President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Yurt2

When will Trump's supporters concede that he's basically a silver-spoon dumb*ss who doesn't know what he's doing? I admit, from time to time, I enjoy how he gets the hackles up of the po-faced Ivy League left, but apart from that it's fairly apparent that he's not exactly a bright man - and he doesn't really understand what a President is supposed to do or how to behave. He just knows it's an important position and thus he wants the sceptre and the crown.

duploelabs

Yurt! wrote: »

When will Trump's supporters concede that he's basically a silver-spoon dumb*ss who doesn't know what he's doing? I admit, from time to time, I enjoy how he gets the hackles up of the po-faced Ivy League left, but apart from that it's fairly apparent that he's not exactly a bright man - and he doesn't really understand what a President is supposed to do or how to behave. He just knows it's an important position and thus he wants the sceptre and the crown.

Because his supporters have an ego as fragile as the man himself and will go down with the ship as that's their prefered outcome rather than admit that they're wrong

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly and that's what it will ultimately boil down to: one side saying it was 'looking for dirt to help in 2020' and the other side saying that it was a 'request for an investigation into corruption' and from what I can see there is much more to support the latter than the former.

There are other aspects of Vindman's testimony which I feel should have led to his immediate dismissal. He openly admits that after the July 25th call, whenever Ukrainian officials would ask him for advice re the investigations which Trump had spoken about, he would tell them to stay out of US Politics otherwise Ukraine's bipartisan support would be affected. Wtf like. If an official in the Obama administration admitted to doing that, the media would have ripped them asunder, but from what I can see that aspect of his testimony was barely covered.

Here's what he said (with lots of humming and hawing):



He even admitted to saying it to Zelensky direct:




Rep. Ratcliffe tried to ask him question on this point but sounds like something of a row broke out:




I think it's clear why the democrats withheld the transcripts for so long and that was so they could cherry pick the portions of testimony to leak to the media in order to further their own narrative.

Well, from Wednesday at least we shall see some open hearings and that will be refreshing to say they the least. Sick of reading PDFs.

I’m not seeing the bombshell here: a career government official advised their foreign counterparts to not get involved with US Politics. Perhaps you think he means don’t do diplomacy with the US? Not what I’m reading here anyway. There’s for example, involving yourself in Diplomatic Relations with Russia, and then there is meddling in Russian Politics. Clearly these cats are referencing affairs internal to one county.

I don’t get what is supposed to be so eye opening about telling (nay, advising) a foreign government to not get involved in our internal politics?

Overheal

Mulvaney withdraws from efforts to join or enter a lawsuit about complying with lawful congressional subpoena and instead has just simply decided he won’t testify, at the order of the President.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t get what is supposed to be so eye opening about telling (nay, advising) a foreign government to not get involved in our internal politics?

It wasn't just domestic internal politics thought, that's the point. One thing saying he told Ukrainian officials to ignore Rudy or whatever, I get that (and I think even Pompeo and Barr don't have much time for him either) but it's quite another for Vindman to stifle requests which his Commander in Chief has asked of a foreign leader, which he absolutely did by telling them to stay out of US politics in response to them asking about the investigations which the POTUS had spoken about on the call.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It wasn't just domestic internal politics thought, that's the point. One thing saying he told Ukrainian officials to ignore Rudy or whatever, I get that (and I think even Pompeo and Barr don't have much time for him either) but it's quite another for Vindman to stifle requests which his Commander in Chief has asked of a foreign leader, which he absolutely did by telling them to stay out of US politics in response to them asking about the investigations which the POTUS had spoken about on the call.

The LTC wasn’t ordered by the President to encourage them to interfere in US Politics. And if he was that’s a bombshell. I can’t imagine it being a problem that a career official notices that it’s not kosher for Ukraine to be meddling in US Politics, and digging up dirt on election candidates.

Overheal

Emoluments

NBC wrote:

Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said.
Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said.

The Trump Organization has a property in Istanbul, and the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump attended the opening with Erdogan in 2012. Though it’s a leasing agreement for use of the Trump name, Trump himself said in a 2015 interview that the arrangement presented ‘a little conflict of interest’ should he be elected.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

The LTC wasn’t ordered by the President to encourage them to interfere in US Politics. And if he was that’s a bombshell.

:rolleyes:

I can’t imagine it being a problem that a career official notices that it’s not kosher for Ukraine to be meddling in US Politics..

Investigating alleged corruption is not meddling in US politics. There is a treaty between both countries indeed to facilitate such cooperation.

and digging up dirt on election candidates.

Your posts are high on inferences but low on facts to justify them.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Investigating alleged corruption is not meddling in US politics. There is a treaty between both countries indeed to facilitate such cooperation.

Your posts are high on inferences but low on facts to justify them.

The United States has vehicles for investigating corruption. It doesn’t involve the President making Quid pro quo calls to request specific Americans running against that president in an election get re-re-investigated by foreign governments (that he claims he thinks are themselves corrupt anyway??) in the hope of finding more dirt on them.

And yes. Dirt. Dirt. Dirt. What do you expect he wanted to find on Biden? There’s another word for it: Dirt. Obama’s birth certificate? “Dirt.” His college transcripts? “Dirt.” Trumps tax returns? “Dirt.” Hillarys emails? “Dirt.” Snooping into the DNC at Watergate? “Dirt.” Old blackface photos? “Dirt.”

I proffer plenty of fact, and I link my sources. You don’t, more often than not. :rolleyes:

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

The United States has vehicles for investigating corruption.

It's not just corruption, it is corruption within a foreign country. A foreign country that has had investigations into some of the same people involved already. It would be remiss of the POTUS not to raise the issue with Zelensky given that he was elected on the basis that he was going to tackle corruption once and for all within Ukraine.

It doesn’t involve the President making Quid pro quo calls

Well, Biden said Obama had his back on his quid pro quo and so I guess it does ... and don't give me the 'International support' nonsense, as the US always has International support on such issues.

to request specific Americans running against that president in an election

Nobody is above the law and Biden's actions put him in the position he currently finds himself. Laughable to suggest the POTUS should have to treat Biden differently to anyone else who has been implicated in serious corruption, especially given that it was in their capacity as Vice President of the United States when he (and his son) are said to have acted improperly.

And yes. Dirt. Dirt. Dirt. What do you expect he wanted to find on Biden?

You can repeat the word 'Dirt' as many times as you like but won't change the fact that what Trump was looking for was (and indeed, is looking for) is the truth! And again, it's clear from Zelensky's reply on the call that what he inferred from the POTUS' request was that he was looking for the truth and NOT dirt as you (and others) keep proclaiming.

Ultimately it's facts that matter, not inferences and categorizations with little or no basis to support them. That's the mistake the left made with Russiagate, thinking if they repeated the lies about Trump enough then that would be sufficient and it seems they are all making the very same mistake again.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not just corruption, it is corruption within a foreign country. A foreign country that has had investigations into some of the same people involved already. It would be remiss of the POTUS not to raise the issue with Zelensky given that he was elected on the basis that he was going to tackle corruption once and for all within Ukraine.

Ah yes who could forget the chants of "BUILD A WALL! MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT! BAN THE MUSLIMS! CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES! LOCK HER UP! TACKLE CORRUPTION ONCE AND FOR ALL IN UKRAINE!"

Well, Biden said Obama had his back on his quid pro quo and so I guess it does ... and don't give me the 'International support' nonsense, as the US always has International support on such issues.

Obama didn't make any calls, and it wasn't for QPQ or for dirt on opponents.

Nobody is above the law and Biden's actions put him in the position he currently finds himself. Laughable to suggest the POTUS should have to treat Biden differently to anyone else who has been implicated in serious corruption, especially given that it was in their capacity as Vice President of the United States when he (and his son) are said to have acted improperly.

Your armchair opinion on how the separation of powers works, is absurd to the point where it no longer merits addressing. I will just keep posting this:



that's before we get into the broader issues of how the separation of powers works and the things the Framers did to prevent the President from acting as a fascist.

You can repeat the word 'Dirt' as many times as you like but won't change the fact that what Trump was looking for was (and indeed, is looking for) is the truth!

LOL what truth? Biden gave him the truth or at least an exaggerated self-aggrandizement of it: on video, from 2018.

You make it sound as though if a US citizen breaks a tax law in the Ukraine that the President should be personally involved. Come on. You're wasting time here.

And again, it's clear from Zelensky's reply on the call that what he inferred from the POTUS' request was that he was looking for the truth and NOT dirt as you (and others) keep proclaiming.

He was bootlicking. He is still bootlicking. Ukraine is sandwiched between the US and Russia. They don't have much wiggle.

Ultimately it's facts that matter, not inferences and categorizations with little or no basis to support them. That's the mistake the left made with Russiagate, thinking if they repeated the lies about Trump enough then that would be sufficient and it seems they are all making the very same mistake again.

I wonder why everyone had that idea...

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project. [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter] And in February 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.

***

The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly reported to involve potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interaction between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate's April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive. And the investigation did not establish that one Campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September 2016 at Sessions's Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

Even Mueller is of the mind that Collusion has not been wholly disproven, only that Special Counsel failed to determine that.

Overheal

Speaking of which Roger Stone's trial is finally underway today and we are already learning that Trump probably committed Perjury before the Special Counsel - the same reason for which Bill Clinton was impeached.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/revealing-testimony-at-roger-stone-trial-indicates-trump-may-have-lied-to-mueller-committed-perjury/?fbclid=IwAR3b0otxcRh_-gx3jOGStU2D35YEcih6W3AIfP1RCaAUjoO8oPIVhnIDgJc

duploelabs

How many other countries were investigated for corruption?

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

How many other countries were investigated for corruption?

Or Americans, personally, by this President...

Overheal

Trump planning to retaliate against ICIG

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1194363157835218944?s=20

Overheal

Bribery Charges seem to be the focal article now.

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff strongly signaled that Democrats would focus their impeachment case against President Donald Trump around a “bribery” charge.

According to audio in a new NPR interview, Schiff argued that the Founders had a “broader” definition of bribery that included abuse of power and breach of the public trust by elected officials, suggesting that it would be the central crime in the “high crimes and misdemeanors” specified by the Constitution for impeachment of a president.

“As the Founders understood bribery, it was not as we understand it in law today. It was much broader,” Schiff told NPR. “It connoted the breach of the public trust in a way where you’re offering official acts for some personal or political reason, not in the nation’s interest.”

Schiff went on to explain that he believes the public investigation of potential 2020 rival Joe Biden, which multiple Trump administration witnesses have confirmed the White House pushed to obtain from Ukrainian authorities, [Pete? Pete?] is the “something of value” to satisfy the bribery charge.

He also disputed the Republican rebuttal that Trump never got what he wanted from Ukraine.

“When you consider the serious terms of whether the president has committed an impeachable offense, the fact that the scheme was discovered, the fact that the scheme was unsuccessful, doesn’t make it any less odious or any less impeachable,” Schiff argued. “If the president solicited for help in the U.S. election, if the president conditioned official acts on the performance of these political favors, whether Ukraine ever had to go through with it really doesn’t matter. What matters is: Did the president attempt to commit acts that ought to result in his removal from office?”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/listen-adam-schiff-signals-bribery-charge-for-trumps-impeachment-founders-understood-it-as-breach-of-the-public-trust/

Overheal

Next weeks open hearings have been announced additional to testimony tomorrow

https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/status/1194415226432696320?s=21

Bill Taylor and Kent testify tomorrow and Yovanovitch on Friday.

Here’s a handy meta page from CNN that collects also all the testimony released so far and the list of testimony to come: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/11/politics/house-impeachment-schedule-guide/index.html

Overheal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-donor-dinner-giuliani-associate-said-he-discussed-ukraine-with-trump-according-to-people-familiar-with-his-account/2019/11/12/2a1f28e0-0558-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

Here we have account of foreigners influencing the President of the United States in a manner which the Founders deemed verboten.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were in intimate contact with the President at a dinner for SuperPAC group donors. Both men are in custody on charges of funneling foreign money into US elections.

At this dinner in April 2018 (the PAC(s) are funding his 2020 election), they influenced the President of the United States to fire the Ukraine ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch.

If the two are convicted of funneling foreign money into Trump’s election, and it is confirmed they intimated with Trump in April of 2018 (Trump has gaslit to the contrary), Trump is in some real ****, it would be a cut and dry, judicially fact-checked, and irrefutable evidence of foreign emoluments, ie. Bribery and influence from other nations compromising the Commander in Chief. It would be utterly baffling if he was not impeached in such a scenario.

Oh and there’s other instances of their direct intimation with the POTUS:

” In February, Parnas and Fruman met with Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, according to Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a lawyer for Parnas. They were doing so, he said, on a request from Giuliani, who was acting on orders from Trump.

MacMahon said the two proposed that in exchange for a state visit, the Ukrainian president would announce investigations into former vice president Joe Biden’s son and an unfounded theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential race.”

If that claim checks out, then Poroshenko even knew there would be a Quid Pro Quo, as early as February and before the Ukranian Election. I'd bet the house that Zelensky knew also ("nuh uh you don't have proof of that yet" - Pete) because how could he not know about that kind of foreign policy issue inside the Ukraine a month before the Ukraine election and by the time he was sworn in? If so, Ukraine's transition process is an utter shambles.

It would also conveniently tie together the Quid Pro Quo with Joe Biden and the 2020 election and specifically with Trump's 2020 campaign and in particular a Trump Super PAC (also what is this BS about Trump meeting anyone in coordination with a PAC? Did I miss something). Politically however one can make the argument the two have flipped and everyhyhyhything that they say will need to be vetted publicly; though if it's true I'd probably still be surprised at how utterly blatant its all been splayed out now.

.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Bribery Charges seem to be the focal article now.

So I was right ...

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They started off saying he should be impeached because of a quid pro quo and now they have changed their tune and trying to find anything at all. They don't even have a reason yet. What the dems are at right now is a fishing expedition.

So they've decided it's 'Bribery' now? What a bloody farce.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So I was right ...

So they've decided it's 'Bribery' now? What a bloody farce.

Your petulance is now meant to signify that it is somehow not okay to pursue these avenues? That would utterly dissolve half your contributions to this thread.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Obama didn't make any calls, and it wasn't for QPQ or for dirt on opponents.

Biden claimed Obama approved of his withholding the $1billion in aid until such time as the Ukraine fired the Shokin. That's text book QPQ.

Your armchair opinion on how the separation of powers works, is absurd to the point where it no longer merits addressing. I will just keep posting this:

You can post it 100 times if you like, still won't make it relevant, no matter how big you make the image ... as Trump did not solicit interference in a US election. Maybe you're thinking of Hillary Clinton?

that's before we get into the broader issues of how the separation of powers works

The POTUS sets foreign policy. He has the authority to ask a foreign country for anything he so wishes. You think Obama sent plane loads of cash to Iran without getting his back scratched in some way? Come on.

LOL what truth? Biden gave him the truth or at least an exaggerated self-aggrandizement of it: on video, from 2018.

The truth with regards to whether or not Joe Biden (or the State Dept) made foreign policy decisions which financially benefited Hunter Biden in any way and also if the firing of Shokin benefited Hunter (or his associates) in any way. Burisma appeared to lobby state officials in an effort to end corruption allegations also and that absolutely needs to be investigated.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-lobbied-state-department-to-end-corruption-allegations-emails-show_3137480.html

You make it sound as though if a US citizen breaks a tax law in the Ukraine that the President should be personally involved. Come on. You're wasting time here.

You're not listening. You ignore everything that is said to you and start all over again in the very next post. You've been doing it since the start of the thread.

Joe Biden is not an ordinary citizen. He was Vice President of the United States and so your trite remark is just that, trite. Secondly, there have been court cases in Ukraine dealing with Ukraine's inference in the 2016 election and so it is apt for Trump to raise the issue with regards to Ukraine and 2016 also, would be absurd if he didn't in fact.

Trump spent three years battling lies that he conspired with Russia to interfere in the election and also that Russia had compromised him in some way .. and so if he wishes to ask the new president of Ukraine to look into those issues, then that is what he should do and he should be able to do so without Obama holdovers pearl clutching all around him, incredulously wondering if he is doing the right thing or not and does he have the authority to do it. It's nothing short of a fcuking disgrace that these people are getting away with what they are at and calling themselves the resistance while they do it too. Trump should do whatever it takes to track down every last one of these spineless leakers and send them on their way with a toe up their holes for good measure, so he can get on with doing the job he was elected to do.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Biden claimed Obama approved of his withholding the $1billion in aid until such time as the Ukraine fired the Shokin. That's text book QPQ.

How? How did Obama stand to benefit illicitly or otherwise?

You can post it 100 times if you like, still won't make it relevant, no matter how big you make the image ... as Trump did not solicit interference in a US election.

That's a conflation of the issues here, and being a foreigner yourself I appreciate you might not see the distinction since to your perspective both countries (Russia incl) are foreign.

I wasn't discussing just now Ukraine interfering in the US election (such as what Internet Research Agency did to benefit the Trump campaign from Russia), however that was in the plan as well, in a sort of dry and diplomatically-veiled way - "The Deliverable," the meeting on the White House garden where Zelensky and Trump would announce a joint fishing expedition/witch hunt/dirt expedition/oppo research/heroic great-leader supreme fighting-corruption saga/so totally not impeachable lawful investigation into an opponent/what have you, into as you say, "Possible interference in the 2016 election by Ukraine" which by extension of anyone's common sense understanding of that malaise, includes ("INFERENCE!!!@#@!#!QW$!@#$ - Pete) any Ukranian entities that interacted with politicians in the US, which was the beeline to Burisma, because of Hunter Biden's position on the Board of Burisma, and by direct Kevin-Bacon, Joe Biden. All of these are corroborated on the call, they are corroborated by multiple witnesses detailing other events, such as those on July 10, where the Bidens and Burisma and Investigations all came up again in front of Ukraine officials in a manner which Bolton described as a drug deal.

Maybe you're thinking of Hillary Clinton?

Why would I?

The POTUS sets foreign policy. He has the authority to ask a foreign country for anything he so wishes.

The President could ask a foreign country to target and assassinate his political rivals?

You think Obama sent plane loads of cash to Iran without getting his back scratched in some way? Come on.

Obama, then Hillary, and again Obama you try to go. But sure if John Solomon or Alex Jones or Glenn Beck or whichever Conspiracy Theorist you're RSS'ing these days has a funny notion that Obama got an illicit Quid Pro Quo, please please please share it on "my forum" as some have called it in CA.

For now though that's a worthless deflection from the Impeachment of Donald Trump.

The truth with regards to whether or not Joe Biden (or the State Dept) made foreign policy decisions which financially benefited Hunter Biden in any way and also if the firing of Shokin benefited Hunter (or his associates) in any way.

That's an awfully broad axe to cleave: the State Department makes foreign policy decisions, I would imagine, numerous times per day. Some of those policy decisions benefit the world, for instance, by staving off our mutually assured destruction. And for instance everyone in the west agreed that they all benefited if Shokin was replaced by an uncorrupt Procurator. So it very much stands to reason that, yes, they surely benefited in-some-way, like Joe Biden getting to tell a zinger at a 2018 function, and Burisma likely appreciated the country's continued economic ties to the west, as did much of the Ukranine economy.

Burisma appeared to lobby state officials in an effort to end corruption allegations also and that absolutely needs to be investigated.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-lobbied-state-department-to-end-corruption-allegations-emails-show_3137480.html

Here you go

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-to-review-investigations-into-firm-linked-to-bidens-son-11570183933

Seems Trump got his Quid.

You're not listening. You ignore everything that is said to you and start all over again in the very next post. You've been doing it since the start of the thread.

Joe Biden is not an ordinary citizen. He was Vice President of the United States and so your trite remark is just that, trite.

And he is also running for President of the United States in the 2020 election. It doesn't matter how much else you want to throw into that statement ('he liked weird sunglasses and cheap haircuts), it doesn't change the fact that he is running for President in 2020 and that means that Campaign Finance Law is in play. That means that there are ethical considerations about the President investigating an electoral challenger. The rest is window dressing, he could have been the Zodiac Killer at large, but if he's running to be the next President, then the current president seeking re-election will still need to ****ing recuse himself of the matter for anyone to accept that as legitimate.

You say for example he can investigate anyone, then I'd love to hear you argue why Trump should have been allowed to run the Grand Jury himself instead of Robert Mueller? I mean, what are the limits/bounds of your argument? Who could the president *not* be in charge of investigating?

Secondly, there have been court cases in Ukraine dealing with Ukraine's inference in the 2016 election and so it is apt for Trump to raise the issue with regards to Ukraine and 2016 also, would be absurd if he didn't in fact.

I'm actually quite shocked you read this header and your keen 'fake news' senses didn't fire off. But sure all that Paul Manafort nonsense yes, but I'm confused why you'd bring this up: is the defense here that "Trump needed to have Ukraine investigate the things > because he 'knows' they did the things in 2016 > because Manafort was instrumental in the effort > and it helped support his campaign?"

I'm not again sure how the article buttresses your argument: its thesis for *how* Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election (aside from Manafort getting assloads of money from Pro-Russia interests) is that they had the audacity to pursue corruption inside the Ukraine, in the year 2016, and to publish the findings, which happened to just discover the fact that Manafort was a corrupt scumbag. So, the paper alleges, the Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election (DUN DUN DUNNNNNN). And even worse (dunuun?) the findings were published in Ukranian AND English (DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN! Edit: No, actually, let's do this right) which isn't so alarming when you remember oh yeah Pete has been harping on about this agreement that our two countries have to fight corruption! How about that!

Trump spent three years battling lies that he conspired with Russia to interfere in the election and also that Russia had compromised him in some way .. and so if he wishes to ask the new president of Ukraine to look into those issues, then that is what he should do and he should be able to do so without Obama holdovers pearl clutching all around him, incredulously wondering if he is doing the right thing or not and does he have the authority to do it. It's nothing short of a fcuking disgrace that these people are getting away with what they are at and calling themselves the resistance while they do it too. Trump should do whatever it takes to track down every last one of these spineless leakers and send them on their way with a toe up their holes for good measure, so he can get on with doing the job he was elected to do.

That's quite a bit fascist Pete. And your sentiments, while a completely natural response of frustration, are dangerously unethical if acted upon. That is why there are whistleblower protection laws (Trump has signed a few, as he will tell you).

You forget that some of Trump's own political appointees, not just career officials, will be testifying correct? And you are aware, surely, that political appointees such as Bolton (the farthest thing from an Obama holdover) called the whole thing a "Drug Deal."

If I may Pete, you seem upset that in Ex-Soviet Ukraine, lib owns you!

ebbsy

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So I was right ...



So they've decided it's 'Bribery' now? What a bloody farce.

+1

It's getting idiotic now, and will achieve nothing.

Cody montana

Let the games begin.

Christmas has come early.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So I was right ...



So they've decided it's 'Bribery' now? What a bloody farce.

You're not this dense, Pete, so stop pretending that you are.


As a gross simplification, Bribery is the crime and to establish that bribery happened, evidence of a quid-pro-quo is required.

Overheal

mcmoustache wrote: »

You're not this dense, Pete, so stop pretending that you are.


As a gross simplification, Bribery is the crime and to establish that bribery happened, evidence of a quid-pro-quo is required.

It’s a deeper issue than that; Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman who were also part of the Quid pro quo effort, are also indicted for funneling foreign money into Trump’s 2020 campaign via a Super PAC. That’s where there are other emoluments/bribery issues, in addition to the QPQ itself.

Outlaw Pete

YouTube CSpan stream for anyone interested in watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdXAhuHhqUY

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

It’s a deeper issue than that; Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman who were also part of the Quid pro quo effort, are also indicted for funneling foreign money into Trump’s 2020 campaign via a Super PAC. That’s where there are other emoluments/bribery issues, in addition to the QPQ itself.

No doubt about that. There's more going on here than just the attempts to extort Ukraine last summer. It could go further back than that, maybe even as far as Manafort's activities before he decided to manage the Trump campaign for free. There might even be similar behaviour when it comes to other countries but I'm reluctant to bring these up because these theories don't have the same overwhelming evidence the the Ukraine scandal has that's been made public already.

What's crazy about this Ukraine stuff is the amount of direct evidence as well as consistent witness testimony and the reactions of the Republicans and Trump fans all pointing in the same direction. It's a clear cut case of bribery with a clear quid-quo-pro and the incoherent responses from Republicans as well as the attempts to smear witnesses demonstrates that they know it's impeachable and have no defence.

It's about as perfect a scandal as it gets.

Cody montana

This is devastating for Trump.

Overheal

Saw Nunes/someone tried to jump in before Schiff started his time. Whiffed it though.