Matt Barrett wrote: » He asked the Ukraine, (later China and previously Russia) to look into a political rival. The only thing up for debate is if he was offering something in return.
mcmoustache wrote: » No. You're confusing a wish with reality. The house has the sole power of impeachment, as far as the constitution goes. From This means that the house has the sole power. What this means is that the house has the sole power of impeachment. In other words, the house has the sole power of impeachment. Not shared power or power according to the wishes of the President. Instead, the house has the sole power of impeachment. If the house didn't have the sole power of impeachment, I suspect that the constitution would have mentioned it.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » 30 seconds before asking China to investigate the Bidens (plural!) he said the USA has tremendous power when dealing with China on trade issues. Very clear threat followed by request for personal help. Clearly illegal, and all on camera.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » lol. Overly complicate it? With what, the truth? :P Look, you made the following assertion: In response I went through each of the allegations made by the "whistleblower" in their complaint to show how, far from corroborating the serious allegations which they made, the phone call transcript actually disproves them and vindicates Trump from the accusations. The complaint is largely all the inferences others have made, to not just the phone call, but articles in the media also, and not just inferences, but second and third hand ones too.
mcmoustache wrote: » He asked a foreign government for help investigating a political rival and only a political rival. That has been confirmed by the FEC as illegal. That's what kicked off the investigations.
notobtuse wrote: » Not personal help... help in investigating what appears to be criminal activity. There's a big difference.
mcmoustache wrote: » He didn't ask them to investigate criminal activity though. He asked them to investigate Biden. It's right there in the transcript notes.
notobtuse wrote: » Apparently Bidens and Criminal Activity seem to be synonymous.
notobtuse wrote: » Yes the House has the sole power of impeachment but the House is made up of two primary parties... not one! Are Republicans allowed to call witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry? Are Republicans allowed to cross examine witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry? I think a picture might have leaked out of one of the Republicans allowed to sit in on the inquiry.
mad muffin wrote: » Bad faith? Like Schiff pressuring the witness’s to get them to corroborate his narrative? Talk about… “it takes some serious twisting of reality to incriminate Trump.” His own hubris got him entangled in the Democrats web of lies and deceit. He should have purged all Obama holdovers when he took office and gotten someone trusted who knew how to navigate the swamp to hire untainted staff.
There Is Definite Hanky-Panky Going On”: The Fantastically Profitable Mystery of the Trump Chaos Trades
Zubeneschamali wrote: » https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1179783410820292608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ffec-chair-ellen-weintraub-foreign-interference-trump_n_5d961996e4b0da7f66231326
cnocbui wrote: » Nothing on the impeachment table is going to hold a candle to this:https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/the-mystery-of-the-trump-chaos-trades?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=vanity-fair&utm_social-type=earnedhttps://twitter.com/WilliamCohan/status/1184593056428941312 I have thought for over a year that Trump was using the presidency as a business venture for personal gain. I hope there are some investigative journalists who can ferret out the details.
notobtuse wrote: » I take it that will probably be the Democrats next reason as the basis of impeachment since all their other reasons have fallen apart in this witch-hunt.
cnocbui wrote: » I have thought for over a year that Trump was using the presidency as a business venture for personal gain. I hope there are some investigative journalists who can ferret out the details.
mcmoustache wrote: » Was he investigated or indicted when I wasn't looking? I had a look on the google and couldn't find any records. Perhaps you could back up your assertion?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I think Schiff and Pelosi are actually starting to believe that Schiff's mafioso parody of what Trump said, is what he actually said. They are confusing what they inferred from what Trump said, to what he did say, as are all leftists it would seem, as when you go on Twitter and read their comments, they are all using the lines Schiff said in the parody, not lines which Trump said in the call. Lines such as 'I want you to make up dirt' etc. If all they have is that call, then is whole thing is a farce, and they know it, which is why Schiff is moving goalposts now and saying there doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. Same how when Russia-Trump collusion fell apart, they moved quickly on an allegation of obstruction.
“The most important thread that we’re teasing out on all of this is the fact that the president of the United States has been running a shadow foreign policy with Rudy Giuliani, who is a private citizen. He has no credentials, and it is confusing our allies around the world - and thrilling our adversaries.”
Zubeneschamali wrote: » After Mueller's investigation, 34 people were indicted, 8 have pleaded guilty or been convicted so far. The hunt seems to be finding a lot of witches.
notobtuse wrote: » Not personal help... help in investigating what appears to be criminal activity. There's a big difference. Or is it you contention all someone has to do to escape investigations into criminal activity is to run for president?
notobtuse wrote: » So if Ukraine didn't fire the official investigating a company Biden’s son is on the board of, he’s not going to give them $1 billion in aid. If that is not a quid pro quo, then I do not know what
Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI. Shokin's office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau.The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.
As I stated earlier, I understood from President Trump, at the May 23, 2019 White House debriefing, that he wanted the Inaugural Delegation to talk with Mr. Giuliani concerning our efforts to arrange a White House meeting for President Zelensky. Taking direction from the President, as I must, I spoke with Mr. Giuliani for that limited purpose. In these short conversations, Mr. Giuliani emphasized that the President wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into anticorruption issues. Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two anticorruption investigatory topics of importance for the President.
mcmoustache wrote: » Sondland, in his opening testimony, seems to be throwing Trump, Giuliani and Pompeo under the proverbial bus. There are a lot of gaps in his account and there are also some parts that are difficult to believe such as him only copping on to what Rudi was up to two weeks after the information was made public. The committee has a lot of testimony from others already so it should be easy enough to get the truth out of him.Incidentally, this is actually one of the reasons for keeping the sessions closed at this phase - if Sondland knew the testimony of others in advance, he would know what he could leave out or lie about. It's why witnesses get questioned separately in law enforcement.
