Prescient editorial

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/is-trump-strong-arming-ukraines-new-president-for-political-gain/2019/09/05/4eb239b0-cffa-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, Kent says the same thing everyone else does:

“[Amb.] Gordon [Sondland], had talked to the President, POTUS in sort of shorthand, and POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.”

Isn’t that amazing?

Yup here’s the exchange:

Bottom line, if there were any witnesses that could testify that would help Trump, we would know about it. That everyone involved with this, from Pompeo and Mulveny on down, are refusing to testify, just adds to the obstruction and adds to the credibility of the testimony of those who have come forward.

From Kent’s testimony - three Republican Senators asked Trump why the aid was being held up.

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, Kent says the same thing everyone else does:

“[Amb.] Gordon [Sondland], had talked to the President, POTUS in sort of shorthand, and POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.”

Isn’t that amazing?

Bolton's Bluff - Here's my theory - Bolton, his aide and his lawyer thought they could defy the subpoena issued by the House and then they could delay through the courts. I think it's whip smart that the House then pulled the subpoena and called their bluff, and also can cite another count of obstruction.

Bolton is now signaling that he wants to testify. I think he's shaking in his boots.

This is another domino falling in Dems favor.

Oh look, Kent says the same thing everyone else does:

“[Amb.] Gordon [Sondland], had talked to the President, POTUS in sort of shorthand, and POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.”

Anonymous wrote:Kent testimony

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D009.pdf

Extortion confirmed.

FOX News - part of the coming RICO suit.

Anonymous wrote:Kent testimony

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D009.pdf

Kent says Giuliani was aided by John Solomon, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham to push an entirely false "campaign of slander" against Ambassador Yovanovitch.

Kent is a hero. And it is clear how dirty some of these folks are.

Kent testimony

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D009.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

This is the lawyer for the WB. His tweet a mere 10 days after Trump was inaugurated......


Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers

9:54 PM · Jan 30, 2017·Twitter for Android

And, then, there is this....

This was after Trump's original Muslim Ban and Sally Yates quitting rather than enforcing it. Remember??

That's why he's responding this way to the Dana Boente tweet. The Muslim Ban was grossly unconstitutional and the "coup" and "rebellion" referred to DOJ lawyers refusing to enforce it.

Geez, you guys are so dumb. How do you get dressed in the morning?

It seems to me the "Muslim Ban" was ultimately upheld by the SC? So yeah, Yates quitting and calling it a "Muslim ban" and lawyers refusing to enforce what the SC overturned was indeed the start of the coup and rebellion.

No, the original Muslim Ban was never upheld by anything. I think it took them three tries to rewrite a Muslim Ban that any court would uphold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

This is the lawyer for the WB. His tweet a mere 10 days after Trump was inaugurated......


Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers

9:54 PM · Jan 30, 2017·Twitter for Android

And, then, there is this....

This was after Trump's original Muslim Ban and Sally Yates quitting rather than enforcing it. Remember??

That's why he's responding this way to the Dana Boente tweet. The Muslim Ban was grossly unconstitutional and the "coup" and "rebellion" referred to DOJ lawyers refusing to enforce it.

Geez, you guys are so dumb. How do you get dressed in the morning?

It seems to me the "Muslim Ban" was ultimately upheld by the SC? So yeah, Yates quitting and calling it a "Muslim ban" and lawyers refusing to enforce what the SC overturned was indeed the start of the coup and rebellion.

It's not a coup or rebellion if people are refusing to do things that they think are illegal. This is why we have the court system - to sort out what is lawful and what isn't.

There is no coup. There is no rebellion. There are checks and balances in the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

This is the lawyer for the WB. His tweet a mere 10 days after Trump was inaugurated......


Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers

9:54 PM · Jan 30, 2017·Twitter for Android

And, then, there is this....

This was after Trump's original Muslim Ban and Sally Yates quitting rather than enforcing it. Remember??

That's why he's responding this way to the Dana Boente tweet. The Muslim Ban was grossly unconstitutional and the "coup" and "rebellion" referred to DOJ lawyers refusing to enforce it.

Geez, you guys are so dumb. How do you get dressed in the morning?

It seems to me the "Muslim Ban" was ultimately upheld by the SC? So yeah, Yates quitting and calling it a "Muslim ban" and lawyers refusing to enforce what the SC overturned was indeed the start of the coup and rebellion.