President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

I’m partisan against weather but I can still tell you when it’s raining

Everything was corroborated

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.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're going to have to be a bit more specific, I went through the whole complaint and pointed out just what has not been collaborated.

Missed your edit but here's the first part allegation with your "debunking":

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistleblower
"President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election"

The phone call record does not support this overriding allegation at all, given that at no stage was the 2020 election even brought up.

From the start, all you're doing is pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining. It's like you think that trump literally needs to say "Do this for me and I'll stop blocking your money. Oh and it's a quid-pro-quo. For the 2020 election. In case I wasn't clear."


We now know from leaks and opening statements that Trump wanted a public statement from Zelinskyy that Biden, one of 3 realistic rivals in 2020, was under investigation. This, in case you aren't aware would damage Biden which would help Trump in 2020. It's not that difficult to understand, I might add too that this testimony was under oath where there are penalties for being caught in a lie.

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

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.

None of that changes that his allegations have since then been backed up by others speaking under oath.


He could be Soros himself and it would matter about as much.

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

None of that changes that his allegations have since then been backed up by others speaking under oath.


He could be Soros himself and it would matter about as much.

Try looking at things in the round.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

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.

Assuming that’s accurate: what does it affect?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Assuming that’s accurate: what does it affect?

Since Thursday is another Star Chamber day I'm not sure.
Just realised it's Thursday! Brennan could be asked some awkward questions, if the 5 minuter's get a chance.

And just realised it's not this Thursday. Brennan's down for the 7th isn't he?

Spencerfreeman

Some very interesting tawdry connections coming out about new suit boy Vinman as well.

Overheal

Whose money is behind the website that leaked the whistleblowers identity?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Whose money is behind the website that leaked the whistleblowers identity?

Some one that doesn't like corruption?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Some one that doesn't like corruption?

Is that a satisfactory deflection for an entity that committed a felony?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Is that a satisfactory deflection for an entity that committed a felony?

Good answer! you know I haven't a bag of glue.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Cool. So the minority claims that the rules are unfair. It's always been like that. The majority makes the rules.

See you just reveal your true colours when you speak like that, as there is no way that you would stand for the democrats being treated as republicans are right now. I can assure you if the shoe was on the other foot I would not be defending republicans if they behaved in this manner. Saying the majority make the rules, as if it should be tolerated no matter what the democrats do, doesn't wash.

If the republicans wanted to make the rules, they shouldn't have become the minority in the house.

What an absurd thing to say.

It's only a year ago that the republicans ran the investigations and they were able to set the rules.

Yes and that's just proving my point that the democrats are doing things in a way that republicans would not were it a democrat president being impeached (as was made clear with the Levin clip I posted were he went through the differences).

This is like a losing soccer team complaining that they can't share the trophy.

A pathetic analogy, not least of all because trophies are awarded when the game is over, this is far from that.

vetinari

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I can assure you if the shoe was on the other foot I would not be defending republicans if they behaved in this manner. Saying the majority make the rules, as if it should be tolerated no matter what the democrats do, doesn't wash.

I would say that it is complete trollish thing to say but then I remembered who posted it. You could at least try a little harder at trolling. It's interesting to see the level of deflection being used as a defense tactic by the Republicans. No attempt to actually address the issue just looking for ways to smear witnesses.

Spencerfreeman

vetinari wrote: »

I would say that it is complete trollish thing to say but then I remembered who posted it. You could at least try a little harder at trolling. It's interesting to see the level of deflection being used as a defense tactic by the Republicans. No attempt to actually address the issue just looking for ways to smear witnesses.

They're beginning to look as smearable as "i can't believe it's not butter"

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Whose money is behind the website that leaked the whistleblowers identity?

I really don't know. Don't make me search.

Outlaw Pete

vetinari wrote: »

I would say that it is complete trollish thing to say but then I remembered who posted it. You could at least try a little harder at trolling. It's interesting to see the level of deflection being used as a defense tactic by the Republicans. No attempt to actually address the issue just looking for ways to smear witnesses.

I have no idea what you're suggesting amounts to "trolling".

Because I said I would not be defend republicans if they behaved as the democrats are now? Or my view that merely saying the majority make the rules doesn't excuse how the democrats are behaving with regards to the rules they are setting?

Tbh, saying either of these views amount to trolling is bizarre.

vetinari

Judging by your posting history, you're cartoonishly pro Trump.
The idea that you'd call out the Republicans over anything is laughable.
That's what makes it trolling. You're on a constant wind up

hetuzozaho

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Because I said I would not be defend republicans if they behaved as the democrats are now?

Is your almost constant defense of Trump due more to being a Trump fan than a Republican fan then I guess?

hetuzozaho

I see the latest is that White House lawyer moved transcript to secure server after uqraine advisor raised concern.

Sounds to my ignorant mind like a bit if a cover up was kicked off. The prefect call was just too perfect I guess.

"Vindman read out loud notes he took of the president’s call. Eisenberg then suggested that the National Security Council move records of the call to a separate, highly classified computer system, Vindman told lawmakers.

The White House lawyer later directed the transcript’s removal to a system known as NICE, for NSC Intelligence Collaboration Environment, which is normally reserved for code word-level intelligence programs and top-secret sources and methods, according to an administration official." - Washington Post

Apparently violates E.O. 13526:

" Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security."

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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:

Full article.

That story appears to have been totally re-edited now, both the body of the article and the title appear starkly different. The title for instance is now “ he Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name” and an hour or two after you posted it was already edited to “ "How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed" - and I didn’t see any of the passages you originally quoted still in the article.

Nobody is leaping to confirm he is the whistleblower, either, but Washington Examiner claimed to have found inaccuracies in the reported material.

So RCI is really hedging their bets now from “this is the whistleblower you guys!” To “please don’t sue us if this turns out to be the whistleblower”

Outlaw Pete

vetinari wrote: »

Judging by your posting history, you're cartoonishly pro Trump.

You really need to pay closer attention to my posts as I have criticized Trump for reversersing an Obama executive order re drone strike deaths, the Syrian withdrawal and most recently for saying publicly that the Bidens are corrupt.

That's what makes it trolling. You're on a constant wind up

Seems to me that you just do not have an argument against the views I post and are going for the lazy unoriginal ad hominem route instead.

In the post you quoted I condemned democrats for the unfairness of the resolution. In the following clip Rep Tom Cole goes through each aspect of just why the resolution is unfair to both the president and republicans in congress.


https://twitter.com/TomColeOK04/status/1189730584668594178

Overheal

You’re eating up GOP talking points out of hand, Pete.

Tell me in your own words (hopefully) why the pwoor repubwickans are being abused on process

Otherwise we’re just gonna throw links back and forth like this one where it’s pointed out the Dems are just following Republican rules as said so by a Republican judge https://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-napolitano-defends-adam-schiff-on-fox-friends-impeachment-inquiry-following-gop-written-rules/

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

why the pwoor repubwickans are being abused on process

Have I disrespected you by mocking your views? I'll just ignore your replies in future if you address me in this manner again.

You are dismissing the issues raised by republicans as "GOP talking points" but you have no grounds to given that the rules set out in the resolution massively restrict how they can participate in the hearings.

For example:

Schiff must grant permission to Republicans to call a witness.
Schiff can instruct a witness not to answer any questions put to them by republicans.
Schiff decides what evidence the public and the judiciary get to see.

Democrats are pretending this is a bipartisan resolution but it is a far cry from that.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Have I disrespected you by mocking your views? I'll just ignore your replies in future if you address me in this manner again.

You are dismissing the issues raised by republicans as "GOP talking points" but you have no grounds to given that the rules set out in the resolution massively restrict how they can participate in the hearings.

For example:

Schiff must grant permission to Republicans to call a witness.
Schiff can instruct a witness not to answer any questions put to them by republicans.
Schiff decides what evidence the public and the judiciary get to see.

Democrats are pretending this is a bipartisan resolution but it is a far cry from that.

Schiff has a duty to protect the whistleblower. The first witness Republicans would call. He already had to shut down one line of questioning from Jim Jordan that was designed to confirm their identity:

[url] https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-jim-jordan-admits-hes-trying-to-out-whistleblower-while-denying-hes-trying-to-out-whistleblower/[/url]

So the measure appears to be proper. Any witness Schiff declines btw, Nunes can bring up for a full committee vote.

Cody montana

The U.S. House has voted to endorse the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Here's what happened:
– The final vote was 232 to 196
– All 194 Republicans voted against the measure
– 2 Democrats voted against it

Spencerfreeman

Cody montana wrote: »

The U.S. House has voted to endorse the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Here's what happened:
– The final vote was 232 to 196
– All 194 Republicans voted against the measure
– 2 Democrats voted against it

Which two Dems?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Schiff has a duty to protect the whistleblower. The first witness Republicans would call. He already had to shut down one line of questioning from Jim Jordan that was designed to confirm their identity:

[url] https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-jim-jordan-admits-hes-trying-to-out-whistleblower-while-denying-hes-trying-to-out-whistleblower/[/url]

So the measure appears to be proper. Any witness Schiff declines btw, Nunes can bring up for a full committee vote.

Please get real.
We all know who the whistle blower is.

Boggles

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Please get real.
We all know who the whistle blower is.

I don't. Who is it?

Spencerfreeman

Boggles wrote: »

I don't. Who is it?

Ask Overheal, apparently he even knows the name of the person who revealed it.

Cody montana

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Which two Dems?

Rep. Peterson of Minnesota and Rep. Van Drew of New Jersey.