bipartisanreport--2020-01-17--GOP’r Freaks Out On Reporter When Confronted With Parnas Evidence

This week , House impeachment investigators publicly released a new trove of evidence that they ’ d gotten from personal Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani ’ s associate Lev Parnas .
His evidence implicated all sorts of figures , including Giuliani and President Donald Trump themselves .
There was even a contemporaneous note included in the trove outlining the key plot for Trump to get Ukraine to investigate his domestic political opponents .
When confronted this week by CNN reporter Manu Raju , who was seeking comment on the evidence , Arizona Republican Senator Martha McSally denounced the reporter as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer the question beyond that mockery .
McSally even doubled down on her comments in a Twitter post following the interaction .
She ’ s facing a re-election race this November that the Cook Political Report calls a “ toss-up , ” and her strategy appears to be to dig into her most fierce partisan animosity .
Raju asked the very simple , straightforward question of if the Senate will consider the new evidence in its handling of Trump ’ s impeachment case during the trial that ’ s set to begin following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the upper Congressional chamber .
McSally tersely replied : She then walked into a hearing room , Raju noted in his initial Twitter post chronicling the incident .
Is this the strategy that Republicans are just going to be using indefinitely now ?
Pettily denouncing their opponents as liberal hacks and running away when faced with even the most simple questions ?
It ’ s like McSally and those displaying similarly petulant behavior have simply completely given up on even attempting to look like anything other than devoted partisans .
As Democratic activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to the Senator : She ’ s not the only Republican Senator who has already issued a questionable at best response to the new evidence .
Maine ’ s Susan Collins , who is alleged by some to be a moderate , suggested that House Democrats had fumbled their case by not including the Parnas evidence from the get-go .
But that completely ignores the fact that a federal judge only cleared him to release the material to Congress recently , after Trump was already impeached .
And as reporter Sonam Sheth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently .
The trove of material from Parnas isn ’ t the only new revelation source .
This Thursday , the Government Accountability Office also released a conclusion that the Trump administration had broken the law via delaying military aid for Ukraine that Congress had already approved .
That aid delay was attempted leverage for Trump ’ s gambit to get investigations from Ukraine .

This week, House impeachment investigators publicly released a new trove of evidence that they’d gotten from personal Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas. His evidence implicated all sorts of figures, including Giuliani and President Donald Trump themselves. There was even a contemporaneous note included in the trove outlining the key plot for Trump to get Ukraine to investigate his domestic political opponents. When confronted this week by CNN reporter Manu Raju, who was seeking comment on the evidence, Arizona Republican Senator Martha McSally denounced the reporter as a “liberal hack” and refused to answer the question beyond that mockery.
McSally even doubled down on her comments in a Twitter post following the interaction. She’s facing a re-election race this November that the Cook Political Report calls a “toss-up,” and her strategy appears to be to dig into her most fierce partisan animosity.
Raju asked the very simple, straightforward question of if the Senate will consider the new evidence in its handling of Trump’s impeachment case during the trial that’s set to begin following the House transferring its impeachment case to the upper Congressional chamber. McSally tersely replied:
‘Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you.’
She then walked into a hearing room, Raju noted in his initial Twitter post chronicling the incident.
Sen. Martha McSally, a Republican facing a difficult election race, lashed out when I asked if she would consider new evidence as part of the Senate trial. “You’re a liberal hack – I’m not talking to you. You’re a liberal hack.” She then walked into a hearing room. — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 16, 2020
Is this the strategy that Republicans are just going to be using indefinitely now? Pettily denouncing their opponents as liberal hacks and running away when faced with even the most simple questions? It’s like McSally and those displaying similarly petulant behavior have simply completely given up on even attempting to look like anything other than devoted partisans.
As Democratic activist Alexandra Chalupa put it, in direct response to the Senator:
‘It was a fair and sincere question about important evidence related to the impeachment trial. Your response was hostile and unprofessional. Your tweet makes it worse. You owe the reporter & Arizonans an apology for your offensive & embarrassing conduct, a stain on your office.’
It was a fair and sincere question about important evidence related to the impeachment trial. Your response was hostile and unprofessional. Your tweet makes it worse. You owe the reporter & Arizonans an apology for your offensive & embarrassing conduct, a stain on your office. — Alexandra Chalupa (@AlexandraChalup) January 16, 2020
She’s not the only Republican Senator who has already issued a questionable at best response to the new evidence. Maine’s Susan Collins, who is alleged by some to be a moderate, suggested that House Democrats had fumbled their case by not including the Parnas evidence from the get-go. But that completely ignores the fact that a federal judge only cleared him to release the material to Congress recently, after Trump was already impeached.
Collins mockingly said:
‘I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it’s only now being revealed.’
And as reporter Sonam Sheth put it:
‘Collins’ implication is that Dems intentionally sat on evidence to maximize its effect. But Parnas needed a judge to allow him to turn over evidence to the House.’
And that only happened recently.
Collins' implication is that Dems intentionally sat on evidence to maximize its effect. But Parnas needed a judge to allow him to turn over evidence to the House. Judge granted permission on 1/3, Parnas gave docs to Congress over the weekend, and House released them last night. https://t.co/WcbFBeJIvQ — Sonam Sheth (@sonam_sheth) January 15, 2020
The trove of material from Parnas isn’t the only new revelation source. This Thursday, the Government Accountability Office also released a conclusion that the Trump administration had broken the law via delaying military aid for Ukraine that Congress had already approved. That aid delay was attempted leverage for Trump’s gambit to get investigations from Ukraine.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-16--Trump Berated After Getting Weird On Twitter Thursday

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts entered the Senate Thursday bringing with him an unusual solemnity to this rare situation of beginning the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
This was the place where the president ’ s hot , humid blow-everything-up mess meets the solid weight of history .
POTUS ’ lawless chaos stands out , a stark contrast to that dignity and stateliness .
The president hoped to insert himself into the minds of the nation and whip their attention back upon himself .
Senator Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) has been a close friend of the Senate Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the Tennesse senator broke with both McConnell and Trump when he indicated that he could want to see witnesses .
Was it possible that Trump brought up the senator ’ s name for that reason ?
Trump tweeted his interest : Alexander might have been signaling to his fellow Republicans that America celebrates heroes , such as MSG “ Roddie ” Edmonds from his own state .
The senator ’ s comment was inspiring : Trump wanted a Michigan win , so he tweeted his outrage .
Of course , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The president ’ s outrage went nowhere blamed the people even though their government destroyed Flint ’ s water system , and it still has not been righted after four years .
The Daily Caller ws outraged , too : As hard as it was to imagine , Trump directed people to a nonfiction book : - Profiles in Corruprion : Fox News host Sean Hannity said he would “ launch the book on his show : ” ‘ On Monday , Sean Hannity announced that he plans to launch the book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Schweizer , I have learned , has his new book coming out one week from tomorrow .
He will launch it one week from today on this show .
It ’ s Profiles in Corruption .
It hit # 1 on Amazon ten days before the release .
You know why ?
Look how ahead of the curve he was on so many other occasions .
I mean , he does a lot of really good work .
He was the first one to discover the Clinton Foundation , Burisma Holdings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On this momentous day , the day Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial began , this is how people responded : The Mueller Report Adventures : In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page .
These quick , two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people .
Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery .
Interestingly enough , Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order .

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts entered the Senate Thursday bringing with him an unusual solemnity to this rare situation of beginning the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This was the place where the president’s hot, humid blow-everything-up mess meets the solid weight of history. POTUS’ lawless chaos stands out, a stark contrast to that dignity and stateliness.
The president hoped to insert himself into the minds of the nation and whip their attention back upon himself.
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has been a close friend of the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-TN). However, the Tennesse senator broke with both McConnell and Trump when he indicated that he could want to see witnesses.
Was it possible that Trump brought up the senator’s name for that reason? Trump tweeted his interest:
‘Looking at this strongly!’
Alexander might have been signaling to his fellow Republicans that America celebrates heroes, such as MSG “Roddie” Edmonds from his own state. The senator’s comment was inspiring:
‘This Congress, @MarshaBlackburn, and I introduced a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to MSG “Roddie” Edmonds, a lifelong Tennessean, because I do not know of a more inspiring example of the American character than the heroism of this 26-year-old East Tennessee soldier.’
Trump wanted a Michigan win, so he tweeted his outrage. Of course, that outrage did not reach the do-anything-about-it stage:
‘This is a total disgrace, but just another reason that I’m going to win Michigan again!
The president’s outrage went nowhere blamed the people even though their government destroyed Flint’s water system, and it still has not been righted after four years. The Daily Caller ws outraged, too:
‘Four Years After Flint Got $650M, People Are Being Paid To Sign Up For Free Services’
As hard as it was to imagine, Trump directed people to a nonfiction book:- Profiles in Corruprion:
‘Amazon Calls ‘Profiles in Corruption’ t,he ‘Most Anticipated’ Nonfiction Book http://bit.ly/2tlBT7y via @BreitbartNews’
Fox News host Sean Hannity said he would “launch the book on his show:” ‘On Monday, Sean Hannity announced that he plans to launch the book on his show.’ ‘Our friend Peter Schweizer, I have learned, has his new book coming out one week from tomorrow. He will launch it one week from today on this show. It’s Profiles in Corruption. It hit #1 on Amazon ten days before the release. You know why? Look how ahead of the curve he was on so many other occasions. I mean, he does a lot of really good work. He was the first one to discover the Clinton Foundation, Burisma Holdings, etc.’
Twitter world blew in strong. On this momentous day, the day Donald Trump’s impeachment trial began, this is how people responded:
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-16--Kellyanne Flips Out On TV When Asked About Lev Parnas

This week , apparently just days after they received the material , House Democrats released a trove of new evidence from personal Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani ’ s associate Lev Parnas , which majorly further implicated the president himself in a scheme to bribe Ukraine .
The material even included a statement from Giuliani insisting that he was acting with the “ knowledge and consent ” of the president when seeking concessions from Ukraine .
When longtime Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway faced questioning over the new evidence during an appearance on Fox News this Thursday , she flailed .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yes-or-no question about the president ’ s response to the allegations .
Host Bill Hemmer straightforwardly asked for “ the White House ’ s position on his allegations , ” and Conway launched into a diatribe trying to haphazardly impugn Parnas ’ s credibility — although her broadsides against those accusing the president conveniently ignore the fact that their allegations are largely supported by concrete evidence .
It ’ s right there .
‘ Remember , people who go on TV are never under oath .
This is someone who didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was arrested and indicted on some pretty serious charges… There is a pattern here ; the media and the Democrats love to imbue credibility on whomever , whatever , and whatever is trying to take down Donald John Trump , and that has to stop.
’ Yes , we know that you ’ re petrified about the possibility of basic media coverage of your team ’ s activities and prefer to imagine that the coverage is evidence of some kind of secret nefarious conspiracy .
( It ’ s not . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ true that Parnas was indicted for a campaign finance law violation scheme — but , he also has evidence to support many of his claims .
So what about the response from the president to the allegations ?
‘ When he says , the president knew all of my moves — objection !
You can not say what somebody else knew or thought .
You can ’ t do that .
So that was a TV show , not a court of law… I think you should go by what the president himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She subtly threw in another one of the Trump team ’ s wild bonkers assertions .
First , there was Conway ’ s own defense of “ alternative facts , ” then , there was Giuliani appearing on television and insisting — in his words — that “ truth isn ’ t truth , ” and now , there ’ s Conway insisting that nobody can say what another person knows .
After the above , she trailed off into a rant about supposed ( but in reality nonexistent ) plots to steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in : After some more crosstalk , co-host Sandra Smith chimed in : Conway did not directly answer the question , as if she signed away her right to give a straight answer when she joined the Trump team .
She railed :

This week, apparently just days after they received the material, House Democrats released a trove of new evidence from personal Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas, which majorly further implicated the president himself in a scheme to bribe Ukraine. The material even included a statement from Giuliani insisting that he was acting with the “knowledge and consent” of the president when seeking concessions from Ukraine. When longtime Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway faced questioning over the new evidence during an appearance on Fox News this Thursday, she flailed. She repeatedly dramatically refused to answer a simple yes-or-no question about the president’s response to the allegations.
Host Bill Hemmer straightforwardly asked for “the White House’s position on his allegations,” and Conway launched into a diatribe trying to haphazardly impugn Parnas’s credibility — although her broadsides against those accusing the president conveniently ignore the fact that their allegations are largely supported by concrete evidence. It’s right there.
Still, Conway railed:
‘Remember, people who go on TV are never under oath. This is someone who didn’t come forward of his own volition. He was arrested and indicted on some pretty serious charges… There is a pattern here; the media and the Democrats love to imbue credibility on whomever, whatever, and whatever is trying to take down Donald John Trump, and that has to stop.’
Yes, we know that you’re petrified about the possibility of basic media coverage of your team’s activities and prefer to imagine that the coverage is evidence of some kind of secret nefarious conspiracy. (It’s not.) Also — yes, it’s true that Parnas was indicted for a campaign finance law violation scheme — but, he also has evidence to support many of his claims. So what about the response from the president to the allegations?
Hemmer continued:
‘But are you saying flat-out, a hundred percent, what he alleges is not true? Yes or no?’
Conway continued:
‘When he says, the president knew all of my moves — objection! You cannot say what somebody else knew or thought. You can’t do that. So that was a TV show, not a court of law… I think you should go by what the president himself has said.’
Uh, what? She subtly threw in another one of the Trump team’s wild bonkers assertions.
First, there was Conway’s own defense of “alternative facts,” then, there was Giuliani appearing on television and insisting — in his words — that “truth isn’t truth,” and now, there’s Conway insisting that nobody can say what another person knows.
After the above, she trailed off into a rant about supposed (but in reality nonexistent) plots to steal the 2016 election, and Hemmer chimed in:
‘Is he lying or not?’
After some more crosstalk, co-host Sandra Smith chimed in:
‘It’s a yes or no question. Trump knew exactly what’s going on, said Lev Parnas. And we’re asking, is that statement true or false?’
Conway did not directly answer the question, as if she signed away her right to give a straight answer when she joined the Trump team. She railed:
‘Trump knew what was going on how? Where did he get consent of the president?.. There was no call for an investigation of the Bidens. People were talking about the Bidens and they were!’
Watch below:
Asked *repeatedly* whether Lev Parnas was lying about Trump knowing "exactly" what was going on, Kellyanne Conway doesn't give a straight answer Hemmer: Are you saying flat out, 100%, what he alleges is not true? Yes or no? Conway: He's not under oath … objection, hearsay! pic.twitter.com/JFCjBPnCEV — Lis Power (@LisPower1) January 16, 2020


bipartisanreport--2020-01-17--GOP Senator Has Embarrassing Meltdown In Defense Of Freakout

Arizona ’ s Republican Senator Martha McSally arrogantly flipped out on CNN reporter Manu Raju this week when the longtime journalist tried to ask her about newly emerged evidence that ’ s relevant to the slowly but surely beginning Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
After McSally faced steep criticism over her mockingly calling Raju a “ liberal hack ” and refusing to answer his simple and straightforward question , she ardently defended her freakout during yet another belligerent tirade .
This time , she delivered her melodramatic defense of her outlandish pettiness during a conversation with Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she regrets her outburst , and she insisted that she does not , continuing to outline a conspiracy theory of journalists acting “ in cahoots with ” Democrats to try and trip up Republican stalwarts .
In reality , these journalists are very simply and straightforwardly trying to get to the truth , and avid Trump-supporting partisans in Congress are flipping out and alleging some vast conspiracy .
‘ As you know , these CNN reporters , there ’ s so many of them around the capital , they are so biased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats , they so can ’ t stand the president , and they run around trying to chase Republicans and ask trapping questions .
I ’ m a fighter pilot , you know , I called it like it is , and that ’ s what we see out of the mainstream media , especially CNN , every single day , so obviously I ’ m going to tell the truth and I did it today and it ’ s laughable how they ’ ve responded .
They ’ re cheerleading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No matter her self-righteous posturing , in reality , there ’ s a much more pedestrian explanation for both her behavior and her defense of it — fundraising .
She ’ s already been using her mockery of Raju in fundraising pitches , and she even got a shoutout from an official Trump campaign Twitter account .
She ’ d been struggling with fundraising .
In the fourth quarter of last year , her Democratic opponent Mark Kelly outraised her by more than $ 2 million , which , when coupled with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not exactly bode well for McSally ’ s chances in the election this November .
Although her campaign has maintained an about face and droned on and on about how Arizonans are supposedly eager to elect McSally for six more years , her present position is not actually the result of a single electoral victory .
After losing the race to fill retiring Republican Jeff Flake ’ s old Senate seat , Arizona Governor Doug Ducey appointed her to fill out the rest of the late John McCain ’ s final term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voters again if she wants any more time in office , and the Cook Political Report calls her race one of a few Senate toss-ups across the country heading into November .
In other words — again , by all appearances , McSally ’ s behavior is political maneuvering , not some kind of valiant defense of whatever .
McSally ’ s mockery of the media mirrors similar behavior from the president himself .
Also similarly , according to polls pitting Trump against Democratic presidential primary candidates , the president is also @ @ @ @ @

Arizona’s Republican Senator Martha McSally arrogantly flipped out on CNN reporter Manu Raju this week when the longtime journalist tried to ask her about newly emerged evidence that’s relevant to the slowly but surely beginning Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. After McSally faced steep criticism over her mockingly calling Raju a “liberal hack” and refusing to answer his simple and straightforward question, she ardently defended her freakout during yet another belligerent tirade. This time, she delivered her melodramatic defense of her outlandish pettiness during a conversation with Fox host Laura Ingraham.
Ingraham asked McSally if she regrets her outburst, and she insisted that she does not, continuing to outline a conspiracy theory of journalists acting “in cahoots with” Democrats to try and trip up Republican stalwarts. In reality, these journalists are very simply and straightforwardly trying to get to the truth, and avid Trump-supporting partisans in Congress are flipping out and alleging some vast conspiracy.
McSally told Ingraham:
‘As you know, these CNN reporters, there’s so many of them around the capital, they are so biased, they are so in cahoots with the Democrats, they so can’t stand the president, and they run around trying to chase Republicans and ask trapping questions. I’m a fighter pilot, you know, I called it like it is, and that’s what we see out of the mainstream media, especially CNN, every single day, so obviously I’m going to tell the truth and I did it today and it’s laughable how they’ve responded. They’re cheerleading the Democrats, they hate the president.’
No matter her self-righteous posturing, in reality, there’s a much more pedestrian explanation for both her behavior and her defense of it — fundraising. She’s already been using her mockery of Raju in fundraising pitches, and she even got a shoutout from an official Trump campaign Twitter account. She’d been struggling with fundraising. In the fourth quarter of last year, her Democratic opponent Mark Kelly outraised her by more than $2 million, which, when coupled with the polls that consistently have him ahead, do not exactly bode well for McSally’s chances in the election this November.
McSally is getting significantly outraised by Democratic challenger Mark Kelly. Getting a fundraising boost from the party after she called a CNN reporter a "liberal hack" this morning. https://t.co/oxdkavNb00 — James Arkin (@JamesArkin) January 16, 2020
Although her campaign has maintained an about face and droned on and on about how Arizonans are supposedly eager to elect McSally for six more years, her present position is not actually the result of a single electoral victory. After losing the race to fill retiring Republican Jeff Flake’s old Senate seat, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey appointed her to fill out the rest of the late John McCain’s final term. Now, she has to face the voters again if she wants any more time in office, and the Cook Political Report calls her race one of a few Senate toss-ups across the country heading into November. In other words — again, by all appearances, McSally’s behavior is political maneuvering, not some kind of valiant defense of whatever.
McSally’s mockery of the media mirrors similar behavior from the president himself. Also similarly, according to polls pitting Trump against Democratic presidential primary candidates, the president is also facing tough re-election chances.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-17--Trump Has Bizarre Bernie Sanders Freakout On Twitter

President Donald Trump is continuing to spend a whole lot of time spouting off on Twitter as the days go by and the 2020 election — and his possible defeat — just get closer .
This Friday , besides tweeting about the White House event for the LSU Tigers football team that he turned into a campaign-style spectacle , Trump wheeled out the bizarre conspiracy theory that the entire impeachment case against him is just a conspiracy against… wait for it… Bernie Sanders .
Although he routinely mocked the popular Senator and presidential candidate in the past , this Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate impeachment trial , which Sanders has to attend , to purposefully keep him off the campaign trail .
‘ They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders , just like last time , only even more obviously .
They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that , as a Senator , he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial .
Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to Sleepy Joe Biden , and Bernie is shut out again .
Very unfair , but that ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anyway , it ’ s a lot of fun to watch !
’ Sanders is actually neck-in-neck with Biden in Iowa , whose first presidential primary votes will soon be tallied , formally kicking off the long rush to November .
Recent polls have Sanders ahead , Biden ahead , and the two of them tied , and the current RealClearPolitics average gives Biden an only 0.4 percent “ lead.
” But no — the impeachment case is not a conspiracy against Bernie .
It ’ s based on the clearly publicly available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted about the LSU Tigers event .
Images went viral depicting players ’ expressions as he veered into yet another one of his bizarro world rants while they stood behind him , so it didn ’ t exactly go as well as he hoped for .
He ranted things like a tirade against Dems for “ trying to impeach the son of a bitch !
” meaning himself .
And the very pointed player reactions .
Check out more Twitter reactions below .

President Donald Trump is continuing to spend a whole lot of time spouting off on Twitter as the days go by and the 2020 election — and his possible defeat — just get closer. This Friday, besides tweeting about the White House event for the LSU Tigers football team that he turned into a campaign-style spectacle, Trump wheeled out the bizarre conspiracy theory that the entire impeachment case against him is just a conspiracy against… wait for it… Bernie Sanders. Although he routinely mocked the popular Senator and presidential candidate in the past, this Friday, he claimed that Dems set up the Senate impeachment trial, which Sanders has to attend, to purposefully keep him off the campaign trail.
Trump railed:
‘They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even more obviously. They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator, he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial. Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to Sleepy Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again. Very unfair, but that’s the way the Democrats play the game. Anyway, it’s a lot of fun to watch!’
….Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again. Very unfair, but that’s the way the Democrats play the game. Anyway, it’s a lot of fun to watch! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 17, 2020
Sanders is actually neck-in-neck with Biden in Iowa, whose first presidential primary votes will soon be tallied, formally kicking off the long rush to November. Recent polls have Sanders ahead, Biden ahead, and the two of them tied, and the current RealClearPolitics average gives Biden an only 0.4 percent “lead.” But no — the impeachment case is not a conspiracy against Bernie. It’s based on the clearly publicly available evidence against the president.
Trump also tweeted about the LSU Tigers event. Images went viral depicting players’ expressions as he veered into yet another one of his bizarro world rants while they stood behind him, so it didn’t exactly go as well as he hoped for. He ranted things like a tirade against Dems for “trying to impeach the son of a bitch!” meaning himself.
Getting ready to meet the LSU Tigers, the National Champions. Great Coach, great Team, great School. Very exciting! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 17, 2020
And the very pointed player reactions.
A picture worth 1,000 words. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images) pic.twitter.com/MVfXyhNYBk — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 17, 2020
Check out more Twitter reactions below.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-17--Lewinsky Responds To Ken Starr Joining Trump Impeachment Team

This Friday , the news broke that former independent counsel Ken Starr would be joining President Donald Trump ’ s defense team for his slowly but surely beginning Senate impeachment trial .
Starr was one of the chief investigators that led the impeachment push against President Bill Clinton in the 1990s , which included a focus on his affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinksy and his efforts to cover that up .
Starr has explicitly refused to apologize for intense personal scrutiny of Lewinsky .
This Friday , she pointed out how absurd his addition to Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — some of these same partisans are still out here beating their drums after all this time .
Starr has already established himself as an ardent defender of Donald Trump during this latest impeachment saga .
The president has tweeted thanks for Starr ’ s riled up public defenses numerous times .
For example , shortly before his actual impeachment late last year , Trump posted : They ’ re just trying to will Trump ’ s innocence into existence , but that ’ s just not how it works !
House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public that clearly outline the president ’ s plot to bribe Ukraine into investigating his domestic political opponents .
Now , Starr is not the only newly revealed addition to Trump ’ s impeachment defense team .
Besides other already in-place Trump defenders like conservative activist Jay Sekulow and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi , longtime Trump defender Alan Dershowitz will also be joining the president ’ s defense team .
Dershowitz ’ s past clients have included O.J .
Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein .
The statement that Dershowitz ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense team called him non-partisan , but his endless stream of appearances on Fox News proves otherwise .
Trump is piecing his so-called legal defense together from what ( and who ) he sees on television , apparently .

This Friday, the news broke that former independent counsel Ken Starr would be joining President Donald Trump’s defense team for his slowly but surely beginning Senate impeachment trial. Starr was one of the chief investigators that led the impeachment push against President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, which included a focus on his affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinksy and his efforts to cover that up. Starr has explicitly refused to apologize for intense personal scrutiny of Lewinsky. This Friday, she pointed out how absurd his addition to Trump’s own team really is.
In short — some of these same partisans are still out here beating their drums after all this time.
Lewinsky commented on Twitter:
‘this is definitely an “are you fucking kidding me?” kinda day.’
this is definitely an “are you fucking kidding me?” kinda day. — Monica Lewinsky (@MonicaLewinsky) January 17, 2020
Starr has already established himself as an ardent defender of Donald Trump during this latest impeachment saga. The president has tweeted thanks for Starr’s riled up public defenses numerous times. For example, shortly before his actual impeachment late last year, Trump posted:
‘The evidence has to be overwhelming, and it is not. It’s not even close.” Ken Starr, Former Independent Counsel’
“The evidence has to be overwhelming, and it is not. It’s not even close.” Ken Starr, Former Independent Counsel — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 18, 2019
They’re just trying to will Trump’s innocence into existence, but that’s just not how it works! House Democrats have made troves and troves of evidence public that clearly outline the president’s plot to bribe Ukraine into investigating his domestic political opponents.
Now, Starr is not the only newly revealed addition to Trump’s impeachment defense team. Besides other already in-place Trump defenders like conservative activist Jay Sekulow and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, longtime Trump defender Alan Dershowitz will also be joining the president’s defense team. Dershowitz’s past clients have included O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. The statement that Dershowitz’s office issued confirming his addition to Trump’s defense team called him non-partisan, but his endless stream of appearances on Fox News proves otherwise.
Trump is piecing his so-called legal defense together from what (and who) he sees on television, apparently.
Check out Twitter’s response to Lewinsky below…


bipartisanreport--2020-01-17--Surprising New Members Announced For Trump Defense Team

The White House is gearing up for opening arguments in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial with the abrupt revelation of multiple new members joining the president ’ s defense team .
These new Trump defenders include the widely controversial Alan Dershowitz and former independent counsels Ken Starr and Robert Ray .
Starr was a leading investigator targeting President Bill Clinton ahead of his own impeachment in the 1990s , and after Starr quit his work , Ray took over the office and continued his investigation of the Clintons .
Now , the president is seeking to rely on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate .
Dershowitz ’ s office confirmed his addition to the Trump defense team , and , in that statement , they outlandishly claimed that Dershowitz is “ non-partisan.
” In reality , he ’ s spent months on end working up a storm of attempted defense for Donald Trump , belligerence and all .
‘ While Professor Dershowitz is non partisan when it comes to the Constitution—he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton— he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent.
’ A similar claim of some kind of valiant defense of the Constitution was used for GOP impeachment witness Professor Jonathan Turley , but in reality , many of Turley ’ s passionate arguments were simply complete bad faith nonsense .
For example , he complained about Democrats not hearing from key firsthand sources — but the president himself blocked those sources from appearing for testimony with harsh demands for noncompliance with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As for Dershowitz , Trump tweeted favorably about some “ defense ” he ’ d offered as recently as this Friday morning .
He posted a quote of Dershowitz ’ s argument against a Government Accountability Office ruling that the White House had broken the law via delaying Congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine .
But if you look at the argument closely , it ’ s just more of that bad faith nonsense .
Dershowitz just says that Trump should be in charge because he ’ s the president .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Starr many times .
Shortly before Trump ’ s impeachment became official late last year , he posted : Other members set for the team include personal Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow , former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi , and Jane Raskin , who ’ s “ one of the president ’ s outside personal attorneys who represented him during the Mueller probe , ” ABC explains .
The side against the president will include seven impeachment case managers , including high profile names like Reps. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already been plotting an acquittal for Trump , with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) himself having insisted that he would not be an “ impartial juror.
” McConnell and other Senators were sworn in as impeachment trial jurors this week , and opening arguments are slated to begin on Tuesday .
The question of whether or not to hear from witnesses is slated to be considered after those opening arguments .

The White House is gearing up for opening arguments in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial with the abrupt revelation of multiple new members joining the president’s defense team. These new Trump defenders include the widely controversial Alan Dershowitz and former independent counsels Ken Starr and Robert Ray. Starr was a leading investigator targeting President Bill Clinton ahead of his own impeachment in the 1990s, and after Starr quit his work, Ray took over the office and continued his investigation of the Clintons. Now, the president is seeking to rely on these avid partisans in presenting his defense in the Senate.
Dershowitz’s office confirmed his addition to the Trump defense team, and, in that statement, they outlandishly claimed that Dershowitz is “non-partisan.” In reality, he’s spent months on end working up a storm of attempted defense for Donald Trump, belligerence and all.
Still, their statement read:
‘While Professor Dershowitz is non partisan when it comes to the Constitution—he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton— he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution. He is participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent.’
A similar claim of some kind of valiant defense of the Constitution was used for GOP impeachment witness Professor Jonathan Turley, but in reality, many of Turley’s passionate arguments were simply complete bad faith nonsense. For example, he complained about Democrats not hearing from key firsthand sources — but the president himself blocked those sources from appearing for testimony with harsh demands for noncompliance with any and all Congressional demands for testimony.
As for Dershowitz, Trump tweeted favorably about some “defense” he’d offered as recently as this Friday morning. He posted a quote of Dershowitz’s argument against a Government Accountability Office ruling that the White House had broken the law via delaying Congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine. But if you look at the argument closely, it’s just more of that bad faith nonsense. Dershowitz just says that Trump should be in charge because he’s the president. How convincing!
….for the foreign policies of the President.” @AlanDersh Alan Dershowitz @seanhannity @FoxNews They do what the House asks. The Swamp! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 17, 2020
Trump has also tweeted praise for Starr many times. Shortly before Trump’s impeachment became official late last year, he posted:
‘“The evidence has to be overwhelming, and it is not. It’s not even close.” Ken Starr, Former Independent Counsel’
“The evidence has to be overwhelming, and it is not. It’s not even close.” Ken Starr, Former Independent Counsel — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 18, 2019
Other members set for the team include personal Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Jane Raskin, who’s “one of the president’s outside personal attorneys who represented him during the Mueller probe,” ABC explains. The side against the president will include seven impeachment case managers, including high profile names like Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).
Republicans have already been plotting an acquittal for Trump, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) himself having insisted that he would not be an “impartial juror.” McConnell and other Senators were sworn in as impeachment trial jurors this week, and opening arguments are slated to begin on Tuesday. The question of whether or not to hear from witnesses is slated to be considered after those opening arguments.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-17--Lindsey Graham Newly Implicated By Lev Parnas In Ukraine Plot

Despite Republican hand wringing and attempts to ignore the mounting evidence against President Donald Trump and his associates , that evidence keeps piling up .
Now , MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow has revealed another portion of her interview with personal Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani ’ s associate Lev Parnas , and in that interview , he ’ s now been revealed to have implicated none other than Lindsey Graham , who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and is a prominent Trump ally .
Parnas revealed Graham ’ s role in the Ukraine bribery scheme that has driven Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others — including , Parnas claimed , the president himself — were trying to secure a visa to allow former Ukrainian official Viktor Shokin to travel to the U.S. , where he would brief figures including Graham .
Shokin is one of the top figures who the president and his team have relied on in their efforts to bribe Ukraine into investigating Trump ’ s domestic political opponents , including the Bidens .
Shokin baselessly alleged that while in office as vice president , Joe Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Joe ’ s son , Hunter , over his role with a corrupt energy company .
Maddow asked for more clarification about what exactly Shokin was planning to say when he got to the United States , and Parnas continued : This allegation is one of the centerpieces of the president ’ s conspiracy theories about the Bidens , but it is completely unsupported .
When Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin , many other world leaders were also supporting that pressure and had also concluded that Shokin was corrupt .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visa is believed to have been blocked specifically because of his own corruption .
And this is the guy who Trump and Giuliani — and Lindsey Graham — were set up to rely on , although the extent of Graham ’ s active involvement is not immediately clear .
Graham has long set himself up as an ardent defender of Trump in the impeachment saga , which was kickstarted by the revelation of his Ukraine bribery plot .
He was one of the leading voices criticizing House Democrats for delaying sending their impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial , and he introduced a Senate resolution denouncing that delay , which was meant to provide a chance for advocacy for fairness in the trial .
More recently , this past Wednesday , he railed during a Fox appearance : ‘ The best thing for the American people is to end this crap as quickly as possible , to have a trial in the Senate , bipartisan acquittal of the president .
And on Feb. 4 , when the president comes into the House chamber to deliver the State of the Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate.
’ Considering his own previous insistence that he will not be an impartial juror , Graham has apparently completely thrown out even the pretense of seriously considering the evidence .

Despite Republican hand wringing and attempts to ignore the mounting evidence against President Donald Trump and his associates, that evidence keeps piling up. Now, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has revealed another portion of her interview with personal Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas, and in that interview, he’s now been revealed to have implicated none other than Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and is a prominent Trump ally. Parnas revealed Graham’s role in the Ukraine bribery scheme that has driven Trump’s impeachment.
In short, Giuliani and others — including, Parnas claimed, the president himself — were trying to secure a visa to allow former Ukrainian official Viktor Shokin to travel to the U.S., where he would brief figures including Graham. Shokin is one of the top figures who the president and his team have relied on in their efforts to bribe Ukraine into investigating Trump’s domestic political opponents, including the Bidens. Shokin baselessly alleged that while in office as vice president, Joe Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire him specifically because he was developing an investigation of Joe’s son, Hunter, over his role with a corrupt energy company.
Parnas told Maddow:
‘After the conversation that Mr. Shokin had with Mr. Giuliani over Skype, they had discussed and arranged that they were going to have Mr. Shokin come here and Mr. Giuliani wanted to debrief him in front of Mr. Lindsey Graham and certain other people, like the attorney general.’
Maddow asked for more clarification about what exactly Shokin was planning to say when he got to the United States, and Parnas continued:
‘He was basically going to testify and say that Joe Biden basically forced him out because he was going to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma.’
Watch:
According to Parnas, Trump personally got involved in trying to get a visa for Viktor Shokin to come to the U.S. and brief Giuliani, Barr, and Lindsey Graham—despite the U.S. government's official position that Shokin shouldn't be allowed a visa because of his corruption. pic.twitter.com/JejTwY79I6 — The Moscow Project (@moscow_project) January 17, 2020
This allegation is one of the centerpieces of the president’s conspiracy theories about the Bidens, but it is completely unsupported. When Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin, many other world leaders were also supporting that pressure and had also concluded that Shokin was corrupt. As Maddow herself noted, Shokin’s visa is believed to have been blocked specifically because of his own corruption. And this is the guy who Trump and Giuliani — and Lindsey Graham — were set up to rely on, although the extent of Graham’s active involvement is not immediately clear.
Graham has long set himself up as an ardent defender of Trump in the impeachment saga, which was kickstarted by the revelation of his Ukraine bribery plot. He was one of the leading voices criticizing House Democrats for delaying sending their impeachment case over to the Senate for a trial, and he introduced a Senate resolution denouncing that delay, which was meant to provide a chance for advocacy for fairness in the trial.
More recently, this past Wednesday, he railed during a Fox appearance:
‘The best thing for the American people is to end this crap as quickly as possible, to have a trial in the Senate, bipartisan acquittal of the president. And on Feb. 4, when the president comes into the House chamber to deliver the State of the Union, he will have been acquitted by the Senate.’
Considering his own previous insistence that he will not be an impartial juror, Graham has apparently completely thrown out even the pretense of seriously considering the evidence.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-18--Conservative Journo Mocks GOP Senator For Attack On CNN Reporter

This past week , Arizona Republican Senator Martha McSally made headlines when she mockingly dismissed a CNN reporter as a “ liberal hack ” — a debacle that she promptly began to use in fundraising pitches trying to get conservatives to donate to her .
Now , even the conservative journalist Bill Kristol , who founded the right-wing publication the Weekly Standard , has joined in the chorus of those pointing out the utter absurdity of McSally ’ s behavior .
The reporter who McSally targeted — CNN ’ s Manu Raju — had just been simply and straightforwardly trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence relevant to Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
In reality , he ’ s on to something here .
Although the president and his shills love to shout to high heaven about the supposed deep state/media/Democratic conspiracy against him , all that ’ s unfolding is basic fact-finding .
They ’ re having these freakouts in response not only to just basic journalism but also attempts to get at the truth in general .
They must think that revealing the truth of what they ’ re doing would ( or could ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the evidence for the very conspiratorial basis of their own behavior goes on from there .
During a conversation with Laura Ingraham on Fox News , McSally melodramatically claimed : Nope — that ’ s not the nature of what happened .
Shortly after numbers came out showing that her Democratic opponent Mark Kelly raised more than $ 2 million more than her in the fourth quarter of last year , she resorted to this desperate gambit , which was quickly catapulted into pushes for fundraising for McSally even from the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other examples like Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul ’ s recent admission that Senate Republicans wouldn ’ t vote for impeachment because of how it might harm their re-election chances , they ’ re engaging in brazen political maneuvering .

This past week, Arizona Republican Senator Martha McSally made headlines when she mockingly dismissed a CNN reporter as a “liberal hack” — a debacle that she promptly began to use in fundraising pitches trying to get conservatives to donate to her. Now, even the conservative journalist Bill Kristol, who founded the right-wing publication the Weekly Standard, has joined in the chorus of those pointing out the utter absurdity of McSally’s behavior. The reporter who McSally targeted — CNN’s Manu Raju — had just been simply and straightforwardly trying to ask her a question about new evidence relevant to Trump’s impeachment trial.
Kristol tweeted:
‘McSally calling a reporter a “liberal hack” for asking a question, and then taking high fives from today’s “conservatives” for doing so, tempts me to say: If it’s liberal to hold public officials in our liberal democracy accountable for doing their job, then I guess I’m liberal.’
McSally calling a reporter a “liberal hack” for asking a question, and then taking high fives from today’s “conservatives” for doing so, tempts me to say: If it’s liberal to hold public officials in our liberal democracy accountable for doing their job, then I guess I’m liberal. — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 17, 2020
In reality, he’s on to something here. Although the president and his shills love to shout to high heaven about the supposed deep state/media/Democratic conspiracy against him, all that’s unfolding is basic fact-finding. They’re having these freakouts in response not only to just basic journalism but also attempts to get at the truth in general. They must think that revealing the truth of what they’re doing would (or could) harm their standing with people.
Indeed — the evidence for the very conspiratorial basis of their own behavior goes on from there. During a conversation with Laura Ingraham on Fox News, McSally melodramatically claimed:
‘Obviously I’m going to tell the truth, and I did it today and it’s laughable how they’ve responded.’
Nope — that’s not the nature of what happened. Shortly after numbers came out showing that her Democratic opponent Mark Kelly raised more than $2 million more than her in the fourth quarter of last year, she resorted to this desperate gambit, which was quickly catapulted into pushes for fundraising for McSally even from the Trump campaign itself. As shown by plenty of other examples like Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul’s recent admission that Senate Republicans wouldn’t vote for impeachment because of how it might harm their re-election chances, they’re engaging in brazen political maneuvering.
Check out Twitter responses below…


bipartisanreport--2020-01-18--Trump Embarrassingly Celebrates 100 Measly Miles Of Border Wall

President Donald Trump is continuing to reshape the U.S. government according to his liking , and his shills are falling in line .
This weekend , acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf revealed a silver plaque that had been put up to commemorate the completion of 100 miles of barriers along the southern U.S. border .
A replica of the plaque was even apparently gifted to Trump himself , as the gross debacle of this administration making a show out of the violent antagonism of immigrants continues .
The wild thing is that much of those 100 miles of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old fencing .
And those replacements don ’ t really constitute a wall in any conventional sense of the term .
The project consists of rows of steel bollards , meaning steel beams filled with a concrete-like mixture — and these barriers have already been sawed through by some smugglers .
In other words , it ’ s a mess all around .
The plaque replica , which Wolf included an image of , includes a grossly deferential personal message to the president that sounds like border patrol agents are mob underlings trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good side or something .
Blah , blah , blah — good to see that top brass at border patrol are avid partisans too !
Those who oppose the president ’ s recklessly financially bloated wall project do not oppose the rule of law , because the two things are far from synonymous .
Undocumented immigrants do not pose a documented security threat to the United States — their arrest rates are lower than those for native-born Americans , and crime along the southern border was low before Trump ever came along .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose his reckless usurpation of billions of dollars in government funds and counting for a racism-based vanity project that ’ s already falling apart .

President Donald Trump is continuing to reshape the U.S. government according to his liking, and his shills are falling in line. This weekend, acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf revealed a silver plaque that had been put up to commemorate the completion of 100 miles of barriers along the southern U.S. border. A replica of the plaque was even apparently gifted to Trump himself, as the gross debacle of this administration making a show out of the violent antagonism of immigrants continues.
The wild thing is that much of those 100 miles of barriers seem to be just replacements for old fencing. And those replacements don’t really constitute a wall in any conventional sense of the term. The project consists of rows of steel bollards, meaning steel beams filled with a concrete-like mixture — and these barriers have already been sawed through by some smugglers. In other words, it’s a mess all around.
Nevertheless, Wolf proclaimed on Twitter:
‘Proud to deliver this to @POTUS @RealDonaldTrump this week on behalf of the men and women of U.S. Border Patrol and @USBPChiefYum. 101 miles of wall and counting!’
Proud to deliver this to @POTUS @RealDonaldTrump this week on behalf of the men and women of U.S. Border Patrol and @USBPChiefYum. 101 miles of wall and counting! pic.twitter.com/VFot4e1ki9 — Acting Secretary Chad Wolf (@DHS_Wolf) January 18, 2020
The plaque replica, which Wolf included an image of, includes a grossly deferential personal message to the president that sounds like border patrol agents are mob underlings trying to get on the boss’s good side or something.
The message melodramatically reads, in part:
‘The fight to ensure the rule of law on our borders is critical — Border Security is National Security… Thank you for your steadfast commitment to the Southwest Border Wall project.’
Blah, blah, blah — good to see that top brass at border patrol are avid partisans too! Those who oppose the president’s recklessly financially bloated wall project do not oppose the rule of law, because the two things are far from synonymous. Undocumented immigrants do not pose a documented security threat to the United States — their arrest rates are lower than those for native-born Americans, and crime along the southern border was low before Trump ever came along.
Those who oppose Trump’s wall oppose his reckless usurpation of billions of dollars in government funds and counting for a racism-based vanity project that’s already falling apart.
Check out Twitter’s response below…


bipartisanreport--2020-01-18--Dershowitz Reveals Details Of Payment For Work On Trump Team

Early this coming week , opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump are slated to get underway , and as this past week drew to a close , a surprising list of the members of Trump ’ s impeachment defense team got revealed .
Now , newly revealed Trump legal team member Alan Dershowitz — whose past clients have included O.J .
Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein , among others — has revealed that allegedly , he ’ s planning on not pocketing any money that he might be paid because of his work for Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ really isn ’ t worth all that much substance-wise in the first place ?
Dershowitz made the proclamation during a Friday night appearance on CNN , where he discussed his work with host Anderson Cooper .
He insisted that — although payment details have supposedly not been discussed yet : ‘ If I were to be paid , all the money would go to charity .
I will not take a single penny of payment that I would keep based on what I ’ m doing .
I ’ m doing this because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I strongly oppose the impeachment .
I worry about the weaponization of impeachment and it could be used in other cases… I ’ m there to try to defend the integrity of the constitution – that benefits President Trump in this case.
’ His melodramatic self-righteousness is not supported by reality .
In the initial statement from Dershowitz ’ s office confirming his addition to Trump ’ s legal team , Dershowitz got described as a nonpartisan , but that ’ s ludicrous .
He ’ s spent years ardently defending Trump at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter if his claimed justifications have been discomfort with scrutiny of the rich and privileged or a wild commitment to attend every single Trump rally imaginable — Dershowitz has issued his many Trump defenses , and the president has noticed .
He ’ s tweeted quotes from Dershowitz numerous times .
In the same CNN appearance , the controversial figure claimed that he ’ s “ not part of the regular team that will be making strategic decisions and participating in questions about whether there should be witnesses or not.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the other newly revealed additions to Trump ’ s impeachment defense team , which includes former independent counsel Ken Starr , former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi , and others .
Starr , of course , led the impeachment charge against Bill Clinton in the 90s , while Bondi got a large donation from Trump himself that shortly preceded her suspiciously ( at best ) timed decision to abandon an investigation into one of the eventual president ’ s scams , “ Trump University.
” Talk about a conflict of interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ televised defenses of Trump , it seems like Trump quite literally plucked his defense team members from among the talking heads on television .
Taking cues from what Republicans have wheeled out in attempted defense of the president already , Trump ’ s defense team seems likely to take a chaotic , scorched earth approach during the Senate trial .
The whole case rests on the revelation of Trump ’ s attempt to bribe Ukraine into investigating his domestic political opponents , which — depending on the day — Republicans have claimed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he did , it ’ s supposedly actually perfectly fine .
Hint : it ’ s not .

Early this coming week, opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump are slated to get underway, and as this past week drew to a close, a surprising list of the members of Trump’s impeachment defense team got revealed. Now, newly revealed Trump legal team member Alan Dershowitz — whose past clients have included O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein, among others — has revealed that allegedly, he’s planning on not pocketing any money that he might be paid because of his work for Trump. Perhaps that’s because his showboating really isn’t worth all that much substance-wise in the first place?
Dershowitz made the proclamation during a Friday night appearance on CNN, where he discussed his work with host Anderson Cooper.
He insisted that — although payment details have supposedly not been discussed yet:
‘If I were to be paid, all the money would go to charity. I will not take a single penny of payment that I would keep based on what I’m doing. I’m doing this because I strongly believe in the Constitution. I strongly oppose the impeachment. I worry about the weaponization of impeachment and it could be used in other cases… I’m there to try to defend the integrity of the constitution – that benefits President Trump in this case.’
His melodramatic self-righteousness is not supported by reality. In the initial statement from Dershowitz’s office confirming his addition to Trump’s legal team, Dershowitz got described as a nonpartisan, but that’s ludicrous. He’s spent years ardently defending Trump at just about every turn. It doesn’t matter if his claimed justifications have been discomfort with scrutiny of the rich and privileged or a wild commitment to attend every single Trump rally imaginable — Dershowitz has issued his many Trump defenses, and the president has noticed. He’s tweeted quotes from Dershowitz numerous times.
In the same CNN appearance, the controversial figure claimed that he’s “not part of the regular team that will be making strategic decisions and participating in questions about whether there should be witnesses or not.”
Watch:
Those questions will presumably be left to some of the other newly revealed additions to Trump’s impeachment defense team, which includes former independent counsel Ken Starr, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and others. Starr, of course, led the impeachment charge against Bill Clinton in the 90s, while Bondi got a large donation from Trump himself that shortly preceded her suspiciously (at best) timed decision to abandon an investigation into one of the eventual president’s scams, “Trump University.” Talk about a conflict of interest! Considering Starr’s also avid televised defenses of Trump, it seems like Trump quite literally plucked his defense team members from among the talking heads on television.
Taking cues from what Republicans have wheeled out in attempted defense of the president already, Trump’s defense team seems likely to take a chaotic, scorched earth approach during the Senate trial.
The whole case rests on the revelation of Trump’s attempt to bribe Ukraine into investigating his domestic political opponents, which — depending on the day — Republicans have claimed that he didn’t do, but if he did, it’s supposedly actually perfectly fine. Hint: it’s not.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-18--Intel Tries To Cancel Public Hearings To Avoid Angering Trump

The negative and potentially dangerous effects from President Donald Trump ’ s belligerence just keep piling up .
Now , POLITICO reports that staff members at intelligence agencies normally tasked with delivering public Worldwide Threats Assessment hearings have been trying to cancel the public component of those Congressional meetings .
The reason ?
The publication specifically cites a desire to avoid getting into it with Trump again , like happened after last year ’ s hearing at the Senate Intelligence Committee featured agency chiefs directly contradicting the president ’ s conclusions about hot button issues like Iran , North Korea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradiction , Trump worked himself up into a rage on Twitter , where he suggested that the agency chiefs should “ go back to school !
” He seems pathologically unwilling and/or unable to admit even the possibility that he ’ s wrong .
He dug himself in deeper when he then claimed that the chiefs had been misquoted — but their remarks were public , and video is available .
It is a mess all around , which is again driven by Trump ’ s ego .
There ’ s already mounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Worldwide Threats Assessment hearings , which are supposed to take place in both chambers of Congress .
No matter that precedent , no such hearing has occurred in the House since 2016 .
Intel chiefs have stayed away under both Republican and Democratic leaders .
‘ We have requested , and made clear , that the committee expects a public Worldwide Threats hearing this year — this is the one public form of oversight that the Intelligence Community is responsible to do each year , and avoiding angering the man in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough reason to refuse to come.
’ The issues don ’ t even end with Trump , the official noted .
There are also standing concerns about the behavior of Republican committee members , who could try and trick officials into either lying or revealing classified information .
Previous targets that have sparked that kind of behavior from Republicans include the identity of a whistleblower who revealed the president ’ s scheme to bribe Ukraine .
Meanwhile , Senate Intelligence Committee spokesperson Caitlin Carroll said that the upper chamber had not even issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency chiefs in question to appear for a public hearing .
Anonymous sources told POLITICO that some members of Congress aren ’ t worried about the requests to cancel the public hearing plans because “ to skip or refuse to comply with a formal request would harm national security leaders ’ relationship with Capitol Hill.
” Trump has already targeted the intelligence agencies outside the context of these public hearings .
He ’ s routinely tried to discredit them for daring to investigate Russian interference in U.S. elections and possible Trump team connections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side , he ’ s repeatedly actively sided with foreign propaganda , like the claim that actually , Ukraine led U.S. election meddling , not Russia .
That ’ s just not true , and Trump ’ s presidency continues to pose a danger to national security .

The negative and potentially dangerous effects from President Donald Trump’s belligerence just keep piling up. Now, POLITICO reports that staff members at intelligence agencies normally tasked with delivering public Worldwide Threats Assessment hearings have been trying to cancel the public component of those Congressional meetings. The reason? The publication specifically cites a desire to avoid getting into it with Trump again, like happened after last year’s hearing at the Senate Intelligence Committee featured agency chiefs directly contradicting the president’s conclusions about hot button issues like Iran, North Korea, and ISIS.
After that public contradiction, Trump worked himself up into a rage on Twitter, where he suggested that the agency chiefs should “go back to school!” He seems pathologically unwilling and/or unable to admit even the possibility that he’s wrong. He dug himself in deeper when he then claimed that the chiefs had been misquoted — but their remarks were public, and video is available. It is a mess all around, which is again driven by Trump’s ego.
There’s already mounting tension surrounding the House’s side of the Worldwide Threats Assessment hearings, which are supposed to take place in both chambers of Congress. No matter that precedent, no such hearing has occurred in the House since 2016. Intel chiefs have stayed away under both Republican and Democratic leaders.
An anonymous senior Democratic committee official told POLITICO:
‘We have requested, and made clear, that the committee expects a public Worldwide Threats hearing this year — this is the one public form of oversight that the Intelligence Community is responsible to do each year, and avoiding angering the man in the Oval Office is not a good enough reason to refuse to come.’
The issues don’t even end with Trump, the official noted. There are also standing concerns about the behavior of Republican committee members, who could try and trick officials into either lying or revealing classified information. Previous targets that have sparked that kind of behavior from Republicans include the identity of a whistleblower who revealed the president’s scheme to bribe Ukraine.
The official continued:
‘We also understand the concern that the IC has over members asking questions that essentially trap their leaders into either lying or disclosing classified information, but we don’t believe that concern is unsurmountable either.’
Meanwhile, Senate Intelligence Committee spokesperson Caitlin Carroll said that the upper chamber had not even issued their “formal invitations” for the agency chiefs in question to appear for a public hearing. Anonymous sources told POLITICO that some members of Congress aren’t worried about the requests to cancel the public hearing plans because “to skip or refuse to comply with a formal request would harm national security leaders’ relationship with Capitol Hill.”
Trump has already targeted the intelligence agencies outside the context of these public hearings. He’s routinely tried to discredit them for daring to investigate Russian interference in U.S. elections and possible Trump team connections to it, and on the flip side, he’s repeatedly actively sided with foreign propaganda, like the claim that actually, Ukraine led U.S. election meddling, not Russia. That’s just not true, and Trump’s presidency continues to pose a danger to national security.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-18--Trump Considers Abolishing Law Banning Foreign Bribes

The saga of the Trump administration ’ s brazen corruption continues .
Now , top Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow has seemingly confirmed that the president ’ s team is considering changes to a 1977 law that forbids U.S. businesses from bribing foreign officials in exchange for business opportunities .
Yes — the president who ’ s been impeached for attempting to bribe a foreign country into investigating his domestic political opponents is considering tearing down at least some legal barriers to those bribes .
His global business operations could even directly benefit from the rules change .
On Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s take on that 1977 law , which is called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , and Kudlow commented : The Trump administration ’ s treatment of the law is under the microscope thanks to an upcoming new book called A Very Stable Genius : Donald J. Trump ’ s Testing of America , which is authored by reporters Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig .
According to Bloomberg ’ s description , that book “ reports that Trump has complained about existing rules , and that he clashed with former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Trump pushed to scrap the FCPA.
” That ’ s right — Trump was just trying to throw the law out entirely , which would open up a free-for-all in which companies can bribe whatever foreign leaders they want , presumably .
According to the book , Trump has complained : Again — this might be from personal experience .
Trump has done business in an array of countries with questionable at best anti-corruption practices , including Russia .
While campaigning for president in 2016 , Trump was also pursuing a possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he could have just outright bribed Russian leaders into pushing his plans through ?
His company was already heading down that path with plans like a penthouse for Vladimir Putin himself in the planned development , which was never actually produced .
Meanwhile , Trump is still hurtling towards his Senate impeachment trial over his Ukraine bribery scheme .
The trial ’ s opening arguments are set to begin early this coming week , and he ’ s losing it .
The other day , he railed on Twitter : And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States , just go on and on .
That ’ s just ridiculous .
This is coming from the same guy who rose to power on promises like a plan to deport more than ten million people and close the borders to many marginalized groups .

The saga of the Trump administration’s brazen corruption continues. Now, top Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow has seemingly confirmed that the president’s team is considering changes to a 1977 law that forbids U.S. businesses from bribing foreign officials in exchange for business opportunities. Yes — the president who’s been impeached for attempting to bribe a foreign country into investigating his domestic political opponents is considering tearing down at least some legal barriers to those bribes. His global business operations could even directly benefit from the rules change.
On Friday, a reporter asked Kudlow about the administration’s take on that 1977 law, which is called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and Kudlow commented:
‘We are looking at it. I would just say: We are aware of it, we are looking at it, and we’ve heard complaints from some of our companies. I don’t want to say anything definitive policy-wise, but we are looking at it.’
The Trump administration’s treatment of the law is under the microscope thanks to an upcoming new book called A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America, which is authored by reporters Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig. According to Bloomberg’s description, that book “reports that Trump has complained about existing rules, and that he clashed with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in 2017 when Trump pushed to scrap the FCPA.” That’s right — Trump was just trying to throw the law out entirely, which would open up a free-for-all in which companies can bribe whatever foreign leaders they want, presumably.
According to the book, Trump has complained:
‘It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas. We’re going to change that.’
Again — this might be from personal experience. Trump has done business in an array of countries with questionable at best anti-corruption practices, including Russia.
While campaigning for president in 2016, Trump was also pursuing a possible Trump Tower Moscow. Perhaps he wishes that he could have just outright bribed Russian leaders into pushing his plans through? His company was already heading down that path with plans like a penthouse for Vladimir Putin himself in the planned development, which was never actually produced.
Meanwhile, Trump is still hurtling towards his Senate impeachment trial over his Ukraine bribery scheme. The trial’s opening arguments are set to begin early this coming week, and he’s losing it. The other day, he railed on Twitter:
‘Cryin’ Chuck Schumer just said, “The American people want a fair trial in the Senate.” True, but why didn’t Nervous Nancy and Corrupt politician Adam “Shifty” Schiff give us a fair trial in the House. It was the most lopsided & unfair basement hearing in the history of Congress!’
And the posts like that, from the president of the United States, just go on and on.
Cryin’ Chuck Schumer just said, “The American people want a fair trial in the Senate.” True, but why didn’t Nervous Nancy and Corrupt politician Adam “Shifty” Schiff give us a fair trial in the House. It was the most lopsided & unfair basement hearing in the history of Congress! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2020
He also tweeted:
‘Republicans are fighting for citizens from every background, & from every race, religion, color & creed. We are a movement for ALL AMERICANS who believe in fairness & justice, equality & dignity, opportunity & safety. We are a big tent, & a big party, w/ BIG IDEAS for the future!’
That’s just ridiculous. This is coming from the same guy who rose to power on promises like a plan to deport more than ten million people and close the borders to many marginalized groups.
Republicans are fighting for citizens from every background, & from every race, religion, color & creed. We are a movement for ALL AMERICANS who believe in fairness & justice, equality & dignity, opportunity & safety. We are a big tent, & a big party, w/ BIG IDEAS for the future! pic.twitter.com/8Gib5eKMOF — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 15, 2020


bipartisanreport--2020-01-18--Ron Reagan Delivers Scathing Condemnation Of Trump & GOP

President Donald Trump sometimes attempts to cast himself as the heir of some kind of historically great conservatism or something — but in reality , he is leading a de facto political cult dedicated to his ego .
Ron Reagan outlined this situation in a new interview with the Daily Beast , in which he insisted that his father — the late Republican President Ronald Reagan — would have nothing but disdain for Trump .
Not only that , the younger Reagan also added that his famous father would have condemned the current Republican Party as well for enabling Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own take , Ron suggested that the current GOP is careening towards oblivion and irrelevance .
Notably enough , even with the older Reagan ’ s avid conservatism firmly in place , the late Republican president and the White House ’ s current occupant would be at odds over policy too , and not just morals or dignity or something along those lines .
For example , in 1986 , Reagan signed an immigration reform bill into law that made any undocumented immigrant who ’ d entered the U.S. before 1982 eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Trump would sooner relocate to a farm in Kenya than respect a single undocumented individual , let alone grant amnesty to them .
And he ’ s been enabled to spin wildly out of control like this , down winding paths of violent racism , thanks to the Republicans who ’ ve occasionally simply looked the other way or , more often these days , jumped right down those paths with Trump , belligerence and all .
In a recent interview , Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) openly admitted that Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his impeachment trial because of political expedience .
He said any other vote might not go over well with Trump-supporting voters .
And he offered his take on their future : Some of Trump ’ s top allies have peddled that Kremlin propaganda that Reagan mentions .
For example , figures like Rep. Devin Nunes ( R-Calif. ) and Sen. John Kennedy ( R-La . )
have pushed the baseless claim that Ukraine led 2016 meddling in U.S. elections , not Russia .
And they ’ ve used these claims as a basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Polls pitting Trump against leading Democratic presidential primary candidates in hypothetical general election match-ups consistently have him losing .
Now it ’ s just a matter of getting to November and casting the votes .

President Donald Trump sometimes attempts to cast himself as the heir of some kind of historically great conservatism or something — but in reality, he is leading a de facto political cult dedicated to his ego. Ron Reagan outlined this situation in a new interview with the Daily Beast, in which he insisted that his father — the late Republican President Ronald Reagan — would have nothing but disdain for Trump. Not only that, the younger Reagan also added that his famous father would have condemned the current Republican Party as well for enabling Trump’s belligerence, and adding in his own take, Ron suggested that the current GOP is careening towards oblivion and irrelevance.
Ron Reagan insisted:
‘My father would have been ashamed of this Republican Party. He would have been embarrassed and ashamed that a president of the United States was as incompetent and traitorous as the man occupying the White House now. He’s a disgrace to the office of the presidency.’
Notably enough, even with the older Reagan’s avid conservatism firmly in place, the late Republican president and the White House’s current occupant would be at odds over policy too, and not just morals or dignity or something along those lines. For example, in 1986, Reagan signed an immigration reform bill into law that made any undocumented immigrant who’d entered the U.S. before 1982 eligible for amnesty. Amnesty! It seems like Trump would sooner relocate to a farm in Kenya than respect a single undocumented individual, let alone grant amnesty to them.
And he’s been enabled to spin wildly out of control like this, down winding paths of violent racism, thanks to the Republicans who’ve occasionally simply looked the other way or, more often these days, jumped right down those paths with Trump, belligerence and all. In a recent interview, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) openly admitted that Senate Republicans were plotting to acquit Trump in his impeachment trial because of political expedience. He said any other vote might not go over well with Trump-supporting voters.
Ron Reagan insisted:
‘The Republican party at this point, for a whole host of reasons to do with Donald Trump, is an entirely illegitimate political party just made up of a bunch of sycophantic traitors mouthing Kremlin propaganda to defend this squalid little man who is occupying the White House.’
And he offered his take on their future:
‘This is a dying party. They either have to remake themselves entirely or they will disappear eventually. Within a decade the Republican Party will be a minor fringe group if it continues going this way.’
Some of Trump’s top allies have peddled that Kremlin propaganda that Reagan mentions. For example, figures like Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) have pushed the baseless claim that Ukraine led 2016 meddling in U.S. elections, not Russia. And they’ve used these claims as a basis for their continued support of the president.
Polls pitting Trump against leading Democratic presidential primary candidates in hypothetical general election match-ups consistently have him losing. Now it’s just a matter of getting to November and casting the votes.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-18--Lev Parnas Reveals Details Of Meeting With Kushner & Ivanka

Former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas ’ s decision to speak out about his take on the private Trump team schemes that he was a part of or knew about has sent shock waves through the political scene .
Now , he has revealed more of just how connected that he really is to President Donald Trump ’ s closest , inner circle , indicating how they can ’ t just write him off or wish his evidence out of existence .
A photo has circulated depicting Parnas with Trump ’ s daughter and adviser Ivanka and her husband and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although the White House has dismissed the image as just from an event with a photo line , Parnas says they ’ re lying .
In reality , the photo is from a very small event that included them .
The event focused on cannabis policy and was held in October 2018 at a Trump hotel by a pro-Trump super PAC called America First Action .
The event had no more than around a dozen or sixteen people , including Parnas , Kushner , Ivanka , and even Republican fundraiser and current Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hicks Jr. Also featuring , according to the Daily Beast ’ s description of an anonymous account , “ cannabis professionals… [ and ] people from the banking , agriculture , and import-export sectors , ” the dinner was meant to connect the Trump family members and advisers with leaders in the cannabis industry .
Besides his pro-cannabis stance that led to his own eventual ultimately failed work to develop a cannabis business , Parnas says that he was invited to the event because he was a “ Trump loyalist.
” He explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on lobbying .
According to one of the sources speaking to the Daily Beast , Kushner and Trump discussed criminal justice reform and the “ tension ” between cannabis-related legislation on the federal and state levels .
Although the super PAC apparently did not directly sell tickets to the event , at least some attendees essentially bought their way in anyway via donating large enough sums to garner the attention necessary for an invitation , the Daily Beast notes .
Parnas had a hand in large donations to Republican causes , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finance law violation case against him , but it ’ s unclear if any donations preceded this particular Trump World interaction .
Overall , Parnas ’ s account has been confirmed by a number of sources .
For example , the Daily Beast notes that “ [ t ] wo sources with knowledge of the dinner confirmed that it happened in October 2018 and that Parnas attended.
” Additionally , subject matter expert Zack Everson has pointed out how the decor in the background of the photo featuring Parnas , Kushner , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the small cannabis industry gathering was hosted .
The situation is a rare case in which Parnas hasn ’ t actually implicated the president ’ s team in something directly criminally nefarious , but the connections are there nonetheless — and the White House did lie about their interactions , so there ’ s that !
Parnas ’ s other newly revealed evidence includes direct confirmation of Trump ’ s personal role in a plot to bribe Ukraine into investigating his opponents .

Former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas’s decision to speak out about his take on the private Trump team schemes that he was a part of or knew about has sent shock waves through the political scene. Now, he has revealed more of just how connected that he really is to President Donald Trump’s closest, inner circle, indicating how they can’t just write him off or wish his evidence out of existence. A photo has circulated depicting Parnas with Trump’s daughter and adviser Ivanka and her husband and fellow presidential adviser Jared Kushner, and although the White House has dismissed the image as just from an event with a photo line, Parnas says they’re lying. In reality, the photo is from a very small event that included them.
New: We obtained a photo of Lev Parnas with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, indicating he met them at least once. https://t.co/gRtpZjJnRW pic.twitter.com/IEryg7Bzyv — Betsy Woodruff Swan (@woodruffbets) January 14, 2020
The event focused on cannabis policy and was held in October 2018 at a Trump hotel by a pro-Trump super PAC called America First Action. The event had no more than around a dozen or sixteen people, including Parnas, Kushner, Ivanka, and even Republican fundraiser and current Republican National Committee (RNC) co-chair Tommy Hicks Jr. Also featuring, according to the Daily Beast’s description of an anonymous account, “cannabis professionals… [and] people from the banking, agriculture, and import-export sectors,” the dinner was meant to connect the Trump family members and advisers with leaders in the cannabis industry. Besides his pro-cannabis stance that led to his own eventual ultimately failed work to develop a cannabis business, Parnas says that he was invited to the event because he was a “Trump loyalist.”
He explained the perspective of the non-administration attendees as focused on lobbying.
Parnas said:
‘They wanted Jared to be more involved, maybe help push the agenda with the president because they felt that that was something he needed to be more lenient on.’
According to one of the sources speaking to the Daily Beast, Kushner and Trump discussed criminal justice reform and the “tension” between cannabis-related legislation on the federal and state levels.
Although the super PAC apparently did not directly sell tickets to the event, at least some attendees essentially bought their way in anyway via donating large enough sums to garner the attention necessary for an invitation, the Daily Beast notes. Parnas had a hand in large donations to Republican causes, many of which figure in the federal campaign finance law violation case against him, but it’s unclear if any donations preceded this particular Trump World interaction.
Overall, Parnas’s account has been confirmed by a number of sources. For example, the Daily Beast notes that “[t]wo sources with knowledge of the dinner confirmed that it happened in October 2018 and that Parnas attended.” Additionally, subject matter expert Zack Everson has pointed out how the decor in the background of the photo featuring Parnas, Kushner, and Ivanka matches that in the venue where the small cannabis industry gathering was hosted.
The situation is a rare case in which Parnas hasn’t actually implicated the president’s team in something directly criminally nefarious, but the connections are there nonetheless — and the White House did lie about their interactions, so there’s that! Parnas’s other newly revealed evidence includes direct confirmation of Trump’s personal role in a plot to bribe Ukraine into investigating his opponents.


bipartisanreport--2020-01-18--Pelosi Perfectly Digs Trump Over Impeachment In New Interview

President Donald Trump is impeached — that fact will never change , and it will always remain associated with his legacy as a president .
In an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday night , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) pointed this out while discussing the uncertainty surrounding what will actually unfold during the Senate impeachment trial , which has opening arguments set to begin this coming week .
Some Senate Republicans have already been gearing up to acquit Trump no matter what , but that will not change that House Democrats held him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever !
And we all know how obsessed with his public image that Trump really is , so this message seems likely to get on his nerves from the get-go , if he hears of it .
Asked what she ’ d say to the president if he was listening , Pelosi said , speaking as if directly to Trump : Leaders of the current Republican majority in the Senate have openly flaunted that they won ’ t be “ impartial jurors ” and derided the idea of even attempting to hear Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s formally part of the case or outside of it , they ’ ve been preparing to — in Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham ’ s words — “ end this crap as quickly as possible.
” ‘ If I knew that the president is listening , I would want him to know that he is impeached forever , and he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit .
In doing so , he undermined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election .
He gave us no choice.
’ If she had appeared on a Fox show , then she could be more assured that the president actually was listening , since the president is obsessed with that network .
As she indicates , he led yet another election interference plot .
This time , through delaying military aid and dangling the possibility of a summit in D.C. with his team , Trump was trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents , including the Bidens .
The scheme was revealed before Ukraine actually launched that investigation — and now , in a fitting twist , they ’ re actually investigating people in the president ’ s own orbit .
They ’ re looking into text messages that seem to suggest that those people had Marie Yovanovitch under surveillance when she was serving as U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine .
Those texts are part of yet another new trove of evidence outlining the Ukraine plot , but Pelosi says there was plenty of evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ The fact is is that we knew we had a solid case for impeachment of the president .
The facts were clear , the Constitution required it , and we wanted to make our case and go forward , so we put forth the articles of impeachment and in fact voted them .
We knew there was plenty of other , should we say , information to come forward… It would have been further incriminating , but not necessary , and it wouldn ’ t in any way weaken the case that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was completely understood by the American people.
’ Her implication that Americans support the investigation is exactly correct — Americans are about evenly split on the question of whether or not they support the investigation , with support maintaining a slight lead .

President Donald Trump is impeached — that fact will never change, and it will always remain associated with his legacy as a president. In an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pointed this out while discussing the uncertainty surrounding what will actually unfold during the Senate impeachment trial, which has opening arguments set to begin this coming week. Some Senate Republicans have already been gearing up to acquit Trump no matter what, but that will not change that House Democrats held him accountable with impeachment. That’s forever!
And we all know how obsessed with his public image that Trump really is, so this message seems likely to get on his nerves from the get-go, if he hears of it.
Asked what she’d say to the president if he was listening, Pelosi said, speaking as if directly to Trump:
‘You are impeached forever. No matter what the Senate does, it can never be erased.’
Leaders of the current Republican majority in the Senate have openly flaunted that they won’t be “impartial jurors” and derided the idea of even attempting to hear Democrats out. No matter the evidence that’s formally part of the case or outside of it, they’ve been preparing to — in Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham’s words — “end this crap as quickly as possible.”
Meanwhile, Pelosi continued, elaborating:
‘If I knew that the president is listening, I would want him to know that he is impeached forever, and he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit. In doing so, he undermined our national security, he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election. He gave us no choice.’
If she had appeared on a Fox show, then she could be more assured that the president actually was listening, since the president is obsessed with that network.
As she indicates, he led yet another election interference plot. This time, through delaying military aid and dangling the possibility of a summit in D.C. with his team, Trump was trying to bribe Ukraine into investigating his domestic political opponents, including the Bidens. The scheme was revealed before Ukraine actually launched that investigation — and now, in a fitting twist, they’re actually investigating people in the president’s own orbit. They’re looking into text messages that seem to suggest that those people had Marie Yovanovitch under surveillance when she was serving as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.
Those texts are part of yet another new trove of evidence outlining the Ukraine plot, but Pelosi says there was plenty of evidence to proceed before the latest emerged.
She commented:
‘The fact is is that we knew we had a solid case for impeachment of the president. The facts were clear, the Constitution required it, and we wanted to make our case and go forward, so we put forth the articles of impeachment and in fact voted them. We knew there was plenty of other, should we say, information to come forward… It would have been further incriminating, but not necessary, and it wouldn’t in any way weaken the case that had the support of my caucus and was completely understood by the American people.’
Her implication that Americans support the investigation is exactly correct — Americans are about evenly split on the question of whether or not they support the investigation, with support maintaining a slight lead.
Check out her comments: