The House Impeachment Report

f1031cea-9471-4f9c-ba36-f863bfb5310f.png

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

"The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.

"As described in this executive summary and the report that follows, President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign.

"The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

"To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.

"During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance.

"President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to 'do us a favor though' and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory.

"In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.

"Although President Trump’s scheme intentionally bypassed many career personnel, it was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of senior Administration officials, including the President’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry.

"In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to 'get over it.'

"President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President’s reelection campaign. Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today.

"However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country: impeachment.

"Accordingly, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, were compelled to undertake a serious, sober, and expeditious investigation into whether the President’s misconduct warrants that remedy.

"In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry.

"Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.

"As required under House Resolution 660, the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, has prepared this report to detail the evidence uncovered to date, which will now be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration.

"Preface
"RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

"The President’s Request for a Political Favor | The President Removed Anti-Corruption Champion Ambassador Yovanovitch | The President’s Hand-picked Agents Begin the Scheme | President Trump Froze Vital Military Assistance | The President Conditioned a White House Meeting on Investigations | The President’s Agents Pursued a “Drug Deal” | President Trump Pressed President Zelensky to Do a Political Favor | The President’s Representatives Ratcheted up Pressure on the Ukrainian President | Ukrainians Inquired about the President’s Hold on Security Assistance | The President’s Security Assistance Hold Became Public | The President’s Scheme Unraveled | The President’s Chief of Staff Confirmed Aid was Conditioned on Investigations"
170705-ryan-president-snowflake-tease_or0ikn
From your link:
President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine

Hey Dumbass, the President sets foreign policy, so explain how he can "subvert foreign policy".

I'll wait for your answer........
Hey Dumbass, the President sets foreign policy, so explain how he can "subvert foreign policy".

I'll wait for your answer........
By withholding foreign aid in exchange for political dirt on a possible political rival, or do you imagine presidents are above the law?
Joe Biden's asshole just tightened up because he did that very thing and bragged about it.
According to witnesses Trump never wanted nor did he ask for or get a quid pro quo
Joe Biden's asshole just tightened up because he did that very thing and bragged about it.
According to witnesses Trump never wanted nor did he ask for or get a quid pro quo
Biden didn't benefit politically from his demand that Shokin be replaced, and the VP had many allies who agreed the Ukrainian prosecutor was not investigating alleged corruption including charges involving Burisma and the oligarch Mykoloa Ziochevsky:

Viktor Shokin - Wikipedia

"In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation.

"The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as 'an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts'.[16]

"Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering."

Trump wanted dirt on Biden, and that was the only reason he offered his clumsy bribe. He should be impeached and removed from office.
D7QmhRX.jpg

 
He most certainly will be called in a Senate trial. You can take that to the bank. Hos conflicting statements regarding the whistle blower's contacts with him or his staff are evidence of his collusion with him or her to prompt the inquiry.
Who cares how the inquiry started? It’s irrelevant to the factual matter at hand.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along!

Sorry that Trump is butt hurt about his corruption being exposed.
You're butthurt that your Stalinist hero Schiff for Brains will be wriggling on the hot seat in about a month and that all his nefarious activities will be exposed.
If you say so chief. I’m not worried. Neither is Schiff. This is just more attempts at obfuscation and distraction.

Of course you're worried. Why are you and your sleazy Komrades arguing so much that there's "no need" to call the whistle blower? He will be called in the Senate trial, and so will Schiff-for-brains, and then the Dim party will remain in the minority for the next 40 years.
 
I don't see anything suspicious about phone calls between people who all work together. Furthermore, Schiff violated the 4th Amendment. How did he get these phone records? Its illegal for him to have them without a warrant.

Not illegal at all. There is no expectation of privacy when it comes to phone call records. This was decided decades ago in the SCOTUS decision Katz v United States.

Do you know what a phone call record is? It's the record of what number called who and when. It's NOT the actual conversation. Yes. You have a right to privacy when making a private phone call. Otherwise it wouldn't be illegal for hackers to listen in on cell phone conversations and as a registered FCC license holder, I can tell you that is HIGHLY ILLEGAL. It is illegal to even manufacture a scanner capable of listening in on cell phone conversations in the USA.

Cell Phone Privacy and Warrant Requirements - FindLaw

As far as the simple records go, you must get a warrant to obtain them. You can't just walk into your local ATT office and say give me the phone records of John Smith.
Christ, I know what phone call record is. I know that it didn’t include the actual conversation. How the hell did you get the impression I thought otherwise.

And no, you’re incorrect that you need a warrant for them. If I’m correct, ATT has no obligation to honor anyone’s request without a warrant.

Your own link to Katz says that you MUST have a warrant! Stop taking, "How stupid can you get?" as a challenge. You are being way too successful!
Katz set out the rules for “expectation of privacy”. It didn’t rule directly on a pen registry. That came about a decade later in Smith v Maryland where it was decided that a person has no expectation of privacy when it comes to recording what number you’ve dialed.
A pen registry is one thing. Telephone records are another. You do have an expectation that the phone company will not give out your records. I doubt any of the service providers give them out voluntarily.
 
Washington saw Trump

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

"In his farewell address, President George Washington warned of a moment when 'cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.'

"The Framers of the Constitution well understood that an individual could one day occupy the Office of the President who would place his personal or political interests above those of the nation.

"Having just won hard-fought independence from a King with unbridled authority, they were attuned to the dangers of an executive who lacked fealty to the law and the Constitution."
Yes Washington was warning America about leftist democrats
He would have shot and killed every traitorous bastard
Yes Washington was warning America about leftist democrats
He would have shot and killed every traitorous bastard
How would Washington have regarded Trump?

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

"In his farewell address, President George Washington warned of a moment when 'cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.'"

Name any POTUS with a track record of corrupt activities that rivals Trump's.
BRIBEZILLA_630_0.jpg

Donald Trump’s history of corruption: a comprehensive review
 
Of course you're worried. Why are you and your sleazy Komrades arguing so much that there's "no need" to call the whistle blower?
Because the assertions made in his complaint have been totally corroborated.
 
Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed
I wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?

Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."

Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
 
Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed
I wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?

Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."

Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
 
Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.
Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed
I wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?

Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."

Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
None of that will help the Dims. It will only hurt them.
 
Not illegal at all. There is no expectation of privacy when it comes to phone call records. This was decided decades ago in the SCOTUS decision Katz v United States.

Do you know what a phone call record is? It's the record of what number called who and when. It's NOT the actual conversation. Yes. You have a right to privacy when making a private phone call. Otherwise it wouldn't be illegal for hackers to listen in on cell phone conversations and as a registered FCC license holder, I can tell you that is HIGHLY ILLEGAL. It is illegal to even manufacture a scanner capable of listening in on cell phone conversations in the USA.

Cell Phone Privacy and Warrant Requirements - FindLaw

As far as the simple records go, you must get a warrant to obtain them. You can't just walk into your local ATT office and say give me the phone records of John Smith.
Christ, I know what phone call record is. I know that it didn’t include the actual conversation. How the hell did you get the impression I thought otherwise.

And no, you’re incorrect that you need a warrant for them. If I’m correct, ATT has no obligation to honor anyone’s request without a warrant.

Your own link to Katz says that you MUST have a warrant! Stop taking, "How stupid can you get?" as a challenge. You are being way too successful!
Katz set out the rules for “expectation of privacy”. It didn’t rule directly on a pen registry. That came about a decade later in Smith v Maryland where it was decided that a person has no expectation of privacy when it comes to recording what number you’ve dialed.
A pen registry is one thing. Telephone records are another. You do have an expectation that the phone company will not give out your records. I doubt any of the service providers give them out voluntarily.
Go on and explain the difference between a pen registry and telephone records. If the records are with the telephone company, then you've already given up the expectation of private. They're by definition no longer private if the telephone company possesses them.
 
For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.
For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.
P. 34:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

"Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

"The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage.

"In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security. II."

Did Trump place his personal interests above national interests?
 
Giuliani is definitely part of this investigation. Nunes is just an idiot who got caught up in the mess but is going to be subject to an ethics investigation shortly. Solomon is in deep shit. He's been found to be pumping basically propaganda bought and paid for by corrupt Ukrainians. He's been canned from The Hill and is trying to salvage what scraps of credibility he has left.

Schiff isn't in any trouble. He's a Stanford graduate, Harvard law graduate, former federal prosecutor. Nunes is a hayseed. Solomon is a hack. Giuliani has dementia. He'll be fine, mostly because he knows the law and hasn't violated anything. A pen register is not protected by the 4th amendment.
You're a delusional idiot. You will say anything to defend Schiff and his kangaroo court. If anyone is in trouble, it's Schiff. He has already committed perjury dozens of times. That will come to light when he is sitting in the hot seat during the Senate trial.

I can’t tell if this is satire or if you actually are this dumb.

Schiff can’t commit perjury if he isn’t under oath. He hasn’t been under oath. He’s not going to be called as a witness in the Senate Trial. This isn’t a kangaroo court, it’s an investigation and quite successful despite Trump’s clear obstruction of Constitutional Congressional powers.

He most certainly will be called in a Senate trial. You can take that to the bank. Hos conflicting statements regarding the whistle blower's contacts with him or his staff are evidence of his collusion with him or her to prompt the inquiry.
Who cares how the inquiry started? It’s irrelevant to the factual matter at hand.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along!
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along!
By_the_numbers_2_35.jpg

Trump's 2,000 Conflicts of Interest (and Counting) - CREW
 
For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.
For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.
P. 34:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

"Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

"The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage.

"In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security. II."

Did Trump place his personal interests above national interests?


There's nothing here but allegations, no evidence whatsoever. All of this is based on testimony without anything to back it up, i.e., no proof at all. It's entirely based on hearsay, suppostions, presumptions, innuendo, and personal guesses. IOW, political bullshit.
 
The transcript of the call had no QPQ or "bribery", Zelensky himself stated repeatedly there was no QPQ, Zelensky never discussed any QPQ with Sondland....just because Schiff makes stuff up does not make it true
 
Do you know what a phone call record is? It's the record of what number called who and when. It's NOT the actual conversation. Yes. You have a right to privacy when making a private phone call. Otherwise it wouldn't be illegal for hackers to listen in on cell phone conversations and as a registered FCC license holder, I can tell you that is HIGHLY ILLEGAL. It is illegal to even manufacture a scanner capable of listening in on cell phone conversations in the USA.

Cell Phone Privacy and Warrant Requirements - FindLaw

As far as the simple records go, you must get a warrant to obtain them. You can't just walk into your local ATT office and say give me the phone records of John Smith.
Christ, I know what phone call record is. I know that it didn’t include the actual conversation. How the hell did you get the impression I thought otherwise.

And no, you’re incorrect that you need a warrant for them. If I’m correct, ATT has no obligation to honor anyone’s request without a warrant.

Your own link to Katz says that you MUST have a warrant! Stop taking, "How stupid can you get?" as a challenge. You are being way too successful!
Katz set out the rules for “expectation of privacy”. It didn’t rule directly on a pen registry. That came about a decade later in Smith v Maryland where it was decided that a person has no expectation of privacy when it comes to recording what number you’ve dialed.
A pen registry is one thing. Telephone records are another. You do have an expectation that the phone company will not give out your records. I doubt any of the service providers give them out voluntarily.
Go on and explain the difference between a pen registry and telephone records. If the records are with the telephone company, then you've already given up the expectation of private. They're by definition no longer private if the telephone company possesses them.
They are phone company property. Warrants are required to obtain them, just as warrants are required to obtain anything in your house.
 
For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.
For anyone interested, turn to page 34 of the report to find the factual evidence revealed by the House inquiry.
P. 34:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

"Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

"The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage.

"In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security. II."

Did Trump place his personal interests above national interests?

Sure, he did. Please bring this to the Senate! PLEASE!
 
Of course you're worried. Why are you and your sleazy Komrades arguing so much that there's "no need" to call the whistle blower?
Because the assertions made in his complaint have been totally corroborated.
Most of them were proved wrong, dumbass.
Name one that was proved wrong.

On the third page of the complaint, the anonymous and partisan gossip claims via his own dubious sources that State Department counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl listened in on the conversation the president had over the summer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“Senior Govt Official tells @CBSNews Counselor to the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was NOT on the @POTUS call with #Zelensky, as the whistleblower complaint states,” wrote Ruffini on Twitter,” CBS News State Department reporter Christina Ruffini confirmed Thursday.
 
Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed.
Justice Roberts is gonna have a field day with this one. These crooks are screwed
I wonder how much input Roberts will have on a Senate impeachment trial?

Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday raised the possibility of a spirited battle over how an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump would be run and suggested that the referee - Supreme Court Justice John Roberts - not meddle."

Moscow Mitch will be dealing with Trump's impeachment/removal in an election year. I wonder if that will affect which witnesses we will be allowed to hear from? Will Rudy and Don and Mick get an opportunity to provide some first-hand information on this matter?
At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one.
They also sustain or deny objections on points of law, allowing or omitting certain testimony, which can be critical. They can question witnesses if the attorneys fail to raise important points. Judges do a lot of things besides listen. And Chief Justice Roberts is not going to put up with a bunch of bullshit from either side if they try to tell him how to run the trial. I think he might have a little more experience with that than a bunch of Senators who think they know everything.
At the hearings I've been part of, the Judge is a critical member of the proceeding. At least for one, the judge will shut down a lot of the repetitive badgering and grandstanding that we heard during the House impeachment hearings. "Asked and answered; move on" is a good one
Possible partisan battles in Senate over Trump impeachment trial previewed

"McConnell was asked by reporters how he would craft trial procedures that could determine the length of the procedure, the handling of witnesses and whether senators could pose questions."

Who calls the witnesses?
Does a witness have to appear?
Could Trump testify?
 

Forum List

Back
Top