President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

mcmoustache

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah but that's a little like saying attempted murder or a terrorist plot isn't a crime if the event doesn't end up happening.

Both can be true, he could have over-exerted executive power to pressurise the announcement of an investigation and that announcement could end up not happening.

The watergate burglars didn't successfully burgle and Nixon didn't successfully obstruct.


The argument that it's not a big deal because Ukraine eventually got the money isn't meant to persuade anyone clever. It's an indication of the contempt they have for the intelligence of Trump fans.

Outlaw Pete

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah but that's a little like saying attempted murder or a terrorist plot isn't a crime if the event doesn't end up happening.

That could be argued if they had some solid evidence that Trump was not going to release the aid unless the CNN interview was given, but right now, it's all just people saying they believe that to be the case, because they heard that he suggested it to someone who told a person that later shook hands with a Ukrainian. Taylor was asked today if he ever was made to believe a leader was going to do something which they later did not do (or words to that affect) and he said yes, and this is the problem with hearsay, it's too unreliable.

Not that I feel the POTUS should not be able to withhold aid for almost any foreign policy reason he so wishes, as I absolutely do. The notion that because the president didn't have a long discussion about corruption in Ukraine, that that therefore is proof positive he has no interest in such a thing, is absurd. Naturally with a new president in Ukraine, the issues which they discuss first are going to be the ones most pressing, and which they share some commonality on and for sure the alleged 2016 election interference and alleged conflict of interest and shady dealings of the Bidens within Ukraine are going to come up first.

It was short and sweet, a request to look it into those two things and try and get to the bottom of them. It's absurd that the POTUS should not be able to make such a request without it being labelled as interference in a future election just because Joe might be on the 2020 ballot.

Both can be true, he could have over-exerted executive power to pressurise the announcement of an investigation and that announcement could end up not happening.

Yeah, that's true, but they'll need to have a witness that Trump spoke with directly, like someone from the OMB maybe, but that's what makes this all a farce, as even if Trump did what they claim he did, the Senate will never feel it warrants him being removed from office. At that point the focus would just switch to what intelligence the WH had to justify Trump making the request and you can be damn sure that Barr or Haspel will be more than happy to give evidence to the Senate on Trump's behalf to support him making the call to withhold aid until assurances were made re investigation cooperation. That's what makes it all a nothing burger in my eyes.

.. you can't say he wouldn't have given defensive aid in the same circumstances!

America was not in so bad a position in 2014 that they could not have helped Ukraine, and it wasn't like Ukraine didn't try their best to appeal to the US for lethal aid, as Poroshenko even came and addressed congress, famously saying:

“one cannot win a war with blankets.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9_fyzfuOqc

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

Hey Pete, look over there

Yeah, cause further details emerging about the alleged corruption of Bidens and Burisma has nothing whatsoever to do with an impeachment which centers around the President of the United States asking for an investigation of the Bidens with regards to Burisma. What was I thinking.

Boggles

I think we can all agree the most impressive thing about yesterday was Kent rocking up to an impeachment hearing wearing a Bowtie like he fúcking owned the place!

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, cause further details emerging about the alleged corruption of Bidens and Burisma has nothing whatsoever to do with an impeachment which centers around the President of the United States asking for an investigation of the Bidens with regards to Burisma. What was I thinking.

If there's impropriety, let that be investigated, in a separate investigation. But considering there are zero sources quoted in that tweet to substantiate the claim, I wouldn't hold much hope

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

If there's impropriety, let that be investigated, in a separate investigation. But considering there are zero sources quoted in that tweet to substantiate the claim, I wouldn't hold much hope

Even if that stuff amounts to nothing, Judicial Watch alone have gathered enough evidence to support a US president asking Ukraine to look into the Biden's activities from their perspective and yes, of course it would be a separate investigation. Indeed, it's already most likely happening, which might be why Trump asked Zelensky to engage with Barr on the matter.

However, aside from that, those issues are still very much relevant now as the democrat narrative is that Trump only wanted the Bidens investigated because Joe might be on the ballot in 2020. If it turns out that Trump and US intelligence know far more than what's in the public domain right now, and it's in anyway damning, then that will blow the "political rival" narrative right out of the water, and the same goes for the situation with regards to Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election (but I've to address that in a response to Overheal's post above which I missed, but I'm off to work now so it'll have to wait).

One thing more though, everyone's assuming that all that's to be known on these issues (Ukraine, Bidens, Burisma etc) is out there already, but I highly doubt that that's the case at all and indeed Trump alluded to that in an interview recently when he said that people will be surprised at what is to be revealed on these issues. The WH (and some in congress such as Lindsey) not cooperating with this impeachment process could be a tactic and they have decided to take the impeachment on the chin and fight this in the Senate instead, as there they will be able to call whoever they damn well please, and as I said earlier, some high profile folks within the DOJ or Intelligence to say they have intel which more than warrants Trump asking Zelensky to look into Burisma and the Bidens and that will be the end of that. About as far from a high crime as one can get.

osarusan

duploelabs wrote: »

If there's impropriety, let that be investigated, in a separate investigation.

If impropriety emerges, it will legitimise Trump's argument that he was simply asking Ukraine to investigate impropriety/corruption.


The Democrats will have to argue that Trump had no legitimate reason at all to look for such an investigation, and therefore it could only have been motivated by a desire to smear.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Even if that stuff amounts to nothing, Judicial Watch alone have gathered enough evidence to support a US president asking Ukraine to look into the Biden's activities from their perspective and yes, of course it would be a separate investigation. Indeed, it's already most likely happening, which might be why Trump asked Zelensky to engage with Barr on the matter.

However, aside from that, those issues are still very much relevant now as the democrat narrative is that Trump only wanted the Bidens investigated because Joe might be on the ballot in 2020. If it turns out that Trump and US intelligence know far more than what's in the public domain right now, and it's in anyway damning, then that will blow the "political rival" narrative right out of the water, and the same goes for the situation with regards to Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election (but I've to address that in a response to Overheal's post above which I missed, but I'm off to work now so it'll have to wait).

One thing more though, everyone's assuming that all that's to be known on these issues (Ukraine, Bidens, Burisma etc) is out there already, but I highly doubt that that's the case at all and indeed Trump alluded to that in an interview recently when he said that people will be surprised at what is to be revealed on these issues. The WH (and some in congress such as Lindsey) not cooperating with this impeachment process could be a tactic and they have decided to take the impeachment on the chin and fight this in the Senate instead, as there they will be able to call whoever they damn well please, and as I said earlier, some high profile folks within the DOJ or Intelligence to say they have intel which more than warrants Trump asking Zelensky to look into Burisma and the Bidens and that will be the end of that. About as far from a high crime as one can get.

That's not how this works. It's not how any of this works.

There's a legal framework already in place for investigating US citizens getting up to shenanigans abroad. It's the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act and investigations can be run by the DOJ and the DOE. An off-the-books scheme cooked up by a president and his personal lawyer is not how these things are handled outside of Trumpland.

SJW Lover

This will only lead to a 2020 election win for Trump. And probably some light being shone on activities senior Democrats like Biden and Pelosi dont want you to know about. Adam Schiff is such a complete muppet.

Hector Savage

Sums up the whole farcical witchhunt ...

All this will do is push more and more people to voting for him ...

Cody montana

SJW Lover wrote: »

This will only lead to a 2020 election win for Trump. And probably some light being shone on activities senior Democrats like Biden and Pelosi dont want you to know about. Adam Schiff is such a complete muppet.

Really?
Because bribery is a winning formula alright.

If Bolton testifies he’s gone imo.

Cody montana

Hector Savage wrote: »

Sums up the whole farcical witchhunt ...

All this will do is push more and more people to voting for him ...

The thumbnail tells me all about the content of the video.
Utter garbage.

SJW Lover

Cody montana wrote: »

Really?
Because bribery is a winning formula alright.

If Bolton testifies he’s gone imo.

If you think this will lead anywhere then you arent paying attention.

Ps it absolutely 100% was not bribery. And the fact that they wont put their only primary witness on the stand and would prefer to rely on hearsay just highlights how weak this is.

duploelabs

SJW Lover wrote: »

If you think this will lead anywhere then you arent paying attention.

Ps it absolutely 100% was not bribery. And the fact that they wont put their only primary witness on the stand and would prefer to rely on hearsay just highlights how weak this is.

The whistleblower isn't the primary witness, they are the catalyst. Plenty of named people have come forward with sworn testamonies to confirm the whistleblower's allegations. What's more is that their identity is protected under the whistleblower act and therefore cannot be named

mcmoustache

SJW Lover wrote: »

This will only lead to a 2020 election win for Trump.

If that's true, why are all the liddle' Trumpers so annoyed? Shouldn't they be overjoyed about a process that guarantees their daddy god emperor a second term.

Unless of course that point is a load of shíte, of course.

SJW Lover

duploelabs wrote: »

The whistleblower isn't the primary witness, they are the catalyst. Plenty of named people have come forward with sworn testamonies to confirm the whistleblower's allegations. What's more is that their identity is protected under the whistleblower act and therefore cannot be named

That makes absolutely no sense. The one person who witnesses a murder is the primary witness. The evidence of people who overheard that a murder took place and whodunnit is hearsay. It has little evidential value. I have been in enough courtrooms in my career to know these basic facts.


To simply accept that the actual whistleblower is not going to give evidence is staggering. To bring a case on what someone told you and not present any evidence as to who that person was or have that person give evidence themselves would be laughed out of every courtroom worldwide.


This is a show. For what end remains to be seen. But it is only going to strengthen Trump, mark my words.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

If that's true, why are all the liddle' Trumpers so annoyed? Shouldn't they be overjoyed about a process that guarantees their daddy god emperor a second term.

Unless of course that point is a load of shíte, of course.

Why the childish remarks? You really are no better than the imaginary people you have created your little nicknames for. How is the Mueller investigation going? You must have picked up an infection at this stage with all you've swallowed over the past few years.

Cody montana

SJW Lover wrote: »

If you think this will lead anywhere then you arent paying attention.

Ps it absolutely 100% was not bribery. And the fact that they wont put their only primary witness on the stand and would prefer to rely on hearsay just highlights how weak this is.

The news over the next two weeks will be devastating for trump.

What was it so?
The whistle blower is irrelevant now.

Hector Savage

Cody montana wrote: »

Really?
Because bribery is a winning formula alright.

If Bolton testifies he’s gone imo.

Even if the democrats go through with it, the republicans will never vote him out ...

SJW Lover

Cody montana wrote: »

The news over the next two weeks will be devastating for trump.

What was it so?
The whistle blower is irrelevant now.

You haven't a clue.

mcmoustache

SJW Lover wrote: »

Why the childish remarks? You really are no better than the imaginary people you have created your little nicknames for. How is the Mueller investigation going? You must have picked up an infection at this stage with all you've swallowed over the past few years.

Wooosh!

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

Wooosh!

As i said, childish. What you usually resort to when you have nothing else.

duploelabs

SJW Lover wrote: »

That makes absolutely no sense. The one person who witnesses a murder is the primary witness. The evidence of people who overheard that a murder took place and whodunnit is hearsay. It has little evidential value. I have been in enough courtrooms in my career to know these basic facts.


To simply accept that the actual whistleblower is not going to give evidence is staggering. To bring a case on what someone told you and not present any evidence as to who that person was or have that person give evidence themselves would be laughed out of every courtroom worldwide.


This is a show. For what end remains to be seen. But it is only going to strengthen Trump, mark my words.

This isn't a criminal proceedure so any preconceptions that you may have that it should follow the same procedure are just false

Cody montana

SJW Lover wrote: »

You haven't a clue.

Well done on answering the question!

SJW Lover

duploelabs wrote: »

This isn't a criminal proceedure so any preconceptions that you may have that it should follow the same procedure are just false

I used murder as an example. The principle applies in this matter. My preconceptions are fine, thanks.

mcmoustache

SJW Lover wrote: »

As i said, childish. What you usually resort to when you have nothing else.

The nonsense that you post is so devoid of any kind of factual anchoring that a serious response is pointless. In fact it's not that far removed from the arguments of Sovereign Citizens.

If you weren't so stubbornly unwilling to learn what a whistleblower is or what an impeachment inquiry is or what a witness is, it might be worth engaging but you've made it clear that you are either incapable or unwilling and from my end, the difference is meaningless.

SJW Lover

Cody montana wrote: »

Well done on answering the question!

You're talking nonsense. Pointing that out is sufficient engagement from my persepctive.


You say the next two weeks will be "devastating". Willing to put your money where your mouth is and bet that Trump will be removed from office on foot of these proceedings?

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

The nonsense that you post is so devoid of any kind of factual anchoring that a serious response is pointless. In fact it's not that far removed from the arguments of Sovereign Citizens.

If you weren't so stubbornly unwilling to learn what a whistleblower is or what an impeachment inquiry is or what a witness is, it might be worth engaging but you've made it clear that you are either incapable or unwilling and from my end, the difference is meaningless.

Says the man breathlessly posting about how Robert Mueller was going to be the end of days for the Trump White House. You are literally a walking CNN/MSNBC talking point devoid of any critical thinking. Go consult your television for some thoughts, good man. You'd think given how often you've been disappointed that they would become less credible to you. Not the case though is it? :pac:

Cody montana

SJW Lover wrote: »

You're talking nonsense. Pointing that out is sufficient engagement from my persepctive.


You say the next two weeks will be "devastating". Willing to put your money where your mouth is and bet that Trump will be removed from office on foot of these proceedings?

Answer the question!

MeMen2_MoRi_

SJW Lover wrote: »

That makes absolutely no sense. The one person who witnesses a murder is the primary witness. The evidence of people who overheard that a murder took place and whodunnit is hearsay. It has little evidential value. I have been in enough courtrooms in my career to know these basic facts.


To simply accept that the actual whistleblower is not going to give evidence is staggering. To bring a case on what someone told you and not present any evidence as to who that person was or have that person give evidence themselves would be laughed out of every courtroom worldwide.


This is a show. For what end remains to be seen. But it is only going to strengthen Trump, mark my words.

Yeah let's completely forget the transcript, text messages.. what mulveney has said etc... No evidence... It was all perfect!