President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

is schiff not a proven liar?

All politicians are proven liars. This does not retract from the facts.

Overheal wrote: »

If such a situation were to legitimately arise the best course of action would be self-recusal. Had Trump really been interested in corruption in the Ukraine, especially to do with Biden mentioned focally, then he shouldn't have touched it with a barge pole, it should have been referred to the DOJ and State Dept to manage apolitically. That's not what happened here in the least.

now i'm beginning to understand (i think). trump reached over himself rather than giving it to the appropriate authorities.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

now i'm beginning to understand (i think). trump reached over himself rather than giving it to the appropriate authorities.

Basically. Obviously more complicated than that but yes. Instead of referring it to the DOJ/State Dept though he did one better and had his private civilian attorney act as his middleman in all this. Trump had also ordered a freeze on appropriated aid to Ukraine that coincided with all this. As far as we can tell, Trump went to considerable lengths to actively circumvent the normal US government channels for such investigative referrals.

Obama was in the hot seat in 2016 of course; the Intelligence Community was learning about Russian Interference in the election, Obama didn't want that disclosed to the public because he was worried about even the image of impropriety - a sitting president trying to swing a critical election cycle, affirming that Russia was interfering while a candidate was actively embroiled in their own Russiagate - "Russia if you can hear me" to find Hillary's deleted emails. To hear Trump tell it you'd think Obama himself was in the oval office on a pair of headphones listening to a wiretap on Trump's phones and relaying any juicy intel to the Democrats. But indeed imagine it being the norm where a sitting US president could spy on or investigate political opponents for any scurrilous reason at all, and then be intimately involved with any spying or evidence gathering. Would not be a democracy or a republic at that point.

Overheal wrote: »

Basically. Obviously more complicated than that but yes. Instead of referring it to the DOJ/State Dept though he did one better and had his private civilian attorney act as his middleman in all this. Trump had also ordered a freeze on appropriated aid to Ukraine that coincided with all this. As far as we can tell, Trump went to considerable lengths to actively circumvent the normal US government channels for such investigative referrals.

Obama was in the hot seat in 2016 of course; the Intelligence Community was learning about Russian Interference in the election, Obama didn't want that disclosed to the public because he was worried about even the image of impropriety - a sitting president trying to swing a critical election cycle, affirming that Russia was interfering while a candidate was actively embroiled in their own Russiagate - "Russia if you can hear me" to find Hillary's deleted emails. To hear Trump tell it you'd think Obama himself was in the oval office on a pair of headphones listening to a wiretap on Trump's phones and relaying any juicy intel to the Democrats. But indeed imagine it being the norm where a sitting US president could spy on or investigate political opponents for any scurrilous reason at all, and then be intimately involved with any spying or evidence gathering. Would not be a democracy or a republic at that point.

is there, or should there be, any leniency given the fact that those authorities demonstrated bias towards trump?

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

why was she never prosecuted for that? i suppose politics are politics wherever you are

Wasn't a lot there tbh. They found iirc some emails that had a 'c' relating to them and afaik none of the materials were damaging to national security and/or were discussed after some such classified intel was already leaked like the CIA drone program. I don't think they need to prove malicious intent to indict, but it would have made any sentencing relatively soft. As demonstrated before Hillary and since (even in Trumpworld) the politicians have are and will use private email to conduct official business even though they aren't supposed to.

Still, Republicans haven't called for her indictment (since 2016), and they run the DOJ at the moment. Anyone's bet on whether they would have moved to impeach her for it if she was the president elect.

is there, or should there be, any leniency given the fact that those authorities demonstrated bias towards trump?

leniency of what kind? Mueller did not find any direct, primary evidence Trump knowingly colluded with Russians to interfere in the election.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

as in the fbi (i think) investigating him illegally and all that stuff with the dossier. the court with no defendants. maybe its all fox cottswallop

That’s reportedly what the Durham report is about which is as far as some people here have mentioned is meant to be out in the near future; some news says as soon as the next 2 weeks.

I thought I read somewhere a couple weeks back that it was not meant to be out this early and that it might be a matter of months. (I wonder if they expedited their process to respond politically to this impeachment inquiry? The Republicans would never stoop to that though, surely?)

To answer your question I think the ‘leniency’ isn’t so much a leniency as it is a due process to cross examine FBI investigation during the election. Personally I don’t believe that deep state crap, I believe those agencies in practice are professional and apolitical about what they do despite being staffed by American voters no less. Investigate them for any valid reason sure go at it but tbph leave that deep state shyte at the door and argue straight facts.

MadYaker wrote: »

This thread is jokes. If Biden and democrats are so corrupt where’s the republican investigations? They control the senate so they could investigate but they aren’t. Why is that?

Projection and misdirection. In the same way as they proclaimed Hillary was corrupt despite no charges being brought after multiple investigations

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The investigation into Hillary was reopened and is still ongoing.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-administration-reportedly-steps-up-probe-into-hillary-clintons-emails-2019-09-29

Im not talking about her she's old news. why aren't the senate republicans investigating biden and co do you think?

MadYaker wrote: »

This thread is jokes. If Biden and democrats are so corrupt where’s the republican investigations? They control the senate so they could investigate but they aren’t. Why is that?

With regards to investigations: Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been investigating the alleged abuse of the FISA court by the FBI and that involves certain high profile democrats. It would appear that the FBI lied by omission multiple times to the court, first claiming Steele was a reliable source when they had evidence otherwise, then they didn't inform them that they had fired Steele for misconduct months before, and most importantly they didn't disclose that the dossier was in effect funded by the DNC. Apparently the investigation is complete now though and is going through the redaction process.

Then there is also of course the John Durham / AG Barr investigation into the origins of the 'Trump Conspired with the Russians to fix the election' hoax and it isn't looking like that will be out anytime soon as the scope of it has in fact just recently been expanded. The CIA Director during the Obama regime, John Brennan, has recently said that he is soon to be interviewed by John Durham as part of it though. Also, when Durham and Barr were recently seen in Rome the democrats immediately called for Barr to resign and claimed he was clearly just indulging Trump in his conspiracy theories re Russia. Should make interesting reading when it's done for sure and who knows, maybe they will do what the democrats did with the Mueller report and have readings on Broadway.

As for the Bidens, certain republican congressman men are investigating Joe Biden's public bragging of how when he was Vice President he had threatened to withhold $1billion in aid from the Ukraine until they fired their top prosecutor at the time, and also how Obama had apparently approved of him doing so too, but there is only so much information that they can gather within the US, so what they really need is to get Ukraine's side of the story and find out if they felt pressured to remove their prosecutor. What they should do is really get Trump to ask the President of Ukraine if they would mind cooperating with an investigation into the Bidens. Maybe even ask Trump to speak with AG Barr and see if he would look into it all.

I have a feeling though, if Trump did ask the Ukraine to contribute to an investigation into Joe Biden's comments, and all the stuff re Burisma and Hunter, the democrats would twist it and say he was really trying to get dirt on Biden to help him win in 2020 or that it was asking a foreign country to interfere in our elections. That's what they're like, they've twisted every innocuous thing he has done in the last three years to be something sinister and nefarious. He can't even call MS-13 animals without them saying he was actually referring to all immigrants. Anyway, I digress, hope that aliverates your concerns re investigations into the alleged corruption of democrats (both in and outside of the Dept of Justice).

Leftist scum.


https://twitter.com/NashvilleTea/status/1182775722483572741


This is the kinda thing which will just result in four more years for Trump.

MadYaker wrote: »

Which republican congressmen? The senate republicans don't seem interested at all does that seem odd to you? Ill do some more googling around what you wrote.

In regards to Horowitz it seems that investigation is finished and the report is forthcoming, might be interesting but that doesn't change anything that the investigation revealed. But tbh I don't think we should get into that again.

DuckDuckGo is your friend;)

mcmoustache wrote: »

Well lets hope she doesn't run someone over, start a bombing campaign or shoot up a synagogue.

The Vice reporter? Weird reply, but yeah, I guess, let's hope she does none of those awful things.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Trump supporting scum




https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-rally-punch-ohio-cincinnati-protester-dallas-frazier-a9037011.html%3famp




Video here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/02/dallas-frazier-trump-rally-protest-punch-cincinnati/

And here's a Trump supporter spitting in someones face

https://youtu.be/PwMHXunozco

Can you believe that?! :eek:

Attacking someone for just wearing an anti trump hat talking to a reporter.

Oh wait… :rolleyes:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Leftist scum.


https://twitter.com/NashvilleTea/status/1182775722483572741


This is the kinda thing which will just result in four more years for Trump.

Whomever is doing the spitting, how are they not arrested? Some kid is getting up to ten years for touching an arm and waist in the UK but in the US you can spit on people?

wow I never knew the US had socialist cities and here I thought they were the most capitalist country on the planet.