***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****

980,437 Views | 9220 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Pizza
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:17p, 10/28/19
will25u said:
MetoliusAg said:
Quote:
What will they see in the GJ material?
Witness testimony, emails, texts, and other evidence.
Quote:
Mueller did not find any crimes.
Many former DOJ prosecutors have read the Mueller Report and concluded the opposite. As you well know, current DOJ rules prohibited the SCO / DOJ from indicting Trump.
Mueller said that he wasn't going by those OLC guidelines on whether or not to charge Trump with a crime.
And Mueller would have put in his report that he concluded there are criminal activity and that the House should impeach.

All they're looking for is embarrassing material to dribble out for the next year.
Reply Quote
5
4stringAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:20p, 10/28/19
AG
will25u said:
MetoliusAg said:
Quote:
What will they see in the GJ material?
Witness testimony, emails, texts, and other evidence.
Quote:
Mueller did not find any crimes.
Many former DOJ prosecutors have read the Mueller Report and concluded the opposite. As you well know, current DOJ rules prohibited the SCO / DOJ from indicting Trump.
So there is going to be enough in the GJ material to convince 21 republicans and all of the democrats(foregone conclusion) to impeach him? Yeah, sorry but I don't see that happening. If Mueller wouldn't charge Trump from EVERYTHING he had, 21 Republicans are not going to jump ship. ESPECIALLY with Trump/team able to call witnesses, submit evidence, etc.
There may be enough to convince 2-3 squishy Republicans to vote for impeachment. This will be trumpeted as bi-partisan support for impeachment all throughout next year leading up to the election so as to deflect any criticism that it was completely partisan for the Dems.
Reply Quote
1
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:38p, 10/28/19
Reply Quote
6
MetoliusAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CanyonAg77 • 3:38p, 10/28/19
CanyonAg77 said:
Quote:
As you well know, current DOJ rules prohibited the SCO / DOJ from indicting Trump.

As you well know, Mueller said those rules didn't matter.
The following quote is from Robert Mueller's opening statement when he testified in late July 2019 to Congress. He was reading from his prepared written statement. Clearly Mueller knew exactly what he was saying:
Quote:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
Did Mueller issue a retraction of this?
Reply Quote
3
4stringAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MetoliusAg • 3:44p, 10/28/19
AG
MetoliusAg said:
CanyonAg77 said:
Quote:
As you well know, current DOJ rules prohibited the SCO / DOJ from indicting Trump.

As you well know, Mueller said those rules didn't matter.
The following quote is from Robert Mueller's opening statement when he testified in late July 2019 to Congress. He was reading from his prepared written statement. Clearly Mueller knew exactly what he was saying:
Quote:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
Did Mueller issue a retraction of this?
Mueller corrects his own testimony
Reply Quote
8
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4stringAg • 3:47p, 10/28/19
Mueller corrected his testimony when he said the reason they did not charge Trump was because of DOJ guidelines.

He referred them back to the statement, quoted above, that says they never tried to reach a determination on whether a crime was committed because of those guidelines
Reply Quote
7
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MetoliusAg • 3:50p, 10/28/19
MetoliusAg said:
CanyonAg77 said:
Quote:
As you well know, current DOJ rules prohibited the SCO / DOJ from indicting Trump.

As you well know, Mueller said those rules didn't matter.
The following quote is from Robert Mueller's opening statement when he testified in late July 2019 to Congress. He was reading from his prepared written statement. Clearly Mueller knew exactly what he was saying:
Quote:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
Did Mueller issue a retraction of this?
We have this thing in the United States Justice System called...

Presumption of innocence

You know "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"?

Well if a prosecutor does not bring charges against you, guess what? Presumed to be innocent.

ETA not to mention barr made the decision not to charge because Mueller wouldn't.
Reply Quote
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 4:00p, 10/28/19
AG
BMX Bandit said:
Mueller corrected his testimony when he said the reason they did not charge Trump was because of DOJ guidelines.

He referred them back to the statement, quoted above, that says they never tried to reach a determination on whether a crime was committed because of those guidelines
And I have always considered his position, not only gutless but stupid. Starr didn't have any problem saying when Clinton committed perjury before a grand jury. He never indicted him though. Two completely different things.

Mueller could have easily done the same and then those accusations/allegations become the articles of impeachment, as what happened with Clinton.

But even Mueller's sideswipe on the obstruction allegations was amorphous and used an omnibus obstruction statute instead of the more targeted ones that could have been employed, had the evidence justified it. (It didn't.)
Reply Quote
2
captkirk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4stringAg • 4:02p, 10/28/19
AG
4stringAg said:
MetoliusAg said:
CanyonAg77 said:
Quote:
As you well know, current DOJ rules prohibited the SCO / DOJ from indicting Trump.

As you well know, Mueller said those rules didn't matter.
The following quote is from Robert Mueller's opening statement when he testified in late July 2019 to Congress. He was reading from his prepared written statement. Clearly Mueller knew exactly what he was saying:
Quote:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
Did Mueller issue a retraction of this?
Mueller corrects his own testimony
OOOF
Reply Quote
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to captkirk • 4:55p, 10/28/19
How is that OOOF? It makes Etceteras point.
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:43p, 10/28/19
Reply Quote
1
justcallmeharry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:52p, 10/28/19
S
will25u said:
SIAP:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/28/politics/pelosi-letter-house-vote-impeachment-resolution/index.html

"Pelosi sends 'Dear Colleague' letter about voting on impeachment resolution

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday sent a letter to Democratic members of Congress announcing a vote this week on a resolution affirming the impeachment investigation, establishing rules for public hearings, providing due process rights for the White House and other procedures. The decision to hold a vote comes after pressure from Republicans and the White House that the chamber should do so, and it undercuts the key Trump administration talking point that the inquiry was illegitimate because it did not receive a full House vote.

Read the letter below:"

See Linked Article if you really want to read this swill.
Reply Quote
Burdizzo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:59p, 10/28/19
AG
Wait, wait. Stop me if you've heard this before.

"We have to pass this resolution to find out what's in it."
Reply Quote
5
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Burdizzo • 8:03p, 10/28/19
AG
Burdizzo said:
Wait, wait. Stop me if you've heard this before.

"We have to pass this resolution to find out what's in it."
We gotta pass impeachment to find out if it's impeachment.
Reply Quote
2
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 8:31p, 10/28/19
AG
That means Nancy does not have the votes. And all this talk about "patriotism" from SA77/etcetera/whatever is a bunch of malarkey. Where the hell were you when Obama and Hillary lied to families of the folks killed in Libya? Liberalism is a powerful, powerful drug.

And fwiw, I am not a big Trump fan as he is a pompous Yankee turd. But he has not done anything to be impeached. And I would really question myself if I was on the side of Nadler, Schiff, whomever.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
10
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 8:49p, 10/28/19
AG
dermdoc said:
That means Nancy does not have the votes. And all this talk about "patriotism" from SA77/etcetera/whatever is a bunch of malarkey. Where the hell were you when Obama and Hillary lied to families of the folks killed in Libya? Liberalism is a powerful, powerful drug.

And fwiw, I am not a big Trump fan as he is a pompous Yankee turd. But he has not done anything to be impeached. And I would really question myself if I was on the side of Nadler, Schiff, whomever.
How many times can Pelosi hold a floor vote on impeachment that isn't actually a floor vote on formal impeachment?

Smoke and mirrors can distract an audience maybe twice if one is Harry Blackstone, Jr. or David Copperfield.
Reply Quote
3
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:10p, 10/28/19
Quote:
Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats' controversial impeachment inquiry last week, led an election observation delegation in Ukraine earlier this year for a George Soros-funded organization that at the time boasted Hunter Biden on its small chairman's council.

Two months before he came out of retirement to serve as the highest ranking U.S. official in Ukraine, Taylor led an election observer delegation to Ukraine's April 21, 2019 second round presidential election for the National Democratic Institute (NDI) organization.

The delegation's mission, according to NDI literature, was to "accurately and impartially assess various aspects of the election process, and to offer recommendations to support peaceful, credible elections and public confidence in the process."

Taylor led the team along with former Director of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) Audrey Glover and former Minister for European Union Affairs Birgitta Ohlsson.

Hunter Biden at the time served on NDI's ten person Chairman's Council, which describes itself as bringing together "leaders from corporate, philanthropic, and academia sectors to provide expertise, counsel and resources to help the Institute meet these evolving challenges."

Biden was engaged in Ukraine in his role as a board member for Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden's involvement in Ukraine policy during the Obama administration while his son was being paid by Burisma.

NDI did not immediately respond to a Breitbart News inquiry about when Hunter Biden was removed from the organization's chairman's council. The WayBack Internet archive shows Biden was listed on NDI's website in that position until at least August 2019, encompassing the period when Taylor led the organization's delegation.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/28/impeachment-witness-bill-taylor-led-ukraine-delegation-for-group-advised-by-hunter-biden/
Reply Quote
MetoliusAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:31p, 10/28/19
Reply Quote
3
The Last Cobra Commander
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:35p, 10/28/19
AG
So that I'm clear...
They're not voting to impeach but rather voting to say that their "inquiry" is legit? Does that really change anything?
Reply Quote
3
hbtheduce
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MetoliusAg • 9:37p, 10/28/19
AG
Vindman is just wrong.

President and AG have an obligation to investigate possible corruption.
Reply Quote
1
hbtheduce
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Last Cobra Commander • 9:40p, 10/28/19
AG
The Last Cobra Commander said:
So that I'm clear...
They're not voting to impeach but rather voting to say that their "inquiry" is legit? Does that really change anything?

I have been consistent, if they vote on the rules of their impeachment inquiry, they gain quite a few tools. More subpoena power, the right to see GJ material. Congress has that right.
Reply Quote
1
The Last Cobra Commander
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hbtheduce • 9:52p, 10/28/19
AG
hbtheduce said:
The Last Cobra Commander said:
So that I'm clear...
They're not voting to impeach but rather voting to say that their "inquiry" is legit? Does that really change anything?

I have been consistent, if they vote on the rules of their impeachment inquiry, they gain quite a few tools. More subpoena power, the right to see GJ material. Congress has that right.


So they're not voting to impeach? I'm really lost as to what's going on now.

I know the house has the votes, their vulnerable members be damned, but is it real now or is this just show with more willing media muscle behind it?
Reply Quote
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MetoliusAg • 9:57p, 10/28/19
AG
MetoliusAg said:
Oooh look. It's another leaked written statement with no questions or public disclosure. Yet we are expected to consider this another unquestionable witness even though he is contradicting other testimony and the actual transcript.

Ukraine has already stated that they had no idea that the money was even in doubt and thus there is no possible quid pro quo. Essentially this is just looking at meetings where someone may have discussed something that could have been inappropriate but the hard evidence shows no crime was committed.

Keep your hopes up though and just hope that most people remain stupid and easily distracted. Oh, and good luck when the GOP and Trump actually gets to cross examine these folks and bring their own witnesses including Hunter and Joe.
Reply Quote
3
hbtheduce
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Last Cobra Commander • 10:05p, 10/28/19
AG
The Last Cobra Commander said:
hbtheduce said:
The Last Cobra Commander said:
So that I'm clear...
They're not voting to impeach but rather voting to say that their "inquiry" is legit? Does that really change anything?

I have been consistent, if they vote on the rules of their impeachment inquiry, they gain quite a few tools. More subpoena power, the right to see GJ material. Congress has that right.


So they're not voting to impeach? I'm really lost as to what's going on now.

I know the house has the votes, their vulnerable members be damned, but is it real now or is this just show with more willing media muscle behind it?


Congress could vote to set up a special committee, or adjust the rules to give themselves more power. "Impeachment Inquiry" is just another level of congressional power that is not in the ~standard~ congress rules package.

I do think there is an extra level of seriousness if they vote for expanded powers. Right now the dems are running a farce and stretching the capabilities of standard congressional committees.

Edit: and a vote to file articles of impeachment would kick everything to the senate, there is a duty for the HoR to understand the evidence before voting on impeachment.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Gary Johnson
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 10:20p, 10/28/19
Rapier108 said:
Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats' controversial impeachment inquiry last week, led an election observation delegation in Ukraine earlier this year for a George Soros-funded organization that at the time boasted Hunter Biden on its small chairman's council.

Two months before he came out of retirement to serve as the highest ranking U.S. official in Ukraine, Taylor led an election observer delegation to Ukraine's April 21, 2019 second round presidential election for the National Democratic Institute (NDI) organization.


Bro, Breitbart these days is misleading trash. The National Democratic Institute is a good charity that promotes democracy in backwards hell holes, Soros is a minor donor and to describe it this way only means it has contempt for its audience.

It was started via a grant from Ronald Reagan for phux sake, here are the primary funding sources today:

Quote:

(Multiple US Agencies)
Government of Australia
Kingdom of Bahrain
Government of Belgium
Office of the High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Government of Canada
Government of the Czech Republic
Government of Denmark
European Union
Government of Finland
Government of Germany
Government of Ireland
Government of Japan
Government of Namibia
Government of the Netherlands
Government of Norway
Organization of American States (OAS)
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Government of Sweden
Government of Switzerland
Government of the United Kingdom
UN Women
United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
World Bank Group
World Food Programme
Government of Yemen


https://www.ndi.org/supporters

Breitbart is garbage and they think their audience are idiots

Quote:
deep state conspiracy theory is for nut cases

-Steve Bannon
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/03/trump-steve-bannon-deep-state-conspiracy-theory
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hbtheduce • 10:20p, 10/28/19
AG
hbtheduce said:
The Last Cobra Commander said:
hbtheduce said:
The Last Cobra Commander said:
So that I'm clear...
They're not voting to impeach but rather voting to say that their "inquiry" is legit? Does that really change anything?

I have been consistent, if they vote on the rules of their impeachment inquiry, they gain quite a few tools. More subpoena power, the right to see GJ material. Congress has that right.


So they're not voting to impeach? I'm really lost as to what's going on now.

I know the house has the votes, their vulnerable members be damned, but is it real now or is this just show with more willing media muscle behind it?


Congress could vote to set up a special committee, or adjust the rules to give themselves more power. "Impeachment Inquiry" is just another level of congressional power that is not in the ~standard~ congress rules package.

I do think there is an extra level of seriousness if they vote for expanded powers. Right now the dems are running a farce and stretching the capabilities of standard congressional committees.

Edit: and a vote to file articles of impeachment would kick everything to the senate, there is a duty for the HoR to understand the evidence before voting on impeachment.

They at least have a duty to make up as many lies as possible to try to smear an innocent man...
Reply Quote
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29p, 10/28/19
Oh look, someone activated a 2 year old sock to launch a personal attack.
Reply Quote
8
MetoliusAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:51p, 10/28/19
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1188948744252862466.html

Although I agree with Lederman that there's sufficient evidence -- including Trump's and Mulvaney's own self-incriminating admissions -- to warrant impeachment of Trump on the abuse of power charge with regards to Ukraine, the Republican-controlled Senate won't remove Trump for that alone.

In order to get a Senate conviction, imo the House needs to add the obstruction charges from the Mueller investigation too, and they need the GJ evidence to do that. So just like with Nixon, a SCOTUS decision is going to be key in determining whether justice is served or delayed.

As Lederman noted, Trump's alleged tax fraud / bank fraud / insurance fraud legal issues are a whole 'nuther set of potential impeachable offenses moving inexhorably forward thru the courts.

Elect a corrupt crook like Trump to the WH, and this is what you get: scandal after scandal, and corruption after corruption. Leopards can't change their spots, and Trump can't either.
Reply Quote
3
MetoliusAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:17p, 10/28/19
Regarding the Kupperman lawsuit, here's an interesting thread from a twitter account familiar with Judge Leon.

Reply Quote
2
aggielostinETX
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 11:36p, 10/28/19
AG
Rapier108 said:
Oh look, someone activated a 2 year old sock to launch a personal attack.


Lot Y is obsessed with you
“A republic, if you can keep it”

AggieKatie2 said:
ETX is honestly starting to scare me a bit as someone who may be trigger happy.
Reply Quote
1
GMaster0
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:52p, 10/28/19
Tomorrow a military officer is supposed to be testifying that they were disturbed and felt a duty to
report the "phone call."

Last week was really bad. This week started pretty good for the WH and the country. Let's hope we can keep the good momentum.
Reply Quote
geoag58
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GMaster0 • 12:17a, 10/29/19
AG
Just read the military officer's statement. His name is Vindman and reportedly listened in on the call. He characterizes Trump as demanding an investigation. There was nothing that sounded like a demand from the released transcript or Trump'sphone call with the Ukrainian President. From his resume it sounds like he is a Bolton ally so there may be an axe to grind.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
geoag58
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier is a whiny bich • 12:31a, 10/29/19
AG
Then why did Vindman embellish his statement by characterizing something that was not a demand as a demand. Hostile witness from the get go. Worked for Bolton who has had a falling out with Trump.
Reply Quote
1
MetoliusAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:47a, 10/29/19
Trump himself does a lot of sketchy stuff which leads to him being the subject of investigations.

But another problematic aspect of his character is his predeliction for surrounding himself with corrupt grifters and criminals. These scam artists opportunistically use their proximity to the Potus to sell influence & access and to engage in additional crimes.

Reply Quote
3
geoag58
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier is a whiny bich • 12:48a, 10/29/19
AG
Now you sound like schiff, reading something into what Trump said that is not there. You can't change Trump's words just because it suits your narrative.
Reply Quote
5
First Page Last Page
Page 28 of 264 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.