President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nuts.

Nuts?

Is it different to other investigations in the previous congress?

volchitsa wrote: »

Except of course Trump isn't bringing the troops home, that was just another lie from an habitual liar. The truth is that the troops were just redeployed to another front.

And then of course there are the troops he's actively putting in harm's way getting them to fight Saudi Arabia's wars for them. But it's perfectly okay to push for war as long as the ministry of defence can bill someone for it, is that it?

As for rooting out corruption, this is the president who wanted the G20 to held in his own resort. Or are you okay with that too? As long as it's Trump that is.

You are correct about the the redeployment, even if he has only removed 50 troops from Syria.
The increase in troops in Saudi is very worrying, it's the main reason I don't support Trump politically, as I believe he is getting ready for a war with Iraq.
I don't care about the small potatoes of where the G20 is held.

I like that people like Meadows are running with "Clearly no quid-pro-quo" despite multiple events in the opening statement being exactly that.

And I like that Jordan are attacking the process when it's exactly the same process that hearings were taking last year when the Republicans held the House.

It just shows that they're catering to a dumber and dumber constituency.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The only reason it appears political and not criminal is Biden's participation in the 2020 election.
His chance is nearly gone already but he will hang in to the bitter end to make this investigation appear that it's focus is to damage him in the next election, which is bollocks.
I believe Trump's focus in this case is rearward to the 2016 election.
I think the ones that set up the illegitimate Ukrainian coup and want the civil war to continue are worth stopping.

Trump has caught the war group out so many times now that I expect this will be no different.

All bull, to be perfectly honest. The time to launch a Ukraine investigation legitimately, rearwardly, whatever you have it, was when Trump was warned that Flynn was radioactive - back shortly after he was elected.

Not until this summer - mere days after Trump thought he had been cleared of obstruction of justice charges and benefiting from russian interference in the 2016 election - that's when he decided to call the Ukraine (see: previous matter with Flynn, involving Ukraine, involving lobbyism, campaign interference, and corruption and russian entanglement) to shakedown Zelensky for an intent to investigate every alleged scandal involving Biden (and Biden) by name, when Biden is the frontrunner for the nomination.

There was nothing criminal about this investigation, if there were any such investigation would have started in the State Department (not at Trump's whim) and will have a papertrail miles long already - which they don't have, which is why they're ignoring subpoenas, because they can't outright prove the legitimacy of the start of the investigation. Which is totally ironic BTW because of the whole nature of the Durham investigation.

Nevermind that it doesn't matter where Biden is polling - the fact that he is running make this a serious violation of campaign finance law. Period. Remember Obama was also under righteous scrutiny because the IRS was auditing tea party groups more frequently than not: none of those groups was running for president, but that would be utterly missing the point.

volchitsa

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You are correct about the the redeployment, even if he has only removed 50 troops from Syria.
The increase in troops in Saudi is very worrying, it's the main reason I don't support Trump politically, as I believe he is getting ready for a war with Iraq.
I don't care about the small potatoes of where the G20 is held.

So none of what you claimed earlier was true. Is my point.

Overheal wrote: »

All bull, to be perfectly honest. The time to launch a Ukraine investigation legitimately, rearwardly, whatever you have it, was when Trump was warned that Flynn was radioactive - back shortly after he was elected.

Not until this summer - mere days after Trump thought he had been cleared of obstruction of justice charges and benefiting from russian interference in the 2016 election - that's when he decided to call the Ukraine (see: previous matter with Flynn, involving Ukraine, involving lobbyism, campaign interference, and corruption and russian entanglement) to shakedown Zelensky for an intent to investigate every alleged scandal involving Biden (and Biden) by name, when Biden is the frontrunner for the nomination.

There was nothing criminal about this investigation, if there were any such investigation would have started in the State Department (not at Trump's whim) and will have a papertrail miles long already - which they don't have, which is why they're ignoring subpoenas, because they can't outright prove the legitimacy of the start of the investigation. Which is totally ironic BTW because of the whole nature of the Durham investigation.

Nevermind that it doesn't matter where Biden is polling - the fact that he is running make this a serious violation of campaign finance law. Period. Remember Obama was also under righteous scrutiny because the IRS was auditing tea party groups more frequently than not: none of those groups was running for president, but that would be utterly missing the point.

I think the Flynn case is criminal and will be proven to be so shortly.

Every mention in the information published so far mentions 2016 not 2020.

From the transcript it's clear that he wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden because of Burisma.

The State dept. is where the rot began.

I know nothing of campaign finance law.

volchitsa wrote: »

So none of what you claimed earlier was true. Is my point.

Be more specific if you want me to address it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbixdV2F6Ts

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I think the Flynn case is criminal and will be proven to be so shortly.

Every mention in the information published so far mentions 2016 not 2020.

From the transcript it's clear that he wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden because of Burisma.

The State dept. is where the rot began.

I know nothing of campaign finance law.

Allow me to burst the "nothing to do with 2020" bubble real fast, with this Trump-Pence 2020 Campaign video:

Trump doesn't have anything new on Biden yet he's already smearing Biden as part of the 2020 campaign. Make no illusions that this isn't about the 2020 election.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I know nothing of campaign finance law.

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.

Overheal wrote: »

Allow me to burst the "nothing to do with 2020" bubble real fast, with this Trump-Pence 2020 Campaign video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbixdV2F6Ts

I was talking about the actual testimony provided so far.
Won't be watching something that has nothing to do with it.

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.

I know you like pictures.
Campaign law has been described as the most arcane and complex legislation ever written.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nuts?

Is it different to other investigations in the previous congress?

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

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I was talking about the actual testimony provided so far.
Won't be watching something that has nothing to do with it.

It's exceptionally relevant that Trump is attacking Biden, on the basis of his activity in the Ukraine, as part of his 2020 strategy. To suggest otherwise reads like 'la la la I'm not listening to reason'

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

Lindsey's opinion is a dog and pony show. It's interesting he calls Pickens home, site of the last South Carolinian lynching.

Explain how 'all the other investigations' are not like this? Closed door hearings? Supervised document reads? Thrill me.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I know you like pictures.
Campaign law has been described as the most arcane and complex legislation ever written.

It could be described as a quadrupedal rodent with a mustache but that doesn't change its status as the law. And it's neither complex nor arcane. If I were you, I would take a look at where you get your information from.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Campaign law has been described as the most arcane and complex legislation ever written.

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?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

Yes they were.

https://twitter.com/kfile/status/1181930844220542978?lang=en

Actually Pete, I might add...

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

mcmoustache wrote: »

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

I think that will be crickets.

Very hard to compare this to the Clinton impeachment process especially given that these same Republicans that served back then, that are still serving now, are defending behavior now that they deemed absolutely impeachable back then.

The GOP is just accelerating talking points to a populace that doesn't understand how impeachment works: like calling the investigation a 'kangaroo court,' and calling a constitutionally prescribed power a 'coup.' They can't argue the facts and so far all they've argued is process. For example, the Senate committees have their own investigative powers, but Republicans seem to have conveniently "forgotten" that they have Congressional subpoena power in the Senate, no quips or quirks AFAIK. Because, frankly, it would be very hard to pull the wool over the eyes of Trump supporters if the talking point was "The Democrats won't let us call witnesses or subpoena documents!" and they were off in the Senate exercising that very power.

As far as I care this all whips back to the GOP's willingness to do pretty heinous things in defiance of norms and ostensibly on a narrow precedent when it has been politically expedient for them - like refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland. In turn I don't see how they have the political standing to act as though they would never not do something like hold a vote to open the impeachment inquiry. And, any complaint about a lack of transparency rings rotten when they're defending Trump defying Congressional subpoenas, not to mention documented acts of obstruction of justice.

They don't really care how hypocritical it seems though, the goal isn't to win the argument on facts, the goal is to keep impeachment from gaining more steam by trying to impugn the process so that their constituents find none of the damning revelations credible. By the time it gets to the trial where they get all that "due process," they will have long since moved on from complaining about it.

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.

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 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 wrote: »

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

Further here.

It wasn’t a criminal matter.

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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: »

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 .

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?