That was hilarious.
Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry
- Thread starter Big AAPL
- Start date
That was hilarious.
Can you believe this shit? Presumption? All people have presumptions but, does not make it a fact.
I think they're counting on the sound bytes to carry the day.
The public are moving away from impeachment.
I think anyone who voted for Trump would like to know how some Soros termite like Fiona Hill managed to be in the White House.
I'll tell you something else. These is no way any government drone is paying Boies' rates either.
Sebastian Gorka DrGVerified account@SebGorka 19h19 hours ago
Both Fiona Hill and Vindman were represented by the same law firm that worked for the corrupt Ukrainian gas company that hired Hunter Biden, BOIES, SCHILLER, & FLEXNER LLC. Why is that Fiona? What have you and Sasha got to hide?https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1197623691091140609…
Sebastian Gorka DrG added,
Sean DavisVerified account@seanmdav
Hill worked for Soros at his Open Society Institute, which helped fund anti-Trump election meddling efforts in Ukraine in 2016, for more than 6 years. Show this thread
288 replies 6,193 retweets 10,391 likes
I'll tell you something else. These is no way any government drone is paying Boies' rates either.
Both Fiona Hill and Vindman were represented by the same law firm that worked for the corrupt Ukrainian gas company that hired Hunter Biden, BOIES, SCHILLER, & FLEXNER LLC. Why is that Fiona? What have you and Sasha got to hide?https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1197623691091140609…
Sebastian Gorka DrG added,
Sean DavisVerified account@seanmdav
Hill worked for Soros at his Open Society Institute, which helped fund anti-Trump election meddling efforts in Ukraine in 2016, for more than 6 years. Show this thread
288 replies 6,193 retweets 10,391 likes
I’ve never seen a political party work so hard to get rid of a president but not illegal immigrants, drug dealers and child traffickers.
431 replies 7,167 retweets 19,734 likes
The reason no minds are being changed is that there has been zero evidence presented. Oh, we have lots and lots of speculation, opinion, interpretation, I know a guy, who knows a guy, who heard a guy, and presumption of guilt as we've never seen before, but evidence, actual evidence, zip, nada, nothing.
Now if someone came out and said, I have a guy who tells me he heard a sitting president talking to a very high level Russian leader talking about having more flexibility after the next election, we might want to investigate just what that meant. Opposition party might suggest there is some collusion going on, maybe some election tampering down the road, who knows what else.Well now, a bombshell like that, a full scale investigation of that nature would require some sort of actual evidence, otherwise honest people would rightly be suspicious of an opposing political party launching a full scale investigation of a sitting president. Wherever would we find actual evidence like that?
Bottom line, unless they have Trump on video, undeniable video evidence, you got nothing but your already made up minds to make a decision with. This is, has been, and will continue to be nothing more than an ongoing campaign strategy to weaken a sitting president in the hope that a pathetic opponent may have some remote chance of beating him. Can't say as I blame them considering their platform of ideas borders on shear lunacy. It's truly the only hope they have, so they're all in at this point. The hand must now be played out.
Now if someone came out and said, I have a guy who tells me he heard a sitting president talking to a very high level Russian leader talking about having more flexibility after the next election, we might want to investigate just what that meant. Opposition party might suggest there is some collusion going on, maybe some election tampering down the road, who knows what else.Well now, a bombshell like that, a full scale investigation of that nature would require some sort of actual evidence, otherwise honest people would rightly be suspicious of an opposing political party launching a full scale investigation of a sitting president. Wherever would we find actual evidence like that?
Bottom line, unless they have Trump on video, undeniable video evidence, you got nothing but your already made up minds to make a decision with. This is, has been, and will continue to be nothing more than an ongoing campaign strategy to weaken a sitting president in the hope that a pathetic opponent may have some remote chance of beating him. Can't say as I blame them considering their platform of ideas borders on shear lunacy. It's truly the only hope they have, so they're all in at this point. The hand must now be played out.
I give the following link, for those interested, to the often mentioned, as of late, 1973 (Nixon era) DOJ opinion, submitted by Robert Dixon*, that a sitting President should not be indicted,but rather "that an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office." The word "should" is mine, because the opinion does not carry the weight of a formal adjudication. Also, please note, in the Dixon Opinion, the absence of any pronouncement such as "the president has absolute immunity from indictment while in office."
In my opinion, the strongest argument in favor of a sitting president being unindictable was missed by Dixon, i.e., the risk of abusive indictment for political reasons. Even such strong political argument, if formally launched, could be responded to with equally strong counterargument. My overall impression is that the often stated opinion "that a sitting president can not be indicted," although certainly not without merit so long as the word "should" replaces "can," hangs by a mere thread.
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf
(I believe there exists one other argument drafted later, perhaps by Kavanaugh, to similar effect as that of Dixon's. I did not bother to search for it, but certainly Kavenaugh's paper, published in the Minnesota Law Review, in which he put forth his, in my opinion, "screwball" Unitary Executive Theory, necessarily incorporates a similar viewpoint on the indictability of a sitting President.)
_______________________
*(edit) I just wanted to add that the Dixon opinion seems to me to be very well researched and competently argued.
In my opinion, the strongest argument in favor of a sitting president being unindictable was missed by Dixon, i.e., the risk of abusive indictment for political reasons. Even such strong political argument, if formally launched, could be responded to with equally strong counterargument. My overall impression is that the often stated opinion "that a sitting president can not be indicted," although certainly not without merit so long as the word "should" replaces "can," hangs by a mere thread.
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf
(I believe there exists one other argument drafted later, perhaps by Kavanaugh, to similar effect as that of Dixon's. I did not bother to search for it, but certainly Kavenaugh's paper, published in the Minnesota Law Review, in which he put forth his, in my opinion, "screwball" Unitary Executive Theory, necessarily incorporates a similar viewpoint on the indictability of a sitting President.)
_______________________
*(edit) I just wanted to add that the Dixon opinion seems to me to be very well researched and competently argued.
Last edited:
