Offical Impeachment Thread

[jc456]

And I just proved, the ICIG has no jurisdiction. So this so called WB isn't really a WB. is he? He has no claim to remain anonymous because he took his "concern" to the wrong place. My question now is, if Vidman violated the espionage act by reading in someone, about the call, who didn't have a need to know.

.

vidman is a spy? is that what you are saying???????????????????? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........................

dismissed.

No I said he was a leaker and possibly a criminal if the individual he leaked the call to didn't have a legitimate need to know. You don't read too well, do you?

.

haaaaaa....you think the lt colonel is stupid?

that would be donny's deal.

well yeah, he admitted going around chain of command, that is a law breaker in the military. oops!!!! court martial baby.

don't hold yer breath there, pops.

it's just a fact. I can't help what you don't know. if it wasn't a big deal, it wouldn't have come up. derp

 

[ColonelAngus]

Morrison refuses to answer why he 'skipped' chain of command on reporting call
Rep. Val Demings, D-Florida, repeatedly questioned Morrison on why he chose to go directly to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg with his concerns about the July 25 phone call instead of reporting it up his chain of command to the deputy national security adviser Dr. Charlie Kupperman. Demings said if he felt there was nothing improper about the conversation, why did he "skip" his chain of command?

"I don't think I did skip my chain of command," Morrison said, saying that his relationship with Eisenberg was largely focused on "administrative matters" such as locking down the transcript.

Demings continued to press him, asking why he was so concerned about the legal adviser being aware of "this call that you saw nothing, basically, wrong with the substance or content of the call?"

Morrison said he was concerned because he didn't see a member of the legal office in the listening room on the call, and he wanted them to "be aware of what had transpired."
Impeachment hearing live: Morrison and Volker testify

he didn't skip chain of command, you didn't listen well. he went to his peer. you missed it obviously. The legal group wasn't on the call. he gave them the update. they were supposed to be on the call.

well, since vidman's peers are keeping his ass safe from those that could do harm to him & have some pretty good feelings about the dude - me thinx that court marshal ain't gonna happen. too bad so sad for you.

And Trump isn’t leaving office...too bad so sad for you.

Trump's been waiting three years for you all to take him out. how's that been working out for you? too funny you don't see the irony in your own post.

He is a troll. He doesn’t know what the heck he is talking about. He doesn’t want to engage in a true discussion of the facts.

Like this:

Sondland testified Trump told him there is no quid pro quo.

 

[jc456]

Another Nothing Burger day for the Democrats.

it's all that's on the menu!!!

 

[IM2]

Hardly actually.

*FLUSH*

what's trump's crime again? speaking of delusions?

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency.Obstruction of justice
-18 U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials
specifically:being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
official act;
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
-52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
specifically: (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. [USC02] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Any more questions?

define obstruction. defense of oneself is not obstruction.

Sure it is. If the house subpoenas peoples and documents you are obstructing their investigation. It was in the articles for impeachment for Nixon and Clinton too. You defend yourself by speaking the truth, let other people tell the truth and delivering documents if asked. If you don't you aren't defending yourself but obstructing justice.

oh someone isn't allowed to defend themselves in your fked up brain? too funny. son, you're in the wrong country. go back to russia.[/QUOTE]
Of course, you are allowed to defend yourself. Defending yourself tough does NOT include the right to withhold evidence. You can't defend yourself by shooting a witness for instance either. There are limits on the right to defend yourself. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is one of those.[/QUOTE]
it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.[/QUOTE]

It's official. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is obstruction whether this is an impeachment inquiry or not.

 

[WEATHER53]

he didn't skip chain of command, you didn't listen well. he went to his peer. you missed it obviously. The legal group wasn't on the call. he gave them the update. they were supposed to be on the call.

well, since vidman's peers are keeping his ass safe from those that could do harm to him & have some pretty good feelings about the dude - me thinx that court marshal ain't gonna happen. too bad so sad for you.

And Trump isn’t leaving office...too bad so sad for you.

Trump's been waiting three years for you all to take him out. how's that been working out for you? too funny you don't see the irony in your own post.

He is a troll. He doesn’t know what the heck he is talking about. He doesn’t want to engage in a true discussion of the facts.

Like this:

Sondland testified Trump told him there is no quid pro quo.

But....but...but their intuition feels like he really did not mean it.

 

[jc456]

what's trump's crime again? speaking of delusions?

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency.Obstruction of justice
-18 U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials
specifically:being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
official act;
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
-52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
specifically: (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. [USC02] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Any more questions?

define obstruction. defense of oneself is not obstruction.

Sure it is. If the house subpoenas peoples and documents you are obstructing their investigation. It was in the articles for impeachment for Nixon and Clinton too. You defend yourself by speaking the truth, let other people tell the truth and delivering documents if asked. If you don't you aren't defending yourself but obstructing justice.

oh someone isn't allowed to defend themselves in your fked up brain? too funny. son, you're in the wrong country. go back to russia.

Of course, you are allowed to defend yourself. Defending yourself tough does NOT include the right to withhold evidence. You can't defend yourself by shooting a witness for instance either. There are limits on the right to defend yourself. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is one of those.[/QUOTE]
it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.[/QUOTE]

It's official. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is obstruction whether this is an impeachment inquiry or not.[/QUOTE]
only a court can decide that. he's willing to go to court. oh fking well.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Sondland:

Trump said to me: "I want nothing. I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky — President Zelensky to do the right thing."


Why do you Left wing lunatics keep ignoring this? This is the smoking gun, or the lack of the smoking gun.

How is this dispositive of quid pro quo? Specifically, Lefties, Lay it out for me.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Perhaps you should have read a bit further, from your link. My B/U

The law also required that the Complainant provide a complaint or information with respect to an “urgent concern,” which is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant alleged information with respect to such an alleged urgent concern.

.

the WB went to congress with an urgent concern after his complaint was going to get buried. when he/she did that - they were then instructed to go to the IG.

And I just proved, the ICIG has no jurisdiction. So this so called WB isn't really a WB. is he? He has no claim to remain anonymous because he took his "concern" to the wrong place. My question now is, if Vidman violated the espionage act by reading in someone, about the call, who didn't have a need to know.

.

vidman is a spy? is that what you are saying???????????????????? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........................

dismissed.

No I said he was a leaker and possibly a criminal if the individual he leaked the call to didn't have a legitimate need to know. You don't read too well, do you?

.

haaaaaa....you think the lt colonel is stupid?

that would be donny's deal.

Well, Vindman is clearly not too bright. In his previous testimony he said he didn't know who the whistleblower was and now he had clearly indicated he was the leak who got this whole thing started: that's perjury. When you look at the chain of events, Vindman told the Whistleblower about the phone call and then the whistleblower goes to Schiff with the information and Schiff then tells him to file a report with the IG, it is clear that Vindman, the Whistleblower and Schiff conspired to stage this impeachment farce to cover up the Bidens' dirty deals in Ukraine. That's why Schiff won't allow the whistleblower to testify for fear that faced with possible prosecution for perjury, he will spill the beans about the conspiracy.

 

[forkup]

[/QUOTE]
it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.[/QUOTE]
Again being deliberately obtuse doesn't help you. This is the impeachment INQUIRY. This is the investigatory process of impeachment where is decided if the charges warrant actual impeachment. It is something that is described in the constitution. Not only that but it STILL doesn't change the simple fact that the house issued subpoenas and the Trump administration is refusing to comply. They can justify it and let the judicial branch rule on it. In the end, the result will be the same as with the Nixon tapes. Were SCOTUS unanimously decided to recognize both the RIGHT of the house to ask and the OBLIGATION for the executive branch to comply.

 

[ColonelAngus]

God Bless Undersecretary Hale for not telling us about his alcoholic grandfather from Lithuania.

Loved his opening statement.

This bitch needs to cut it short. This is all fucking irrelevant.

 

[Zorro!]

HMM: Ukrainian MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln.

“Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the ‘family’ of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party.”
​

Well, stay tuned.

 

[IM2]

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency.Obstruction of justice
-18 U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials
specifically:being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
official act;
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
-52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
specifically: (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. [USC02] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Any more questions?

define obstruction. defense of oneself is not obstruction.

Sure it is. If the house subpoenas peoples and documents you are obstructing their investigation. It was in the articles for impeachment for Nixon and Clinton too. You defend yourself by speaking the truth, let other people tell the truth and delivering documents if asked. If you don't you aren't defending yourself but obstructing justice.

oh someone isn't allowed to defend themselves in your fked up brain? too funny. son, you're in the wrong country. go back to russia.

Of course, you are allowed to defend yourself. Defending yourself tough does NOT include the right to withhold evidence. You can't defend yourself by shooting a witness for instance either. There are limits on the right to defend yourself. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is one of those.

it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.[/QUOTE]

It's official. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is obstruction whether this is an impeachment inquiry or not.[/QUOTE]
only a court can decide that. he's willing to go to court. oh fking well.[/QUOTE]
If he wasn't the president he'd be under arrest. I tell you what try avoiding showing up when you get subpoenaed and see what you get.

 

[Dragonlady]

Was thee an investigation into Burisma? Nope. Did Ukraine get the Javelins? Yep.

Seems like a shit quid pro quo to me.

They got caught, and only then did they release the aid. Two days after the news of the whistleblower's report was made public, Trump released the aid, but not before. At that time, President Zelensky had an interviewed scheduled with CNN wherein he intended to go on network TV and announced the investigations Trump wanted. After the aid was released, Zelensky cancelled the interview.

Just because Trump got caught and his scheme was exposed before he got his "favour" doesn't make the attempt at bribery and extortion OK or even "not illegal". A criminal is charged if they are caught plotting to blow up a building, even if no explosion occurs and no one dies.

Ukraine got the aid because Trump got caught. Every plausible reason for the delay in transferring the aid has been blown out of the water. Trump had no interest in corruption, only in the deliverables. And Zelensky still hasn't been invited to the White House, although Trump has been trying to invite Putin, and recently hosted Erdogan.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Even if he was a whistleblower, the whistleblower act does not guarantee anonymity.

True, but he was not a legitimate WB, period, end of story. He has no protections. shitt is just trying to hid his staffs involvement and coordination with the spy.

.

I think what it's really about is he (or she) would be dragged into the Senate to answer questions Schiff don't want asked, such as, who did he go to first with his complaint? Who authored his complaint, because anybody that read it stated it was done by a legal professional and not the whistleblower. Did he ever discuss the situation personally with Schiff? Is this an anti-trumper?

Schiff is not worried about protecting the whistleblower, he's worried about protecting himself.

Damn, I could swear that's what I just said. But I want to know if the individual Vidman leaked to, about the call, in the intel community had a legitimate need to know. If not Vidman violated protections of classified information, and possibly the espionage act. The FBI needs to look into that aspect of his testimony.

.

But that's not going to happen, so we will file that with the other trump cultist delusions:

*FLUSH*

what's trump's crime again? speaking of delusions?

I am not your mommy. Just make your point. And then we can laugh at you.

 

[Zorro!]

Was thee an investigation into Burisma? Nope. Did Ukraine get the Javelins? Yep.

Seems like a shit quid pro quo to me.

They got caught, and only then did they release the aid. Two days after the news of the whistleblower's report was made public, Trump released the aid, but not before. At that time, President Zelensky had an interviewed scheduled with CNN wherein he intended to go on network TV and announced the investigations Trump wanted. After the aid was released, Zelensky cancelled the interview.

Just because Trump got caught and his scheme was exposed before he got his "favour" doesn't make the attempt at bribery and extortion OK or even "not illegal". A criminal is charged if they are caught plotting to blow up a building, even if no explosion occurs and no one dies.

Ukraine got the aid because Trump got caught. Every plausible reason for the delay in transferring the aid has been blown out of the water. Trump had no interest in corruption, only in the deliverables. And Zelensky still hasn't been invited to the White House, although Trump has been trying to invite Putin, and recently hosted Erdogan.

So the aid was released before the end of the quarter, aid that OBAMA first withheld, and nothing was demanded of Ukraine in return. You have no case.

Further, even had Trump demanded a corruption investigation into 2016 corruption coordinated by Democrats to interfere with the Presidential election, that would be in the Interests of the UNITED States.

LAWSUIT: Schiff Colluded With Politico To Leak False Info To Further Sham Impeachment.

“On Monday, Kash Patel, a White House official serving on the National Security Council (NSC), filed a $25 million lawsuit against Politico, alleging that Adam Schiff, the California Democrat, leading the sham impeachment against President Trump, ‘weaponized the media’ with defamatory information to advance his goal of removing the president from office.”​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another Nothing Burger day for the Democrats.

Well, except for Trump's hand picked stooge rolling over on him....mmwahahaha

 

[OKTexas]

I still can't believe Vindman was offered a job by the Ukraine folks. Too fking funny. A military US dude gets offer for work in Ukraine. What was their favor ask?

Maybe it was the other way around he asked them for a job

I was watching Laura last night, and I forget who was on, but they said Vindman would often cut down the United States when he was around Russians. I guess they used to workout together or something, and he'd make jokes how Americans couldn't do this, and Americans were not up to doing that, just general put downs of the American people.

Bullshit.

Links and the statement of one of Vidman's supervisors has been included in this thread, so no, it's not bullshit.

.

Yes, it is bullshit. Most of what comes from alt-right media is bullshit. Anybody can create a website.

The statement posted was from Col Hickman who commanded Vindman in Europe. So no, it's not bullshit. It's just not convenient to your propaganda.

.

 

[IM2]

HMM: Ukrainian MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln.

“Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the ‘family’ of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party.”
​

Well, stay tuned.

Maybe Trump should have been investigating Franklin Templeton.

 

[Zorro!]

Maybe it was the other way around he asked them for a job

I was watching Laura last night, and I forget who was on, but they said Vindman would often cut down the United States when he was around Russians. I guess they used to workout together or something, and he'd make jokes how Americans couldn't do this, and Americans were not up to doing that, just general put downs of the American people.

Bullshit.

Links and the statement of one of Vidman's supervisors has been included in this thread, so no, it's not bullshit.

.

Yes, it is bullshit. Most of what comes from alt-right media is bullshit. Anybody can create a website.

The statement posted was from Col Hickman who commanded Vindman in Europe. So no, it's not bullshit. It's just not convenient to your propaganda.

.

‘Bro-like’: Schiff aide was White House friend of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.

Alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella was close friends at the White House with an official who is now a key aide to Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman leading the Democratic push to impeach President Trump.

Sean Misko, 37, was the director for the Gulf States at the National Security Council from 2015 until the first half of 2018. Ciaramella, 33, a career CIA analyst, was Ukraine director on the NSC from at least 2016 until the summer of 2017. Both officials arrived during the Obama administration and left during the Trump administration.

In September, the whistleblower accused Trump of abusing the presidency by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. The complaint is now the focus of Democratic-led impeachment proceedings.

Schiff initially denied he had any knowledge about the complaint prior to its filing in mid-August, saying on Sep. 17: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.” But it was later found that this statement was false and a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before the complaint was filed on Aug. 12.

 

[WEATHER53]

I was watching Laura last night, and I forget who was on, but they said Vindman would often cut down the United States when he was around Russians. I guess they used to workout together or something, and he'd make jokes how Americans couldn't do this, and Americans were not up to doing that, just general put downs of the American people.

Bullshit.

Links and the statement of one of Vidman's supervisors has been included in this thread, so no, it's not bullshit.

.

Yes, it is bullshit. Most of what comes from alt-right media is bullshit. Anybody can create a website.

The statement posted was from Col Hickman who commanded Vindman in Europe. So no, it's not bullshit. It's just not convenient to your propaganda.

.

‘Bro-like’: Schiff aide was White House friend of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.

Alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella was close friends at the White House with an official who is now a key aide to Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman leading the Democratic push to impeach President Trump.

Sean Misko, 37, was the director for the Gulf States at the National Security Council from 2015 until the first half of 2018. Ciaramella, 33, a career CIA analyst, was Ukraine director on the NSC from at least 2016 until the summer of 2017. Both officials arrived during the Obama administration and left during the Trump administration.

In September, the whistleblower accused Trump of abusing the presidency by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. The complaint is now the focus of Democratic-led impeachment proceedings.

Schiff initially denied he had any knowledge about the complaint prior to its filing in mid-August, saying on Sep. 17: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.” But it was later found that this statement was false and a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before the complaint was filed on Aug. 12.

Another fact based entanglement and affiliation that libs will dismiss as “conspiracy theory”