President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

rossie1977

Yeah the editor of Breitbart said it so must be true. I mean you could have linked D'Souzas movie..

Bit of fun, if right wing media covered Trump like they did Obama

notobtuse

rossie1977 wrote: »

Yeah the editor of Breitbart said it so must be true. I mean you could have linked D'Souzas movie..

Bit of fun, if right wing media covered Trump like they did Obama

That's all you got?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Good for Obama releasing his tax returns. He didn't have to.

Employee means being paid. How much are his family members making for their work?

What kind of salary is Trump getting from Trump business operations? And if you make the claim he is indirectly getting paid through wealth increases I might disagree as I've read his business dealing have been negatively impacted by all the Trump hatred since taking office. And if you want to go down the wealth avenue perhaps every president should sell off all their stock investments upon taking office as their actions might benefit the stocks they hold. Right?

Just because Obama’s Department of Justice, his appointees in the FBI, and the media who loved him didn’t investigate his corruption doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. His corruption apparently was rampant, and more corruption seems to be coming out every day. Obama learned much being a Chicago politician.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/think-obama-administration-wasnt-corrupt-think-again/

Carter eschewed his peanut farm, and you remember Enron. Yes, why shouldn’t the President be detached from foreign and domestic emoluments?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

That's all you got?

What an ironic rebuttal

notobtuse

I understand Barr approved an expanded scope of the Durham probe to include former DNI director Clapper, former FBI director Brennan, any Department of Justice actions taken in 2017 after Trump took office, and abuses of Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Barr probably approved this expansion of the probe because of what Durham has already found. Even NBC is now reporting that intelligence operatives are lawyering up. Seems the probe has now gone from review to full-blown criminal investigation. I expect the mainstream media will generally be ignoring most of this and continue their 24/7 coverage of the impeachment witch-hunt. Sucks that Hillary didn’t win and all this apparent criminal activity of Democrats, the Obama administration and his political appointees into the DNI, FBI, DOJ and State Department would have been swept under the rug, eh?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

I understand Barr approved an expanded scope of the Durham probe to include former DNI director Clapper, former FBI director Brennan, any Department of Justice actions taken in 2017 after Trump took office, and abuses of Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Barr probably approved this expansion of the probe because of what Durham has already found. Even NBC is now reporting that intelligence operatives are lawyering up. Seems the probe has now gone from review to full-blown criminal investigation. I expect the mainstream media will generally be ignoring most of this and continue their 24/7 coverage of the impeachment witch-hunt. Sucks that Hillary didn’t win and all this apparent criminal activity of Democrats, the Obama administration and his political appointees into the DNI, FBI, DOJ and State Department would have been swept under the rug, eh?

Your post seems to hinge on people seeking advice from attorneys being evidence of criminal guilt? I have some bad news for you...

Beasty

rossie1977 wrote: »

Just to point out Republicans wanted to impeach Obama over:

notobtuse wrote: »

I understand Barr approved an expanded scope of the Durham probe to include former DNI director Clapper, former FBI director Brennan, any Department of Justice actions taken in 2017 after Trump took office, and abuses of Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Barr probably approved this expansion of the probe because of what Durham has already found. Even NBC is now reporting that intelligence operatives are lawyering up. Seems the probe has now gone from review to full-blown criminal investigation. I expect the mainstream media will generally be ignoring most of this and continue their 24/7 coverage of the impeachment witch-hunt. Sucks that Hillary didn’t win and all this apparent criminal activity of Democrats, the Obama administration and his political appointees into the DNI, FBI, DOJ and State Department would have been swept under the rug, eh?

rossie1977 and notobtuse, do not post in this thread again

Those of you responding to their attempts to move the discussion away from the possible Trump impeachment, I am not threadbanning you as you did not initiate such discussion

Please pay attention to my prior warnings not to turn the discussion to other US political figures

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Obama played the birther movement up for political gain. He loved it. He had his birth certificate at the start of it all, yet waited over a year to release it. I'm talking more of the other stuff made up based on lies and some criminal activity to justify impeachment like the bogus Russian collusion, obstruction, and quid pro quo.

The WH press secretary says they did it and do it all the time, "get over it".
He failed in trying to normalise the obscene, which Trump has a skill for.

Beasty

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The WH press secretary says they did it and do it all the time, "get over it".
He failed in trying to normalise the obscene, which Trump has a skill for.

Notobtuse is threadbanned, so please do not respond further to their posts as they cannot reply

Penn

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The WH press secretary says they did it and do it all the time, "get over it".
He failed in trying to normalise the obscene, which Trump has a skill for.

That wasn't the Press Secretary, that was Trump's Acting Chief of Staff, a much higher position.

Boggles

Speaking of the white press secretary.

What does she actually do?

Seems a waste of money.

Again the danger of precedent, do future White Houses going forward refuse to engage with the press?

mcmoustache

Boggles wrote: »

Again the danger of precedent, do future White Houses going forward refuse to engage with the press?

It depends on how corrupt they are. Corrupt administrations don't want to be held accountable. It's as simple as that.

Cody montana

Boggles wrote: »

Speaking of the white press secretary.

What does she actually do?

Seems a waste of money.

Again the danger of precedent, do future White Houses going forward refuse to engage with the press?

Get arrested!
Well the current one anyway.

duploelabs

Nancy Pelosi releases a fact sheet detailing Trump's betrayal of his oath of office.

https://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/Trump%20Shakedown%20and%20Coverup.pdf

James Brown

duploelabs wrote: »

Nancy Pelosi releases a fact sheet detailing Trump's betrayal of his oath of office.

https://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/Trump%20Shakedown%20and%20Coverup.pdf

I think he's safe unless he continues to turn on the GOP hierarchy.

To paraphrase John Lennon, if he thinks he's bigger than the GOP, he's in for a rude awakening.

osarusan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think he's safe unless he continues to turn on the GOP hierarchy.

He's safe until the GOP decide he's more trouble than he's worth.

The GOP will be looking at polls and public opinion and gauging where public sentiment is, and if they conclude that backing him will cost them future votes and future seats, they won't back him.

I don't believe the Democrats have any honourable or principled reasons for initiating this impeachment process. They've done so because they think that politically, it's worth it to do so - it will benefit them overall.

Similarly, whatever the Republicans do will by motivated by what they believe is best for them politically too, rather than any particular principles.

At the moment I think his party are a long way from turning on him though.

James Brown

osarusan wrote: »

He's safe until the GOP decide he's more trouble than he's worth.

The GOP will be looking at polls and public opinion and gauging where public sentiment is, and if they conclude that backing him will cost them future votes and future seats, they won't back him.

I don't believe the Democrats have any honourable or principled reasons for initiating this impeachment process. They've done so because they think that politically, it's worth it to do so - it will benefit them overall.

Similarly, whatever the Republicans do will by motivated by what they believe is best for them politically too, rather than any particular principles.

At the moment I think his party are a long way from turning on him though.

Of course the Democrats are doing it for political reasons. All people can hope for is some good works happen between both sides. There are legitimate social reasons for wanting Trump out. By that I mean, for the good of society at large. He's doing damage.

Yeah I think he's a strong chance of winning again. They've mastered the spin, which is ironic considering the 'fake media' mantra. I think they feel impeachment has a better chance than Biden.

duploelabs

osarusan wrote: »

He's safe until the GOP decide he's more trouble than he's worth.

The GOP will be looking at polls and public opinion and gauging where public sentiment is, and if they conclude that backing him will cost them future votes and future seats, they won't back him.

I don't believe the Democrats have any honourable or principled reasons for initiating this impeachment process. They've done so because they think that politically, it's worth it to do so - it will benefit them overall.

Similarly, whatever the Republicans do will by motivated by what they believe is best for them politically too, rather than any particular principles.

At the moment I think his party are a long way from turning on him though.

Did you read the sheet in the link that I posted earlier? This isn't a political partisan issue, this is a constitutional issue

Overheal

More closed depositions today on the hill as acting Ukraine ambassador testifies.

Rep. Andy Biggs accused Democrats of conducting “Stalin-esque, Soviet-style” hearings because they are not open to the public (and visible to individuals yet to be deposed).

But the Democrats still have a lot of Stalin hearings to go to match the 141 Clinton administration officials, including three chiefs of staff and a dozen other senior officials that Republicans dragged in for 568 hours of combined closed door depositions ahead of Bill Clinton’s own impeachment trial. So I don’t think that talking point really has much stick to it.

They were also upset that Lewandowski was questioned by a staff lawyer - like Louis Freeh and Janet Reno were.

Finally: Republicans are frothing that they couldn’t secure a censure vote for Schiff who by his own admission parodied the Ukraine call. While they’ve gone to great lengths to label this an abhorrent abuse of his office, they seem to have forgot when Dan Burton called Clinton a Scumbag on the floor and on the record while injecting selectively doctored excerpts from interview transcripts that he passed off as complete without exculpatory information in the complete transcripts - he fired an aide as a scapegoat over the matter.

As for any sort of defense obviously Mulvaney scuppered the major “no quid pro quo” talking point by admitting to the whole thing on live television:

Mulvaney: "Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it, and that's why we held up the money,"

ABC: : "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that it was ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

Mulvaney: "The look-back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate."

ABC: “For withholding the funding?"

Mulvaney: "Which ultimately then, flowed. We were worried if we didn't pay out the money it would be illegal, it would be unlawful. That is one of those things that has a little shred of truth in it that makes it look a lot worse than it really is. We were concerned about, over at OMB, about impoundment.

I know I put half of you to bed, but there is the Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 that says if Congress appropriates money, you have to spend it. We knew that money had to go out the door by the end of September, or we had to have a really good reason not to do it. And that was the legality of the issue."

ABC: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid-pro-quo: the funding will not flow unless you're getting an investigation into the Democratic server happened as well."

Mulvaney: Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time to the Northern Triangle countries so they would change their policies on immigration. This speaks to an important point because I heard this yesterday and I can never remember the gentleman who testified. Was it Mckinney? I don't remember, he testified yesterday...he said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy.

I have news for everybody: get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences, and the foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration."

No QPQ? We do QPQ all the time guys! Get over it! Elections have consequences, of course we QPQd for the DNC server investigation, absolutely appropriate!

peddlelies

duploelabs wrote: »

Did you read the sheet in the link that I posted earlier? This isn't a political partisan issue, this is a constitutional issue

They are also obviously using it for political gain, the Democrats had no problem in the 2016 election having foreign interference coming from Ukrainian leadership and the embassy in Washington, nor did they have any problem maximising the damage and fallout from the Steele dossier, information which supposedly came from foreign diplomatic sources.

Trump put his foot in it big time and I do agree it's a constitutional problem, but let's not pretend the Democrats are going so gung-ho on this issue solely because it's a matter of principle. If they solely cared about interference in a non partisan way they wouldn't have totally ignored Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election, simply because their candidate lost the election.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukrainian-efforts-to-sabotage-trump-backfire/

"Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Spencerfreeman

duploelabs wrote: »

Nancy Pelosi releases a fact sheet detailing Trump's betrayal of his oath of office.

https://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/Trump%20Shakedown%20and%20Coverup.pdf

Looks like Pelosi forgot to include this text from page 3 of her FACT sheet;

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

Lets be fair about this.

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

They are also obviously using it for political gain, the Democrats had no problem in the 2016 election having foreign interference coming from Ukrainian leadership and the embassy in Washington, nor did they have any problem maximising the damage and fallout from the Steele dossier, information which supposedly came from foreign diplomatic sources.

Trump put his foot in it big time and I do agree it's a constitutional problem, but let's not pretend the Democrats are going so gung-ho on this issue solely because it's a matter of principle. If they solely cared about interference in a non partisan way they wouldn't have totally ignored Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election, simply because their candidate lost the election.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukrainian-efforts-to-sabotage-trump-backfire/

"Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

I really couldn't be arsed taking apart that wholly inaccurate article, for example the artocle tried to say that the Ukraine/DNC tried to 'expose' Manafort, which amuses me as I believe during his trial Manafort was shown in a court of law as passing on voter data, amongst other proven charges that he is currently serving time for. So using that example, was Manafort's conviction political?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Looks like Pelosi forgot to include this text from page 3 of her FACT sheet;

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

Lets be fair about this.

Ah yes, the ‘let’s take this to paper’ text. Glad you brought it up again: Sondland admits that he consulted Trump before writing that text, and has since admitted the text may not have been truthful - and indeed, we now have acting chief of staff Mulvaney and head of the OMB confirming on live television over the weekend that there was in fact, Quid pro quo.

Fear not: Bill Taylor - the man Sondland was responding to when he wrote the above attempt at exculpating the shakedown, will be testifying all day today on the hill in closed depositions.

James Brown

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Looks like Pelosi forgot to include this text from page 3 of her FACT sheet;

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

Lets be fair about this.

Let's be fair, that's mere spin and coverage. It's neither credible nor believable.
This was the actual reasoning for the combined US. and E.U. move to get rid of the previous official, who Rudy tried to get a visa for.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Ah yes, the ‘let’s take this to paper’ text. Glad you brought it up again: Sondland admits that he consulted Trump before writing that text, and has since admitted the text may not have been truthful - and indeed, we now have acting chief of staff Mulvaney and head of the OMB confirming on live television over the weekend that there was in fact, Quid pro quo.

Fear not: Bill Taylor - the man Sondland was responding to when he wrote the above attempt at exculpating the shakedown, will he testifying all day today on the hill in closed depositions.

Will be watching, again. When they come outside the door and make allusions to what was said of course.

duploelabs

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Looks like Pelosi forgot to include this text from page 3 of her FACT sheet;

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

Lets be fair about this.

Yeah that was fire control, that text conversant happened after the story broke

Spencerfreeman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Let's be fair, that's mere spin and coverage. It's neither credible nor believable.
This was the actual reasoning for the combined US. and E.U. move to get rid of the previous official, who Rudy tried to get a visa for.

It was the next text sent in the chain of texts that she published. You should be skeptical of the rest of the messages also then.

peddlelies

duploelabs wrote: »

I really couldn't be arsed taking apart that wholly inaccurate article, for example the artocle tried to say that the Ukraine/DNC tried to 'expose' Manafort, which amuses me as I believe during his trial Manafort was shown in a court of law as passing on voter data, amongst other proven charges that he is currently serving time for. So using that example, was Manafort's conviction political?

Manafort was fired during the campaign because of Ukrainian influence, you can't deny that and it was obviously politically motivated. You also can't deny DNC staffers directly met with Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on Trump and his associates, according to the article.

There's nothing inaccurate in that article, it's just an uncomfortable truth for some who want the higher moral ground. During large campaigns imo this type of stuff goes on behind closed doors all the time.

The topic at hand is about Trump though so I won't derail the thread with this stuff other than to say it's absurd to suggest the Democrats are only motivated by doing the moral thing and not fantasising about the political implications that a Trump impeachment would bring given what went on during the 2016 election and post.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It was the next text sent in the chain of texts that she published. You should be skeptical of the rest of the messages also then.

It was a response that took Sondland hours to compose after consulting the President directly.

Spencerfreeman

duploelabs wrote: »

Yeah that was fire control, that text conversant happened after the story broke

You may be correct, I have no desire to check if the news broke in the 4hrs difference between them. If you find proof let me know.
I lost faith in the Ukrainian Government after Victoria Nulands outburst. I knew it was a setup from that point.