President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is that the worst smear that they could come up with? It's not great like.

I didn't watch Fox yet, I don't know how they presented that fact.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

He’s lived in the US since age 3 and is a well-decorated Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army, who has served for over 20 years and bled for this country.

Ukrainian American then.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I didn't watch Fox yet, I don't know how they presented that fact.

As conspiracy to commit treason.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

As conspiracy to commit treason.

Always good for a laugh those minx's at Fox.

Spencerfreeman

weisses wrote: »

Ahh entering troll territory now it seems

I was actually interested where you got your info from ...

It's all in the thread already.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's quite telling that smearing people is Trump's go-to whenever there's a credible allegation against him. I soon expect that same mindless smearing to get repeated here.

Credible my foot and all it's been a 24-7 smear campaign against Donald Trump by the left and the lame stream media ever since he took office.


https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1189185262556835841

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Credible my foot and all it's been a 24-7 smear campaign against Donald Trump by the left and the lame stream media ever since he took office.

Do you actually believe that or are you just on a marathon wind up?

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Credible my foot and all it's been a 24-7 smear campaign against Donald Trump by the left and the lame stream media ever since he took office.


https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1189185262556835841

So being named as individual 1 in a campaign violation case that send his lawyer to jail is just a smear?

Overheal

Boggles wrote: »

Do you actually believe that or are you just on a marathon wind up?

Apparently the more you report on a wolf it begins to look like a victimized sheep to some people

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Apparently the more you report on a wolf it begins to look like a victimized sheep to some people

Or a dog?

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

So being named as individual 1 in a campaign violation case that send his lawyer to jail is just a smear?

Just a smear nothing to see there nor the sworn testimony from Mueller that any other person than the sitting POTUS would be indicted for the things Trump did right now.

Boggles

There is also a Wolf in that picture.

Overheal

Liz Cheney (Author of many of the Republican talking points that have leaked in the last month) put the foot down hard against efforts to impugn Lt Col Vindman

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/liz-cheney-condemns-those-doubting-lt-col-vindmans-loyalty-to-the-u-s-shameful-to-question-his-patriotism/

“I want to say a word about something that’s been going on over the last several hours and last night which I think is also shameful. That is, questioning the patriotism, questioning the dedication to country of people like Mr. Vindman, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who will be coming today, and others who have testified. I think that we need to show that we are better than that as a nation. Their patriotism, their love of country, we are talking about decorated veterans who served this nation who have put their lives on the line and it is shameful to question their patriotism, their love of this nation, and we should not be involved in that process.”

And this one will be played and re-played around the world and it reinforces what I've been saying for days: a GOP on air admitted sheepishly that he has not, in fact, attended any of the impeachment hearings he is expected to attend as a member of those panels. Blows apart (further) the "sham" narrative, the "secret hideout" narrative. Again, Almost 50 House republicans sit on these panels collectively, and they get to ask questions and hear proceedings. The Senate has the same powers.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gop-congressman-admits-he-could-have-gone-to-impeachment-hearings-but-didnt-hasnt-read-testimony/

Rep. Jim Jordan claims that the whole house GOP will vote against the inquiry process when the floor vote is held on Thursday. Wonder if it is wise to decide that before finding out what all was learned to date and how that will be revealed to the public and the house floor ahead of the vote.

1800_Ladladlad

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Or a dog?

I thought that was Justin Theroux

Professor Moriarty

Overheal wrote: »

Liz Cheney (Author of many of the Republican talking points that have leaked in the last month) put the foot down hard against efforts to impugn Lt Col Vindman

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/liz-cheney-condemns-those-doubting-lt-col-vindmans-loyalty-to-the-u-s-shameful-to-question-his-patriotism/

“I want to say a word about something that’s been going on over the last several hours and last night which I think is also shameful. That is, questioning the patriotism, questioning the dedication to country of people like Mr. Vindman, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who will be coming today, and others who have testified. I think that we need to show that we are better than that as a nation. Their patriotism, their love of country, we are talking about decorated veterans who served this nation who have put their lives on the line and it is shameful to question their patriotism, their love of this nation, and we should not be involved in that process.”

And this one will be played and re-played around the world and it reinforces what I've been saying for days: a GOP on air admitted sheepishly that he has not, in fact, attended any of the impeachment hearings he is expected to attend as a member of those panels. Blows apart (further) the "sham" narrative, the "secret hideout" narrative. Again, Almost 50 House republicans sit on these panels collectively, and they get to ask questions and hear proceedings. The Senate has the same powers.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gop-congressman-admits-he-could-have-gone-to-impeachment-hearings-but-didnt-hasnt-read-testimony/

Rep. Jim Jordan claims that the whole house GOP will vote against the inquiry process when the floor vote is held on Thursday. Wonder if it is wise to decide that before finding out what all was learned to date and how that will be revealed to the public and the house floor ahead of the vote.

He got a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq fighting for the US. But he can't be trusted because reasons. FFS there are no depths they won't plumb.

Boggles

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He got a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq fighting for the US. But he can't be trusted because reasons. FFS there are no depths they won't plumb.

He got wounded?

I like my war heroes to emerge unscathed.

Clearly a Never Trumper.

James Brown

I hear the dog is "german" Sheppard. Obviously a spy for Merkel.

Spencerfreeman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I hear the dog is "german" Sheppard. Obviously a spy for Merkel.

Belgian, doesn't know whose side it's on.

Overheal

A WaPo-Schae poll earlier in the month asked voters if it was okay for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden. 32% of adults said it was okay, 62% said no. Of those, 84% of democrats said it was not okay to 59% of republicans who said it was okay.

So a Grinnell poll took a cross examination of this: by removing the names (Trump, Biden) the poll got remarkably different responses:

“Is it okay with you or not okay for political candidates in the U.S. to ask for assistance from a foreign government to help them win an election?”

Just 7% of adults polled said it was okay, 81% said it’s not okay. Oh, and More than 80 percent of self-identified Republicans, evangelicals and rural dwellers say it’s not okay for a president to ask for assistance from a foreign government to help win an election.

https://www.grinnell.edu/news/job-approval-dips-unfavorable-feelings-climb-president-trump

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

A WaPo-Schae poll earlier in the month asked voters if it was okay for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden. 32% of adults said it was okay, 62% said no. Of those, 84% of democrats said it was not okay to 59% of republicans who said it was okay.

So a Grinnell poll took a cross examination of this: by removing the names (Trump, Biden) the poll got remarkably different responses:

“Is it okay with you or not okay for political candidates in the U.S. to ask for assistance from a foreign government to help them win an election?”

Just 7% of adults polled said it was okay, 81% said it’s not okay. Oh, and More than 80 percent of self-identified Republicans, evangelicals and rural dwellers say it’s not okay for a president to ask for assistance from a foreign government to help win an election.

https://www.grinnell.edu/news/job-approval-dips-unfavorable-feelings-climb-president-trump

The question was about interference to win an election, when he actually was asking for assistance in was investigating corruption in the 2016 election.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The question was about interference to win an election, when he actually was asking for assistance in investigating corruption in the 2016 election.

No he asked them to investigate Joe Biden. Joe Biden did not involve himself in the 2016 election. Joe Biden is however the leading Democrat candidate for 2020 and an open investigation into him would be a valuable way for Trump do impugn him - with the help of a foreign government’s interference in the 2020 election.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

No he asked them to investigate Joe Biden. Joe Biden did not involve himself in the 2016 election. Joe Biden is however the leading Democrat candidate for 2020 and an open investigation into him would be a valuable way for Trump do impugn him - with the help of a foreign government’s interference in the 2020 election.

No wrong again, he asked for help in investigating Joe Biden for corruption in relation to Burisma holdings.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No wrong again, he asked for help in investigating Joe Biden for corruption in relation to Burisma holdings.

That doesn’t deviate from what I just said, it affirms it.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn’t deviate from what I just said, it affirms it.

It does, conflation.

Outlaw Pete

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1189265646602862595
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1189282679935639553

Professor Moriarty

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1189265646602862595
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1189282679935639553

Jordan is a bona fide nutter outlier. He makes Trump look like one of them there libtards.

Overheal

House Democrats on Tuesday released a draft resolution which would formalize their impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

The eight-page resolution will be introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and is scheduled to be voted on this coming Thursday.

So what does the resolution actually promise in substantive terms?

Quite a bit.

1. Five House Committees Will Be Empowered with Formal Impeachment Authority

The as-of-now untitled and unnumbered House Bill directs “certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representative to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.”

Those certain committees are: (1) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; (2) Financial Services; (3) Foreign Affairs; (4) Judiciary, Oversight and Reform; and (5) Ways and Means.

2. Open Impeachment Hearings Conducted by the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees

The resolution calls for “open and transparent investigative proceedings” that do not hew to current House rules on how hearings are conducted. Under the current rules, representatives on congressional committees are allotted five minutes each to address witnesses. That’s mostly out for the impeachment hearings.

“[T]he chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair,” the resolution states. “The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate.”

MSNBC legal analyst Matthew Miller heralded the decision.

“The House already has the proof, now it needs to move public opinion,” he tweeted. “This is how you construct hearings that can do that. Kudos to House Intel members for sacrificing ego to make this happen.”

The resolution, however, notes that the general five-minute rule for committee members returns upon “the conclusion of questioning pursuant to” the lengthy hearing schedule described above.

University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck preemptively derided House Republicans’ likely complaints:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1189271332174925825?s=20

3. Don’t Expect to Hear Too Much From Trump’s Personal or White House Attorneys

The resolution makes clear that only Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)–or one of their staffers–will be able to question witnesses called by the Intelligence Committee.

“Only the chair and ranking minority member, or [an Intelligence Committee] employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning,” the draft released Tuesday notes.

CNN legal analyst, attorney and impeachment expert Ross Garber scoffed at the resolution’s apparent bar on the 45th president’s attorneys being given a direct say.

“Proposed rules shut Trump lawyers out of participating in open hearing phase, inviting criticism on grounds of fairness, due process and consistency [with] precedent,” Garber tweeted.

There is, however, the possibility that the Judiciary Committee will offer a more inclusive twist on the Intelligence Committee’s hearings because the Judiciary Committee has a more open-ended mandate.

“The House authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry,” the resolution notes “…including such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.”

Garber dismissed that as likely too-little, too-late because “presumably evidence will have been gathered by then.” [....and? - OH]

4. Republicans Will Have Very Little Input

The resolution allows House Republicans to suggest potential witnesses, interrogatories or subpoena requests–but those will have to be done in advance; in writing; and they are subject to approval by House Democrats.

The relevant portion of the resolution spells this out:

"To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant [to the resolution]. Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution."

Per the resolution, Schiff will make the initial call on whether or not a GOP witness, subpoena or interrogatory will be allowed during the Intelligence Committee phase.* Similarly, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) will make such decisions during the Judiciary Committee phase.

If either Schiff or Nadler decline a GOP attempt, then Nunes–or Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) on the Judiciary Committee–will be able to bring their vetoed witness, interrogatory or subpoena suggestion up to the full committee for a vote. But seeing as each committee is run by Democrats, it seems unlikely that any Schiff or Nadler vetoes will be overturned by members of their own party down the road.

5. Two Finished Products

The resolution provides that the Intelligence Committee will release a public “report setting forth its findings and any recommendations.” Expect that report to be quite long because Schiff is instructed to append “any information and materials the [Intelligence] Committee may deem appropriate with respect to the investigation.”

The Intelligence Committee report will be prepared “in consultation with the chairs” of Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform. The Schiff report will be subject to “appropriate redactions to protect classified and other sensitive information.”** As for the unofficial findings? The resolution notes that “supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views” will be filed under the general rules of the House of Representatives.

After the Intelligence Committee releases its report, the Judiciary Committee is tasked with constructing the final charges, if any, of impeachment. The resolution simply notes:

The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.

* Same process Republicans used for Mueller grand jury testimony
** Republicans will roar at that, but again, the Mueller Report...

url]https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/proposed-rules-shut-trump-lawyers-out-legal-experts-react-to-house-impeachment-resolution/[/url

Overheal

Details have emerged about 2 meetings on July 10 that occurred before the July 25 call and before Ukraine aid was suspended.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/two-volatile-meetings-at-the-white-house-have-become-central-to-the-impeachment-inquiry/2019/10/29/aae1836e-fa7d-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html

They involve John Bolton, Fiona Hill, Sondland, Bill Taylor, and several others including two Ukrainian officials. In the first meeting which started as a normal US-Ukraine relations meeting, Sondland went off script to push an agenda for Ukraine to open up old investigations. Bolton cut the meeting short; and Sondland took the Ukrainian officials to the ward room, for a subsequent meeting.

Fiona Hill walked into this meeting to shut it down, and heard “Burisma” being discussed as she entered. John Bolton was reportedly so incensed by the whole thing he said that he would not be part of whatever “drug deal” Sondland and Mick Mulvaney were “cooking.” During this same sequence of events is when Sondland was admonished for going off script and trying to pursue agenda that didn’t advance national security


“It was against this backdrop that two of Zelensky’s senior advisers arrived at the White House on July 10: Andriy Yermak, who frequently engaged with Sondland and other U.S. diplomats; and Oleksandr Danyliuk, the head of Ukraine’s national security and defense council.

The two were ushered into a meeting in Bolton’s office in the West Wing along with Sondland, Volker, Hill, Vindman and others, according to witness accounts. The American team was working through standard U.S.-Ukraine talking points, including the United States’ desire to see Kyiv crack down on corruption, when officials familiar with the meeting say Sondland went off script.

Sondland turned the conversation away from ongoing corruption probes to reviving specific investigations that were important to Trump, according to testimony from Hill and Vindman. Although the remark was cryptic, they understood Sondland to be reflecting Trump’s desire to see Ukraine train its investigative resources on an energy company, Burisma, that had hired Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, to serve as a board member for about five years.
Bolton was so alarmed by the exchange that he ended the meeting abruptly and ordered those gathered out of his office, officials said. As the group filed out, Sondland instructed the Ukrainians to follow him to the Ward Room, a space in the basement of the West Wing used for meetings by national security officials.

After huddling briefly with Hill, Bolton instructed her to follow the group downstairs and monitor Sondland. There are conflicting accounts of what happened as the smaller group reconvened.

Sondland has testified that he didn’t know of any Biden connection in Trump’s demands for a Burisma investigation until much later, after the allegations in the whistleblower complaint became known. He has also said that no White House officials ever expressed any concern to him about his efforts to push Ukraine to commit to the Burisma probe. His lawyer declined to comment Tuesday after the release of Vindman’s opening statement.

Sondland’s account is contradicted by statements from Hill and Vindman. Hill testified that she entered the Ward Room as the follow-up meeting was already underway and heard Sondland say the word “Burisma” as he resumed pressing the Ukrainians to pursue certain investigations. She then ordered that meeting to an immediate close.
Vindman said that Sondland used the downstairs meeting to press for “investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma.” Vindman said he then confronted Sondland, saying that “his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the [National Security Council] was going to get involved in or push.”

Hill then returned upstairs to relay what she had witnessed to Bolton, who exploded, saying, “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, had met with Sondland on several occasions to discuss Ukraine.

Bolton directed Hill to report what she had witnessed to John Eisenberg, the top lawyer for the National Security Council. Hill spoke briefly with Eisenberg on July 10, but because the attorney was pressed for time they did not finish their discussion until the next day. Hill was accompanied by Wells Griffith, an NSC official responsible for energy policy who is also being sought as a witness by House investigators.
Vindman said that after the Ward Room meeting, he “reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel.”

Despite the heated reactions by Bolton and others to the July 10 meetings, it is not clear whether he, Eisenberg or others took significant steps afterward to intervene and prevent the campaign to pressure Ukraine from proceeding.

Eight days later, at Trump’s direction, Mulvaney ordered the Office of Management and Budget to place a hold on $391 million in security aid to Ukraine meant to help the country fend off Russian aggression.

A week after the aid was held up, Trump spoke with Zelensky by phone, emphasizing U.S. generosity toward Ukraine, complaining about a lack of reciprocation and issuing his request for “a favor though.” Trump proceeded to push Ukraine to investigate Biden, Burisma and the 2016 conspiracy claims he had embraced.

Hill left the White House on July 19, and while she conveyed her concerns about Ukraine to Taylor and others before leaving, she was not in a position to monitor the July 25 call.

Bolton’s actions regarding Ukraine after the July 10 meetings are not clear. Despite his supposed fury about the scheme to pressure Ukraine, Bolton instructed Hill to speak with lawyers rather than doing so himself. It is not clear whether he fought to prevent the aid from being disrupted. And he did not participate in the Trump-Zelensky call.

Because of his high rank and direct involvement in the events surrounding Ukraine, Bolton is regarded as a key witness by impeachment investigators, but he has not yet agreed to testify.“


I mean heck, that’s plenty damning. I can see why Democrats have gone ahead and pivoted on the floor vote now. The live-streams on Thursday are going to be pure fire.

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

Do you actually believe that or are you just on a marathon wind up?

Funny how you lot can call into question the integrity of AG Barr and Pompeo on the regular and that's all fine and dandy, but suggest one of these White House leakers may have a dog in the race, and be motivated by something other than being a patriot, and it's out with the pearls and 'Oh my God, how could he say such a thing about a decorated veteran, he must be on a wind up'. Don't make me laugh. Oliver North was a decorated veteran for heaven sake. They're medals, not halos.


Anyway ....


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1189352771214073856


And oh look, Zeldin is spot on, as tonight there was a New York Times article right on que with cherry picked leaks from the dems:

Vindman told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.

It is not clear why some of Colonel Vindman’s changes were not made, while others he recommended were, but the decision by a White House lawyer to quickly lock down the reconstructed transcript subverted the normal process of handling such documents.

The note-takers and voice recognition software used during the July 25 call had missed Mr. Zelensky saying the word “Burisma,” but the reconstructed transcript does reference “the company,” and suggests that the Ukrainian president is aware that it is of great interest to Mr. Trump.

The rough transcript also contains ellipses at three points where Mr. Trump is speaking. Colonel Vindman told investigators that at the point of the transcript where the third set of ellipses appears, Mr. Trump said there were tapes of Mr. Biden.

There is no recording of the July 25 call by the American side. The White House uses note-takers listening in on the call as well as voice recognition software to create a rough transcript that is a close approximation of the call. But names and technical terms are frequently missed by the software, according to people familiar with the matter.

After the call, Colonel Vindman was given a hard copy of the rough transcript to make updates and corrections, according to a person familiar with the matter. Colonel Vindman went through the transcript, made changes and gave his written edits to his boss, Mr. Morrison, according to the person.

One explanation for why Colonel Vindman’s changes were not made could be that the transcript had been quickly placed into a highly secure computer system, the N.S.C. Intelligence Collaboration Environment, or NICE system, making it more difficult to alter.

Anyone who thinks this man is anything but a biased individual, who is part and parcel of the contingent of Obama holdovers who can't stand Trump, is very naive. End of the day Trump is the Commander in Chief and there is more than enough evidence that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, and also that Biden's son may have benefited from his father threatening to withhold $1bln in aid from the Ukraine (unless they fired their top prosecutor at the time) and therefore it is perfectly acceptable for the President to ask the leader of the Ukraine to look into both matters and try and find out the TRUTH.

That Biden is running for president is neither here nor there.

MadYaker

Do any of these republicans like Jim Jordan complaining about the impeachment enquiry have any instances of due process not being followed or is it just juvenile whinging?

And I had to laugh at your “Obama holdovers” comment. Is there any evidence of who these people are and how they’re currently trying to work against the administration? Why doesn’t trump remove these people?