The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[MT15]

So WaPo has a story this morning that may provide a clue why the administration revoked Sondland’s planned testimony at the last minute a few days ago.

Per reporting, Sondland intends to testify in accordance with the subpoena issued and this, to me, is key.

“Sondland is expected to say that for months before the Sept. 9 message, he worked at the direction of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, to secure what he would call in another text message the “deliverable” sought by Trump: a public statement from Ukraine that it would investigate corruption, including mentioning Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, by name. In exchange for the statement, the president would grant Ukraine’s new president a coveted White House audience.

“It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt one,” the person familiar with Sondland’s testimony said.

Sondland appears poised to say that he and other diplomats did not know that the request to mention Burisma was really an effort to impugn the reputations of Biden and his son Hunter, who had served as a Burisma board member. Sondland contends that he didn’t know about the Biden connection until a whistleblower complaint and transcript surfaced in late September.”

And this

“By Sept. 9, Sondland, however, had grown increasingly concerned, as military funding for Ukraine now appeared tied to the statement as well. The person said Sondland was never briefed about Biden being part of the issue and was not aware of it until the transcript of the phone call was released. “If he had known earlier, he never would have touched this.””

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-envoy-who-denied-quid-pro-quo-now-says-he-isnt-certain/2019/10/12/4abe0902-bc19-44e8-8c38-9aa35c544859_story.html

 

[MT15]

This actually tracks with the text messages. Everyone knew the WH visit was a quid pro quo for announcing the investigation, and nobody was concerned about it, including the career diplomats. This was kind of normal for this sort of diplomacy.

When the military aid was withheld, that’s when the career diplomats started to push back. Sondland is now going to say he didn’t realize the investigation involved the Bidens, which may be a CYA statement on his part, but it’s not really important whether he knew it or not because we have the read out on the phone call which makes it clear that Trump was focused on the Bidens.

If he testifies in this manner, this will go a long way toward proving that Trump had corrupt intent over this whole deal.

 

[V Chip]

So here is the question again. If this turns out just like the mueller investigation, will YOU change your mind about this being a witch hunt. The obstruction in the mueller case would not even been an issue if the steel dossier wasn’t given so much clout.

The Mueller investigation turned up evidence of Trump's obstruction and showed he willingly accepted assistance from Russia during the 2016 election. He could not prosecute, but the idea that the Mueller report was nothing or that it exonerated Trump is 100% Trumpian fantasy.

 

[BobE]

I'm going to need more beer

Sadly this post didn't age well

 

[MT15]

You seem to acknowledged Biden's corruption by equating it to Ivanka's. They were trademarks, not patents and the business receiving them has suspended operations although it will likely resume once DJT is no longer president. So, she is at least keeping up appearances. The Biden's family grift has been in continuous operation before, during, and after his tenure as VP.

“Keeping up appearances” isn’t why Ivanka suspended operations of her business. Accepting the trademarks is exactly the same as what happened to Hunter Biden, although one could make a case that Ivanka’s case is worse because she is actually supposed to be part of the administration. It may be unethical but it’s not illegal. But you didn’t answer what Joe Biden has done that needs to be investigated?

 

[Lazybones]

The Mueller investigation turned up evidence of Trump's obstruction and showed he willingly accepted assistance from Russia during the 2016 election. He could not prosecute, but the idea that the Mueller report was nothing or that it exonerated Trump is 100% Trumpian fantasy.

1. Is it illegal to accept campaign assistance from an agency outside of the US? Does the Steele dossier fall under the same category?

2. if the case would not have been started, would there be obstruction?

 

[Dragon]

1. Is it illegal to accept campaign assistance from an agency outside of the US? Does the Steele dossier fall under the same category?

2. if the case would not have been started, would there be obstruction?

The case was not started by the Steele dossier

THIS is a very good writeup of the timeline

But I really don't understand why you don't find the fact that Trump was willing and even ASKING for (his OWN words "“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. ") Russia to get get and publish Clintons emails fully knowing that the only way to do that was by a criminal act (hacking) troubling ? And now once again ask not ONE but TWO countries for help to get dirt on a potential opposition candidate?

 

[Taurus]

1. Is it illegal to accept campaign assistance from an agency outside of the US? Does the Steele dossier fall under the same category?

2. if the case would not have been started, would there be obstruction?

I think it's been noted before that buying something from a foreign company (MAGA hats, information, plastic cutlery) is different than A: accepting those same things for free or B: Asking for such things from a foreign GOVERNMENT. or asking them for free from a foreign national.

The ASK is illegal, whether the foreigner delivers or not.

 

[Lazybones]

The case was not started by the Steele dossier

THIS is a very good writeup of the timeline

But I really don't understand why you don't find the fact that Trump was willing and even ASKING for (his OWN words "“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. ") Russia to get get and publish Clintons emails fully knowing that the only way to do that was by a criminal act (hacking) troubling ? And now once again ask not ONE but TWO countries for help to get dirt on a potential opposition candidate?

im not trying to over simplify this, but what is the difference

Steele dossier - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[cuddlemonkey]

1. Is it illegal to accept campaign assistance from an agency outside of the US? Does the Steele dossier fall under the same category?

2. if the case would not have been started, would there be obstruction?

"If they don't investigate crimes, criminals wouldn't have to obstruct justice." That doesn't work. Even if he was absolutely 100% innocent of every accusation that Mueller investigated, Trump still committed obstruction of justice. That is a crime. Why are you so willing to overlook this?

 

[V Chip]

1. Is it illegal to accept campaign assistance from an agency outside of the US? Does the Steele dossier fall under the same category?

2. if the case would not have been started, would there be obstruction?

1. No. No.

2. As others have noted, the Steele dossier was not the impetus for the Mueller investigation. At some point, you and other conservatives have to look reality in the face and stop repeating lies that have been repeatedly debunked. It does nothing to further good political discussions if people cannot abandon narratives proven false repeatedly.

 

[Lazybones]

1. No. No.

2. As others have noted, the Steele dossier was not the impetus for the Mueller investigation. At some point, you and other conservatives have to look reality in the face and stop repeating lies that have been repeatedly debunked. It does nothing to further good political discussions if people cannot abandon narratives proven false repeatedly.

Are you sure about your position on the No and the No?

Who paid for the Steele dossier?

 

[V Chip]

Are you sure about your position on the No and the No?

Yes, and yes. You may be using the vague "agency" to try and set up something, but hiring foreign companies to do research is nothing new in politics.

Who paid for the Steele dossier?

Are you just finding out about the Steele dossier here on MAP, and thus why you're asking questions that have been answered many times over or making statements that are proven false many times over?

To answer your question: The Washington Free Beacon (on behalf of a supporter of Marco Rubio) originally hired Fusion GPS to compile opposition research on Trump, but later stopped funding research once Trump was about to secure the nomination. The Clinton Campaign and the DNC later contacted Fusion GPS to do the same once Trump had secured the nomination.

Here's a link from last year that will help: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

 

[Lazybones]

Yes, and yes. You may be using the vague "agency" to try and set up something, but hiring foreign companies to do research is nothing new in politics.

Are you just finding out about the Steele dossier here on MAP, and thus why you're asking questions that have been answered many times over or making statements that are proven false many times over?

To answer your question: The Washington Free Beacon (on behalf of a supporter of Marco Rubio) originally hired Fusion GPS to compile opposition research on Trump, but later stopped funding research once Trump was about to secure the nomination. The Clinton Campaign and the DNC later contacted Fusion GPS to do the same once Trump had secured the nomination.

Here's a link from last year that will help: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

so how does exactly what you described differ from this impeachment processes origin?

the fbi used the Steele dossier to get the investigation into gear. Even the Huffington post says as much.
Though it started with papodpolous, the fbi turned immediately to the steel dossier.

 

[Lazybones]

Yes, and yes. You may be using the vague "agency" to try and set up something, but hiring foreign companies to do research is nothing new in politics.

Are you just finding out about the Steele dossier here on MAP, and thus why you're asking questions that have been answered many times over or making statements that are proven false many times over?

To answer your question: The Washington Free Beacon (on behalf of a supporter of Marco Rubio) originally hired Fusion GPS to compile opposition research on Trump, but later stopped funding research once Trump was about to secure the nomination. The Clinton Campaign and the DNC later contacted Fusion GPS to do the same once Trump had secured the nomination.

Here's a link from last year that will help: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

From your article, a line the Democrats always fall back on

“Democrats argue that who paid for the research is irrelevant to the veracity of its claims, which they say should be thoroughly investigated.”

Dossier a hit piece by a foreign entity paid for by the DNC and used against a political opponent.

why doesn’t trump get the same treatment?

 

[V Chip]

so how does exactly what you described differ from this impeachment processes origin?

the fbi used the Steele dossier to get the investigation into gear. Even the Huffington post says as much.
Though it started with papodpolous, the fbi turned immediately to the steel dossier.

The FBI used the Steele dossier in their investigation. It was neither the impetus nor the main basis for the Mueller report.

From your article, a line the Democrats always fall back on

“Democrats argue that who paid for the research is irrelevant to the veracity of its claims, which they say should be thoroughly investigated.”

Dossier a hit piece by a foreign entity paid for by the DNC and used against a political opponent.

why doesn’t trump get the same treatment?

Seriously? You're comparing political organizations getting opposition research (something nearly every campaign does) to the President of the US dangling foreign aid over the head of a foreign government to get them to investigate a political rival?

Had the DNC or Hillary used a quid-pro-quo with a governmental power/gift to request the research then maybe. But it's nowhere close. Seriously.

Trump did something completely different, that's why this gets treated differently. Did Trump hire Fusion GPS or a similar research firm to do opposition research? Maybe. But the Ukraine situation is WAAAY different.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

1.) Fusion GPS is an American company, and the law in question is about the acceptance of things of value from foreign governments or their direct agents. Of which the Trump campaign was approached on that premise. Don Jr. would basically be in jail right now if it wasn’t for an overly sympathetic value judgement on the part of Mueller that he was basically too stupid to know what he was doing.

2.) As stated before, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with a formal investigation or not, obstruction is obstruction.

 

[Lazybones]

The FBI used the Steele dossier in their investigation. It was neither the impetus nor the main basis for the Mueller report.

Seriously? You're comparing political organizations getting opposition research (something nearly every campaign does) to the President of the US dangling foreign aid over the head of a foreign government to get them to investigate a political rival?

Had the DNC or Hillary used a quid-pro-quo with a governmental power/gift to request the research then maybe. But it's nowhere close. Seriously.

Trump did something completely different, that's why this gets treated differently. Did Trump hire Fusion GPS or a similar research firm to do opposition research? Maybe. But the Ukraine situation is WAAAY different.

So if there is no quid pro quo this was all nonsense?