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

duploelabs

mcmoustache wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, Mulvaney was given a spanking by Sekulow and made to clarify that the quid pro quo was not about the DNC Server. Definitely not the server. No mention of Biden. I'm confused. Whet the fcuk is this sh!t?

'We didn’t receive any messages and Captain Blackadder definitely did not shoot the delicious plump breasted pigeon, sir' - Baldric

Cody montana

NEW: Laura Cooper, Pentagon official in charge of Ukraine policy, testifies before impeachment panel today.

She pushed to lift hold on military $$$.

She knew concerns about Ukr. "corruption" were not legit.

Her testimony could prove damaging to Trump.

James Brown

drunkmonkey wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHqgbK0Em8w

Can't wait until this whole crap show backfires spectacularly on the dims. Just another few weeks to wait.

Barr is a paid and bought for puppet.
If you had one ounce of feeling for the U.S. and it's democratic system of government you might not revel in the idea of the Democrats failing.

Outlaw Pete

Cody montana wrote: »

She knew concerns about Ukr. "corruption" were not legit.

Hhhmm, well sure will be interesting to hear her testimony, as Ukraine for sure has a problem with corruption and some there for sure meddled with the 2016 election.

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/publication-of-manafort-payments-violated-law-interfered-in-us-election-kyiv-court-rules.html

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hhhmm, well sure will be interesting to hear her testimony, as Ukraine for sure has a problem with corruption and some there for sure muddled with the 2016 election.

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/publication-of-manafort-payments-violated-law-interfered-in-us-election-kyiv-court-rules.html

This the conspiracy theory, debunked theory, Trump deems important enough to raise with the Ukrainian President? The man's a joke. We can't take what Trump does or says as legitimate. He even contradicts himself ffs..

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hhhmm, well sure will be interesting to hear her testimony, as Ukraine for sure has a problem with corruption and some there for sure muddled with the 2016 election.

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/publication-of-manafort-payments-violated-law-interfered-in-us-election-kyiv-court-rules.html

Maybe you could explain the crowdstrike server stuff for me then. I'm all ears.

Overheal

mcmoustache wrote: »

Maybe you could explain the crowdstrike server stuff for me then. I'm all ears.

Conspiracies forum, tbh

Outlaw Pete

Yawn. I don't think I ever seen so many people seeing what they want to see before as is seen when it involves Donald Trump.

Biden is caught on camera bragging about threatening to withhold $1billion in aid as a result of what himself and the Obama administration deem to be corruption within Ulkraine, to the extent that they insist their top prosecutor is fired before the money is released ... this isn't challenged at all by the left, despite it being a clear quid pro quo, as per their own definition.

Trump however dare not raise the issue of corruption in Ulkraine though, if he does he's crazy, deluded, sure it's all a conspiracy theory, what a fool.

Double standards how are ya.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Biden is caught on camera bragging about threatening to withhold $1billion in aid as a result of what himself and the Obama administration deem to be corruption within Ulkraine, to the extent that they he insists their top prosecutor is fired before the money is released ... this isn't challenged at all by the left, despite it being a clear quid pro quo, as per their own definition.

It's not challenged because it had bipartisan and international support as a policy. You keep repeating this and the difference has been explained to you. It's like dealing with a Seinfeld character.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump however dare not raise the issue of corruption in Ulkraine, if he does he's crazy, deluded, sure it's all a conspiracy theory, what a fool.

Double standards how are ya.

If he was just concerned about corruption in Ukraine, I doubt there wouldn't be any legal issue although plenty would rightly point at the hypocrisy. It was the specific request to investigate a political rival that took it into the territory of illegality.

You can try as hard as you like not to understand the difference but I will point this out every time for the benefit of others.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yawn. I don't think I ever seen so many people seeing what they want to see before as is seen when it involves Donald Trump.

Biden is caught on camera bragging about threatening to withhold $1billion in aid as a result of what himself and the Obama administration deem to be corruption within Ulkraine, to the extent that they insist their top prosecutor is fired before the money is released ... this isn't challenged at all by the left, despite it being a clear quid pro quo, as per their own definition.

Don't see an issue.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump however dare not raise the issue of corruption in Ulkraine though, if he does he's crazy, deluded, sure it's all a conspiracy theory, what a fool.

Double standards how are ya.

One, as you wrote it, is a government refusing money unless corruption is tackled.
The other is an administration trying to dig dirt on a political opponent based on a debunked conspiracy theory and withholding tax dollars until Ukraine complies. That's different comrade.

For double standards both incidences would need be the same.

Any word from Notobtuse? I'd say he was all, "Ah ffs..." after Mulvaney's press call.

Odhinn

Mattis, having a laugh.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-50094679/james-mattis-mocks-donald-trump-at-gala-dinner

TheRepentent

Odhinn wrote: »

Mattis, having a laugh.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-50094679/james-mattis-mocks-donald-trump-at-gala-dinner

I earnt my spurs on the battlefield , Donald Trump got his off a doctor

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

James Brown

TheRepentent wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

"The only military commander he doesn't think is over rated is Colonel Sanders"

Overheal

Courts throw out some DOJ redactions from the Mueller grand jury documentation

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-judge-doj-improperly-redacted-names-of-individuals-who-didnt-testify-before-muellers-grand-jury/

Congress and the public will now learn the names of potential witnesses in the mueller probe (particularly to accounts of obstruction of justice) that were ultimately not interviewed, which where the courts are concerned meant they fell under the standard that stipulated the redactions.

Professor Moriarty

Overheal wrote: »

Courts throw out some DOJ redactions from the Mueller grand jury documentation

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-judge-doj-improperly-redacted-names-of-individuals-who-didnt-testify-before-muellers-grand-jury/

Congress and the public will now learn the names of potential witnesses in the mueller probe (particularly to accounts of obstruction of justice) that were ultimately not interviewed, which where the courts are concerned meant they fell under the standard that stipulated the redactions.

So they're redacting the redactions.

Overheal

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So they're redacting the redactions.

Declassifying the redactions

Professor Moriarty

Overheal wrote: »

Declassifying the redactions

You couldn't just leave it alone.

Beasty

Odhinn wrote: »

Mattis, having a laugh.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-50094679/james-mattis-mocks-donald-trump-at-gala-dinner

TheRepentent wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

"The only military commander he doesn't think is over rated is Colonel Sanders"

What has this got to do with the impeachment enquiry? It's a rhetorical question BTW

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Any word from Notobtuse? I'd say he was all, "Ah ffs..." after Mulvaney's press call.

Final warning - if you comment again about other posters rather than discussing the underlying topic you will, at a minimum, be threadbanned

Any questions, PM me

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This the conspiracy theory, debunked theory...

Link please.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Link please.

We've been over this Pete many times

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-pushing-baseless-conspiracy-about-bidens-china-here-s-what-n1062551

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-invention-of-the-conspiracy-theory-on-biden-and-ukraine

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html

Overheal

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You couldn't just leave it alone.

Professor Moriarty

Overheal wrote: »

?

Just joking.

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

One, as you wrote it, is a government refusing money unless corruption is tackled.

The other is an administration trying to dig dirt on a political opponent based on a debunked conspiracy theory and withholding tax dollars until Ukraine complies. That's different comrade.

See this is the crux of the issue .....

You say Trump was trying to "dig dirt" but that's just your narrative (or to be more precise, Schiff's narrative) about that phone call. There is nothing whatsoever to back up that claim though. On the contrary and yesterday I pointed this out in great detail but was told that this was just "complicating" the issue.

You see, if Trump was trying to "dig dirt" (as opposed to merely wanting Zelensky to cooperate with with Barr's investigation) then Zelensky would not have responded to the request by saying:

"I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly"

I mean, who would respond to a request for them to "dig up dirt" by saying they would do it openly and candidly? Makes no sense.

For double standards both incidences would need be the same.

Well, they have a lot in common. Approved aid to the Ukraine was temporarily withheld for a time and the reason cited by both Trump and Biden concerned elements of corruption. Now, Trump didn't request that anyone was fired that had been involved in investigating a company which his son sat on the board of or anything, and where he earned a small fortune, but there's enough similarities to highlight the hypocrisy of the left for sure.

Cody montana

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/1183691527429726208

How did that turn out for you?

mad muffin

duploelabs wrote: »

We've been over this Pete many times

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-pushing-baseless-conspiracy-about-bidens-china-here-s-what-n1062551

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-invention-of-the-conspiracy-theory-on-biden-and-ukraine

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html

Oh sure. Debunked. Baseless. Conspiracy theory.

What did we learn today from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent?

State Department Official Raised Concerns About Hunter Biden in Ukraine

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent told Congress on Tuesday that in 2015 he raised concerns about Hunter Biden sitting Burisma Holding’s board.

The office of then-Vice President Joe Biden brushed him off.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/10/state-department-official-raised-concerns-about-hunter-biden-in-ukraine/

The truth will out. It always does.

I’m sure at this stage Nancy is having a meltdown and Schift (I love how McCarthy keeps calling him Schift) is banning his head against the sound absorbing wall inside the SCIF.

Blueshoe

All arguing and debating about this and that.
While in reality we only hear dribs and drabs and the opinions of "higher up" types who have an agenda one way or the other.

We are ants. We don't really know what is going on in the lives of the rich and powerful.

Squabbling over scraps and half truths. I'm guilty of it myself too

mad muffin

Cody montana wrote: »

How did that turn out for you?

The FBI are fighting its release. They want extensive redactions. So don’t get too excited just yet.

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

We've been over this Pete many times

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-pushing-baseless-conspiracy-about-bidens-china-here-s-what-n1062551

That's about the Bidens. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what I linked to.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-invention-of-the-conspiracy-theory-on-biden-and-ukraine

That also does not 'debunk' what I linked to.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html

That does not 'debunk' what I linked to either.

peddlelies

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That does not 'debunk' what I linked to either.

You're trying to convince people who believe Russian energy execs donate hundreds of millions of dollars to charities out of the goodness of their hearts.

Actually they're not that stupid, but they sure do enjoy pretending they are. Moral high ground and all that.

Blueshoe

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's about the Bidens. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what I linked to.

That also does not 'debunk' what I linked to.

That does not 'debunk' what I linked to either.

That's more of it.
CNN
NBC
Sure it's one sided muck.

The next guy will quote Fox ,Town hall or some other garbage to counter your "argument"