President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Yep really threw that Queen in chess jail alright

Overheal wrote: »

Yep really threw that Queen in chess jail alright

Speaking of chess, what ever happened to QAnon?

mcmoustache wrote: »

Speaking of chess, what ever happened to QAnon?

I don't even wanna speculate

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm just going to have to assume here that you're serious. Anyway, why would McCarthy try to weaken Trump?

I was reliably informed that impeachment will strengthen Trump by a smart man on the internet.

It’s all about the election. The impeachment is just a sideshow and a means of the Democrat media handmaidens to condemn Trump every day and every minute of the day in hopes voter support for Trump will diminish and Trump will lose the election.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

And the response:

It's all quite simple really. I don't know what the fuss is about.

So she opted for a kangaroo court. If that's her position I guess they'll stop trying to get Trump's tax returns. I had a hard time saying that with a straight face.

notobtuse wrote: »

It’s all about the election. The impeachment is just a sideshow and a means of the Democrat media handmaidens to condemn Trump every day and every minute of the day in hopes voter support for Trump will diminish and Trump will lose the election.

If you agree this is about the election: Trump should be impeached, for trying to get dirt on his electoral rival.

notobtuse wrote: »

So she opted for a kangaroo court.

The trial occurs in the Senate, not the House.

Volker says he warned Guliani that misconduct accusations against biden were not credible https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/this-is-when-the-inquiry-gets-real-former-us-special-envoy-to-ukraine-testifies-in-impeachment-probe-today/2019/10/03/51365c1b-5a01-4e44-872a-299b67949a5e_story.html

Boggles wrote: »

Sure your only "new".

:pac:

It's "you're". And, yes, i am. Try having a kick of the ball rather than the man, good ladeen.

Been away for a while. Did anyone ask Xi to investigate anyone in return for not speaking out against a communist party attacking a bunch of people wanting freedom in Hong Kong or anything like that?

noel1980

Overheal wrote: »

If you agree this is about the election: Trump should be impeached, for trying to get dirt on his electoral rival.

Digging up dirt is literally all the democrats ever do. They're at it 24/7.

Pot, Kettle.

noel1980 wrote: »

Digging up dirt is literally all the democrats ever do. They're at it 24/7.

Pot, Kettle.

52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.

(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b)“Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's all quite simple really. I don't know what the fuss is about.

If Republicans had launched a formal impeachment inquiry into Obama at some stage during his tenure, I bet you'd have been humming a much different tune.

In any case, reports tonight saying Trump will be sending a similar letter to Pelosi tomorrow informing her that the White House won't comply with the "impeachment inquiry" until the full House formally votes on it, so we'll soon see who's right and who's wrong I guess.

Outlaw Pete

Trump calls out Pelosi for saying in an interview that Schiff didn't make up what he said in the 'dig up dirt' parody and had in fact used the President's "own words":

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1179944461067005952

Here's the segment:

https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1179769071845265419

She's shameless.

Outlaw Pete

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

Tell me how

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

You think the opinion of an ambassador appointed by Trump is stronger evidence than the actual words of Trump during the conversation with the Ukraine president?

Swing and a miss Pete.

Not to mention that twice when it's implied to Sondland that the military aid is dependent on the investigations/statement Trump wants, Sondland suggests switching to a phone call rather than texts. And Volker, the ambassador to the Ukraine, seemed very much under the impression that the aid was dependent on Trump getting what he wanted. That being a statement and investigation into the 2016 election and Burisma (the company Hunter Biden worked for).

Vindicated me hairy hole.

Also important noting that regarding the excerpt Outlaw Pete posted, that was almost 4 weeks after the whistleblower submitted his first complaint to both the House Intelligence Committee (Adam Schiff - Dems) and the Senate Intelligence Committee (Richard Burr - GOP), so Sondland may very well have known that there was likely to be an investigation into this already when he says there was no quid pro quo.

noel1980

Overheal wrote: »

You've lost me here.

What illegal contributions were made, to whom, and from which country?

noel1980 wrote: »

You've lost me here.

What illegal contributions were made, to whom, and from which country?

The letter is dated from June. I think that was right after Trump announced in an interview that he would accept information on a political rival from a foreign country, so the chairperson of the Federal Election Committee released that statement pointing out that that would be illegal.

Trump is now showing that he was asking the Ukraine to start an investigation into the person who would most likely be the Democratic nominee in the next Presidential election. That violates the law as noted in that statement by the FEC.

noel1980

Penn wrote: »

The letter is dated from June. I think that was right after Trump announced in an interview that he would accept information on a political rival from a foreign country, so the chairperson of the Federal Election Committee released that statement pointing out that that would be illegal.

Trump is now showing that he was asking the Ukraine to start an investigation into the person who would most likely be the Democratic nominee in the next Presidential election. That violates the law as noted in that statement by the FEC.

Thanks for clarifying, I've been ignoring the news for the past few days as I've been busy. I though some new story had broke about Trump receiving actual contributions (as in money), but it looks like we're still talking about these imaginary fairy-tale "contributions".

Cheers

Cash can be exchanged for goods and services.

Trump was asking for the Bidens to be investigated. That's a service and an illegal one.

That was bad enough of course but the text exchanges were released and it's clear that the envoy to Ukraine viewed the investigation as something that Trump required as a condition for releasing the funds.

More's going to keep coming out anyway so it may be best to move to the "OK, he did it. So what" talking point because every piece of of evidence including Trump's mouth is pointing in the same direction.

I initially thought it was possible that Nancy Pelosi brought the impeachment as a means of getting rid of Biden from the Dems primary race. Actually, it turns out Nancy was thinking much closer to home. Her son, Paul, became a board member of gas company Viscoil in 2017 which does energy business in Ukraine. Nancy even appeared in one of the company promotional videos herself. Seems like there may be a lot of things going on in Ukraine which Dems do not want looked into.

You didn't think it had anything to do with Trump looking for help in an election from a foreign government?

I mean, he's even doing it in public now and everything.

SJW Lover wrote: »

I initially thought it was possible that Nancy Pelosi brought the impeachment as a means of getting rid of Biden from the Dems primary race. Actually, it turns out Nancy was thinking much closer to home. Her son, Paul, became a board member of gas company Viscoil in 2017 which does energy business in Ukraine. Nancy even appeared in one of the company promotional videos herself. Seems like there may be a lot of things going on in Ukraine which Dems do not want looked into.

Even if true (not doubting, just haven't heard anything about where you're getting that from), what does that have to do with election interference?

The issue isn't having business dealings in the Ukraine, it's about requesting or accepting foreign influence in order to affect a US election. That's what Trump is accused of (and pretty much explicitly did on the White House lawn yesterday). Regardless of his claims about corruption in general in the Ukraine, he specifically and repeatedly asked them to investigate Joe Biden and his family, at a time when Biden was (and to some polls still is) the favourite for the Democratic Nomination to run against Trump in the next election, and at a time when Trump ordered military aid supposed to be given to the Ukraine to be held back for unspecified reasons.

Whatever you're accusing Pelosi of does not equate.

Penn wrote: »

Even if true (not doubting, just haven't heard anything about where you're getting that from), what does that have to do with election interference?

The issue isn't having business dealings in the Ukraine, it's about requesting or accepting foreign influence in order to affect a US election. That's what Trump is accused of (and pretty much explicitly did on the White House lawn yesterday). Regardless of his claims about corruption in general in the Ukraine, he specifically and repeatedly asked them to investigate Joe Biden and his family, at a time when Biden was (and to some polls still is) the favourite for the Democratic Nomination to run against Trump in the next election, and at a time when Trump ordered military aid supposed to be given to the Ukraine to be held back for unspecified reasons.

Whatever you're accusing Pelosi of does not equate.

I'm not accusing Pelosi of anything yet. Certainly not what Biden has been accused of and has admitted on video to doing. But Ukraine is a very corrupt country and was before and prior to the events that took place on the Maidan in 2014. It is interesting as there is nowhere near enough on this issue to impeach Trump so i initially assumed that this was a subtle hit-job on Biden. Turns out that may not be the case at all given Pelosi has her own ties to the gas industry in Ukraine which i dont think anyone can doubt is a murky business in a very murky part of the world.

mcmoustache wrote: »

I mean, he's even doing it in public now and everything.

In public would be this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4

Zubeneschamali

SJW Lover wrote: »

It is interesting as there is nowhere near enough on this issue to impeach Trump

Pelosi resisted pressure to impeach Trump based on all sorts of stuff earlier (the Mueller report, the flagrant breaches of the emoulments clause, paying off Stormy Daniels in defiance of campaign laws...) but she went for the Ukraine scandal as a reason for impeachment in a hot minute. It's a slam dunk.

And then the White house releases the transcript proving it.

And then we get Volker's text dump proving it.

And then Trump repeats the offence on the White House lawn for the cameras.

Impeachment is absolutely guaranteed, and McConnell has already said he'll hold a trial in the Senate when Trump is impeached in the House, which will force every Republican to either convict Trump or vote that Trump flagrantly breaking the law is very cool and legal. All good for 2020.