President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

notobtuse

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Fire on your evidence for your claim anyway. Thanks

I have it locked and loaded. Thanks

Gobb

The chat logs don't lie.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-10-03-19.chairmen-letter-on-state-dept-texts.pdf

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

I've not heard or read anything about it other than mere fanciful statements such as his. It's not my job to prove the poster correct or incorrect. It's his job to provide viable sources to support his contention. Once he has presented his evidence I will respond.

Just for reality sake.

It's neither my contention or my job to support viable sources to refute debunked conspiracy theories. This was done by Trumps own people. It has been stated on thread numerous times all ready.

But like I keep saying the Americans or at least some of them now state alternative facts (lies) as facts.

It's why Trump is now a King, has absolute power and is above the constitution.

Thank you Republican Party.

MonkeyTennis

Trumps defence is a joke.

Dershowtitz has as much said that if you commit a crime and some of your intentions are good its fine.

They have also failed to say why they halted the payments to Ukraine and why they then proceeded to release them. What did the Ukraine do to move things forward

ohnonotgmail

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Trumps defence is a joke.

Dershowtitz has as much said that if you commit a crime and some of your intentions are good its fine.

They have also failed to say why they halted the payments to Ukraine and why they then proceeded to release them. What did the Ukraine do to move things forward

I think he said a bit more than that. he basically said that if your intention is to get reelected, and you think that is in the best interests of the country, then anything you do to that end is ok.

kilns

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Trumps defence is a joke.

Dershowtitz has as much said that if you commit a crime and some of your intentions are good its fine.

They have also failed to say why they halted the payments to Ukraine and why they then proceeded to release them. What did the Ukraine do to move things forward

I think he even went further than that

His shooting someone on 5th Avenue prediction is really coming true

Quin_Dub

I see that Roberts refused to read out Rand Pauls question because he named the Whistle blower in it.

Why the GOP obsession with revealing the Whistle blower? To what end other than the personal vilification of the individual and probably putting their life at risk from some loon? what exactly would be achieved??

In this case , it went to the Inspector General (I think that's the title) and he felt that it warranted further investigation , hence we are where we are now. If the IG thought it was spurious or done purely because they were a "Never-Trumper" or whatever it would have died on his desk , but it didn't.

Once the IG reviewed it and sent it forward, the Whistle blowers role in this is over and done.

The whole point of those laws protecting them is to prevent them from being attacked by partisan manages/employers etc. so that they can bring forward concerns for review.

ohnonotgmail

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I see that Roberts refused to read out Rand Pauls question because he named the Whistle blower in it.

Why the GOP obsession with revealing the Whistle blower? To what end other than the personal vilification of the individual and probably putting their life at risk from some loon? what exactly would be achieved??

In this case , it went to the Inspector General (I think that's the title) and he felt that it warranted further investigation , hence we are where we are now. If the IG thought it was spurious or done purely because they were a "Never-Trumper" or whatever it would have died on his desk , but it didn't.

Once the IG reviewed it and sent it forward, the Whistle blowers role in this is over and done.

The whole point of those laws protecting them is to prevent them from being attacked by partisan manages/employers etc. so that they can bring forward concerns for review.

You have answered your own question. Never underestimate how vindictive Trump and his supporters can be.

duploelabs

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Trumps defence is a joke.

Dershowtitz has as much said that if you commit a crime and some of your intentions are good its fine.

They have also failed to say why they halted the payments to Ukraine and why they then proceeded to release them. What did the Ukraine do to move things forward

I think the president's defence was laughable, in relation to Romney's question, when they couldn't/wouldn't say what date the aid to Ukraine was halted

Quin_Dub

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Trumps defence is a joke.

Dershowtitz has as much said that if you commit a crime and some of your intentions are good its fine.

They have also failed to say why they halted the payments to Ukraine and why they then proceeded to release them. What did the Ukraine do to move things forward

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think he said a bit more than that. he basically said that if your intention is to get reelected, and you think that is in the best interests of the country, then anything you do to that end is ok.

Yes, basically the argument goes "what's good for the President is good for the Country , therefore anything the President does is perfectly fine"

So by extension , if Trump loses the Election in November and refuses to step down , that's ok , because that's good for the President so therefore it's good for the Country therefore there's nothing anyone can do.

Dershowitz just burned any shred of remaining professional standing he had left with that statement.

By all means defend the President and so on, but by any measure that "interpretation" of the Constitution is utterly ridiculous.

By that view if a President was overruled by Congress/Senate on something , they could just dissolve both houses because "What's good for the President is good for the country"..

Just a staggeringly stupid thing for a supposed Constitutional Law expert to say.

ebbsy

The Russia situation fizzled out, this will fizzle out as well, and President Trump will win in November. Again.

#Draintheswamp

Boggles

ebbsy wrote: »

The Russia situation fizzled out, this will fizzle out as well, and President Trump will win in November. Again.

Sure he has just been given carte blanch to cheat the election anyway he wants - because it's good for America.

I imagine there is a very good chance his Majesty could win, or even if he doesn't he has been given permission to remain on the throne, because it's good for him and the country.

Again this is the Republican Party dismantling for ever the Republic.

duploelabs

ebbsy wrote: »

The Russia situation fizzled out, this will fizzle out as well, and President Trump will win in November. Again.

#Draintheswamp

He certainly is draining the swamp, it's just a pity for him that those who have been jailed have been Trump's closest cohorts

kilns

ebbsy wrote: »

The Russia situation fizzled out, this will fizzle out as well, and President Trump will win in November. Again.

#Draintheswamp

Drain the swamp

Do you even understand what you are hash tagging

Boggles

All the Trump associates convicted or sentenced in the Mueller investigation

Yeah, drain that swamp!

Outlaw Pete

Always amazes me how those who keep losing, keep face planting, still and all keep sneering and acting as if they're right. Right now you have Adam Schiff making an absolute show of himself on the International stage and yet the left act as if he's not, that he's right, and that what he is saying is factual. It's truly one of the most cringeworthy displays I've ever saw.

Their narrative mantra keeps getting torn apart and the man gets up and repeats it as if it hasn't been. As if just merely repeating their claims make them true somehow. One of the questions put to them was what evidence they had for their claims and they cited a third party overhearing Trump's voice on a phone call with Sondland.

They impeached Trump with no evidence of what they are accusing him of. That's what it boils down to. If it happened in a normal court a judge would throw it out. They want Bolton cause they think he might have evidence that fits their narrative. MIGHT.

The Russia-Trump collusion farce was embarrassing enough to be pushing, but this is even worse. What is it with this people that they think hatred of someone and suspicion they have done wrong should be enough. Sure some of them even wanted him impeached for saying that NFL coaches should say "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now" if they insisted on disrespecting the anthem by taking a knee.


https://twitter.com/cspan/status/912689037709803520

Haven't seen so much pearl clutching since Kim Wilde stop making videos.

Nod to the banned 'Say You Really Want Me' video. Not a reference many are likely to get, granted.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They impeached Trump with no evidence of what they are accusing him of.

Apart from his chief of staff admitting it live on TV. :rolleyes:

We have been over this. Put down the pom pom lads and stop beating up your integrity day in and day out on here.

To quote someone important to the trial "GET OVER IT"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5brFcfOXjVo

Now his ex National Security Adviser is backing up the bould Mick.

But sure nothing to see here.

ohnonotgmail

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Always amazes me how those who keep losing, keep face planting, still and all keep sneering and acting as if they're right. Right now you have Adam Schiff making an absolute show of himself on the International stage and yet the left act as if he's not, that he's right, and that what he is saying is factual. It's truly one of the most cringeworthy displays I've ever saw.

Their narrative mantra keeps getting torn apart and the man gets up and repeats it as if it hasn't been. As if just merely repeating their claims make them true somehow. One of the questions put to them was what evidence they had for their claims and they cited a third party overhearing Trump's voice on a phone call with Sondland.

They impeached Trump with no evidence of what they are accusing him of. That's what it boils down to. If it happened in a normal court a judge would throw it out. They want Bolton cause they think he might have evidence that fits their narrative. MIGHT.

The Russia-Trump collusion farce was embarrassing enough to be pushing, but this is even worse. What is it with this people that they think hatred of someone and suspicion they have done wrong should be enough. Sure some of them even wanted him impeached for saying that NFL coaches should say "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now" if they insisted on disrespecting the anthem by taking a knee.


https://twitter.com/cspan/status/912689037709803520

Haven't seen so much pearl clutching since Kim Wilde stop making videos.

Nod to the banned 'Say You Really Want Me' video. Not a reference many are likely to get, granted.

His own defence team have admitted he abused his position.

Boggles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

His own defence team have admitted he abused his position.

That particular poster seems to be stuck on lasts weeks defense.

It's moved on.

He did it, but it doesn't matter because it was in his own interest in getting re-elected which is the interest of the American people (the majority who didn't vote him) and therefore everything is brilliant.

Boggles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_gO3uOds8

[URL="[url]https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/trump-king1.jpg?w=800&quality=85[/url]"]King Trump[/URL]

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Always amazes me how those who keep losing, keep face planting, still and all keep sneering and acting as if they're right. Right now you have Adam Schiff making an absolute show of himself on the International stage and yet the left act as if he's not, that he's right, and that what he is saying is factual. It's truly one of the most cringeworthy displays I've ever saw.

Their narrative mantra keeps getting torn apart and the man gets up and repeats it as if it hasn't been. As if just merely repeating their claims make them true somehow. One of the questions put to them was what evidence they had for their claims and they cited a third party overhearing Trump's voice on a phone call with Sondland.

They impeached Trump with no evidence of what they are accusing him of. That's what it boils down to. If it happened in a normal court a judge would throw it out. They want Bolton cause they think he might have evidence that fits their narrative. MIGHT.

The Russia-Trump collusion farce was embarrassing enough to be pushing, but this is even worse. What is it with this people that they think hatred of someone and suspicion they have done wrong should be enough. Sure some of them even wanted him impeached for saying that NFL coaches should say "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now" if they insisted on disrespecting the anthem by taking a knee.


https://twitter.com/cspan/status/912689037709803520

Haven't seen so much pearl clutching since Kim Wilde stop making videos.

Nod to the banned 'Say You Really Want Me' video. Not a reference many are likely to get, granted.

I don't know how you manage it but you've managed to fit a crazy amount of inaccurate and false statements into such a short post.

There's no point in addressing them as it takes far longer to do that than it does for you to come up with this stuff but I have to admit that it's impressive.

kilns

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Always amazes me how those who keep losing, keep face planting, still and all keep sneering and acting as if they're right. Right now you have Adam Schiff making an absolute show of himself on the International stage and yet the left act as if he's not, that he's right, and that what he is saying is factual. It's truly one of the most cringeworthy displays I've ever saw.

Their narrative mantra keeps getting torn apart and the man gets up and repeats it as if it hasn't been. As if just merely repeating their claims make them true somehow. One of the questions put to them was what evidence they had for their claims and they cited a third party overhearing Trump's voice on a phone call with Sondland.

They impeached Trump with no evidence of what they are accusing him of. That's what it boils down to. If it happened in a normal court a judge would throw it out. They want Bolton cause they think he might have evidence that fits their narrative. MIGHT.

The Russia-Trump collusion farce was embarrassing enough to be pushing, but this is even worse. What is it with this people that they think hatred of someone and suspicion they have done wrong should be enough. Sure some of them even wanted him impeached for saying that NFL coaches should say "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now" if they insisted on disrespecting the anthem by taking a knee.


https://twitter.com/cspan/status/912689037709803520

Haven't seen so much pearl clutching since Kim Wilde stop making videos.

Nod to the banned 'Say You Really Want Me' video. Not a reference many are likely to get, granted.

Do you live in a Fox News bubble, I can guarantee you he has far from made a show of himself and has carried himself with alot of dignity, intelligence and poise unlike the man he is leading the impeachment against, who if you read world media and get opinions from around the world is laughed at

Boggles

kilns wrote: »

Do you live in a Fox News bubble

Fox News, at the least the news portion isn't even drinking the Trump coo-lade anymore.

duploelabs

kilns wrote: »

Do you live in a Fox News bubble, I can guarantee you he has far from made a show of himself and has carried himself with alot of dignity, intelligence and poise unlike the man he is leading the impeachment against, who if you read world media and get opinions from around the world is laughed at

Could you imagine the pearl clutching from the likes of our own resident Comical Ali if Schiff ran in 2024?

kilns

duploelabs wrote: »

Could you imagine the pearl clutching from the likes of our own resident Comical Ali if Schiff ran in 2024?

He mightnt have the charisma but Schiff would make a fine President I think

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

We have been over this.

Yeah, we have been over it and seems it didn't sink in when I corrected you the first time and so here you are again spouting the same rubbish: that Mulvaney's comments somehow support the accusation that Trump solicited help with the 2020 election by requesting that his political opponent be investigated. It's about as absurd as it gets.

So, once again for the cheap seats:

You (and others) are twisting what Mulvaney said. The man wasn't even talking about Biden when he said 'Get over it' - here's the full quote, in context:

"If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney say yesterday? Well, McKinney said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy".

Mulvaney was only asked about the Bidens AFTER making that comment, to which he then replied:

"The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden. There’s no question. That was the point I made to you."

At one point Mulvaney said:

"The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation."

A reporter then annoyingly asked him: "Are you saying that it’s okay for the US government to hold up aid and require a foreign government to investigate political opponents of the president?" to which he replied:

No, you’re talking about looking forward to the next election.

With regards to holding up the money Mulvaney gave a very long winded answer which included comments about how the administration had been careful about giving money to Puerto Rico because of corruption and got criticised for it, and how other countries were not helping Ukraine, and had given them pillows (that was the US though that did that and so he was rambling at a touch it has to be said) and then he quoted Trump as saying:

"Look, this is a corrupt place. I don’t want to send them a bunch of money and have them waste it, have them spend it, have them use it to line their own pockets.” And the president did not like that. I know long answer your question, but I’m still going. So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in the past, the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money.

Now the underlined part here is clearly an aside to the rest of what he was saying. If you watch the clip that is obvious and so when he says "that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money" he's talking about the long winded answer he has just given, not just the last line about the server. Only someone desperate for that to be the case would suggest it.

This was then met with another unbelievably annoying question: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

I mean, honestly, how the hell could he have been talking about Biden there? The leftist media are unreal, but anyway. The next day Mulvaney released the following statement to address how the media had twisted what he said:

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server.

“The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. Multiple times during the more than 30-minute briefing where I took over 25 questions, I referred to President Trump’s interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and appropriately.

“There was never any connection between the funds and the Ukrainians doing anything with the server — this was made explicitly obvious by the fact that the aid money was delivered without any action on the part of the Ukrainians regarding the server.

“There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the D.N.C. server.”

So to repeat: an aside where Mulvaney says that the DNC server stuff was related to the concerns about Ukraine corruption, was NOT saying that the aid was withheld until they carried out investigations into the so called missing server. If there was any doubt about that, then all one has to do is go back to the start of the presser where he explained the three reasons in depth:

"There were three factors. Again, I was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. Okay. Three issues for that. The corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in the support of the Ukraine, and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department Of Justice."

Now I know facts aren't what you're interested in and you'd much rather indulge in narratives and inferences, much more fun, but I happen to think facts matter.

I understand the reason for hoping that Bolton supports the accusations that the democrats have made though, as they sure need something, what with them currently not having a scintilla of evidence to support their claims, but I wouldn't like to be pinning my hopes on anything that the NYT have reported as they are not exactly a paragon of truth.

kilns

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, we have been over it and seems it didn't sink in when I corrected you the first time and so here you are again spouting the same rubbish: that Mulvaney's comments somehow support the accusation that Trump solicited help with the 2020 election by requesting that his political opponent be investigated. It's about as absurd as it gets.

So, once again for the cheap seats:

You (and others) are twisting what Mulvaney said. The man wasn't even talking about Biden when he said 'Get over it' - here's the full quote, in context:



Mulvaney was only asked about the Bidens AFTER making that comment, to which he then replied:



At one point Mulvaney said:



A reporter then annoyingly asked him: "Are you saying that it’s okay for the US government to hold up aid and require a foreign government to investigate political opponents of the president?" to which he replied:



With regards to holding up the money Mulvaney gave a very long winded answer which included comments about how the administration had been careful about giving money to Puerto Rico because of corruption and got criticised for it, and how other countries were not helping Ukraine, and had given them pillows (that was the US though that did that and so he was rambling at a touch it has to be said) and then he quoted Trump as saying:



Now the underlined part here is clearly an aside to the rest of what he was saying. If you watch the clip that is obvious and so when he says "that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money" he's talking about the long winded answer he has just given, not just the last line about the server. Only someone desperate for that to be the case would suggest it.

This was then met with another unbelievably annoying question: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

I mean, honestly, how the hell could he have been talking about Biden there? The leftist media are unreal, but anyway. The next day Mulvaney released the following statement to address how the media had twisted what he said:



So to repeat: an aside where Mulvaney says that the DNC server stuff was related to the concerns about Ukraine corruption, was NOT saying that the aid was withheld until they carried out investigations into the so called missing server. If there was any doubt about that, then all one has to do is go back to the start of the presser where he explained the three reasons in depth:



Now I know facts aren't what you're interested in and you'd much rather indulge in narratives and inferences, much more fun, but I happen to think facts matter.

I understand the reason for hoping that Bolton supports the accusations that the democrats have made though, as they sure need something, what with them currently not having a scintilla of evidence to support their claims, but I wouldn't like to be pinning my hopes on anything that the NYT have reported as they are not exactly a paragon of truth.

Mulvaney "So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." Now, there was a report —"

Q: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

Mulvaney: "The look back to what happened in 2016 —"

Q: "The investigation into Democrats."

Mulvaney: "— certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate."

Reporters press Mulvaney to clarify if aid hinged on the DNC investigation
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, we have been over it

We have and not even the GOP or Team Trump accept that horsé**** anymore.

He did it but it's grand is this weeks defense.

Is your twitter feed not updating or something?

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I see that Roberts refused to read out Rand Pauls question because he named the Whistle blower in it.

Why the GOP obsession with revealing the Whistle blower? To what end other than the personal vilification of the individual and probably putting their life at risk from some loon? what exactly would be achieved??

In this case , it went to the Inspector General (I think that's the title) and he felt that it warranted further investigation , hence we are where we are now. If the IG thought it was spurious or done purely because they were a "Never-Trumper" or whatever it would have died on his desk , but it didn't.

Once the IG reviewed it and sent it forward, the Whistle blowers role in this is over and done.

The whole point of those laws protecting them is to prevent them from being attacked by partisan manages/employers etc. so that they can bring forward concerns for review.

Stating opinion as fact? Thank goodness we’re here and not there.

That is NOT what the whistleblower law says! The Whistleblower Protection Act provides no protection in this case and the act of unmasking itself is not unlawful, unless the person is a covert agent.

The law bans retaliation against an employee for blowing the whistle on perceived wrongdoing. The law does require the inspector general to not expose the whistleblower's name, but it does not stop a member of Congress, a president or anyone else from identifying a whistleblower.

Was the whistleblower fired or demoted?

Yes, an argument could be made that if naming a whistleblower causes a chain reaction leading the whistleblower being threatened with violence or is physically harmed, the legal situation could change. But that would be a civil liability case for causing that to happen, not a criminal one.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

The law bans retaliation against an employee for blowing the whistle on perceived wrongdoing.

You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?

We used to handle it a little differently than we do now

Guess who issued that death threat?

I'll give you a hint, he is your new King.