President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Outlaw Pete

The 'Trump only wanted Burisma/Bidens looked into because Joe is running for president' narrative needs to end, it's bullshit and there's ZERO evidence to back it up.

There is however lots to back up the fact that Burisma-Biden connection needs to be investigated by Ukraine and the US.

Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder to embezzlement of state funds

Allegations of wrongdoing at Burisma go to the heart of a U.S. impeachment inquiry into whether President Donald Trump improperly pressured Ukraine’s leadership to investigate his main rival in the 2020 presidential race.

The prosecutor who has investigated Burisma is Kostiantyn Kulyk, who previously met Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to discuss accusations against the Bidens.

After he took office in late August, Ryaboshapka launched a wide-ranging audit of criminal cases to see whether they had been conducted properly. Thirteen of them relate to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, Ryaboshapka told reporters at a briefing on Wednesday.

Ryaboshapka said Zlochevsky was now suspected of the “theft of government funds on an especially large scale,” but did not provide evidence or details.

Ryaboshapka was speaking after being asked about a document from the general prosecutor’s office that was leaked at a separate press conference by three lawmakers earlier on Wednesday.

The document, only part of which was visible, showed Kulyk suspected Zlochevsky of offences including using his official position to embezzle 800 million hryvnias ($33 million) of money belonging to the central bank.

The investigation is effectively on hold, however, because the Ukrainian authorities cannot determine Zlochevsky’s whereabouts.

Giuliani has previously told Reuters he met Kulyk in Paris. He said at that meeting Kulyk echoed allegations that in 2016 Joe Biden as Vice President had tried to have Ukraine’s then-chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, fired to stop him investigating Burisma. Biden has accused Giuliani of peddling “false, debunked conspiracy theories” for repeating these allegations.

Kulyk told Reuters in October that he had been investigating Zlochevsky for around two years.

Course the democrats will twist this as being evidence that Ukraine are now doing their part in the non-existent QPQ and Zelensky is lying to remain in Trump's good books.

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What gangster says, "listen, I'm going to shake you down"?

That's just a nonsensical Schiff talking point: "My colleagues think that unless the President says I am bribing you .."

That's is not what people are saying. You need evidence beyond the incidental and beyond what people assume.

Overheal wrote: »

Oh noes the murderer didn’t exhibit his master plot like Goldfinger

This kind of reply is doesn't do you any favours. It's just more playing to the gallery.

The democrats currently have no case and you're all getting carried away with someone's assumptions. Just like during the Mueller report and no doubt when the Senate don't convict Trump, the liberal left will have readings of today's testimony on Broadway to show that they were right.

You need proof folks and a belief, no matter how strong, that Trump only wanted Burisma/Biden investigated because Biden is running for office is not proof and nor is it proof that Trump held up the aid on condition of investigations being carried out, just because Sondland says that's the implication he got from Rudy.

TheRepentent

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Some clips of testimony today (for anyone that missed it) which saw the undoing of the democrat's bribery narrative:


https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1197208708721381376
https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1197194302167928833
https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1197181849484890113

What planet do you live on?:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Overheal

Trumps echo chamber is yelling “ITS OVER CASE CLOSED” because Trump didn’t tell Sondland ‘I, Donald J Trump, am ordering you to perform the Code Red.’ Despite Sondland clarifying this was a Quid Pro Quo.

In reality, Ken Starr who up until just hours ago thought this who inquiry was a circus, has now changed his mind and has openly expressed concern that Senators may have to now strongly consider a visit to the White House to ask Donald Trump to resign the Presidency.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ken-starr-suggests-on-fox-that-gop-senators-may-need-to-make-a-trip-to-white-house-after-sondland-testimony

I imagine his I am the Senate moment will be exciting.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The democrats currently have no case.

Must be joking

Marcos

Overheal wrote: »

Trumps echo chamber is yelling “ITS OVER CASE CLOSED” because Trump didn’t tell Sondland ‘I, Donald J Trump, am ordering you to perform the Code Red.’ Despite Sondland clarifying this was a Quid Pro Quo.

In reality, Ken Starr who up until just hours ago thought this who inquiry was a circus, has now changed his mind and has openly expressed concern that Senators may have to now strongly consider a visit to the White House to ask Donald Trump to resign the Presidency.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ken-starr-suggests-on-fox-that-gop-senators-may-need-to-make-a-trip-to-white-house-after-sondland-testimony

I imagine his I am the Senate moment will be exciting.

So let’s get this right. The Democrats currently control the house, and they were expected to push through the impeachment vote there. But Trump couldn’t be impeached without a majority of both houses voting for it? So now with Starr’s intervention it’s looking more likely that the impeachment could actually work?

8-10

TheRepentent wrote: »

What planet do you live on?:pac::pac::pac::pac:

I'm guessing flat earth

Overheal

Marcos wrote: »

So let’s get this right. The Democrats currently control the house, and they were expected to push through the impeachment vote there. But Trump couldn’t be impeached without a majority of both houses voting for it? So now with Starr’s intervention it’s looking more likely that the impeachment could actually work?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/25/how-impeachment-works/?arc404=true

Not to be rude or anything, but this will demystify the US impeachment process. In short: there is an inquiry, there is a subcommittee draft (from House Permanent Select Panel on the Judiciary). Once the committee finalizes that version it is introduced as a Articles of Impeachment on the House floor. It passes by simple majority, to the Senate, who will hold trial, which is presided over by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Conviction in the Senate is not by simple majority and must pass by 2/3rds majority - 66 votes are required, or a 2/3rds quorum if all 100 members are not present.

Sure the House Democrats could shovel articles of impeachment at any time with their simply majority, but if a case is not built in front of the American people and Republicans feel no pressure to take the matter at face value, there is no point.

Starr isn't interfering in anything he just offered a weighty opinion that Trump has undoubtedly comitted impeachable offenses and feels GOP Senators should ask Trump to resign. Starr was the Independent Counsel for the matter that inevitably morphed into the impeachment of Bill Clinton. At the time Starr recommended he be impeached for lying and obstruction. Most of the GOP Senators who were around then are around now and back then they were in full-throated support of Starr's assessment.

PropJoe10

TheRepentent wrote: »

What planet do you live on?:pac::pac::pac::pac:

It's more a deep, dark hole in the ground than a different planet.

MeMen2_MoRi_

https://youtu.be/W3CLxUjMOf4

Overheal

So cutting that C SPAN re-aired this speech seconds after it finished getting a standing ovation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lmovpRWAI

Marcos

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/25/how-impeachment-works/?arc404=true

Not to be rude or anything, but this will demystify the US impeachment process. In short: there is an inquiry, there is a subcommittee draft (from House Permanent Select Panel on the Judiciary). Once the committee finalizes that version it is introduced as a Articles of Impeachment on the House floor. It passes by simple majority, to the Senate, who will hold trial, which is presided over by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Conviction in the Senate is not by simple majority and must pass by 2/3rds majority - 66 votes are required, or a 2/3rds quorum if all 100 members are not present.

Sure the House Democrats could shovel articles of impeachment at any time with their simply majority, but if a case is not built in front of the American people and Republicans feel no pressure to take the matter at face value, there is no point.

Starr isn't interfering in anything he just offered a weighty opinion that Trump has undoubtedly comitted impeachable offenses and feels GOP Senators should ask Trump to resign. Starr was the Independent Counsel for the matter that inevitably morphed into the impeachment of Bill Clinton. At the time Starr recommended he be impeached for lying and obstruction. Most of the GOP Senators who were around then are around now and back then they were in full-throated support of Starr's assessment.

Thanks, that makes it clearer for me. Looking from the outside, it's a bloody arcane process though.

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The 'Trump only wanted Burisma/Bidens looked into because Joe is running for president' narrative needs to end, it's bullshit and there's ZERO evidence to back it up.

There is however lots to back up the fact that Burisma-Biden connection needs to be investigated by Ukraine and the US.

Course the democrats will twist this as being evidence that Ukraine are now doing their part in the non-existent QPQ and Zelensky is lying to remain in Trump's good books.

Whether or not Burisma should be investigated is a different matter. The issue at hand is that Trump asked for a favour and specifically asked Zelensky to look into Crowdstrike (which Trump believes was tied into the start of the Russia Investigation) and Biden's son (not Burisma, not "corrupt companies" as a general statement, "Biden's son")

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

If corruption is so rife in Ukraine and Trump is so concerned about it in general, why would he specifically mention the one company tied to the son of his most likely political rival in the next election? What differentiates that company from all others? Why not just name the company, but instead say "Biden's son"?

It's because he's Joe Biden's son, and Trump only wanted Burisma/Bidens looked into because Joe is running for President.

That is not a narrative that needs to end. That's at the very core of the issue, as per the transcript, and backed up by several persons involved in the situation at this point.

Overheal

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

I wonder what Nunes will go with today: story-time, sham, low-ratings, boring, farce?

MeMen2_MoRi_

"Thought crime" FFS hahaha

kal7

Can anyone shed light on the flipboards at back of room in impeachment hearings.

What are they, and who put them up?

MeMen2_MoRi_

kal7 wrote: »

Can anyone shed light on the flipboards at back of room in impeachment hearings.

What are they, and who put them up?

Put there by the GOP, talking points of the GOP.

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

Whether or not Burisma should be investigated is a different matter.

It's not a different matter at all.

The issue at hand is that Trump asked for a favour and specifically asked Zelensky to look into Crowdstrike (which Trump believes was tied into the start of the Russia Investigation) and Biden's son (not Burisma, not "corrupt companies" as a general statement, "Biden's son")

The favour had nothing to do with the Bidens and yet in the same sentence you speak of the 'favour request', you start talking about the Bidens. Why are you doing that? Rhetorical question of course.

The favour was to look into the "whole situation with Ukraine" with regards to their alleged interference with the 2016 US election. Zelensky began to speak about those that he plans to surround himself with. A clear reference to past Ukrainian administrations and corruption. Trump then says:

"Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved"

.. and proceeds to suggest Zelensky speak with Rudy and AG Barr.

He also mentions people in Ukraine who were bad news:

"The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that."

Again, yet another reference to corrupt people in that country. It was at this point he brought up the Bidens and asked him if he could look into it:

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

You say:

If corruption is so rife in Ukraine and Trump is so concerned about it in general, why would he specifically mention the one company tied to the son of his most likely political rival in the next election? What differentiates that company from all others? Why not just name the company, but instead say "Biden's son"?

Frankly, it would be bizarre in the extreme had Trump not mentioned the Bidens, given that the New York Times had articles about Burisma, Hunter's role, the possible conflict of interest and Biden's bragging about how he had withheld $1billion in aid when he was Vice President so that that their chief prosecutor was fired. And Trump is not supposed to speak of this? It's laughable the narrative you folks have spun.

It's because he's Joe Biden's son, and Trump only wanted Burisma/Bidens looked into because Joe is running for President.

No, it's because it's a huge issue and just because democrats don't believe it is, doesn't mean it is not. Had this been Dick Cheney and his son and Obama who had raised the matter with a Ukraine president, none of the left would care. They'd be applauding him and if republicans whinged that "But Obama is just doing it cause Cheney is his political opponent" they be laughed at.

The notion that Trump was worried about Joe bloody Biden in July and thought this was his only way of defeating him, is absurd. The issue with the ties to Burisma was raised because it had to be. A Vice President of the United States is linked with a corrupt Ukraine gas company, given his son was appointed to their board, at a time when that VP was making decisions which benefited that company, and everyone is supposed to look the other way? Hunter lobbied the bloody state on Burisma's bloody behalf, in the hope they could shake the corruption tag, and who would that have benefited? Zlochevsky.

That is not a narrative that needs to end. That's at the very core of the issue, as per the transcript, and backed up by several persons involved in the situation at this point.

It's nonsense and you know it is. Joe Biden hadn't a hope of winning in 2020.

You know who are investigating people purely for political purposes though? The Democrats! Indeed they have been doing it since BEFORE Trump was even elected. The head of the FBI leaked information to the media in an admitted effort to have Trump further investigated. The DNC were involved in leaks to the media for the same reason. The dossier full of sordid lies was compiled and then leaked with the intent purpose that the authorities would launch an official investigation into Trump. The FISA court rules were skirted so that it would mean the Trump campaign could be spied upon.

So spare me the pearl clutching about politicians wanting their opponents investigated so as to gain an advantage in a forthcoming election, as that is precisely what has been going on for three years and indeed what this impeachment is all about.

MadYaker

So you honestly believe that Trumps main concern here was corruption in Ukraine?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So spare me the pearl clutching about politicians wanting their opponents investigated so as to gain an advantage in a forthcoming election, as that is precisely what has been going on for three years and indeed what this impeachment is all about.

I don’t think you’ll find anyone disagreeing with this. This is how politics in America has always worked. Do you think the gop wouldn’t have done the same to Obama if they could? They said it was their goal to make him a one term president. The only difference there was Obama was smart and didn’t give them anything to work with. Trumps feeble minded corruption, his surrounding himself with criminals and his desperate attempts at self preservation above all else have got him where is.

Igotadose

MadYaker wrote: »

So you honestly believe that Trumps main concern here was corruption in Ukraine?

So much so, as per Sondland, Trump&Giuliani only wanted the announcement of an investigation, no need for an investigation.

Oh, don't mess with Fiona Hill. Intimidating. Waiting to see what nonsense the Russpublicans are going to try with her.

MadYaker

To be honest I think having his personal lawyer with no public accountability clearly dictating policy and being involved in state business with other countries should be an impeachable offence.

Igotadose

Hill mentioned Kashyap Patel in passing. Interesting. Forgot about that guy. Part of Nunes' team trying to discredit Mueller's investigation.

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The favour had nothing to do with the Bidens and yet in the same sentence you speak of the 'favour request', you start talking about the Bidens. Why are you doing that? Rhetorical question of course.

The favour was to look into the "whole situation with Ukraine" with regards to their alleged interference with the 2016 US election.

Again, Trump's own words:

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

The idea that you don't believe he's not also asking for a favour on this just because it came after a bit of back-and-forth talking between the pair is laughable, as is your typical "IF OBAMA DID IT THE LEFT WOULDN'T CARE" bullderdash.

As has been stated by myself and others numerous times, if an investigation into Biden or his son is warranted, it's warranted. The means by which Trump did so* and his reasons for doing so** is the central issue of the impeachment hearings.

*withholding aid, asking Zelensky to make public announcement of investigation, going outside of his own government officials and standard diplomatic channels, promising meeting with Zelensky

**Because at the time Biden was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election were he to run (which it was extremely likely he would, and subsequently did)

James Brown

Some Republican members of the Democratic-led committee, which is leading the impeachment inquiry, have advanced a discredited conspiracy theory, promoted by President Trump and his political allies, that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election.

"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves," said Ms Hill, who until July served as the director for European and Russian affairs on the White House National Security Council.

"In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests," she said.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1121/1094194-donald-trump/

And that's Trump and his lackeys in the Republican party. Selling out the United States as it suits. They should be stood down as a party.

MadYaker

Is all this going to make a difference to the election in 2020 though that's the big question and that's really what all this is about. Seems to me his approval rationg is still hovering around the 40% mark which would suggest that there isn't a hope in hell the senate republicans will convict him. Plenty of ammo here for the democratic candidate in 2020 though.

Outlaw Pete

Fiona Hill testifying that Sondland lied to her and would exaggerate.

That aligns with what Morrison said about him.

Some man to put your faith in with regards to determining what Trump had in fact told him.

Gbear

MadYaker wrote: »

Is all this going to make a difference to the election in 2020 though that's the big question and that's really what all this is about. Seems to me his approval rationg is still hovering around the 40% mark which would suggest that there isn't a hope in hell the senate republicans will convict him. Plenty of ammo here for the democratic candidate in 2020 though.

The bare bones of Trump's base is almost certainly insufficient to get him reelected.

If they can expose him to those who aren't essentially members of a far right cult, that will likely be enough, particularly given that the Democrat base will likely be extremely energised by their loathing of Trump.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Fiona Hill testifying that Sondland lied to her and would exaggerate.

That aligns with what Morrison said about him.

Some man to put your faith in with regards to determining what Trump had in fact told him.

It's a good thing Holmes was able to hear the conversation too, then.

Cody montana

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's a good thing Holmes was able to hear the conversation too, then.

It's clear as daylight that Trump wanted investigations on Biden.
How many more witnesses need to confirm it?

Holmes was very clear this is what happened.

Overheal

Jordan losing his temper as the witness completely undresses his crackpot theory but hey at least he's got stripes on today