President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Professor Moriarty

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I think it's a distraction to delay other investigations from being pursued.
I think the main witness's are connected to the Durham investigation.

So there's no substance to the allegations contained in the Quid Pro Quo investigation?

Spencerfreeman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So there's no substance to the allegations contained in the Quid Pro Quo investigation?

No, I've seen none yet that that are believable.

I don't think Trumps primary intention was to disrupt the 2020 .

He wanted assurance from Zelensky that he would resume the Burisma corruption investigation that Biden had stopped by using a real QPQ threat.

Professor Moriarty

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No, I've seen none yet that that are believable.

I don't think Trumps primary intention was to disrupt the 2020 .

He wanted assurance from Zelensky that he would resume the Burisma corruption investigation that Biden had stopped by using a real QPQ threat.

Okay. So you think that all the reportage to date is a nothingburger cooked up by the Dems? And Trump's motivation was completely innocent?

Spencerfreeman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. So you think that all the reportage to date is a nothingburger cooked up by the Dems? And Trump's motivation was completely innocent?

I think you've used the correct word, reportage.
Not just the Dem's no.

It appears to me that Trump's motivation was the Crowdstrike servers and therefore the beginning of the Russiagate circus indicating an attempted coup by the intelligence community.
I would never describe Trump as being entirely innocent of anything.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No, I've seen none yet that that are believable.

I don't think Trumps primary intention was to disrupt the 2020 .

He wanted assurance from Zelensky that he would resume the Burisma corruption investigation that Biden had stopped by using a real QPQ threat.

You realize I hope that the investigation wasn’t stopped by Shokin being removed. After he was removed the investigation was finally finished and a Fine was applied for the matter which involves events from 2010-2012, years before Biden joined the board.

It’s all in here, I won’t spoon feed it to you, along with details about the bribery Shokin was caught embroiled in: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

You realize I hope that the investigation wasn’t stopped by Shokin being removed. After he was removed the investigation was finally finished and a Fine was applied for the matter which involves events from 2010-2012, years before Biden joined the board.

It’s all in here, I won’t spoon feed it to you, along with details about the bribery Shokin was caught embroiled in: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

Thank you for the link, I have read it. I don't need a spoon.

The problem seems to have not been addressed by Lutsenko who was obviously green lit by Biden, whom the piece says took a great interest in Ukrainian affairs.
The size of the fine previously imposed does suggests the full facts were not known at that time.
Trump was obviously impressing on Zelensky (as per transcript) the need to remove Lutsenko, whom Trump was unhappy with, in order to have a proper investigation.

Whether Trump is right or wrong about Biden's involvement doesn't really matter.

Overheal

That may not jive with breaking news:

LTC Vindman was obstructed to keep quiet about the “drug deal.”

“ Several days after President Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine, a top White House lawyer instructed a senior national security official not to discuss his grave concerns about the leaders’ conversation with anyone outside the White House, according to three people familiar with the aide’s testimony.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that he received this instruction from John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, after White House lawyers learned July 29 that a CIA employee had anonymously raised concerns about the Trump phone call, the sources said.
The directive from Eisenberg adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that could be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-official-who-heard-trumps-call-with-ukraine-leader-testified-that-he-was-told-to-keep-quiet/2019/11/01/dbed7fae-fc07-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

That may not jive with breaking news:

LTC Vindman was obstructed to keep quiet about the “drug deal.”

“ Several days after President Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine, a top White House lawyer instructed a senior national security official not to discuss his grave concerns about the leaders’ conversation with anyone outside the White House, according to three people familiar with the aide’s testimony.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that he received this instruction from John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, after White House lawyers learned July 29 that a CIA employee had anonymously raised concerns about the Trump phone call, the sources said.
The directive from Eisenberg adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that could be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-official-who-heard-trumps-call-with-ukraine-leader-testified-that-he-was-told-to-keep-quiet/2019/11/01/dbed7fae-fc07-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

Who cares what Vindman's OPINION of what was said is, when anyone interested can read the entirely accurate transcript which even Vindman himself didn't dispute.

The warning was probably that he would be fired if he got involved.
He will be now.

"Drug deal" indeed. I not sending you for any.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Who cares what Vindman's OPINION of what was said is, when anyone interested can read the entirely accurate transcript which even Vindman himself didn't dispute.

The warning was probably that he would be fired if he got involved.
He will be now.

"Drug deal" indeed. I not sending you for any.

Are you pretending that Vindman being told to hush it should somehow be on the Zelensky call transcript in order to have happened?

What wild goalposts are you pitching?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Are you pretending that Vindman being told to hush it should somehow be on the Zelensky call transcript in order to have happened?

What wild goalposts are you pitching?

I thought I was being clear when I said I thought the warning related to Vindman going above and outside his job remit?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I thought I was being clear when I said I thought the warning related to Vindman going above and outside his job remit?

Based on what?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Based on what?

The warning? Based only on my interpretation. IMHO

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The warning? Based only on my interpretation. IMHO

So a baseless distortion of events as reported?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

So a baseless distortion of events as reported?

I'm entitled to have an opinion on an opinion aren't I.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm entitled to have an opinion on an opinion aren't I.

As I am to ask why

Outlaw Pete

Christ, does Pelosi every stop lying?


https://twitter.com/alx/status/1190298956082888704

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Christ, does Pelosi every stop lying?


https://twitter.com/alx/status/1190298956082888704

Not that I agree with the tone that strikes at all but on an objective note what says it must be bipartisan? The constitution was actually not written for a two party system.

Also, to be perfectly fair, those comments were from March 11 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/im-not-for-impeachment-pelosi-says-potentially-roiling-fellow-democrats/2019/03/11/894b3f80-442d-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html), 11 days before the Mueller Report was submitted to Barr, Before Barr misrepresented the report, before the white house ordered Don McGahn to ignore Article I powers, and it was April 18th when it was released in its current form. It was also before the whistleblower matter, and the now 5 week long effort by Republicans to refuse to engage these hearings as honest brokers. She made those comments at a time before Republicans went hog wild obstructing their own established processes and have frankly had shown no signs they wanted to be bipartisan. I'd probably have evolved in the last 8 months, too.

Outlaw Pete

Trump taking the piss tonight out of the notion he'd need Ulkraine to defeat Biden in 2020.


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1190446865608781825

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump taking the piss tonight out of the notion he'd need Ulkraine to defeat Biden in 2020.


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1190446865608781825

His campaigneering is irrelevant, whether he "felt he needed it," it doesn't matter if he "didn't mean to shakedown the Ukraine for an investigation into Biden" he still violated Federal Election Law.

Is he trying to take credit for winning elections against Bush and Obama or am I reading that tweet wrong.

As for fear this is the guy who had to call a doctor because he was fit enough for football but too chicken**** for basic. I have yet to see any situation where this man didn't try and exploit anything that he felt he could.

Overheal

For his part Trump continues to allege he did nothing improper: 'would I do that if others were listening' (you would if you felt all your handlers were in it with you...)

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-riffs-on-his-ukraine-call-at-ms-rally-do-you-think-i-would-say-something-improper-with-people-listening/

I wonder when White House honors congressional subpoeana for the actual transcript documents/contemporaneous notes of the listeners involved which were moved to the codeword-level system by an administration lawyer. At least one other call is reported to be documented in that system. Several officials have gone on record saying this is an improper use of the system.

Boggles

I violated federal law but I didn't have to because I beat Obama therefore I didn't do wrong.



I think the syphilis has eventually consumed his brain.

y0ssar1an22

so the whistleblower is a disgruntled ex employee who was sacked for leaking info. close ties with obama, susan rice, john brennan and biden. no wonder they wanted to keep his identity under wraps.

wonder what the impact on the inquiry will be?

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

so the whistleblower is a disgruntled ex employee who was sacked for leaking info. close ties with obama, susan rice, john brennan and biden. no wonder they wanted to keep his identity under wraps.

wonder what the impact on the inquiry will be?

You know you're in deep s*it when you shoot the messenger not the message

y0ssar1an22

duploelabs wrote: »

You know you're in deep s*it when you shoot the messenger not the message

credibility of the witness will be brought into question now by republicans

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

credibility of the witness will be brought into question now by republicans

So how do they have links to the people you described?

To preempt an answer.... You do realise that government departments, including the white house, maintains staff through many different administrations. To completely clear everyone out on each turnover wouldn't work at all.

MadYaker

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

credibility of the witness will be brought into question now by republicans

How? Was the information they leaked not factual? I don’t understand the thinking here. If the leak is factual then why are the motivations of the leaker relevant?

y0ssar1an22

MadYaker wrote: »

How? Was the information they leaked not factual? I don’t understand the thinking here. If the leak is factual then why are the motivations of the leaker relevant?

i dunno. if the info is true its irrelevant who delivered it. maybe too many episodes of suits where its a standard trope - the credibility of the witness

Cody montana

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

so the whistleblower is a disgruntled ex employee who was sacked for leaking info. close ties with obama, susan rice, john brennan and biden. no wonder they wanted to keep his identity under wraps.

wonder what the impact on the inquiry will be?

What about the multiple witnesses that confirmed the bribery?

Danzy

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Christ, does Pelosi every stop lying?


https://twitter.com/alx/status/1190298956082888704

Pelosi never wanted to go down the impeachment road, her caucus did.

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i dunno. if the info is true its irrelevant who delivered it. maybe too many episodes of suits where its a standard trope - the credibility of the witness

Can you answer the question regarding the people you mentioned who worked with the whistleblower?