bearister said:

---

Legal storm clouds gather over Rudy Giuliani, America's tarnished mayor

---

Nobody in New York cares. He is the hero that cleaned up NYC.

So is Tulsi Gabbard really a "Russian asset"? How would we know for sure? | Salon.com


https://www.salon.com/2019/11/16/so-is-tulsi-gabbard-really-a-russian-asset-how-would-we-know-for-sure/

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

Legal storm clouds gather over Rudy Giuliani, America's tarnished mayor

---

Nobody in New York cares. He is the hero that cleaned up NYC.

---

This is just too easy to refute.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

Legal storm clouds gather over Rudy Giuliani, America's tarnished mayor

---

Nobody in New York cares. He is the hero that cleaned up NYC.

---

This is just too easy to refute.

---

Very few New Yorkers have any positive feelings about Giuliani, even before Trump.

"Without Mr. Giuliani's push for money and frank yearning for relevance, the Trump Ukrainian initiative might never have amounted to much more than presidential tweetstorms. Mr. Giuliani compressed the digital gases of the president's suspicions and wishful theories into what is now the molten core of impeachment." NY Times

" Giuliani has bragged to ... Trump allies that he has made millions of dollars since the president took office ...
White House aides fear Giuliani has used his role as the president's lawyer to promote the interests of private clients, fretting that they do not know who he represents ... His conversations with Trump are protected by attorney-client privilege, meaning even Trump's closest aides are not briefed on what they discuss." Washington Post

Trump: Fox News 'panders' to Democrats by having on liberal guests | TheHill


https://thehill.com/homenews/media/473591-trump-claims-fox-news-panders-to-democrats-by-having-liberal-guests

In order to fully grasp what a hopeless situation this country currently finds itself in, one need look no further than the case of Duncan Hunter.

In August 2018, Hunter and his wife were indicted on charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, and violating campaign finance laws. In November, 2018, Hunter won the election for the seat in the 50th Congressional district after getting 51% of the vote.
What this proves is that in the minds of millions of Americans there is a Culture War (as framed by Roger Ailes) that pits Good vs Evil and no conduct of anyone considered a standard bearer for the Good can ever be considered disqualifying.

*Although Duncan Hunter claimed the charges against him were false and the result of a Deep State conspiracy, on December 3, 2019, Hunter pleaded guilty to one count of misusing campaign funds. Hunter said he expects to be sentenced to prison time. He faces a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. Wikipedia

This is buried in a long thread and probably too difficult to answer honestly, but I wonder how the Trump defenders on these boards would answer these questions. I know you will disagree with the premise and want to flip this around, but try and take the premises as true and tell what you think you will do:

If as the impeachment advances or other court cases reveal information or the next president who is not Trump reveals more evidence it shows that Trump absolutely unequivocally ordered the holding of Ukraine aid (I think we are already there) specifically in exchange for wanting the PR and election advantage of having a public statement made about investigating Biden to cast doubt around him (without caring if investigation is done or if Biden is actually innocent and without caring about international corruption), if it's clear that this all he wanted and he used the leverage of foreign aid to do it, do you think that is impeachable?

Do you believe that he has abused executive privilege and that he should release documents to congress and that he should testify?

Do you believe as Trump states that he can not be investigated, indicted, and that he is essentially above the law--and so is this true for all presidents?

If we later learn definitively that the there was a massive cover up that all players knew they were lying and participated by choice to hide this crime and deceive the public, that FOX news and right wing media knowingly spread disinformation, that members of Congress agreed to do and say anything to protect the president, and that the president and his staff basically said whatever with no relation to truth but only for the aim to protect him and keep his base loyal and angry at the hoax that was not a hoax, if this can be shown to be absolutely true to your standard would you: A) be mad at Trump and admit you were wrong and be glad that he was caught and held to account, B) not care because you think Trump is so great that him breaking the law is his choice and if he felt it was necessary or it kept him in power the ends justifies the means, or C) believe that this evidence is not true and just further proof of a Deep State and the complexity of the deception?

If we later learn that Trump committed all sort of other crimes, that he laundered money, evaded taxes to fraudulent levels, worked with the mob, HAS been colluding with Putin this whole time, or any other number of serious crimes, will you then agree he needs to be removed from office, or if already out of office go to jail?

Where is the actual line for you? To what extent is Trump immune to your judgement/recrimination and do you hold these same standards for all future presidents Dem or Rep?

Republicans are turning impeachment into a carnival and it could cost them


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/12/trump-impeachment-republicans-carnival?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Trump and Impeachment - Get the facts on impeachment


https://trumpandimpeachment.com/

LOL wonder what Trump bribed him with

Pam Bondi's response to every Chris Wallace question this morning:

" I object, Chris! This impeachment is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."*

*Shoutout to Woody Allen

GBear4Life said:

---

LOL wonder what Trump bribed him with

---

Good riddance to that guy.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

LOL wonder what Trump bribed him with

---

Good riddance to that guy.

---

Van Drew wasn't going to get re-elected as a Democrat because he lost the support of Democrats before this. Frees up the Dems in his district to run a Dem the Dems like.

Now Russian media is having fun and calling Trump a Russian agent. They joke about Trump having to flee to Russia just like the former Ukrainian backed ruler. When will Trump stand up for himself to Putin (and stand up for the country)?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-their-agent

Nothing for us to worry about. Trump will displace his anger at being beholden to Putin by flushing his toilet like 10 or 15 times.

Carly Fiorina, former GOP candidate for President on the current state of the Republican party having turned into the Party of Trump: "Power concentrated is power abused. Always."

bearister said:

---

Wow! Fox News is in danger of losing its certification as The Official Propaganda Arm of the Republican Party. Can the yanking of its FCC license be far behind?

https://mol.im/a/7794629

---

I'd like to vote for that twice.
Or 1 million times.

IN SEARCH OF 4 SENATORS WHO FLIP:

Senate = 53 GOP vs 47 Dems.

I just learned that while 67 votes are needed to boot Trump from office (which won't happen as things now stand), only 51 votes are needed in order to establish the RULES of how the Senate Trial will go. Is that right? If so, wow! That takes a lot of wind out of McConnell's sail to quickly sideline the entire event with an ultimate No vote, because I could see FOUR telling McConnell to do more than just accept from House and Put to vote.

Schumer and the Dems want additional facts to come out. They want 4 key people to testify. At first, I was thinking Good Luck on that. But someone on TV pointed out that the Dems only need to convince 4 senators to side with their effort to open up the Trial. And if the trial opens up, we might hear more damning testimony (Butterfield: "I was aware that there was a recording system." -changed everything.)

Maybe a group of 4 of those listed below will go to McConnell to demand he do something more - which could potentially breathe life to a real impeachment that is successful. I know I'm dreaming, but it's nice to have something to look for. Hey - whatever it takes to damage the president enough to get him out of office, either thru impeachment or the 2020 election!



Who would those 4 votes be?

8 Republican senators to watch on impeachment
Senate Republicans aren't expected to break with Trump, but a handful of lawmakers could feel pressure to do so.

Mitt Romney (R-UT)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Ben Sasse (R-NE)
Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Martha McSally (R-AZ)
Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

To read why those 8 might be turnable, click here:
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/14/20908684/senate-republicans-trump-impeachment-mitt-romney-susan-collins

=============================

Another analysis and list:
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2019/1031/Five-senators-to-watch-on-impeachment

This page lists additional groups:

Still, two key groups in the GOP caucus are worth watching as the impeachment saga moves to the Senate, political observers say. The first is made up of veteran senators who've announced their retirement in 2020. These lawmakers may be looking at how their achievements and decisions over the next year or so might shape the future of the Senate as an institution and their place in history.


Retiring group includes
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee,
Mike Enzi of Wyoming,
Johnny Isakson of Georgia,
Pat Roberts of Kansas,
Richard Burr of North Carolina (whose current term lasts until 2022 but who announced that 2016 would be the last time he'd run for elective office).

The second group consists of GOP senators who are facing close reelection races and have to navigate between pleasing President Trump's reliable base of voters and the moderates and independents they may need to secure their seats.

These close reelection include:
Susan Collins of Maine,
John Cornyn of Texas,
Joni Ernst of Iowa,
Cory Gardner of Colorado,
Martha McSally of Arizona, and
Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah belongs to neither category, but has become President Trump's most vocal Republican critic in the chamber.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has also regularly taken positions independent of the party line.

==============================

I could definitely see Romney putting pressure on McConnell.
Next would be Murkowski.
Then possibly Collins, who doesn't like Trump.
Gardner in Colorado is up for reelection in a state that voted for Hillary and is in the process of turning Blue. Maybe he does this to attract Independents.
Sasse has also spoken out against Trump strongly, and I had hopes for him.

Anyways, there's hope for witnesses and evidence.

bearister said:

---

---

He's got to be the most self incriminating lawyer in history.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

He's got to be the most self incriminating lawyer in history.

---

Maybe his briefs are too tight. He is starting to lose his appeal. I'm not sure he can even raise a bone...of contention anymore.

bearister said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

He's got to be the most self incriminating lawyer in history.

---

Maybe his briefs are too tight. He is starting to lose his appeal. I'm not sure he can even raise a bone...of contention anymore.

---

It's syphillis.

Giuliani is incredible. Admits to a coordinated smear campaign with John Solomon (who many conspiracy theorists still like to pretend is some sort of impartial reporter, rather than the republican shallow state operative he really is) without any shame. Perhaps, as with other instances of misconduct to which Rudy has admitted, he will later say "this is old news" when more evidence comes out about his wrongdoing.

If we truly are a nation of laws, Rudy will be held to account for all of the things he has done.

bearister said:

---

Maybe his briefs are too tight.

---

Why, because he has added Depends in there without upgrading the waist size?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Giuliani is incredible. Admits to a coordinated smear campaign with John Solomon (who many conspiracy theorists still like to pretend is some sort of impartial reporter, rather than the republican shallow state operative he really is) without any shame. Perhaps, as with other instances of misconduct to which Rudy has admitted, he will later say "this is old news" when more evidence comes out about his wrongdoing.

If we truly are a nation of laws, Rudy will be held to account for all of the things he has done.

---

But we aren't.
It'll be a white washing with someone saying "Now is the time for us to unify as a country, not endless persecutions."

OR, we could just have a firing squad knock 'em all out at once.
Justice for High Crimes!!!

Our ill president boarding the crazy train. It will be a 24-hr trip. His letter to Peloisi.

Trump has written so many embarrassing letters in his time as President, it will be interesting to see where this one stacks up. I hope Pelosi does what Erdogan did with his letter - take it back to the white house and hand it back to the president. That's the only fitting response.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Our ill president boarding the crazy train. It will be a 24-hr trip. His letter to Peloisi.

---

In a different era tRump and Billy Barr would be in a dungeon eating gruel and rats and have waist length beards.