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

Sean.3516 wrote: »

That the goal was purely personal/political. As I’ve said before, in order to prove abuse of power you need to hear from either Trump or someone who spoke directly to Trump that this was purely about taking out Biden in the 2020 election. So far this has not happened and is highly unlikely to happen.

Ammmmmm......

john-bolton-donald-trump-book-impeachment-GettyImages-1129177036.jpg

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

I'm not convinced by the assertions made re. Russian election interference, not because i don't believe it's possible, but rather by the lack of hard evidence to back up the claims.

Russia interfered in the 2016 election, it is now an established fact with plenty of evidence. They are now trying to interfere the 2020 election, that is a fact.

Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election, that is a debunked conspiracy theory confirmed by Trumps own people.

Now the reason you are "not convinced" is nothing to do with facts or reality.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Explain this then:

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Washington meetings in Jan 2016 - which the "whistleblower" attended..

Just catching up. Great to see that Pam Bondi (in her annihilation of the Schiff narrative in the Senate yesterday) referenced both of the above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kqmojRRqB0

Course it's just "alternative facts" and not at all relevant, right

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Course it's just "alternative facts" and not at all relevant, right

Complete Bullshít would be more apt.

Anyway, I felt kind of sorry for his defense team yesterday, it must have been beyond tough to keep presenting the defense given what they learned from Bolton.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in the pre-meeting before they went out. I imagine sheer panic.

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

Ammmmmm......

I thought the Democrats had enough to prove their allegations already? Would seem to me they don't after all, and have nothing like the case they thought they had at all (Russia-Collison Part Deux) and are just attempting to use the Senate as yet another fishing expedition.

Oh and by the way, Ukraine got the aid, before the deadline in fact, and so even if Trump shared some of his Ukraine musings with Bolton, it's not gonna be the smoking gun ya'll are hoping it will be, especially given the fact that the Ukrainians themselves say that the aid was not conditioned on them having to do anything, much less that they were pressured to it.

Yes, yes .. I know what the automated reply to this is:

Thats just cause Thrump got caught and Ukraine are afraid to tell the truth!!

Yeah, interesting conspiracy theory but some proof would be nice.

Personally I hope they do vote for witnesses to be allowed as otherwise we'll never hear the end of the left saying it was a cover up.

DrumSteve

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just catching up. Great to see that Pam Bondi (in her annihilation of the Schiff narrative in the Senate yesterday) referenced both of the above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kqmojRRqB0

Course it's just "alternative facts" and not at all relevant, right

Hey Pete, how much money did Pam receive while working for Qatar all those years?

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just catching up. Great to see that Pam Bondi (in her annihilation of the Schiff narrative in the Senate yesterday) referenced both of the above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kqmojRRqB0

Course it's just "alternative facts" and not at all relevant, right

Annihilation? really , that's what you got from several hours of "Look over there!!!"

That would be Pam Bondi, who took $25k from Trump to bury an investigation into Trump University?

That would be Pam Bondi, who managed to keep a straight face when defending Donald Trump by talking about how terrible it is for an unqualified person to get a high profile job without any discernible qualifications for that job based only on their surname? .

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I thought the Democrats had enough to prove their allegations already?

It's a trial, trials have witnesses and evidence. As have all impeachment trials before this one.

Get Bolton in, get him to swear an oath and get him to tell what happened.

The gravity and importance of this deserves it.

duploelabs

Roger__Federer wrote: »

It's quite obvious that Trump had perfectly good reason to ask the Ukrainian president to have a look into potential corruption involving Hunter Biden, you'd need to be brain dead not to realise that. The fact this has turned into an impeachment against Trump is surreal.

Low post count? Check
Republican talking points? Check

That's a bingo

MonkeyTennis

The republicans strategy is

Right...you got us he definitely did that bad thing that he denied but that bad thing isnt bad

HUNTER BIDEN IS BAD though!!!

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

Complete Bullshít would be more apt.

lol.

What made Pam's presentation excellent was that the vast majority of the sources she used were from credible sources (to the dems at least) like the leftist media and not what folks such as yourself would generally dismiss off as being the alt-right, or right-wing etc and at 29m40s she lists them all: New York Times, Washington Post, George Kent, UK Fraud Unit, ABC, Good Morning America and the Obama State Dept.

But sure it's nothing knew for y'all to refer to information you don't like as bs, that's been going for three years. Evidence Trump didn't collude with Russia was called bs, evidence of FISA abuse was called bs, evidence of corrupt FBI officials was called BS, and so on and so on until y'all couldn't deny it no more and so quickly moved on to the next 'We have him this time!' item on the agenda.

Look, even if the Bidens are innocent, and Hunter's just dumb, and Joe was innocently looking the other way, genuinely believing that getting rid of Shokin was the best for Ukraine and Ukraine alone, none of that matters and you know why? Because Donald Trump is on trial and so only his perspective of the Bidens counts when it comes to determining his guilt or not and what Pam did was show there was ample "talk" about the Bidens Ukrainian dealings and also more than enough media reporting about them too, to warrant Trump believing that it "sounded horrible" to him and feeling that needed to be looked into.

Not only that it needed looking into, but to feel that he was obligated to request that it was, given that Trump was talking to the new Ukraine president, a new president that was determined to stamp out corruption, and with which Trump felt was surrounding himself with some of the same people that surrounded the previous Ukraine president.

The narrative that Trump wanted the Bidens alleged corruption looked into only because he was afraid of Joe Biden in 2020 is laughable. That's just the democrats judging people by their own standards again, given that it is they who are so found of using their political powers to trigger investigations into their political opponents. I mean, how many is this now? Three in as many years? Lovely people.

MonkeyTennis

so as long as Trump thinks hes doing the right thing its ok?

What are you on and can I have some?

ebbsy

Roger__Federer wrote: »

It's quite amusing to watch the cognitive dissonance of those who are unwilling to see the blindingly obvious that Trump was perfectly in his rights to ask the president to look into the Hunter Biden issue. In fact you could argue it would be a dereliction of duty not to ask the Ukrainian president to look into it given the suspicious nature of Hunter Biden's appointment.

+1

Looks like Rodger has served another ace.

Cody montana

Roger__Federer wrote: »

It's quite obvious that Trump had perfectly good reason to ask the Ukrainian president to have a look into potential corruption involving Hunter Biden, you'd need to be brain dead not to realise that. The fact this has turned into an impeachment against Trump is surreal.

What hunter Biden corruption?

banie01

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That would be Pam Bondi, who managed to keep a straight face when defending Donald Trump by talking about how terrible it is for an unqualified person to get a high profile job without any discernible qualifications for that job based only on their surname? .

That anyone seeking to present a defence for Don would try and use this reasoning is frankly incredible.

The WH defence of Don's actions has amounted to ignore the action look at what the Video's did.
That's not a defence, it's deflection.

duploelabs

Cody montana wrote: »

What hunter Biden corruption?

You know, when you use your dad's influence to get a job that you're not qualified for, which is in no way the same as any of Trump's kids positions

Cody montana

Roger__Federer wrote: »

His appointment to the board of Burisma.

Again, what corruption?

Cody montana

Roger__Federer wrote: »

See below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kqmojRRqB0

You think I’m going to watch a Fox news link? ðŸ˜‚

Outlaw Pete

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

so as long as Trump thinks hes doing the right thing its ok?

As long as what we are talking about is within the remit of the POTUS, then of course when alleging that he undertook an action solely to benefit himself in a forthcoming election, his motives, and his thinking at the time, are paramount.

Quite odd that that needs pointing out.

That is why Pam Bondi underscored her presentation by reading the paragraph from the Zelensky call where Trump says (note the underlined):

As you see, all the defense had to do was show what Trump was referring to when he said there's been "a lot of talk" which sounded "horrible" to him and which he would understandably feel he needed to ask Zelensky to "look into it" with the US Attorney General .. and that's just what Pam Bondi did yesterday. The absurd democrat narrative that this was all about 2020 was obliterated.

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As long as what we are talking about is within the remit of the POTUS, then of course when alleging that he undertook an action solely to benefit himself in a forthcoming election, his motives, and his thinking at the time, are paramount.

Quite odd that that needs pointing out.

That is why Pam Bondi underscored her presentation by reading the paragraph from the Zelensky call where Trump says (note the underlined):

As you see, all the defense had to do was show what Trump was referring to when he said there's been "a lot of talk" which sounded "horrible" to him and which he would understandably feel he needed to ask Zelensky to "look into it" with the US Attorney General .. and that's just what Pam Bondi did yesterday. The absurd democrat narrative that this was all about 2020 was obliterated.

OK - So if we accept that (and it's a big IF), why then was he asking Zelinsky to deal with Rudi Guiliani who has repeatedly said that he was acting as Trumps PERSONAL lawyer??

Why did Rudi send a letter to Zelinsky looking for a meeting where he again affirmed that he was not acting for the US Gov or the President but for Donald Trump the individual??

That's the issue here - The question of whether or not there is a legitimate case to be answered about how/why Hunter Biden got his job is to a degree secondary to the reason that Trump asked for it and HOW he chose to do it and what he expected to gain from it.

That's the corruption.

And given the rampant whataboutery on the Trump defence so far - Should there be an investigation in Jared Kushner and the suspicious $1.5B loan he got from Quatar after he arranged a White House meeting for them , amongst other questionable business deals that have involved Trump family members in close proximity to government activities?

eagle eye

Quin_Dub wrote:

That's the issue here - The question of whether or not there is a legitimate case to be answered about how/why Hunter Biden got his job is to a degree secondary to the reason that Trump asked for it and HOW he chose to do it and what he expected to gain from it.

You have this backwards. Democrats can't be corrupt and shouting about Trump being corrupt. I normally want Democrats in power in the US but they are making a mess of selecting a candidate to beat Trump.
We need to know if Biden is corrupt. It's very important. We know Trump is dodgy, we need to know if Biden is. If he is then maybe they can go find a candidate who will beat Trump.

Outlaw Pete

Quin_Dub wrote: »

OK - So if we accept that (and it's a big IF)

It's not a big IF at all. It's right there in the transcript.

why then was he asking Zelinsky to deal with Rudi Guiliani who has repeatedly said that he was acting as Trumps PERSONAL lawyer??

Well, they didn't only talk about Rudy, in fact Trump said right after speaking about the Bidens: "whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great" but it's understable why he had Rudy investigating on his behalf given what has gone on since he announced he was running for president.

I know you'd like to dismiss all that has gone on the last three years but Trump was falsely accused of conspiring with Russia to fix a general election and has had more leakers in the WH than the Titanic. He couldn't even trust his own Justice dept and so it's hardly a mystery why he felt he had to have someone like Rudy (who I don't have much time for by the way) on his side.

Why did Rudi send a letter to Zelinsky looking for a meeting where he again affirmed that he was not acting for the US Gov or the President but for Donald Trump the individual??

Well, because that is what he was doing. Have I claimed that he was working for the US Government or something? I'm inclined to believe what Morrison said anyway, and that is that he believed Rudy and Sondland were not always acting on the directions of Trump.

That's the issue here - The question of whether or not there is a legitimate case to be answered about how/why Hunter Biden got his job is to a degree secondary to the reason that Trump asked for it and HOW he chose to do it and what he expected to gain from it.

No, that is not the issue. Abuse of power is what is alleged and the grounds on which that allegation is being made is that Trump used the aid to leverage an investigation into the Bidens to benefit him in an upcoming election. So all they have to do is destroy that narrative. That is why the defense are focusing on just what Trump's intent was as POTUS when he made that request. If there was no reason for him to make such a request of Zelensky, then clearly that would point to a nefarious reason for him having made it, but Pam Bondi made it patently clear that on the contrary, there was ample reason for Trump as POTUS to request that the Biden-Burisma issue is further investigated.

That's the corruption.

No, what's corrupt is paying for and then leaking disgusting lies about a political opponent in an effort to steal an election or weaponize historial sexual assault allegations. Or FBI officials not informing the FISA court who paid for the lies they are using to spy on a political opponent and then doctoring emails so they can continue to do so. That's corruption.

Should there be an investigation in Jared Kushner and the suspicious $1.5B loan he got from Quatar after he arranged a White House meeting for them , amongst other questionable business deals that have involved Trump family members in close proximity to government activities?

All alleged corruption should be investigated.

[Deleted User]

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not a big IF at all. It's right there in the transcript.

Well, they didn't only talk about Rudy, in fact Trump said right after speaking about the Bidens: "whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great" but it's understable why he had Rudy investigating on his behalf given what has gone on since he announced he was running for president.

I know you'd like to dismiss all that has gone on the last three years but Trump was falsely accused of conspiring with Russia to fix a general election and has had more leakers in the WH than the Titanic. He couldn't even trust his own Justice dept and so it's hardly a mystery why he felt he had to have someone like Rudy (who I don't have much time for by the way) on his side.

Well, because that is what he was doing. Have I claimed that he was working for the US Government or something? I'm inclined to believe what Morrison said anyway, and that is that he believed Rudy and Sondland were not always acting on the directions of Trump.

No, that is not the issue. Abuse of power is what is alleged and the grounds on which that allegation is being made is that Trump used the aid to leverage an investigation into the Bidens to benefit him in an upcoming election. So all they have to do is destroy that narrative. That is why the defense are focusing on just what Trump's intent was as POTUS when he made that request. If there was no reason for him to make such a request of Zelensky, then clearly that would point to a nefarious reason for him having made it, but Pam Bondi made it patently clear that on the contrary, there was ample reason for Trump as POTUS to request that the Biden-Burisma issue is further investigated.

No, what's corrupt is paying for and then leaking disgusting lies about a political opponent in an effort to steal an election or weaponize historial sexual assault allegations. Or FBI officials not informing the FISA court who paid for the lies they are using to spy on a political opponent and then doctoring emails so they can continue to do so. That's corruption.

All alleged corruption should be investigated.

Your last sentence is laughable in defense of the most corrupt individual to ever hold the office of POTUS. Do you actually believe Trump cares about corruption in the Ukraine or anywhere else? Or that the moron could even find it on a map for that matter?

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

You have this backwards. Democrats can't be corrupt and shouting about Trump being corrupt. I normally want Democrats in power in the US but they are making a mess of selecting a candidate to beat Trump.
We need to know if Biden is corrupt. It's very important. We know Trump is dodgy, we need to know if Biden is. If he is then maybe they can go find a candidate who will beat Trump.

Even if Joe Biden was the most corrupt politician on the planet that would be irrelevant. Either what Trump (and the trial is about Trump, nobody else) did constitutes hugh crimes and misdemeanors or it doesnt. And everything we have seen so far shows that it did.

Outlaw Pete

Deleted User wrote: »

Your last sentence is laughable in defense of the most corrupt individual to ever hold the office of POTUS.

My last sentence was to say yes to QuinDub about whether or not a payment to Jared Kushner should be investigated.

Do you actually believe Trump cares about corruption in the Ukraine?

Corruption in the Ukraine nearly cost him the 2016 election and so yes, I believe he'd like to tackle the corruption there. Those involved got away with it in the end as the case was reversed (corruption, how are you) and one of them was a source for the Hillary Clinton paid for Steele Dossier, so Ukrainians had their mitts all over the attempt to ensure Hillary was the victor in 2016. Some attended meetings in Washington DC in early 2016 also, with the help of the Obama administration, and the "whistleblower". Small world, eh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MsxZBhwL-Y

Or that the moron could even find it on a map for that matter?

Well, even if he couldn't - that's no reason to remove a US President from office after he has been voted in by the American people now is it.

[Deleted User]

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

My last sentence was to say yes to QuinDub about whether or not a payment to Jared Kushner should be investigated.

Corruption in the Ukraine nearly cost him the 2016 election and so yes, I believe he'd like to tackle the corruption there. Those involved got away with it in the end as the case was reversed (corruption, how are you) and one of them was a source for the Hillary Clinton paid for Steele Dossier, so Ukrainians had their mitts all over the attempt to ensure Hillary was the victor in 2016. Some attended meetings in Washington DC in early 2016 also, with the help of the Obama administration, and the "whistleblower". Small world, eh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MsxZBhwL-Y

Well, even if he couldn't - that's no reason to remove a US President from office after he has been voted in by the American people now is it.

The Steele Dossier was paid for by Republicans. That he probably cannot find Ukraine on a map is not a cause to remove him, but it's pretty disappointing that so many people wasted their votes on this ignorant con artist.

Outlaw Pete

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

And everything we have seen so far shows that it did.

It doesn't come anywhere close.

He's entitled to ask a newly elected President of Ukraine to look into two matters of alleged corruption in that country which have affected the US. He would be remiss if he did not quite frankly.

For three years democrats pearl cutched about election meddling and yet a clear example of it by certain Ukrainians and they don't want to know, which makes it clear that all the bleating was sanctimonious. When the Steele Dossier was shown to be full of false information, used to spy on a US candidate, the left were all but silent about it. I wonder why no outrage about who was behind it with regards to paying for its creation and publication? Not to mention that it was leaked by corrupt Obama administration officials.

Yeah, the left are really concerned about political corruption alright.

Outlaw Pete

https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1221997760116903936

ohnonotgmail

I think we can sum up Trumps "defence" quite simply:

Trump didn't do the thing he's accused of doing, but if he did it was fine, and in fact that's exactly what he did, get over it, because it's not only fine, it's precisely what we want from a president, and can you believe that Biden did the same thing, shame on him.

weisses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1221997760116903936

So there would be no issue having Bolton testify

Glad there is some progress