And I bet you guys thought Trump was the twitter genius.

Trump lawyers fact-checked on 12 false claims by the House Intel Committee

 

House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel


White House claim: This president has been the strongest support of Ukraine.

Reality: President Trump knew that US support was vital to Ukraine, but withheld the aid anyway. Trump has also defended Russia's invasion of Crimea. #TruthMatters https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia/index.html …






25 times Trump was soft on Russia
President Donald Trump has an Achilles' heel when it comes to Russia.

cnn.com


1,152
1:27 PM - Jan 27, 2020




House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel


White House Claim: “It was no secret” why the aid was withheld.

Reality: The House interviewed 17 witnesses. None were given any explanation for the hold on military aid until after controversy erupted. All documents are STILL being obstructed. #TruthMatters




1,721
1:20 PM - Jan 27, 2020



House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel


White House claim: The fact that Trump and Zelensky met at the UN exonerates the President.

Reality: Multiple witnesses testified to the unique significance of an Oval Office meeting. And Zelensky himself brought up the desire to meet at the White House, at the UN. #TruthMatters






643
1:00 PM - Jan 27, 2020

 

House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel


White House claim: There was no quid pro quo.

Reality:

Gordon Sondland on quid pro quo for the White House meeting: “The answer is yes.”

Mulvaney on quid pro quo for the aid: “We do that all the time.”

Ambassador Bolton is prepared to testify & should be called. #TruthMatters






2,120
12:47 PM - Jan 27, 2020



House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel


White House claim: The President was really concerned about burden sharing.

Reality: The burden did not change between freezing and releasing the aid. There was no new effort to get others to contribute more, and Europe in fact contributes a great deal to Ukraine. #TruthMatters https://twitter.com/HouseIntel/status/1221103513788350471 …




House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel

White House claim: Europe did not support Ukraine

Reality: The European Union is a huge contributor of foreign assistance to Ukraine. #TruthMatters




1,227
12:39 PM - Jan 27, 2020

 

House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel

White House claim: Ukraine did not know about the withheld aid until public reporting.

Reality: Two witnesses testified Ukraine knew of the hold before it was public.

Ukraine’s former deputy foreign minister confirmed publicly that the Ukrainians knew:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/world/europe/ukraine-impeachment-military-aid.html …






Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, Says Ex-Top Official in Kyiv
Ukraine’s government learned of the military aid freeze during the Trump administration’s pressure campaign — and tried to keep that knowledge from going public, an ex-deputy foreign minister said.

nytimes.com


620
12:32 PM - Jan 27, 2020




House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel


White House claim: It is inappropriate to impeach a president in an election year.

Reality: Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2016 election, admitted he would do it again in 2020, and continues to direct a scheme to do so. Impeachment is the only remedy. #TruthMatters






2,996
12:12 PM - Jan 27, 2020



House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel


White House Claim: Trump’s obstruction of Congress is not impeachable

Reality: Trump’s own lawyer Robert Ray said “Contempt of Congress is illegal.”

No president in history has blocked an impeachment inquiry by ignoring every subpoena for documents & witnesses. #TruthMatters






1,014
12:02 PM - Jan 27, 2020



House Intelligence Committee ✔ @HouseIntel


White House Claim: Ukraine felt no pressure.

Reality: US assistance = 10% of Ukraine’s military budget.

Lt. Col. Vindman: “The power disparity between the POTUS & the President of Ukraine is vast."

Holmes: “I think they’re being very careful. They still need us.” #TruthMatters




723
11:21 AM - Jan 27, 2020



https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/tr...12-false-claims-by-the-house-intel-committee/

 

Now personally I don't believe in counting votes until they are actually taken. All kinds of things can change at anytime. But from the reporting I am seeing this does seem to be the general consensus right now.

There are 51 votes to approve calling witnesses in Trump impeachment trial: PBS

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/th...-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial-report/

 

Surely that cannot be true.......shootersa will have to go hide under a rock if so lolol!

Sleep tight y'all!

Thinskin

 

Just before I nod off it occurrs to me that you either believe there is no stronger statement than one made under oath or you believe that Trump did not even need a translator to talk to Zelinsky!

If lying under oath is part of your job then you live in a kleptocracy!

Thinskin

 

Was watching Alan Dershowitz explaining how the Constitution, law and precedent apply to impeachment, the stuff that really matters, seems there's a lot of inconvenient truths being overlooked.

 

Alan Dershowitz’s ‘sleight of hand’ Trump defenses blown to bits by legal analyst

 

Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC
For those playing along at home, they do this on the bar exam ALL THE TIME. They'll give you this very long fact pattern. The *answer* will be in the very first sentence. But they'll spend a whole page trying to distract you from the answer they gave you RIGHT UP TOP.



1,223
6:07 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC
Dersh: For Congress to ignore the words of the Constitution itself, would place Congress about the law.

Again, Dersh JUST TOLD YOU that Congress can do just that. You're just supposed to forget that as he continues talking. #ImpeachmentTrial



922
6:10 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC
Sleight #5: This is more a FedSoc thing than a Dersh thing. See when the FedSoc wants the Constitution to say something it doesn't say: they use what Framers said BEFORE they put in the language, and argue that the actual text INCLUDES that larger conversation about the text.



819
6:13 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC
So, you can see, in this way, the originalists can make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say. The can change whether the text is INCLUSIVE of larger debates, or EXCLUSIVE, depending on which way fits the Republican agenda as they need it to.



836
6:15 PM - Jan 27, 2020

 

Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC
Sleight #6: Dersh makes the baseless claim that the inclusion of "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does NOT include "abuse of power."
He's got no historical evidence that "abuse of power" was specifically excluded by the Framers. Because, of course they excluded no such thing.



782
6:17 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC
Sleight #7: He's arguing that the inclusion of non-criminal language to support impeachment (Which, AGAIN, DERSH ADMITS THAT NON-CRIMINAL REASONS EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE A POTUS), was only for mental or physical incapacity.
Evidence? Lol, it's Derh y'all.



677
6:20 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC
I feel like I'm being forced to take an issue-spotter, live, and at rapid speed. I've basically had nightmares about this. With @ewarren giving me a grade at the end.



788
6:23 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC @ewarren
Sleight #8: Dersh is trying to parse... the jurisdiction of the court of impeachment from... the grounds for impeachment itself.

His argument only works if you think there is SPACE between what the House can impeach FOR, and what the Senate can convict for. Which there ISN'T.



576
6:26 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC @ewarren
All right, well here's something: UNLIKE STARR... Dershowtiz at least admits his hypocrisy. He says that he hadn't "researched" impeachment thoroughly enough when he spoke about the Clinton impeachment.

One only imagines what new thing he'll research for his next defendant.



577
6:27 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC @ewarren
Sleight #9: Omg, he's talking about the rule of lenity.

Okay peeps, this is an OLD standard of interpretation that says, basically, "tie goes to the defendant."

If we still applied this rule today, we'd have to release more prisoners than I can estimate.



527
6:30 PM - Jan 27, 2020

 

Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC @ewarren
Basically, we get out of "lenity" today by striking laws that are not sufficiently *definite* by ruling them unconstitutional as to vagueness.

I imagine that Dersh would LIKE to say Impeachment is unconstitutionally vague, but he can't so... lenity.



400
6:32 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC @ewarren
Sleight #10: Dersh is making an argument for why Abuse of Power should NOT be grounds for impeachment. Because basically, it can be used politically.

Maybe, but of import here, Abuse of Power IS ground for impeachment, whether Dersh thinks it's a good idea or not.



485
6:33 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC @ewarren
Dersh is arguing motive, like a good criminal defense attorney.

Unfortunately for Dersh, @realDonaldTrump actually told us his motive. On the call, he asked for an investigation into his political rivals. Motive established, counselor.



585
6:35 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Sleight #11: NOW Dersh is arguing that even if Abuse of Power is impeachable, ordering a quid pro quo is okay.
And then he gives a bad analogy, and says quid pro quo alone is not an abuse of power.



346
6:36 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations would rise to the level of abuse of power."

... this is just wrong.

He's wrong, because tying a quid pro quo to FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE, is the abuse of power.#ImpeachmentTrial



531
6:38 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
International deal making: not an abuse of power.
International election interference: clearly an abuse of power.



405
6:39 PM - Jan 27, 2020

 

Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Sleight #12: He's back to maladministration, arguing that when it was rejected, they also rejected abuse of power.

He's got nothing here. He keeps saying it together as if repetition makes it so, but he's got no quote or, PRECEDENT, saying that abuse of power is not impeachable.



352
6:40 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
"By expressly rejecting maladministration, they implicitly rejected abuse."

Again, he hasn't come CLOSE to establishing that using any legal means: precedents, texts, nothing. He's using the word "implicit" to serve the function of "take my word for it."



386
6:41 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Sleight #13: He's naming all these things that the President might be impeached for (tweets, policies) and saying that this is the danger of "standardless impeachment."

YEAH BUT, he's not being impeach FOR A TWEET now is he, Dersh.



400
6:44 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
This, per usual, is the intellectually soft "slippery-slope" argument. Let's just name some other random things that *could* happen (but won't) if we do this ONE thing that clearly should happen.

Slippery slope arguments deserve C's.



323
6:45 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Sleight #14: "abuse of power and obstruction of congress are so far from what the Founders intended..."

You'll notice that this is the first time he's mentioned the obstruction charge. He doesn't even have an argument for obstruction, he's just roping it in there.



279
6:47 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
I mean, he's just spent an hour trying to explain why Abuse of Power isn't what the founders thought, but has spent no time explaining why the violation of separation of power INHERENT in the obstruction of Congress charge, should also not be in there.



314
6:48 PM - Jan 27, 2020

 

Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Dersh is just out here *really* counting on people being slower and dumber than he is. And I'm just not. I've seen all these tricks before. The game moves slower when you can see the laces spinning on the ball.



504
6:49 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Sleight #15: Dersh is complaining that because his arguments have been roundly rejected by nearly everybody with standing, people should take his arguments seriously.

My four year old asks me to do this all the time.



433
6:52 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Sleight #16: Dersh says that he would be making the same Constitutional arguments regardless of party.

YES. HE'S A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY. He would be making the arguments ON BEHALF OF THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL.

This is such a dumb argument.



359
6:53 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Like... I WOULD BE FAT WHETHER I WAS A WHITE MAN OR A BLACK MAN... Because I like TACOS. I'M A TACO EATER. I DO NOT LET THE COLOR OF MY SKIN AFFECT MY LOVE OF TACOS!



303
6:54 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
I will close with what Dershowitz said 50 minutes before he stopped talking: https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1221962247502692357?s=20 …




Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC

Replying to @ElieNYC
Sleight #4: Dersh says that he's not implying that the Senate is not "legally bound" to the arguments that impeachment requires a crime.

FOLKS, DERSH JUST GAVE AWAY THE WHOLE GAME. If the Senate, in it's power, is not legally bound to find a crime, THEN A CRIME IS UNNECESSARY.



217
6:56 PM - Jan 27, 2020

 

Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
Dershowitz admitted that THE SENATE is not bound to the legal interpretation that impeachment requires a crime.

Literally, EVERYTHING he said after that was an dedicated attempt to obscure that torpedo he took to his own argument almost as soon as he began it.



424
6:57 PM - Jan 27, 2020



Elie Mystal ✔ @ElieNYC


Replying to @ElieNYC and 2 others
I'll let professors @tribelaw or @ewarren grade my performance in today's Dershowitz issue-spotter.

Thanks for listening.



487
6:58 PM - Jan 27, 2020

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/al...rump-defenses-blown-to-bits-by-legal-analyst/

 

Ok I was just wondering guys. Do you think they will go ahead and impeach Obama?

And sorry. There is just no way I can copy and paste the twitter reaction. So I am only going to include a couple.

Internet smashes ‘hack’ Alan Dershowitz’s argument as ‘contrary to law and fact’

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/in...howitzs-argument-as-contrary-to-law-and-fact/

 

As I have pointed out many times part of Trump's mental illness is he must always feel like he is the smartest person in the room so he surrounds himself with people more stupid and ignorant than he is. And his legal team is more proof of that. Moscow Mitch was not kidding. He worked hand and glove with Trump and the WH to craft a plan to get the impeachment trial over and Trump acquitted. And the plan was simple. Claim no one could testify that Trump told them directly he was withholding the Ukrainian aid until they announced the investigation into Bidens. And while that might be the worst corruption in American history Moscow Mitch is insidious enough to pull it off.

Except all Trump does is lie and Moscow Mitch should have known Trump was going to lie to him and stab him in the back. Trump let Moscow Mitch and the Republicans climb way put on there are no direct witnesses limb all the time knowing Bolton was a direct witnesses and one way or the other was going to testify to it. And now Moscow Mitch and the Republicans are thoroughly fucked.

GOP senators furious at White House counsel Cipollone for not alerting them about Bolton manuscript: report

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/go...alerting-them-about-bolton-manuscript-report/

 

Didnt include the Twitter reactions as opinions of others arent relevant
_________________________________________________________________

FX

DOJ disputes report on Bolton conversation with Barr about foreign leaders​

The Department of Justice said in a statement Monday night that a report based on John Bolton's new book about a conversation the former national security adviser had last year with Attorney General William Barr about President Trump's relationship with foreign leaders "grossly" mischaracterized the exchange.

The New York Times reported that it obtained a manuscript of Bolton’s book "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," and published reports about it during Trump's Senate impeachment trial. The paper, citing the manuscript, reported that Bolton raised concerns to Barr that the president was granting personal favors to Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan and China's Xi Jinping.
Barr agreed to an extent with Bolton and said Trump created the appearance that he held excessive influence over investigations by the DOJ into some companies in these countries, the report said. The manuscript’s claim could bolster Trump critics who say the president is too warm with dictators.

The DOJ said it did not review the manuscript but said there was never any discussion about Trump's "undue influence" on investigations, "nor did Attorney General Barr state that the President’s conversations with foreign leaders was improper."

"If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written, then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own current views – views with which Attorney General Barr does not agree," the statement read.​

Within hours of the first report, a pre-order link was posted for the book.

"Why didn’t John Bolton testify to the US House? Apparently his book wasn’t quite finished yet for presales!" Sen. Rand Paul tweeted.​

Since leaving his post, Bolton has avoided publicly commenting on his time in the administration, instead quietly writing the 528-page book, which is set to be published on March 17.
But the book, according to the Times, appears to be potentially damaging to Trump and threatens to give Democratic Senators some momentum in their push for trial witnesses.
The Times reported that the manuscript claims that Trump indeed ordered the Ukrainian aid to be held until Kiev agreed to investigate the Bidens and other Democrats.
Bolton, who according to a witness had called Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani a "hand grenade" and said a meeting about the White House's pressure on Ukraine tantamount to a "drug deal," has said he would be willing to testify if subpoenaed and has relevant information.

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor, delivered a constitutional defense of Trump Monday at his impeachment trial and flatly turned toward House impeachment managers and declared they had picked "dangerous" and "wrong" charges against the president -- noting that neither "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" was remotely close to an impeachable offense as the framers had intended.

"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said. "That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like 'quid pro quo' and 'personal benefit.'"

 

Read some funny quotes from Trump people, calling Bolton a traitor. the damn idiot, told the truth what the hell is wrong with that man!
C'mon Bolton get with the program!

 

Trump will not be removed from office. Republican senators know that what Trump did was illegal, but they don't care.

The gaping hinds of flyover country feel the same way. This is the way they feel about Trump's crimes, his lies, his ignorance, and his flagrant moral blemishes: "We know. We don't care. We're going to vote for him anyway."