President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

duploelabs

Igotadose wrote: »

Sigh. 7 posts. Woo hoo. Fresh fish.

And I just put my mole mallet away

Billy Mays

DeconSheridan wrote: »

This is just another clown show with no proof no nothing except to expose deluded politicians and what Americans are fed up with. This will strengthen the Republican Party's campaign in the 2020 elections with the House vote for impeachment proceedings being voted down with all republicans and 2 dems not in favour of impeachment.

#Trump2020

#MAGA

MadYaker

If the whistle blower is bringing evidence of crimes to light then why do the motivations of the whistle blower matter? If the information is factual I don’t see why that’s important?

Outlaw Pete

MadYaker wrote: »

If the whistle blower is bringing evidence of crimes to light then why do the motivations of the whistle blower matter? If the information is factual I don’t see why that’s important?

What "evidence" of crimes?



Trump was 100% correct in asking Zelensky to look into Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine, especially so given that his father (when Vice President) bragged about threatening to withhold $1billion in aid from the Ukraine unless they fired Shokin.

With articles like this fueling rumours about the Bidens, he would have been remiss not to.

Hunter Biden’s Ukraine gas firm pressed Obama administration to end corruption allegations, memos show

By early 2016 the Ukrainian investigation had advanced enough that then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin authorized a court-ordered seizure of Zlochevsky’s home and other valuables, including a luxury car. That seizure occurred on Feb. 2, 2016, according to published reports in Ukraine.

The same day that the Zlochevsky seizure was announced in Ukraine, Hunter Biden used his Twitter account to start following Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a longtime national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who was promoted to the No. 2 job at State under Secretary John Kerry.

The Feb. 4, 2016 Twitter notification from Hunter Biden to Blinken was captured by State email servers and turned over to me as part of the FOIA release.

On May 22, 2015, Hunter Biden emailed his father’s longtime trusted aide, Blinken, with the following message: “Have a few minutes next week to grab a cup of coffee? I know you are impossibly busy, but would like to get your advice on a couple of things, Best, Hunter.”

Blinken responded the same day with an “absolutely” and added, “Look forward to seeing you.”

The records indicate the two men were scheduled to meet the afternoon of May 27, 2015.

The State Department records also indicate Hunter Biden met Blinken in person for lunch on July 22, 2015, when State officials gave the name of a person to meet to help him enter the building. “He has the VIP pin and can escort you upstairs for your lunch with Tony,” the email said.

The new evidence of contacts between Burisma, Hunter Biden and Archer at State are certain to add a new layer of intrigue to the debate. Those contacts span back to at least spring 2015, the new memos show.

The question now is: Did any of those contacts prompt further action or have anything to do with Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in March 2016 when he forced Shokin’s firing?

Yet to be determined if they did anything unethical or illegal but it sure doesn't too good from a conflict of interest perspective at the very very least.

Overheal

Why didn’t you link this article you plagiarized?

kowloon

MadYaker wrote: »

If the whistle blower is bringing evidence of crimes to light then why do the motivations of the whistle blower matter? If the information is factual I don’t see why that’s important?

Facts are now just opinions, everyone has to pick a side or they'll be given one, and the truth will depend on the side.

duploelabs

kowloon wrote: »

Facts are now just opinions, everyone has to pick a side or they'll be given one, and the truth will depend on the side.

Rudi?

mcmoustache

Isn't John Solomon the guy who worked with the indicted Lev Parnas to spread misinformation from former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko that he later retracted? Or is there another John Solomon who isn't neck deep in this amateurish scheme?

Cody montana

Transcripts of EU Amb Sondland & fmr Ukraine envoy Volker to be released today. 🥳

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Isn't John Solomon the guy who worked with the indicted Lev Parnas to spread misinformation from former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko that he later retracted?

What difference does it make if he's bringing evidence of crimes to light?

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What difference does it make if he's bringing evidence of crimes to light?

It makes a big difference if the crimes being brought to light were made up. It makes an even bigger difference if making up these crimes was part of a scheme involving Parnas, Fruman, Giuliani, Firtash and Lutsenko.

If Solomon is getting his information from these guys or is even more involved, his reporting is more than likely horse-shít.

Igotadose

mcmoustache wrote: »

It makes a big difference if the crimes being brought to light were made up. It makes an even bigger difference if making up these crimes was part of a scheme involving Parnas, Fruman, Giuliani, Firtash and Lutsenko.

If Solomon is getting his information from these guys or is even more involved, his reporting is more than likely horse-shít.

If there was ever one needed, Solomon seems like the perfect example of a useful idiot.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What difference does it make if he's bringing evidence of crimes to light?

Then if these things don't matter, why the attack on the whistleblower and virtually every witness that's been called so far?

mcmoustache

Igotadose wrote: »

If there was ever one needed, Solomon seems like the perfect example of a useful idiot.

He's more involved than that.

He was sending his drafts to be checked by the indicted Parnas. His lawyers are Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing. Coincidentally, they also work as attorneys for Parnas and Fruman as well as acting as lawyers to Firtash. They also received drafts of Solomon's work prior to printing.

mcmoustache

duploelabs wrote: »

Then if these things don't matter, why the attack on the whistleblower and virtually every witness that's been called so far?

And why should Biden be investigated for that thing that Trump said is perfectly appropriate?

The stupidity of the position being taken doesn't matter to Trump fans and the people around Trump spouting these things don't have a high opinion of Trump fans.

Spencerfreeman

DeconSheridan wrote: »

This is just another clown show with no proof no nothing except to expose deluded politicians and what Americans are fed up with. This will strengthen the Republican Party's campaign in the 2020 elections with the House vote for impeachment proceedings being voted down with all republicans and 2 dems not in favour of impeachment.

Welcome to boards. Don't forget to shut the door, it might get cold in the echo chamber, poor mites.

Overheal

So the Republicans asked for a vote, they got it. Then they asked for transcripts, they’re getting them

So Republicans would be happy right? Oh,

“ Release ALL of the transcripts from ALL of the witnesses. Release VIDEO of the cross-examination of every witness if you want to be truly transparent. This selective release only enhances YOUR narrative, Adam Schiff, but fails to provide the sunlight needed for the American people. #ChamberOfSecrets” - Rep Duncan (R-SC)

Massive goal shifting operation on there folks

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

So the Republicans asked for a vote, they got it. Then they asked for transcripts, they’re getting them

So Republicans would be happy right? Oh,

“ Release ALL of the transcripts from ALL of the witnesses. Release VIDEO of the cross-examination of every witness if you want to be truly transparent. This selective release only enhances YOUR narrative, Adam Schiff, but fails to provide the sunlight needed for the American people. #ChamberOfSecrets” - Rep Duncan (R-SC)

Massive goal shifting operation on there folks

Why are you against that idea?

mcmoustache

A few of Trump's defenders have been mentioning the 6th amendment as something that gives Trump the right to confront his accuser. Now, I'm no big city lawyer, cluck cluck, but even I can see from this simple text that it refers to criminal prosecutions. It's right there in the first 4 words in black and white.

It's so simple that anyone spouting it would have to be an idiot or a liar so it's worth remembering people like Senator Paul when they use the 6th amendment as their reasoning for outing the whistle-blower.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Why are you against that idea?

Because it’s not anchored to real life. It’s also not an actual idea, it’s a desperate attempt to crank that transcripts are coming out. Republicans certainly didn’t feel that level of transparency was needed in Benghazi/Emailgate when they were trying to incarcerate a US presidential candidate.

Igotadose

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Why are you against that idea?

Because it's not a trial, and the House rules adopted under Boehner's Congress don't require it.

You're just playing the "Democrats must be paragons of morality while GOP can do whatever the fcuk they want" style of debate that's so common these days. Face it, Trump's guilty, the impeachment articles will pass, the trial will happen in the Senate, and the evidence presented faithfully. Then, we'll see.

GOP doesn't get to set the moral boundaries here for the Democrats to adhere to; the GOP's failed at every turn to rein in POTUS45 and his arrogance is bringing him down.

FFS, these crimes are worse than Watergate. That was only a burglary. This is potentially sacrificing people (in the Ukraine, by delaying arms shipments), in order to influence an election. Loathsome.

Overheal

Sondland appended his testimony to clarify that the military aid was indeed contingent on a public statement of investigating the “corruption”

So now everyone has testified this was Quid Pro Quo.

More transcripts to be released today.

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

A few of Trump's defenders have been mentioning the 6th amendment as something that gives Trump the right to confront his accuser. Now, I'm no big city lawyer, cluck cluck, but even I can see from this simple text that it refers to criminal prosecutions. It's right there in the first 4 words in black and white.

It's so simple that anyone spouting it would have to be an idiot or a liar so it's worth remembering people like Senator Paul when they use the 6th amendment as their reasoning for outing the whistle-blower.

When the excuses turn into shouts of "obstruction" you should then realise that it's about stalling the criminal inquiry of Durham. This is their fourth attempt.

Spencerfreeman

Igotadose wrote: »

Because it's not a trial, and the House rules adopted under Boehner's Congress don't require it.

You're just playing the "Democrats must be paragons of morality while GOP can do whatever the fcuk they want" style of debate that's so common these days. Face it, Trump's guilty, the impeachment articles will pass, the trial will happen in the Senate, and the evidence presented faithfully. Then, we'll see.

GOP doesn't get to set the moral boundaries here for the Democrats to adhere to; the GOP's failed at every turn to rein in POTUS45 and his arrogance is bringing him down.

FFS, these crimes are worse than Watergate. That was only a burglary. This is potentially sacrificing people (in the Ukraine, by delaying arms shipments), in order to influence an election. Loathsome.

This does have similarities to Watergate which was an attempt to get rid of Nixon when he refused to play their game any longer. He had a conscience.

I am not against the real Democrats at all. I will be perfectly happy to hang the Republicans. We will know which ones are in the Senate when they vote against Trump in this matter.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Sondland appended his testimony to clarify that the military aid was indeed contingent on a public statement of investigating the “corruption”

So now everyone has testified this was Quid Pro Quo.

More transcripts to be released today.

Sondland is on the payroll, or has been shown something that will shame him.

You know this will not get rid of Trump anyway.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

When the excuses turn into shouts of "obstruction" you should then realise that it's about stalling the criminal inquiry of Durham. This is their fourth attempt.

Wrong thread

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Because it’s not anchored to real life. It’s also not an actual idea, it’s a desperate attempt to crank that transcripts are coming out. Republicans certainly didn’t feel that level of transparency was needed in Benghazi/Emailgate when they were trying to incarcerate a US presidential candidate.

Those testimonies involved national security, the reason for having closed door testimony.
The gangster Paul Ryan was also involved in those decisions.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Wrong thread

Hard to keep up, sorry.

Spencerfreeman

Hang on, you brought up Bengazi?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

This does have similarities to Watergate which was an attempt to get rid of Nixon when he refused to play their game any longer. He had a conscience.

I am not against the real Democrats at all. I will be perfectly happy to hang the Republicans. We will know which ones are in the Senate when they vote against Trump in this matter.

If you’re trying to suggest the reason Nixon left when he did was he “had a conscience” I assure you it’s not. You should listen to the Nixon tapes, And watch the interviews he gave, where he was emphatic that when the president does it, then it is not illegal (not judicial, not criminal, ohhhhh see?).

The reason Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment passed was Constitutional law: Nixon would have had zero ability to be pardoned once articles passed, once passed the POTUS’ charges can only be convicted or dismissed by the Senate. As we know, Gerald Ford pardoned the President for his crimes.

Trump won’t take the same approach because he didn’t just commit federal crimes, but serious state level crimes that pardon power does not extend to. Even if he stepped down and Pence pardoned him he’d be indicted on the spot by the SDNY.