I think Lev and his lawyer are telling the truth. And Moscow Mitch and the Republicans in the Senate might not want to hear from Parnas and look at his evidence. But I bet the Democrats in the House do and it will make some very interesting public hearings.

And by the way the more they dissect the hour long recording Parnas just handed over the worse it gets for Trump. Proves he just blatantly lied when he said he didn't know Parnas. Showed he was trying to fire Ambassador Yovanovitch a year earlier than anyone knew and was already wondering about how vulnerable Ukraine would be to extortion. And all of it discussing national security issues with Lev and Igor and his donors in an unsecured location where anyone could be listening in. So once again there "conservatives" if you ever try to claim you give a fuck about National Security again I will make it a point to call you fucking liars again.

Joseph Bondy Tells CNN Lev Parnas Has More Recordings of Trump Which Could Be Released Publicly

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/joseph-...cordings-of-trump-may-release-more-to-public/

 

I guess with all the publicity your giving him, you would be on first names basis

 

Democrats are having a field day after Trump's lawyers accidentally made the strongest case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial

• President Donald Trump's defense team repeatedly argued on Saturday that there isn't enough evidence to impeach him because Congress hasn't heard from any witnesses who had "direct contact" with the president.
  
  
• Democratic lawmakers seized on those statements, saying they underscore the need to call more firsthand witnesses in Trump's trial.
  
  
• Moreover, while Trump's lawyers complain of not hearing testimony from direct witnesses, the defense could easily solve that problem by retracting Trump's sweeping directive barring all executive branch officials across six agencies from cooperating with Congress' impeachment inquiry.
  
  
• "The president's counsel did something that they did not intend: they made a really compelling case for why the Senate should call witnesses and documents," Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said after opening arguments on Saturday.
  
  

President Donald Trump's defense team consistently drilled down on one key point as it began opening arguments in his impeachment trial on Saturday: the evidence against Trump is limited, at best, and he can't be impeached because the public hasn't heard direct evidence of his misconduct from him or anyone close to him.

The remarks came as Republicans and Democrats in the Senate fight over whether to call new witnesses in the president's trial.

Democrats argue that while they have more than enough to impeach Trump, they still haven't heard from senior executive branch officials closest to the president who could shed more light on his efforts to pressure Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election.

Republicans, meanwhile, say that if the evidence against Trump is as overwhelming as House Democrats say it is, the Senate doesn't need to call new witnesses.

But on Saturday, Trump's lawyers seemed to bolster Democrats' case by repeatedly claiming that they hadn't heard from a single witness who had "direct contact" with the president.

Although their statements were misleading (Gordon Sondland, the US's ambassador to the European Union, was in frequent touch with Trump and testified to Congress that the president engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine), Democratic lawmakers noted that the comments underscored the need to hear from more firsthand witnesses.

It's worth noting, too, that though the president's lawyers complain of not hearing testimony from witnesses who spoke to Trump directly, the defense team led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone could easily solve that problem by retracting Trump's sweeping directive last year barring all executive branch officials across six agencies from cooperating with the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry.

Multiple senior administration officials in the president's inner circle — like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former national security adviser John Bolton — cited Cipollone's command, which he issued at the president's direction, as the reason they would not testify or provide relevant documents.

Bolton, who was at the center of a number of episodes investigated in the inquiry, has since said that he will testify if the Senate decides to subpoena him.

"Now, the first point that I would like to make is that the president's counsel did something that they did not intend: They made a really compelling case for why the Senate should call witnesses and documents," said Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer.

"They kept saying there are no eyewitness accounts, but there are people who have eyewitness accounts, the very four witnesses and the very four sets of documents that we have asked for," he said. "But there are people who do know. Mick Mulvaney knows. In all likelihood, Mr. [Robert] Blair, [an aide to Mulvaney], knows. Mr. Bolton may know. 'Why shouldn't we have witnesses and documents here?' I thought."

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who is widely considered a Democratic swing vote because he represents a deep-red state, told CNN he thought Trump's team did a "good job" of "making me think about things." He added, "One thing that stuck in my mind is they said there isn't a witness they have had so far that had direct contact with the president. I'd love to hear from Mulvaney and Bolton."

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut echoed that point, telling MSNBC that Trump's lawyers "repeatedly said that we have heard limited evidence from individuals who talked directly to the president, who were ordered by the president to engage in this scheme."

"Of course, the reason for that is because the White House won't let us hear" from those people, he added. "So if what's missing ... is direct evidence of what the president told the people who work for him, there's a way to solve for that. I hope we don't have to get leaked audio of the president directing orders in this corruption scheme in order to prove our case."

He was referring to a bombshell report from ABC News this week which said the outlet had obtained an audio tape from 2018 where Trump is heard ordering the firing of Marie Yovanovitch, who at the time the US's ambassador to Ukraine.

The president demanded she be removed after his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, colluded with a controversial op-ed columnist and two Ukrainian associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, to plant negative stories about Yovanovitch in the press accusing her of anti-Trump bias.

"Get rid of her!" Trump is heard saying in the recording. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

Parnas' attorney, Joseph Bondy, said Fruman created the original recording and gave Parnas a copy. Bondy turned the copy over to the House Intelligence Committee.

Editor's note: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated Lev Parnas recorded President Trump ordering the firing of Marie Yovanovitch. In fact, Igor Fruman created the recording and gave Parnas a copy. The article has been updated to reflect this correction.

 

I am pretty sure its only just begun. And don't you have some "whores" to demean and women to beat?

 

ven Trump's strongest Republican allies are praising House Democrats' impeachment presentation

• House Democrats spent this week hammering President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial and laying out a mountain of "overwhelming" evidence to prove he abused his power and obstructed Congress.
  
  
• Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida praised Democrats' impeachment presentation and skewered Trump's defense as looking like an "eighth-grade book report" in comparison.
  
  
• Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina congratulated lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff on his delivery and said Schiff was "well-spoken" and did "a good job."
  
  
• Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told reporters during the first day of the prosecution's opening arguments that the evidence itself was news to many senators.
  
  
• 
  

House Democrats took center stage on Friday for the last portion of their opening arguments in President Donald Trump's historic impeachment trial in the Senate.

Over three days, impeachment managers — House lawmakers who act as prosecutors in Trump's trial — laid out the president's months-long campaign to pressure Ukraine into launching politically motivated investigations targeting his rivals while withholding vital military aid and a White House meeting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky desperately wanted.

In addition to detailing the president's actions at the center of the scheme, they also outlined how he, his associates, and White House lawyers tried to cover up evidence of his alleged misconduct.

Trump's Republican allies in Congress maintain that he did nothing wrong and that he was justified in asking Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic frontrunner, while freezing the security assistance.

But as the impeachment managers make their case against the president, even Trump's staunchest defenders have acknowledged the effectiveness of Democrats' strategy.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida told Politico this week the impeachment managers presented their case to the public as if it were "cable news," and he praised their use of multimedia.

Meanwhile, the defense team's case looked like "an eighth-grade book report," Gaetz said. "Actually, no, I take that back," he said, adding that an eighth-grader would know how to use PowerPoint and iPads.

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told reporters during the first day of the prosecution's opening arguments that the evidence itself was news to many senators.

"Nine out of 10 senators will tell you they haven't read a full transcript of the proceedings in the House," Kennedy said. "And the 10th senator who says he has is lying."

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of Trump's biggest defenders, praised lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff after the first day of opening arguments.

"Good job," Graham told Schiff. "You're very well-spoken."

Graham also told CNN he spoke to the president that night. When CNN's Manu Raju asked Graham what Trump thought of the trial, Graham said the president told him he found it boring.

"He doesn't like what they say about him," Graham said. He added that Trump also told him he thought Schiff did a bad job, but Graham pushed back and told the president, "No, I thought he actually did a pretty good job."

Trump was impeached last month for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Schiff, a former prosecutor, is spearheading the Democrats' team of impeachment managers.

They will finish making their opening arguments on Friday evening. Trump's lawyers will mount a defense beginning Saturday morning at 10 a.m. ET.

 

During this recording, Trump is not heard...not at all.

 

And I thought you were just about politics and somewhat intelligent debate, ...turns out your just a name calling bitch...
saying that would be like me saying to you, ..."dont you have any dicks to suck, do you take it up the ass, do you sniff panties, fuck dogs and smoke meth."

You disqualified your intelligence

 

No actually all did was word track you to see how you think. And then exposed it. And my god what a poor little snowflake. You can go all over the board attacking me but as soon as I give you a taste of your own medicine you meltdown because you can sure as fuck dish it out but you are too weak to take it.

Will the GOP ‘stand for gaslighting or reality?’: George Conway thumps senate Republicans who refuse to consider Trump’s crimes

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/wi...blicans-who-refuse-to-consider-trumps-crimes/

 

Seems Mr. Conway is unfamiliar with the U.S.Constitution and how the federal fucking government is set up.

With that said...seems you are having that very same problem...

 

"word track to see how I think"...what does that even mean?

"You can go all over the board attacking me"....dont make it personal, I'm not attacking you, I attack your statement, I didnt say anything personal until you did, FIRST, ...
I'm not attacking you, you post all over everything, and I comment on pretty much the same threads, I dont hit the quantity you achieve though.

"but as soon as I give you a taste of your own medicine you meltdown because you can sure as fuck dish it out but you are too weak to take it."....

....Where did I melt down, where, with your word tracking show me?...Also show me exactly what I "dished out"......from where do you infer "weakness"?
​

Just like the democrats, say a whole load of lies and expect people to believe it, nothing you said described me....congratulations you exemplify your party.

 

I think we can anticipate another Trump meltdown coming.

Fox News poll delivers devastating news to Trump on impeachment

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/fox-news-poll-delivers-devastating-news-to-trump-on-impeachment/

 

‘They’re terrified’: MSNBC contributor reveals GOPer’s are running scared of Trump despite bogus ‘heads on pikes’ outrage

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/th...f-trump-despite-bogus-heads-on-pikes-outrage/

 

Excerpts from the Raw Story article,
Are Trump and his circle manipulating the markets for personal gain? Here’s the evidence
In a series of articles for Vanity Fair, investigative reporter and author William Cohan has asserted that Donald Trump and his inner circle appear to be manipulating the stock market for their own personal financial gain. Cohan believes this likely or possible insider trading may involve hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps even billions.

In this conversation, Cohan shares his evidence connecting high-profile events such as Trump’s order to assassinate Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani with the purchase of defense industry stocks and futures contracts — hours before the military action took place. He also explains how Trump’s deregulation of oversight and other protections would enable such a scheme, and identifies the various people in Trump’s orbit who could facilitate insider trading.

As usual, this transcript has been edited for length and clarity. You can also listen to my full conversation with William Cohan through the player embedded below.

How did your reporting at Vanity Fair about possible insider trading and other questionable behavior come together?

It is pretty simple. The people whose business is to trade these E-mini’s —these future contracts that are tied to the S&P 500 stock index — do this professionally. They have been doing this for 10, 20, 30 and in some instances 40 years. They see these anomalies in the trading. Trading has a certain pattern and a certain rhythm. It’s akin to the news business where if you’re a journalist on a beat and you’ve been working it long enough, you know when there is something anomalous. Well if you’re a trader who’s trading E-mini’s and that’s what you do all day and you see something anomalous and then you can trace it back to news events, well then you can’t help but wonder what’s going on and why people are making what appears to be hundreds of millions of dollars.


You make $170 million in a day, then you’re not going to wait around and see if that’s going to be $200 million in two days. You’re going to take your money and go. The traders were seeing these things and they reached out to me. I reported what the traders were telling me, and I had it well-documented. They can always have other explanations for this: Maybe this group of traders got incredibly lucky? Maybe they just called it right? They called it right in July, then called it right in October, and then called it right with the killing of Soleimani. Maybe some traders just got totally lucky all those times. But that’s not really the way it works.

[Most of the rest of the article is speculation and presumption]

 

I'm just laughing at the bullshit narrative all these Libfucks keep pulling out of thin air. Keep laughing - me, I'm looking forward to Trump's 2nd Inauguration next January.
Have at it, sheep.

 

I could be wrong but it looks to me like John Bolton has just declared war on Trump, his administration, and the Republicans in the Senate. Just in the past hour or so a series of really damaging excerpts from Bolton's upcoming book have been released. And its bad. Way bad.

‘Now we see why’ Trump blocked Bolton from testifying — and Republicans are barring witnesses: Adam Schiff

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/no...epublicans-are-barring-witnesses-adam-schiff/

 

Report: Bolton says Trump tied Ukraine funds to Biden probe
ZEKE MILLER and ERIC TUCKER
January 26, 2020, 7:42 PM EST

President Donald Trump told his national security adviser he wanted to maintain a freeze on military assistance to Ukraine until it launched political investigations into his Democratic rivals, according to a report in The New York Times on Sunday.

The newspaper said John Bolton's description of his exchange with Trump appears in drafts of his forthcoming book. The revelation challenges the defense offered up by Trump and his attorneys in his Senate impeachment trial and raises the stakes as the chamber decided this week whether to seek sworn testimony from Bolton and other witnesses.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-bolton-says-trump-tied-004225755.html