triplehorn

Right now and moving forward, this is all about the conduct of the Senate R’s. Specifically, it’s about how they navigate exposure around an anticipated sham Senate trial and it affecting re-election of vulnerable GOP Senators. when you see consistent polls where north of 50% support removal, if the trial is perceived as a cover-up and a vulnerable Senator is perceived as a participant, that is big trouble. There are about 6 obvious seats in play.

Challenge him at a debate to answer how many Apostles of Christ there are. When he gets that one wrong, then soften it up and ask him how many were witnesses at Nuremberg.

IG on any evidence of political bias in the Mueller investigation: "Third, the inspector general did not find any evidence of such political bias. Here are some examples of what the report says about possible bias:

This write up makes an Anastasis post look like kinder-scrawl from the lovechild of GRHorn and hammer. 🏆💪 He breaks down all 5 at length: "The first question, for me, remains the one about possible political bias in the FBI. In particular, should the inspector general’s report be understood as repudiating, or merely pretermitting, claims of political bias in the Crossfire Hurricane investigations and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications targeting Carter Page? What did the inspector general find, and what didn’t he find, with respect to political bias? Second, even if not political, how serious were the failures in these FISA applications? Were they the sort of error one would expect to see in any thorough after-action review of a high-pressure, complex case, or were they something more severe? Is there any precedent for the inspector general’s review and for the errors he found? Third, is there reason to believe that the errors were unique, or should we expect that the inspector general’s follow-up audit will find more of the same in other cases? Were there any special features of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that might have caused the errors here, but not elsewhere? Fourth, what is to be made of statements by Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham concerning the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and a prior memo released in early 2018 by Rep. Devin Nunes concerning the Page FISA applications? Why did Barr and Durham criticize and publicize their disagreements with the Inspector General, and was the Nunes memo more honest and accurate than I previously gave it credit for being?" Fifth, what are the prospects for various types of FISA reforms in the wake of Crossfire Hurricane?

Personally, I love the idea of impeaching Trump more than once in less than a year. The reality is that the articles related to Trump/Ukraine extortion/election and subsequent obstruction of Congress were urgent. Blowing the whistle and using the full measure of House power to bring it to light and stop it could not wait. Should that impeachment surrounding an urgent national security matter render his other high crimes and abuses immune to impeachment because the evidence and testimonies were not yet available ? Hell no.

The DC Appellate Court deciding on the McGahn case to compel testimony asked the House legal counsel why they should hear this case if articles of impeachment have already been voted on, albeit for abuse and obstruction unrelated to potential McGahn testimony. This answers some questions about that:

^^^

Firtash pays Rudy. Rudy ‘works’ for Trump but Trump doesn’t pay Rudy. The question then becomes who pays Trump to work with Rudy ?

Republican House minority leader straight up lying like a piece of shit thug:

Despite your video, my point still stands. The ‘political bias’ Horowitz acknowledges relates to private texts between Strzok and Page expressing personal feelings. There is nothing unusual about judges, investigators etc. having personal biases, or opinions. Despite that, Horowitz did not find political bias or other inappropriate acts in their work and investigatory capacity. Period. The FISA piece Hawley tries to conflate with Strzok and Page has been flogged to death. It’s an understandably highly important matter to address, but it does not rise to a level that was determined to vitally influence the Page warrant, let alone the much more vast corners of the Mueller investigation. Trump colluded with Russian interference via Roger Stone, then Trump lied to Mueller about it.

Your analogy is wildly off. IG Horowitz found nothing, zero, zilch, nada indicative of bias, politicization, ulterior motives or anything suggesting other than that the Mueller investigation was sound and appropriate.

just pointing out that when the Page FISA warrant was first initiated, his time as a member of the Trump campaign had already ended. The most important thing is that we don't delve into lawless tyranny. Our intelligence gathering capacity is important for warding off domestic origins of such a threat, like Donal Trump represents. It can cut both ways, but in the case of Donald Trump, it has served a protective function.

It’s a reasonable question. Keep in mind the initial FISA warrant for Page was granted after he left the campaign.

^^^ fwiw, also in poll above : 23% NO witnesses in the Senate trial 54% YES witnesses in the Senate trial (22% don’t care)

Senate R's are at risk of getting set up here. Once they commit to defrauding us in a trial of abuses with nat sec importance, when more comes out from other House committees and SCOTUS rulings - and you know this isn't nearly all of it, it only gets harder for vulnerable Senate R's to credibly maintain the charade as the wave of shit rises.

^^^ partly why so much of this is about vulnerable Senate R’s. The cult isn’t all about them in their individual states. They also can’t pull off the case study in forensic cons like Trump can with waking every breath.

Keep in mind a fake trial is most about sheltering a vulnerable R Senate majority in 2020. Mitch is angling for every way possible to avoid individual Senators from having to cast votes that help define a sham. If Mitch could make all the rules himself without any majority votes, he would, obviously. Look for the House to force negotiations on rules and procedures that target those 6 vulnerable R’s into supporting a fraud on the American populace or call for witnesses Trump is obstructing from testifying.

Pic of Trump leaving the Oval as his two article impeachment was being finalized. his Linda Blair face

You choose to remain being dishonest before admitting being wrong about this. What possesses you to be a dishonest troll on this thread is a curious thing. And what there is to answer to you ? You're drumming an intentionally distorted and embellished revision. It's your opinion. igaf about your ridiculous opinion. Look where we are today in contrast to what was relentlessly mocked as crazy assed conspiracy theories about *anything* in the Spring of 2017 about Trump/Russia collusion, or the threat of *any* Trump affiliate committing any crime, let alone going to prison for it. Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone - today all in prison or convicted and awaiting sentencing. And yet here we are, Trump is determined to continue with the same conduct for the 2020 election that we have now come to understand occurred in 2016. Instead of attacking his opponent with the help of Roger Stone and Putin's Russian military intelligence apparatus and cutouts, he's doing it with Rudy Giuliani and (now indicted) actors funded by a high level Ukrainian mobster close to Putin who is also indicted and facing US extradition. Join us in the present, guy.

I recall this post. Granted, that was from May 2019 and things have changed. I'm not sure your present acknowledgement has evolved with new evidence. your 1st sentence - who doesn't. that's oppo research 101. But there are applicable laws. your 2nd sentence - you still believe this?? ---> Trump knew Russia hacked the DNC. Trump knew wikileaks was the outlet organ for Russian hacks. Trump knew Roger Stone was the conduit for the campaign around pending drops and coordination of drops and Trump communicated with Stone during the campaign about planned drops. Trump was directly in the know, knew it was wrong, and later directly lied to Mueller about knowing anything about the Russian military intelligence/wikileaks operation: WaPo: "Testifying at the trial of Roger Stone — a Trump friend accused of lying about his own WikiLeaks-related dealings — Rick Gates said he overheard a phone call in which Stone seemed to make the president aware of a planned WikiLeaks release. Gates and other witnesses testified that Stone posited himself as something of an intermediary between WikiLeaks and the campaign, with access to insider information. Gates said his boss, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, had told him that Trump would be kept updated on WikiLeaks’ plans to release Democratic emails — which authorities concluded were hacked by Russia. The testimony from the former high-ranking campaign official indicates that Trump’s knowledge of WikiLeaks was more advanced than he has previously stated. In written responses to questions from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III last year, Trump said he did not recall receiving any information about WikiLeaks disclosures in advance, being told that Stone “or anyone associated with my campaign” had discussions with WikiLeaks about future leaks, or ever discussing WikiLeaks with Stone." your 3rd sentence - you still believe this?? --->Trump knew where it was coming from and he partook in knowledge and awareness of the planning of it. He was not "unfamiliar". Trump did it even after being warned by the FBI in the summer of 2016 Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign. Then Trump lied about it to Mueller. your 4th sentence - you still believe this?? ---> It wasn't rhetorical. Knowing what we know today, it was a compromising form of public acceptance. Very reminiscent of the compromising announcement Trump was trying to get Zalensky to make last summer. That's your grand acknowledgement?? it's shit.

I ask again, what did you acknowledge ? You've demonstrated your skill at pulling remote quotes, albeit typically useless, from the web matrix, but nothing ? You're perfectly adept at rangey longcat posts deserving separate threads, but when asked for a basic response, repeatedly about your acknowledgement - that the Trump campaign publicly welcomed and privately sought Russian election interference to benefit Trump, and that Trump personally was in communication with Roger Stone around anticipated drops of goods stolen by Russian actors that were coordinated to optimize electoral prospects of Trump - when asked about that, you recoil to posting circular animation. you're a fake. prove me wrong.

What did you acknowledge ?

Mueller testified that inferences made about a link between Trump Tower server and Alfa Bank server were flawed. I am capable of taking in new information to adjust my understanding accordingly. Why don't you ? Why do you refuse to acknowledge what the evidence shows ? Or worse, why be dishonest about it ?

The risk of revealing that you are not dumb - that you function in work at a hight level, presumably interfacing with doctoral candidates among other things - is that you are being dishonest. What Anastasis has engaged in ceaselessly is more than bullshitting. It's rank dishonesty. The more interesting question is what motivates it.