President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

duploelabs wrote: »

Hope they all get charged

They all need to be censured, as per their own “standards” on Congressional behavior.

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

One of his campaign promises was to stop funding policing / defending other nations which it seems like hes done

In the process, shafting allies left, right and centre. Except for, mysteriously, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

One of his campaign promises was to stop funding policing / defending other nations which it seems like hes done

So was Mexico paying for the wall but that's neither here nor there.

One of the early Trump talking points that was used to defend his perfect phonecall with Zelinskyy was that this was about corruption in Ukraine. Presumably because Trump cared about corruption, against all the evidence to date.

If corruption was the actual concern, cutting funding to programs addressing that corruption is the opposite of what one would do. And if having countries sort out their own problems was the reason for cutting funding, why all the shenanigans in Ukraine? The excuses make no sense.

Anyway, nobody really believed that this was about corruption and the opening statement yesterday makes it very clear what was going on.

duploelabs

Overheal wrote: »

Bizarre situation on the Hill just now.

Gaetz and his gang rushed the SCIF, where the closed hearing for Laura Cooper was being held. She’s a pentagon staffer that works on Ukrainian matters.

Clearly the Republican members of the committees coordinated with their cohorts to disrupt whatever damning testimony she was disclosing. They ran into the room with cell phones recording - a wild violation of SCIF rules, and probably breaks wiretapping and classified intel laws. Congressional police had to pause the hearing to confiscate all the devices.

It’s obstruction of justice.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/matt-gaetz-and-two-dozen-gop-lawmakers-storm-impeachment-inquiry-testimony-shut-down-secure-hearing/

Hope they all get charged

Bizarre situation on the Hill just now.

Gaetz and his gang rushed the SCIF, where the closed hearing for Laura Cooper was being held. She’s a pentagon staffer that works on Ukrainian matters.

Clearly the Republican members of the committees coordinated with their cohorts to disrupt whatever damning testimony she was disclosing. They ran into the room with cell phones recording - a wild violation of SCIF rules, and probably breaks wiretapping and classified intel laws. Congressional police had to pause the hearing to confiscate all the devices.

It’s obstruction of justice.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/matt-gaetz-and-two-dozen-gop-lawmakers-storm-impeachment-inquiry-testimony-shut-down-secure-hearing/

Eric Cartman wrote: »

One of his campaign promises was to stop funding policing / defending other nations which it seems like hes done

So why is he policing Ukrainian business law?

Eric Cartman

mcmoustache wrote: »

The whole "Trump did this because he cares about corruption" narrative is starting to fall apart now too.

It now looks like they were cutting funding from anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine and other countries.

For example:

This pattern of repeating Trump's lies only for it later to turn out that Trump was talking out of his ass has been ongoing and frequent.

If I kept believing someone, kept repeating their bullshít and kept getting found on said bullshít, I would start to ask myself whether I should be believing that someone. But that's just me.

One of his campaign promises was to stop funding policing / defending other nations which it seems like hes done

The whole "Trump did this because he cares about corruption" narrative is starting to fall apart now too.

It now looks like they were cutting funding from anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine and other countries.

For example:

For example, the administration sought to cut a program called International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement. Among the goals of the program, as described in White House budget documents, is “helping U.S. partners address threats to U.S. interests by building resilience and promoting reform in the justice and law enforcement sectors through support to new institutions and specialized offices, such as Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.”

This pattern of repeating Trump's lies only for it later to turn out that Trump was talking out of his ass has been ongoing and frequent.

If I kept believing someone, kept repeating their bullshít and kept getting found on said bullshít, I would start to ask myself whether I should be believing that someone. But that's just me.

Trump surrogates today still attacking the process. Rep Gaetz led a ‘phalanx’ into the house SCIF to decry the lack of transparency in government - absent any sense of irony that, as the party who has most often controlled Congress, they are perfectly comfortable with a facility inside the Capitol building where congressmen and only congressman can view classified information about investigations they have often sought to keep shrouded from the public. So comfortable in fact that they call it the SCIF - Secured Compartmentalized Information Facility. But only since 4 weeks ago, when Pelosi announced the start of the inquiry, did they ever appear to think there was a problem with any of this.

Meanwhile on social media the other surrogates are back to simply beating on the “trying to undo an election” mantra - as if to say Trump hasn’t enjoyed 3 years in office already and hasn’t carried about the majority of his term and has not been given ample time to carry out his agenda, even enjoying two years of Republican control in Congress where he got to appoint two Supreme Court justices. Also as if to say that impeachment is a tool that could never be used because it’s a ‘referendum’ on an election.

Which is to say that Republicans really don’t have anything new to do today but pound sand, wag the dog, and squirm. They will of course come out of the SCIF fawning about how little substance there is to the damning evidence given largely behind closed doors at this point.

And just in case people need reminding about how all this went when turnabout was fair play:

"Closed-door, transcribed interviews have been the GOP’s standard practice throughout the long-running probe, which has included just four public hearings (and Clinton’s was the first since January). Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, appearing on Meet The Press on Sunday, said private sessions don’t include “bickering” among members. Host Chuck Todd asked Gowdy whether TV cameras add to “grandstanding” on both sides of the aisle.
“What do you think, Chuck? You have been following Congress for a long time. I can just tell you the private interviews, there is never any of what you saw Thursday,” Gowdy said. He said the next two dozen interviews would be behind closed doors. “The private ones always produce better results,” He said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/after-clinton-spectacle-benghazi-panel-goes-back-behind-closed-doors/447768/

And back then they drummed up how much alarming and disturbing evidence was coming up in those hearings... all to disappear in smoke apparently.

The lies are really flimsy at this stage. At this point, Taylor's opening statement is already very damning and credible and that's before the rest of the testimony comes in. Today for example is Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defence. She just arrived for her deposition which starts at 15:00 our time (10:00 over there).

At this point, everything is pointing at this being a QPQ while nothing is pointing the other way besides self-induced ignorance of the English language.

Latest Trump defense last night became,

“There was no quid pro quo because there was no quo”

Trying to say that Ukrainians weren’t aware that the military aid was being withheld for the Burisma investigation. Turns out though, they were definitely aware, according to both news reports dated last month and based on the sworn congressional testimony of Bill Taylor yesterday: they knew it was withheld and they knew why it was held up.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trumps-ukrainians-didnt-know-quid-pro-quo-defense-completely-destroyed-by-taylor-testimony-and-wsj-report/

Meanwhile Hannity was already pulling the next one out by trying to ‘normalize’ Trump asking Zelensky to “do us a favor” by trying to say it’s just something that Trump says all the time. Just so damn unfortunate that the request for a favor is mired in such an obvious shakedown in the call itself, not to mention the QPQ was very evidently discussed outside the call, with Ukraine being made perfectly aware of the deal.

[url] https://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-defends-trump-ukraine-call-do-us-a-favor-is-just-one-of-his-go-to-phrases/[/url]

Mobster type stuff tbh, “no really my client wasn’t threatening the plaintiff, he was just casually reminiscing about how many accidents can happen in a kitchen, he always does that, it’s his go to thing”

And then, then, you have this head scratcher right here from fmr acting AG Whitaker:

”Abuse of power is not a crime”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/former-trump-acting-ag-matthew-whitaker-offers-stunning-impeachment-defense-abuse-of-power-is-not-a-crime/

Suffice to say that the impeachment defense for Donald Trump is astonishingly thin.

^^
Actually, I should point out that the Quinniac polling was done before Taylor's testimony.

It'll be interesting to see which direction this pushes the next poll.

The support for impeachment is only going in one direction at the moment.

It should be pointed out that the absolute numbers for each individual poll shouldn't be taken as to mean much in terms of movement - different polling will use different methodologies and will end up with different results. For example, if CNN says 50% support for impeachment on Monday followed by FOX saying it's 48% on Wednesday, that doesn't mean anything in terms of movement. On the other hand, if FOX says 48% on Monday and 50% on Wednesday, then that can be taken as a sign of movement assuming that the same polling methodology was used.

Approval among American voters of the U.S. House impeachment inquiry, an inquiry to determine whether or not to bring impeachment charges against President Trump, has reached its highest level, as 55 percent approve of the inquiry, while 43 percent disapprove, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll released today. Last week, 51 percent of voters approved of the inquiry, while 45 percent disapproved.

In today's poll, Democrats approve of the inquiry 93 - 7 percent and independent voters approve 58 - 37 percent, while Republicans disapprove of the inquiry 88 - 10 percent. In last week's poll, Democrats approved of the inquiry 90 - 8 percent, and independents were divided with a 50 - 45 percent approval, and Republicans disapproved 90 - 9 percent.

Nearly half of registered voters, 48 percent, say President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 46 percent say he should not. Last week, 46 percent supported impeachment while 48 percent were opposed.

Trump may need Bannon's podcast war-room to up its game if he wants to turn this slide around. Or maybe some evidence will come out totally clearing Trump. Or maybe Trump will keep the head down and let this blow over.

MadYaker wrote: »

Has Lindsey got any actual examples of due process not being followed or is he just having a whinge?

He knows it's nonsense. He knows that sane people know it's nonsense. But he also knows that there's a section of the population who will believe absolutely anything if it favours Trump. That's the audience for this nonsense.

MadYaker wrote: »

Has Lindsey got any actual examples of due process not being followed or is he just having a whinge?

He knows it's nonsense. He knows that sane people know it's nonsense. But he also knows that there's a section of the population who will believe absolutely anything if it favours Trump.

MadYaker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes and you can spin all the other investigations how you like but they were not like this.

Lindsey with the media earlier... and uses the word lynching too, good for him:

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1186772416636358656

Has Lindsey got any actual examples of due process not being followed or is he just having a whinge?

Overheal wrote: »

Even if that were true he has a long and exhaustive recent history of lashing out at anything and anyone that he doesn’t like; also he’s openly admitted in the past he would of course accept dirt on a political rival - which was the whole reason why the FEC chair got involved with her letter. Be under no illusion that Trump is somehow so full of himself that he will not lie, and cheat, and steal, to win.

It is all about winning, I agree. "You'll win so much you'll get tired of winning".

But there are vast sums of money involved, many millions. The Hunter stuff is comparatively minuscule .

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Not an unreasonable assumption but he is so full of himself I don't think he feels threatened by Biden.

Even if that were true he has a long and exhaustive recent history of lashing out at anything and anyone that he doesn’t like; also he’s openly admitted in the past he would of course accept dirt on a political rival - which was the whole reason why the FEC chair got involved with her letter. Be under no illusion that Trump is somehow so full of himself that he will not lie, and cheat, and steal, to win.

Overheal wrote: »

Yes. Because doing so would directly benefit him in defeating the the front runner at the time of the scheme.

Not an unreasonable assumption but he is so full of himself I don't think he feels threatened by Biden.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Nobody showed ME any graphic. Get over yourself.
Once again, there is no mention of the 2020 election in any testimony today.
Do you really believe that Trump thinks that he needs anyone's help to beat Joe Biden?
Trump's obvious intent is to bust him for major corruption.

Yes. Because doing so would directly benefit him in defeating the the front runner at the time of the scheme.

mcmoustache wrote: »

All you need to know is that you can't ask a foreign government electoral help. The graphic explaining it has been shown to you at least twice but I've summarised it in the first sentence of this very post.

Nobody showed ME any graphic. Get over yourself.
Once again, there is no mention of the 2020 election in any testimony today.
Do you really believe that Trump thinks that he needs anyone's help to beat Joe Biden?
Trump's obvious intent is to bust him for major corruption.

Overheal wrote: »

The statute in question is crystal clear.

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768

I'm not sure what your own personal incredulity has to do with it?

LOL it's not personal incredulity, it was some American judge's opinion on the entire canon.
I took no more notice than that so won't be providing links.
I can see that one statute you are referring to is not hard to understand.

That was never my point to you anyhow.
I said that none of the testimony given today mentioned any date other than 2016.
Posting an ad in relation to 2020 won't change that.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters is crystal clear:

Further here.

It wasn’t a criminal matter.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Can you quote were I complained about closed door hearings? No, because I didn't.

Read the Tweet I quoted again.

In fact, if anything I think such hearings are better than the 5 minute back and forth public hearings, less likely to get to the truth with those.

Then I don’t know why you’re retweeting that garbage and simply saying “nuts”

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Can you give an example of an investigation that didn't have closed door hearings?

Can you quote were I complained about closed door hearings? No, because I didn't.

Read the Tweet I quoted again.

In fact, if anything I think such hearings are better than the 5 minute back and forth public hearings, less likely to get to the truth with those.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

The statute in question is crystal clear.

The Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters is crystal clear:

Further here.