Offical Impeachment Thread

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Democrats think today has successfully laid the groundwork for their impeachment case

Democrats think today has successfully laid the groundwork for their impeachment case

House Democrats believe that the testimony of Bill Taylor and George Kent today has been successful in laying the groundwork of their impeachment inquiry, setting the stage for the full timeline of events of how the aid and a meeting were withheld while the President sought investigations into his rivals.

The witnesses may not have direct knowledge of Trump’s thinking — as Republicans have pointed out — but they have plenty of firsthand knowledge about the events that occurred in the past few months that tie back to Trump’s demands.

 

[BlindBoo]

Biden isn't out of the woods yet for the CRIME he is on VIDEO of BRAGGING ABOUT

When do the investigations start?

 

[WEATHER53]

Every question includes "What did you understand that to mean".

This clown has nothing but his opinion. No facts. Nothing.

What a debacle.

how do you think the ukraine's felt?

I can't tell you what they feel,

but tell us anyway. too fking funny. folks can't make it up.

The best part was when after spending all day talking about Ukraine this and Ukraine that, when someone pointed out that Ukraine themselves have stated that none of this is true and they were never pressured, the democrats reply was: Don't listen to Ukraine!

Dont listen to Ukraine nor its President
Do listen to the invisible man who heard some unidentified people say some unknown things.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's been no adult leadership in the democrat Party since BJ Clinton. They've now morphed into full Stalinists - it won't end well for them

 

[jc456]

Every question includes "What did you understand that to mean".

This clown has nothing but his opinion. No facts. Nothing.

What a debacle.

how do you think the ukraine's felt?

I can't tell you what they feel,

but tell us anyway. too fking funny. folks can't make it up.

The best part was when after spending all day talking about Ukraine this and Ukraine that, when someone pointed out that Ukraine themselves have stated that none of this is true and they were never pressured, the democrats reply was: Don't listen to Ukraine!

Dont listen to Ukraine nor its President
Do listen to the invisible man who heard some unidentified people say some unknown things.

because I'm a demofk.

 

[jc456]

Biden isn't out of the woods yet for the CRIME he is on VIDEO of BRAGGING ABOUT

When do the investigations start?

time will tell. are you sure they won't? BTW, no one is saying it's a crime, we're saying that he took money through his son. Now is that illegal? that's what an investigation would tell us. are you denying his son took money from the Ukraine company?

so you care that the president trump didn't take money and should be impeached and joe did take money and that's ok? wow.

Folks, hypocrisy at it's finest. thanks blindfk

 

[depotoo]

No minds have been changed, another soap opera.... and still no Russian connection

What is there to change? It is all HEARSAY testimony and all being co-opted by the House. Another worthless shell game by the limpdicked democrats.

HUH ?

hundreds of pages of testimony have been corroborated.

The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated. Here's How.



nice try though.

no

 

[OKTexas]

Witnesses who didn't actually witness anything themselves.

Except they did. But this is just the beginning.

Tell me, "Who witnessed Ukraine trying to influence the 2016 election?"

Putin?

A Ukraine court said individuals in Ukraine put out bogus information to assist the bitch. Of course all the Americans involved won't be called because they're commiecrats. One woman, I don't recall her name, who was a DNC contractor, was the point person and had meetings at the Ukraine embassy in DC.

.

 

[The Original Tree]

Yes, willfully blind monkeys. Don't watch the hearings. Just listen to your propagandists and parrot what you are told to parrot. For God's sake don't watch the hearings and think for yourselves!

So I am hearing these hearings are quite hilarious and are looking like another embarrassing slap in the face to the leaders of COUP 2.0

The only thing that would make this worth watching is if they allowed The Fake Whistle Blower to be interviewed.

Here is a clip of him in Schiff's secret underground bunker meetings.

 

[RDD_1210]

The question of whether or not Trump is guilty isn't up for debate anymore. He's clearly guilty.

The question is if Republicans care.

 

[BluesLegend]

Corrupt Dem's decide to investigation corruption

 

[jc456]

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

That is quite a wall of Gish Gallop , Dude

Let me boil a few things down for you:

Yes, the witnesses who testified may not have first hand information but many people have been convicted on hearsay evidence.

The Trump (so called ) Administration has blocked those who do have first hand knowledge from appearing.

The information contained in the whistleblower complaint has been independently corroborated by the witnesses

You asked what has changed from the time that Adam Schiff wanted the whistleblower to appear and now. I will tell you. They have enough to nail the orange ogre without the whistleblower, who by the way, does qualify for that status.

The Republicans are showing their fear and desperation by trying to make it about Biden and whatever other horseshit that they can throw at the wall in the hope that something will stick. There is more but you get the idea

who has been convicted on hearsay that wasn't from a priest?

 

[Oddball]

That is quite a wall of Gish Gallop , Dude

Let me boil a few things down for you:

Yes, the witnesses who testified may not have first hand information but many people have been convicted on hearsay evidence.

The Trump (so called ) Administration has blocked those who do have first hand knowledge from appearing.

The information contained in the whistleblower complaint has been independently corroborated by the witnesses

You asked what has changed from the time that Adam Schiff wanted the whistleblower to appear and now. I will tell you. They have enough to nail the orange ogre without the whistleblower, who by the way, does qualify for that status.

The Republicans are showing their fear and desperation by trying to make it about Biden and whatever other horseshit that they can throw at the wall in the hope that something will stick. There is more but you get the idea

 

[JoeMoma]

Democrats: We killed it

Republicans: We killed it


People: Thanks for wasting our time.

If "the people" think it is a waste of their time, that's a win for the republicans.

 

[toobfreak]

Looks like the Trumptards are getting nervous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What color is the sky in your world of total delusion?

These are the same morons who said for three years that Mueller was going to send an impeachment referral to Congress.

then these same morons say mueller didn't exonerate trump. maybe not, but he damn sure didn't indict him either.

How can Mueller exonerate anyone? Exonerate is not even in the legal lexicon of a prosecutor. Just one more democratic sham perped upon the ignorance of their base.

 

[bluzman61]

The question of whether or not Trump is guilty isn't up for debate anymore. He's clearly guilty.

The question is if Republicans care.

Any YOU'RE clearly a brainwashed moron. You're welcome.

 

[g5000]

So I am hearing...

See? You just parrot what you are told to parrot. You cannot observe and think for yourself.


Sad.

 

[task0778]

"After the Senate trash cans it, Trump's popularity will soar right before the election, but Democrats will have saved their House seats. Ho hum."

If the House votes to impeach Trump, I believe a significant number of Dems from red and purple states are going to lose their seats in the House. Even if they don't hold that vote at all, I think they'll lose the House anyway, many of them were elected on promises to do stuff which they have not done.

 

[Oddball]

 

[The Purge]

The Ukraine military aid bill states that aid would be sent no later than Sept.30, Trump sent the aid on Sept.11, and there was NO INVESTIGATION of Biden by Ukraine as was alleged to a reason for the impeachment!

This legal deadline was taken care of 20 days before the deadline of the bill for military aid

Source, Kevin McCullough radio AM970 THE ANSWER