President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Cody montana

Andriy Kobolyev, the CEO of Ukraine's state-owned gas company Naftogaz, says he is willing to talk to SDNY investigators about Rudy Giuliani.

ohnonotgmail

ebbsy wrote: »

Would it be possible for everybody to start addressing him as "President Trump" , instead of Trump ?

It would be more appropriate.

why would we want to do that? he is not our president.

Timberrrrrrrr

Blueshoe wrote: »

I think he is blaming light bulbs making him look orange. It's clearly not light bulbs

The whites around his eyes are clearly where he wears goggles when getting tanned.

Igotadose

Cody montana wrote: »

Andriy Kobolyev, the CEO of Ukraine's state-owned gas company Naftogaz, says he is willing to talk to SDNY investigators about Rudy Giuliani.

They NY state bar has been kind of mum about Rudy; with all the swirl around him, an obvious question is, will he be disbarred? Michael Cohen was disbarred.
IMO, the answer for now is, Rudy's not been convicted of anything, but he doesn't have to be, to be disbarred. I'm wondering if this investigation by the SDNY will turn up enough that he loses his license.

The important point in the article here is that practicing law, is a privilege and the Bar can revoke that privilege whenever it wants. I would not be surprised if it happened to Rudy soon. His license renewal is due next May, where he has to prove he's still practicing law. As the article points out, he actually hasn't done so lately. Running errands for Trump doesn't count. Arguing cases in a law court does.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/rudy-giuliani-why-hasnt-he-been-disbarred-yet.html

duploelabs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The whites around his eyes are clearly where he wears goggles when getting tanned.

I remember being told that years ago about the white patches around the eyes, now I can't unsee it

ebbsy

Anyway, they don't have the numbers to impeach him.

Might be a smokescreen by the Democrats to try and hide how average their candidates are ?

Boggles

ebbsy wrote: »

Might be a smokescreen by the Democrats to try and hide how average their candidates are ?

Absolute bollíx. The Top Democrats pushed hard against impeachment.

Trump left them with no choice.

MadYaker

Pelosi resisted a lot of pressure from the further left wing to begin these proceedings after the mueller report was released. She thought it would play into trumps hands. His subsequent actions left them no choice though.

MeMen2_MoRi_

What I take away from this is that what Russia has sought to do, they have succeeded. I'm baffled by how little support from the public there is to impeach him and from that the GOP have dug their heels.

MeMen2_MoRi_

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/nunes-vienna-trip-ukrainian-prosecutor-biden/index.html

You can't make this sh!t up!!! GOP are up to their eye balls in fighting a conspiracy theory with a conspiracy theory! Lol

wildeside

Igotadose wrote: »

Yes, you are. So, do you have a point or just a one-liner and a link to some youtube junk? That's against the thread charter - make your point, don't make us do your work for you.

I already made my point. That this whole investigation is a waste of time. It will come to nothing. It's bad for democracy, good for Trump (which is also bad for democracy) but great for media ratingsl.

The video I linked to analyses the evidence of "star witness" Ambassador Taylor. Just type "questioning of Bill Taylor" into Youtube, should get something like this from PBS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCSBd580P2A

Under questioning, such is the weakness of what's being put forward as evidence that Ambassador Taylor stops short of LOLing.

Igotadose

wildeside wrote: »

I already made my point. That this whole investigation is a waste of time. It will come to nothing. It's bad for democracy, good for Trump (which is also bad for democracy) but great for media ratingsl.


The video I linked to analyses the evidence of "star witness" Ambassador Taylor. Just type "questioning of Bill Taylor" into Youtube, should get something like this from PBS

Feel free to summarize the analysis here, how about a bullet list? We're not going to do your work for you. Once you actually have a *point*, like 'because of X, Y will or won't happen. Here are the data to back it up', a discussion can ensue.

Even better - quote someone with some reasonable history of being factually accurate in their analyses, rather than some random Youtuber with apparently people dressed in furry outfits? I haven't watched the video, I've better things to do that I haven't thought of yet, but someone else did apparently.

Under questioning, such is the weakness of what's being put forward as evidence that Ambassador Taylor stops short of LOLing.

Uhh... was Taylor the only witness? I do recall Taylor saying he was not a political appointee and could not judge legality. So, why are your bringing him up at all? In fact, none of the witnesses called could make a judgement as to the legality of the behavior - they just provided corroborating facts (in fact, pretty much 100% corroborated each other.)

wildeside

Igotadose wrote: »

Feel free to summarize the analysis here, how about a bullet list? We're not going to do your work for you. Once you actually have a *point*, like 'because of X, Y will or won't happen. Here are the data to back it up', a discussion can ensue.

Even better - quote someone with some reasonable history of being factually accurate in their analyses, rather than some random Youtuber with apparently people dressed in furry outfits? I haven't watched the video, I've better things to do that I haven't thought of yet, but someone else did apparently.



Uhh... was Taylor the only witness? I do recall Taylor saying he was not a political appointee and could not judge legality. So, why are your bringing him up at all? In fact, none of the witnesses called could make a judgement as to the legality of the behavior - they just provided corroborating facts (in fact, pretty much 100% corroborated each other.)

1. Amb. Taylor had 3 meetings with Ukraine president after alleged quid-pro-quo call. President never mentioned the 'deal' on any of those occasions. Funny that.

2. Taylor knows a guy (Sondland) who overheard the conversation (so second-hand information) which people are trying to use as evidence of the deal.

3. Ukraine got the military aid inspire of no investigation into Biden's being announced. So if there was a 'deal' why did Ukraine get aid anyway? Answer: there was no deal.

In terms of someone with a reasonable history of quoting factual evidence, who would you suggest?

Did I say Taylor was the only witness? Do I have to bring up all witnesses?

Ok, so how about Sondland's "bombshell" testimony according to HuffPost.

Huffpost headline: "Sondland Bombshell: We followed the president's orders"

Actual Sondland testimony: "No one told me that the aid was directly tied to anything. I was presuming it was"

If this is the bar being set for evidence I despair.

rossie1977

ebbsy wrote: »

Anyway, they don't have the numbers to impeach him.

Might be a smokescreen by the Democrats to try and hide how average their candidates are ?

Imagine Dems didn't impeach what Trump could claim come the run-in to 2020. 'Well if I was guilty of something surely the Dems would have impeached'.

Most polls have the leading Dems beating Trump head to head right now. The reason Trump sought out the dirt on Biden in first place was because Biden was destroying him at the polls in early summer. He was clearly leading in places like Texas which is unheard of for a Dem.

wildeside

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/nunes-vienna-trip-ukrainian-prosecutor-biden/index.html

You can't make this sh!t up!!! GOP are up to their eye balls in fighting a conspiracy theory with a conspiracy theory! Lol

Yes you can indeed make this sh1t up. That's exactly what is going on. First Russia-gate (no collusion) and now this (no deal in exchange for military aid)

And you're quoting CNN as a source who in turn quote The Daily Beast. If anyone places any faith in these as news sources anymore then I don't know what to say.

Here's just one gem from the CNN article you reference:
"He believes he has put himself out there for the President and now he's been completely hung out to dry," a person close to Parnas told CNN

No attribution. Just a person. I'd expect the from The Sunday World.

How many times do sources like CNN have to be discredited before people stop believing them? You'd have to be a 10 year old child with no worldly experience to place any faith in these news outlets anymore.

duploelabs

wildeside wrote: »

Yes you can indeed make this sh1t up. That's exactly what is going on. First Russia-gate (no collusion) and now this (no deal in exchange for military aid)

And you're quoting CNN as a source who in turn quote The Daily Beast. If anyone places any faith in these as news sources anymore then I don't know what to say.

Here's just one gem from the CNN article you reference:
"He believes he has put himself out there for the President and now he's been completely hung out to dry," a person close to Parnas told CNN

No attribution. Just a person. I'd expect the from The Sunday World.

How many times do sources like CNN have to be discredited before people stop believing them? You'd have to be a 10 year old child with no worldly experience to place any faith in these news outlets anymore.

Can you show me all these proven falsehoods from CNN?
Do accept the quantity of falsehoods uttered by Trump himself? Currently standing at over 12k

Igotadose

wildeside wrote: »

1. Amb. Taylor had 3 meetings with Ukraine president after alleged quid-pro-quo call. President never mentioned the 'deal' on any of those occasions. Funny that.

I suppose either you'll have to ask Zelenskyy, or chalk it up to Zelenskyy working with the 'backdoor' State Department (Rudy and Parnas).

2. Taylor knows a guy (Sondland) who overheard the conversation (so second-hand information) which people are trying to use as evidence of the deal.

Corroborated by Holmes

3. Ukraine got the military aid inspire of no investigation into Biden's being announced. So if there was a 'deal' why did Ukraine get aid anyway? Answer: there was no deal.

After the scandal broke, the aide showed up. Remember, attempted murder, is still a crime.

In terms of someone with a reasonable history of quoting factual evidence, who would you suggest?

Personally, I think the writers at Politico and TheHill (except for John Solomon) seem to be fact-based. As are the major US newspapers like WaPO and NYT.

Did I say Taylor was the only witness? Do I have to bring up all witnesses?

Ok, so how about Sondland's "bombshell" testimony according to HuffPost.

Huffpost headline: "Sondland Bombshell: We followed the president's orders"

Actual Sondland testimony: "No one told me that the aid was directly tied to anything. I was presuming it was"

If this is the bar being set for evidence I despair.

Sondland was pretty explicit in his testimony - I believe the Sondland quote you're looking for is, "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes."

Overheal

Schiff on Meet the Press today

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/schiff-says-house-will-move-forward-impeachment-inquiry-after-overwhelming-n1090221

More public hearings are not off the table, such as for Mulvaney and Bolton. Their refusal to testify at this point would be devastating to Trump’s defense. Schiff put people like Bolton and ‘anonymous’ on blast:

“People like John Bolton, whose deputies had the courage to come in and testify, are going to have to answer one day why they saved what they knew for a book rather than tell the country when the country needed to know.” - Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA 28)

wildeside

duploelabs wrote: »

Can you show me all these proven falsehoods from CNN?
Do accept the quantity of falsehoods uttered by Trump himself? Currently standing at over 12k

Did you in all seriousness just ask me to catalog all the falsehoods CNN have peddled ever? Really?

And do I think Trump is a liar? Yes. Do I think the MSM are liars? Yes. You do know it's not logically inconsistent to hold these two beliefs simultaneously don't you? Or do you think they're mutually exclusive?

duploelabs

wildeside wrote: »

Did you in all seriousness just ask me to catalog all the falsehoods CNN have peddled ever? Really?

Yes, when presenting a claim the usual back said claim up with evidence so please furnish

Professor Moriarty

wildeside wrote: »

Did you in all seriousness just ask me to catalog all the falsehoods CNN have peddled ever? Really?

And do I think Trump is a liar? Yes. Do I think the MSM are liars? Yes. You do know it's not logically inconsistent to hold these two beliefs simultaneously don't you? Or do you think they're mutually exclusive?

So if you say that Trump and the MSM are liars then you must know what the truth is. Where do you get that truth from?

wildeside

Overheal wrote: »

Schiff on Meet the Press today

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/schiff-says-house-will-move-forward-impeachment-inquiry-after-overwhelming-n1090221

More public hearings are not off the table, such as for Mulvaney and Bolton. Their refusal to testify at this point would be devastating to Trump’s defense. Schiff put people like Bolton and ‘anonymous’ on blast:

“People like John Bolton, whose deputies had the courage to come in and testify, are going to have to answer one day why they saved what they knew for a book rather than tell the country when the country needed to know.” - Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA 28)

Let me guess, "the walls are closing in!". All you are quoting is conjecture and speculation.

wildeside

duploelabs wrote: »

Yes, when presenting a claim the usual back said claim up with evidence so please furnish

Your request is a preposterous one. A more reasonable request would be to cite a few examples.

wildeside

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So if you say that Trump and the MSM are liars then you must know what the truth is. Where do you get that truth from?

Not sure how you draw that conclusion from what I stated? It's quite a mental leap you made there and shows lack of critical thinking skills. I can know that Trump is a liar and that so are the MSM but still not know what the truth is.

duploelabs

wildeside wrote: »

Your request is a preposterous one. A more reasonable request would be to cite a few examples.

That's what I did ask for?? A few examples or evidence to support your claim. SO gwan, please cite those examples. Also while we're at it, what would you deem as a truthful source?

wildeside

Igotadose wrote: »

I suppose either you'll have to ask Zelenskyy, or chalk it up to Zelenskyy working with the 'backdoor' State Department (Rudy and Parnas).

Corroborated by Holmes

After the scandal broke, the aide showed up. Remember, attempted murder, is still a crime.

Personally, I think the writers at Politico and TheHill (except for John Solomon) seem to be fact-based. As are the major US newspapers like WaPO and NYT.


Sondland was pretty explicit in his testimony - I believe the Sondland quote you're looking for is, "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes."

The Hill I will give you, pretty good on average. But to cite the WaPost and NYT shows where we differ I guess.

My default position is not to believe a single word written by corporate MSM anymore. That's my default position for politicians and major corporations too. They will always advance their self and vested interests, it's just the nature of those beasts

So we can quote and counter-quote claims and counter-claims ad-infinitum. The sad thing is if we had a functioning, unbiased (more or less) MSM that wasn't owned by very powerful vested interests (WaPost->Jeff Besos....got a handy contract with the CIA recently!) that did proper journalism we could all save our breath.

Until then the mis/disinformation will continue and the last hope left is a functioning judicial system where "innocent until proven guilty" remains sacrosanct.

Professor Moriarty

wildeside wrote: »

Not sure how you draw that conclusion from what I stated? It's quite a mental leap you made there and shows lack of critical thinking skills. I can know that Trump is a liar and that so are the MSM but still not know what the truth is.

I applied logic. You can't know if Trump and the MSM are lying if you don't know the truth. But let's put that aside. So, if Trump and the MSM are liars, where do you get your truth?

wildeside

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I applied logic. You can't know if Trump and the MSM are lying if you don't know the truth. But let's put that aside. So, if Trump and the MSM are liars, where do you get your truth?

I don't claim any of the following are sources of truth but as far as I can tell they're not bought and paid for by corporations and the US pro-war machine and are at least willing to challenge the status quo and accepted narratives .... Aaron Mate, Glen Greenwald, TruthDig, The Real News Network, The Nation, CounterPunch, The Jimmy Dore show, Democracy Now.

Some contributors can occasionally veer far too close to a pro-communist stance in opposing corporate power and influence for my liking (the answer to capitalism's problems is not communism IMHO). But as a general antidote to an MSM that serves its vested interests I think these sources are worth listening to.

And just because Operation Mocking bird was some time ago now doesn't mean that kind of thing isn't still going on. John Brennan, former CIA spook is working for MSNBC for God's sake. So now they're hiding in plain sight.

At the end of the day, whatever the story, narrative, I always ask myself this question, who benefits? And I go from there and see where it takes me. The answer is often large corporations, corporate media (ratings are king!) and the US war machine. Rarely is it the average Joe on the street that benefits.

As with Russia-gate and the current impeachment trial, few will benefit ... and that's what the few want.

Professor Moriarty

wildeside wrote: »

I don't claim any of the following are sources of truth but as far as I can tell they're not bought and paid for by corporations and the US pro-war machine and are at least willing to challenge the status quo and accepted narratives .... Aaron Mate, Glen Greenwald, TruthDig, The Real News Network, The Nation, CounterPunch, The Jimmy Dore show, Democracy Now.

Some contributors can occasionally veer far too close to a pro-communist stance in opposing corporate power and influence for my liking (the answer to capitalism's problems is not communism IMHO). But as a general antidote to an MSM that serves its vested interests I think these sources are worth listening to.

And just because Operation Mocking bird was some time ago now doesn't mean that kind of thing isn't still going on. John Brennan, former CIA spook is working for MSNBC for God's sake. So now they're hiding in plain sight.

At the end of the day, whatever the story, narrative, I always ask myself this question, who benefits? And I go from there and see where it takes me. The answer is often large corporations, corporate media (ratings are king!) and the US war machine. Rarely is it the average Joe on the street that benefits.

As with Russia-gate and the current impeachment trial, few will benefit ... and that's what the few want.

Thanks for that. I hadn't come across three in particular - The Nation, Truthdig and The Real News Network. Having scanned through them, and read some articles, they seem like serious and independent news sites with proper journalism.

wildeside

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Thanks for that. I hadn't come across three in particular - The Nation, Truthdig and The Real News Network. Having scanned through them, and read some articles, they seem like serious and independent news sites with proper journalism.

No problem, really hope you enjoy reading them. And apologies for my being tetchy earlier. It's just the quality of the debate around this issue is pretty low. As soon as you criticise those who criticise Trump it's automatically assumed you're a Trump supporter. And I thought you were going to go there. Mea culpa.