Offical Impeachment Thread

[jwoodie]

Should corruption be ignored because the suspected perp is running for president?....

Like Hillary?

 

[Rambunctious]

Schiff is beginning to sweat.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Should corruption be ignored because the suspected perp is running for president?....

Irrelevant red herring. Not one single person believes his interest was to investigate corruption for the sake of investigating corruption. Not even you. Peddle your bad acting to someone else.

 

[jbander]

This pretty much nails it.


Read the whole thing, Dimwingers.............it has a lot of words, so you may need to take some breaks......but read it and discover just how devoid of facts and evidence this impeachment farce is.

I predict a lot of Dimwinger crying and whining about the author, and nothing to debunk any of the facts he presents.




Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here's who Democrats have to thank

The clown show known as an "impeachment inquiry" is getting more comical and hapless by the day.

Consider the latest remark from the circus master himself, California Rep. Adam Schiff, (think Bozo, not Pennywise). The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he doesn’t want Republicans turning the impeachment proceedings into a “sham.” The hilarious irony is lost on no one. Schiff has already managed to accomplish it all on his own.

At first, Schiff wanted the faux “whistleblower” who triggered the impeachment farce to testify. Then, suddenly, he didn’t. What changed? In the interim, evidence emerged that Schiff and/or his staff colluded with the “whistleblower” before the complaint was ever filed and then lied about it, earning Schiff “Four Pinocchios” from The Washington Post.



The chairman now wants to conceal his own role in engineering the pretext for impeachment and his subsequent deceit. This is why he has insisted that the “whistleblower” remain anonymous, despite no such right, guarantee, privilege, or entitlement written in the law, as I explained in an earlier column. Even though the undercover informant (reportedly working for the CIA) does not qualify for whistleblower status under the law as determined by the Department of Justice, any effort by Republicans to call him as a witness will be blocked by Schiff.

But Schiff’s machinations are more malevolent than masking the key witness. Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

For example, Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine who will testify on Wednesday, told Schiff’s committee that it was his “understanding” there was a link between U.S. security assistance and an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. How did Taylor arrive at his opinion? He heard it through discussions with other diplomats, although there is no indication that any of these individuals had direct knowledge of anything. The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo."



But wait. If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

My favorite purveyor of assorted hearsay is another star witness for Schiff this Wednesday. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he doesn’t want Republicans turning the impeachment proceedings into a “sham.” The hilarious irony is lost on no one. Adam Schiff has already managed to accomplish it all on his own.

Under cross-examination, these witnesses readily admitted they had no firsthand knowledge of the president’s intent during his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They simply propagated and repeated rumors and innuendo in their diplomatic echo chamber. But that has not stopped Schiff from pretending that they are valued witnesses. With the chairman’s encouragement and guidance, they have offered their interpretations of the Trump-Zelensky conversation. It reminds me of Schiff’s own dramatic interpretation of the phone call, which was nothing more than an unconscionable fabrication designed to smear Trump.

A transcript of the real conversation is the best evidence of what actually occurred. Indeed, it is the only relevant and material evidence. Nowhere is there a demand, condition, or pressure for a “quid pro quo” that made an investigation of the Bidens contingent on U.S. military assistance. This is corroborated by Zelensky who is on record stating that there was no blackmail involved and no pressure applied. “Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said. “We had a great phone call,” he added. “It was normal.”

The Ukrainian government has confirmed that it was unaware that U.S. aid had been temporarily suspended until almost five weeks after the call with Trump. As noted in my previous column, it is impossible for there to be a “quid pro quo” when the recipient of the “quid” is oblivious to the existence of the "quo."

In the court of public opinion, Schiff increasingly reveals himself to be the court jester playing the fool. He presides over an investigatory charade that is anathema to fundamental fairness and due process.

If the inquiry was equitable, both sides would be able to call their own witnesses. Yet, the House of Representatives passed its impeachment measure giving Schiff the right to veto GOP witnesses. He has already made it clear that he will do so, rejecting a request that the faux “whistleblower” testify. It is clear that other witnesses, including Schiff and/or his staff, will also be rejected.



To his credit, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has made it clear that if the unidentified informant who precipitated the impeachment "witch hunt" is not allowed to testify in the House, “this thing is dead on arrival in the Senate.”

In truth, it was DOA the moment Schiff was put in charge of this clown show.

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here's who Democrats have to thank

Totally waste of time, if time is important don't read.

 

[Rambunctious]

Should corruption be ignored because the suspected perp is running for president?....

Irrelevant red herring. Not one single person believes his interest was to investigate corruption for the sake of investigating corruption. Not even you. Peddle your bad acting to someone else.

So now you are an expert on what people think?...answer the damn question...should Biden corruption be ignored because he is running for president?...because that is what you want us to do.....Trump is not like you and the swamp...he doesn't care who you are if you are breaking rules you will be exposed.....

 

[2aguy]

Where is he going with this ? None of it is relevant to the coercion.

Because there was no coercion ...you moron.......you are watching a sham in action...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Where is he going with this ? None of it is relevant to the coercion.

So, there is no way anyone did anything wrong here at all unless his name is Trump, right? Gotcha, check.

Shit is all heresay, I stand by my previous post in this thread. Nothing burger.

If Trump was trying to get to the bottom of Ukranian corruption it might be relevant. However Trump tied US aid to digging dirt. That is using public funds for a personal purpose. Bidens alleged crimes are not germane.

Complete bullshit.

The only evidence you clowns have is the opinions of people who were not on the call.

Only morons believe that this is about a call.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If Trump was trying to get to the bottom of Ukranian corruption it might be relevant. However Trump tied US aid to digging dirt. That is using public funds for a personal purpose. Bidens alleged crimes are not germane.

There is always a price for USA aid...why else would we give hard earned tax dollars away?....

Not to finance trumps re-election.

 

[2aguy]

Where is he going with this ? None of it is relevant to the coercion.

So, there is no way anyone did anything wrong here at all unless his name is Trump, right? Gotcha, check.

Shit is all heresay, I stand by my previous post in this thread. Nothing burger.

But they have it on good authority from the server in the Congressional lunch room that the Janitor in the White House told the White House maid that Trump did something to someone sometime and that that is definitely impeachable....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The democommiecrat Schiff Shit Show has officially become a circus freak show.

Drag queen sashays into Trump impeachment hearings

Bring on the drag queens.

Schiff's "whistle blower"...or there to blow Schiff's whistle?

 

[Nostra]

This pretty much nails it.


Read the whole thing, Dimwingers.............it has a lot of words, so you may need to take some breaks......but read it and discover just how devoid of facts and evidence this impeachment farce is.

I predict a lot of Dimwinger crying and whining about the author, and nothing to debunk any of the facts he presents.




Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here's who Democrats have to thank

The clown show known as an "impeachment inquiry" is getting more comical and hapless by the day.

Consider the latest remark from the circus master himself, California Rep. Adam Schiff, (think Bozo, not Pennywise). The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he doesn’t want Republicans turning the impeachment proceedings into a “sham.” The hilarious irony is lost on no one. Schiff has already managed to accomplish it all on his own.

At first, Schiff wanted the faux “whistleblower” who triggered the impeachment farce to testify. Then, suddenly, he didn’t. What changed? In the interim, evidence emerged that Schiff and/or his staff colluded with the “whistleblower” before the complaint was ever filed and then lied about it, earning Schiff “Four Pinocchios” from The Washington Post.



The chairman now wants to conceal his own role in engineering the pretext for impeachment and his subsequent deceit. This is why he has insisted that the “whistleblower” remain anonymous, despite no such right, guarantee, privilege, or entitlement written in the law, as I explained in an earlier column. Even though the undercover informant (reportedly working for the CIA) does not qualify for whistleblower status under the law as determined by the Department of Justice, any effort by Republicans to call him as a witness will be blocked by Schiff.

But Schiff’s machinations are more malevolent than masking the key witness. Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

For example, Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine who will testify on Wednesday, told Schiff’s committee that it was his “understanding” there was a link between U.S. security assistance and an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. How did Taylor arrive at his opinion? He heard it through discussions with other diplomats, although there is no indication that any of these individuals had direct knowledge of anything. The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo."



But wait. If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

My favorite purveyor of assorted hearsay is another star witness for Schiff this Wednesday. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he doesn’t want Republicans turning the impeachment proceedings into a “sham.” The hilarious irony is lost on no one. Adam Schiff has already managed to accomplish it all on his own.

Under cross-examination, these witnesses readily admitted they had no firsthand knowledge of the president’s intent during his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They simply propagated and repeated rumors and innuendo in their diplomatic echo chamber. But that has not stopped Schiff from pretending that they are valued witnesses. With the chairman’s encouragement and guidance, they have offered their interpretations of the Trump-Zelensky conversation. It reminds me of Schiff’s own dramatic interpretation of the phone call, which was nothing more than an unconscionable fabrication designed to smear Trump.

A transcript of the real conversation is the best evidence of what actually occurred. Indeed, it is the only relevant and material evidence. Nowhere is there a demand, condition, or pressure for a “quid pro quo” that made an investigation of the Bidens contingent on U.S. military assistance. This is corroborated by Zelensky who is on record stating that there was no blackmail involved and no pressure applied. “Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said. “We had a great phone call,” he added. “It was normal.”

The Ukrainian government has confirmed that it was unaware that U.S. aid had been temporarily suspended until almost five weeks after the call with Trump. As noted in my previous column, it is impossible for there to be a “quid pro quo” when the recipient of the “quid” is oblivious to the existence of the "quo."

In the court of public opinion, Schiff increasingly reveals himself to be the court jester playing the fool. He presides over an investigatory charade that is anathema to fundamental fairness and due process.

If the inquiry was equitable, both sides would be able to call their own witnesses. Yet, the House of Representatives passed its impeachment measure giving Schiff the right to veto GOP witnesses. He has already made it clear that he will do so, rejecting a request that the faux “whistleblower” testify. It is clear that other witnesses, including Schiff and/or his staff, will also be rejected.



To his credit, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has made it clear that if the unidentified informant who precipitated the impeachment "witch hunt" is not allowed to testify in the House, “this thing is dead on arrival in the Senate.”

In truth, it was DOA the moment Schiff was put in charge of this clown show.

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here's who Democrats have to thank

Totally waste of time, if time is important don't read.

 

[Rambunctious]

If Trump was trying to get to the bottom of Ukranian corruption it might be relevant. However Trump tied US aid to digging dirt. That is using public funds for a personal purpose. Bidens alleged crimes are not germane.

There is always a price for USA aid...why else would we give hard earned tax dollars away?....

Not to finance trumps re-election.

I think you are wrong....try and prove that....

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Where is he going with this ? None of it is relevant to the coercion.

Because there was no coercion ...you moron.......you are watching a sham in action...

"Do this little thing for me and............."

 

[bripat9643]

Jordan is ripping this Taylor nimrod a new one.

 

[easyt65]

Food fight.
Republicans are starting to gripe about process .... here we go.

What's to gripe about?

An initial closed-door, under-cover Inquisition based on an admitted politically-biased, anti-Trump, pro-Biden, former-Disgraced-CIA-Director-Brennan-disciple Deep State Intel Community CIA spy who contacted Schiff to coordinate the political hit before filing a complaint regarding a non-existent crime that supposedly occurred in a phone they did not hear / were not privy to but was instead 2nd-hand information passed on to them from an anonymous source (that may of may not exist).....

A Bolshevik-style process in which the accused, their lawyer, nor the GOP was allowed to attend the Inquisition, was not allowed to ask questions of the Democrats non-witnesses / hearsay-passers, and was not allowed to call their own...

A now public Socialist-style trial in which the Democrats are trampling the accused's Constitutional Right to face his accuser, is being denied their Constitutional Right to a 'Fair Trial' by preventing the accused to prove their innocence by denying the accused's right to rebut Democrat witnesses, refusing to allow them to ask any question - only ones Democrats will allow, and refuse to allow the accused to call witnesses, to include the #1 non-witness who is at the very center of this entire unraveling coup scam...

Who could possibly have a problem the 'Kangaroo Court' the Democrats are running ... PUBLICLY for all to see?!



The democrats are putting on display:
1) They hate the President
2) They hate the Constitution and Rule of Law
3) This is what Justice in Amerika will look like if they take back over control / power....

.

 

[Nostra]

Where is he going with this ? None of it is relevant to the coercion.

Because there was no coercion ...you moron.......you are watching a sham in action...

"Do this little thing for me and............."

Misquote.

Don't let Schifferbrains tell you what to think.

 

[2aguy]

If Trump was trying to get to the bottom of Ukranian corruption it might be relevant. However Trump tied US aid to digging dirt. That is using public funds for a personal purpose. Bidens alleged crimes are not germane.

There is always a price for USA aid...why else would we give hard earned tax dollars away?....

Not to finance trumps re-election.

If Trump didn't hold back the military aid, in fact he gave it to the Ukrainians, and if Trump didn't get them to actually do anything .........how exactly did Trump tie U.S. aid to digging dirt? They got the aid, they didn't investigate anything....and the aid they got was better from Trump than the aid they got from obama...Trump gave them weapons to kill Russians....obama gave them blankets and MREs.......

So again......this is a sham..

 

[Rambunctious]

Where is he going with this ? None of it is relevant to the coercion.

Because there was no coercion ...you moron.......you are watching a sham in action...

"Do this little thing for me and............."

No one wants your little thing anywhere near them...zip up moron....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Schiff s dilemma. He says he doesn't know the name...so how will he know if someone says the name?

What a dope

 

[2aguy]

Where is he going with this ? None of it is relevant to the coercion.

Because there was no coercion ...you moron.......you are watching a sham in action...

"Do this little thing for me and............."

They didn't do a little thing for him and he gave them the aid....do you understand that? And do you understand that none of the witnesses today actually heard Trump talk to the Ukraine President? That the only thing they are saying today is their opinion on things they had no part in? Do you understand that?