President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh. The server issue could be said to be debunked, but that is not the totality of how Ukrainians interfered in 2016, how many times does this have to be said?

I suppose until yourself and Trump accept you are peddling a debunked conspiracy theory thought to have been started by the Russians.

We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election

- FBI Director Christopher Wray

He was appointed by Trump by the way.

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

I suppose until yourself and Trump accept you are peddling a debunked conspiracy theory thought to have been started by the Russians.

I have not given you an opinion, please stop acting like I have.

I have given you facts as reasoning for why it is understandably felt that certain Ukrainians inferred in the 2016 election.

Nellie Ohr was asked under oath who were the sources on the Steele Dossier and she said:

And again a Ukraine court ruled that Leshchenko's actions with regards to the release of the black ledger documents amounted to US election interference.

Other Ukrainians have come forward also and said that Chalupa was involved in this and other actions (on behalf of the DNC) attempting to smear the Trump campaign in 2016.

NONE of the above are opinions. They are facts.

IMPORTANT: quoting FBI officials is not negating my point as all I am doing by pointing these facts out to you is try and get you to see that there is good reasons why Donald Trump believed Ukrainians tried to 'take him down' as he put it. If there were court cases in a foreign country where people were found guilty of trying to stop you being elected to office, wouldn't you give them some credence? Of course you would.

Now, this is where you say: well then he should have went to the DOJ and got them to investigate rather than Zelensky!

Well, that's foolish for two reasons: 1) Trump's own DOJ have targeted him, discussed wearing wires around him and investigated him under the guise of briefing him. Not to mention leaked investigation details to the media to prompt the need for the Mueller investigation and 2) We're talking about a highly sensitive issue where one country is being asked to investigate their own corruption and I'd suggest one leader to another was absolutely the way to initiate that. Zelensky certainly didn't seem to take any offense, on the contrary.

AGAIN: it does not matter if people believe these issues are debunked. This time last year Wray was rubbishing the idea of FISA abuse and the facts I am pointing out to you only need to warrant Trump feeling that he believes they should be looked into, whether it turns out to be true that Ukraine interfered in the election or not is immaterial.

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I feel the only evidence you'll accept is an admission from Trump. Gangsters don't generally do that.

You say that as if evidence of some kind has been presented, it hasn't.

Not here and not in the Senate. Hence all the hoping that Bolton comes and saves the day.

Come on, be honest. Where's the evidence that Trump had no interest in seeing the Burisma-Biden controversy investigated?

It's all just a suspicion that he must have had an ulterior motive and was really afraid of Biden in 2020.

Gobb

[9/ 1/ 19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance
and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?

[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me

Outlaw Pete

Now they have blurb up saying "Ukraine and not Russia interfered" with a bunch quotes most of which were not about what they claimed they were. For example, one from Fiona Hill where she pretty much lectured Republicans in congress about how they should believe that Russia interfered in 2016 and it was irresponsible for them not to. She then had her arse handed to her when both Nunes (and Ratcliffe, but can't find that one) handed her arse to her and explained that republicans have actually written reports on how Russia interfered in 2016 and how pointing out examples of Ukraine's alleged interference is NOT remotely saying that Russia did not hack the DNC. They are not bloody mutually exclusive ffs, as Schiff and Co keep suggesting.

Both below:


https://twitter.com/politico/status/1197550513434349568

Outlaw Pete

Schiff lying again. He can't stop.


https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1223011017334108160

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

quoting FBI officials is not negating my point

How about Trumps former homeland security secretary, Tom Bossert?

It’s not only a conspiracy theory, It is completely debunked.

Anyway you are still on last weeks defense. I know lies are fluid, but at least try and keep up.

He did it, there is no question he did and he should be allowed do it.

There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offence."

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

- Lamar Alexander

Like I said, this isn't a trial it's a coronation.

kilns

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You say that as if evidence of some kind has been presented, it hasn't.

Not here and not in the Senate. Hence all the hoping that Bolton comes and saves the day.

Come on, be honest. Where's the evidence that Trump had no interest in seeing the Burisma-Biden controversy investigated?

It's all just a suspicion that he must have had an ulterior motive and was really afraid of Biden in 2020.

You are either really stupid or naiive to think Trump did not have an ulterior motive, even his own fans would admit he has looked out for number 1 only throughout his entire life.

Boggles

kilns wrote: »

You are either really stupid or naiive to think Trump did not have an ulterior motive, even his own fans would admit he has looked out for number 1 only throughout his entire life.

He isn't stupid, quite the opposite.

If you follow the history of this and it happens quite a bit online, he is so far into the defend Trump narrative that he has crossed the point of no return and is now just in the realm of the ridiculous.

Hector Savage

So looking like this farce will end soon, total witchhunt and shows how pathetic the dems are, they had planned this crap since Jan 2017,
They couldn't get him on the Russia collusion bullsh*t, they can't get him on this either.

All this cos they know they'll lose in November.

And it will just be a landslide for Trump in November.

The dems could have fixed their party after the 2016 election, it was a case of them losing more than Trump winning, but no, they have doubled down on their nonsense and it will be even worse this year.

kilns

Hector Savage wrote: »

So looking like this farce will end soon, total witchhunt and shows how pathetic the dems are, they had planned this crap since Jan 2017,
They couldn't get him on the Russia collusion bullsh*t, they can't get him on this either.

All this cos they know they'll lose in November.

And it will just be a landslide for Trump in November.

The dems could have fixed their party after the 2016 election, it was a case of them losing more than Trump winning, but no, they have doubled down on their nonsense and it will be even worse this year.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Cody montana

Hector Savage wrote: »

So looking like this farce will end soon, total witchhunt and shows how pathetic the dems are, they had planned this crap since Jan 2017,
They couldn't get him on the Russia collusion bullsh*t, they can't get him on this either.

All this cos they know they'll lose in November.

And it will just be a landslide for Trump in November.

The dems could have fixed their party after the 2016 election, it was a case of them losing more than Trump winning, but no, they have doubled down on their nonsense and it will be even worse this year.

How did they do in the midterms?

Boggles

Hector Savage wrote: »

So looking like this farce will end soon, total witchhunt

There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offence."

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

- Lamar Alexander

notobtuse

Joe Biden is now out on the campaign trail claiming this was not a partisan impeachment. He must be off his Aricept meds.

notobtuse

Well it looks like the Democrats hope for the Senate doing the House’s job regarding witnesses and keeping the sham trial ongoing is dead in the water. Apparently two of the four republicans on the fence have committed to voting for witnesses and two didn’t. The two who said they wouldn’t vote for additional witnesses are Alexander and Murkowski. The two who said they would vote for witnesses are Romney and Collins. Romney hates Trump and Collins is fighting a tough campaign in deep blue Maine because liberal loon and Maine’s national treasure, writer Stephen King, is working to oust her from the Senate.

Outlaw Pete

The democrats are so used to the echo chamber that the MSM having their back affords them and so they never really doubt their narratives. It was clear from congressional hearings they had no case but they repeat their soundbytes over and over and over that I think they convince themselves that their inferences and conjecture are factual. That's how it was for three years with the Trump-Russia nonsense and that's the way it's been here with this 'Trump asked Zelensky to help him cheat in an election' baloney. False narratives don't become reality no matter how oft they are repeated and Schiff could do well learning that. I know he had wanted to be a screenwriter once upon a time. Maybe he missed his calling as he sure has a talent for fiction.

Boggles

I'm just going to leave this again here.

There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offence."

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

- Lamar Alexander

y0ssar1an22

have they tied down yet what they are impeaching trump for? the last i heard, was abuse of executive privilege based upon the opinion of unelected people.

y0ssar1an22

Boggles wrote: »

I'm just going to leave this again here.



- Lamar Alexander

what has been proven exactly?

Boggles

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

have they tied down yet what they are impeaching trump for? the last i heard, was abuse of executive privilege based upon the opinion of unelected people.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

what has been proven exactly?

Long thread, maybe read some of it.

FreeThePants

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

have they tied down yet what they are impeaching trump for? the last i heard, was abuse of executive privilege based upon the opinion of unelected people.

they're the same as they have been since it was launched I thought?
Theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/20/what-are-trump-articles-of-impeachment

Outlaw Pete

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

what has been proven exactly?

Nothing. Zip.

The only facts they have about how Trump interacted with Ukraine is the transcript of the call he declassified and gave them.

Everything else is: conjecture, inferences, suspicions and false narratives.

woohoo!!!

They may as well wrap it up, no witnesses, back to normal business.

y0ssar1an22

FreeThePants wrote: »

they're the same as they have been since it was launched I thought?
Theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/20/what-are-trump-articles-of-impeachment

1. Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election

by asking someone corrupt to be investigated?

if he had of went to the DOJ, instead of straight to zelensky, would that be grand? i still dont understand how he interfered with an election, when no one knows yet who the candidates will be.

2. Donald J Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment.

could the house not of gone to the courts to get a ruling on that?

Outlaw Pete

woohoo!!! wrote: »

They may as well wrap it up, no witnesses, back to normal business.

Yup, they should take a leaf out of Trump's book and go do some work.

This week alone he has hosted Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, USMCA signed yesterday, and today signed an executive order on combating human trafficking.


https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1223332079586414592


US booming overall in fact and that's what it's all about: they know it's highly unlikely they'll win in November and so may as well try and "impeach the motherfcuker!"

campo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yup, they should take a leaf out of Trump's book and go do some work.

This week alone he has hosted Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, USMCA signed yesterday, and today signed an executive order on combating human trafficking.


https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1223332079586414592


US booming overall in fact and that's what it's all about: they know it's highly unlikely they'll win in November and so may as well try and "impeach the motherfcuker!"

He sure does keep great company

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-indicted-for-corruption-in-three-cases-in-first-for-a-sitting-pm/

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This week alone he has hosted Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, USMCA signed yesterday, and today signed an executive order on combating human trafficking.

He met with someone and signed 2 documents.

Flat out all right.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

He met with someone and signed 2 documents.

Flat out all right.

If Trump ended world hunger I suspect you'd say he treated a couple people to dinner.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

If Trump ended world hunger I suspect you'd say he treated a couple people to dinner.

Yes I'm clearly biased says the Bad Orange Man Beat me Harder American Trump Voter.

:pac::pac::pac:

MeMen2_MoRi_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yup, they should take a leaf out of Trump's book and go do some work.

This week alone he has hosted Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, USMCA signed yesterday, and today signed an executive order on combating human trafficking.


https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1223332079586414592


US booming overall in fact and that's what it's all about: they know it's highly unlikely they'll win in November and so may as well try and "impeach the motherfcuker!"

Has he gotten around to hosting the Ukrainian president? Ya know in there was no quid pro quo for aid and the meeting at the WH..