President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

James Brown · 07-10-2019 5:56pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Sorry, but wrong. Trump, in asking for help from Ukraine and China, was looking for help with fighting corruption, not politically motivated, which is completely legal.

Nobody buys that.

Overheal · 07-10-2019 5:57pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Biden is not above the law and while I don't think Trump should be publically saying he thinks Biden and his son are corrupt (although the Nikelback tweet was funny) there is absolutely nothing wrong with a POTUS asking the president of the Ukraine to investigate reports of corruption involving both their countries, and especially so when someone who was a member of the last administration has in the interim spoke publicly about how when they were Vice-President they threatened to withhold $1billion in approved US aid from that country unless they got rid of one of their prosecutors.

On the contrary, such a president would be negligent in my opinion, and I have zero doubt that Obama would have had the full support of democrats (and liberals alike) if in the run up to the 2012 election there had been a leak from a Bush holdover in the White House that Obama had requested that the Attorney General investigate Dick Cheney in response to footage surfacing of him saying that he used $1billion in US aid to have a prosecutor of another country fired and also making comments which suggested that Bush was okay with him doing so.

You’re soapboxing the same debunked crap on a different day.

James Brown · 07-10-2019 5:57pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Fiction is quite unbecoming. Did you not read any of the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky? Trump was also asking for help with investigating into the hacking of the DNC server during the 2016 election. Back then your side kept claiming it was orchestrated by Republicans. So I guess if Trump was asking for a political ‘favor,’ it must have been aimed at taking out those within his own party, right? Or is it another case of nothing to see here, please move along?

My side? You're the only one firmly on a side comrade.

Igotadose · 07-10-2019 6:09pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Correct about Biden... Only Hillary is above the law.

Hilary Derangement Syndrome at its finest.

Really. So, you're good with all the investigations soon to commence into Trump?
And, lest we forget the tens of millions spent by Trey Gowdy's witchhunt into Benghazi - tell me, all those investigations was the Sec of State above the law?

notobtuse · 07-10-2019 6:14pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sounds like you've (and Trump) prejudged the person's motives. Not very open or just is it?

Something really shady is going on. The whistleblower met with Shifty Shiff or his staff before filling out the complaint. Why did Shiff lie about the meeting? And if the reports are correct why did the whistleblower lie on the application that he/she did not meet with anyone before filing the complaint? Also, there are other troubling reports about the whistleblower’s action in the 2016 election. Something seems rotten in the DNC, methinks.

mcmoustache · 07-10-2019 6:14pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Sorry, but wrong. Trump, in asking for help from Ukraine and China, was looking for help with fighting corruption, not politically motivated, which is completely legal.

You really believe that?

There's a lot of corruption in the world and the one case of corruption that Trump has just so happened to be interested in involves a political rival.

That passes your smell test?

notobtuse · 07-10-2019 6:16pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Hilary Derangement Syndrome at its finest.

Really. So, you're good with all the investigations soon to commence into Trump?
And, lest we forget the tens of millions spent by Trey Gowdy's witchhunt into Benghazi - tell me, all those investigations was the Sec of State above the law?

Bring on the investigation.... oh, sorry, it's only an inquiry, right? And while we're at it let's start investigations into all potential illegalities in the 2016 election and afterwards. Right?

Overheal · 07-10-2019 6:17pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Something really shady is going on. The whistleblower met with Shifty Shiff or his staff before filling out the complaint. Why did Shiff lie about the meeting? And if the reports are correct why did the whistleblower lie on the application that he/she did not meet with anyone before filing the complaint? Also, there are other troubling reports about the whistleblower’s action in the 2016 election. Something seems rotten in the DNC, methinks.

It doesn’t matter at this point if the whistleblower was a penguin - the White House already confirmed the details of the complaint and published the Telcon.

Not to mention whistleblowers are trained and instructed to reach out to congressional intel committees as a matter of practice. Everything the whistleblower and Schiff did was by the book. Schiff didn’t say they didn’t meet he said the committee hadn’t spoken with him and that’s true, the whistleblower went through house intel staffers and the whistleblower did not appear before the assembled committee members in person.

notobtuse · 07-10-2019 6:19pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

You really believe that?

There's a lot of corruption in the world and the one case of corruption that Trump has just so happened to to be interested in involves a political rival.

That passes your smell test?

If all the lies and deceit dealing with the 2016 election and the efforts to take out Trump during and after the election are true, it is the biggest political scandal in US history. It should be on the top of our concerns, if for nothing else than to ensure it never happens again!

Overheal · 07-10-2019 6:19pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Bring on the investigation.... oh, sorry, it's only an inquiry, right? And while we're at it let's start investigations into all potential illegalities in the 2016 election and afterwards. Right?

I thought you were not obtuse?

Outlaw Pete · 07-10-2019 6:31pm

Overheal wrote: »

You’re soapboxing the same debunked crap on a different day.

Yeah, cause all the arguments coming from your side of the aisle today are all brand new I suppose

Oh and debunked? Ha. Leftists would have 100% supported Obama asking a Ukraine to investigate any republican that was running against him in 2012, had that republican candidate admitted to doing what Biden did and you know well they/you would. You'd all have been going mad too if anyone dared criticize the great one for it.

Overheal · 07-10-2019 6:33pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, cause all the arguments coming from your side of the aisle today are all brand new I suppose

Oh and debunked? Ha. Leftists would have 100% supported Obama asking a Ukraine to investigate any republican that was running against him in 2012, had that republican candidate admitted to doing what Biden did and you know well they/you would.

Bull**** supposition. Telling that your whataboutisms now are relegated to utter fantasy

Also that has no connection to how all your debunked claims were debunked.

James Brown · 07-10-2019 6:34pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Something really shady is going on. The whistleblower met with Shifty Shiff or his staff before filling out the complaint. Why did Shiff lie about the meeting? And if the reports are correct why did the whistleblower lie on the application that he/she did not meet with anyone before filing the complaint? Also, there are other troubling reports about the whistleblower’s action in the 2016 election. Something seems rotten in the DNC, methinks.

All these terms and nicknames is like dealing with children.
Great, it'll be looked into. Trump must be looking forward to it all coming out. Democracy!

Outlaw Pete · 07-10-2019 6:35pm

Overheal wrote: »

Bull**** supposition. Telling that your whataboutisms now are relegated to utter fantasy

Also that has no connection to how all your debunked claims were debunked.

Great breakneck rebuttal as ever, Overheal.

By great I mean laughable.

Overheal · 07-10-2019 6:35pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great breakneck rebuttal as ever, Overheal.

Attacking tone and delivery now because you can't refute the central point. Good day

Outlaw Pete · 07-10-2019 6:52pm

Overheal wrote: »

Attacking tone and delivery now because you can't refute the central point. Good day

Well, it's true, do you just press F5 constantly or something, take a breath mate, it's not a race.

As for you having a central point which I couldn't refute, you don't. All you did was post saying my argument was whataboutism and suggested it was fantasy, so tis your goodself that appears to be unable to refute someone's central point.

Now again, if Obama called on the Ukraine to investigate a republican (in the run up to the 2012 election) who had admitted publicly to a quid pro quo, where $1bln was used as leverage, for sure democrats would have had his back.

Are you actually going to deny that? That you would be on here saying Obama was wrong and he should be impeached? Would ya fcuk. I'd say you'd be writing thesis after thesis on how he was within in his rights as POTUS and how it was about time such crony capitalism and corruption among republican circles was stamped out.

Overheal · 07-10-2019 7:01pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, it's true, do you just press F5 constantly or something, take a breath mate, it's not a race.

Sounds like someone pissed off that his spin never gets any time to distort the facts.

As for you having a central point which I couldn't refute, you don't. All you did was post saying my argument was whataboutism and suggested it was fantasy, so tis your goodself that appears to be unable to refute someone's central point.

"BZZZZZZZZZZT WRONG":

Biden is not above the law and while I don't think Trump should be publically saying he thinks Biden and his son are corrupt (although the Nikelback tweet was funny) there is absolutely nothing wrong (there is) with a POTUS asking the president of the Ukraine to investigate reports of corruption involving both their countries (and a 2020 rival, more specifically, name dropped multiple times in the call), and especially so when someone who was a member of the last administration has in the interim spoke publicly about how when they were Vice-President they threatened to withhold $1billion in approved US aid from that country unless they got rid of one of their prosecutors. Did the job asked of them by the GOP, State Department, EU, and IMF.

Now again, if Obama called on the Ukraine to investigate a republican (in the run up to the 2012 election) who had admitted publicly to a quid pro quo, where $1bln was used as leverage, for sure democrats would have had his back.

Are you actually going to deny that? That you would be on here saying Obama was wrong and he should be impeached? Would ya fcuk. I'd say you'd be writing thesis after thesis on how he was within in his rights as POTUS and how it was about time such crony capitalism and corruption among republican circles was stamped out.

That's right. The proper way to investigate something like that would be to refer it to the DOJ, Obama shouldn't touch that himself, not unless the State Department then asked him to. Bonus points though: Obama wouldn't have called for an investigation into a 'quid pro quo' that was backed by Congress, the State Department, EU, and IMF.

mcmoustache · 07-10-2019 7:04pm

I had a look at the old threads here from winter 2015. I couldn't find anything complaining about Biden holding that money. The closest thing I could find was a complaint by a guy who regularly parrots Russian propaganda where his complain was about Hunter Biden sitting on the board.

Which is odd because all of this was done in public, in plain view. And if this was so problematic, especially with Congress as it was back then, why was nobody complaining back then?

mad muffin · 07-10-2019 7:22pm

The whistle blowers are ready and waiting. Lol

mad muffin · 07-10-2019 7:32pm

Testimony From Ukraine Envoy Kurt Volker Directly Contradicts Democrats’ Impeachment Narrative

Testimony from Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, which was obtained by The Federalist, blows holes directly through the impeachment narrative that congressional Democrats have crafted against President Donald Trump.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/testimony-from-ukraine-envoy-kurt-volker-directly-contradicts-democrats-impeachment-narrative/

Like a bad curry Shifty Schiff’s Russia hoax is coming back to haunt him in this Ukraine hoax.

notobtuse · 07-10-2019 7:38pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

All these terms and nicknames is like dealing with children.
Great, it'll be looked into. Trump must be looking forward to it all coming out. Democracy!

Wrong, once again. I have a masters degree in marketing. Those little terms and nicknames are effective marketing tools, and enable a person to remember someone and something about the person you are referring to. Voters might not know about Adam Shiff or what he does but they'll remember 'Shifty Shiff' and the negative connotation that goes along with it.

Overheal · 07-10-2019 7:45pm

mad muffin wrote: »

Testimony From Ukraine Envoy Kurt Volker Directly Contradicts Democrats’ Impeachment Narrative

Testimony from Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, which was obtained by The Federalist, blows holes directly through the impeachment narrative that congressional Democrats have crafted against President Donald Trump.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/testimony-from-ukraine-envoy-kurt-volker-directly-contradicts-democrats-impeachment-narrative/

Like a bad curry Shifty Schiff’s Russia hoax is coming back to haunt him in this Ukraine hoax.

The Federalist is not a good faith source of news and neither are you. The Federalist is funded by dark money. https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/07/in-defense-of-dark-money/ and their reporting has been specious: so what exactly is it about Volker's testimony that contradicts the so called Democrat Impeachment Narrative?

Igotadose · 07-10-2019 7:45pm

mad muffin wrote: »

Testimony From Ukraine Envoy Kurt Volker Directly Contradicts Democrats’ Impeachment Narrative

Testimony from Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, which was obtained by The Federalist, blows holes directly through the impeachment narrative that congressional Democrats have crafted against President Donald Trump.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/testimony-from-ukraine-envoy-kurt-volker-directly-contradicts-democrats-impeachment-narrative/

Like a bad curry Shifty Schiff’s Russia hoax is coming back to haunt him in this Ukraine hoax.

Words mean different things to HDS sufferers. Volker confirms he was not on the call, and that for reasons he doesn't know, aid was withheld from Ukraine. It was restarted several weeks later.

He strongly endorses Ambassador Yovanovitch, she of 'not doing a good job.'

Overheal · 07-10-2019 7:51pm

(also fun to observe: Trump is suddenly anti-corruption but doesn't want to investigate the murder of a journalist reporting on whether Jared Kushner was funneling classified secrets to the Saudis? ha!)

Around the same time (in fact just a few months after) Biden bragged about his loan deal in Ukraine, the Saudi Crown Prince also bragged he had received CIA intelligence from Kushner - but we don't investigate that apparently!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5575395/Saudi-crown-prince-brags-Jared-Kushner-handed-U-S-intelligence.html

notobtuse · 07-10-2019 7:55pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Words mean different things to HDS sufferers. Volker confirms he was not on the call, and that for reasons he doesn't know, aid was withheld from Ukraine. It was restarted several weeks later.

He strongly endorses Ambassador Yovanovitch, she of 'not doing a good job.'

Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. A president can remove any ambassador on their first day in the oval office. Trump should have replaced her on the first day he received reports she was bad mouthing Trump to the Ukrainians. There are also reports the Ukrainian administration had complaints about her because she appeared to have little respect for the Zelenky and his administration when they came into office. You can't have that!

Outlaw Pete · 07-10-2019 7:58pm

Overheal wrote: »

Sounds like someone pissed off that his spin never gets any time to distort the facts.

Facts are not spin, Overheal, and you can say you have "debunked" my arguments as much as you like but that won't make it so.

You first were said that Trump should be impeached because asking Zelensky to investigate Biden as a favor showed it was a quid pro quo, and then had to have it pointed out to you that the 'favour' Trump asked for had nothing to do with investigating Biden. You then said Sondland telling Taylor to phone about his concerns rather than text was essentially him saying let's not talk about 'the crimes' but his texts make it clear that's not what was happening and to top it all off you argued that Pelosi was right to say Schiff used the president's "own words" ........ so no, you haven't debunked my arguments at all, as chief, you can't debunk facts.

Bonus points though: Obama wouldn't have called for an investigation into a 'quid pro quo' that was backed by Congress, the State Department, EU, and IMF.

Well, if that's the case, why is Obama been so quiet? Why hasn't he tweeted and said congress approved of what Biden bragged of doing, as you're suggesting.

Igotadose · 07-10-2019 8:00pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. A president can remove any ambassador on their first day in the oval office. Trump should have replaced her on the first day he received reports she was bad mouthing Trump to the Ukrainians. There are also reports the Ukrainian administration had complaints about her because she appeared to have little respect for the Zelenky and his administration when they came into office.

So, Volker misrepresented her to Congress? Because the complaints all seemed to have originated with Rudy:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-removed-us-ambassador-to-ukraine-over-complaints-from-giuliani-other-outsiders-2019-10-03

And then there's this mention about the Ukraine commenting on her:
"A senior Ukraine official told the Journal that Yovanovitch "was doing everything by the book."" https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/464301-trump-recalled-ukraine-ambassador-after-complaints-from-giuliani-and

notobtuse · 07-10-2019 8:03pm

Igotadose wrote: »

So, Volker misrepresented her to Congress? Because the complaints all seemed to have originated with Rudy:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-removed-us-ambassador-to-ukraine-over-complaints-from-giuliani-other-outsiders-2019-10-03

And then there's this mention about the Ukraine commenting on her:
"A senior Ukraine official told the Journal that Yovanovitch "was doing everything by the book."" https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/464301-trump-recalled-ukraine-ambassador-after-complaints-from-giuliani-and

Did Volker know what she was doing in regards to Trump and Zelensky that was non-productive?

James Brown · 07-10-2019 8:16pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Wrong, once again. I have a masters degree in marketing. Those little terms and nicknames are effective marketing tools, and enable a person to remember someone and something about the person you are referring to. Voters might not know about Adam Shiff or what he does but they'll remember 'Shifty Shiff' and the negative connotation that goes along with it.

I know you're selling alright. I do hope you believe what you peddle otherwise your wasting my time. I'm fine discussing with people who hold genuine opinions. Giving people nicknames is childish and disrespectful.

mad muffin wrote: »

Testimony From Ukraine Envoy Kurt Volker Directly Contradicts Democrats’ Impeachment Narrative

Testimony from Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, which was obtained by The Federalist, blows holes directly through the impeachment narrative that congressional Democrats have crafted against President Donald Trump.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/testimony-from-ukraine-envoy-kurt-volker-directly-contradicts-democrats-impeachment-narrative/

Like a bad curry Shifty Schiff’s Russia hoax is coming back to haunt him in this Ukraine hoax.

We have the transcript of Trump. I thought that was the narrative? Anyway, it's an opinion piece. Not to mention from the Federalist, which is owned and ran by a right wing, plagiarist who took money to write favourable 'opinion' pieces, called survivors of a school shooting idiots and accused a congresswoman and Seth Myers of being antisemitic..yeah reputable.

Overheal · 07-10-2019 8:22pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Facts are not spin, Overheal, and you can say you have "debunked" my arguments as much as you like but that won't make it so.

You provide tweets, not facts. Your spin is "what Biden did is Evil and what Trump did was naive but Saintly."

You first were said that Trump should be impeached because asking Zelensky to investigate Biden as a favor showed it was a quid pro quo, and then had to have it pointed out to you that the 'favour' Trump asked for had nothing to do with investigating Biden.

It was the whole nature of the call. At least the 11 or so minutes of the call that the WH released a telcon for. More complete data from the call is sitting on the top secret level intelligence server.

You then said Sondland telling Taylor to phone about his concerns rather than text was essentially him saying let's not talk about 'the crimes' but his texts make it clear that's not what was happening

Which texts make this clear? The "Call me" one or the once where he says "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text?" Both clear attempts to get something off the record.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6451371-Volker-docs.html

and to top it all off you argued that Pelosi was right to say Schiff used the president's "own words"

Correct, the essence of the call as played out by Schiff was his caricature of the call that Trump made, as published in the telcon which were his own words (which Trump himself will tell you were not only his words, but in so many other words, 'perfect')

........ so no, you haven't debunked my arguments at all, as chief, you can't debunk facts.

I debunk by providing fact. You haven't provided much if any facts to this thread.

Well, if that's the case, why is Obama been so quiet? Why hasn't he tweeted and said congress approved of what Biden bragged of doing, as you're suggesting.

I'm sure the alt-right would love nothing more than to accuse Obama of 'election interference' if he made any remarks. Either way: what does it matter whether Obama is quiet or not?

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments