President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

This bit?

"Joe Biden carried out foreign policy endorsed by the Congress (notably the GOP), The United States Department of State, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

“Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”


Don't see it.

It’s in the link provided.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Nowhere either does the author say they’re trying to get trump removed, they make it clear they’re babysitting his impulses that will get him into trouble.

lol. It's not their job to "babysit" the President of the United States. Listen to yourself ffs. He was elected by the US public. They should do the job they have been paid to do.

Also what’s up with this “so called” whistleblower business?

They are not a whistleblower. They are an activist. A disgruntled sore loser. One of the so called resistance. They should be charged and they very well might be if it turns out they had nefarious motives.

The truth is, as I have pointed out already, there is cohort of individuals trying their best to oust Trump from office, anyway, anyhow, and they have been doing so since day one:

Early Leaks of Trump’s Calls With Foreign Leaders Were Intelligence Products

The Trump administration was subjected to a barrage of leaks from the president’s first day in office. A Senate investigation determined that during Trump’s first 126 days in office, leaks flowed at a rate of one per day. Many of the leaks contained information meant to damage or ridicule Trump or his associates. Roughly half of the leaks went to The New York Times and The Washington Post.

The revelation that the intelligence community was spying on a sitting president is the latest development in the scandal surrounding the spying on Trump’s campaign. The claim by Nunes aligns with reports that U.S. Attorney John Durham—who is investigating the spying scandal—has extended the timeline of his criminal investigation to include the early months of Trump’s presidency.

James Brown

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Nothing to do with Trump's allegation.

Trump's allegation was the dirt he was hoping to use on Biden. Are you more concerned about Hunter Biden doing what Don jnr. and Eric are doing every day?
Biden did his job withholding funds. Trump did it to shake down Ukraine for dirt on Biden.
You know all this.

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

When were the crimes associated with Burisma first revealed?

I'll humour you since your memory seems to get reset rather frequently. Make a note of this link and check it out whenever you feel the need to have something explained to you that was already explained to you.

The answer to your question is that the allegations against Burisma we revealed at least as early as April 2014.

April 16, 2014 – U.K. investigates Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy

The U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) blocks accounts of Burisma’s majority shareholder, Mykola Zlochevskiy. A British court conducts a hearing on Dec. 3-5, 2014, and unblocks the accounts in a Jan. 21, 2015 judgment, (full text), finding that none of the evidence “establishes reasonable grounds for a belief that his assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of misconduct in public office.”

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They are not a whistleblower. They are an activist. A disgruntled sore loser. One of the so called resistance. They should be charged and they very well might be if it turns out they had nefarious motives.

Wow. Do you know anything about the whistleblower or are you just making stuff up? Because to me it sounds like you're just making stuff up. Probably because you're just making stuff up. Are you someone who just makes stuff up?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. It's not their job to "babysit" the President of the United States. Listen to yourself ffs. He was elected by the US public. They should do the job they have been paid to do.

They’re paid appointees of the President who have decided to protect the office of the President from the President’s worst impulses.

Your argument is what, all appointees must be yes men? Never allowed to say “this is a bad idea?”

They are not a whistleblower. They are an activist. A disgruntled sore loser. One of the so called resistance. They should be charged and they very well might be if it turns out they had nefarious motives.

Quit your petulant moaning, it’s embarrassing to read. The whistleblower is a whistleblower. They are protected by federal law.

The truth is, as I have pointed out already, there is cohort of individuals trying their best to oust Trump from office, anyway, anyhow, and they have been doing so since day one:

Ironically he had already been receiving emoluments since day one so why am I to find that accusation earth shattering?

For not an American I find your hard line loyalty to this deep state nonsense rather puzzling.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

...


They are not a whistleblower. They are an activist. A disgruntled sore loser. One of the so called resistance. They should be charged and they very well might be if it turns out they had nefarious motives.

The truth is, as I have pointed out already, there is cohort of individuals trying their best to oust Trump from office, anyway, anyhow, and they have been doing so since day one:

You know absolutely nothing about the whistle blower except that he/she told the truth. Regardless of any imagined bias, the truth is what it is. Trump needs to answer for his actions. Trying to dismantle U.S. processes and deride U.S. officials and departments seems manic and misplaced. Trump said what he said. Don't even need the whistle blower at this stage. U.S. patriots should be thanking the whistle blower.

mcmoustache

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You know absolutely nothing about the whistle blower except that he/she told the truth.

That's correct. Pete was just making stuff up and presenting it as fact. Maybe the Germans have a word for that.

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'll humour you since your memory seems to get reset rather frequently. Make a note of this link and check it out whenever you feel the need to have something explained to you that was already explained to you.

The answer to your question is that the allegations against Burisma we revealed at least as early as April 2014.

Cut the **** baby brain I asked a question.
All that when you could have just written 2014.
Right.

Spencerfreeman

Trump never asked Zelensky for Biden to be investigated at all.

The favour was for an investigation into Crowdstrike's hacking of the 2016 election, which was blamed on Russia, which in turn led to a three year, three ring circus built on lies.

The investigation into the missing 1.4 billion, not Hunter's 50k a month, that concerns Biden&Son was Rudys bailiwick.
Zelensky was the one that brought that up in the call, not Trump.

I can't find find out exactly when the 2016 Government knew about the bank yet, So the Reps could complain, only the money's route out of Ukraine via Cyprus back to Biden and his co-conspirators.
He's going to the big house.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Trump never asked Zelensky for Biden to be investigated at all.

You’ve sweepingly accused multiple eyewitnesses of perjury I hope you realize. Including one who was on the call, and several who witnessed Sondland shake down two Ukrainian officials in the Ward Room on July 10 for investigations into Burisma.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

You’ve sweepingly accused multiple eyewitnesses of perjury I hope you realize. Including one who was on the call, and several who witnessed Sondland shake down two Ukrainian officials in the Ward Room on July 10 for investigations into Burisma.

I meant on the call, and yes I'm calling him out.

As for the others good on them. They should be commended for rooting out corruption.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I meant on the call, and yes I'm calling him out.

As for the others good on them. They should be commended for rooting out corruption.

You seem very confused about what corruption is being rooted out.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

You seem very confused about what corruption is being rooted out.

Stealing 1.4 billion is what I see.
Massive corruption.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Stealing 1.4 billion is what I see.
Massive corruption.

Hearsay. Just presidential candidate harassment.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Hearsay. Just presidential candidate harassment.

I could hear the gavel banging when I read that:)

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I could hear the gavel banging when I read that:)

I mean it’s clear you haven’t read into the matter.

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/10/7/20903398/trump-biden-ukraine-portman-johnson-impeachment

I’ll take the word of Republicans on this - protecting Biden does them no benefit. Just like it didn’t benefit Hunter for Biden to push Ukraine to actually perform its investigation/prosecutorial duties.

All of this still doesn’t escape the fact that Donald Trump used his personal attorney to pursue all this, not the federal government, no referral to the DOJ, or the State Department. Talk about conflicts of interest.

Outlaw Pete

Biden's guilt is neither here nor there.

Biden's bragging combined with his son's position on the board of Ukrainian gas company (owned by Zlochevsky, that has ties to Igor Kolomoisky) is enough justification for the president to have felt that it sounded 'horrible' and that it should be 'looked into it'.

As said before, though - I don't however agree with Trump making any public statements beyond that. He should have just repeated what he said on the call to the media and left it at that.

But the impeachment effort is just dealing with his remarks on the call (and leading up to it) and so far I have not seen one person even claim that he has said something which would warrant his impeachment, let alone warrant him being removed from office.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

I mean it’s clear you haven’t read into the matter.

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/10/7/20903398/trump-biden-ukraine-portman-johnson-impeachment

I’ll take the word of Republicans on this - protecting Biden does them no benefit. Just like it didn’t benefit Hunter for Biden to push Ukraine to actually perform its investigation/prosecutorial duties.

All of this still doesn’t escape the fact that Donald Trump used his personal attorney to pursue all this, not the federal government, no referral to the DOJ, or the State Department. Talk about conflicts of interest.

Neither link that you provided says anything at all about what I'd claimed.
It's all about Biden's son. The 50k a month means nothing to them, in that you're correct.
1.4 really big ones says corruption.
Is there a reason that a President can't nominate a legal emissary to look into a corrupt deal worth 1.4 Billion?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Biden's guilt is neither here nor there.

Biden's bragging combined with his son's position on the board of Ukrainian gas company (owned by Zlochevsky, that has ties to Igor Kolomoisky) is enough justification for the president to have felt that it sounded 'horrible' and that it should be 'looked into it'.

As said before, though - I don't however agree with Trump making any public statements beyond that. He should have just repeated what he said on the call to the media and left it at that.

But the impeachment effort is just dealing with his remarks on the call (and leading up to it) and so far I have not seen one person even claim that he has said something which would warrant his impeachment, let alone warrant him being removed from office.

If he felt it was horrible he did not refer it to the Department of Justice or the Department of State, both agencies being empowered to handle such investigation. On the contrary there was an active attempt to mislead officials that Biden/Burisma had anything whatsoever to do with the Presidents agenda.

Igotadose

Bolton to testify next week in the impeachment inquiry. Unfortunately, it'll be closed-door.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/468194-bolton-slated-to-testify-next-week-as-part-of-impeachment-inquiry

Spencerfreeman

Igotadose wrote: »

Bolton to testify next week in the impeachment inquiry. Unfortunately, it'll be closed-door.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/468194-bolton-slated-to-testify-next-week-as-part-of-impeachment-inquiry

They might lock the door and throw away the key.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

They might lock the door and throw away the key.

What’s that supposed to mean

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

What’s that supposed to mean

Isn't Bolton one of the people under the microscope for Russiagate?

Overheal

Igotadose wrote: »

Bolton to testify next week in the impeachment inquiry. Unfortunately, it'll be closed-door.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/468194-bolton-slated-to-testify-next-week-as-part-of-impeachment-inquiry

It’s safer at this point, so they can cross check all the other closed testimony for deceit.

Remember: Republicans would stand to lose something from open hearings, and that’s that people testifying against the Quid Pro Quo, would be able to all align their responses to match similar lines of questioning. Sondland for example is suspected currently of having perjured himself and he’s planning to update his testimony. Now, the press heard about and reported this particular incongruity with his account particularly of the July 10 incident; if, during his many hours of testimony he said other things that don’t mesh, and he doesn’t address those errors (ones he doesn’t know he’s been caught on, if that’s the case), Congress would have to determine if who is perjuring - whether that be Sondland or Bolton or Vindman and Hill or etc.

For the same reason Dems also benefit from closed door. And according to Trey, everyone benefits from closed doors. Be like Trey here.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Isn't Bolton one of the people under the microscope for Russiagate?

I don’t keep up with conspiracies if nobody posts about them in my forum

Timberrrrrrrr

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t keep up with conspiracies if nobody posts about them in my forum

Ouch!

Spencerfreeman

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ouch!

You both should hop over there and catch up with my latest unbelievable MOAB:pac:

Timberrrrrrrr

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You both should hop over there and catch up with my latest unbelievable MOAB:pac:

Been there, lovely country, lovely people.

Outlaw Pete

Whistleblower exposed as Obama holdover who has had DNC connected Alexandra Chalupa (who attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election) in the White House:

'Whistleblower' Exposed: Close to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, and DNC Operative

Eric Ciaramella as a class of 2004 Connecticut prep student: He later moved on to Yale and the White House. Now he's at the center of an impeachment storm.

More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA.

But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.

RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate" -- as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.

Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

Further, Ciaramella left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.

With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.

He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC, eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.

The official added that it soon became clear among NSA staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign policies. “My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies.”

In May 2017, Ciaramella went “outside his chain of command,” according to a former NSC co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier.

In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the “Putin fired Comey” narrative, according to the research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by RealClearInvestigations.

Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC — both whom were also Obama holdovers -- to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.

During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.

Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.

“Their reaction tells you something,” said one official familiar with the inquiry.

Full article.