Offical Impeachment Thread

[Zorro!]

...and neither of them were tied to extortion by the president for dirt on his political foe.

Nor was the delay with the Ukraine, no matter how you try and frame it.

Trump released the aid without any requirements at all, even though the requirements considered were certainly justifiable.
\

BOOM! Rep. Ratcliffe Gets Under Secretary Hale to Admit US Aid was Withheld in Pakistan, Lebanon, Honduras and Other Countries… Not Just Ukraine!

He released the aid 2 days after he got caught.

Caught what? Suggesting that Ukraine assist us in accordance with our mutual defense treaty and that the Biden stuff looks really bad, and it does, and that they might want to look into it? He released the aid without ANY conditions, you want to impeach him because you claim you can mind-read him and you claim he thought about doing doing something wrong?

And you wonder why folks think the Left is nuts and wants to criminalize "wrong thoughts"?


PHOTO EMERGES of Anti-Trump CIA ‘WhistleLeaker’ Eric Ciaramella in Oval Office with Barack Obama

It's called Thought Police. It's from their favorite book.

It will NEVER get the backing of the American People, and without overwhelming backing of the American People, Dems lose impeachment in the Senate. REAL statutory serious crimes AND a clearly fair process and the GOP would impeach him, but, Dems have neither. They have a charade and kangaroo court, and they are doing NOTHING for the American People. All their focus has been on overturning the 2016 election and trying to misuse impeachment to affect the 2020 election. They know that they can't beat Trump on the issues. With their failure, Trump will likely beat them like a rented mule.

Sondland admitted that he presumed the quid pro quo. Virtually all foreign relations involve quid pro quo, a Latin phrase that just means “this for that” — and doesn’t necessarily imply corrupt ends. Plus, discourse between foreign powers typically involves pressure. The domestic criminal-law concept of “extortion” has no application in foreign relations, where countries squeeze each other, and worse, to force accommodations.

In this “Seinfeld Impeachment” — nothing actually happens. The Ukrainians were given their defense aid. Trump gave Zelensky a high-profile meeting. Zelensky and his government were not forced to announce the investigations, and there is no reason to believe they have conducted them.

Zelensky regarded the president’s push as a request, and he has said he never felt pressured. For all but a few days of the weeks during which the defense aid was withheld, the Ukrainians were not even aware of the holdup — it was a bookkeeping issue in the massive US budget. Ukraine never missed the aid, and its security was never compromised. Moreover, Trump has been much more supportive of Ukraine’s national defense than was his predecessor. Unlike the Obama administration, Trump has provided lethal defense aid that has made a real difference on the battlefield.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/gordo...medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

 

[cnm]

And your factcheck post was published at the end of September.

You mean Europe hadn't spent any money since 2014 until the end of September? No, I think that information has been available for a long time.

 

[cnm]

Woo hoo! Validated by The Puke. It doesn't get better...

 

[The Purge]

 

[Zorro!]

You've got one candidate asking for the truth to be revealed...you've got the other one paying for lies to be told to the electorate right before the election! Now which of THOSE do you think "undermines" an election! Duh?

They don't care. Look at how their story constantly changes. The American Electorate is unfooled. They have never accepted the election, and they to this very day, are still trying to undo it.


Schiff’s Latest Impeachment Witness Laura Cooper Uses Second-Hand Info to Testify About Trump’s Hold on Military Aid For Ukraine

The dislike of Trump is because of what he has said and done, but as long as you hang on to the false belief of not accepting the election, you don't have to acknowledge all the dumb things he's done as president.

Wage are up, unemployment is down and as long as unemployment stays this strong, the Social Security Trust Fund never runs out.

Further, the Democrats’ claim of misconduct doesn’t even come close to the Framers’ conception of an impeachable offense. The Constitution makes impeachment the remedy for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” As the plain text attests, the bribery the Framers had in mind was on the order of treason — i.e., a traitorous sale of the presidency to a foreign power.

As the Constitution defines it, treason occurs when an American adheres to a foreign enemy. An enemy implies wartime — i.e., aiding the enemy’s belligerence against the United States. The Framers, however, were also worried about presidential intrigue with foreign powers that were not wartime enemies — i.e., the possibility that a foreign power would bribe the president to pursue the foreign power’s interests, not ours.

Democrats maintain that the president is guilty of bribery, even though there was no bribe, because the federal bribery statute doesn’t require the bribe to be completed. A corrupt demand by a public official in exchange for the performance of an official act is enough.

For purposes of domestic law enforcement, it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to criminalize lesser offenses under the heading of “bribery.” In crafting the impeachment clause, however, the Framers weren’t relying on this federal statute, enacted about 175 years later. They had a very specific kind of bribery in mind. They were contemplating not only an actual bribe, but a bribe of the most egregious, traitorous kind.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/gordo...medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

 

[Zorro!]

He released the aid 2 days after he got caught.

Actually, it was released due to Durbin putting on the pressure for the funds to be released.
Yeah, I know the timing was terrible....but this just came out this evening. it wasn't Trump timing

You just admitted that it was released without any pre-conditions. Even though there is nothing wrong with pre-conditions, you still don't have any.

Obama withheld this same aid and NEVER released it, and you guys didn't say squat.


LIGHTS OUT – Sondland: ‘President Trump Never Told Me Military Aid Was Tied to Investigation Into Bidens’

Ummmm, what I'm saying is that it was Durbin's timing for the release, not Trump's.
Everybody says Trump released it because he was caught, that's not it at all.

You are engaging in mindless mind-reading. It's your imagination, imagine what you wish, but don't expect anyone else to find your imaginations compelling.

Schiff has denied Republicans the opportunity to call these witnesses, just as he has denied the GOP the ability to ask questions about the so-called whistleblower who instigated the Ukraine impeachment push (a CIA official who is known to have consulted with Schiff’s staff while preparing his complaint).

According to Schiff, the Republicans must not be permitted to question their preferred witnesses because possible Biden corruption and Ukrainian interference in the election for the benefit of Hillary Clinton are not relevant topics. The only matter in focus is President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine’s government – i.e., the slow-walking of defense aid to pressure Kyiv to conduct investigations “that would benefit Trump politically.”

This, of course, is absurd. In their tunnel vision, what Democrats call the investigations that “would benefit Trump politically” are precisely Biden corruption and Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.

Schiff & Co. mulishly insist that Trump was motivated by nothing other than his political fortunes in the 2020 campaign. Obviously, if the fact-finding inquiry is legitimate, the president and Republicans must be entitled to try to demonstrate that Trump had proper motivations.

Contrary to Schiff’s deceptive claim at the start of the inquiry (in his “parody” version of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call), the president was not asking Ukraine to “make up dirt on my political opponent.” There was abundant good-faith reason to suspect self-dealing by the Bidens.

Andrew McCarthy: Schiff games Trump impeachment show – In legitimate proceedings, you can't have it both ways

Sadly Zorro, you are not comprehending what went down, and understanding what I posted.
Please don't insult me and call me a liberal, please?
All I stated was that it wasn't Trump's timing for the release of the funds, it was Durbin's timing. Think that through before you go off on me.

You have no convincing evidence of that. Association isn't necessarily causation. I threw hay out of my window and no elephants attacked. Can I associate those two events? Sure! Did my action prevent an elephant attack? No.

The president had no corrupt intent. Contrary to Rep. Adam Schiff’s “parody” version of the July Trump-Zelensky call, he wasn’t asking Ukraine to “make up dirt about my opponent.” There was significant reason to believe the Bidens were involved in self-dealing. There is abundant evidence that Ukrainian officials colluded with Democrats in the 2016 campaign. The president’s supporters say he was not so much seeking to help his 2020 campaign as to press for full accountability regarding Ukraine-Democrat collusion in the 2016 campaign and potential corruption in Obama administration dealings with Kiev.

 

[the other mike]

 

[Zorro!]

Trump released the aid without any requirements at all, even though the requirements considered were certainly justifiable.

One wonders then why it was held up. Secret agenda?

Ukraine didn't seat their new Parliament till early Aug, they were waiting to see if they were reformers or posers.

.

Like most sensible Americans I am certainly much more interested in knowing about what the Bidens were up to in Ukraine (and China), and in getting a full accounting of Ukraine’s collusion with Democrats in connection with the 2016 election, than I am in Ukraine.

The United States pours hundreds of millions of dollars and matériel into Ukraine. To listen to the Democrats’ witnesses, you would think every dime, every last bullet, is going to Kyiv’s desperate effort to stave off Moscow. To listen to them, you would never know that U.S. taxpayer support goes to Ukrainian military services that gleefully incorporate neo-Nazis and other blood-and-soil extremist nationalists into their ranks — thugs who’d like to purge ethnic Russians in Donbas after they’ve extinguished the Jewish and Roma minorities.

These Ukrainian forces make common cause with Chechen Islamists, enabling Putin to maintain the pose of a potential partner in battling the global jihad — i.e., the jihad with which Putin willfully aligns when the Kremlin sees advantage in it.

But we are being regaled with the fairy tale Ukraine — progressive, oriented toward Europe, committed to human rights, longing for Western pluralism. It’s the story Democrats, progressive Republicans, and LTC Vindman’s vaunted “policy community” have successfully peddled for five years.

Ukraine Government: Corrupt, Authoritarian, Venal | National Review

 

[Zorro!]

No one has any first hand evidence that Trump hired a hit man.

You already admitted Trump asked by saying he didn't get anything, so you can't move those goalposts now. You've already admitted his guilt, and no takebacks....

It's your fabrication, you are welcome to fashion it as you please.

... Trump will still be impeached, and the Republicans will still be massacred in 2020...

Nether will occur.

... Mueller said he couldn't indict a sitting president...

Mueller was tasked with bringing indictments and reporting to Barr. It would be up to Barr whether the indictment would be delayed or silently filed. Mueller didn't indict because he didn't have sufficient evidence to bring an indictment.

The rest of your post is childishly profane. Sad!

 

[Zorro!]

what does the transcript says

Need a link for this. Kilroy2

Both Volker and Morrison said the less than two month delay of the aid had no effect on Ukraines defensive capabilities. And the Javelin missile sale was apart form that aid.

.

Still why was it delayed you have not answered that one question...

Obama delayed it and NEVER released it, you have not answered that one question.

Obama delayed it because of corruption within the Ukraine government. The money was released and probably after the prosecutor general was fired 3 or 4 months later after Biden's visit in December.

The prosecutor general at that time did not do a thing about corruption within the Ukraine government

They were concern that money given to Ukraine would not be used for the specific purpose that it was sent there for

Ukraine was widely believed by almost everyone including European governments including the IMF to be corrupt

IMF threaten to withhold money if Ukraine did not clean up there act

OB, Europeans, IMF did not ask for anything in return other than having the Ukraines become serious about corruption in their government. This mostly centered around the prosecutor general and his office. They only wanted Ukraine government to clean up their act.

Since 2016 the prosecutor general was fired and replaced.

Elections were held and a new government is in place

Pointing to OB withholding money as if it was the same reason that Trump was withholding aid ignores the reasons that each used for withholding money....

No. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt nations on earth. The new government was recently seated and Trump released the lethal aid without conditions, even though conditions are perfectly normal in foreign relations. These new folks are supposed to be less corrupt, after Trump had an opportunity to speak with hijm a few times, he released the money before the end of the quarter, without preconditions. He clearly stated to one of the few witnesses with first hand information that he wanted no quid pro quo, even though quid pro quos are fine, he just wanted the President to do what he said he would do when he was running fore office, and that's perfectly fair.

... The difference is Trump wanted an investigation into Biden and his son...

They should be investigated.

... Trump even talked about a server that belong to the DNC and Cloudstrike...

If they are available, they should be examined.

... All things that were political issues in the US not in Ukraine...

They all pertain to Ukraine's attempts at influencing the 2016 election, likely arranged by Democrats.

... Obama did not have his private lawyer go to Ukraine to find dirt on a political opponent

Obama helped pay for the Dossier and the payments were laundered through a private law-firm, and you never said squat.

The president is skeptical about the prudence of pouring foreign aid out of our Treasury when we are $23 trillion in debt. He is skeptical about funding that entangles the United States in conflicts which may not be in our vital national interests. And he is skeptical about Ukraine, a pervasively corrupt country in which the competing factions feature elements that reject Western principles of liberalism, pluralism, and respect for human rights..

While I agree with The Deep State's belief that Ukraine, for all its flaws, is worth supporting for the greater good of thwarting the Kremlin, it does not mean the fantasy depiction of Ukraine is any more accurate than our Deep State's delusions about sharia-democracy promotion in the Middle East.

You can certainly disagree with President Trump’s skepticism about Ukraine. But you cannot credibly say that harboring doubts is irrational, nor deny that, notwithstanding his doubts, the current president has done far more for Ukraine’s security than the last one.

Ukraine Government: Corrupt, Authoritarian, Venal | National Review

 

[cnm]

You can certainly disagree with President Trump’s skepticism about Ukraine. But you cannot credibly say that harboring doubts is irrational, nor deny that, notwithstanding his doubts, the current president has done far more for Ukraine’s security than the last one.

Nor that he had a really good shot at shaking them down for domestic political advantage and was foiled only by the whistleblower blowing the whistle.

 

[Zorro!]

There was abundant good-faith reason to suspect self-dealing by the Bidens.

Apart from the complete lack of evidence as stated by Ukrainian officials.

Ukraine’s top prosecutor unaware of evidence against Hunter Biden

https://nypost.com/2019/10/04/ukraines-top-prosecutor-unaware-of-evidence-against-hunter-biden/

“I have no such information,” General Prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka told Reuters when asked whether he had evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.​

Gee, they just suddenly had an overwhelming urge to stuff millions into the pockets of the coke addled son of the VP while the VP was in the position of withholding a $Billion in aid if they didn't fir their top prosecutor in 6 hours?

One of the lies the Dem's and their kangaroo court are pushing is a dichotomy between President Trump and what they call “official” US foreign policy. It’s a false framework. Official policy is not made by the so-called policy community (comprised mainly of the NSC, the State Department and government agents from the intelligence community and the armed services). The president makes American foreign policy.

The function of the policy community is to give the president its best advice and the benefit of its considerable knowledge and experience. But in our representative republic, policy is made by the only official who actually answers to the voters whose lives and interests are at stake — the president.

The Democrats’ theory is that it is misconduct for the president to depart from the policy priorities of unelected bureaucrats. That gets things backward. The president sets policy; the policy community is supposed to carry out the president’s policy. It is certainly possible that a president’s policy may be misguided or even improperly self-interested — and in that sense, it could be wrong. But it cannot be regarded as wrong simply because the policy community disagrees.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/the-t...-are-pushing-in-tuesdays-impeachment-hearing/

 

[Zorro!]

You can certainly disagree with President Trump’s skepticism about Ukraine. But you cannot credibly say that harboring doubts is irrational, nor deny that, notwithstanding his doubts, the current president has done far more for Ukraine’s security than the last one.

Nor that he had a really good shot at shaking them down for domestic political advantage and was foiled only by the whistleblower blowing the whistle.

No. But thanks for admitting that the aid was released without pre-condition, which makes the Dem's "case" completely without merit.

One of the lies Dems are pushing in their kangaroo court is the President's implication, in the July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine may have been complicit in the hacking of Democratic email accounts. It is quite correct to contend, as they do, that there is no known support for this theory. It is also correct that US intelligence agencies and the Mueller investigation assessed that Russia was behind the hacking attacks.

From these correct premises, Democrats are drawing two false conclusions:

(a) that there is no evidence of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election besides the discredited theory that Ukraine was behind the hacking; and
(b) if Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Ukraine cannot have done so.​

This is disingenuous.

There is significant evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Democrats want to suppress it because the interference was for the benefit of the Clinton campaign. For example, a Ukrainian court concluded in late 2018 that Ukrainian officials, including a parliamentarian and the anti-corruption police, interfered in the US election.

Ukrainian officials were responsible for leaks — in particular, a leak of a dubious ledger showing payments from the then-regime in Kiev — that resulted in Paul Manafort’s being ousted from the Trump campaign. That incident became an important part of the Democrats’ discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Logically, moreover, there is no credible either-or understanding of Russian and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. It is perfectly reasonable to believe both that Russia meddled by hacking Democratic email accounts, and that Ukraine meddled by seeking to find and publicize information that would hurt Trump and help Hillary Clinton.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/the-t...-are-pushing-in-tuesdays-impeachment-hearing/

 

[Zorro!]

Trump released the aid without any requirements at all, even though the requirements considered were certainly justifiable.

One wonders then why it was held up. Secret agenda?

The new government in Ukraine was just seated. The US budget is a massive enterprise, it was released before the end of the quarter.

Obama NEVER released the lethal aid that Trump has.

Democrats took pains to elicit from witnesses that there was no evidence of either

(a) corrupt activity in Ukraine by former Vice President Joe Biden in connection with the notoriously corrupt energy firm, Burisma, that was lavishly paying his son; or
(b) Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.​

They are plainly seeking to use this testimony (and similar testimony they have previously elicited) to argue that corruption allegations and claims of Ukrainian meddling have been disproved.

In point of fact, the witnesses who were asked to give this testimony later conceded they had no knowledge of the underlying facts.

In a judicial proceeding under evidentiary rules, witnesses would not be permitted to testify regarding matters of which they have no personal knowledge and no basis in admissible evidence to render conclusions.

The fact that this testimony has been elicited in a congressional hearing that is adhering to no evidentiary rules does not make the testimony true, accurate or reliable.

To be clear, this is not to accuse the witnesses of lying. They simply should not be asked questions that they have no known basis to answer informatively.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/the-t...-are-pushing-in-tuesdays-impeachment-hearing/

 

[Zorro!]

This testimony would not be allowed in a court proceeding

It's not a court proceeding....

That's not the point. We have these rules in Court Proceedings because they assure a fair process and guard against lynch mobs and witch hunts.

...you're helpless, and you know it.

We're whippin your asses. You guys are making complete fools of yourselves.

 

[Zorro!]

Did Hillary pay Fusion GPS to fabricate phony dossiers on her political opponent? Yes or no?

No.

Why do you ask such stupid questions? You're just displaying what a brainwashed partisan shill you are.

Again, when my point is that trump cultists always lie, telling stupid lies is a really bad strategy for you.

You have completely run out of substantive arguments, but then, Dems never had any for not accepting the results of the 2016 election.

Trump impeachment inquiry obstructed by Democrats' 'whistleblower' secrecy charade.

Congressional Democrats are obstructing the impeachment inquiry.

It has become rote for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his fellow Democrats to chide the Trump administration for blocking testimony from White House staffers and the president’s private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Yet, those witnesses actually have confidentiality privileges that are well settled in federal law, shielding communications between the chief executive and his top advisers, and between attorney and client, from disclosure.

When a person asserts a privilege recognized by law, we don’t call that obstruction. We call it the law in action.

By contrast, Schiff is playing a lawless game with the so-called whistleblower: predicating the impeachment inquiry on this intelligence official’s complaint while blocking Republicans from questioning the official and other policy officials with whom he dealt. The suppression of relevant information obstructs the congressional investigation.

The “whistleblower” is not actually a whistleblower in the strict legal sense because the statute governing the protection of such sources is inapposite. (That is, the statute covers disclosures relating to activities of the intelligence services, not the president’s conduct of foreign relations.)

There is not a court in America that would keep the whistleblower’s identity and the details of his role in the origins of the Democrats’ Ukraine investigation under wraps.

Contrary to what Democrats would have you believe, this is not an unusual situation. It comes up frequently in prosecutions. The principle is simple: There are many legal and policy limitations on the disclosure of information. If, however, the government decides to proceed with a prosecution that makes presumptively secret matters germane to the truth-seeking process, secrecy has to give way.

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment inquiry obstructed by Democrats' 'whistleblower' secrecy charade

 

[mudwhistle]

Now if Nunes would just subpoena someone who knows something about what Trump did- like Pompeo and Mulvaney and Giuliani.

How about Adam Schiff.....he knows Trump did nothing.

How would anyone know that Trump did nothing? Hell Melania apparently didn't even know Trump was cheating on her.

Why do you think that Trump is so desperately preventing the testimony of his loyalists who have first hand knowledge of the actual deal in Ukraine?

What deal in Ukraine?

From what I saw, the State Department only has a presumption of what Trump's policy is. They don't seem to want to take his word for anything. He tells them there are no conditions for foreign aid and they don't seem to believe him. Apparently the guilt belongs to them, not Trump. It's not Trump's fault they refuse to follow his directives.

 

[OldLady]

The takeaways from Sondland's testimony yesterday were:
The accusations against the Bidens are NOT CREDIBLE
The disinformation campaign against Yavanovich was NOT CREDIBLE
Sondland 100% objects to the withholding of military aid to Ukraine (as does every other witness who has been on so far)

This makes our President look STUPID. He believes conspiracy theories and nurses his grudges (even if the Ukrainians DID support Hillary in 2016, why is he still sulking about that now?) Does everyone who supported Hillary deserve investigations by the government? Apparently so, according to Trump and his supporters.

The entire underpinning of Trump's "favor" is bullshit. So should I be embarrassed that our President is into illegal arm twisting with foreign leaders, or embarrassed that he's dumber than a rock?

 

[OldLady]

Pretty cut and dry

Sure is. The only thing Jordan failed to mention was that "none of that materialized" because Trump got caught.

Did you catch where Sondland laughed out loud at Jordan? He was highly amused by the trick pony's performance.

 

[HaShev]

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.

Just heard on NBC. The FBI is going to interview the whistleblowner..lol

.

Of course, because it's illegal to file false charges. They should send him the bill for all this and add our time, pain, and suffering to the millions who has to watch this farce and had our normal TV interupted. And they complain about waterboarding ..... oy!