Offical Impeachment Thread

[OldLady]

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

Except the President's reasons are clear, from his own words "They tried to take me down" in 2016. That's ALL this is about, with a whole lot of help from Giuliani, for whatever reason.

 

[forkup]

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!

Do you know what false charges are? I'll tell you what it isn't. False charges aren't charges levied by someone through the IG who makes an assessment as to their credibility before it's even brought to the attention of congress. The IG deemed them credible and of urgent concern.

False charges are also not charges that are fully coroborated by multiple witnesses willing to testify under oath to the thruthfullness of them.

I'm noting one overarching fact. So far there hasn't been a single witness who has come forward, who's been willing to risk perjury charges to prove the charges false.

There hasn't been a single relavant piece of evidence presented by the administration that proves the charges false altough most of the witnesses have provided details that are easily verified.

 

[Olde Europe]

Do you know what false charges are? I'll tell you what it isn't. False charges aren't charges levied by someone through the IG who makes an assessment as to their credibility before it's even brought to the attention of congress. The IG deemed them credible and of urgent concern.

False charges are also not charges that are fully coroborated by multiple witnesses willing to testify under oath to the thruthfullness of them.

I'm noting one overarching fact. So far there hasn't been a single witness who has come forward, who's been willing to risk perjury charges to prove the charges false.

There hasn't been a single relavant piece of evidence presented by the administration that proves the charges false altough most of the witnesses have provided details that are easily verified.

Quite.

Also, we've all heard the strident whines about "heresay" (!) evidence, and how that is not admissible (it is under certain conditions). We also know that the whistle-blower was not on the July 25 call, and he mostly collected testimony from folks who were. But, definitely, the Nunes crowd has to hear from the whistle-blower - because "heresay" (!).

Also, we hear that it's all false charges because there are no Republican witnesses. Of course there are at least three of these. But during the gold standard procedure, criminal trial, we definitely, absolutely make sure there is an equal number of Democratic and Republican witnesses, for without that no charges can ever be legit.

Also, Trump never instructed any of the Three Amigos on a mission to extract the "deliverable" that, in order to ramp up the pressure, he also withheld assistance to Ukraine. Since no one (so far) can testify that Trump spelled out the full extent of the extortion plot, there cannot be a link between pressure and deliverable. Because, as everyone knows, a Mob Boss always spells out the crime to his henchmen.

Also, we've heard there's ample evidence for the Bidens' corruption. That evidence is sure to find its way to the FBI, resulting in a legal assistance request by the relevant U.S. authorities to their Ukrainian counterparts. Oh, wait, Trump would rather inform Ukrainians that corruptly to instigate a criminal investigation based on no evidence is the way to go. Failing that, a mere announcement of an investigation that may or may not happen would also do.

And on and on...

The Trumpletons' handlers have been very busy indeed. These ever more complicated pretzels won't arrange themselves.

 

[kyzr]

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 interrupted. And they complain about waterboarding ..... oy!

Do you know what false charges are? I'll tell you what it isn't. False charges aren't charges levied by someone through the IG who makes an assessment as to their credibility before it's even brought to the attention of congress. The IG deemed them credible and of urgent concern.

False charges are also not charges that are fully corroborated by multiple witnesses willing to testify under oath to the truthfulness of them.

I'm noting one overarching fact. So far there hasn't been a single witness who has come forward, who's been willing to risk perjury charges to prove the charges false.

There hasn't been a single relevant piece of evidence presented by the administration that proves the charges false although most of the witnesses have provided details that are easily verified.

1. You really need to learn how to use spell-check.
2. Define the charges you're posting about. Perjury? Extortion? Obstruction? WTF are you posting about?
3. "Charges" are obvious, they do not depend on interpretation of witnesses, like when Vindman said Trump "demanded" a QPQ and the gal correctly said it was not a demand.
4. Impeachment is different than typical law. Smollett can get away with a crime if the prosecutor doesn't prosecute. The House can call anything a crime and impeach, while the Senate has the final say as the jury.
5. No one in the House needs to prove the charges false, they vote on them, its a foregone conclusion that the House will impeach Trump, it won't matter.
6. When the Senate starts calling witnesses like the Bidens, Schiff, the WB, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, the Ohrs, and other deep state coup plotters it will be clear who broke the law and who didn't.
7. As for proving charges false, how about two distinguished Law Professors who as experts say no crime has been committed by Trump:
Trump's Ukraine transcript: Unwise words but no proof of a crime
Dershowitz: House Democrats Acting Like Stalin On Impeachment; "Show Me The Man, And I’ll Find You The Crime"

 

[Missouri_Mike]

We've gone from second and third hand witnesses to some asshole who presumed a bunch of shit.

Hey, then the President, the Vice President, Pompeo, Giuliani, and Perry should all testify under oath and set it straight.


Right?

They already said nothing happened. Not our problem your hearings are a joke.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You mean Trump asking the Russians to release Hillary's emails that she'd destroyed so the country couldn't see just how corrupt she was...is that the "assistance" you're referring to? That doesn't undermine the election, Fort.

Of course it does. Look what trump has done to your brain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They already said nothing happened.

Great! So they should have no prpblem saying so under oath, right? Dont sissy out of the question.

 

[Oldstyle]

You mean Trump asking the Russians to release Hillary's emails that she'd destroyed so the country couldn't see just how corrupt she was...is that the "assistance" you're referring to? That doesn't undermine the election, Fort.

Of course it does. Look what trump has done to your brain.

It amuses me that you on the left view the "truth" as something that undermines elections but seem to have no problem with Hillary Clinton paying for LIES!

 

[The Purge]

'Coup' Concerns Suddenly Don't Seem So Far-fetched

For most of the last three years, Donald Trump's critics have scoffed at supposed "conspiracy theories" that claimed a "deep state" of bureaucrats were aborting the Trump presidency. We have been told the word "coup" is hyperbole that reveals the paranoid minds of Trump supporters.

Yet oddly, many people brag that they are proud members of a deep state and occasionally boast about the idea of a coup.

Recently, former acting CIA chief John McLaughlin proclaimed in a public forum, "Thank God for the deep state." Former CIA director John Brennan agreed and praised the "deep state people" for their opposition to Trump.

Far from denying the danger of an unelected careerist bureaucracy that seeks to overturn presidential policies, New York Times columnists have praised its efforts to nullify the Trump agenda.

On the first day of the impeachment inquiry, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff called his initial two witnesses, career State Department diplomats William Taylor Jr. and George Kent. Far from providing damning evidence of criminal presidential behavior, Taylor and Kent mostly confined themselves to three topics: their own sterling resumes, their lack of any firsthand knowledge of incriminating Trump action, and their poorly hidden disgust with the manner and substance of Trump's foreign policy.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...

 

[Missouri_Mike]

They already said nothing happened.

Great! So they should have no prpblem saying so under oath, right? Dont sissy out of the question.

I’m sure they will. If you ever come up with anything even resembling a criminal act.

 

[Paulie]

 

[NotYourBody]

Yea, he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption. What’s the crime again?

No, he just wanted Ukraine to say they were investigating Bidens. It didn't actually have to do it, just say it.

And where is the criminal act in that?

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

I haven't watched the hearings today, but for a few minutes I had it on while waiting on someone.

One question comes to mind. In this case, could you honestly vote for impeachment of the Republican when the hearings did not allow Republican witnesses and the entire hearings were orchestrated by the Democrats?

The same questions come to mind if a Democrat was being charged with a crime targeting impeachment when the Democrats did not have the same rules as the Republicans?

So, as I hear this evening, maybe impeachment is appropriate, but the way the hearings were handled would make me either vote no or not be present.

What do you think? Try to be honest.

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

t amuses me that you on the left view the "truth" as something that undermines elections

And it amuses me that you think you know what is in emails you never saw. It also amuses me that your spin of foreigners stealing and intefering is just a humble, honest attempt to get out the truth. The things you are saying are embarrassing and moronic, and that is what defending the cult leader does to you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

He laughed because Jordan got him. We see what we want to see.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’m sure they will. If you ever come up with anything even resembling a criminal act.

That doesnt make any sense at all. We would have to demonstrate they are guilty of a crime, before they would testify under oath and clear tgemselves of a crime? Listen to yourself. This is gibberish.

And you are SURE they will testify inder oath? Hahaha...really,? You sure?

 

[theHawk]

Yea, he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption. What’s the crime again?

No, he just wanted Ukraine to say they were investigating Bidens. It didn't actually have to do it, just say it.

And where is the criminal act in that?

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

I haven't watched the hearings today, but for a few minutes I had it on while waiting on someone.

One question comes to mind. In this case, could you honestly vote for impeachment of the Republican when the hearings did not allow Republican witnesses and the entire hearings were orchestrated by the Democrats?

The same questions come to mind if a Democrat was being charged with a crime targeting impeachment when the Democrats did not have the same rules as the Republicans?

So, as I hear this evening, maybe impeachment is appropriate, but the way the hearings were handled would make me either vote no or not be present.

What do you think? Try to be honest.

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

How is that a criminal act? We have no obligation to give them money. When we do give money, why would we give it to a country that reeks of corruption? When they start cracking down on corruption, then we’ll be willing to to give them aid. Nothing wrong, immoral, or illegal about it.

You also haven’t cited which law this supposedly breaks.

The fact that a corruption investigation would look bad for old Joe, isn’t an excuse to prevent such an investigation. Maybe if Dems don’t like being outted as corrupt then they shouldn’t be such corrupt assholes, eh?

 

[Oldstyle]

t amuses me that you on the left view the "truth" as something that undermines elections

And it amuses me that you think you know what is in emails you never saw. It also amuses me that your spin of foreigners stealing and intefering is just a humble, honest attempt to get out the truth. The things you are saying are embarrassing and moronic, and that is what defending the cult leader does to you.

What's amusing is that anyone would claim that there was nothing in the emails that Clinton destroyed.

 

[Faun]

I am watching it on NBC right now. It's being tied up with a neat ribbon and a bow. The Rump and Rudy Dog and Pony Act is pretty well out in the open.

Rump can pretty well forget receiving any more millions from Sondland. Sondland was a Republican Pick not a Democratic Pick for a witness. So don't give me this crap about the Republicans aren't getting their own picks into the investigation. They are. It's just now working out the way they thought it would. All that is left is the assination of their own hand picked witness. I am going to watch the Republicans tear into Sondland.

I can see a pattern here. The game plan was to throw Rudy under the bus. Well, the Republicans had done a pretty good job of that. Rudy is going to lose his Client Lawyer privilege very soon. At that point, Rudy is post toasties. And I believe that a deal or two is going to get cut to shorten his prison sentence and he's going to yank rump from the bus driver seat.

Time to sign off. it's getting ready to start up again. More later. Looks like it's time for the added Fat Lady, Donkey and the Disappearing Midget (use your own imagination)

You are a liar. Sondland wasn't called by the Republicans, he got a subpoena from Schifferbrains.

The Republican's have not had a single witness due to Schifferbrain's blocking them all.



Democrats subpoena Sondland for testimony, documents

Volker and Morrison were called by Republicans.

Bullshit. All witnesses to date have been called by Schifferbrains.

Trump impeachment inquiry: Who has been subpoenaed?

Uh-huh...
Republican Witnesses Blow Massive Hole in GOP’s Defense of Trump

"After weeks of decrying the impeachment process as a sham, Republicans finally got two of the witnesses they requested for testimony. But when one of them took the stand—the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker—he instead blew a massive hole in a central part of the GOP’s defense of President Trump.

Just moments after the top Republican on the panel, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), used his platform to parrot the very same claims President Trump has used to justify his pressure campaign in Ukraine—that the Biden family’s business involvement in a Ukrainian gas company is worth probing and that Ukraine meddled significantly in the 2016 election—Volker dismissed those items as “conspiracy theories circulated by the Ukrainians.”"


Yesterday was the first day in which the House impeachment inquiry featured public testimony from witnesses requested specifically by Republican members of the panel. As NBC News reported, these witnesses “were expected to provide testimony helpful to the president.”

The report added, succinctly, “They did not.”

I listed the people who got a subpoena from Schifferbrains...........you brought an alt-left opinion piece from far left Daily Beast.

You lose.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, ALL subpoenas are authorized by the committee chair, regardless of which member(s) requests it.

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 116TH CONGRESS

 

[The Purge]

Yea, he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption. What’s the crime again?

No, he just wanted Ukraine to say they were investigating Bidens. It didn't actually have to do it, just say it.

And where is the criminal act in that?

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

I haven't watched the hearings today, but for a few minutes I had it on while waiting on someone.

One question comes to mind. In this case, could you honestly vote for impeachment of the Republican when the hearings did not allow Republican witnesses and the entire hearings were orchestrated by the Democrats?

The same questions come to mind if a Democrat was being charged with a crime targeting impeachment when the Democrats did not have the same rules as the Republicans?

So, as I hear this evening, maybe impeachment is appropriate, but the way the hearings were handled would make me either vote no or not be present.

What do you think? Try to be honest.

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

Because it doesn't fit YOUR FEELINGS AND DERANGEMENTYOU can't handle the truth!!!

The President had been consulting with his national security leadership team to determine the best use of Ukraine security assistance funds to achieve US national security interests,” Office of Management and Budget staff wrote in an email to House Appropriations Committee staff aides. Agencies, OMB said, “must wait to obligate them until the policy review process is complete and the President had made a final determination.

Definitely going to need to post this a few HUNDRED TIMES MORE for the ABNORMALS!

 

[B. Kidd]

Fiona Hill, the quintessential Trump hater and deep stater to testify in a matter of minutes.