President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

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.

Wooo, bolding wars. :rolleyes:

Are you referring to the Trump’s lawyer’s brilliant defense and tactic of targeting certain wavering democrats on the jury who might feel Trump did commit a quid pro quo that the lying Shiff professes... That IF Trump did what the House democrat managers claim he did it is still not an impeachable offense?

And it seems it might have worked as it is now being reported that at least three democrats are considering to acquit Trump.

I know in this divisive atmosphere commons sense is thrown out the window, but let’s try anyway. If Trump did say what the suspect NY Times is claiming Bolton said, why would Trump fire him and risk Bolton exposing Trump? Wouldn’t it make more sense for Trump to keep him on board? And if Trump came some realization that Bolton, if given the chance, would start WWVI isn’t Trump’s firing of him in the nation’s interest and not for personal gain?

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Guess who issued that death threat?

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

A criminal trial?

MonkeyTennis

notobtuse wrote: »

Wooo, bolding wars. :rolleyes:

Are you referring to the Trump’s lawyer’s brilliant defense and tactic of targeting certain wavering democrats on the jury who might feel Trump did commit a quid pro quo that the lying Shiff professes... That IF Trump did what the House democrat managers claim he did it is still not an impeachable offense?

And it seems it might have worked as it is now being reported that at least three democrats are considering to acquit Trump.

I know in this divisive atmosphere commons sense is thrown out the window, but let’s try anyway. If Trump did say what the suspect NY Times is claiming Bolton said, why would Trump fire him and risk Bolton exposing Trump? Wouldn’t it make more sense for Trump to keep him on board? And if Trump came some realization that Bolton, if given the chance, would start WWVI isn’t Trump’s firing of him in the nation’s interest and not for personal gain?

Thats what a clever person with a strategy might do

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

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.

OK - So we still come back to the core question - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower?

What's the purpose of that?

As I said , if the claims were totally spurious or politically motivated the IG would not have sent the information forward to further review. The Whistle blower basically said "I'm concerned with what I heard on the call and I think it needs investigation" - The IG agreed.

We know they didn't make anything up as their report matches the "transcript" released by Trump. The only thing up for discussion is whether or not it was OK for Trump to say/ask what he did.

The actual facts of the matter are not being argued by either side.

Once the report got past the IG then that is the end of the Whistle blowers involvement. How or why the report was made no longer matters.

So again - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower or calling them as a witness?

Zubeneschamali

Quin_Dub wrote: »

- What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower?

The whistleblower is on Trump's enemies list and he wants him named and killed.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

why would Trump fire him and risk Bolton exposing Trump?

Bolton resigned, but anyway.

Are you happy enough living in a country where a President (Republican or Democrat) can do what ever he likes as long as he thinks it is good for the American people. Whatever that might be, he just has to think it is all right.

Because to anyone that is not a dribbling simpleton, that is a scary prospect going forward.

Again, I can't highlight this enough, the Republican Party just gave America it's first King since George III.

This isn't a trial it's a coronation.

It may never be reversed.

The ramifications are obviously too nuanced for your average Trump supporter, but soon in the future the gravity of what they are doing will hit home.

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

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?

That's your response?

I can only take it from that reply that you have no interest in discussing the evidence, you're focusing on soundbytes and opinions and, as Schiff has been finding out, they don't cut it.

You suggested Mulvaney had admitted on live TV that there was a QPQ with regards to an investigation into Biden and so back it up. Quote something he said that would lend one to believing that the aid was being held until Ukraine announced that investigation.

Outlaw Pete

kilns wrote: »

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."

What?

Are you trying to suggest absurd questions from reporters about the democrats prove that Trump was withholding aid until an investigation into Biden was announced?

Go back and read my post. Mulvaney makes it clear why the money was withheld.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's your response?

I can only take it from that reply that you have no interest in discussing the evidence, you're focusing on soundbytes and opinions and, as Schiff has been finding out, they don't cut it.

You suggested Mulvaney had admitted on live TV that there was a QPQ with regards to an investigation into Biden and so back it up. Quote something he said that would lend one to believing that the aid was being held until Ukraine announced that investigation.

So you're saying that Bolton should testify then as he can back it up

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's your response?

I can only take it from that reply that you have no interest in discussing the evidence, you're focusing on soundbytes and opinions and, as Schiff has been finding out, they don't cut it.

You suggested Mulvaney had admitted on live TV that there was a QPQ with regards to an investigation into Biden and so back it up. Quote something he said that would lend one to believing that the aid was being held until Ukraine announced that investigation.

Trump did that in the "perfect call".

He wanted an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory and the Bidens, Mick said democrats.

Anyway like I said they have moved on.

He can do anything he likes as long as he thinks it's okay to do it.

Monarch of America.

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

So you're saying that Bolton should testify then as he can back it up

Well there's a Cathy Newman reply.

No, I didn't say that in my post but if you're asking me do I think Bolton should testify, I think he should do whatever he wants to do and so should Trump. Had the democrats not done everything they could to make things difficult for Trump and the Republicans during the congressional hearings, then I might look on Trump's actions a little harsher, but they did and so I won't.

Personally though, I am interesting seeing any witnesses which either side would like to call.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I think Bolton should testify, I think he should do whatever he wants to do and so should Trump.

Trump is doing whatever he wants, the Republican Party is about to cement that into history.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

OK - So we still come back to the core question - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower?

What's the purpose of that?

As I said , if the claims were totally spurious or politically motivated the IG would not have sent the information forward to further review. The Whistle blower basically said "I'm concerned with what I heard on the call and I think it needs investigation" - The IG agreed.

We know they didn't make anything up as their report matches the "transcript" released by Trump. The only thing up for discussion is whether or not it was OK for Trump to say/ask what he did.

The actual facts of the matter are not being argued by either side.

Once the report got past the IG then that is the end of the Whistle blowers involvement. How or why the report was made no longer matters.

So again - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower or calling them as a witness?

Why and what is to be gained? The whistleblower’s REAL intent in becoming a whistleblower, for one…

“If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma,” Philbin asked. “Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that?” …

“Did he have some reason to want to put the deep-six on any question raising any issue about what went on with the Bidens and Burisma and firing Shokin and withholding a billion dollars in loan guarantees and enforcing a very explicit quid pro quo — you won’t get this billion dollars until you fire him?” Philbin asked, pointedly.

“We don’t know, and because Manager Schiff was guiding this whole process — because he was chairman in charge of directing the inquiry and directing it away from any of those questions — that creates a real due process defect in the record,” the president’s lawyer declared.

If Trump felt Joe Bidens’ actions in Ukraine were reasonably suspicious enough to have warranted an investigation (and if the whistleblower worked on those suspect issues for Biden), did he then become a whistleblower merely to protect himself if he thought Trump felt an investigation to the Biden’s actions and Bursima was going to happen.

You can call it spurious, but the entire impeachment process against Trump is spurious and it has happened anyway. Or is it your contention Democrats can investigate 'reasonable' suspicions, but not Republicans... because they're Republicans and held to a completely different standard?

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well there's a Cathy Newman reply.

No, I didn't say that in my post but if you're asking me do I think Bolton should testify, I think he should do whatever he wants to do and so should Trump. Had the democrats not done everything they could to make things difficult for Trump and the Republicans during the congressional hearings, then I might look on Trump's actions a little harsher, but they did and so I won't.

Personally though, I am interesting seeing any witnesses which either side would like to call.

I'm just highlighting a fine case for calling Bolton as a witness, however you want to frame me pointing that out is up to you

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

Mick said democrats.

No, the reporters did and he kept reverting them back on topic, making it clear that he was at no stage referring to an investigation into the Bidens. He cited an ongoing investigation into 2016 (the John Durham one) but that was it.

He can do anything he likes as long as he thinks it's okay to do it.

Monarch of America.

That's just an opinion. I'm asking for evidence of what is alleged in the main article of impeachment. Does anyone have any?

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's just an opinion.

It very much isn't it is about to become a precedent.

Rise King Trump.

Outlaw Pete

Ha, this is gas. Right now this is the screen and they have some blurb up asking:

"If Trump remains in office, what signal does that send to countries that want to interfere in our future elections"

Have these people no self awareness? :P

On the call to Zelensky Trump called out the Ukraine about their past corruption, and asked him to look into how they may have attempted to interfere in the 2016 US election, and to get to the bottom of it for him .. and so quite clearly the message is that the US will not stand for it.

notobtuse

Curiouser and curiouser!

The fired Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, has filed a federal complaint against Joe Biden, charging he 'abused his power.'

https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

On Friday the Senate shouldn't acquit Trump, they should dismiss all charges!

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

On the call to Zelensky Trump called out the Ukraine about their past corruption, and asked him to look into how they may have attempted to interfere in the 2016 US election, and to get to the bottom of it for him .. and so quite clearly the message is that the US will not stand for it.

Again for the sake of reality, Trump asked him to look into a debunked conspiracy theory as well as the Bidens.

He also called the corrupt prosecutor "very good" on the call.

The prosecutor wasn't looking into Burisma, the investigation was dormant.

Either way the investigation timeline was before Hunter Biden joined the company.

There is absolutely no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong when he was with Burisma.

Now the actual facts are and of course it's the most simplistic reason.

Biden announced he was running for the Presidency, the poll number matchups showed he beat Trump, Trump tries to blackmail a foreign country to announce a bogus investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

But it's okay, as long as Trump was gaining from it, it's fine, something, something!

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, the reporters did and he kept reverting them back on topic, making it clear that he was at no stage referring to an investigation into the Bidens. He cited an ongoing investigation into 2016 (the John Durham one) but that was it.



That's just an opinion. I'm asking for evidence of what is alleged in the main article of impeachment. Does anyone have any?

I feel the only evidence you'll accept is an admission from Trump. Gangsters don't generally do that.

notobtuse

OK Boomers

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Curiouser and curiouser!

The fired Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, has filed a federal complaint against Joe Biden, charging he 'abused his power.'

https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

On Friday the Senate shouldn't acquit Trump, they should dismiss all charges!

This the lad Rudy tried to get a US visa for? The same one the EU wanted fired?
Seems legit

Professor Moriarty

notobtuse wrote: »

OK Boomers

Really?

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This the lad Rudy tried to get a US visa for? The same one the EU wanted fired?
Seems legit

In case you missed it he's the lad at the center of Joe Biden's illegal quid pro quo.

Timberrrrrrrr

notobtuse wrote: »

OK Boomers

:rolleyes:

notobtuse

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Really?

Wouldn’t that be the next thing the self absorbed, hand crafted mocha latte sipping, technology obsessed, phone staring, ridiculously tattooed, layabouts whose greatest desire is to spend the rest of their lives smoking medical marijuana in their parents’ basements say as they see their arguments slip away?

Professor Moriarty

notobtuse wrote: »

Wouldn’t that be the next thing the self absorbed, hand crafted mocha latte sipping, technology obsessed, phone staring, ridiculously tattooed, layabouts whose greatest desire is to spend the rest of their lives smoking medical marijuana in their parents’ basements say as they see their arguments slip away?

Excellent description, but no, hopefully not. Hopefully they'll get out of their bunkers to campaign and vote (Democrat obviously).

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

In case you missed it he's the lad at the center of Joe Biden's illegal quid pro quo.

You mean American official policy, various American Allies, the IMF, the EU and many anti corruption bodies quid pro quo.

But I suppose if Rudy and his Goons were running the show, that would be legit?

notobtuse

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Excellent description, but no, hopefully not. Hopefully they'll get out of their bunkers to campaign and vote (Democrat obviously).

LOL. Touche

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

Trump asked him to look into a debunked conspiracy theory as well as the Bidens.

Sigh. The server issue could be said to be debunked, but that is not the totality of how Ukrainians interfered in 2016, how many times does this have to be said? At the heart of both the Steele Dossier and the publication of the black ledger transactions, was a Ukrainian. People working on behalf of the DNC worked closely with that same Ukrainian. There has been a court case which found that Ukrainians meddled in 2016 and so please stop with this 'debunked' rubbish.

Now the argument might be made that those courts were corrupt because the next (corrupt?) administration disagreed with the findings etc but that doesn't matter as all that matters is that this has never been truly resolved from the perspective of Donald Trump and given that he was the one that they tried so hard to ensure was not elected, it's damn well understable why he would want to ask that it be looked into and given that there was a new anti-corruption president of Ukraine, now was the perfect time to do so.

He also called the corrupt prosecutor "very good" on the call.

So what? Rudy thinks he is. Maybe he's wrong but that's neither here nor there. Can you link to an article were Shokin was found guilty of corruption by the way?

The prosecutor wasn't looking into Burisma, the investigation was dormant.

Again, I have already addressed this, that is not true:

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html

Hunter / his PR firm met with the new prosecutor almost immediately also and if there were no investigations into Burisma or their boss, then there would have been no reason for that meeting.

Either way the investigation timeline was before Hunter Biden joined the company.

Nonsense. There have been investigations on and off for years into both Burisma and it's oligarch owner. Hunter was brought on board to give them the appearance of having turned over a new leaf, and of course handy to have someone with clout so close to the US admin, especially Obama's point man on Ukraine.

There is absolutely no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong when he was with Burisma.

There is a lot of suspect activity with his accounts and also with his lobbying of the state on behalf of Burisma, hence NY Times articles, Washington Post articles etc. That's why Trump said that there is a "lot of talk" about Hunter, Burisma and Biden's bragging. There was. Not to mention a Ukraine investigation undertaken by the previous Ukraine administration.

Biden announced he was running for the Presidency, the poll number matchups showed he beat Trump, Trump tries to blackmail a foreign country to announce a bogus investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

Only problem with that narrative is Rudy was investigating him before his announcement and besides, Trump had not raised Ukraine's election meddling with the last Ukraine president as he didn't trust him, and so why would he bring up the Biden stuff? Wouldn't make sense. What makes sense is that everyone has testified that they were all telling Trump that Zelensky was different than the previous presidents and could be trusted and so it was the perfect time to raise both issues.