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

notobtuse

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: »

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.

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

MadYaker

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?

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.

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.

MadYaker

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.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

Tell me again how impeachment will strengthen Trump.

Not into repeating myself if i can help it, thanks

SJW Lover

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.

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.

mcmoustache

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.

SJW Lover

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

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

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

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

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.

mcmoustache

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

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.

mcmoustache

Penn wrote: »

Even if true (not doubting, just haven't heard anything about where you're getting that from),

It's doing the rounds on r/the_donald and it's based on a screenshot of a tweet by some guy.

I'm not saying that it's not legit, of course, just providing a source that was conspicuously missing from the post that introduced this theory.

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.

SJW Lover

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

SJW Lover

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.

Penn

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.

mcmoustache

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

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.

mcmoustache

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.

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

Penn

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

Overheal wrote: »

You've lost me here.

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

Penn

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.