Lev Parnas Bombshell

[DavidPT]

Did you read the article to see what was behind the speculation?:

A Parnas associate claimed to be surveilling Yovanovitch — and asked if he wanted “her out”
Finally, and most disturbingly, is a set of messages Parnas exchanged with a person named Robert F. Hyde, a controversial Republican congressional candidate in Connecticut who has spent time at Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s DC hotel.

Parnas sent Hyde tweets and articles from prominent conservative media personalities — such as Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Dan Bongino — disparaging Yovanovitch and suggesting she was disloyal. “Can’t believe Trumo [Trump] hasn’t fired this [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse],” Hyde responded. “I’ll get right in that.”

About 13 hours later, Hyde reported back to Parnas: “She under heavy protection outside Kiev.” Then, two days later he said he had “guys” there who could “do” something — and that he now knew Yovanovitch’s whereabouts, and that her phone and computer were off.

Hyde went on: “They are willing to help if we/you would like a price.” He added: “Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money... what I was told.”

The next day, Hyde reported back that Yovanovitch would not be moved, and that his contacts were asking “what is the next step.”

He added, ominously: “If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces.”

I don't see how raising the speculation that the guy, who famously said 'I could shoot someone in the middle of fifth ave and not lose any voters" could be capable of considering taking a hit out on someone in Ukraine getting in his way, is "going to far" at all.

I recall reading that, but I don't recall seeing where Trump is supposed to be the one ordering an alleged hit here. Can you point that part out?

 

[Jipsah]

That article makes the claim that trump is a Lock to win the 2020 election. You believe that?

Given that at this point the Democrats seem to specialize in circular firing squads, yeah. Liz "Fauxcahontas" Warren? Bernie Paleo-Commie Sanders? Senile Joe Biden? Right. Fact is, barring some miraculous development, the Dems are looking at a brokered convention, at which they'll probably nominate Hillary Clinton. Can she beat Trump? I very much doubt it. She's spoiled goods and everybody knows it, and she's gonna be running against an economy that's the best in over half a century. She's gonna repeat all the standard leftist bromides, none of which attract anyone in a bullish economy. People are pretty much fed up with the "woke" left taking offence at almost everything declaring everyone who they dislike as a Nazi and a "phobe" of some sort. Being continually scolded wears thin pretty quickly. The left has some traction with gun control, but they're too ham-handed to get the full advantage out of it, especially when they start calling people Nazis and racists as well. Tone deafness is endemic on the left. Trump looks good with the economy, and gets high marks for the rebirth of the American oil industry and independence from OPEC manipulation. He's very popular small-town and rural America, with virtually all the rabid opposition to him coming from the big cities, and largely due to social issues on which Joe Sixpack believe he's spot on. Plus the left has made themselves look like complete asses with their deranged demonization of Trumnp. He's "literally Hitlert", he'll suspend the constitution, he'll rule by decree, he'll have bring back slavery, the stock market will crash, we'll be at war with North Korea/China/Iran/Iraq/Australia/Luxemburg in a fortnight, he's owned by the Russians, ad infinitum. It's all been hogwash, and everyone except the True Believers on the left know it. So can the Dems, or specifically Hilary Clinton beat Trump? I don't think so. And in fact, I hope not. The Dems have demonstrated that they have not one functioning brain among them, and are unable to present any reasons for supporting them other than "Orange man bad", and "we'll give you stuff!". Me? I suport Trump for one crucial reason - he will have a chance to pack the Supreme Court with strict constructionists who will decide cases based on the US Constitution rather than "legislating from the bench". The idea of ruling the country by judicial decree is vital to the left, but utterly contrary to the way the US govt was designed to work, and inevitably destructive of liberty. If Trump manages to give the court a solid "conservative", i.e., constitutionalist, majority, he will have at the very worst slowed the descent of the US into little more than a large and frightening banana republic, and may have it prevented it from complete dissolution - at least for awhile.

 

[Jipsah]

Should the Senate Acquit, He may even be impeached again on new charges before November the way the new evidence of his crimes is so rapidly coming to light and the way he keeps criminaling and bragging about it.

After the partisan circus that was this impeachment has turned out to be, it's unlikely that even the self-destructive Dems will be witless enough to try it again. Make no mistake, what they're attempting is a legal coup d'etat, this being simply the latest in a failed series of attempt to have a legitimately elected president turned out of office for purely partisan political reasons. Clinton was to be the annointed POTUS, who would carry on Obama's legacy, especially in the appointment of federal judges and in the distribution of governmental largess to selected friends and supporters. Had she won, the Dems could have set themselves up to have complete control of the executive and judicial branches of the US gov't for the foreseeable future. To their horror, the impossible happened - Trump won. The campaign to either prevent him from taking office or removing him from it began the day after the election. It's all of it as fraudulent as the Steele Dossier which was the basis of all their hopes during the first half of Trump's administration . Everything depended on carrying over the existing government intact, and Trump's crime was making that impossible.

 

[Jipsah]

I suppose this may not bother you, maybe a Jury swearing to take the side of the defense BEFORE the trial even begins seems perfectly fair and balanced to you? but it does not sit well with me at all.

When the prosecution's case is based entirely on partisan political gaming, I see no problem with the defence treating it as such. It's essentially the same principle as Jury Nullification,where a jury votes to acquit because they don't believe that the law and/or the charges against the defendant are just

 

[DavidPT]

I suppose this may not bother you, maybe a Jury swearing to take the side of the defense BEFORE the trial even begins seems perfectly fair and balanced to you? but it does not sit well with me at all.

What does bother me though, that this gives the impression only the Republicans in the Senate have already taken sides but that the Democrats in the Senate haven't. Which then raises another point, such as possible witnesses during this trial. Why do Democrats even think they need witnesses in the Senate trial? We already know exactly how all the 47 anything but impartial Democrat Senators are going to vote, regardless. If they don't call witnesses, they are all going to vote to remove him. If they do call witnesses, they are all going to vote to remove him. Even if by calling witnesses, that that manages to sway a cpl of Senate Republicans to vote with them to remove Trump, the chance of it swaying 20 Republicans though is highly unlikely.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That article makes the claim that trump is a Lock to win the 2020 election. You believe that?

There are people that knows what is going on and there are people that do not know what is going on.

 

[Sistrin]

Lev Parnas Bombshell.

Talk about an oxymoron...