Anonymous wrote:This is what the Ukraine/Impeachment story is about

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1193576528552091648

And if anyone wants to say Seth Abramson is just a conspiracy theorist, then please tell where his facts are wrong and not just discount the thread because you don't like it.

Won't give him the attention he craves. Not going to read his drivel. He has a propensity for writing totally unverified theories - so to say his facts are wrong are impossible because they have never been proven or disproven. They are nutty theories.

As for Abramson's reputations as a conspiracy theorist....

Here, the WaPo lumps him in with Mensch and Eric Garland - both known to be conspiracy theorists.

Recent news also disconfirms the already legally confused 2017 proclamation from Seth Abramson, author of the book “Proof of Collusion,” that “Bob Mueller will hunt both Trump and Pence to the ends of the Earth to secure impeachment and conviction.”

Abramson, meanwhile, seemed to insist Sunday that Mueller’s conclusions about “collusion” are irrelevant because, confusingly, “Mueller never investigated the collusion allegation Trump was facing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/mueller-report-is-get-ready-conspiracy-theories/

Here, the WaPo gets into how he has garnered a following, despite his specious claims and connections....

There are, to be sure, many leaps in his analysis.
Abramson’s tweets link copiously to sources, but they range in quality from investigative news articles to off-the-wall Facebook posts and tweets from Tom Arnold. The New Republic and Atlantic have both dismissed the professor as a conspiracy theorist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/12/06/people-cant-stop-reading-a-professors-theory-of-a-trump-russia-conspiracy-true-or-not/

And, even Mother Jones recognizes his opportunism.

The Trump era has been a bonanza for investigative journalism and Democratic fundraising. But it’s also inspired a host of opportunists who have capitalized on fears about Trump to hawk their own podcasts, premium Twitter accounts, and books (for children and adults). Here are a few leading lights:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/a-quick-guide-to-whos-making-money-off-trump-paranoia/

Bottom line... If you are reading Abramson or giving him any credibility, you are easily duped.

This is what the Ukraine/Impeachment story is about

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1193576528552091648

And if anyone wants to say Seth Abramson is just a conspiracy theorist, then please tell where his facts are wrong and not just discount the thread because you don't like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So Bolton released the funds, circumventing Mulvaney, and then resigned.

Ya, I wanna hear from him.


Yup Bloomberg just put this out.
“State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09...trump-says-he-did?srnd=premium


So according to this, Trump didn't release Ukraine's aid money on 9/11. He lied. At some point before 9/9, State Department and Defense Department lawyers called Trump's hold "illegal” and Bolton told them to go ahead with the funding. Trump fired him on 9/10. I think at the time we thought this was about inviting Taliban terrorists to Camp David.

Wow.

Anyone else think John Bolton does not want to testify because he has a book coming out next year and doesn’t want to reveal what is in it? I must say I feel disappointed

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So Bolton released the funds, circumventing Mulvaney, and then resigned.

Ya, I wanna hear from him.


Yup Bloomberg just put this out.
“State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09...trump-says-he-did?srnd=premium


So according to this, Trump didn't release Ukraine's aid money on 9/11. He lied. At some point before 9/9, State Department and Defense Department lawyers called Trump's hold "illegal” and Bolton told them to go ahead with the funding. Trump fired him on 9/10. I think at the time we thought this was about inviting Taliban terrorists to Camp David.

Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Bolton released the funds, circumventing Mulvaney, and then resigned.

Ya, I wanna hear from him.

Yup Bloomberg just put this out.
“State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/state-department-freed-ukraine-money-before-trump-says-he-did?srnd=premium

So according to this, Trump didn't release Ukraine's aid money on 9/11. He lied. At some point before 9/9, State Department and Defense Department lawyers called Trump's hold "illegal” and Bolton told them to go ahead with the funding. Trump fired him on 9/10. I think at the time we thought this was about inviting Taliban terrorists to Camp David.

Anonymous wrote:So Bolton released the funds, circumventing Mulvaney, and then resigned.

Ya, I wanna hear from him.

Yup Bloomberg just put this out.
“State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/state-department-freed-ukraine-money-before-trump-says-he-did?srnd=premium

So Bolton released the funds, circumventing Mulvaney, and then resigned.

Ya, I wanna hear from him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When these people testify in open hearings and Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest are left to stew, it won't matter what they say in press conferences or whatnot. They had their chance to be sworn in and "correct the record" and they didn't do it.

Democrats will not believe anything said defending Trump no matter who says it - and whether under oath or otherwise. Republicans will not believe anything said against Trump - whether under oath or otherwise. It is the independents who remain to be persuaded one way or the other.

Um, have you seen what independents think of Trump?

Chad Pergram
@ChadPergram
From colleague Brooke Singman. Witnesses requested by GOPers for impeachment hrngs: Hunter Biden. Devon Archer, former board member of Burisma Holdings. Alexandra Chalupa, fmr DNC staffer. The Whistleblower. Nellie Ohr. NSC’s Tim Morrison. David Hale. Kurt Volker.

Anonymous wrote:If the House has withdrawn the subpoena that was originally issued to Bolton's aid why is the case even going forward in the courts?

Because, this isn't a "case." It is a show. It's like a reality show for the American people.
And, my thoughts are that it will backfire bigly.

If the House has withdrawn the subpoena that was originally issued to Bolton's aid why is the case even going forward in the courts?

Anonymous wrote:Now Mulvaney is trying to get the courts to weigh in on whether or not he has to testify. Odd indeed. Does GOP want the courts to say president is bigger than congress?

tt is his right to do so.

Anonymous wrote:Now Mulvaney is trying to get the courts to weigh in on whether or not he has to testify. Odd indeed. Does GOP want the courts to say president is bigger than congress?

Yes, that is exactly what they want. The assumption is anything going to the Supreme Court will be decided in the President's favor.

Now Mulvaney is trying to get the courts to weigh in on whether or not he has to testify. Odd indeed. Does GOP want the courts to say president is bigger than congress?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. McConnell is fundraising on the idea that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate. They have already made up their minds. So the House is opening the kimono and letting the world see what kind of mobster tactics the Trump Administration is using. Either the American public will rise up and say this is unacceptable, or it won't. Either the Senate will get the message or it won't.

If there is enough outrage, and the Senate chooses to ignore, it puts every red and purple GOP seat in peril later next year.

Or perhaps the more these 'whistleblowers' are exposed, the more we see the truth.

Do tell. When Mulvaney, Giuliani and Trump have already admitted the crime, and there is evidence in the form of documents, testimony and texts/phone calls, what more truth do you expect to find?

Admitted the crime

And when the documents and testimonies all are speculative and how those individuals interpret what they hear and learn through others. Your first clue is when they have to say there were code words.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right.

- George Orwell (1984)