, and will be transmitted separately to the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in
favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate as soon as
possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Strobe Talbott.
you were saying, alky?
RRB
Mic Drop
if Barack Obama had tried to get [former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev] to do an investigation of Mitt Romney you would support impeachment.
Why keep making up hypotheticals.
We have the actual real thing!
Obama did get the Ukrainians to do an investigation into Paul Manafort during the 2016 election... so the comparison DID happen.
How many people (even today) believe that anyone should be held responsible for the Obama administration using a foreign government to investigate someone tied to a Presidential candidate?
Even if Bolton says that according to Trump's own words the President demanded a quid pro quo favor of Ukraine and Bolton has notes he took during meetings indicating that others were in the room when Trump said so?
I couldn't care less about "notes". "notes" can be fabricated. As far as others being in the room, the Haberman rumor suggested that he was in the room with both Trump and Mulvaney...
Both Trump and Mulvaney deny the conversation!
So I guess it all depends on whether or not there is corroboration, or if is on his own little island with no other witnesses to back him up?
But... assuming it was possible to prove that Trump said something...
it would also matter what the context was. Did Trump simply talk about something, suggest something, imply something, say he was going to do something...
Or did he explicitly tell people that he had a deal with Zelensky and offer them proof of such a deal?
Because most certainly the left would demand more than just the President's word... as they demand he lies about everything!
Alky had to run, he can't debate, never has been able to.
Blogger KansasDemocrat said...
Alky had to run, he can't debate, never has been able to.
it's interesting. the alky proclaims himself to be the most well-informed political prognosticator on this blog. his knowledge of American history and civics knows no bounds. couple that with his 137 IQ - (or is it 138?) and you would think that you find yourself in the presence of greatness. and his political predictions? let's just say that they are without equal.
so you would think that he would possess at least a basic knowledge of the existence of a treaty between the US and ukraine that was signed between our two nations specifically to address the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity and corruption.
in fact, this specific treaty has been referenced countless times in discussions regarding the impeachment fiasco.
i find myself at a loss for words to describe just how ignorant and downright fucking stupid the alky proves himself to be with every comment that he manages to post without the aid of a plagiarized copy/paste.
Post a Comment