President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

SJW Lover wrote: »

In public would be this:

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

I'm not sure what a video of a midget in a furry costume and a naked obese drunkard fighting in a Tesco is trying to say but it has little bearing on the fact that Trump has already come out and said in public that he is looking for help in the election from foreign governments.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

I'd be willing to bet real money that Trump will not be impeached.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

1:30 I have a lot of options on China. If they don't do what we want, we have tremendous, eh, tremendous power.

2:00 Likewise China should start an investigation into the Bidens.

Right there, impeachable offense.

Also from the transcript...

Kurt Volker: "Good lunch - thanks. Heard from White House - assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate/"get to the bottom of what happened" in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow- kurt"

SJW Lover wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet real money that Trump will not be impeached.

You think he's going to turn this around somehow?

His approval is going down and support for impeachment keeps rising. In order for him to avoid impeachment, he needs to reverse that. How do you imagine he'll do that.

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm not sure what a video of a midget in a furry costume and a naked obese drunkard fighting in a Tesco is trying to say but it has little bearing on the fact that Trump has already come out and said in public that he is looking for help in the election from foreign governments.

Trump didnt say he was looking for help in an election from a foreign government. He asked that the Ukraine look into Biden's son. A guy who was discharged from the navy for taking cocaine and then months later was put on the board of a Ukrainian energy company with zero experience in said industry on a stipend of $50k a month while his dad was Vice President. That, on its own, stinks. Then, when there was a potential investigation into that Ukrainian energy company, his father admitted openly to holding back huge monies until the prosecutor was fired. If you cannot see the inherent corruption in that then i have nothing more to say to you. Trump asked them to look into it. Because the Dems are stupid enough to put forward Biden as a candidate does not absolve him from investigation.

mcmoustache wrote: »

You think he's going to turn this around somehow?

His approval is going down and support for impeachment keeps rising. In order for him to avoid impeachment, he needs to reverse that. How do you imagine he'll do that.

You were saying the exact same thing pre-Mueller Report and how did that go for you? Mueller going to still bring down the Donald?

SJW Lover wrote: »

You were saying the exact same thing pre-Mueller Report and how did that go for you? Mueller going to still bring down the Donald?

Tell me again how impeachment will strengthen Trump.

Penn

SJW Lover wrote: »

Trump didnt say he was looking for help in an election from a foreign government. He asked that the Ukraine look into Biden's son.

Specifically because Biden was likely to be Trump's election opponent and he could therefore use the investigation to tarnish Biden himself.

Maybe the allegations against the Bidens are true. Don't know. Doesn't excuse Trump's reasoning behind asking the Ukraine to specifically investigate his political opponent in order to have an affect on the next Presidential election, which is an illegal act.

Penn wrote: »

Specifically because Biden was likely to be Trump's election opponent and he could therefore use the investigation to tarnish Biden himself.

Maybe the allegations against the Bidens are true. Don't know. Doesn't excuse Trump's reasoning behind asking the Ukraine to specifically investigate his political opponent in order to have an affect on the next Presidential election, which is an illegal act.

First of all, they are true as there is video evidence of him boasting about doing that exact thing. It is beyond debate. He has said he did it.

If you are willing to accept that the allegations are true then it is completely reasonable to ask for assistance in investigating it. As of today, Biden is unlikely to be his election opponent as Elizabeth Warren is, apparently, killing it in the polls. The argument that Trump was doing it to dig up dirt on an election opponent would be correct if Biden held the Democratic nomination and was in a head to head. That is not the case.

The above allied to the fact that the "whistleblower" remains anonymous, didnt actually gather the evidence himself/herself and is relying on what he/she has been told etc means that the case for impeachment is weak. Given the make-up of the Houses it is weakened further. Trump will not be impeached for this. What will happen is a light will be shone on shady dealings within Ukraine and that is going to hurt the Dems. I was wondering why they would shoot themselves in the foot on this one but Pelosi's family involvement, if true, would explain why she was so trigger happy.

You seem reasonable on this and not totally partisan. Believe it or not i am the same. Trump has a myriad of huge faults. I am very surprised something corrupt hasnt shown up given who i thought he was when he went into office and i assumed something shady would turn up. But here we are nearly in 2020 and the Dems have been reduced to this.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Tell me again how impeachment will strengthen Trump.

Not into repeating myself if i can help it, thanks

If Trump believes Biden’s family have questions to answer then why didn’t he refer to American authorities instead of asking a foreign power to get involved and then threaten to withhold assistance to that country? That’s a crime and you can say it isn’t for various reasons but it is. It makes no difference if Biden isn’t the chosen candidate yet. Whether or not he’ll be impeached remains to be seen but the fact that he’s clearly broken the law here isn’t up for debate anymore.

Zubeneschamali

SJW Lover wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet real money that Trump will not be impeached.

I think it is likely he won't be convicted in the Senate, the Senate republicans are shameless as the Garland affair shows.

But he is certain to be impeached in the House.

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

Specifically because Biden was likely to be Trump's election opponent and he could therefore use the investigation to tarnish Biden himself.

If Trump could have a picked one of the democrats to run against, he'd pick Biden, and so the notion that he would try and force him out of the race is farcical.

Maybe the allegations against the Bidens are true. Don't know. Doesn't excuse Trump's reasoning behind asking the Ukraine to specifically investigate his political opponent in order to have an affect on the next Presidential election, which is an illegal act.

This is a ridiculous narrative. Biden was seen boasting publically about how he threatened to withhold $1bln in US aid from the Ukraine unless they fired a prosecutor. Text book quid pro quo and Trump would be negligent as President of the United States if he not ask the new president of Ukraine to investigate it.

It doesn't matter who the hell Biden is. The bizarre view that if someone is running for president, the current POTUS can't call for them to be investigated, even if they are caught on tape admitting to a crime? It's laughable.

And it speaks volumes that the democrats, along with their leftist allies worldwide, are far more concerned with a POTUS calling for an investigation, than they are about an ex Vice President admitting to a quid pro quo involving a billion dollars of aid, and also intimating that the POTUS at the time, had no problem with him doing so either.

If you all really cared about political opponents misusing power, then I suggest you focus on the investigations of John Durham and Bill Barr, as what they are investigating is real election interference by political opponents. Which Obama's DOJ took part in also, and where a smear campaign was undertaken to sway the electorate, and when that wasn't successful, efforts were upgraded to try an topple the POTUS from office from within.

This is the real story. Not nonsense about the president using the word 'though' on a bloody phone call.

You’re very good at being disingenuous Pete. If Biden has questions to answer then why hasn’t Trump started an actual investigation? You’re saying it’s negligence to not investigate this well guess what Trumps government aren’t investigating it.

Appealing to foreign entities of any sort to get assistance in relation to a US election is a crime, trump has done this twice in the last few days. The presidential election is an election in which Biden is trying to run and trump has asked two foreign powers to investigate him, it seems like a crime to me?

alastair

There’s no quid pro quo in Biden’s actions. Holding aid back until corruption is addressed is not self-serving. If you’re looking for an actual instance of quid pro quo, you have it in Trumps actions. No military gear for you unless you get me some dirt on my political opponent, who’s polling better than I am.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6189a2c3-4801-46e4-898a-f512d9ed5d17

Zubeneschamali

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If Trump could have a picked one of the democrats to run against, he'd pick Biden, and so the notion that he would try and force him out of the race is farcical.

Trump didn't plan to drive him out of the race, he was planning to use this dirt to beat him since he was front runner for the nomination.

He already has "socialist" for Bernie and "Pocahontas" for Warren, but all he had on Biden was a few gaffes.

Also, Biden is part of the Obama circle, and Trump hates, hates, hates Obama.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

The accusations were so weak that Chairman Schiff couldn't present the details to the American public without lying and manufacturing so-called evidence in order to present it as an impeachable offense. In normal circumstances it would be a perjury so serious that it would have landed any witness testifying before him in jail. But they're Democrat congressman and women… I guess that gives them the credentials to lie about serious matters however much they want.

Zubeneschamali

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And it speaks volumes that the democrats, along with their leftist allies worldwide, are far more concerned with a POTUS calling for an investigation, than they are about an ex Vice President admitting to a quid pro quo involving a billion dollars of aid, and also intimating that the POTUS at the time, had no problem with him doing so either.

The GOP had no problem with Biden getting that prosecutor fired at the time, either.

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.

So all a criminal needs to do is run for president of the US and they are suddenly off limits to any investigation over nefarious crimes they’ve committed?

notobtuse wrote: »

So all a criminal needs to do is run for president of the US and they are suddenly off limits to any investigation over nefarious crimes they’ve committed?

If the Biden’s have questions to answer then why hasn’t trump or the attorney general announced an investigation?

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.

This is possibly the biggest sh*t show ever in US politics. Democrats wanted to impeach Trump for colluding with Russia, only to discover that it was the Democrats who were colluding with Russia. Now Democrats have been elevated by some fantasy tale that Trump committed a quid pro quo with Ukraine, only to learn it was actually their presidential front-runner, Joe Biden, who was strong-arming Ukraine with the threat of withholding funds. Yet nothing happens to the real criminals in these matters... I guess simply because they’re Democrats.

notobtuse wrote: »

This is possibly the biggest sh*t show ever in US politics. Democrats wanted to impeach Trump for colluding with Russia, only to discover that it was the Democrats who were colluding with Russia. Now Democrats have been elevated by some fantasy tale that Trump committed a quid pro quo with Ukraine, only to learn it was actually their presidential front-runner, Joe Biden, who was strong-arming Ukraine with the threat of withholding funds. Yet nothing happens to the real criminals in these matters... I guess simply because they’re Democrats.

Did you not see the video of trump asking China to investigate Biden? Why is asking foreign powers to do this instead of doing it himself?

Gwen Cooper

notobtuse wrote: »

This is possibly the biggest sh*t show ever in US politics. Democrats wanted to impeach Trump for colluding with Russia, only to discover that it was the Democrats who were colluding with Russia.

Wait, what? Do you have an actual legitimate source for that claim? Did I miss something? I admit I didn't pay much attention to it in the last few months, but I think I'd notice that.

MadYaker wrote: »

You’re very good at being disingenuous Pete. If Biden has questions to answer then why hasn’t Trump started an actual investigation? You’re saying it’s negligence to not investigate this well guess what Trumps government aren’t investigating it.

Appealing to foreign entities of any sort to get assistance in relation to a US election is a crime, trump has done this twice in the last few days. The presidential election is an election in which Biden is trying to run and trump has asked two foreign powers to investigate him, it seems like a crime to me?

First of all Trump can't start an investigation. He can only request others do their jobs.

Gee, I guess if I decided to rob a bank I should also run for president of the US so no investigation can take place.

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Wait, what? Do you have an actual legitimate source for that claim? Did I miss something? I admit I didn't pay much attention to it in the last few months, but I think I'd notice that.

It's been in the news, ad nauseum. The Steele dossier, paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, on Trump was fabricated with the use of Russian disinformation, and that collusion with the Russians served as the basis for the FISA spying warrants on Trump's campaign and then the Mueller investigation once Trump became president.

weisses

notobtuse wrote: »

The accusations were so weak that Chairman Schiff couldn't present the details to the American public without lying and manufacturing so-called evidence in order to present it as an impeachable offense. In normal circumstances it would be a perjury so serious that it would have landed any witness testifying before him in jail. But they're Democrat congressman and women… I guess that gives them the credentials to lie about serious matters however much they want.

The transcript of the phone call released by the white house is enough to start impeachment on .... simples

noel1980

alastair wrote: »

There’s no quid pro quo in Biden’s actions. Holding aid back until corruption is addressed is not self-serving. If you’re looking for an actual instance of quid pro quo, you have it in Trumps actions. No military gear for you unless you get me some dirt on my political opponent, who’s polling better than I am.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6189a2c3-4801-46e4-898a-f512d9ed5d17

WHAT?

He held back aid until a [not corrupt] prosecutor that was investigating his son was fired by the Ukraine govt. 1.5 billion I believe.

alastair wrote: »

Until corruption is addressed

May I ask what corruption? The corruption of a tough but fair prosecutor investigating quid pro Joe's son for actual corruption?

weisses wrote: »

The transcript of the phone call released by the white house is enough to start impeachment on .... simples

It really is that simple. Asking a foreign government for a political favour is illegal and since Trump cannot be tried while in office, impeachment is the only remedy available.

It's what makes the attempts at obfuscation and whataboutery so silly looking.

alastair wrote: »

There’s no quid pro quo in Biden’s actions. Holding aid back until corruption is addressed is not self-serving. If you’re looking for an actual instance of quid pro quo, you have it in Trumps actions. No military gear for you unless you get me some dirt on my political opponent, who’s polling better than I am.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6189a2c3-4801-46e4-898a-f512d9ed5d17

So the US during Obama’s term held back billions from every country where corruption was suspected? Or just those countries where a matter like Biden’s son potentially going to jail existed?

And tell me, where did that over $1 Billion given to Ukraine, by the Obama administration, go? Seems any president after that debacle would reconsider giving more money until corruption was addressed.