President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

mcmoustache · 05-11-2019 2:57pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What difference does it make if he's bringing evidence of crimes to light?

It makes a big difference if the crimes being brought to light were made up. It makes an even bigger difference if making up these crimes was part of a scheme involving Parnas, Fruman, Giuliani, Firtash and Lutsenko.

If Solomon is getting his information from these guys or is even more involved, his reporting is more than likely horse-shít.

Igotadose · 05-11-2019 3:17pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

It makes a big difference if the crimes being brought to light were made up. It makes an even bigger difference if making up these crimes was part of a scheme involving Parnas, Fruman, Giuliani, Firtash and Lutsenko.

If Solomon is getting his information from these guys or is even more involved, his reporting is more than likely horse-shít.

If there was ever one needed, Solomon seems like the perfect example of a useful idiot.

duploelabs · 05-11-2019 3:42pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What difference does it make if he's bringing evidence of crimes to light?

Then if these things don't matter, why the attack on the whistleblower and virtually every witness that's been called so far?

mcmoustache · 05-11-2019 4:30pm

Igotadose wrote: »

If there was ever one needed, Solomon seems like the perfect example of a useful idiot.

He's more involved than that.

He was sending his drafts to be checked by the indicted Parnas. His lawyers are Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing. Coincidentally, they also work as attorneys for Parnas and Fruman as well as acting as lawyers to Firtash. They also received drafts of Solomon's work prior to printing.

mcmoustache · 05-11-2019 4:33pm

duploelabs wrote: »

Then if these things don't matter, why the attack on the whistleblower and virtually every witness that's been called so far?

And why should Biden be investigated for that thing that Trump said is perfectly appropriate?

The stupidity of the position being taken doesn't matter to Trump fans and the people around Trump spouting these things don't have a high opinion of Trump fans.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 4:53pm

DeconSheridan wrote: »

This is just another clown show with no proof no nothing except to expose deluded politicians and what Americans are fed up with. This will strengthen the Republican Party's campaign in the 2020 elections with the House vote for impeachment proceedings being voted down with all republicans and 2 dems not in favour of impeachment.

Welcome to boards. Don't forget to shut the door, it might get cold in the echo chamber, poor mites.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 7:17pm

So the Republicans asked for a vote, they got it. Then they asked for transcripts, they’re getting them

So Republicans would be happy right? Oh,

“ Release ALL of the transcripts from ALL of the witnesses. Release VIDEO of the cross-examination of every witness if you want to be truly transparent. This selective release only enhances YOUR narrative, Adam Schiff, but fails to provide the sunlight needed for the American people. #ChamberOfSecrets” - Rep Duncan (R-SC)

Massive goal shifting operation on there folks

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 7:19pm

Overheal wrote: »

So the Republicans asked for a vote, they got it. Then they asked for transcripts, they’re getting them

So Republicans would be happy right? Oh,

“ Release ALL of the transcripts from ALL of the witnesses. Release VIDEO of the cross-examination of every witness if you want to be truly transparent. This selective release only enhances YOUR narrative, Adam Schiff, but fails to provide the sunlight needed for the American people. #ChamberOfSecrets” - Rep Duncan (R-SC)

Massive goal shifting operation on there folks

Why are you against that idea?

mcmoustache · 05-11-2019 7:44pm

A few of Trump's defenders have been mentioning the 6th amendment as something that gives Trump the right to confront his accuser. Now, I'm no big city lawyer, cluck cluck, but even I can see from this simple text that it refers to criminal prosecutions. It's right there in the first 4 words in black and white.

It's so simple that anyone spouting it would have to be an idiot or a liar so it's worth remembering people like Senator Paul when they use the 6th amendment as their reasoning for outing the whistle-blower.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 7:48pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Why are you against that idea?

Because it’s not anchored to real life. It’s also not an actual idea, it’s a desperate attempt to crank that transcripts are coming out. Republicans certainly didn’t feel that level of transparency was needed in Benghazi/Emailgate when they were trying to incarcerate a US presidential candidate.

Igotadose · 05-11-2019 7:51pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Why are you against that idea?

Because it's not a trial, and the House rules adopted under Boehner's Congress don't require it.

You're just playing the "Democrats must be paragons of morality while GOP can do whatever the fcuk they want" style of debate that's so common these days. Face it, Trump's guilty, the impeachment articles will pass, the trial will happen in the Senate, and the evidence presented faithfully. Then, we'll see.

GOP doesn't get to set the moral boundaries here for the Democrats to adhere to; the GOP's failed at every turn to rein in POTUS45 and his arrogance is bringing him down.

FFS, these crimes are worse than Watergate. That was only a burglary. This is potentially sacrificing people (in the Ukraine, by delaying arms shipments), in order to influence an election. Loathsome.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 8:08pm

Sondland appended his testimony to clarify that the military aid was indeed contingent on a public statement of investigating the “corruption”

So now everyone has testified this was Quid Pro Quo.

More transcripts to be released today.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 8:39pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

A few of Trump's defenders have been mentioning the 6th amendment as something that gives Trump the right to confront his accuser. Now, I'm no big city lawyer, cluck cluck, but even I can see from this simple text that it refers to criminal prosecutions. It's right there in the first 4 words in black and white.

It's so simple that anyone spouting it would have to be an idiot or a liar so it's worth remembering people like Senator Paul when they use the 6th amendment as their reasoning for outing the whistle-blower.

When the excuses turn into shouts of "obstruction" you should then realise that it's about stalling the criminal inquiry of Durham. This is their fourth attempt.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 8:43pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Because it's not a trial, and the House rules adopted under Boehner's Congress don't require it.

You're just playing the "Democrats must be paragons of morality while GOP can do whatever the fcuk they want" style of debate that's so common these days. Face it, Trump's guilty, the impeachment articles will pass, the trial will happen in the Senate, and the evidence presented faithfully. Then, we'll see.

GOP doesn't get to set the moral boundaries here for the Democrats to adhere to; the GOP's failed at every turn to rein in POTUS45 and his arrogance is bringing him down.

FFS, these crimes are worse than Watergate. That was only a burglary. This is potentially sacrificing people (in the Ukraine, by delaying arms shipments), in order to influence an election. Loathsome.

This does have similarities to Watergate which was an attempt to get rid of Nixon when he refused to play their game any longer. He had a conscience.

I am not against the real Democrats at all. I will be perfectly happy to hang the Republicans. We will know which ones are in the Senate when they vote against Trump in this matter.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 8:45pm

Overheal wrote: »

Sondland appended his testimony to clarify that the military aid was indeed contingent on a public statement of investigating the “corruption”

So now everyone has testified this was Quid Pro Quo.

More transcripts to be released today.

Sondland is on the payroll, or has been shown something that will shame him.

You know this will not get rid of Trump anyway.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 8:48pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

When the excuses turn into shouts of "obstruction" you should then realise that it's about stalling the criminal inquiry of Durham. This is their fourth attempt.

Wrong thread

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 8:52pm

Overheal wrote: »

Because it’s not anchored to real life. It’s also not an actual idea, it’s a desperate attempt to crank that transcripts are coming out. Republicans certainly didn’t feel that level of transparency was needed in Benghazi/Emailgate when they were trying to incarcerate a US presidential candidate.

Those testimonies involved national security, the reason for having closed door testimony.
The gangster Paul Ryan was also involved in those decisions.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 8:52pm

Overheal wrote: »

Wrong thread

Hard to keep up, sorry.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 8:54pm

Hang on, you brought up Bengazi?

Overheal · 05-11-2019 8:54pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

This does have similarities to Watergate which was an attempt to get rid of Nixon when he refused to play their game any longer. He had a conscience.

I am not against the real Democrats at all. I will be perfectly happy to hang the Republicans. We will know which ones are in the Senate when they vote against Trump in this matter.

If you’re trying to suggest the reason Nixon left when he did was he “had a conscience” I assure you it’s not. You should listen to the Nixon tapes, And watch the interviews he gave, where he was emphatic that when the president does it, then it is not illegal (not judicial, not criminal, ohhhhh see?).

The reason Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment passed was Constitutional law: Nixon would have had zero ability to be pardoned once articles passed, once passed the POTUS’ charges can only be convicted or dismissed by the Senate. As we know, Gerald Ford pardoned the President for his crimes.

Trump won’t take the same approach because he didn’t just commit federal crimes, but serious state level crimes that pardon power does not extend to. Even if he stepped down and Pence pardoned him he’d be indicted on the spot by the SDNY.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 8:56pm

Overheal wrote: »

If you’re trying to suggest the reason Nixon left when he did was he “had a conscience” I assure you it’s not. You should listen to the Nixon tapes, And watch the interviews he gave, where he was emphatic that when the president does it, then it is not illegal (not judicial, not criminal, ohhhhh see?).

The reason Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment passed was Constitutional law: Nixon would have had zero ability to be pardoned once articles passed, once passed the POTUS’ charges can only be convicted or dismissed by the Senate. As we know, Gerald Ford pardoned the President for his crimes.

Trump won’t take the same approach because he didn’t just commit federal crimes, but serious state level crimes that pardon power does not extend to. Even if he stepped down and Pence pardoned him he’d be indicted on the spot by the SDNY.

You mention Gerald Ford? The unelected sexual deviant?

Overheal · 05-11-2019 8:57pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Sondland is on the payroll, or has been shown something that will shame him.

You know this will not get rid of Trump anyway.

The ambassador who donated $1M to Donald Trumps inaugural fund to be appointed as an ambassador is “on the payroll” ... LMAO

Something that will shame him? Yeah I hope so: the testimony from other White House officials that found him to be culpable of perjury would do it.

You’re grasping.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 8:58pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Those testimonies involved national security, the reason for having closed door testimony.
The gangster Paul Ryan was also involved in those decisions.

And these dont? Volkers testimony details how much disdain Trump has for the Ukraine.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 8:59pm

Overheal wrote: »

The ambassador who donated $1M to Donald Trumps inaugural fund to be appointed as an ambassador is “on the payroll” ... LMAO

Something that will shame him? Yeah I hope so: the testimony from other White House officials that found him to be culpable of perjury would do it.

You’re grasping.

It's not I who grasp. This is a bona fide witch hunt.

I agree on the donation, it goes on all the time.

Outlaw Pete · 05-11-2019 8:59pm

Igotadose wrote: »

This is potentially sacrificing people (in the Ukraine, by delaying arms shipments), in order to influence an election. Loathsome.

Oh pluh-lezze.

Tell me, who once said: “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

Overheal · 05-11-2019 8:59pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You mention Gerald Ford? The unelected sexual deviant?

I mean Gerald Ford the Vice President. As if impugning him changes matters of fact? He did pardon Nixon there’s nothing else about GRF that is relevant to this impeachment topic. GRF could be a pedophiliac lizard person for all the relevancy it has here. And a commie!

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:00pm

Overheal wrote: »

And these dont? Volkers testimony details how much disdain Trump has for the Ukraine.

The corrupt Ukraine that the previous administration's fomented a coup in?
Who put these gangsters in place?

Overheal · 05-11-2019 9:02pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The corrupt Ukraine that the previous administration's fomented a coup in?
Who put these gangsters in place?

Conspiracy theories belong in the conspiracy theories forum imho

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:04pm

Overheal wrote: »

Conspiracy theories belong in the conspiracy theories forum imho

If I had said Vindman had advised on which rifles to use in Maidan square, then I would agree with you.

Cody montana · 05-11-2019 9:05pm

So will we be moving onto a "quid pro quo" being fine now?

Overheal · 05-11-2019 9:06pm

Cody montana wrote: »

So will we be moving onto a "quid pro quo" being fine now?

Shhhhh

I was gonna let Pete keep digging that hole!

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:06pm

Overheal wrote: »

I mean Gerald Ford the Vice President. As if impugning him changes matters of fact? He did pardon Nixon there’s nothing else about GRF that is relevant to this impeachment topic. GRF could be a pedophiliac lizard person for all the relevancy it has here. And a commie!

A vice president gave a presidential pardon? That's a new one!

Overheal · 05-11-2019 9:09pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

A vice president gave a presidential pardon? That's a new one!

Indeed it was.

mcmoustache · 05-11-2019 9:19pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Sondland is on the payroll, or has been shown something that will shame him.

So, let me get this straight.

Everyone who testified to say that there was a QPQ must have done so for nefarious purposes. It's quite remarkable that their separate testimony all lines up with one another. I take it that that must be some sort of conspiracy where they got together to get their stories straight? And their testimony being backed up with documentary evidence, some of which comes from the WH itself? Is Trump himself in on this conspiracy to impeach Trump?

This goes right to the top!

I wonder if it's connected to this one from Trump's brain trust.

EIn0vjUX0AAEPMM?format=jpg&name=small

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:25pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

So, let me get this straigh

Both sides have criminals. The fun is figuring out what's the inducement.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 9:28pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

mcmoustache wrote: »

So, let me get this straigh

Both sides have criminals. The fun is figuring out what's the inducement.

Why so much gaslighting friend?

mcmoustache · 05-11-2019 9:32pm

Why does John Solomon keep popping up? It seems he was working more closely with Giuliani than I had thought.

EIomG5yXUAIOvEw?format=png&name=small

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:33pm

Overheal wrote: »

Why so much gaslighting friend?

Just a reflection of my current reading matter.
You lot have harassed away most others that cared to try.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 9:37pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Just a reflection of my current reading matter.
You lot have harassed away most others that cared to try.

To refresh your memory most of them were threadbanned because they couldn’t stick to the topic of the impeachment.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:39pm

Overheal wrote: »

To refresh your memory most of them were threadbanned because they couldn’t stick to the topic of the impeachment.

I was assuming, now I know. I wasn't here.

Cody montana · 05-11-2019 9:39pm

The denial is unreal.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:41pm

Cody montana wrote: »

The denial is unreal.

Thanks for posting some fact for a change, refreshing.

Billy Mays · 05-11-2019 9:44pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

So, let me get this straight.

Everyone who testified to say that there was a QPQ must have done so for nefarious purposes. It's quite remarkable that their separate testimony all lines up with one another. I take it that that must be some sort of conspiracy where they got together to get their stories straight? And their testimony being backed up with documentary evidence, some of which comes from the WH itself? Is Trump himself in on this conspiracy to impeach Trump?

This goes right to the top!

I wonder if it's connected to this one from Trump's brain trust.

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:49pm

You first.

mcmoustache · 05-11-2019 9:50pm

Cody montana wrote: »

So will we be moving onto a "quid pro quo" being fine now?

Yes, while at the same time saying that there was no quid pro quo. Trump was just rightfully demanding a quid-pro-quo because Biden needed to be investigated for his quid-pro-quo because quid-pro-quos are bad. Trump didn't ask for a quid-pro-quo but the one that he demanded was totally fine.

I hope this makes sense.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 9:54pm

Nice to see the White House engaging with the inquiry, while simultaneously calling this a sham: “this is all a bogus witch hunt but just in case this is all completely constitutional (it is)...”

They’re planning to put Jim Jordan on the House Intelligence Committee, replacing Devin Nunes. Nunes had to recuse himself on the Russian interference in the 2016 election after supplying false information to the committee.

I have a $5 bet out that Trump also wants Jordan because he reminds him of Aaron Eckhart. Jordan really milks that’s look too, I want to start a betting pool for how cold it will be outside in DC before he puts on his coat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-gop-eyes-committee-shake-up-ahead-of-trump-impeachment-hearings/2019/11/05/55efd564-ffe5-11e9-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 9:56pm

Overheal wrote: »

Nice to see the White House engaging with the inquiry, while simultaneously calling this a sham: “this is all a bogus witch hunt but just in case this is all completely constitutional (it is)...”

They’re planning to put Jim Jordan on the House Intelligence Committee, replacing Devin Nunes. Nunes had to recuse himself on the Russian interference in the 2016 election after supplying false information to the committee.

I have a $5 bet out that Trump also wants Jordan because he reminds him of Aaron Eckhart. Jordan really milks that’s look too, I want to start a betting pool for how cold it will be outside in DC before he puts on his coat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-gop-eyes-committee-shake-up-ahead-of-trump-impeachment-hearings/2019/11/05/55efd564-ffe5-11e9-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html

Alright, WhoTF is Aaron Eckhart?

Cody montana · 05-11-2019 9:57pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Yes, while at the same time saying that there was no quid pro quo. Trump was just rightfully demanding a quid-pro-quo because Biden needed to be investigated for his quid-pro-quo because quid-pro-quos are bad. Trump didn't ask for a quid-pro-quo but the one that he demanded was totally fine.

I hope this makes sense.

Who will take the fall though?

The dam has burst and republicans are neck deep in floods waters.
Who will go down first?

Spencerfreeman · 05-11-2019 10:00pm

Cody montana wrote: »

Who will take the fall though?

The dam has burst and republicans are neck deep in floods waters.
Who will go down first?

It might as well be a flood of rosewater as far as Trump is concerned.

Overheal · 05-11-2019 10:02pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It might as well be a flood of rosewater as far as Trump is concerned.

'Trump didn't drain the swamp he sprinkled it with rosewater and charged for Gondola rides through it'

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments