President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He asked the Ukraine, (later China and previously Russia) to look into a political rival. The only thing up for debate is if he was offering something in return.

30 seconds before asking China to investigate the Bidens (plural!) he said the USA has tremendous power when dealing with China on trade issues.

Very clear threat followed by request for personal help.

Clearly illegal, and all on camera.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

No. You're confusing a wish with reality. The house has the sole power of impeachment, as far as the constitution goes.

From



This means that the house has the sole power. What this means is that the house has the sole power of impeachment. In other words, the house has the sole power of impeachment. Not shared power or power according to the wishes of the President. Instead, the house has the sole power of impeachment.

If the house didn't have the sole power of impeachment, I suspect that the constitution would have mentioned it.

Yes the House has the sole power of impeachment but the House is made up of two primary parties... not one! Are Republicans allowed to call witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry? Are Republicans allowed to cross examine witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry?

I think a picture might have leaked out of one of the Republicans allowed to sit in on the inquiry.

notobtuse

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

30 seconds before asking China to investigate the Bidens (plural!) he said the USA has tremendous power when dealing with China on trade issues.

Very clear threat followed by request for personal help.

Clearly illegal, and all on camera.

Not personal help... help in investigating what appears to be criminal activity. There's a big difference. Or is it you contention all someone has to do to escape investigations into criminal activity is to run for president?

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. Overly complicate it? With what, the truth? :P

Look, you made the following assertion:



In response I went through each of the allegations made by the "whistleblower" in their complaint to show how, far from corroborating the serious allegations which they made, the phone call transcript actually disproves them and vindicates Trump from the accusations.

The complaint is largely all the inferences others have made, to not just the phone call, but articles in the media also, and not just inferences, but second and third hand ones too.

He asked a foreign government for help investigating a political rival and only a political rival. That has been confirmed by the FEC as illegal. That's what kicked off the investigations.

Zubeneschamali

mcmoustache wrote: »

He asked a foreign government for help investigating a political rival and only a political rival. That has been confirmed by the FEC as illegal. That's what kicked off the investigations.

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1179783410820292608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ffec-chair-ellen-weintraub-foreign-interference-trump_n_5d961996e4b0da7f66231326

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Not personal help... help in investigating what appears to be criminal activity. There's a big difference.

He didn't ask them to investigate criminal activity though. He asked them to investigate Biden. It's right there in the transcript notes.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

He didn't ask them to investigate criminal activity though. He asked them to investigate Biden. It's right there in the transcript notes.

Apparently Bidens and Criminal Activity seem to be synonymous.

osarusan

notobtuse wrote: »

Apparently Bidens and Criminal Activity seem to be synonymous.

The quality of debate you offer on this forum is atrocious.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes the House has the sole power of impeachment but the House is made up of two primary parties... not one! Are Republicans allowed to call witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry? Are Republicans allowed to cross examine witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry?

I think a picture might have leaked out of one of the Republicans allowed to sit in on the inquiry.

Republicans on their respective committees can lobby to have people subpoenaed. They can also (bear with me) ask questions of the person testifying.

Let me know if we need to slow this down further

Outlaw Pete

mad muffin wrote: »

Bad faith? Like Schiff pressuring the witness’s to get them to corroborate his narrative?

Talk about… “it takes some serious twisting of reality to incriminate Trump.”

His own hubris got him entangled in the Democrats web of lies and deceit. He should have purged all Obama holdovers when he took office and gotten someone trusted who knew how to navigate the swamp to hire untainted staff.

I think Schiff and Pelosi are actually starting to believe that Schiff's mafioso parody of what Trump said, is what he actually said. They are confusing what they inferred from what Trump said, to what he did say, as are all leftists it would seem, as when you go on Twitter and read their comments, they are all using the lines Schiff said in the parody, not lines which Trump said in the call. Lines such as 'I want you to make up dirt' etc.

If all they have is that call, then is whole thing is a farce, and they know it, which is why Schiff is moving goalposts now and saying there doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. Same how when Russia-Trump collusion fell apart, they moved quickly on an allegation of obstruction.

cnocbui

Nothing on the impeachment table is going to hold a candle to this:

There Is Definite Hanky-Panky Going On”: The Fantastically Profitable Mystery of the Trump Chaos Trades

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/the-mystery-of-the-trump-chaos-trades?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=vanity-fair&utm_social-type=earned

https://twitter.com/WilliamCohan/status/1184593056428941312

I have thought for over a year that Trump was using the presidency as a business venture for personal gain. I hope there are some investigative journalists who can ferret out the details.

mad muffin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1179783410820292608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ffec-chair-ellen-weintraub-foreign-interference-trump_n_5d961996e4b0da7f66231326

Dem FEC Commissioner
Potentially Violated Federal Ethics Laws With Trump Demand

https://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-fec-commissioner-potentially-violated-federal-ethics-laws-trump-demand/

This was just someone ready to jump into the Trump train.

notobtuse

cnocbui wrote: »

Nothing on the impeachment table is going to hold a candle to this:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/the-mystery-of-the-trump-chaos-trades?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=vanity-fair&utm_social-type=earned

https://twitter.com/WilliamCohan/status/1184593056428941312

I have thought for over a year that Trump was using the presidency as a business venture for personal gain. I hope there are some investigative journalists who can ferret out the details.

I take it that will probably be the Democrats next reason as the basis of impeachment since all their other reasons have fallen apart in this witch-hunt. I guess no president can do anything now as their decisions might affect markets, eh? Didn't trump make trade negotiations paramount in his campaign promises. Seems most everyone knew it would happen.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Apparently Bidens and Criminal Activity seem to be synonymous.

Was he investigated or indicted when I wasn't looking? I had a look on the google and couldn't find any records. Perhaps you could back up your assertion?

Zubeneschamali

notobtuse wrote: »

I take it that will probably be the Democrats next reason as the basis of impeachment since all their other reasons have fallen apart in this witch-hunt.

After Mueller's investigation, 34 people were indicted, 8 have pleaded guilty or been convicted so far.

The hunt seems to be finding a lot of witches.

mcmoustache

cnocbui wrote: »

I have thought for over a year that Trump was using the presidency as a business venture for personal gain. I hope there are some investigative journalists who can ferret out the details.

There are three emoluments cases making their way through the courts at the moment. These relate to things like Saudis renting out floors at his properties and not using them in an effort to curry favour.

He's also an unindicted co conspirator in the case where he directed Michael Cohen to do the thing that got him sent to prison.

However, these aren't currently, at least as far as is publicly known, a part of the impeachment inquiry. This is currently focused on Trump's efforts to receive electoral help from a foreign government.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

Was he investigated or indicted when I wasn't looking? I had a look on the google and couldn't find any records. Perhaps you could back up your assertion?

So if Ukraine didn't fire the official investigating a company Biden’s son is on the board of, he’s not going to give them $1 billion in aid. If that is not a quid pro quo, then I do not know what is!

mad muffin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I think Schiff and Pelosi are actually starting to believe that Schiff's mafioso parody of what Trump said, is what he actually said. They are confusing what they inferred from what Trump said, to what he did say, as are all leftists it would seem, as when you go on Twitter and read their comments, they are all using the lines Schiff said in the parody, not lines which Trump said in the call. Lines such as 'I want you to make up dirt' etc.

If all they have is that call, then is whole thing is a farce, and they know it, which is why Schiff is moving goalposts now and saying there doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. Same how when Russia-Trump collusion fell apart, they moved quickly on an allegation of obstruction.

That’s exactly right.

Look what Rep Jackie Speier ( D-CA) who sits on the house intelligence committee said recently.

“The most important thread that we’re teasing out on all of this is the fact that the president of the United States has been running a shadow foreign policy with Rudy Giuliani, who is a private citizen. He has no credentials, and it is confusing our allies around the world - and thrilling our adversaries.”

Where’s the crime in that? So they disagree with the presidents foreign policy. So what. Not the first time a president of the United States has done that.

They have no issue with John Kerry going behind Trumps back and undermining his foreign policy. Especially talking to the Iranian’s.

Why wasn’t Kerry charged with violating the Logan act? I guess the D is kind of a shield.

notobtuse

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

After Mueller's investigation, 34 people were indicted, 8 have pleaded guilty or been convicted so far.

The hunt seems to be finding a lot of witches.

And how many of those indictments had to do with the Russian collusion that Mueller was charged to investigate? Or were the indictments for OTHER things?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes the House has the sole power of impeachment but the House is made up of two primary parties... not one! Are Republicans allowed to call witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry? Are Republicans allowed to cross examine witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry?

I think a picture might have leaked out of one of the Republicans allowed to sit in on the inquiry.

Empty propaganda. Takes away your credibility, already in the negative. If you need resort to nonsense you've already lost the argument.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Not personal help... help in investigating what appears to be criminal activity. There's a big difference. Or is it you contention all someone has to do to escape investigations into criminal activity is to run for president?

Perceived criminal activity, perceived by Trump, of a political rival's son.

Working for Trump. His man Kavanaugh will not indite a sitting President.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Apparently Bidens and Criminal Activity seem to be synonymous.

Proof? Both yourself and others working for Trump are throwing mud. Apparently, if my auntie had balls...

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

So if Ukraine didn't fire the official investigating a company Biden’s son is on the board of, he’s not going to give them $1 billion in aid. If that is not a quid pro quo, then I do not know what

If it happened like that, then yeah, that would be very fishy and worthy of investigation. Unfortunately, the investigation into Burisma covered the period between 2010 and 2012 while Hunter joined in 2014.

Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.

Shokin's office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau.

The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.

James Brown

Of course the Trump off spring are going about Trump business globally and having a daddy as President plays no role

mcmoustache

Sondland, in his opening testimony, seems to be throwing Trump, Giuliani and Pompeo under the proverbial bus.

As I stated earlier, I understood from President Trump, at the May 23, 2019 White House
debriefing, that he wanted the Inaugural Delegation to talk with Mr. Giuliani concerning our
efforts to arrange a White House meeting for President Zelensky. Taking direction from the
President, as I must, I spoke with Mr. Giuliani for that limited purpose. In these short
conversations, Mr. Giuliani emphasized that the President wanted a public statement from
President Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into anticorruption issues. Mr. Giuliani
specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two anticorruption investigatory topics of importance for the President.

There are a lot of gaps in his account and there are also some parts that are difficult to believe such as him only copping on to what Rudi was up to two weeks after the information was made public. The committee has a lot of testimony from others already so it should be easy enough to get the truth out of him.

Incidentally, this is actually one of the reasons for keeping the sessions closed at this phase - if Sondland knew the testimony of others in advance, he would know what he could leave out or lie about. It's why witnesses get questioned separately in law enforcement.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I think Schiff and Pelosi are actually starting to believe that Schiff's mafioso parody of what Trump said, is what he actually said. They are confusing what they inferred from what Trump said, to what he did say, as are all leftists it would seem, as when you go on Twitter and read their comments, they are all using the lines Schiff said in the parody, not lines which Trump said in the call. Lines such as 'I want you to make up dirt' etc.

If all they have is that call, then is whole thing is a farce, and they know it, which is why Schiff is moving goalposts now and saying there doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. Same how when Russia-Trump collusion fell apart, they moved quickly on an allegation of obstruction.

Or like how Republicans wanted to throw hillary in jail for lying to widows of the Benghazi attack but instead they spent 4 years digging up a 'c' in her emails :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

James Brown

Ridiculous, aye, next they'll be trying to say Trump wasn't born in the United States

Overheal

mcmoustache wrote: »

Sondland, in his opening testimony, seems to be throwing Trump, Giuliani and Pompeo under the proverbial bus.



There are a lot of gaps in his account and there are also some parts that are difficult to believe such as him only copping on to what Rudi was up to two weeks after the information was made public. The committee has a lot of testimony from others already so it should be easy enough to get the truth out of him.

Incidentally, this is actually one of the reasons for keeping the sessions closed at this phase - if Sondland knew the testimony of others in advance, he would know what he could leave out or lie about. It's why witnesses get questioned separately in law enforcement.

This.

Closed hearings happen on the hill all the time, including many recent hearings in the Mueller probe and many more in the Clinton witch trials.

Overheal

A 3rd associate of Giuliani's turned himself in to SDNY

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/10/16/another-man-is-arrested-in-probe-of-giuliani-associates/?fbclid=IwAR18fqdFaNSeQ3kMijxse1iRyIz2iiV9xPli00FWAMiA6Tnvv3uP-z1fhf4

Giuliani has probably spent a lot of time cleaning his offices Cohen gave us a preview of one way this might go: with Giuliani having his offices raided before getting indicted for doing the dirty work of unindicted co-conspirator, individual one.

Cody montana

New Gallup poll

Majority support impeaching and removing Trump from Office

Oct 1-13
52% Support Trump impeachment and removal from office
46% oppose
(+6)

June 3-16
45% Support
53% Oppose
(-8)

14-point swing