Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All right, who else is wondering what other foreign leaders Trump has been shaking down for personal gain? What other presidential call records were moved to that code word level intelligence file?

yeah exactly - if trump thinks this sort of thing is so hunky dory, this can't be the only instance of him trying to strong arm foreign leaders for his own personal gain

Anonymous wrote:All right, who else is wondering what other foreign leaders Trump has been shaking down for personal gain? What other presidential call records were moved to that code word level intelligence file?

Anonymous wrote:Dow is down 145 points. We are lucky that's all.

Anonymous wrote:Dow is down 145 points. We are lucky that's all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will the Senate vote to convict be? I see it as falling a few votes short of 67.

There will be no Senate vote because there will be no House vote.

Sasse has already gone there, and he's up for reelection. If he were a firm no, he would have kept silent yesterday.


The House will certainly vote to impeach. I count four Republicans who will vote to convict and I’m sure that number will grow.

There are no GOP senators up for 2020 who will support the President on this, unless they want to lose their seat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The complaint notes White House lawyers were "already in discussion" about "how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain."

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1177205863314087936?s=20

And after the ICIG and Acting DNI referred this to the DOJ as a criminal referral, Barr shut it down.

Barr is toast.

Barr "shut it down?" How do you know this?

“At the end of August, when two top intelligence officials asked a Justice Department lawyer whether a whistle-blower’s complaint should be forwarded to Congress, they were told no, Attorney General William P. Barr and his department could handle the criminal referral against the president of the United States.

About four weeks later, the department rendered its judgment: President Trump had not violated campaign finance laws when he urged Ukraine’s president to work with Mr. Barr to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/william-barr-trump-ukraine.html

And, this is not "Barr shutting it down." This is the department determining that there is "no there there."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will the Senate vote to convict be? I see it as falling a few votes short of 67.

There will be no Senate vote because there will be no House vote.

The House will certainly vote to impeach. I count four Republicans who will vote to convict and I’m sure that number will grow.

Who’s in your count? Romney, Sasse, Murkowski, who else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will the Senate vote to convict be? I see it as falling a few votes short of 67.

There will be no Senate vote because there will be no House vote.

The House will certainly vote to impeach. I count four Republicans who will vote to convict and I’m sure that number will grow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will the Senate vote to convict be? I see it as falling a few votes short of 67.

There will be no Senate vote because there will be no House vote.

The House will certainly vote to impeach. I count four Republicans who will vote to convict and I’m sure that number will grow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will the Senate vote to convict be? I see it as falling a few votes short of 67.

There will be no Senate vote because there will be no House vote.