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

 

[Lazybones]

LOL... I couldn't resist.

But my point remains. Is it possible this was all a deep state plot? I mean I guess, lots of things are possible. But is it probable? As you can see above, I clearly don't think it's probable. It makes little sense from a motivation standpoint as well as in execution.

As I said, I'm more than fine with an open investigation. At this point public trust in our institutions have been eroded, and the best way to restore them is to have a thorough and public investigation.

I guess I wouldn’t mind so much if it didn’t stink from the beginning. The media and the left took him for a Freido up until they realized he was a Michael. From that point on, they have attempted at every turn to take him out.

This impeachment just smells much of the same as the mueller fishing investigation. And Schiffs actions are not helping the cause.

btw, obviously we are from different sides of the isle, but so far you have been a cordial poster. Thanks for the solid points and questions.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

White House Aide Confirms He Saw Signs of a Quid Pro Quo on Ukraine (Published 2019)

Timothy Morrison, a National Security Council aide, said a top diplomat close to President Trump suggested a military aid package for Ukraine was conditioned on investigations into his political rivals.

www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — A senior National Security Council aide on Thursday confirmed a key episode at the center of the impeachment inquiry, testifying that a top diplomat working with President Trump told him that a package of military assistance for Ukraine would not be released until the country committed to investigations the president sought.
In a closed-door deposition, the aide, Timothy Morrison, also said he had been told of a September call between Mr. Trump and the diplomat, Gordon D. Sondland. In that conversation, the president said he was not looking for a quid pro quo with Ukraine, but then went on to “insist” that the country’s president publicly announce investigations into Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son and other Democrats.

William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, spoke of his alarm about the conversations during his private testimony last week, saying that he had been briefed about them by Mr. Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia for the National Security Council. Mr. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, has also given investigators a more limited account of his call with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Morrison’s confirmation of the conversations could be important for House Democrats as they seek to build their impeachment case against Mr. Trump. A publicly available, reconstructed transcript already shows that Mr. Trump pressed President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a July 25 phone call to undertake the investigations of Democrats. Investigators are trying to establish whether Mr. Trump used $391 million in security aid and a coveted White House meeting with Mr. Zelensky as leverage in a pressure campaign to secure the inquiries.

The evidence is showing that this was more than just a single phone call, it was concerted effort by trump to pressure Zelensky from the moment he took office. The phone call, in question, was just the icing on the cake.

 

[Beach Friends]

I suppose Peter and Page were just discussing homeowners insurance.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I guess I wouldn’t mind so much if it didn’t stink from the beginning. The media and the left took him for a Freido up until they realized he was a Michael. From that point on, they have attempted at every turn to take him out.

This impeachment just smells much of the same as the mueller fishing investigation. And Schiffs actions are not helping the cause.

So, I think it would be helpful if you didn't look at everything in a vacuum. You can't pretend that the media just does all this without corresponding actions from Trump to ratchet things up. I actually share a lot of Trump supporters frustration with the media but for different reasons. They've allowed themselves to be goaded into sensationalist reporting both in style and substance, when the times call for clear sober reporting.

You might want to ask yourself, why do so many people hate Trump? The hatred and distrust of him spans ideological boundaries - plenty of actual conservatives and Republicans really hate and distrust him. The simplest explanation isn't that because they hate him they make up stories that he's a con man and a crook, but rather they hate him because they think he's a con man and a crook.

That doesn't mean they're correct of course, but it's not a stretch to think that a man who's declared bankruptcy several times and has managed to shift his losses to others, stiffs them of their fees, brags about sleeping with married women, sues little old women who refuse to sell him their property, claimed he got all the financing he needed from Russia, claims he's really rich, but refuses to open his books to prove it, and so on -- might actually be a con man and a crook as well as a colossal butt crevasse.

 

[Beach Friends]

LOL... I couldn't resist.

But my point remains. Is it possible this was all a deep state plot? I mean I guess, lots of things are possible. But is it probable? As you can see above, I clearly don't think it's probable. It makes little sense from a motivation standpoint as well as in execution.

As I said, I'm more than fine with an open investigation. At this point public trust in our institutions have been eroded, and the best way to restore them is to have a thorough and public investigation.

The FISA report will come out first, and I think you will see there was some real shady crap going on. There is so much going on that it's easy to lose track of some of the crap that was pulled, like the use of the Steele Dossier.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

We will see what happens with Flynn's case, but I think there are people within the DOJ who wish they had never touched that case.

What happens with his case?

He already pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his back channel interactions undermining the sitting president’s foreign policy.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I’m assuming you threw In “altering the election” because you are wise enough to recognize Flynn pled guilty to lying to investigators about his back channel communications that undermined the sitting administration’s foreign policy.

But I think we need some honest clarity from you all, because simply put, the arguments you all are simultaneously offering are not currently reconcilable without some clarification, and as is comes off like mental crawfishing.

You all continue defending Trump on the Mueller front by claiming his innocence premised on the notion that no evidence of a quid pro quo between the foreign government of Russia and Trump could be established to form the basis for a legal conspiracy, which was the necessary line needed to be crossed to condemn Trump’s behavior formally. To justify the Mueller probe. That without doing so Dems failed. Therefore It constitutes a nothing burger, a witch hunt, yada yada(correct me where my characterization is incorrect).

Now you all are presented with a situation where Trump explicitly established a quid pro quo with a foreign government to garner personal and political benefit. Which has been corroborated in transcripts, public admissions, and first-hand testimony of people on the call. Only now the threshold for condemnation has magically shifted. But if the logic of the earlier argument was an honest one, this is well past that line in the sand, and yet...

So we need some reconciliation here, because on the surface it would appear that either you, and those mirroring your arguments and upvoting your responses, aren't exactly being intellectually honest about where your moral line in the sand was with regards to the Mueller investigation, or, you all are now moving goalposts around because you all know this recent impropriety has blown past the goalposts from before and those earlier arguments were never and still aren't genuine. Perhaps even both. Throw on the constant deflections toward Democrats for supposedly committing the same crimes you refuse to condemn Republicans for, and other than base politics as team sports, the scrambled logic is hard to reconcile.

So help me out with this.

Still waiting guys

 

[Beach Friends]

What happens with his case?

He already pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his back channel interactions undermining the sitting president’s foreign policy.

I am not being a smartass when I ask - are you seriously unaware of what is currently happening with that case?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The FISA report will come out first, and I think you will see there was some real shady crap going on. There is so much going on that it's easy to lose track of some of the crap that was pulled, like the use of the Steele Dossier.

I'm actually very interested in the FISA report, but I suspect if you're looking some sort of bombshell you'll probably be disappointed.

However, I would like to learn how easy is it to get a FISA report against an American citizen and then we can decide if that is what we want. How high of a level should be reached before we decide to wiretap them?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I am not being a smartass when I ask - are you seriously unaware of what is currently happening with that case?

Yeah, it’s baseless nonsense.

you want to put something of material value on the line that it doesn’t get overturned?

 

[Beach Friends]

Yeah, it’s baseless nonsense.

you want to put something of material value on the line that it doesn’t get overturned?

No, I don't know anything about the judge. But, withholding exculpatory material, materially altering 302s, Page lying about her involvement in those edits, Clapper leaking info - that's not nonsense.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

No, I don't know anything about the judge. But, withholding exculpatory material, materially altering 302s, Page lying about her involvement in those edits, Clapper leaking info - that's not nonsense.

And yet when the judge asked Powell if they wanted to withdraw the plea deal she said no. Defense lawyers can allege police misconduct all they like, but you know, they actually have to present evidence if they want to get anywhere.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

No, I don't know anything about the judge. But, withholding exculpatory material, materially altering 302s, Page lying about her involvement in those edits, Clapper leaking info - that's not nonsense.

So you never bothered to follow the case at all before making these assertions and inferential accusations about my knowledge base?

As Emmett Sullivan, Reagan appointee, HW appointee, then Clinton nominee is the same judge that tried the case initially.

You asked if I am aware, I am, and my thought process is this is meritless nonsense of a roundly admitted guilty man trying to angle himself in the conservative grifting game by playing martyr while nothing substantive will lean in his corner but will profit off the willful ignorance of Trump supporters trying to craft an alternative reality.

If you, the person taking up that argument think I’m wrong, I’m offering a robust profit opportunity in stating the bi-partisan judge will not overturn this guilty plea, as the evidence filtered through partisan right-wing media will end up merit less when exposed to the sunlight of a part of the justice system not dependent on capturing a cognitively dissonant audience.

 

[Lazybones]

So, I think it would be helpful if you didn't look at everything in a vacuum. You can't pretend that the media just does all this without corresponding actions from Trump to ratchet things up. I actually share a lot of Trump supporters frustration with the media but for different reasons. They've allowed themselves to be goaded into sensationalist reporting both in style and substance, when the times call for clear sober reporting.

You might want to ask yourself, why do so many people hate Trump? The hatred and distrust of him spans ideological boundaries - plenty of actual conservatives and Republicans really hate and distrust him. The simplest explanation isn't that because they hate him they make up stories that he's a con man and a crook, but rather they hate him because they think he's a con man and a crook.

That doesn't mean they're correct of course, but it's not a stretch to think that a man who's declared bankruptcy several times and has managed to shift his losses to others, stiffs them of their fees, brags about sleeping with married women, sues little old women who refuse to sell him their property, claimed he got all the financing he needed from Russia, claims he's really rich, but refuses to open his books to prove it, and so on -- might actually be a con man and a crook as well as a colossal butt crevasse.

I have posted many times my dislike for him as a human being going back to the 80’s. but I have been paying attention to elections since bush gore. I saw how the sensationalized news treated gore, Kerry, Clinton/Obama, Clinton vs Bush, McCain, Romney, trump.

the biggest difference is that bush McCain and Romney took the beatings and bullying and acted “presidential”. Trump sticks it in their face, which makes them come back stronger at him and he swings back harder and the cycle perpetuates until we get here at impeachment.
I think it would have been different, but much of the same if it were president Cruz.

 

[Beach Friends]

And yet when the judge asked Powell if they wanted to withdraw the plea deal she said no. Defense lawyers can allege police misconduct all they like, but you know, they actually have to present evidence if they want to get anywhere.

The second statement does not follow from the first. If you read Flynn's brief, you will see that his attorney actually remembered to file exhibits and make appropriate citations to the record.

 

[Beach Friends]

So you never bothered to follow the case at all before making these assertions and inferential accusations about my knowledge base?

LOL, inferential accusations about your knowledge base?

I went out of my way to make it clear that I was simply asking if you were familiar with what was currently going on in the case. Nothing that you previously said indicated that you were representing that you were familiar. If anything, it appeared that you weren't up to date because you asked me.

In any event, knowing who appointed a judge is not the same as being familiar with that judge. It may give you some basis for a guess in the abscence of any real knowledge, but that's about all.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

LOL, inferential accusations about your knowledge base?

I went out of my way to make it clear that I was simply asking if you were familiar with what was currently going on in the case. Nothing that you previously said indicated that you were representing that you were familiar. If anything, it appeared that you weren't up to date because you asked me.

In any event, knowing who appointed a judge is not the same as being familiar with that judge. It may give you some basis for a guess in the abscence of any real knowledge, but that's about all.

Sooo...you wanna nut up and do this or keep evading?

 

[Dragon]

To get back to the Ukraine issue

Here is a very nice timeline and description of what went down with regards to the aid to Ukraine.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66767/...-ignored-pentagon-warning-on-ukraine-funding/

If not for last minute actions taken by congress Ukraine could have lost all or most of the aid congress approved previously.
Something I'm sure Russia would really have liked.