The Impeachment Thread

#33,631
#33,631
volinbham said:
sigh. if he's talking about something Rudy did or told him to do that is first hand knowledge "Rudy told me to do "x"". If he's saying Rudy told me "Barr said x" or "Trump knows all about what you are up to" that is hearsay. He does not have first hand knowledge about Trump or Barr in either of those examples.
Click to expand...
Parnas has had direct correspondence with Trump and been a third party to conversations with Trump and Giuliani.
 
#33,637
#33,637
BowlBrother85 said:
Parnas has had direct correspondence with Trump.
Click to expand...

for those things it's not hearsay. Did he have discussions with Barr?

you posted a long list of claims he made saying they were first hand knowledge. assuming he's telling the truth some of them are but some are not. I don't know what he said about Barr but I doubt he and Barr were having a lot of discussions or correspondence.

and that's the problem as he starts to expand from what he "knows" to what he "heard" his credibility gets diminished. if he stuck to simply what he witnessed directly it would be stronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and AM64
#33,640
#33,640
hUTch2002 said:
It’s comical how, according to the left, Parnas went from scum that couldn’t be trusted to a beacon of truth.
Click to expand...
I guess they are all liars to some extent. Trump was definitely lying in October when he told a pool of White House reporters that he didn't know who Lev Parnas was. Trump had already discussed Parnas's legal representation with Jay Sekulow when he said that.
 
#33,648
#33,648
C-south said:
Too bad the house already shot their wad.
Click to expand...

Prematurely. Got all excited over nothing, and now like the old British naval ditty says:

I said, “Pretty fair maid, it's time to give o'er,
Betwixt wind and water you've ran me ashore.
My shot locker's empty and powder's all spent,
I can't fire a shot for it's choked at the vent.”
Click to expand...

The senate should limit witnesses to what the house did; except the senate should call the whistle-blower to determine his/her link to all that's gone on, and to verify that he/she was even in a position to make the judgement call and had legal access to the phone call. That should also cover the legal and schifty coaching. What shouldn't happen is to allow witnesses and information that was excluded earlier because the house was in too big a hurry to investigate or go through the requisite process..
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top