President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Alleged identity.

Also I don’t understand the relevance? Here’s Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents Dinner hosted by Barrack Obama - COLLUSION????

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/entertainment/trump-jokes-from-the-2011-white-house-correspondents-dinner/2016/04/27/6a4384de-0bec-11e6-bc53-db634ca94a2a_video.html

The alleged whistleblower is a federal officer serving in the DC area I have no doubt he’s attended various functions. Probably even had lunch at that PizzaGate place (oh my!)

You know I can't watch that.
The point is that he comes from the same place.
It shows he can not be considered as impartial I suppose.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You know I can't watch that.
The point is that he comes from the same place.
It shows he can not be considered as impartial I suppose.

Very thin stuff you’re stretching there.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Very thin stuff you’re stretching there.

There is more. I'm particularly interested in Chalupa.
I'll probably post it here, when it gets hot, for a chew.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

There is more. I'm particularly interested in Chalupa.
I'll probably post it here, when it gets hot, for a chew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKO9pf6pxV4

FreudianSlippers

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They said Trump tried to "solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" - that hasn't turned out to be true, unless you want to make the ridiculous leap that if someone who is running for president is involved in alleged corruption within a foreign country, the US president cannot ask that country's leaders to look into that alleged corruption as that would then qualify as "soliciting interference" in the upcoming election.

It's preposterous and the Senate will deal with facts, not things which are purely incidental in nature. You would have thought the left would have learned this after the Russia-Trump collusion nonsense which they all got their hopes up over, only to be dashed, but no, they seem destined to repeat the same mistakes all over again, no doubt with Broadway readings of testimony from the ambassadors after it all blows up their face.

The President is a candidate in the 2020 election; I've already posted the actual law that it appears he broke. If I get time later I'll post it again, but a modicum of research on your part should be a prerequisite to posting here.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKO9pf6pxV4

I knew you'd get it.

Outlaw Pete

Whoopi / The View called out for talking about Impeachment the day after the 2016 presidential election, which of course they denied, well here's the clip ...


https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1192526109809659905

mcmoustache

Stop the Presses!

TV SHOW HOST SAYS SOMETHING DUMB SHOCKER. READ ALL ABOUT IT.

That barrel being scraped now has a hole where the bottom used to be.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Whoopi / The View called out for talking about Impeachment the day after the 2016 presidential election, which of course they denied, well here's the clip ...


https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1192526109809659905

So obviously Whoopi is part of the conspiracy now?

The public thought there was strong evidence Trump was coordinating with Russians to hack the DNC and release the podesta emails. What’s sinister about discussing the possibility of impeachment for a president elect that’s already seemingly engaged in high crimes? Especially when the campaign slogan from Trump was lock her up lock her up lock her up. Trump gaslit all that discussion on impeachment in 2016, and now people like you pretend it’s evidence everyone is involved in some meta conspiracy to stage a coup. Republicans would have had the same conversations if Hillary had won. Stop it already.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Whoopi / The View called out for talking about Impeachment the day after the 2016 presidential election, which of course they denied, well here's the clip ...

How is Whoppi calling for anything 3 years ago relevant to what Trump has done to get himself potentially impeached?

hetuzozaho

Has Whoopi been subpoenaed yet?

Overheal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/03/no-honeymoon-for-hillary-congressional-republicans-openly-discussing-impeachment/

Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.

Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.

And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation. He favors further congressional investigation into that matter.

“Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency, and if she were elected, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis,” Trump said Wednesday at a rally in Pensacola, Fla. “You know it’s going to happen. And in all fairness, we went through it with her husband. He was impeached. . . . Folks, do we want to go through this again?”

Top GOP leaders have previously indicated they will aggressively investigate Clinton if she is elected president. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said last month he considered a Clinton administration a “target-rich environment” and that “we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up” for investigations.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News Tuesday the probe into Clinton’s emails “will continue whether she wins or not.”

“Assuming she wins and the investigation goes forward and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial,” he said, warning of a possible “constitutional crisis.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, told a Wisconsin newspaper Monday that Clinton could be impeached, citing federal laws against “willful concealment and destruction.”

“I’m not a lawyer, but this is clearly written,” he told the Beloit Daily News. “I would say yes, high crime or misdemeanor, I believe she is in violation of both laws.”


Thanks for playing Pete

Spencerfreeman

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Whoopi / The View called out for talking about Impeachment the day after the 2016 presidential election, which of course they denied, well here's the clip ...


https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1192526109809659905

Don jr held up well, better speaker than I'd thought. Tied them in knots.
Tulsi also ripped Joyless Behar the day before.
I suppose the booker is going to get it.

Boggles

Overheal wrote: »

Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.

Can you imagine the state of the Republicans if Chelsea Clinton took an "innocent" meeting with some dodgy Russians?

mcmoustache

Boggles wrote: »

Can you imagine the state of the Republicans if Chelsea Clinton took an "innocent" meeting with some dodgy Russians?

Nevermind that. Can you imagine how they would have been behaving if there was a hint of impropriety about the Obama administration's hold on aid until Ukraine got rid of the useless Prosecutor General?

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

How is Whoppi calling for anything 3 years ago relevant to what Trump has done to get himself potentially impeached?

Well, that's the point, there's been nothing but talk of impeachment since Hillary lost and so you can't just act as if this latest attempt doest have context. Well, you can, but people are boundd to just point out, as I am doing now, that democrats, and their enablers, haven't stopped jabbering about Impeachment since Doland won.


https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1181285563489386496

Boggles wrote: »

Can you imagine the state of the Republicans if Chelsea Clinton took an "innocent" meeting with some dodgy Russians?

lol. Well, her mother likely knew all about the meeting so she could have told Chelsea it was happening maybe, you know, given that Glenn Simpson met with Veselnitskaya before the meeting and also after it

That's Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, I'm sure you heard of them, that's the smear firm Hillary paid to fabricate dirt on Trump, with a bunch of Russians, so it could be then used as a reason to spy on his campaign and of course leaked to media so as to influence the public's voting choice. I mean, who would vote for someone who pays for Russians to pee on a bed Michelle Obama slept in.

Some might say that amounts to Hillary conspiring with Russians to influence a presidential election.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, that's the point, there's been nothing but talk of impeachment since Hillary lost and so you can't just act as if this latest attempt doest have context. Well, you can, but people are boundd to just point out, as I am doing now, that democrats, and their enablers, haven't stopped jabbering about Impeachment since Doland won.

As I just relayed to you, there was already talk of impeaching Hillary since before the election. You must be mad deluded to pretend that under a president Hillary Clinton nobody would be talking impeachment.

But no this is great I like how your points are all soundly refuted and you just keep soapboxing them like it didn't happen. Jog on.

lol. Well, her mother likely knew all about the meeting so she could have told Chelsea it was happening maybe, you know, given that Glenn Simpson met with Veselnitskaya before the meeting and also after it

That's Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, I'm sure you heard of them, that's the smear firm Hillary paid to fabricate dirt on Trump, with a bunch of Russians, so it could be then used as a reason to spy on his campaign and of course leaked to media so as to influence the public's voting choice. I mean, who would vote for someone who pays for Russians to pee on a bed Michelle Obama slept in.

Some might say that amounts to Hillary conspiring with Russians to influence a presidential election.

There's an ongoing investigation into this conspiracy theory so what more do you want?

Spencerfreeman

We're having a late supper today.

No soup for you!

Overheal

Fiona Hill testimony includes Gaetz barging into the room and disrupting proceedings. (if Schiff had done this you'd never hear the end of "Obstruction of justice")

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/fiona-hill-transcript-includes-account-of-matt-gaetz-getting-kicked-out-of-hearing/

His action had the net result of burning up over an hour of time the minority party had for questioning.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Fiona Hill testimony includes Gaetz barging into the room and disrupting proceedings. (if Schiff had done this you'd never hear the end of "Obstruction of justice")

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/fiona-hill-transcript-includes-account-of-matt-gaetz-getting-kicked-out-of-hearing/

His action had the net result of burning up over an hour of time the minority party had for questioning.

Any idea where the testimony repository is? Or is there one?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Any idea where the testimony repository is? Or is there one?

House.gov

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D010.pdf

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

House.gov

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D010.pdf

Must be gigantic, still not down. With this amount of paper they must be relying on no one digging.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Must be gigantic, still not down. With this amount of paper they must be relying on no one digging.

Have you read the Mueller Report?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Have you read the Mueller Report?

lol, not enough time left in the world to finish that one!

I'm going to give up on reading the Fiona Hill one too.
She wasn't even in the building!

You do exaggerate, it was 48 mins.

Spencerfreeman

According to the Fiona Hill testimony we know know what John Bolton thought of Guillani's involvement and why they don't want him digging any deeper into Ukraine.

Fiona Hill;

"And Ambassador BoIton had said repeatedly that nobody
should be meeting with Giuliani. And you may recall before
that I said that he described Giuliani as a bit of a hand
grenade that was going to blow everyone up!"

Overheal

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1192891011401441280

DeconSheridan

So weeks into this shambles another waste of time news and tax money with no evidence, no nothing and still believing their own fake news. Its like watching people in an old folks home trying to be politicians. I hope the are wiped out come the 2020 elections its about time they just accepted they lost and work together on whats important and ride each other like FF/FG do here.

Outlaw Pete

LMAO


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1192186577084174336

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

LMAO


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1192186577084174336

I like how Rep Zeldin (who clearly has no agenda) cut off the transcript excerpt before Bill Taylor actually manages to affirm Zeldin's central claim.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Bill Taylor wouldn't have possibly gone on to say "no that's not the only source but all these firsthand accounts..."

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

LMAO


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1192186577084174336

You may laugh but the real world moves on despite your delusions.


It might seem silly to you that important people get their news from papers with a good track record instead of randos on twitter with red Xs or high integer values appended to their handle but when your Donald wants actual news, even he gets it from the NYT. and WaPo.