President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Outlaw Pete

Nail meet head.


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1187483906079113216

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nail meet head.


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1187483906079113216

He’s having a tantrum. He has access to the transcripts. They can be viewed be lawmakers while supervised in the SCIF.

You peddled their lies yesterday too and when I asked you to verify that claim you scuppered off. Now I see you are repeating it.

mcmoustache

Is anyone making the argument that the information uncovered so far is false?

So far, all I hear is that the closed door hearings are being held behind closed doors.

Is anyone actually challenging the fact that Trump held up the funds for electoral help from a foreign government?

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

He has access to the transcripts. They can be viewed be lawmakers while supervised in the SCIF.

You peddled their lies yesterday too and when I asked you to verify that claim you scuppered off. Now I see you are repeating it.

Sigh. Firstly, I didn't "scupper off" anywhere. I went to bed, woke up, went to work for eight hours, now I'm home. Secondly, it was I who posted on the thread that the republicans only have access to the transcripts with a Dem present, so stop telling me something I clearly already know! In fact, I referred to it as "nuts" in this post when I quoted the following tweet from Jim Jordan (note the underlined):

Thirdly: the republicans are not allowed to discuss the depositions in public and that includes with the media and so even if each and every republican went in and had a supervised reading, they still are not then allowed to parse what they have read to the media when asked for their views on the relevant testimony. Assuming that is, they could even remember enough of it to do so.

It's nothing short of farcical.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh. Firstly, I didn't "scupper off" anywhere. I went to bed, woke up, went to work for eight hours, now I'm home. Secondly, it was I who posted on the thread that the republicans only have access to the transcripts with a Dem present, so stop telling me something I clearly already know! In fact, I referred to it as "nuts" in this post when I quoted the following tweet from Jim Jordan (note the underlined):

I'll leave this here:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As pointed out, the democrats are not letting republicans read the transcripts.

Which I should point out, you've said on the thread more recently than your 'nuts' post. If you want to restore clarity on the fact thats fine I'd just like you to acknowledge you were in the wrong with the 2nd quote I posted.

Thirdly: the republicans are not allowed to discuss the depositions in public and that includes with the media and so even if each and every republican went in and had a supervised reading, they still are not then allowed to parse what they have read to the media when asked for their views on the relevant testimony. Assuming that is, they could even remember enough of it to do so.

Oh those poor dears. That's nothing at all like what they've been complaining about in public and in the media: a huge dog and pony show to make it seem like Republicans have been shut out of the process when they are in fact co-equally involved as Democrats in learning of information, both sides sit on the same panels, and can access the same transcripts. They even have remarkably similar investigatory powers in the Senate which they can 'abuse' to the exact same degree (and have, used these processes before, to the same degree, for many a matter not being Clinton's impeachment).

I'm not sympathetic for them at all. This is exactly (e x a c t l y) the same hype and conniptions as when Schiff wanted to reveal what he felt was exculpating information about the FISA investigation and Republicans effectively gagged him and redacted significant portions of a release that he spent weeks fighting to release, and Republicans pushed out the Nunes memo instead. The e x a c t same conniptions also occurred because Barr did not release the Mueller report to the public and instead released a public statement that materially misrepresented the nature of its contents, as pointed out by Robert Mueller himself. AaaaaaaaAND, Spartacus. A moment where a Democratic sycophant decided he would reveal privileged information to argue process (The nomination of Kavanaugh). You see, we've seen this melodrama before, Republicans are just trying to emulate it, and I have zero fcuks for it. Do I wish both parties could get along and stop dicking around both ways? Absolutely I do.

Lest we forget there are still huge swaths of Mueller evidence the public hasn't been able to see, either. The Starr report was publicly disclosed. That was also back when the US had an Office of Special Counsel and when Starr ran the Independent Council investigation. Mueller's investigation is apples to oranges - so frankly I'm not surprised the process is shades different too.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is anyone actually challenging the fact that Trump held up the funds for electoral help from a foreign government?

It has been pointed out numerous times that saying Trump wanted "electoral help" is absurd - to beat Joe Biden? Come on. You have zilch to base this on. Did Trump say he wanted him investigated because it would help him in 2020? Has anyone else said Trump said this to them? No, so you're inferring this yourself, because of course, you want to, given it fits the "Trump asked Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election" nonsensical narrative.

For (hopefully) the last time:

Trump was speaking with the newly elected President of Ukraine, who had ran on the back of a campaign that he was to be a seachange for that country with regards to their long standing issue with corruption. Zelensky said to Trump that he planned to surround himself with better people than had been in previous regimes, and said he guaranteed as President of Ukraine that all the investigations with regards to Ukraine's alleged interference in the 2016 election would be done openly and candidly ....

Now how in the hell could that conversation possibly not have then lead to a discussion about the fact the previous Vice President of America had demanded that one of Ukraine's top prosecutors be fired as a result of corruption? Were they supposed to ignore that elephant in the room, that there were videos of the previous VP of the States boasting publicly about how he had threatened to withhold $1bln in aid from Ukraine, unless they fired that prosecutor? Despite there been evidence that Biden might very well have had a conflict of interest given that his son sat on the board of a Ukraine gas company that had been investigated by that prosecutor?

Come on. Again: had this been Obama instead of Trump and Cheney been the VP that had been bragging about how he'd used $1billion in US aid as leverage to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (and one who had investigated a Ukrainian gas company that Cheney's son had sat on, and made a fortune from) there's just no way the democrats would have felt Obama was interfering in an upcoming election by merely asking for the matter get looked into.

End of the day all Trump asked was for Zelinsky to find out the truth. Which is of course not what Schiff implied with his parody. What he suggested was that Trump had asked Zelensky to "make up dirt, lots of it" and had he done that, nobody would have a problem with him impeached, but he didn't suggest anything of the sort. The call was perfect.

duploelabs

For those who say the 'dims' are following the rules....

Judge Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that the Republicans are protesting their own rules for impeachment inquiries.

Napolitano, an analyst for Fox News, said on “Fox & Friends” that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is following the impeachment rules that Republicans put in place with a GOP majority in 2015.

“I read the House rules, and as frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors, the hearings for which Congressman Schiff is presiding, they are consistent with the rules,” Napolitano said

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/467337-fox-news-napolitano-republicans-are-protesting-their-own-rules-for-impeachment

Boggles

Igotadose wrote: »

Source? Seems awfully farfetched... even for Trumpworld.

Imagine if he succeeds, then keels over. Howler.

It came from a transcript from some court appearance by Trumps lawyers, for some bizarre reason without any reason they casually lobbed in that Pence can be indicted for crimes but Donald can't and the US doesn't need a Vice President.

The thinking behind is if Pence is ousted, Nancy is next in line if Trump were get the heave.

It's Trumps safety net, probably a load of bollíx, but you wouldn't know with Trump. It was bizarre thing to bring up in court.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-mike-pence_n_5db1440de4b01ca2a857bdac

Igotadose

Boggles wrote: »

It came from a transcript from some court appearance by Trumps lawyers, for some bizarre reason without any reason they casually lobbed in that Pence can be indicted for crimes but Donald can't and the US doesn't need a Vice President.

The thinking behind is if Pence is ousted, Nancy is next in line if Trump were get the heave.

It's Trumps safety net, probably a load of bollíx, but you wouldn't know with Trump. It was bizarre thing to bring up in court.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-mike-pence_n_5db1440de4b01ca2a857bdac

Too deep a tea-leaf reading for me, and tbf Huffpo is not exactly even-handed when it comes to Trump, they're firmly anti-Trump.

Boggles

Igotadose wrote: »

Too deep a tea-leaf reading for me, and tbf Huffpo is not exactly even-handed when it comes to Trump, they're firmly anti-Trump.

They are reporting on what Rachel Maddow said. Who works for MSNBC who you will also tell me are anti-trump.

Again though park that, the court transcript is real, it was a very bizarre thing to say.

But like I said it probably is a load of bollix, but you just don't know in these times.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The call was perfect.

It's a testament to the times in which we live that I can't tell if you're taking the piss or if you're really that credulous.

Cody montana

Will Rudy get arrested within the week?

Boggles

Cody montana wrote: »

Will Rudy get arrested within the week?

Apparently he is looking for a defense lawyer.

The interesting thing about Rudy is he won't be a patsy.

Not a hope will he allow himself be thrown under the bus, he also didn't burn any bridges with most of the news networks.

Could get messy.

Igotadose

Boggles wrote: »

They are reporting on what Rachel Maddow said. Who works for MSNBC who you will also tell me are anti-trump.

Again though park that, the court transcript is real, it was a very bizarre thing to say.

But like I said it probably is a load of bollix, but you just don't know in these times.

Nahh, MSNBC's not anti-Trump but HuffPo pretty much is. Remember during the primary the additional squib they had on every article about Trump? That he was a serial abuser and misogynist (all true), that they eventually removed late in the candidacy? IMO Arianna Huffington just despises Trump, rightly so as he's despicable. But I take everything they write with a grain of salt and visit the original source, which in this case was MSNBC's interpretation of the bizarre comment by the lawyer. Lawyers defending Trump say bizarre things like how he could, literally, shoot people on 5th avenue. The lawyer said that to a circuit court judge. Amazing.

Zubeneschamali

Boggles wrote: »

Apparently he is looking for a defense lawyer

So the President's personal lawyer needs a defense lawyer?

Not a good look.

dinorebel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So the President's personal lawyer needs a defense lawyer?

Not a good look.

Especially when his last personal lawyer is already in jail.

Boggles

Igotadose wrote: »

Nahh, MSNBC's not anti-Trump but HuffPo pretty much is. Remember during the primary the additional squib they had on every article about Trump? That he was a serial abuser and misogynist (all true), that they eventually removed late in the candidacy? IMO Arianna Huffington just despises Trump, rightly so as he's despicable. But I take everything they write with a grain of salt and visit the original source, which in this case was MSNBC's interpretation of the bizarre comment by the lawyer. Lawyers defending Trump say bizarre things like how he could, literally, shoot people on 5th avenue. The lawyer said that to a circuit court judge. Amazing.

The MSNBC original video I saw it on wouldn't load, hence the huffpost link, which was a simple reflection on what was reported.

Your reading too much into it.

The Huffpost certainly is not unbiased though, they don't like Joe B. very much.

Trump must love them now.

Gbear

dinorebel wrote: »

Especially when his last personal lawyer is already in jail.

Make Attorneys Get Attorneys

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It has been pointed out numerous times that saying Trump wanted "electoral help" is absurd - to beat Joe Biden? Come on. You have zilch to base this on. Did Trump say he wanted him investigated because it would help him in 2020? Has anyone else said Trump said this to them? No, so you're inferring this yourself, because of course, you want to, given it fits the "Trump asked Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election" nonsensical narrative.

Special special goalposts: next you'll say Trump had to have shouted into a microphone, "I am committing high crimes and misdemeanors" for it to count.

We have the call, and all the corroborating evidence: Trump wanted dirt on Biden. Trump wanted Zelensky to commit to a joint announcement on the WH lawn where they would both very publicly announce a new investigation that would snare up Joe Biden. This is the "Deliverable" Taylor and Sondland discussed. Trump wants very badly to impugn his political rival, Joe Biden, who still as of now is leading the Primary by a double digit margin.

For (hopefully) the last time:

Trump was speaking with the newly elected President of Ukraine, who had ran on the back of a campaign that he was to be a seachange for that country with regards to their long standing issue with corruption. Zelensky said to Trump that he planned to surround himself with better people than had been in previous regimes, and said he guaranteed as President of Ukraine that all the investigations with regards to Ukraine's alleged interference in the 2016 election would be done openly and candidly ....

Now how in the hell could that conversation possibly not have then lead to a discussion about the fact the previous Vice President of America had demanded that one of Ukraine's top prosecutors be fired as a result of corruption? Were they supposed to ignore that elephant in the room, that there were videos of the previous VP of the States boasting publicly about how he had threatened to withhold $1bln in aid from Ukraine, unless they fired that prosecutor? Despite there been evidence that Biden might very well have had a conflict of interest given that his son sat on the board of a Ukraine gas company that had been investigated by that prosecutor?

1) Zelensky camp worried about Trump pressure long before the call: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/zelenskiy-worried-about-trump-pressure-taking-office-n1070816

2) Biden made the remarks way back in 2018 and no investigation started then? He said it publicly. Boasted even. It could be to do with the fact that his actions were endorsed by (not 'for the last time' because you keep pretending this isn't true) the GOP, The State Department, The European Union, and the International Monetary Fund.

Come on. Again: had this been Obama instead of Trump and Cheney been the VP that had been bragging about how he'd used $1billion in US aid as leverage to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (and one who had investigated a Ukrainian gas company that Cheney's son had sat on, and made a fortune from) there's just no way the democrats would have felt Obama was interfering in an upcoming election by merely asking for the matter get looked into.

Obama would have looked rather foolish to single-handedly pressure Ukraine to investigate Cheney for actions he carried out as the Vice President with the full endorsement of the DNC, European Union, State Department, and International Monetary Fund, in response to a prosecutor who refused to **** or get off the pot regarding a slew of open investigations - some of which ensnared friends and/or political allies of the prosecutor. If he was running against Cheney in the 2012 election, it's very likely and in fact even expected he would have been the subject of an impeachment process.

Overheal

Trump now likely to sell Trump International Hotel in DC. Won’t undo the emoluments that Trump has received for the last 3 years through it though. They do seem to be beginning Mitigation against articles of impeachment; it removes the argument that Trump would *continue* to receive emoluments from the Hotel, given that part of impeachment’s intent per framers is not just to address damages already done but also to prevent future abuses by the same pattern or behavior.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/10/25/the-trump-organization-is-considering-selling-its-d-c-hotel-business-according-to-people-familiar-with-the-discussions/

James Brown

Word on the street is Trump will be behind some new builds in North Korea. He's the self involved ass hat that just keeps giving taking.

1800_Ladladlad

Gbear wrote: »

Make Attorneys Get Attorneys

That's beautiful.

Spencerfreeman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Word on the street is Trump will be behind some new builds in North Korea. He's the self involved ass hat that just keeps giving taking.

Must be Sesame Street, he's not allowed. Unless he's giving some aid that is.
I won't pay for the WAPO, I've used up my free bit.

Overheal

So John Solomon - the guy who wrote the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy stories that have perpetuated the claim - it turns out he Colluded with Rudy Giuliani's associates, particularly Lev Parnas to write those 'scoops'

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-a-veteran-reporter-worked-with-giuliani-associates-to-launch-the-ukraine-conspiracy

"As Solomon’s relationship with Parnas developed, he learned over time that the businessman “was working for many people or several people in Ukraine,” including Giuliani and Solomon’s lawyers. Politico first reported Solomon’s lawyers also represented the Ukrainian oligarch. Giuliani hasn’t responded to messages seeking comment.

Solomon defended his work, including his reporting on the so-called do-not-prosecute list, which he said he went through “enormous efforts” to verify. “At the end of the day,” Solomon said. “it doesn’t matter what Lev Parnas did. It matters what I did.”

But a month after Lutsenko’s Hill TV appearance, the former Ukrainian prosecutor backed off of his allegations. He told a Ukrainian-language publication that he himself was the one who asked the U.S. ambassador for the list of supposedly untouchable figures. The State Department said there was never any list, calling it an “outright fabrication.” And Lutsenko told the Los Angeles Times last month that he saw no evidence of wrongdoing that would justify an investigation into Biden’s son’s business dealings in his country."

Noteworthy because people were trying to push his articles to substantiate attacks on Biden, even on this thread just a week or two ago.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

So John Solomon - the guy who wrote the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy stories that have perpetuated the claim - it turns out he Colluded with Rudy Giuliani's associates, particularly Lev Parnas to write those 'scoops'

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-a-veteran-reporter-worked-with-giuliani-associates-to-launch-the-ukraine-conspiracy

"As Solomon’s relationship with Parnas developed, he learned over time that the businessman “was working for many people or several people in Ukraine,” including Giuliani and Solomon’s lawyers. Politico first reported Solomon’s lawyers also represented the Ukrainian oligarch. Giuliani hasn’t responded to messages seeking comment.

Solomon defended his work, including his reporting on the so-called do-not-prosecute list, which he said he went through “enormous efforts” to verify. “At the end of the day,” Solomon said. “it doesn’t matter what Lev Parnas did. It matters what I did.”

But a month after Lutsenko’s Hill TV appearance, the former Ukrainian prosecutor backed off of his allegations. He told a Ukrainian-language publication that he himself was the one who asked the U.S. ambassador for the list of supposedly untouchable figures. The State Department said there was never any list, calling it an “outright fabrication.” And Lutsenko told the Los Angeles Times last month that he saw no evidence of wrongdoing that would justify an investigation into Biden’s son’s business dealings in his country."

Noteworthy because people were trying to push his articles to substantiate attacks on Biden, even on this thread just a week or two ago.

Well he does offer a defense...

“Everybody who approaches me has an angle,” he said. “My mother has an angle when she calls me.”

Overheal

Eh. Not a strong one. The article details his fall from grace at the Hill, in the center of it is the dude wanted to make bank and f the norms of journalism - took money from groups to push them journalistically in articles.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Eh. Not a strong one. The article details his fall from grace at the Hill, in the center of it is the dude wanted to make bank and f the norms of journalism - took money from groups to push them journalistically in articles.

Yes I agree, whoosh.

Overheal

Great news for transparency in Democracy: the House Judiciary Panel will he allowed to finally view the redactions from the Mueller report along with primary sources of evidence. A federal court has so ordered.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/10/25/house-judiciary-committee-can-see-redacted-materials-from-mueller-grand-jury-judge-says/

Igotadose

Overheal wrote: »

Eh. Not a strong one. The article details his fall from grace at the Hill, in the center of it is the dude wanted to make bank and f the norms of journalism - took money from groups to push them journalistically in articles.

Have to admit, I used to like Solomon's articles in The Hill, but he did go off the deep end in the last year. Money the reason apparently. Sad

Overheal

Trey Gowdy 100% in favor of closed door hearings on Sunday. Poking the last of the air out of that hot balloon.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trey-gowdy-voices-100-percent-preference-for-private-congressional-hearings-amid-gop-complaints/