The obvious has been officially confirmed ...

[Mountain Man]

More about the recent filing by Flynn's lawyer...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...sidney-powell/

This is big-time stuff, folks. I don't think the importance of this filing can be over-exaggerated!

[firstfloor]

And now we know why Democrats are in full-on panic mode!

The launch of a criminal probe allows U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William Barr to lead the review, to subpoena witnesses for testimony and documents. The move also authorizes Durham to impanel a grand jury and file charges.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...investigation/

As always, The Last Refuge provides in-depth, factual analysis. Required reading for anybody who wants to know what's really going on...

And now we have this bombshell that just blew up in the Democrat party's face:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ding-evidence/

Told you things were finally getting interesting!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40430[/ATTACH]

[Mountain Man]

And now we know why Democrats are in full-on panic mode!

The launch of a criminal probe allows U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William Barr to lead the review, to subpoena witnesses for testimony and documents. The move also authorizes Durham to impanel a grand jury and file charges.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...investigation/

As always, The Last Refuge provides in-depth, factual analysis. Required reading for anybody who wants to know what's really going on...

And now we have this bombshell that just blew up in the Democrat party's face:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ding-evidence/

Told you things were finally getting interesting!

crossfire-hurricane-5-page-strzok-mccabe-comey-brennan-clapper.jpg

[firstfloor]

[JimL]

There's a reason I asked for a direct quote, Jim, but I should have specified you need to use the "quote function", because Post #109 is actually MM, not me.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40424[/ATTACH]

How bout trying again, OK?

Sorry about that, I must have had an episode of dyslexia. Post #106, in reply to NirrinRadd, you asserted that it, this impeachment process, was entirely political.

[Mountain Man]

The New York Times confirms that Ukraine officials were never told that release of military aid was tied to their willingness to investigate Biden:


And now for the money quote:

The communications did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the investigations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/u...peachment.html

[NorrinRadd]

...
This is why Schiff has earned the nickname "Shifty Schiff".

I prefer Judge Jeanine's nickname for him: "Lying Sack of Schiff."

[Cow Poke]

Yes, in post #109 you stated "it's entirely political." Your words.

There's a reason I asked for a direct quote, Jim, but I should have specified you need to use the "quote function", because Post #109 is actually MM, not me.

mm.jpg

How bout trying again, OK?

[JimL]

Then you'd be able to provide a quote where I actually "asserted" that, yes?

Yes, in post #109 you stated "it's entirely political." Your words.

Jim, is incredibly partisan - that's really undeniable.

No, there are 47 republicans in the committees and they are operating under House rules established by republicans in 2015 the last time the House rules were changed. And I don't recall you, any of you, complaining when republicans operated according to those same rules during the Benghazi hearing, nor btw did I hear House democrats complaining about the process during those hearings.

Serious matter or not, the Democrats are acting like a bunch of jackasses, and Schiff is the ring leader.

I suspect you just don't like the testimony you're hearing and thus are calling democrats jackasses, because democrats are acting responsibly, abiding by republican established House rules. Once all of the testimony is in, the democrats are going to open it up, just like Mueller did once his investigation was over. Being a one time lawman i'm sure you understand why investigations are done this way.

They've been at this forever, Jim, and it's one "serious matter" after another after another... and it is clearly partisan.

Forever? Sorry CP, even the Mueller investigation was short in comparison to the investigations into the Nixon and Clinton administrations, even Benghazi was longer if I'm not mistaken (now that was a dog and pony show), but this matter, Trumps Ukraine debacle, just began, and the actual Congressional investigation didn't even begin until Trumps personal protector, the supposed Atty. Gen. of the U.S. Barr, refused to even look into the matter when the whistle was blown.

[Mountain Man]

Your contention is that Sondland's "I do not recall that" is calling Taylor's testimony false. Were that the case, one would expect Sondland -- facing a pretty large criminal exposure -- to respond more definitively that Taylor's account is untrue.

Sondland appears to be in the position of hoping that his written correspondences and several other witnesses also facing legal exposure line up just right.

His publicly known text messages to date do not inspire confidence in his discretion.

--Sam

"I do not recall doing what you said I did" is a much kinder and less provocative way of calling someone a liar.

[Sam]

In legal speak, unless there is proof that it happened, then it didn't happen.

Your contention is that Sondland's "I do not recall that" is calling Taylor's testimony false. Were that the case, one would expect Sondland -- facing a pretty large criminal exposure -- to respond more definitively that Taylor's account is untrue.

Sondland appears to be in the position of hoping that his written correspondences and several other witnesses also facing legal exposure line up just right.

His publicly known text messages to date do not inspire confidence in his discretion.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

BUT, there has to be objective evidence that one is lying and the other telling the truth before clear action can be taken.

Bingo.

[Mountain Man]

In legalspeak, "I do not recall" ≠ "That didn't happen".

In legal speak, unless there is proof that it happened, then it didn't happen.

[oxmixmudd]

Sondland says that Taylor's testimony is full of cow patties.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ever-happened/

A little transparency would sure be nice.

That would be expected. Taylor is the consummate professional that works and acts according to Principle. Sondland is a Trump crony - which means he acts according to what he believes will make Donald Trump happy while getting himself in the least amount of trouble possible. I would trust Taylor over Sondland any day of the week. BUT, there has to be objective evidence that one is lying and the other telling the truth before clear action can be taken.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

In legalspeak, "I do not recall" ≠ "That didn't happen".

Great memories!