President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Zubeneschamali · 30-01-2020 03:23PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

- What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower?

The whistleblower is on Trump's enemies list and he wants him named and killed.

Boggles · 30-01-2020 03:41PM

notobtuse wrote: »

why would Trump fire him and risk Bolton exposing Trump?

Bolton resigned, but anyway.

Are you happy enough living in a country where a President (Republican or Democrat) can do what ever he likes as long as he thinks it is good for the American people. Whatever that might be, he just has to think it is all right.

Because to anyone that is not a dribbling simpleton, that is a scary prospect going forward.

Again, I can't highlight this enough, the Republican Party just gave America it's first King since George III.

This isn't a trial it's a coronation.

It may never be reversed.

The ramifications are obviously too nuanced for your average Trump supporter, but soon in the future the gravity of what they are doing will hit home.

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2020 03:57PM

Boggles wrote: »

We have and not even the GOP or Team Trump accept that horsé**** anymore.

He did it but it's grand is this weeks defense.

Is your twitter feed not updating or something?

That's your response?

I can only take it from that reply that you have no interest in discussing the evidence, you're focusing on soundbytes and opinions and, as Schiff has been finding out, they don't cut it.

You suggested Mulvaney had admitted on live TV that there was a QPQ with regards to an investigation into Biden and so back it up. Quote something he said that would lend one to believing that the aid was being held until Ukraine announced that investigation.

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2020 04:00PM

kilns wrote: »

Mulvaney "So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." Now, there was a report —"

Q: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

Mulvaney: "The look back to what happened in 2016 —"

Q: "The investigation into Democrats."

Mulvaney: "— certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate."

Reporters press Mulvaney to clarify if aid hinged on the DNC investigation
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

What?

Are you trying to suggest absurd questions from reporters about the democrats prove that Trump was withholding aid until an investigation into Biden was announced?

Go back and read my post. Mulvaney makes it clear why the money was withheld.

duploelabs · 30-01-2020 04:01PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's your response?

I can only take it from that reply that you have no interest in discussing the evidence, you're focusing on soundbytes and opinions and, as Schiff has been finding out, they don't cut it.

You suggested Mulvaney had admitted on live TV that there was a QPQ with regards to an investigation into Biden and so back it up. Quote something he said that would lend one to believing that the aid was being held until Ukraine announced that investigation.

So you're saying that Bolton should testify then as he can back it up

Boggles · 30-01-2020 04:03PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's your response?

I can only take it from that reply that you have no interest in discussing the evidence, you're focusing on soundbytes and opinions and, as Schiff has been finding out, they don't cut it.

You suggested Mulvaney had admitted on live TV that there was a QPQ with regards to an investigation into Biden and so back it up. Quote something he said that would lend one to believing that the aid was being held until Ukraine announced that investigation.

Trump did that in the "perfect call".

He wanted an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory and the Bidens, Mick said democrats.

Anyway like I said they have moved on.

He can do anything he likes as long as he thinks it's okay to do it.

Monarch of America.

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2020 04:13PM

duploelabs wrote: »

So you're saying that Bolton should testify then as he can back it up

Well there's a Cathy Newman reply.

No, I didn't say that in my post but if you're asking me do I think Bolton should testify, I think he should do whatever he wants to do and so should Trump. Had the democrats not done everything they could to make things difficult for Trump and the Republicans during the congressional hearings, then I might look on Trump's actions a little harsher, but they did and so I won't.

Personally though, I am interesting seeing any witnesses which either side would like to call.

Boggles · 30-01-2020 04:20PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I think Bolton should testify, I think he should do whatever he wants to do and so should Trump.

Trump is doing whatever he wants, the Republican Party is about to cement that into history.

notobtuse · 30-01-2020 04:22PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

OK - So we still come back to the core question - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower?

What's the purpose of that?

As I said , if the claims were totally spurious or politically motivated the IG would not have sent the information forward to further review. The Whistle blower basically said "I'm concerned with what I heard on the call and I think it needs investigation" - The IG agreed.

We know they didn't make anything up as their report matches the "transcript" released by Trump. The only thing up for discussion is whether or not it was OK for Trump to say/ask what he did.

The actual facts of the matter are not being argued by either side.

Once the report got past the IG then that is the end of the Whistle blowers involvement. How or why the report was made no longer matters.

So again - What is to be gained by naming the Whistle Blower or calling them as a witness?

Why and what is to be gained? The whistleblower’s REAL intent in becoming a whistleblower, for one…

“If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma,” Philbin asked. “Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that?” …

“Did he have some reason to want to put the deep-six on any question raising any issue about what went on with the Bidens and Burisma and firing Shokin and withholding a billion dollars in loan guarantees and enforcing a very explicit quid pro quo — you won’t get this billion dollars until you fire him?” Philbin asked, pointedly.

“We don’t know, and because Manager Schiff was guiding this whole process — because he was chairman in charge of directing the inquiry and directing it away from any of those questions — that creates a real due process defect in the record,” the president’s lawyer declared.

If Trump felt Joe Bidens’ actions in Ukraine were reasonably suspicious enough to have warranted an investigation (and if the whistleblower worked on those suspect issues for Biden), did he then become a whistleblower merely to protect himself if he thought Trump felt an investigation to the Biden’s actions and Bursima was going to happen.

You can call it spurious, but the entire impeachment process against Trump is spurious and it has happened anyway. Or is it your contention Democrats can investigate 'reasonable' suspicions, but not Republicans... because they're Republicans and held to a completely different standard?

duploelabs · 30-01-2020 04:22PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well there's a Cathy Newman reply.

No, I didn't say that in my post but if you're asking me do I think Bolton should testify, I think he should do whatever he wants to do and so should Trump. Had the democrats not done everything they could to make things difficult for Trump and the Republicans during the congressional hearings, then I might look on Trump's actions a little harsher, but they did and so I won't.

Personally though, I am interesting seeing any witnesses which either side would like to call.

I'm just highlighting a fine case for calling Bolton as a witness, however you want to frame me pointing that out is up to you

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2020 04:27PM

Boggles wrote: »

Mick said democrats.

No, the reporters did and he kept reverting them back on topic, making it clear that he was at no stage referring to an investigation into the Bidens. He cited an ongoing investigation into 2016 (the John Durham one) but that was it.

He can do anything he likes as long as he thinks it's okay to do it.

Monarch of America.

That's just an opinion. I'm asking for evidence of what is alleged in the main article of impeachment. Does anyone have any?

Boggles · 30-01-2020 04:34PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's just an opinion.

It very much isn't it is about to become a precedent.

Rise King Trump.

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2020 08:12PM

Ha, this is gas. Right now this is the screen and they have some blurb up asking:

"If Trump remains in office, what signal does that send to countries that want to interfere in our future elections"

Have these people no self awareness? :P

On the call to Zelensky Trump called out the Ukraine about their past corruption, and asked him to look into how they may have attempted to interfere in the 2016 US election, and to get to the bottom of it for him .. and so quite clearly the message is that the US will not stand for it.

notobtuse · 30-01-2020 08:27PM

Curiouser and curiouser!

The fired Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, has filed a federal complaint against Joe Biden, charging he 'abused his power.'

https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

On Friday the Senate shouldn't acquit Trump, they should dismiss all charges!

Boggles · 30-01-2020 08:33PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

On the call to Zelensky Trump called out the Ukraine about their past corruption, and asked him to look into how they may have attempted to interfere in the 2016 US election, and to get to the bottom of it for him .. and so quite clearly the message is that the US will not stand for it.

Again for the sake of reality, Trump asked him to look into a debunked conspiracy theory as well as the Bidens.

He also called the corrupt prosecutor "very good" on the call.

The prosecutor wasn't looking into Burisma, the investigation was dormant.

Either way the investigation timeline was before Hunter Biden joined the company.

There is absolutely no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong when he was with Burisma.

Now the actual facts are and of course it's the most simplistic reason.

Biden announced he was running for the Presidency, the poll number matchups showed he beat Trump, Trump tries to blackmail a foreign country to announce a bogus investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

But it's okay, as long as Trump was gaining from it, it's fine, something, something!

James Brown · 30-01-2020 08:42PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, the reporters did and he kept reverting them back on topic, making it clear that he was at no stage referring to an investigation into the Bidens. He cited an ongoing investigation into 2016 (the John Durham one) but that was it.

That's just an opinion. I'm asking for evidence of what is alleged in the main article of impeachment. Does anyone have any?

I feel the only evidence you'll accept is an admission from Trump. Gangsters don't generally do that.

notobtuse · 30-01-2020 08:43PM

OK Boomers

James Brown · 30-01-2020 08:43PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Curiouser and curiouser!

The fired Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, has filed a federal complaint against Joe Biden, charging he 'abused his power.'

https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

On Friday the Senate shouldn't acquit Trump, they should dismiss all charges!

This the lad Rudy tried to get a US visa for? The same one the EU wanted fired?
Seems legit

Professor Moriarty · 30-01-2020 08:50PM

notobtuse wrote: »

OK Boomers

Really?

notobtuse · 30-01-2020 08:50PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This the lad Rudy tried to get a US visa for? The same one the EU wanted fired?
Seems legit

In case you missed it he's the lad at the center of Joe Biden's illegal quid pro quo.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2020 08:51PM

notobtuse wrote: »

OK Boomers

:rolleyes:

notobtuse · 30-01-2020 08:58PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Really?

Wouldn’t that be the next thing the self absorbed, hand crafted mocha latte sipping, technology obsessed, phone staring, ridiculously tattooed, layabouts whose greatest desire is to spend the rest of their lives smoking medical marijuana in their parents’ basements say as they see their arguments slip away?

Professor Moriarty · 30-01-2020 09:02PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Wouldn’t that be the next thing the self absorbed, hand crafted mocha latte sipping, technology obsessed, phone staring, ridiculously tattooed, layabouts whose greatest desire is to spend the rest of their lives smoking medical marijuana in their parents’ basements say as they see their arguments slip away?

Excellent description, but no, hopefully not. Hopefully they'll get out of their bunkers to campaign and vote (Democrat obviously).

Boggles · 30-01-2020 09:06PM

notobtuse wrote: »

In case you missed it he's the lad at the center of Joe Biden's illegal quid pro quo.

You mean American official policy, various American Allies, the IMF, the EU and many anti corruption bodies quid pro quo.

But I suppose if Rudy and his Goons were running the show, that would be legit?

notobtuse · 30-01-2020 09:22PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Excellent description, but no, hopefully not. Hopefully they'll get out of their bunkers to campaign and vote (Democrat obviously).

LOL. Touche

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2020 09:36PM

Boggles wrote: »

Trump asked him to look into a debunked conspiracy theory as well as the Bidens.

Sigh. The server issue could be said to be debunked, but that is not the totality of how Ukrainians interfered in 2016, how many times does this have to be said? At the heart of both the Steele Dossier and the publication of the black ledger transactions, was a Ukrainian. People working on behalf of the DNC worked closely with that same Ukrainian. There has been a court case which found that Ukrainians meddled in 2016 and so please stop with this 'debunked' rubbish.

Now the argument might be made that those courts were corrupt because the next (corrupt?) administration disagreed with the findings etc but that doesn't matter as all that matters is that this has never been truly resolved from the perspective of Donald Trump and given that he was the one that they tried so hard to ensure was not elected, it's damn well understable why he would want to ask that it be looked into and given that there was a new anti-corruption president of Ukraine, now was the perfect time to do so.

He also called the corrupt prosecutor "very good" on the call.

So what? Rudy thinks he is. Maybe he's wrong but that's neither here nor there. Can you link to an article were Shokin was found guilty of corruption by the way?

The prosecutor wasn't looking into Burisma, the investigation was dormant.

Again, I have already addressed this, that is not true:

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

Hunter / his PR firm met with the new prosecutor almost immediately also and if there were no investigations into Burisma or their boss, then there would have been no reason for that meeting.

Either way the investigation timeline was before Hunter Biden joined the company.

Nonsense. There have been investigations on and off for years into both Burisma and it's oligarch owner. Hunter was brought on board to give them the appearance of having turned over a new leaf, and of course handy to have someone with clout so close to the US admin, especially Obama's point man on Ukraine.

There is absolutely no evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong when he was with Burisma.

There is a lot of suspect activity with his accounts and also with his lobbying of the state on behalf of Burisma, hence NY Times articles, Washington Post articles etc. That's why Trump said that there is a "lot of talk" about Hunter, Burisma and Biden's bragging. There was. Not to mention a Ukraine investigation undertaken by the previous Ukraine administration.

Biden announced he was running for the Presidency, the poll number matchups showed he beat Trump, Trump tries to blackmail a foreign country to announce a bogus investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

Only problem with that narrative is Rudy was investigating him before his announcement and besides, Trump had not raised Ukraine's election meddling with the last Ukraine president as he didn't trust him, and so why would he bring up the Biden stuff? Wouldn't make sense. What makes sense is that everyone has testified that they were all telling Trump that Zelensky was different than the previous presidents and could be trusted and so it was the perfect time to raise both issues.

Boggles · 30-01-2020 09:43PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh. The server issue could be said to be debunked, but that is not the totality of how Ukrainians interfered in 2016, how many times does this have to be said?

I suppose until yourself and Trump accept you are peddling a debunked conspiracy theory thought to have been started by the Russians.

We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election

- FBI Director Christopher Wray

He was appointed by Trump by the way.

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2020 10:06PM

Boggles wrote: »

I suppose until yourself and Trump accept you are peddling a debunked conspiracy theory thought to have been started by the Russians.

I have not given you an opinion, please stop acting like I have.

I have given you facts as reasoning for why it is understandably felt that certain Ukrainians inferred in the 2016 election.

Nellie Ohr was asked under oath who were the sources on the Steele Dossier and she said:

And again a Ukraine court ruled that Leshchenko's actions with regards to the release of the black ledger documents amounted to US election interference.

Other Ukrainians have come forward also and said that Chalupa was involved in this and other actions (on behalf of the DNC) attempting to smear the Trump campaign in 2016.

NONE of the above are opinions. They are facts.

IMPORTANT: quoting FBI officials is not negating my point as all I am doing by pointing these facts out to you is try and get you to see that there is good reasons why Donald Trump believed Ukrainians tried to 'take him down' as he put it. If there were court cases in a foreign country where people were found guilty of trying to stop you being elected to office, wouldn't you give them some credence? Of course you would.

Now, this is where you say: well then he should have went to the DOJ and got them to investigate rather than Zelensky!

Well, that's foolish for two reasons: 1) Trump's own DOJ have targeted him, discussed wearing wires around him and investigated him under the guise of briefing him. Not to mention leaked investigation details to the media to prompt the need for the Mueller investigation and 2) We're talking about a highly sensitive issue where one country is being asked to investigate their own corruption and I'd suggest one leader to another was absolutely the way to initiate that. Zelensky certainly didn't seem to take any offense, on the contrary.

AGAIN: it does not matter if people believe these issues are debunked. This time last year Wray was rubbishing the idea of FISA abuse and the facts I am pointing out to you only need to warrant Trump feeling that he believes they should be looked into, whether it turns out to be true that Ukraine interfered in the election or not is immaterial.

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2020 10:17PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I feel the only evidence you'll accept is an admission from Trump. Gangsters don't generally do that.

You say that as if evidence of some kind has been presented, it hasn't.

Not here and not in the Senate. Hence all the hoping that Bolton comes and saves the day.

Come on, be honest. Where's the evidence that Trump had no interest in seeing the Burisma-Biden controversy investigated?

It's all just a suspicion that he must have had an ulterior motive and was really afraid of Biden in 2020.

Gobb · 30-01-2020 10:29PM

[9/ 1/ 19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance
and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?

[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments