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

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Boom!

:pac:

Anyway it's complete BS, that particular one does seem like a special cretin, even in a room full of them.

Igotadose

Boggles wrote: »

:pac:

Anyway it's complete BS, that particular one does seem like a special cretin, even in a room full of them.

Marsha Blackburn is indeed a special cretin, even for US politics. Used to run the Energy committee in the House, where she said things like '3 deg. temperature rise isn't that much' when asked about global warming. Stuff like that.

Timberrrrrrrr

duploelabs wrote: »

Throwing bouquets at yourself?? You're calling out the wearer of a purple heart from behind your keyboard because he saw corrupt behavior going on, pathetic

Yet says a murdering psychopath sniper who Trump supports should keep his rank.

Boggles

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yet says a murdering psychopath sniper who Trump supports should keep his rank.

True that.

Anyway there is no basis to her allegation, she has been spreading the same conspiracy theory since November.

But sure all of a sudden for some reason the lies are a "boom" moment.

They have gone past struggling now.

Outlaw Pete

Sanctimonious high horse democrats called out for their insincere pearl clutching on Ukraine aid:

https://twitter.com/Scavino45/status/1220587723192524800

Meanwhile, Schumer says that most of the Republicans have been "convinced" by Schiff that's Trump's guilty :P

https://twitter.com/michaelbeatty3/status/1220567294830501894

Gwen Cooper

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sanctimonious high horse democrats called out for their insincere pearl clutching on Ukraine aid:

https://twitter.com/Scavino45/status/1220587723192524800

Voting against Ukraine Aid and withholding said aid after it was Congress approved are two different things.

They might not agree with the military aid being sent there and vote against it, but once approved by Congress, they understand that this is how democracy works, the majority approved the aid, and they respect that. It's perfectly acceptable that they are against Trump's decision to withhold the aid.

Boggles

I imagine everyone in the chamber knows his guilty.

You'd want to be a dribbling simpleton to think otherwise.

Winning_Stroke

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine everyone in the chamber knows his guilty.

You'd want to be a dribbling simpleton to think otherwise.

And nearly half of them knew he was guilty before they ever heard of the crime :pac:

duploelabs

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Voting against Ukraine Aid and withholding said aid after it was Congress approved are two different things.

They might not agree with the military aid being sent there and vote against it, but once approved by Congress, they understand that this is how democracy works, the majority approved the aid, and they respect that. It's perfectly acceptable that they are against Trump's decision to withhold the aid.

Trump, the president, vetoed congressional approved aid to benefit Trump, the candidate, what that aid consisted of is totally and utterly moot

duploelabs

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

And nearly half of them knew he was guilty before they ever heard of the crime :pac:

Trump, for all his flaws, is a very good snake oil salesman and for the Republicans to turn against their guy is to admit that they've been sold a pup. Whenever that moment of realisation came, their ego won't allowed them to admit that they've been duped

Sean.3516

Boggles wrote: »

His intent was clear. He had no interest in corruption or an actual investigation.

His intent certainly is not clear. We can speculate all we want about what his intention probably was in accordance with our own biases but that’s not a legal standard.

It’s unquestionably true that Trump was interested in corruption in Ukraine and having it investigated. The important question is why.

Was he acting in what he believed to be the US national interest? Possibly. There’s certainly a solid argument to be made that US taxpayer’s money ought not to go to a corrupt country and that those same taxpayers deserve clarity as to whether or not Ukraine interfered in 2016 and whether the Bidens engaged in corruption with them.

It’s also possible that Trump was acting purely with an intent to smear Biden with an eye toward the 2020 election in which case he should be impeached and removed. But we don’t have sufficient proof to verify either of these.

Boggles wrote: »

He wanted an announcement of an investigation

Again. This means nothing. As President, he has some discretion with regard to making foreign policy.

Zubeneschamali

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It’s unquestionably true that Trump was interested in corruption in Ukraine and having it investigated. The important question is why.

Trumps attempt to twist Zelenskys arm by illegally withholding public money to force him to create dirt on Biden's son was itself a corrupt act. He was soliciting corruption in Ukraine.

So your "unquestionably true" is not only false, it is the precise opposite of the truth.

Sean.3516

duploelabs wrote: »

In the absence of direct testimony which has been blocked by the Republicans, all the house managers can do the is paint the picture around the absence of blocked evidence

Emm, what?

That has to be the flimsiest possible standard of proof for high crimes and misdemeanours one could come up with.

First of all, the House managers could have made some effort to enforce their own subpoenas through the courts. I mean Bolton’s lawyers said openly that he being stuck in a dispute between two branches of government, he was willing to go along with whatever the third branch (the courts) instructed him to do. And the Dems pretty much said “nah we’re good.” You don’t get to not bother enforcing your own subpoenas and then claim you’re being obstructed.

“paint the picture in the absence of blocked evidence”

In the absence of evidence, blocked or otherwise, there are two paths open to you. Try and get the evidence or concede the argument. You don’t get to just fill in the blanks by painting a picture.

Sean.3516

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trumps attempt to twist Zelenskys arm by illegally withholding public money

Okay, it was not illegal for Trump to withhold public funds the way he did. Yes, Trump did fail to follow the procedure of the Impoundment Control Act by not informing Congress by writing of the reason for the withholding of the funds. However the law itself has a built in remedy to this if it happens. If the president doesn’t notify Congress, it becomes the duty of the US Comptroller General to do it instead. Ergo, the act of withholding the aid in itself was not criminal in any way. Besides, Trump eventually released the aid when some Republican senators starting complaining about it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

to force him to create dirt on Biden's son was itself a corrupt act. He was soliciting corruption in Ukraine.

Again, you are making a number of assumptions here that just aren’t true.

“force him to create dirt on Biden’s son” implies that the dirt didn’t exist in the first place. It’s incontrovertibly the case that Hunter Biden’s son’s company was being investigated for corruption. There is also some evidence that the prosecutor involved was fired when Joe Biden intervened (he as VP was put in charge of Ukraine policy by Obama) Now, he argues that the prosecutor in question was corrupt. Maybe that’s true. But there is absolutely a conflict of interest for Joe Biden here that certainly would have made him unfit to judge whether or not this prosecutor should be fired. There’s only the appearance of impropriety here for sure but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be investigated.

MonkeyTennis

If Trump was truly interested in foreign corruption why did he do it through this backchannel ?

Why isnt he standing by his methods in the impeachment trial?

Zubeneschamali

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Okay, it was not illegal for Trump to withhold public funds the way he did.

Yes, it was: G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law

Sean.3516

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, it was: G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law

Read the rest of that post you plucked one line out of.

The impoundment control act has a built in remedy for Trump not following the procedure as he did. Not criminal.

It’s a rare case of violating a law without a crime taking place

Igotadose

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Read the rest of that post you plucked one line out of.

The impoundment control act has a built in remedy for Trump not following the procedure as he did. Not criminal.

It’s a rare case of violating a law without a crime taking place

And it doesn't matter. High crimes aren't jaywalking. Using the power of the USG to promote personal gain is a high crime. If that isn't, then nothing's a high crime and the POTUS can do whatever he/she wants.

Outlaw Pete

After a week of lies and false narratives, it's finally time for the truth to be told.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221079753760833536

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vEtnfWQops

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

After a week of lies and false narratives, it's finally time for the truth to be told.

You have to be on a wind up?

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine everyone in the chamber knows his guilty.

You'd want to be a dribbling simpleton to think otherwise.

I don't think everyone in chamber believes the moon is made of cheese, either.

SaintLeibowitz

Boggles wrote: »

You have to be on a wind up?

Nope, he lives in Kelly Anne Conway world of alternate facts.

Your wonder how he will take it when everything comes down smashing around Trump when his presidency ends.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't think everyone in chamber believes the moon is made of cheese, either.

Maybe Ted Cruz.

Cody montana

Boggles wrote: »

You have to be on a wind up?

He is and he’ll be ignored from now on.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Maybe Ted Cruz.

Have you watched his 30 minute video blog he makes every day of the Senate impeachnent show? Well worh the watch. He's 45 times more convincing than any of the House managers.

Well, due process finally becomes unshackled from the Shiff Show, today.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Have you watched his 30 minute

I can barely watch that Sad Vampire for 30 seconds.

Anyway thought he was a pure liar?

notobtuse

Great opening so far by Trumps lawyers. The adults have finally entered the room.

There should be an investigation into the Democrat House managers and if any of them are lawyers they should be disbarred.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Great opening so far by Trumps lawyers. The adults have finally entered the room.

I counted half dozen lies so far?

Couple of outlets live fact checking it.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Great opening so far by Trumps lawyers. The adults have finally entered the room.

There should be an investigation into the Democrat House managers and if any of them are lawyers they should be disbarred.

You really haven't a deep (or shallow) comprehension of the workings of these proceedings have?

Based on what you've said here, or previous posts

Boggles

To be fair to Jay Sekulow he has done "a lot" for charities.

How to Get Rich Suing For Jesus

:pac: