President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

That's absurd. Of course a candidate can be investigated. One would hope, however, that the investigator is not another political candidate. Asking a foreign government to help you do that is a clear and unambiguous violation of US law. Hillary Clinton, famously, ran for the presidency while under a multitude of investigations.

The crime Hillary was being investigated for took place in the US, and so Obama wasn't in a position of having to as a foreign leader to look what she was alleged to have done. Had that been the case, then Obama would have found himself in the same position which Trump did.

I don't recall Obama asking any foreign governments to spy on his election rivals...

No, not foreign governments, that's true Cough.

It was recall investigating his political rivals that got Nixon in trouble. He wasn't just looking for corruption in the middle of the night at Watergate Hotel. Nobody argued Nixon's rivals were immune from investigation?

Overheal, what the hell are you on about? You make some bizarre arguments but that takes the cake. How the hell could anyone argue that burglary and illegal wiretapping were merely Nixon "investigating" ??

that volker testimony screengrab do you know the page number thanks its over 300 pages long and unsearchable in its raw format.

Zeldin posted it on Twitter. They're just doing what the democrats have been doing for weeks, leaking cherry picked portions of testimony.


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1191817248530477057

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Becoming clearer now why Republicans don’t just want Jim Jordan in - they want Nunes out. The released transcripts show Nunes passing conspiracy theory off as fact and trying to derail proceedings behind closed doors.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/impeachment-inquiry-transcript-shows-devin-nunes-desperately-trying-to-tie-steele-dossier-to-ukraine/

You'll have to post the relevant bit, have you seen their cookie policy?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The crime Hillary was being investigated for took place in the US, and so Obama wasn't in a position of having to as a foreign leader to look what she was alleged to have done. Had that been the case, then Obama would have found himself in the same position which Trump did.

well, yes and no: Obama wouldn’t be violating FEC law. If he had been running for his subsequent re-election, yes sure. And would have been subject to a congressional inquiry to debate the impeachability of his conduct.

No, not foreign governments, that's true Cough.

if anything Obama appeared to have recused himself from any such matter as was proper. Proof otherwise of Obama using his private attorney to conduct a shadow investigation would be, shall we say, more incriminating.

Overheal, what the hell are you on about? You make some bizarre arguments but that takes the cake. How the hell could anyone argue that burglary and illegal wiretapping were merely Nixon "investigating" ??

We both know sarcasm isn’t lost on you Pete.

Zeldin posted it on Twitter. They're just doing what the democrats have been doing for weeks, leaking cherry picked portions of testimony.


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1191817248530477057

Okay, so without a page number, the context, etc. I’m not going to place too much emphasis on it? I mean, in another cross examination Nunes tried to shill conspiracy theories as fact; for all I know Volker was responding to something in the hypothetical, which is not an unusual framing device congressman sometimes use to ask questions.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

And would have been subject to a congressional inquiry to debate the impeachability of his conduct.

Would never have happened though. As said previously: had Cheney and his son/daughter conducted themselves how they the Bidens have, and Dick was in the running in 2012, not a fiddler's would the democrats have given had Obama asked the Ukrainian president to look into the allegations. The media, the left, democrats alike, would all be waxing lyrical about it in fact. Lemon would no doubt be proudly announcing: 'Obama asked the Ukrainian President today for his cooperation into an ongoing investigation into Dick Cheney's alleged corruption in Ukraine' while trying to hide his glee and I honestly don't believe republicans would complain, had Cheney similarly been seen to be bragging about a $1billion quid pro at a time when he was VP and his son/daughter was making a fortune from sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, and also had occasionally lobbied republicans regarding issues he would benefit from financially.

.. in another cross examination Nunes tried to shill conspiracy theories as fact; for all I know Volker was responding to something in the hypothetical, which is not an unusual framing device congressman sometimes use to ask questions.

Okay, well this is probably best suited to the Durham-Barr investigation thread, but I'll address the following here briefly:

Overheal wrote: »

Becoming clearer now why Republicans don’t just want Jim Jordan in - they want Nunes out. The released transcripts show Nunes passing conspiracy theory off as fact and trying to derail proceedings behind closed doors.

I have no idea where you getting it from that Republicans want Nunes out. What Nunes said is correct: information within the Steele dossier did, in part, come from Ukrainian sources.

What happened during the testimony was that when Sondland was asked about the times he had been speaking with Trump about Ukraine, he brought up how Trump had (now infamously) said "They tried to take me down" and Nunes was (rightfully) determined to put this in context given that it hadn't been during the democrats questioning, and so he asked Sondland was he aware that the Ukrainians had been sources for the Steele dossier, and Schiff interrupted him and said that this was just Nunes' view. Then Meadows jumped in and said Schiff shouldn't be interrupting their time blah blah blah and that line of questioning was then allowed to proceed.

What you're reading is an opinion that Nunes is wrong and trying to pass "conspiracy theory off as fact" - but that's all it is, an opinion. Nunes is privy to much more information about the sources used for the Steele dossier than Adam bloody Schiff, I can assure you of that and he has some cheek to be correcting him on it.

Personally though I always felt when Trump said "They tried to take me down" with regards to Ukraine, he was referring to those involved in the leaking of pages from the so called 'Black Ledger'.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Zeldin posted it on Twitter. They're just doing what the democrats have been doing for weeks, leaking cherry picked portions of testimony.


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1191817248530477057

Is that from before or after Sondland revised his testimony?

Sondland wrote:

I now recall speaking individually with (ZELENSKY AIDE) Mr. Yermak, where I said the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks...

Boggles

I wonder what twigged his memory?

:rolleyes:

osarusan

After the revised testimony of Sondland (among others), it seems fairly clear now that the US aid was contingent on Ukraine doing 'something', I don't think that can be denied at this stage.

Now, what it will boil down to is what exactly the aid was contingent on, and whether the Democrats can make the case that the US aid was contingent on a 'favour' to cause trouble for Trump's political rival, or whether Trump can argue that the aid was contingent on Ukraine carrying out legitimate anti-corruption activities (similar to what Biden publicly said years earlier).

As I said earlier in thread, I haven't seen anything in the edited call transcript that Trump cannot possibly explain. More damning, I would say, is his televised call for China to investigate 'The Bidens', but again, he can try to argue that his comments have to be seen in the context of the wider discussion of anti-corruption.

Boggles

It's pretty clear now that Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate a political rival and there was a quid pro quo.

The "defense" has firmly moved onto "yeah but so what, look over there".

You just need to watch Alternative Facts Conway's interview at the weekend.

That should be enough for bipartisan removal.

Of course though the bar hasn't just been lowered it's gone out the window.

The only reason Republicans will shift is if Trump starts hurting them in the polls.

There is signs of it

Democrats cemented a new reality in Virginia on Tuesday: For decades a Republican stronghold, and then a swing state, the commonwealth is now controlled by Democrats.

The party won majorities in Virginia's House and Senate, gaining full control of the state government for the first time in two decades.

mcmoustache

Boggles wrote: »

The only reason Republicans will shift is if Trump starts hurting them in the polls.

This can't be stated enough. The senate Republicans won't be convicting based on the facts that come out. They'll be voting based on what it means for their reelection prospects.

MadYaker

Yeah that’s always been the case. It doesn’t seem like it’ll happen at the moment.

mcmoustache

Taylor's transcript was released today. Not much we don't already know - according to his testimony, there was a QPQ (releasing the money in return for public declaration of investigation into Burisma and 2016 election) and it was being managed by Giuliani on bahalf of Trump. There was also some mention of Trump's obsession with buying Greenland getting in the way of serious business and Meadows asking about the alleged whistleblower.

AMBASSAD0R TAYLOR: That was my clear understanding,security assistance money would not come until the President committed to pursue the investigation.

THE CHAIRMAN: So if they don't do this, they are not going to get that was your understanding?

AMBASSAD0R TAYL0R: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are you aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: I AM.

AMBASSADOR TAYL0R: I don't think so. I think the origin of the idea to get President Zelensky to say out loud he's going to investigate Burisma and 2016 election, I think the originator, the person who came up with that was Mr. Giuliani

R. MALIN0WSKI: And he was representing whose interests in--

AMBASSAD0R TAYL0R: President Trump

woohoo!!!

Trump Junior retweeted a link naming the whistle blower. Hatchet job in full swing and lots of personal details of the individual online.

mcmoustache

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Trump Junior retweeted a link naming the whistle blower. Hatchet job in full swing and lots of personal details of the individual online.

It's petty and little more than attempt to intimidate others when the complaint has been corroborated by others under oath.


The whole point of the whistleblower law is to allow people to make complaints that can then be investigated without fear of repercussions. The whistleblower did things by the book and has had his claims confirmed but that's not good enough for Trump and his supporters who demand absolute loyalty to the leader.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1191817248530477057

...is contradicted by...

woohoo!!!

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's petty and little more than attempt to intimidate others when the complaint has been corroborated by others under oath.


The whole point of the whistleblower law is to allow people to make complaints that can then be investigated without fear of repercussions. The whistleblower did things by the book and has had his claims confirmed but that's not good enough for Trump and his supporters who demand absolute loyalty to the leader.

A coincidence that Trump Junior is plugging his book at the same time. Leaking the guys identity and discrediting him is all part of the defence, to discredit the whole thing and everyone in it, they've nothing else.

silverharp

Being a never Trumper must be difficult, a permanent state of blue balls

duploelabs

silverharp wrote: »

Being a never Trumper must be difficult, a permanent state of blue balls

Schadenfreude would describe it best I'd say

Overheal

Rudy just confessed to the smoking gun last night

https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1192180680391843841?s=20

https://twitter.com/JenGRodgers/status/1192185633474826240?s=20

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1192250086249713665?s=20

https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1192195530782203904?s=20

https://twitter.com/marty_lederman/status/1192204244050333696?s=20

thechewyone

Yeah so what? Bill or Hillary Clinton did that kind of thing all the time and yet everyone on the left still worship at their altar ever morning.

Overheal

thechewyone wrote: »

Yeah so what? Bill or Hillary Clinton did that kind of thing all the time and yet everyone on the left still worship at their altar ever morning.

What kind of thing? Used private lawyers abusing the office of the President to extort foreign governments for quid pro quo into political rivals? No.

Penn

thechewyone wrote: »

Yeah so what? Bill or Hillary Clinton did that kind of thing all the time and yet everyone on the left still worship at their altar ever morning.

Interesting. May I ask, are you saying it's okay for Trump to do it because (supposedly) the Clintons did it too even though it's still illegal, or are you saying it's not illegal and so neither Trump nor the Clintons did anything wrong if they did do these things?

Timberrrrrrrr

Lads....

Why would you even rise to the bait?

New account/low post numbers/obvious posts to rile people up.

Boggles

thechewyone wrote: »

Yeah so what?

It's actually pretty scary that those 3 words will be the White House and Republican defense.

duploelabs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lads....

Why would you even rise to the bait?

New account/low post numbers/obvious posts to rile people up.

Also been banned from this sub before

James Brown

Ouch...

A judge ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to a collection of nonprofit organizations as part of a settlement with the New York state attorney general's office to resolve a civil lawsuit that alleged "persistent" violations of charities law that included unlawful coordination with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign, according to a court filing Thursday.

Filed in June 2018, the lawsuit alleged that the President and his three eldest children -- Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric -- violated federal and state campaign finance laws and abused the Donald J. Trump Foundation's tax-exempt status. According to the lawsuit, the Trumps allowed the foundation to be used "as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump's business and political interests."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/trump-settlement-trump-foundation-new-york/index.html

Seems like the type of people who are only interested in the public interest re: Biden and would never use the Presidency to further their own private wealth

Cody montana

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ouch...



Seems like the type of people who are only interested in the public interest re: Biden and would never use the Presidency to further their own private wealth

Who's foundation was corrupt again?

Billy Mays

Swamp dwelling New York liberal elite judges

Spencerfreeman

When Trump is accused of impropriety in a phone call to the Ukraine and people here think that has substance, it's time to let Col. Sanders explain why Trump asked for Zelensky's assurance that he was committed to rooting out the actual corruption.
Quid pro Quo my ring a dink.

mcmoustache

Let's forget all the credible and consistent testimony because some rando with a youtube channel really knows what's going on.

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

Let's forget all the credible and consistent testimony because some rando with a youtube channel really knows what's going on.

Aww, you never got to the end. Get to the back of the class.