President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Spencerfreeman

Cody montana wrote: »

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

Thank you, glad to see there some scintilla of honesty left in the Dem party.

You do know whatever the outcome is, it hasn't a dogs chance of having any effect legally?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You do know whatever the outcome is, it hasn't a dogs chance of having any effect legally?

What now

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

What now

I need a hug.

James Brown

Great news for Trump and the GOP. Everything will be made public in fine detail. No more secret closed doors cross party hearing. Good news right???

Spencerfreeman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Great news for Trump and the GOP. Everything will be made public in fine detail. No more secret closed doors cross party hearing. Good news right???

Excellent news if it were true.

James Brown

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Excellent news if it were true.

They can't seek to impeach without saying why.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Excellent news if it were true.

But it is. Not one but two full reports to be made public. Republicans will be able to append the reports.

duploelabs

With regards to the initial closed door investigations, here's something for you....

The cops bring in a group of people who were in the same car, one of the people in the car murdered someone, the others know who did it.
Do the cops put them all in the same room and question them? No, that would be absurd. They keep them separate so they can't line up their stories.
This is like questioning 101, and anyone who claims it's somehow wrong for Congress to do is grasping at straws to defend a criminal.

vetinari

It's all for show by the Republicans.
If you can't defend the facts, attack the process.
At this point the only valid statement by Republicans would be to say that it's not a big deal that Trump wanted Ukraine to look into Biden.
That at least would be an argument that made sense.

Overheal

vetinari wrote: »

It's all for show by the Republicans.
If you can't defend the facts, attack the process.
At this point the only valid statement by Republicans would be to say that it's not a big deal that Trump wanted Ukraine to look into Biden.
That at least would be an argument that made sense.

No turning back now

Each and every republican is terrified of being primaried.

Overheal

Morrison corroborated testimony from Bill Taylor.

“ Morrison corroborated that he spoke with Taylor at least twice in early September. The first conversation was to alert him that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had told the Ukrainians that no U.S. aid would be forthcoming until they announced an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had hired Biden’s son Hunter, a person familiar with the matter said.

Morrison also told lawmakers that he spoke with Taylor again on Sept. 7 to share a “sinking feeling” about a worrisome conversation between Trump and Sondland, the person said. Morrison said that, during that conversation, Trump said he wasn’t seeking a “quid pro quo” but went on to insist that Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky had to publicly announce that he was opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference.“

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/national-security-council-official-set-to-testify-in-impeachment-inquiry-is-leaving-his-post/2019/10/30/261285c6-fb62-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html

Cody montana

Overheal wrote: »

Morrison corroborated testimony from Bill Taylor.

“ Morrison corroborated that he spoke with Taylor at least twice in early September. The first conversation was to alert him that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had told the Ukrainians that no U.S. aid would be forthcoming until they announced an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that had hired Biden’s son Hunter, a person familiar with the matter said.

Morrison also told lawmakers that he spoke with Taylor again on Sept. 7 to share a “sinking feeling” about a worrisome conversation between Trump and Sondland, the person said. Morrison said that, during that conversation, Trump said he wasn’t seeking a “quid pro quo” but went on to insist that Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky had to publicly announce that he was opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference.“

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/national-security-council-official-set-to-testify-in-impeachment-inquiry-is-leaving-his-post/2019/10/30/261285c6-fb62-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html

How many more times are we going to have to confirm this?

Spencerfreeman

Cody montana wrote: »

How many more times are we going to have to confirm this?

How many more times are you going to misinterpret what is reported.

Corruption of 2016 election. not 2020.
1.4 billion missing due corruption of Biden.

mcmoustache

Cody montana wrote: »

How many more times are we going to have to confirm this?

Until it turns out that literally everyone in Trump's cabinet, including the kids, were Obama holdover Democrat never-trumpers the whole time.

Cody montana

mcmoustache wrote: »

Until it turns out that literally everyone in Trump's cabinet, including the kids, were Obama holdover Democrat never-trumpers the whole time.

The great thing about the closed door testimonies is they can get corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses.

And very soon the whole world will hear about it.

Spencerfreeman

Cody montana wrote: »

The great thing about the closed door testimonies is they can get corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses.

And very soon the whole world will hear about it.

It won't come out until it qualifies for a FOIR in the future.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It won't come out until it qualifies for a FOIR in the future.

Citation please?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Citation please?

Standard practice I thought going on previous closed door hearings?

I couldn't be arsed. Delete it if you wish.

Cody montana

NSC official Tim Morrison told impeachment investigators today that Gordon Sondland told an aide to the Ukrainian president that U.S. aid would be released if Ukraine committed to investigating Burisma Group, corroborating Bill Taylor’s testimony.

Overheal

vetinari wrote: »

It's all for show by the Republicans.
If you can't defend the facts, attack the process.
At this point the only valid statement by Republicans would be to say that it's not a big deal that Trump wanted Ukraine to look into Biden.
That at least would be an argument that made sense.

Republicans seem to have finally figure this out:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-rep-to-chris-wallace-trump-using-his-power-to-have-ukraine-investigate-biden-is-not-impeachable/

The new line is: “Yeah, he asked Ukraine to investigate his likely opponent in the 2020 election. That’s not impeachable.”

Ironically they’re arguing: that if Barrack Obama asked the Ukraine to investigate Trump and his campaign to look for ties to Russian interference in election politics (or the ‘conspiracy’ thereof depending on the reader), and Obama has Joe Biden withhold $1 billion in loans contingent on that, that activity would neither be criminal nor impeachable.

Do they do any oppo on these narratives before they try them on?

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

Republicans seem to have finally figure this out:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-rep-to-chris-wallace-trump-using-his-power-to-have-ukraine-investigate-biden-is-not-impeachable/

The new line is: “Yeah, he asked Ukraine to investigate his likely opponent in the 2020 election. That’s not impeachable.”

Ironically they’re arguing: that if Barrack Obama asked the Ukraine to investigate Trump and his campaign to look for ties to Russian interference in election politics (or the ‘conspiracy’ thereof depending on the reader), and Obama has Joe Biden withhold $1 billion in loans contingent on that, that activity would neither be criminal nor impeachable.

Do they do any oppo on these narratives before they try them on?

BattleCorp

Did Ukraine actually find any evidence of wrongdoing by Biden's son?

No fan of Trump but I don't see how it would be illegal to get someone to launch an investigation? It would be a different matter if he asked Ukraine to find someone guilty though.

Spencerfreeman

BattleCorp wrote: »

Did Ukraine actually find any evidence of wrongdoing by Biden's son?

No fan of Trump but I don't see how it would be illegal to get someone to launch an investigation? It would be a different matter if he asked Ukraine to find someone guilty though.

Biden's son is not the issue, although I can see why you have been led to think so. It's the missing 1.4 billion that Trump, actually Guillani, is inquiring into.

weisses

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Biden's son is not the issue, although I can see why you have been led to think so. It's the missing 1.4 billion that Trump, actually Guillani, is inquiring into.

And what evidence is there that Biden is responsible for the missing money ?

FreudianSlippers

BattleCorp wrote: »

Did Ukraine actually find any evidence of wrongdoing by Biden's son?

No fan of Trump but I don't see how it would be illegal to get someone to launch an investigation? It would be a different matter if he asked Ukraine to find someone guilty though.

There's no clear indication that Ukraine ever investigated Biden's son or that even if they did and there was evidence of wrongdoing that same is even relevant to the issue.

What Trump did (clearly from the transcript from the call and now by their own admission) is make it clear to Ukraine that the continuation of aid to Ukraine was dependent on Ukraine investigating Biden's son.

Aside from everything else, this is a violation of 52 USC §30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Trump wanted dirt on Biden, he asked for it from a foreign national - case closed. What makes it worse is that he effectively blackmailed them by making the aid conditional on the investigation. So, even without the "quid pro quo", soliciting a foreign national/government for dirt on your political opponent is illegal.

Spencerfreeman

weisses wrote: »

And what evidence is there that Biden is responsible for the missing money ?

I don't know, I just know that's what they are looking at.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Biden's son is not the issue, although I can see why you have been led to think so. It's the missing 1.4 billion that Trump, actually Guillani, is inquiring into.

So he’s A) so definitely not investigating Biden because of 2020, since he never said “2020” on the call and he’s investigating $1.4B that ... ???? ... despite never mentioning it on the call.

That’s consistent.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I don't know, I just know that's what they are looking at.

Based on?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Based on?

The evidence so far.

You say it's about 2020, no evidence.
I say it's about 2016 election interference as per transcript.

You say Burisma inquiry is about Biden's son.
I say it's about the missing 1.4 billion.

FreudianSlippers

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The evidence so far.

You say it's about 2020, no evidence.
I say it's about 2016 election interference as per transcript.

Irrelevant - Trump is a candidate in the 2020 election and by the letter of the law, what he did was illegal. A lawful investigation would not have been initiated by a call from the President.