President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Veritas Libertas

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump over the whistleblower complaint on Trump's communication with Ukraine about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. /CNN

Veritas Libertas

Don't know why CNN keep referring to this as an 'impeachment process', seems like they're leaving a window open to backtrack at some stage.

Pelosi's change of heart followed reports that Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25 phone call to investigate Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden and his son.
Trump promised on Tuesday(To release Wednesday[today]) to release a transcript of his phone call. He also confirmed he had withheld nearly $400m in US aid to Ukraine but denied he did so as leverage to get Zelensky to initiate an investigation that would damage Biden.

It would rely on a republican senate convicting him, although his charge seems pretty serious. I hope that audio(transcript) gets released to the public.

drunkmonkey

There goes Bidens shot at 2020. I wonder how man more will fall with him, would be terrible if he took Obama and Hillary down as well.
Trump seems confident he's not the bag guy in this story, them dims have ran headfirst into a trap.

Veritas Libertas

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There goes Bidens shot at 2020. I wonder how man more will fall with him, would be terrible if he took Obama and Hillary down as well.
Trump seems confident he's not the bag guy in this story, them dims have ran headfirst into a trap.

How could you spin "confirmed he had withheld nearly $400m in US aid to Ukraine"? With even a vague connection to Biden, how could this story play out well for Trump? (I don't know much about this story)

Veritas Libertas

• Speaker of the house indicates a willingness to take these investigations to more formal level.
• House must agree.
• Then it goes to the senate.

Mr E

The transcript from that Ukranian call will be key here.

drunkmonkey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPsiSM4H8ZY

They just opened Pandora's Box on themselves.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Mr E wrote: »

The transcript from that Ukranian call will be key here.

Just like the one Nixon released after Watergate?

begsbyOnaTrain

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

With even a vague connection to Biden, how could this story play out well for Trump? (I don't know much about this story)

It's not a vague connection, it's dodgy dealings done (allegedly) by his son. That's the way the R's are gonna hammer this, as would any political party worth its salt.

Veritas Libertas

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They just opened Pandora's Box on themselves.

Biden had a proescutor fired, and got one put in, they dismissed a case against an organization that was collecting false information about Trump and Manafort, and feeding it to the DNC. That organization was run by Soros who then hired the crooked FBI to work for Soros. This stinks.

6minutes 39seconds in your video.

Rudy Giuliani's defence of Trump. I think Trump's ****ed.

Duane Dibbley

I get the feeling this will come to nothing as usual.

Veritas Libertas

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

I get the feeling this will come to nothing as usual.

Usually I would agree, but given the facts at present, Rudy Giuliani's defence of Trump and Pelosi's change of heart I just can't see how you can put together 400$m, Biden, Trump and Ukraine without it going horribly wrong for everyone involved.
Can't wait for those transcripts. The one way I don't see this going is fizzling out!

Hypothetical: If it turns out Trump did influence Ukraine for his benefit of investigating Biden, do you think the senate would impeach him?

Duane Dibbley

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Usually I would agree, but given the facts at present, Rudy Giuliani's defence of Trump and Pelosi's change of heart I just can't see how you can put together 400$m, Biden, Trump and Ukraine without it going horribly wrong for everyone involved.
Can't wait for those transcripts. The one way I don't see this going is fizzling out!

Hypothetical: If it turns out Trump did influence Ukraine for his benefit of investigating Biden, do you think the senate would impeach him?

I think this will drag out so long that Trump will have finished his term of Presidency by the time it reaches conclusion.

Boggles

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Can't wait for those transcripts.

That will be heavily edited.

The entire unedited audio and the testimony from the whistle-blower is what will determine if there is merit in this.

salmocab

Mr E wrote: »

The transcript from that Ukranian call will be key here.

He’ll release one transcript that has nothing incriminating on it, then he will push the nothing to see agenda. There will have been multiple calls and conversations that won’t be released.
I’d say the release today will add nothing to this.

drunkmonkey

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Hypothetical: If it turns out Trump did influence Ukraine for his benefit of investigating Biden, do you think the senate would impeach him?

It's a republican Senate not a hope. I don't see anything wrong with asking Ukraine to assist in the criminal investigation of Biden. It's looks like it goes a bit deeper than Biden, Obama and the Clintons are wrapped up in it.

Boggles

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with asking Ukraine to assist in the criminal investigation of Biden.

You don't see anything wrong in the POTUS using the office to effectively get an edge on an election by "blackmailing" a foreign power?

Srsly?

Whether you don't see anything wrong with it or not, it's a crime.

drunkmonkey

What crime is it? It's exposed or has the potential to expose serious crimes. So they have a choice now plough ahead with the impeachment and expose themselves or back down. It's a checkmate situation. Every which way they lose.

Boggles

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What crime is it?

Solicitation of a foreign power to "meddle" in an election is a crime.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

The fact you can't see anything wrong with it is moot.

Call me Al

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's a republican Senate not a hope. I don't see anything wrong with asking Ukraine to assist in the criminal investigation of Biden. It's looks like it goes a bit deeper than Biden, Obama and the Clintons are wrapped up in it.

You see nothing wrong.... but it is illegal, so what you or any other regular joe see or believe is irrelevant. He either broke the law or he didn't.

I'm also surprised trump supporters aren't trying to shoehorn a few more Democrat names in there. It's just bait for all those crazies that populate twitter and facebook. After all it's the only way to deflect from the fact that it's their beloved Trump who is being impeached and will be openly investigated. I mean Giuliani was even ranting about Soros!

And Hilary again? Seriously that ship has sailed.

It's a bit like an attempt at a sting from a dying wasp. But the wasp's death is going to just drag on and on for the year ahead.

osarusan

If it can be shown that he made $400 million in aid contingent on Ukraine taking part in something that was aimed at smearing Biden in some way, that would be a pretty serious issue.

But I don't think many party members on either side would actually give much of a sh!t about the actual principles of it all. The Dems would piously attack, the Reps would prevaricate and play down and muddy the waters, and some time in the not-too-distant future something similar will happen under a Democrat president, and everybody will play the political game again, except with roles reversed, making the same arguments they all had such contempt for previously.

Nothing matters really, except for getting your champ in the white house and then keeping them there. Anything is fair game when it comes to that.

I'm sure this is what the impeachment is about also.

Penn

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What crime is it?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-can-t-be-prosecuted-ukraine-call-about-biden-rudy-ncna1058196

As explained by my colleague, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, in the Daily Beast, it is a crime under the federal bribery statute for a public official to demand anything of value in exchange for performing an official act. Additionally, the Hobbs Act defines extortion as "obtaining property from another, with his consent, under color of official right." McQuade continues:

The essence of both crimes is a demand by a public official to obtain something for himself to which he is not entitled in exchange for performing an official act of his office. Here, if the reporting is correct, Trump may be similarly committing bribery and extortion by using the power of his office to demand a thing of value, dirt on Biden, in exchange for an official act, the provision of military aid. This is precisely the kind of old-fashioned corruption scheme that the bribery and extortion statutes were designed to punish.
And, if Giuliani assisted or agreed to assist this scheme — even if he did not fully adopt the entire plan — may have aided and abetted or conspired to commit those same crimes. In addition, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal for a U.S. citizen to corruptly offer “anything of value” to a foreign official to retain business or influence an official decision.

Giuliani defended himself by claiming that “no money was mentioned, no quid pro quo,” in the call between Trump and the Ukranian president. Let’s see if that’s true. But more important, Giuliani — a former mob prosecutor — surely knows that most crimes don’t happen so explicitly. In 16 years of listening to criminals on wiretaps, I rarely heard anyone say, “If you don’t give me X, I will do Y.” That’s not how mafia bosses work. They make a “request” and others follow up with the demand. The law is very clear that a quid pro quo need not be explicit for a crime to have taken place. It can be inferred from the facts as a whole.

^^^crimes

Call me Al

Boggles wrote: »

You don't see anything wrong in the POTUS using the office to effectively get an edge on an election by "blackmailing" a foreign power?

Srsly?

Whether you don't see anything wrong with it or not, it's a crime.

Trump doesn't think so either. I think he said as much a couple of weeks back?... hmmm... I wonder why he might have said that!

Boggles

Call me Al wrote: »

Trump doesn't think so either. I think he said as much a couple of weeks back?... hmmm... I wonder why he might have said that!

When Fox News contributors are saying he committed a crime, I think it's time for his cheerleaders to check their pom poms.

Eric Cartman

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

I think this will drag out so long that Trump will have finished his term of Presidency by the time it reaches conclusion.

You think itll keep going till 2024 ?

drunkmonkey

Boggles wrote: »

When Fox News contributors are saying he committed a crime, I think it's time for his cheerleaders to check their pom poms.

I don't think that's what there saying. CNN aren't even saying that. Biden is the story.

Penn

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't think that's what there saying. CNN aren't even saying that. Biden is the story.

Pretty sure impeachment proceedings against the sitting President is the story.

Boggles

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't think that's what there saying. CNN aren't even saying that. Biden is the story.

Judge Napolitano: Trump has admitted committing crime in talks with Ukraine

Like I said time to check the pom poms.

drunkmonkey

Penn wrote: »

Pretty sure impeachment proceedings against the sitting President is the story.

Those proceedings are going nowhere she doesn't even know what she's impeaching him for, all off the back of a whistleblower with a dislike for Trump. She's playing high stakes poker and has went all in without checking her cards.
He won't be impeached by a republican Senate he may win the election while this is all going on though.

Boggles

drunkmonkey wrote: »

all off the back of a whistleblower with a dislike for Trump.

Oh, discredit the whistleblower. Cool tactic, pretty original too. :rolleyes:

How do you know he / she has a dislike for Trump?

Penn

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Those proceedings are going nowhere she doesn't even know what she's impeaching him for, all off the back of a whistleblower with a dislike for Trump. She's playing high stakes poker and has went all in without checking her cards.
He won't be impeached by a republican Senate he may win the election while this is all going on though.

The impeachment hearings are going to be more than just Ukraine though, she's instructed each of the Chairs of the House committees to bring forward their strongest arguments against Trump, so it'll likely run into emoluments violations, obstruction as per the Mueller Report etc. It also gives those committees greater powers to hold hearings and subpeona information/witnesses even before it gets to the Senate for a vote.

We also don't know what evidence the whistleblower supposedly has. Evidence which may negate any accusations of dislike against Trump.

What Pelosi did yesterday is the first step among many. This will drag on for quite a while before (or even if) it gets to the Senate for a vote, and we don't know what will come out. We'll have to wait and see.

Regardless, if Trump did what he's being accused of, that's a crime.

drunkmonkey

Boggles wrote: »

How do you know he / she has a dislike for Trump?

Ahh because they blew a whistle or so they think. I think the whistleblower was bait and they took it hook line and sinker.

TheValeyard

Seriously doubt a republican senate would impeach him, I also doubt his support base will care either. I have a feeling that its Biden who will come out of this worst. Bit like the crooked Hillary thing. Which could have been Trumps play all along.

Duane Dibbley

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You think itll keep going till 2024 ?

I dont think anything will happen.

If Trump finds out there is enough evidence I think he will drop out of the next election.

If he knows there is not enough evidence he will run and win and the impeachment process will go around in circles for years.

drunkmonkey

Penn wrote: »

Regardless, if Trump did what he's being accused of, that's a crime.

He said he asked the new Ukraine president to help with the criminal investigation of Biden. I don't see how he's going to come out of this worse than them.

Boggles

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ahh because they blew a whistle or so they think. I think the whistleblower was bait and they took it hook line and sinker.

So all whistleblowers have a personal dislike against the person or thing they are blowing the whistle on?

Really?

Lockstep

As it stands, there's no evidence of any wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden. This has been confirmed by Ukraine's prosecutor.
Joe Biden did support the removal of Shokin but this was official
US policy at the time.

Likewise, Trump's lawyer urging Ukrainian presidential advisers to investigate matters important to the president is extremely suspect here. Especially as according to the The Economist

A few days after the telephone conversation between the two presidents, Mr Giuliani flew to Madrid to meet Mr Zelensky’s adviser, Andriy Yermak. He urged Mr Yermak to investigate the matters that were of interest to Mr Trump and held out the prospect of a state visit to America and a meeting with the president.

That meeting in Madrid was arranged by Kurt Volker, America’s special envoy, whose efforts to help Ukraine restore its territorial integrity and sovereignty over the Donbas region were undermined by the suspension of military aid. Although the State Department insisted Mr Giuliani was merely acting in his private capacity rather than on behalf of the state, in the eyes of any reasonable person—particularly the one from Ukraine where oligarchs wield much informal power—Mr Giuliani was more important than a state official; he was Mr Trump’s consigliere.

Mr Giuliani’s main source of disinformation on Ukraine was Yuriy Lutsenko, a controversial former prosecutor-general. Mr Lutsenko first tried to sabotage anti-corruption efforts by Ukrainian activists and American-backed investigators, then accused his critics of conspiring against Mr Trump. Trying to ingratiate himself with the White House, and settle his own scores, Mr Lutsenko declared that the stuff about Mr Manafort was all part of an anti-Trump conspiracy.

It is fairly interesting that Trump is suddenly concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Has he shown any similar willingness to pressure corrupt allies like Egypt? Or just as it involves a rival?

drunkmonkey

Lockstep wrote: »

It is fairly interesting that Trump is suddenly concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Has he shown any similar willingness to pressure corrupt allies like Egypt? Or just as it involves a rival?

Egypt were mentioned, there was a book written about it last year. Hunter has a few questions to answer along with Biden, add in this all happened on Obamas watch.

Lockstep

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Egypt were mentioned, there was a book written about it last year. Hunter has a few questions to answer along with Biden, add in this all happened on Obamas watch.

There was a book written on Trump pressuring Egypt to stop corruption? Can you link me to it? I've Googled it but haven't found anything yet.

Not many questions for either Biden to answer. As stated above, there's no evidence against either of them. The only potential issue would be Biden pressuring Shokin but this was official US policy at the time and widely welcomed by democracies at the time given how scandal ridden he was.

Also, the investigation into Burisma was dormant when the US did so.

begsbyOnaTrain

Damn, I wish my Dad was a dedicated political servant of the people. Their children seem to get all the best jobs. 50k per month for being on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company, among other gigs. Nice.

Good run down of the whole thing here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49800181

drunkmonkey

Lockstep wrote: »

Not many questions for either Biden to answer

The book calling out Biden last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo3LpGOFIAY

and Today.. Biden Ukraine dealings – 7 essential facts

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/peter-schweizer-biden-familys-foreign-dealings-7-essential-facts

Penn

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He said he asked the new Ukraine president to help with the criminal investigation of Biden. I don't see how he's going to come out of this worse than them.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111340891&postcount=22

blinding

Is Biden’s son dodgy ?

Lockstep

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The book calling out Biden last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo3LpGOFIAY

and Today.. Biden Ukraine dealings – 7 essential facts

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/peter-schweizer-biden-familys-foreign-dealings-7-essential-facts

So both sources are by the same Breitbart journalist/Steve Bannon partner. Not surprisingly, it's extremely weak and biased.

The only one of his Fox points that's important is that "Burisma was under legal scrutiny". But the investigation had gone dormant when Biden pressured Ukraine over Shokhin, which as mentioned above, was in line with the Us and EU states foreign policy given Shokin's own involvement with corruption

Overheal

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

I dont think anything will happen.

If Trump finds out there is enough evidence I think he will drop out of the next election.

If he knows there is not enough evidence he will run and win and the impeachment process will go around in circles for years.

He won’t drop out. If he drops out he will be indicted the minute he leaves office for crimes highlighted in the Mueller report. Statute of limitations would expire before the end of a 2nd presidential term.

stoneill

Rudy Giuliani is gas!

Overheal

The Federalist completely discredited the Whistleblower because their lawyer who is an experienced whistleblower and security clearance legal expert at the Pentagon, had the audacity to intern for Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton for a few months in 2001 (a mere 18 years ago). Clearly, a deep state Democrat operative :rolleyes:

“Andrew Bakaj, now a managing partner at the Compass Rose Legal Group, interned for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Clinton in the fall of the same year, according to Bakaj’s LinkedIn page. More recently, Bakaj has worked as an official in the CIA and Pentagon and specializes in whistleblower and security clearances in his legal practice.”

Fox and Friends also trying to smooth things over by saying there are a ‘few words’ in the transcript that ‘will raise eyebrows’ according to the Fox News division (whom either spoke to someone who saw the transcript or somehow has an early version of the transcript).

Republican Senators and Reps also all over social media calling this a witch hunt and presidential harassment of course.

Full on panic mode in the GOP.

Penn

Overheal wrote: »

He won’t drop out. If he drops out he will be indicted the minute he leaves office for crimes highlighted in the Mueller report. Statute of limitations would expire before the end of a 2nd presidential term.

I thought the Statute of Limitations stops while he's President, and therefore wouldn't expire, but rather resumes once he leaves office?

Overheal

Penn wrote: »

I thought the Statute of Limitations stops while he's President, and therefore wouldn't expire, but rather resumes once he leaves office?

Nope. Clock is still ticking. House introduced a bill to freeze it but you can guess how far that will go in this government.

https://thinkprogress.org/house-bill-would-pause-statute-of-limitations-on-presidential-crimes-79c8aad87d27/

seamus

On the face of it, this seems like a big deal and certainly everyone's pushing the "this time it's for real" narrative.

But the Trump admin is already trying to get ahead of this, owning the narrative by releasing dribs and drabs of information of varying truthfulness.

They're going to use a technique called the Firehose of falsehood, where you give the illusion of being open and honest, when in reality you are giving a series of conflicting statements on the topic in quick succession. Guiliani's interview last week is a perfect example; in the same interview he said that he didn't and did ask Ukraine to investigate Biden. This wasn't accidental, it's intentional. Now people think it's 50:50 whether or not he did ask for Ukraine's help. If you occupy every position simultaneously, you dont' have to defend any of them.

The end result is that nobody is entirely sure what's true and what's not, fatigue sets in and people move on. They've used this technique successfully with teh Stormy Daniels case, Trump Jr.'s Russian consipiracy, the Muller report, and they will try it again now.

So I won't hold my breath until there's anything approaching a proper hearing.

osarusan

This seems to be the key excerpt from what has been released/unclassified so far by the white house. It's not an exact transcript, more a memo based on the notes taken by people listening in.



I can't see anything in that which would get him in too much trouble, all a bit vague and general and nothing he can really be nailed on.