TSA. Why do you think she was bad at her job?
all these people had to do was not be complete idiots.
Dennison is a ing moron.
Wow!!
Believing the same biased people that leave out part of Trump's statement to make it sound like he's a Nazi lover. That makes sense.
Jesus Christ....Holmes’s opening statement
You believed Bernie.
What happened?
What purpose would calling up the whistleblower serve?
Explain.
You have Dem politicians that have openly stated they wanted to impeach Trump out of fear of him being re-elected tbh. Show me the proof. So far there is nothing.
She said it was intimidating.
Under oath.
In front of the entire country.
smh
What purpose would calling up the whistleblower serve?
Do tell.
Proof of what?
The bribery and extortion?
Plenty of proof of that.
What other possible explanation could there be?
Let's see your narrative of events in Ukraine.
He essentially added an article of impeachment in real-time': Trump criticised by Fox News and Ken Starr for attacking Yovanovitch during hearing
https://news.yahoo.com/essentially-a...165214680.html
Seems like Trump's tweet has had the effect that Trump was shooting for, i.e. witness tampering, exactly as defined in the law.Donald Trump’s tweets attacking Marie Yovanovitch during her powerful testimony before the House impeachment inquiry has turned into a lightning rod of the hearings — and even some prominent conservative sources have slammed the president’s comments.
The [Trump] tweet was highlighted by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, who asked Ms Yovanovitch what she thought of him saying that “everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad”, before attacking her decades of experience.
“Very intimidating,” Ms Yovanovitch said of the tweet.
Committing a crime right in front of you.
Make another excuse you stupid piece of . its right ing there.
Werent you listening yesterday? Hearsay is better than actual proof.
It's one thing to pink slip someone, quite another to reach out directly to millions of followers calling her a bad person. Surely you're alive to the difference.
Also some animals are more equal than others.
Qhris will never try to explain the events in Ukraine because there is no explanation that is good for Dennison.
Nothing my ass. Keep ignoring the felonies.FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.
FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.
They are piling up, the statute of limitations will not be up by the time he is out of office.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
