President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Overheal

https://www.mediaite.com/radio/limbaugh-hits-fox-news-change-name-to-fox-never-trumper-network-thats-whos-getting-the-highlights/

Alt-Right is burning bridges with the News division of Fox News.

1800_Ladladlad

Thepoet85 wrote: »

If he's a disgrace, what does that make the Don?

Please sit back in your pram.

Beasty

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Please sit back in your pram.

If you have a problem with a post or poster please report it and leave the modding to the mods

Veritas Libertas

Overheal wrote: »

I would like to invite all in attendance to view this 4~5 minute clip from the CSPAN archive of Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. In 1999, Senator Lindsey Graham had some strong views to put on the Congressional Recorded presided over by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. In which basically he argues that an Impeachment boils down to public trust or distrust.

It's eerie how similar he sounds to today..
I did like his last line, which was an answer to the Chief Justice's initial question:

"Throughout this trial both sides have spoken in absolutes. That is if the president has engaged in misconduct. Prosecutors claim that he must be prosecuted and removed from office. While the presidents lawyer's argue that such conduct does not in any way rise to an impeachable offence. It strikes many of us as a closer call, so I'll ask you this: Even if the president engaged in the alleged conduct, can reasonable people disagree with the conclusion, that as a matter of law he must be convicted and removed from office, yes or no" -Chief Justice

"Absolutely! [...]reasonable people can disagree on what we should do"-Graham

I guess he's right though, it does boil down to how the public feel about him, since their representatives will be voting in the houses on whether to impeach him.

So I'll put the chief justice's question to this thread: Even if Trump engaged in the alleged conduct, can reasonable people disagree with the conclusion, that as a matter of law, he must be convicted and removed from office? Yes or No.

I would say yes.

Overheal

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1179502966606352386

The Nickelback Defense

That's where we're at now America

We failed

The photo is alleged to be from August 2014, Hunter joined Burisma in May 2014.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-hunter-biden-seen-golfing-with-ukraine-gas-company-exec-back-in-2014-photo-shows

Doesn't directly prove he ever talked shop though. This strategy also can backfire on the President as it opens up into investigation anyone he ever went on the course with.

Thepoet85

1800_Ladladlad wrote:

Please sit back in your pram.

Sorry? Just asked a question, and it wasn't directed at you.

Boggles

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.mediaite.com/radio/limbaugh-hits-fox-news-change-name-to-fox-never-trumper-network-thats-whos-getting-the-highlights/

Alt-Right is burning bridges with the News division of Fox News.

The sharks are eating each other.

Penn

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.mediaite.com/radio/limbaugh-hits-fox-news-change-name-to-fox-never-trumper-network-thats-whos-getting-the-highlights/

Alt-Right is burning bridges with the News division of Fox News.

It's incredible that "You're not biased enough!" is seen as a legitimate criticism against a news station in America.

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

Why, exactly? Because the whistleblower informed the House Intelligence Subcommittee? Be specific.

I'll be specific. In advance of Mueller releasing his report, Schiff said he had seen primary evidence of Russia colluding in the 2016 election. That was a lie.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fpowerpost%2fundoubtedly-there-is-collusion-trump-antagonist-adam-schiff-doubles-down-after-mueller-finds-no-conspiracy%2f2019%2f03%2f26%2fe972d9e8-4fdd-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html%3f


He should have been forced to resign a long time ago.

SJW Lover

I wasnt surprised to see Trump angry and lashing out yesterday. Who can blame him? This is just the latest coup attempt. He has probably just had enough of it at this stage.

mcmoustache

Impeachment is a political process defined in the US constitution and has been used as recently as 20 years ago when an investigation into property turned into an investigation over whether the President at the time lied about a blowjob.

Calling it a coup is just mindlessly parroting the words of a man who is clearly unwell.

Boggles

SJW Lover wrote: »

I wasnt surprised to see Trump angry and lashing out yesterday. Who can blame him? This is just the latest coup attempt. He has probably just had enough of it at this stage.

Water John

It's parroting the words of a man who'se dangerous.

TheRepentent

SJW Lover wrote: »

I wasnt surprised to see Trump angry and lashing out yesterday. Who can blame him? This is just the latest coup attempt. He has probably just had enough of it at this stage.

It's all his own fault though , if he wasn't a corrupt fukwit he wouldn't be investigated for corruption.


I can't wait to see the scumbag crash and burn.

SJW Lover

TheRepentent wrote: »

It's all his own fault though , if he wasn't a corrupt fukwit he wouldn't be investigated for corruption.


I can't wait to see the scumbag crash and burn.

It's not going to happen. In fact, all of this will just guarantee his re-election. Wait until you see.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

Calling it a coup is just mindlessly parroting the words of a man who is clearly unwell.

Which is your opinion. An incorrect one in my view. Great to see you've moved on from the Mueller issue though. Onto the next one, eh?

MadYaker

I was surprised when I read the transcript. After everything that happened with the Russia stuff I really didn’t think he’d be that dumb. How could he have thought that was an ok thing to do? Did he think it wasn’t being recorded? Anyway they aren’t going to get 20 senate republicans to vote for impeachment and even if they did McConnell would just refuse to allow a vote.

Call me Al

MadYaker wrote: »

I was surprised when I read the transcript. After everything that happened with the Russia stuff I really didn’t think he’d be that dumb. How could he have thought that was an ok thing to do? Did he think it wasn’t being recorded? Anyway they aren’t going to get 20 senate republicans to vote for impeachment and even if they did McConnell would just refuse to allow a vote.

Its only a partial rough transcript so when trump says he has released it in full he isn't telling the truth. Yet again! The White House released 10 minutes of a 30 minute phonecall.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/%3foutputType=amp

Overheal

SJW Lover wrote: »

I'll be specific. In advance of Mueller releasing his report, Schiff said he had seen primary evidence of Russia colluding in the 2016 election. That was a lie.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fpowerpost%2fundoubtedly-there-is-collusion-trump-antagonist-adam-schiff-doubles-down-after-mueller-finds-no-conspiracy%2f2019%2f03%2f26%2fe972d9e8-4fdd-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html%3f


He should have been forced to resign a long time ago.

More Congressman than that on the right yelled “no obstruction” when there is evidence of obstruction - must they resign too?

Is there any proof Schiff has in fact not seen some evidence in relation to collusion? If not, then how do we know that evidence isn’t actually in the redacted parts of the report, containing something Schiff had seen as part of the years long process that was shrouded for legal reasons?

See also the speech/debate clause - something both parties have used to their advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

1800_Ladladlad

TheRepentent wrote: »

I can't wait to see the scumbag crash and burn.

It appears she downed her own plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bsYoIMy2M

mcmoustache

Nobody outside the administration has seen the transcript if it even exists. The notes that were released had "NOT A TRANSCRIPT" written on it. What we have seen is the whistleblower complaint and a portion of the notes of the phone call.

Overheal

MadYaker wrote: »

I was surprised when I read the transcript. After everything that happened with the Russia stuff I really didn’t think he’d be that dumb. How could he have thought that was an ok thing to do? Did he think it wasn’t being recorded? Anyway they aren’t going to get 20 senate republicans to vote for impeachment and even if they did McConnell would just refuse to allow a vote.

He can’t refuse. Senate rules mean he must take up the trial. They will unlikely have the majority to dismiss/throw out the articles of impeachment at the outset, and they lack the 67 votes to change Senate Rules.

Overheal

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

It appears she downed her own plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bsYoIMy2M

That’s from the day/time that the Telcon was disclosed. Few people had the opportunity to read it at that point.

Grab your next longest straw?

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

More Congressman than that on the right yelled “no obstruction” when there is evidence of obstruction - must they resign too?

Is there any proof Schiff has in fact not seen some evidence in relation to collusion? If not, then how do we know that evidence isn’t actually in the redacted parts of the report, containing something Schiff had seen as part of the years long process that was shrouded for legal reasons?

See also the speech/debate clause - something both parties have used to their advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

The Mueller investigation led nowhere, no matter what spin is put on it by the likes of you. What Schiff said he had seen, if true, would have meant a far different outcome. He lied. Plain and simple. There will need to be a statue built of Schiff after the 2020 election as he will be one of the biggest reasons Trump has been re-elected.

Overheal

The telcon is coming into closer scrutiny now that it is being compared and contrasted to other calls Trump made to Australia and Mexico; the inference being that there may be more incriminating language on the actual transcript than the telcon shows

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/

President Trump said Wednesday that his controversial July call with his Ukrainian counterpart was transcribed “word-for-word, comma-for-comma,” an assertion that fueled growing questions about the nature and completeness of an official memorandum about the call released by the White House last week.

“This is an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation, taken by very talented stenographers,” Trump said.

White House officials previously had portrayed the document as not a verbatim transcription but rather a summary that closely tracked the words the president used in his July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. They said it was being released in a bid to bring transparency and clarity to a call at the heart of a consuming political scandal that has sparked a House impeachment investigation.

But the whistleblower complaint that spurred the investigation described an “official word-for-word transcript” of the call — words closely matching the ones used by Trump on Wednesday — creating uncertainty about what was included in the document the White House released last week and what may have been left out.

Current and former U.S. officials studying the document pointed to several elements that, they say, indicate that the document may have been handled in an unusual way.

Those include the use of ellipses — punctuation indicating that information has been deleted for clarity or other reasons — that traditionally have not appeared in summaries of presidential calls with foreign leaders, according to the current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the elaborate, non-public process.

In two of the cases when ellipses were used, they accompanied Trump’s reference to cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which is at the center of a conservative conspiracy theory about a computer server central to the company’s investigation of the Russian hack of Democratic Party computers that, according to those pushing the theory, is hidden away in Ukraine.

The use of ellipses in this passage fueled questions about what may have been removed and why.

The five-page document reports Trump said, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

In the third use of ellipses, Trump was asking Zelensky about a different theory — also sometimes aired in the extreme corners of the Internet and on some conservative news networks — that Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden had, while vice president, demanded the removal of a prosecutor looking to investigate Biden’s son Hunter.

“Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me,” according to the call document.

The White House declined to comment Wednesday about the unusual markings or other apparent discrepancies. Shortly after the document’s release last week, a White House official had said that the ellipses did not indicate missing words but referred to “a trailing off of a voice or pause,” and called it standard practice for records of presidential phone calls.

Current and former officials said that would be slightly different from previous practice. They said when presidents simply trail off in a way that note-takers can’t hear, that point traditionally has been marked “[inaudible]." When fragments of sentences aren’t readily understood by note-takers, or when comments repeat a previous thought, they said, the transcripts had often been marked with dashes.

Others have noted the brevity of a document purporting to represent a call that lasted 30 minutes. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) had two of his office’s interns read the call summary aloud, measuring its length with a stopwatch app. The time: 10 minutes 40 seconds, or roughly 20 minutes shorter than the White House’s assertion about the call’s length.

“Our motivating question was: How much don't we know?” King said. “There has to be an inquiry to get to the facts."

The memorandum of Trump’s call with Zelensky appears remarkably different in speed and content from the full transcripts of calls between President Trump and foreign leaders The Washington Post obtained in 2017.

The transcript of a 24-minute call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in which both the participants spoke English, included roughly 3,200 words, or about 133 words per minute. A 53-minute call with then-Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, in which both Trump and the Mexican president spoke through interpreters, included roughly 5,500 words, or about 102 words per minute.

The White House summary of Trump’s 30-minute call with Zelensky — which included interpreters because Zelensky spoke Ukrainian while Trump spoke English — includes fewer than 2,000 words, or roughly 65 words per minute. That suggests that the rough transcript of the Zelensky call includes about half the number of words that would be expected if the call had proceeded at the same or similar pace as the previous calls.

It was unclear whether the interpretation of the Zelensky call occurred simultaneously as the presidents were speaking or took place after a participant had finished speaking. The latter would have affected the speed of the conversation.

(Neither the Turnbull nor the Peña Nieto transcript included ellipses.)

The record of the presidential call with Zelensky, which is labeled “MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION,” was marked as having been produced by note-takers in the White House Situation Room, as is standard for calls with foreign leaders. The record, however, is unusual for lacking a tracking number that would normally indicate it had been circulated to senior subject experts and the national security adviser’s office for review and edits. Instead of a “package” number, the memo released by the White House carries a stamp saying: “PkgNumberShort.”

The document additionally carries classification markings that Situation Room staffers do not normally add when they create a word-for-word transcript, current and former officials said.

“I thought to myself, ‘This didn’t go through the normal process,’ ” said one former government official who was among several who handled these records and found the document released by the White House curious.

The whistleblower said in his complaint that multiple U.S. officials had alerted him that “senior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced — as is customary — by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.“

Such phone calls also typically create at least two types of documents: a verbatim transcript made by note-takers in the White House Situation Room and an edited summary that is more widely circulated.

“The one that was released is not the one the Situation Room created,” said one person familiar with the creation of records of calls with foreign leaders who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secretive process. “That’s just not possible.”

begsbyOnaTrain

SJW Lover wrote: »

The Mueller investigation led nowhere, no matter what spin is put on it by the likes of you.

It really is amazing how quickly they all moved on. You couldn't move for Russians this, Russians that but now well I suppose Ukrainians are just as good :pac:

SJW Lover

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

It really is amazing how quickly they all moved on. You couldn't move for Russians this, Russians that but now well I suppose Ukrainians are just as good :pac:

Including the boys posting prose on this thread. Spent two years bleating about Russia. Now it's Ukraine. By next summer it will be something else. If you take anything CNN or MSNBC says seriously after the Russia debacle then you are, to coin a phrase used on this thread, an NPC. A useful fool.

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

the inference being

The important part of your prose. Lots of inferences you lads love drawing.

Overheal

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump’s call with Ukraine president manifests criminal and impeachable behavior [Video]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-trump-attacks-presidency?fbclid=IwAR0zPl21DfHeJb1xu-CtrpxKr99O8M47FMdtjsSzSh0PYAIhix3k24Boj3M

The House of Representatives has begun to gather evidence in an effort to determine if President Trump has committed impeachable offenses. The Constitution defines an impeachable offense as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The president need not have committed a crime in order to be impeached, but he needs to have engaged in behavior that threatens the constitutional stability of the United States or the rule of law as we have come to know it.

Has Trump committed any impeachable offenses?

A CIA agent formerly assigned to the White House – and presently referred to as the "whistleblower" – reported a July 25, 2019 telephone conversation that Trump had with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. That conversation manifested both criminal and impeachable behavior.

The criminal behavior to which Trump has admitted is much more grave than anything alleged or unearthed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and much of what Mueller revealed was impeachable.

What has Trump admitted?

The whistleblower’s revelation caused the White House to release a near-verbatim summary of the conversation between the two presidents. By releasing it, Trump has admitted to its accuracy. In it, Trump asked Zelensky for dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, who at this writing is Trump's likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 presidential election.

Trump also admits to holding up $391 million in aid to Ukraine – $250 million in the purchase of already approved and built military hardware and $141 million in a congressionally authorized grant. This is aid that Trump's own secretaries of state and defense, his own director of national intelligence and director of the CIA, and his own National Security Council unanimously asked him to release.

Trump has also admitted to accusing the as-yet publicly unnamed whistleblower of treason, and suggesting that the whistleblower and those who have helped him are spies and ought to be treated as spies were in "the old days" (Trump’s phrase) – that is, by hanging.

The president’s allusions to violence are palpably dangerous. They will give cover to crazies who crave violence, as other intemperate words of his have done. His words have already produced offers of "bounties" in return for outing and finding the whistleblower.

Trump also suggested that his impeachment would produce a second American Civil War. This language is a dog whistle to the deranged.

All of Trump's admissions need to be taken in context. In 2014 and 2015, Russian troops invaded Crimea, then a province of Ukraine. They took over government buildings and held a sham referendum, which had been declared unconstitutional under Ukrainian law by Ukrainian courts.

The troops dispersed the courts, and the Russian government annexed Crimea. What was a part of Ukraine five years ago today houses Russian troops and Russian tanks eyeing Kiev, Ukraine's capital.

Trump rejected that advice. Instead, in the Zelensky phone call, he told the Ukrainian president that he needed a personal "favor." The clear unmistakable inference is that the $391 million in aid would be held up until the favor was delivered. The favor he sought was dirt on Biden.

Now, back to impeachment.

Federal law defines as criminal the solicitation of aid – anything of value – for a political campaign from a foreign national or foreign government, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

Federal law also prohibits bribery and attempted bribery, which is defined as withholding the performance of an official duty conditioned upon the personal receipt of a thing of value, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

The law further prohibits intimidating witnesses, which is defined as the use of language designed to deter witnesses from giving testimony, whether the intimidation is successful or not.

The whistleblower has also alleged that senior administration officials attempted to dissuade Trump from asking for the favor from Zelensky. The whistleblower’s sources relate – and reporting now reveals – that a debate took place in the White House before the telephone call was made.

Should the aid be held up? Should the president ask for dirt about Biden from his Ukrainian counterpart? If Biden did anything criminal, shouldn't the Justice Department get involved? Should the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call be hidden? Was the president warned in advance that asking Zelensky for a personal campaign benefit could be criminal or impeachable? Does anyone in the White House tell the president what he doesn't want to hear?

Can the president put his own needs and wants above the nation's? In a word: No.

The president has taken an oath to enforce federal law, not break it. He cannot lawfully impose conditions – conditions that benefit him alone – as a prerequisite to compliance with the law.

Is violating campaign finance law by involving a foreign government in an American presidential campaign an impeachable offense? Yes, it is.

The expressed intention of those who wrote the Constitution and those who wrote the campaign finance laws 200 years later – and the lesson of the post-2016 election and Mueller-investigated angst in America – was to keep foreign governments out of the American political system.

For heaven's sake, Trump was just investigated by Mueller for two-and-a-half tumultuous years for allegedly bringing the Russian government into the 2016 election and now he has attempted in one phone call to bring the Ukrainian government into the 2020 election! Does he understand the laws he has sworn to uphold?

It was to remedy just such reckless, constitutionally destructive behavior that impeachment was intended.

SJW Lover wrote: »

The Mueller investigation led nowhere, no matter what spin is put on it by the likes of you. What Schiff said he had seen, if true, would have meant a far different outcome. He lied. Plain and simple.

Evidence?

begsbyOnaTrain

SJW Lover wrote: »

Including the boys posting prose on this thread. Spent two years bleating about Russia. Now it's Ukraine. By next summer it will be something else.

My favourite part is how they don't see that the impeachment process/attempt will actually strengthen him.