nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Veritas Libertas

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump over the whistleblower complaint on Trump's communication with Ukraine about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. /CNN

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Veritas Libertas

Is there yet a 'smoking gun tape' in this story? The released transcript doesn't seem to contain anything; is this still all hinging on the word of the whistle-blower that we haven't heard yet?

I find it a bit of a stretch to impeach Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, especially if Biden was involved in nefarious activities in Ukraine. Doesn't it hinge on what evidence Trump had about Biden prior to asking Ukraine to investigate?(If he had no reason to suspect Biden- asking for an investigation is a pretty clear case of interfering in an election)

Remember Obama had the FBI investigating Trump prior to his incumbency

The Phantom Jipper

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

Whats the real story here. I cannot get a feel for what is actually going on as news channels are very much on one side or the other.
Has biden really questions to answer?

If you are truly interested, I would recommend for you to read through this thread discussions & arguments and look through the many factual documents made available direct from reputable sources. I would recommend for you to not use the "mainstream media" + twitter as a source of info, as that simply one-sided.

You have already gotten a response from a poster pushing their views on you and what they think has happened. To me, that looked like a desperate attempt to get you to agree with them. I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to be able to make up your own mind without your political opinion being interverred with by people who are only involved emotionally and deny opposing arguments presented to them.

Paranoid warnings against the mainstream media...seems trustworthy.

Anyone who wants to find out what's going on only needs to read the transcript of the call, which Trump's own team has kindly released. It takes maybe 5 minutes to read and is worth the time.

Or alternatively people can avoid the reporting from the media and journalists on Twitter and instead pay attention to the "reputable sources" here and read about how the real scandal has something to do with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton and this dastardly whistleblower etc etc.

Overheal

GOP House Rep. Mark Amodei the other day told reporters, “Let’s put it through the [inquiry/impeachment] process and see what happens.”

The fallout was swift as it was apoplectic, with party elders (and the White House!) within an hour from airing, blowing up his phone and demanding he explain his actions. His social media has been set ablaze by the troll farms dissembling him as a RINO, and worse, for speaking his mind in such an innocuous way.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/10/01/off-message-a-republican-takes-heat-for-impeachment-remarks/

They’re eating their own.

notobtuse

El_Bee wrote: »

Drumpf is finished, this time.

I've heard that, like, three dozen times already.

notobtuse

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

If you are truly interested, I would recommend for you to read through this thread discussions & arguments and look through the many factual documents made available direct from reputable sources. I would recommend for you to not use the "mainstream media" + twitter as a source of info, as that simply one-sided.

You have already gotten a response from a poster pushing their views on you and what they think has happened. To me, that looked like a desperate attempt to get you to agree with them. I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to be able to make up your own mind without your political opinion being interverred with by people who are only involved emotionally and deny opposing arguments presented to them.

If, as they claim, the Bidens are innocent of any wrongdoing or impropriety, the Ukrainians will say so and the Bidens should thank President Trump for eliciting that answer and putting an end to the question.

If the Bidens, or at least Hunter Biden, were involved in some level of corruption or quid pro quo, the United States and the Democratic Party should wish to know that also, right?.

Shouldn’t it be investigated to see if corruption is involved since Biden himself bragged that he held up big amounts of US money from Ukraine unless the prosecutor (who was investigating Hunter Biden’s company for wrongdoing) was fired?

El_Bee

Drumpf is finished, this time.

Overheal

Latest talking points from the GOP. Pretty weak stuff; cries of “no evidence!” :rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/no-evidence-or-facts-house-gop-gets-recess-talking-points-on-impeachment

1800_Ladladlad

mickdw wrote: »

Whats the real story here. I cannot get a feel for what is actually going on as news channels are very much on one side or the other.
Has biden really questions to answer?

If you are truly interested, I would recommend for you to read through this thread discussions & arguments and look through the many factual documents made available direct from reputable sources. I would recommend for you to not use the "mainstream media" + twitter as a source of info, as that simply one-sided.

You have already gotten a response from a poster pushing their views on you and what they think has happened. To me, that looked like a desperate attempt to get you to agree with them. I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to be able to make up your own mind without your political opinion being interverred with by people who are only involved emotionally and deny opposing arguments presented to them.

notobtuse

Chuck Schumer on Trump in 2017: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Schumer was right... the deep state strikes!

Overheal

Sen. Grassley (R-IA) splits from Trump tact of attacking whistleblower, says plainly that the whistleblower followed the applicable laws and should be protected.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sen-grassley-distances-himself-from-trump-says-whistleblower-ought-to-be-heard-out-and-protected/

Boggles

Overheal wrote: »

There's no magic number on it but I feel like he's going to bail if it drops below 30.

He wants to bail IMO.

He just needs the right excuse, this whole thing could well have been orchestrated at some level, maybe by at accident at first.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Quid Pro Joe’s campaign is asking TV networks to not book Rudy Giuliani. I guess they’re afraid the networks won’t ‘ask the right questions.’

That was Sunday. Old news. Didn’t seem to take with the networks. Don’t see how it’s quid pro quo what did he barter?

notobtuse

Quid Pro Joe’s campaign is asking TV networks to not book Rudy Giuliani. I guess they’re afraid the networks won’t ‘ask the right questions.’

Overheal

CNBC poll out puts Trump's approval rating down to 37% - the lowest point of his Presidency

There's no magic number on it but I feel like he's going to bail if it drops below 30. Nixon's last year in office cruised at low 20's.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/new-cnbc-poll-trump-approval-rating-drops-to-37-percent-lowest-of-his-presidency/

A new poll suggests that impeachment calls are growing as President Donald Trump’s favorability rating continues to plummet.

CNBC’s new data shows that 44% percent of voters say they’re in favor of holding impeachment hearings, while 47% remain opposed. Correspondent Steve Liesman, while delivering the polling report on air, noted that this is a “much closer margin” that the data CNBC received 2 years ago, which showed 54% of voters opposed impeachment while 41% supported hearings.

The poll also shows that Trump’s economic performance ratings clock in at 42% approval and 50% disapproval. On top of that, the president’s approval rating overall currently stands at 37-53, the lowest rating Trump has ever had in CNBC’s polling.

It isn’t clear how much of the data was affected by the renewed calls for impeachment in light of Trump’s Ukraine scandal, but while an average 42.5% of responders believe impeachment will have negative effects on the stock market and the economy, only 23% think their personal finances will be impacted.

Watch above, via CNBC.

Overheal

Latest Reuters/Ipsos poll:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/01/poll-trump-impeachment-support-grows/3827863002/

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/12/6762/6693/Topline%20Reuters%20Trump%20Biden%20Ukraine%20Poll%20W2%2009302019.pdf

A previous Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sept. 24 found that 37% of all Americans thought Trump should be impeached and that 45% said he should not. A week later, the number saying he should be impeached rose to 45%, while the number saying he should not be removed from office dropped to 41%.

Support for impeachment was clearly divided between registered Republicans and Democrats, with 13% of GOP voters saying the president should be impeached and 81% saying he should not. Among Democrats, 75% favored impeachment and 14% said they were opposed. And 38% of registered independent voters said Trump should be impeached while 39% said he should not.

Sixty-four percent of Americans said they had heard "a great deal" or "some" about the Ukraine story while another 21% said they had heard about it but knew little of the details. Another 10% said they hadn't heard anything and 6% said they didn't know about the controversy.

The poll found Trump's job approval rating at 39%, down from 43% the previous week, and his disapproval rating at 56%, up from 54%. It also found him losing to the three leading contenders in the Democratic primary if the general election were held today. Biden bested Trump 39-34% in such a hypothetical matchup, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont won 40-34% and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts topped him 38-34%.

The poll was conducted Sept. 26-30 and included 2,234 adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4%.

Trump and his supporters have said the president was motivated by a concern about corruption in Ukraine and have alleged that Biden improperly used his influence as vice president to secure a job for his son Hunter Biden with a Ukrainian energy company.

When asked their take on the story, 43% of Americans told the Reuters/Ipsos pollsters that Trump is trying to smear Biden ahead of the election. Twenty-six percent said Biden is trying to cover up a scandal that could hurt him in 2020, and 31% said they weren't sure which version of events was true. Notably, 42% of independents thought Trump was trying to smear Biden while only 17% thought it was Biden trying to bury a scandal. Forty-one percent of independents said they weren't sure.

Americans did not seem to think it was unusual for an elected official to use the power of their office to smear a rival – with 74% saying they thought many officials already did so. But that did not mean they are OK with it: A majority (65%) agreed that officials who use their office to smear their rivals should be removed. And 66% of the respondents said officials who work with a foreign government to attack their rivals should be removed from office.

Registered Republicans were less certain, with 44% agreeing that a politician who uses their office to go after their opponents should be removed from office, while 41% disagreed. Similarly, 46% of Republicans agreed that an official who works with a foreign government to go after a rival should be removed, while 33% did not.

University of Michigan political scientist Nicholas Valentino told Reuters that he did not expect to see much more fluctuation in the numbers unless Republican leaders begin to break ranks and support Trump's impeachment.

"People aren’t constitutional scholars," Valentino told Reuters. "They trust their elected officials from their party to know the rules of politics. And when members of their own party say that someone has broken the rules, that’s when public opinion will really begin to change."

A poll released Monday by Quinnipiac University found that voters were split 47-47% on whether Trump should be impeached and removed from office. That represented a major swing from the week before when 37% said Trump should impeached and 57% said he should not. And 52% said they approved of the House of Representatives opening a formal impeachment inquiry, while 45% disapproved.

Overheal

They don't see it as an error, their war tactic is heavy gaslighting

Water John

Big problem for the WH is that they haven't organised a War Room, to deal with the issue. So there fighting this, on the hoof. Lots of errors, the two biggest ones being, Trump and Guliani shouting off in public.

Overheal

Somewhat surprisingly, Pompeo is fighting back against demands for state department depositions by the impeachment inquiry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/10/01/pompeo-says-state-dept-officials-wont-show-up-for-scheduled-impeachment-depositions-this-week/

Don’t think that will work well for them. This comes after Pompeo did a media circuit claiming he had no knowledge of the July 25th call and hadn't read the telcon - in reality, it was later reported, he was on the call.

Pompeo left the country yesterday for a week long trip in Europe.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Democrats are embracing the ancient art of “making sh*t up.” Witnesses before congressional committees must be sworn in and must swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Members of Congress who ask the questions take no such oath and they’re freely lie in their endeavor to ask no questions and simply make sh*t speeches.

Democrats are going to drag anyone they can think of in front of nearly every committee in the House in this impeachment ‘inquiry. Perhaps the Senate should involve itself in the supposed hunt for truth. There’s nothing stopping Republicans in the Senate from calling people like Congressman Adam Schiff and have him testify UNDER OATH before the Judiciary Committee regarding all his lies.

Nothing in your post supports this claim

notobtuse

Democrats are embracing the ancient art of “making sh*t up.” Witnesses before congressional committees must be sworn in and must swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Members of Congress who ask the questions take no such oath and they’re freely lie in their endeavor to ask no questions and simply make sh*t speeches.

Democrats are going to drag anyone they can think of in front of nearly every committee in the House in this impeachment ‘inquiry. Perhaps the Senate should involve itself in the supposed hunt for truth. There’s nothing stopping Republicans in the Senate from calling people like Congressman Adam Schiff and have him testify UNDER OATH before the Judiciary Committee regarding all his lies.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

If you clean it up a bit, add some paragraphs and maybe make a point, i'll take a look.

I wouldn't want you to knock yourself out.

Overheal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/01/four-simple-reasons-that-trumps-impeach-this-map-doesnt-make-any-sense/

I know I'm posting a lot of WaPo lately but since Impeachment I've found a paid sub to be useful; and I'll try to share full articles.

Happily for President Trump, he has found a new use for his obsession with the results of the 2016 presidential election.

On Tuesday morning, Trump tweeted the following image, apparently cribbed from his daughter-in-law.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1178989254309011456

You can almost feel the energy with which he pressed the button to bring this tweet into the world. Boom. Impeach this, libs.

Unfortunately for Trump, though, the argument doesn’t make any sense.

1. For the 100th time, land isn’t alive and doesn’t vote.

By now, this criticism of electoral maps is taught in elementary schools. Or, at least, it should be. Those red counties in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming, for example, are home to 1.6 million 2016 voters — fewer than half of the number of voters in Los Angeles County. Trump won 1 million votes in those states, beating Hillary Clinton by a 580,000-vote margin. In Los Angeles, Clinton beat Trump by 1.7 million votes.

Yet those four states are 83 times the size of Los Angeles County in area. And, therefore, they occupy 83 times as much space on the map as L.A., despite being the home of one-half as many voters.

Trump has done this before, so we’ve written about it before. In August 2017, I made this graphic, showing how the votes in Washington, D.C., compared to votes in Roberts County, Tex., where Trump saw his largest percentage-point margin of victory.

On Trump’s map, Roberts County is a larger red block and Washington a smaller blue one.

The best map to illustrate the distinction here comes from XKCD.

https://twitter.com/xkcdComic/status/950409908301676544

All that red in the middle is better represented by a few scattered people.

Trump presumably knows this by now. He’s just making a broader point (while trolling his opponents): Look how much support I have!

2. Maybe Trump doesn’t want to go by actual votes for some reason.

This is the point: The map doesn’t show how much support Trump has. In fact, it obscures how much support he had, which is why Trump uses it.

Trump received nearly 3 million fewer votes than Clinton did. The margin was only slightly smaller than George W. Bush’s victory in 2004 — and nearly six times Al Gore’s margin against Bush in 2000, when Bush similarly went on to win the electoral vote.

At no point in time was Trump above 50 percent in 2016 presidential election polling. He received less than 50 percent of the vote. As president, he’s never been above 50 percent in RealClearPolitics’ average of approval polling. Somewhat ironically, he has consistently represented the minority in national polling.

3. Have you seen Richard Nixon’s map in 1972?

Compare that with Richard Nixon. In 1972, Nixon won reelection by 18 million votes. His electoral map looked fairly similar to Trump’s in the middle of the country because, as in 2016, there still weren’t a lot of people living there.

The difference between Nixon’s landslide and Trump’s good luck is in how red the coasts are on Nixon’s map. He won Los Angeles and even parts of New York City. His was an overwhelming victory, and, in his case, the dearth of blue is actually somewhat revelatory.

And guess what happened to Nixon.

That’s right: Faced with imminent impeachment and probable removal from office, Nixon resigned from office in the summer of 1974. What’s more, the cascade of events that led to his downfall actually stemmed from the 1972 election. The break-in at the Watergate was part of an effort to spy on the Democratic Party, an effort that was obviously unnecessary given how broad his victory was.

There’s some poetry in it, really. Nixon’s 1972 electoral map represents the mistakes he made that led to his ouster. America was all set to try to impeach, but ended up not needing to.

4. Trump’s map isn’t even accurate.

It appears that Trump’s map captured the results of the 2016 race at some point before vote totals were finalized. There are a number of counties — including some with a lot of land area! — that are red on the map but should be blue. For example:

We didn’t highlight Alaska because, well, look at Alaska.

Again, though, the point is that this doesn’t matter: These places are mostly places where not many people live. Like that county in Minnesota — it was home to about 6,500 voters. If we’re playing this game, though, let’s at least play it properly.

In summary, then, we have this: Trump shared a map meant to show how his support would preempt any impeachment effort, except that it instead obscured how little support he has, was incorrect and is quickly undercut by considering what happened to Nixon 50 years ago.

Other than that, great tweet.

mcmoustache

It's an unreadable and incoherent ramble indistinguishable from Alex Jones when he's forty minutes into his show and turning red.

If you clean it up a bit, add some paragraphs and maybe make a point, i'll take a look.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's just a transcript of an Alex Jones rant. At least that's how I read it.

Scared are we? I know... reality sometimes sucks. Is there anything in my post on how the proceeding will most probably go regarding Trumps defense in a trial that isn't correct?

Should I cue up the crickets icon now or later?

mcmoustache

It's just a transcript of an Alex Jones rant. At least that's how I read it.

dinorebel

notobtuse wrote: »

DON'T TOUCH THAT DIAL!

So far the Democrats and their media handmaidens have controlled the news on the Trump impeachment ‘inquiry.’ So what happens if the House passes articles of impeachment and it is referred to the Senate for trial? IMO, Democrats are secretly hoping Mitch would entertain a motion to dismiss the charges at the outset of a trial on the grounds that the allegations did not meet the constitutional standard of impeachable offenses. Because the Democrats will be TOTALLY SCREWED if the Senate actually conducts a trial. In the end Republicans will vote unanimously with a small number of Democrats not the convict the President. But during the trial Trump’s attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE THEY WANT. So during the impeachment trial we will be hearing testimony, under oath, from Brennan Clapper, Comey, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Glenn Simpson, Donna Brazile, Holder, Lynch. Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and other key players including perhaps Barack Obama regarding their apparent illegal activities to take out a candidate, then take out a duly elected president, and the ensuing cover up activities. Unless they all ‘take the fifth’ there will be a lot of finger pointing and deals will start to be made by Democrats to avoid charges and going to prison (they are already starting to turn on each other). EVERYTHING in testimony will be allowed in the trial including DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to fix the election for Hillary, the creation of the Trump dossier, the cover up and destruction of emails that probably included the incriminating information. The trial will expose Democrats colluding with foreign politicians and agents, George Soros underhanded dealings, lying to the FISA court, and spying and wiretapping on the Trump campaign. Everything has been one sided against Trump so far including the Muller investigation while the real crimes committed were ignored. But the shoe will be on the other foot in a Trump impeachment trial. And if it looks like Mitch will take it to a full trial it might actually be beneficial for the DNC to make an agreement with the GOP to throw the election to Trump, and not provide much support for Democrats running in close election markets, for Mitch not to take the impeachment to full trial. Interesting times ahead. I'm secretly hoping it does go to full trial so the American people see who the Democrats really are and the lies they've been fed by their minions in the media.

Overheal wrote: »

Paragraphs?

And maybe even a smidgen of reality

Pa ElGrande

Rudy Giuliani reacts to congressional subpoena issued against him, Biden family dealings in Ukraine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKafw3LxQ8E

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a United States law passed in 1977 that prohibits US firms and individuals from paying bribes to foreign officials in furtherance of a business deal. The FCPA places no minimum amount for a punishment of a bribery payment.

The 2020 American presidential campaign is going to be an absolute drag-out fight to the bitter end. Where is the popcorn icon?

Overheal

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Yeah I did. As said, not bad.

As said, not bad. Yeah would be much better if not for the stpuidness of the trade war.

But I'm not going to die on this hill. Just laughing at someone using that report as some damning indictment on the economy!

Why not? GDP was the swan song of the GOP trying to attack Obama while they ran the Congress. Up until almost a year ago when it became evident that 2018 would not exceed 3% GDP that Politicians for Trump finally stopped beating their chest about the number. To his voters though, that number matters, because they made it matter. Just like Fox can't call the code-word compartmentalized server a 'server' they have to call it a super gizmo computer, because calling it a server carries negative connotations with their base that they themselves impregnated.

begsbyOnaTrain

Overheal wrote: »

Did you?

Yeah I did. As said, not bad.

he U.S. economic outlook is healthy according to the key economic indicators. The most critical indicator is the gross domestic product, which measures the nation's production output. The GDP growth rate is expected to remain between the 2% to 3% ideal range. Unemployment is forecast to continue at the natural rate. There isn't too much inflation or deflation. That's a Goldilocks economy.

President Trump promised to increase economic growth to 4%. That's faster than is healthy.

As said, not bad. Yeah would be much better if not for the stpuidness of the trade war.

But I'm not going to die on this hill. Just laughing at someone using that report as some damning indictment on the economy!

Overheal

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Did you actually read the link? Doesn't sad bad at all.

Did you?

Overview
U.S. GDP growth will slow to 2.1% in 2019 from 3% in 2018. It will be 2% in 2020 and 1.8% in 2021. That's according to the most recent forecast released at the Federal Open Market Committee meeting on June 19, 2019. The projected slowdown in 2019 and beyond is a side effect of the trade war, a key component of Trump's economic policies.