President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Overheal wrote: »

Seems US legal analysts disagree with your armchair opinion:

I was referring to your 'Hunting down' bs and I don't express armchair opinions, I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Remember all that stuff about second hand information? It turns out that they were full of sh!t for some reason.

In the statement the ICIG admit that they revised the form in relation to this whistleblower's complaint and also that they did so because of the rules around first / second hand information. That in and of itself vindicates those who felt the revisions happened as a result of this whistleblower's complaint.

Personally, I'd suggest that those who are buying into the notion that the ICIG were going to update the forms all along but the press interest just prompted them to do it a little faster, and there's nothing to see here.... are gullible.

Couple of things worth noting also:

1) They say the whistleblower used the old form and that they ticked 'two boxes' when they did so, but it's the new form that has two boxes not the old one:

2) It claims also that the recent press attention promoted them to revise the forms but the form was revised in August, why would they have had press attention then?

Open to being fact checked of course, but please don't make nonsense claims that those who spoke about these form revisions were full of it or that they don't care about the truth as that is hogwash. Congressman Devin Nunes (and some others) penned a letter to the ICIG in regard to this issue and that is what led to the statement being released and they are now being asked to provide documentation to back up their claims or come to congress and be questioned on Friday. Pathetic nonsense saying such people don't care about the truth. They care a hell of alot more about it than the democrats that's for bloody sure.

"In any case, the IG’s process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the 2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations were credible and that Congress should be notified."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/30/trumps-false-claim-rules-whistleblowers-were-recently-changed/

Debunk on The Federalist diatribe about a whistleblower-form conspiracy.

Calhoun

Overheal wrote: »

Re:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/lawyers-say-trump-is-clearly-trying-to-retaliate-against-whistleblower-which-is-a-violation-of-federal-law/

Seems US legal analysts disagree with your armchair opinion: this is illegal activity in broad daylight by the President of the United States of America, violating the Whistleblower Protection Act.

This only adds weight toward impeachment. I expect further shift in the polls, and frankly I expect the GOP May start hedging on their escape plans from the Trump train before it whoomps into a solid wall (that Mexico would probably elect to pay for)

Even with an armchair opinion he has shown he is irrational and spiteful. I wouldn't put it past him to be looking for a leak.

Overheal wrote: »

Latest news out is that AG Barr held private meetings overseas with foreign intel officials seeking their help in a DOJ inquiry that, Trump hoped, will discredit the US Intelligence Apparatus' dozen-or-so agency analysis that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/attorney-general-barr-personally-asked-foreign-officials-to-aid-inquiry-into-cia-fbi-activities-in-2016/2019/09/30/d50cd5c4-e3a5-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

I should point out as I did in the reality-based thread that the DOJ asking another government for assistance isn't strictly illegal.

Not to be confused with a president looking for election assistance or any other thing of value from a foreign government.

Expect to see some blurring of those lines tomorrow.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Hunting down"? He said: "We’re trying to find out about a whistleblower"

Clickbait nonsense

Re:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/lawyers-say-trump-is-clearly-trying-to-retaliate-against-whistleblower-which-is-a-violation-of-federal-law/

Seems US legal analysts disagree with your armchair opinion: this is illegal activity in broad daylight by the President of the United States of America, violating the Whistleblower Protection Act.

This only adds weight toward impeachment. I expect further shift in the polls, and frankly I expect the GOP May start hedging on their escape plans from the Trump train before it whoomps into a solid wall (that Mexico would probably elect to pay for)

Overheal wrote: »

(Not that I'm even sure what he's on about, I tried googling and nothing came up)

He was just having a giggle. Just made up something so stupid that you could see actually becoming a Trump talking point.

Remember all that stuff about second hand information? It turns out that they were full of sh!t for some reason.

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.

The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”

So, the complaint was from someone with first hand info and even if he didn't have first hand info, the complaint was still legit.

Not that this is surprising. These stupid talking points rarely stand up to scrutiny but those who repeat them either don't care or never figure it out.

Here's the link.

Latest news out is that AG Barr held private meetings overseas with foreign intel officials seeking their help in a DOJ inquiry that, Trump hoped, will discredit the US Intelligence Apparatus' dozen-or-so agency analysis that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/attorney-general-barr-personally-asked-foreign-officials-to-aid-inquiry-into-cia-fbi-activities-in-2016/2019/09/30/d50cd5c4-e3a5-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

(Not that I'm even sure what he's on about, I tried googling and nothing came up)

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Sorry, couldn't resist. Now that Warren is the odds on favourite for the nomination, I'm surprised she isn't being dragged into these scandals somehow.

Someone in here is going to repeat that.

You have to be careful around here when you pretend to be an idiot. It's hard to distinguish between someone acting the idiot and someone with sincerely held beliefs that they picked up from RT or those twitter accounts with all the stars and flags in their handle.

The Phantom Jipper

Overheal wrote: »

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

More importantly, why are you ignoring Elizabeth Warren's role in all of this Australian business?

What does that have to do with Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump? Seems like a pretty off-base deflection, a kevin-bacon-like reference because the keyword Australia got mentioned.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Now that Warren is the odds on favourite for the nomination, I'm surprised she isn't being dragged into these scandals somehow.

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

More importantly, why are you ignoring Elizabeth Warren's role in all of this Australian business?

What does that have to do with Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump? Seems like a pretty off-base deflection, a kevin-bacon-like reference because the keyword Australia got mentioned.

The Phantom Jipper

Overheal wrote: »

NYT: Australian PM was also pressed by Trump, to help AG Barr dig up dirt on the start of the Mueller probe

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/us/politics/trump-australia-barr-mueller.html

More importantly, why are you ignoring Elizabeth Warren's role in all of this Australian business?

NYT: Australian PM was also pressed by Trump, to help AG Barr dig up dirt on the start of the Mueller probe

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/us/politics/trump-australia-barr-mueller.html

Water John

If he wasn't on the call, he would have been immediately circulated with its contents.

It seems like Pompeo was on the call.

I don't get it. It was such a perfect call. Why was he not the first out the gate to back up what Trump with this first-hand knowledge? Surely he didn't think there was anything wrong with the call?

So why hold the money? And why look for a server that only exists in the minds of those who swallow Russian propaganda and conspiracy theorists?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Wrong again ..

https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1176882766597767168

You're doing a good job here tonight of making a case for why Pelosi should not have launched a formal impeachment inquiry.

Again, trump pressured them to investigate in response to wanting to buy javelins.

Guliani was subpoenaed by the 3 house impeachment investigation panels; he has until Oct 15 to turn over all documents pertaining to Ukraine.

. In a statement released Monday, the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees said Giuliani “admitted on national television that, while serving as the President’s personal attorney, he asked the government of Ukraine to target former Vice President Joe Biden.”

The Phantom Jipper

Dipped in to have a read and it's nice to see some familiar names who couldn't cut it on the politics forum attempting to flog their wares here instead.

Trump has been caught dead to rights and is deservedly being impeached. Any reasonable person reading the transcript can see with their own eyes, instead of needing whatever nonsense is being regurgitated from the usual conspiracy theory sites.

Overheal wrote: »

The pressure I feel is pretty damn plain given the context of $400 Bn withheld, and Trumps lengthy remarks about what the US for Ukraine and his own swerve to pressuring them about the Bidens when Zelensky brings up Javelin missiles.

Wrong again ..

https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1176882766597767168

You're doing a good job here tonight of making a case for why Pelosi should not have launched a formal impeachment inquiry.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Hunting down"? He said: "We’re trying to find out about a whistleblower"

I'll take your concern about hyperbole under advisement.

And regarding the Russia Today links that you found in your totally normal twitter feed, I don't see anything there regarding Joe Biden.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That was four days ago and is just a bit of hyperbole:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/trump-whistleblower-spies-treason

“Oh sure just a bit of hyperbole”

Totally fine for a president accused of high crimes and misdemeanors to call for the execution of his accusers as long as its hyperbolic!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Stop swerving the issue.

You said that the accuracy of the whistleblower complaint can't be discredited, but clearly it can, as the central allegation (that he "pressured" Biden) is false and you have just shown right now (by quoting a part of the call that was not even about Biden) that there is no grounds for making that claim.

A claim, might I add, that is at the very heart of why a formal impeachment inquiry is underway.

The pressure I feel is pretty damn plain given the context of $400 Bn withheld, and Trumps lengthy remarks about what the US for Ukraine and his own swerve to pressuring them about the Bidens when Zelensky brings up Javelin missiles.

Overheal wrote: »

I’m guessing the WH is utter chaos right now, fingers blasting everywhere.

That was four days ago and is just a bit of hyperbole:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/trump-whistleblower-spies-treason

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Hunting down"? He said: "We’re trying to find out about a whistleblower"

Clickbait nonsense

In Context:

"I want to know who's the person, who's the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy," Trump said, according to The Los Angeles Times. "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now."

I’m guessing the WH is utter chaos right now, fingers blasting everywhere.

Stop swerving the issue.

You said that the accuracy of the whistleblower complaint can't be discredited, but clearly it can, as the central allegation (that he "pressured" the Ukaraine to investigate Biden) is false and you have just shown right now (by quoting a part of the call that was not even about Biden) that there is no grounds for making that claim.

A claim, might I add, that is at the very heart of why a formal impeachment inquiry is underway.

Come on, Overheal, I know you hate Trump - but admit it, he didn't pressure Zelensky, there was no suggestion of a quid pro quo and the impeachment process is being misused.

It was “never investigated” so Trump sent his personal lawyers off the books rather than have his state department, the DOJ, or Congress investigate? Why didn’t the Congress investigate during the Benghazi years?

Trump was fishing for an October surprise.

Overheal wrote: »

Everything Biden did was above the table, it was no secret, US officials, EU officials and the IMF backed him up on it at the time. Stop with that nonsense.

It's not nonsense. It was reported at the time as suspicious but was never investigated sufficiently:

https://twitter.com/michaelbeatty3/status/1178175441489629186

As for the pressure the writer in the WaPo article may have his own favorite part of the call; for me, it was when Trump said

“Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.”

Which when you’re listening to the POTUS say this, commands weight. Especially surrounding the withhold of aid, especially with Trump opening the call about how much the US does for Ukraine and how little the EU does, cornering Zelensky into acknowledging if he didn’t get the $400Bn I aid that it wasn’t going to come from elsewhere. These details were known by the leaders in front of the call.

[Incorrect buzzer]

Nope, the "If that's possible" portion of the call was not about Biden, it was about election interference by certain people in the Ukraine in 2016 ...

...and so you can't use that as proof Trump "pressured" Zelensky into investigating Biden during that call.

Anything else?