Gary Johnson said:
It was a kind of conspiracy cult, like scientology. They met every Tuesday to discuss their theories, normally sharing brownies and soft drinks.
A weird criticism of the Mueller investigation.
***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****
1,018,658 Views |
9220 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by 197361936
A weird criticism of the Mueller investigation.
You know, you're more correct than you probably know. IMO, it used to be keeping up with the "folks who either had power, or access to power" kept their contacts for good, genuine stories. Even then, they printed the truth, but not the whole truth.hbtheduce said:
Breaking news, people in DC hang out with journalists.
Don't dig too deep, you might find the stories about journalists ****ing our intelligence officers for confidential information.
Today, it's different. These same folks, instead of hanging out with their contacts for access to stories, now they genuinely have these contacts as friends, associates, and even intimates (see the Obama administration for journos). So, they hang out with their brilliant congnescenti, or maybe vice versa, and are fearful of printing anything that goes against the SOP, mainly because they agree with the message, but don't want to lose access to a story.
It's been quite incestuous for about 25 years. To me, the term fake news means not printing the WHOLE story. Most of these jackwagons do print the truth, but only 40% to 50% of it. The rest is in the wind.
Just making sure everyone is okay from net neutrality.
That was going to ruin Earth a few years ago remember?
That was going to ruin Earth a few years ago remember?
I was saying Levin's presentation showed him laying out the case with facts even accepted by the opposition side. Before ranks started to close around Biden.
What does claim above have to do with it.
Giuliani's associates:
Etc still hoping. Going to blow up in your face like you were Dr Ford on a Saturday night.
At this point do you think the house will actually vote on articles of impeachment? Even Schiff is looking like a *****.
At this point do you think the house will actually vote on articles of impeachment? Even Schiff is looking like a *****.
Ukrainians can't lobby their own government to make changes at their STATE RUN energy company?
I also have very serious doubts that Ukrainians would label themselves as "Republican" or "Democrat". European politics don't work that way...
I also have very serious doubts that Ukrainians would label themselves as "Republican" or "Democrat". European politics don't work that way...
Well, well.
Sundance raises the timing issue for impeachment:
There's just not enough time left. So then what?
Now for the legal impediments:
I just don't think Trump is formally impeached by the House and a Senate trial ensues. Would suck too much oxygen out of the primaries and hurt the Dem candidates. Makes horrible sense politically.
Read the rest
Quote:
Within the only impeachment resolution put forth by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to open an "impeachment inquiry" the resolution outlined a process. With only eight legislative days left in 2019; and considering the resolution as adopted; the calendar doesn't match the democrat talking points. Here is a walk through of the timeline:
Quote:
Congress returns from the Thanksgiving break on December 2nd and recesses again on December 12th. That leaves eight days in December to accomplish all the House tasks.
Democrats have said they anticipate an impeachment vote in mid-December, but a review of the House impeachment resolution calls for a transfer from HPSCI "inquiry" (Schiff) to HJC "investigation" (Nadler) as an outcome of a report from Adam Schiff's intelligence committee.
Even if we assume the HPSCI report is being written during the Thanksgiving break by HPSCI/Lawfare staff there would still need to be a period where the report is reviewed by the congress members on the committee. Normally there would be a minority section to the report; and under all committee processes there would be a vote to advance the report.
Again, there's only eight days in December and presumably HPSCI committee members would need to review the report prior to advancing it to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC). Once the report lands in the HJC, again according to the prior resolution, that's when President Trump would be able to call rebuttal witnesses and have White House counsel challenge and cross-examine HJC witnesses.
There's just not enough time left. So then what?
Earliest to the Senate would be late February. But the Senate won't move at a rapid pace either.Quote:
Even with the partisan railroading on overdrive that schedule is an impossibility. Remember, they still have to pass a budget because they punted a continuing resolution into December.
The best the House could hope for would be a HPSCI report completed and a House vote to send the report to HJC in December; changing the process from an official "inquiry" into an official "investigation". If accurate (more sensible) that puts the HJC impeachment process into January 2020.
Given the need for Chairman Nadler and the HJC to coordinate schedules with White House lawyers and rules, etc. etc. HJC hearings would be mid to late January under the best of circumstances; and article assembly with a House Impeachment Vote in late January to early February 2020.
Quote:
Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar would now be removed from the campaign trail until further notice (likely six to eight weeks). That leaves the "three B's" (Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg) with complete free reign on the campaign trail, while the Democrat Senators are stuck in DC.
Now for the legal impediments:
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House authorization vote to gain the authority for the HJC to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the "official" impeachment investigation.
Any loss in three currently pending cases will undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry. that's obviously an issue. There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.
Not looking good for Dems. Another front:Quote:
The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps' tax returns as part of their impeachment 'inquiry' and oversight. That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court. Written briefs soon, arguments perhaps in early December? Outcome pending. There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn't have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.
More delay. Still not good. Then there is this:Quote:
he second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation. The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was stayed by a three member DC Appellate court. Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]
Better shot since it is supposed to get a decision today, but it is still likely to got to SCOTUS, too.Quote:
The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn. Issue: subpoena validity. The HJC has asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has announced she will deliver her ruling on Monday November 25th.
I just don't think Trump is formally impeached by the House and a Senate trial ensues. Would suck too much oxygen out of the primaries and hurt the Dem candidates. Makes horrible sense politically.
Read the rest
Thanks for that informative post. I have thought for a long time that there will be not articles of impeachment sent to the Senate. And this furthers that.
Byron York has an alternative explanation for why Trump released the aid to Ukraine when he did. It was going to be released by Congress anyway as part of the CR.
More here
Schiff was about to see his cherished way to impeach Trump go up in smoke. So he leaked to the press to keep the already written narrative going.
Is this a BOOM!????
Quote:
On Sept. 11, the White House received a draft of a continuing resolution, produced by House Democrats, that would extend funding for the federal government. Among other provisions, the bill would push the Ukraine money out the door, whether in the final days of fiscal year 2019 or in 2020, regardless of what the president did.
"The draft continuing resolution ... would on September 30 immediately free up the remainder of the $250 million appropriated for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in the fiscal 2019 Defense spending law and extend its availability for another year," Roll Call reported a little after noon on Sept. 11.
According to knowledgeable sources, the Office of Management and Budget received the draft on the morning of Sept. 11. OMB Director Russell Vought informed the president around mid-day. There was no doubt the Democratic-controlled House would pass the measure, which was needed to avoid a government shutdown. Later that afternoon, Trump who must have already known that the Republican-controlled Senate would also support the bill had the point emphasized to him when he received a call from Republican Sen. Rob Portman.
Portman, and Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin co-chairs the Senate Ukraine Caucus. Along with several other senators, Portman wrote to the White House on Sept. 3, imploring the president to release the aid. On Spet. 11, Portman felt the need to talk again, with the same message only this time with the backdrop of the House preparing to pass a bill that would force Trump's hand.
Quote:
At that point, the president knew he could not maintain the hold on aid in the face of bipartisan congressional action. So he gave in. By early evening on Sept. 11, the hold was lifted.
It was an entirely unremarkable end to the story: President tries to do something. Congress opposes. President sees he has no support and backs down. It has happened many, many times with many, many presidents.
More here
Schiff was about to see his cherished way to impeach Trump go up in smoke. So he leaked to the press to keep the already written narrative going.
Is this a BOOM!????
Interesting. Firtash is echoing Parnas's claim that the President's personal lawyer conspired to get the US Ambassador to Ukraine removed and an indictment against Firtash dropped. Participants included Parnas, Fruman, Firtash, Pete Sessions, Devin Nunes, DiGenova, Toenssing, and several others whose names will be made public soon.Quote:
Dmytro Firtash says Giuliani, via Parnas and Fruman, offered him help with his US legal problems if he hired pro-Trump lawyers Toensing and diGenova and helped with Giuliani's shadow Ukraine campaign.
None of your Shareblue crap is "interesting."
And when called out for it, you don't try to defend it, you just post the next e-mail blast you received.
And when called out for it, you don't try to defend it, you just post the next e-mail blast you received.
Maybe I am not understanding something? Firtash and the other guy are still up on charges, and the president can fire the ambassador for *most* any reason. So even if they did talk about it, nothing they talked about is anything interesting because nothing changed?
Rapier108 said:
None of your Shareblue crap is "interesting."
And when called out for it, you don't try to defend it, you just post the next e-mail blast you received.
Lindsey Graham actually discussed this in some detail on the radio (I believe on Nov 21st, if remember the drive back timing correct where heard it) . It may have been on Larry Elder, because it wasn't where expected. Anyway, he mentioned a connection to legislation with Senator Derbin, and yes, the exact timing of the matter was coming up and mentioned Sep 11. It sounded more like an internal Congressional matter and politics, and put the Trump actions in context, FWIW.aggiehawg said:
Byron York has an alternative explanation for why Trump released the aid to Ukraine when he did. It was going to be released by Congress anyway as part of the CR.Quote:
On Sept. 11, the White House received a draft of a continuing resolution, produced by House Democrats, that would extend funding for the federal government. Among other provisions, the bill would push the Ukraine money out the door, whether in the final days of fiscal year 2019 or in 2020, regardless of what the president did.
"The draft continuing resolution ... would on September 30 immediately free up the remainder of the $250 million appropriated for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in the fiscal 2019 Defense spending law and extend its availability for another year," Roll Call reported a little after noon on Sept. 11.
According to knowledgeable sources, the Office of Management and Budget received the draft on the morning of Sept. 11. OMB Director Russell Vought informed the president around mid-day. There was no doubt the Democratic-controlled House would pass the measure, which was needed to avoid a government shutdown. Later that afternoon, Trump who must have already known that the Republican-controlled Senate would also support the bill had the point emphasized to him when he received a call from Republican Sen. Rob Portman.
Portman, and Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin co-chairs the Senate Ukraine Caucus. Along with several other senators, Portman wrote to the White House on Sept. 3, imploring the president to release the aid. On Spet. 11, Portman felt the need to talk again, with the same message only this time with the backdrop of the House preparing to pass a bill that would force Trump's hand.Quote:
At that point, the president knew he could not maintain the hold on aid in the face of bipartisan congressional action. So he gave in. By early evening on Sept. 11, the hold was lifted.
It was an entirely unremarkable end to the story: President tries to do something. Congress opposes. President sees he has no support and backs down. It has happened many, many times with many, many presidents.
More here
Schiff was about to see his cherished way to impeach Trump go up in smoke. So he leaked to the press to keep the already written narrative going.
Is this a BOOM!????
My point being was that Schiff knew this CR was in the works, understood that Trump wouldn't fight it. But he had already spent July and August, at a minimum, setting this matter in Ukraine for grounds for impeachment.Quote:
Lindsey Graham actually discussed this in some detail on the radio (I believe on Nov 12th, if remember the drive back timing correct where heard it) . It may have been on Larry Elder, because it wasn't where expected. Anyway, he mentioned a connection to legislation with Senator Derbin, and yes, the exact timing of the matter was coming up and mentioned Sep 11. It sounded more like an internal Congressional matter and politics, and put the Trump actions in context, FWIW.
In hindsight, Schiff likely was working on an Urkainian trap for Trump since Yovanovitch was recalled in late April 2019, right after Zelensky's election. Rudy was being blamed for her ouster and wherever Rudy goes, you can connect him to Trump.
Was Parnas a plant to lead Rudy (and by extension Trump) into a trap? I think the jury is out on that right now.
Trump doesn't needs to "conspire" with anyone to get rid of an ambassador. No matter how many times you doofuses discuss this, doesn't make it relevant or materialMetoliusAg said:Interesting. Firtash is echoing Parnas's claim that the President's personal lawyer conspired to get the US Ambassador to Ukraine removed and an indictment against Firtash dropped. Participants included Parnas, Fruman, Firtash, Pete Sessions, Devin Nunes, DiGenova, Toenssing, and several others whose names will be made public soon.Quote:
Dmytro Firtash says Giuliani, via Parnas and Fruman, offered him help with his US legal problems if he hired pro-Trump lawyers Toensing and diGenova and helped with Giuliani's shadow Ukraine campaign.
Schiff hedged on CNN's State of the Union with Tapper yesterday too...
Basically said there was plenty of evidence to impeach but wanted to speak with is constituents and colleagues first, before committing to actually going through with it...
Polls and public opinion has shifted to the negative on impeachment...
The economy continues to roar and the DJIA is back above 28K...
The evidence is all hearsay and there is nothing concrete, no smoking gun to point too...
Schiff is probably quite disappointed with the way his show trial worked out...probably why during the last day of testimony, his facial expressions changed to the angry, and he spent a lot of time sitting there with his arms crossed and pouting...
Basically said there was plenty of evidence to impeach but wanted to speak with is constituents and colleagues first, before committing to actually going through with it...
Polls and public opinion has shifted to the negative on impeachment...
The economy continues to roar and the DJIA is back above 28K...
The evidence is all hearsay and there is nothing concrete, no smoking gun to point too...
Schiff is probably quite disappointed with the way his show trial worked out...probably why during the last day of testimony, his facial expressions changed to the angry, and he spent a lot of time sitting there with his arms crossed and pouting...
He is a perfect fall guy -- its a wonder that Pelosi doesn't throw him over to get herself out of the rock and hard place.FireAg said:
Schiff hedged on CNN's State of the Union with Tapper yesterday too...
Basically said there was plenty of evidence to impeach but wanted to speak with is constituents and colleagues first, before committing to actually going through with it...
Polls and public opinion has shifted to the negative on impeachment...
The economy continues to roar and the DJIA is back above 28K...
The evidence is all hearsay and there is nothing concrete, no smoking gun to point too...
Schiff is probably quite disappointed with the way his show trial worked out...probably why during the last day of testimony, his facial expressions changed to the angry, and he spent a lot of time sitting there with his arms crossed and pouting...
President doesn't
Giuliani would
My prediction is this all crashes on Giuliani at some point.
Giuliani would
My prediction is this all crashes on Giuliani at some point.
Respectfully, I don't think it even gets that far...agsfan said:
President doesn't
Giuliani would
My prediction is this all crashes on Giuliani at some point.
I think this whole charade comes down to two paths:
1) Ds made their case, it fell flat, but at least they got some bad guy ink on Trump...might have a minimal effect on Trump's landslide win next November, but probably not...
2) Schiff goes the route of suicide bomber, gets the articles done with Nadler, and they push it to the Senate only to have it become a full trial where the Ds get exposed for orchestrating the whole thing, and that includes the false Russia-narrative, the false Ukraine-narrative, and the Biden's and Clintons both get indicted on charges of accepting bribes...
Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking the same thing.Quote:
Was Parnas a plant to lead Rudy (and by extension Trump) into a trap? I think the jury is out on that right now.
They planted spies in the Trump campaign, so using some guys to try and setup Rudy would be no surprise at all.
Want more evidence that the D's are souring on impeachment?
Go look at Drudge right now...
Only one impeachment-related link on the page today, middle column, down toward the bottom...
I think the testimonies were a mixed bag for both sides, but the last day of testimony was a huge blow to any morsel of momentum the D's had...
Fiona Hill's testimony came across as both extremely credible and unbiased...and she made it clear that she had zero evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by the White House...
She didn't like rudy being involved unless a formal channel for him was established (which it wasn't)...
And her friend Mary got canned and folks said mean things about her on the way out...
That, in a nutshell, is why this fell flat for the D's...
Go look at Drudge right now...
Only one impeachment-related link on the page today, middle column, down toward the bottom...
I think the testimonies were a mixed bag for both sides, but the last day of testimony was a huge blow to any morsel of momentum the D's had...
Fiona Hill's testimony came across as both extremely credible and unbiased...and she made it clear that she had zero evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by the White House...
She didn't like rudy being involved unless a formal channel for him was established (which it wasn't)...
And her friend Mary got canned and folks said mean things about her on the way out...
That, in a nutshell, is why this fell flat for the D's...
Pelosi has played this pretty well. She's not going to be the one holding the **** sandwich in the end.
I'm actually starting to feel bad for titan, hawg, and other Trump supporters. Every day there's more bad news coming out about Trump. HIC should take it's time and investigate this Halkbank stuff. It is **exactly** what the R's accuse Biden of doing, and unlike Biden, there's evidence of Trump doing the favor:
That's delusional. I have made clear why I support him, and it is policy and impact on the nation, and what the Democrats want to do to it instead. Its going to take something alot more than any of that to make a difference. Look at the Do Liberals Actually believe thread---- as have said many times not really interested in a letter of the law approach and I thought it wrong with Clinton too.Quote:
I'm actually starting to feel bad for titan, hawg, and other Trump supporters. Every day there's more bad news coming out about Trump. HIC should take it's time and investigate this Halkbank stuff. It is **exactly** what the R's accuse Biden of doing, and unlike Biden, there's evidence of Trump doing the favor:
This question remains as pertinent as ever. Even if cared -- which don't -- this is pretty decisive in its redundancy and haven't really seen it disproved:
Quote:
Maroon Dawn:
Every single Dem Witness testified that Trump did nothing wrong and or there was no QPQ
IIRC, these guys, Parnas and Fruman seemingly arrived out of nowhere to suddenly become huge GOP donors. Their very short back story never made much sense to me. Thought we would have had more details come out about them by now.Rapier108 said:Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking the same thing.Quote:
Was Parnas a plant to lead Rudy (and by extension Trump) into a trap? I think the jury is out on that right now.
They planted spies in the Trump campaign, so using some guys to try and setup Rudy would be no surprise at all.
Curious.
Giuliani is already under investigation, and based on the way Nunes talked about Parnas, I don't think anybody in Washington is going to spend much time trying to save Giuliani.
He had/has a lot of hands in the Ukraine jar. Doing an investigation as a personal lawyer, working in some capacity as a state department official, personal business stuff and then whatever he was doing politically with Parnas and Fruman. You start mixing those roles up, and you're gonna find yourself in trouble quick.
He had/has a lot of hands in the Ukraine jar. Doing an investigation as a personal lawyer, working in some capacity as a state department official, personal business stuff and then whatever he was doing politically with Parnas and Fruman. You start mixing those roles up, and you're gonna find yourself in trouble quick.
MetoliusAg said:
I'm actually starting to feel bad for titan, hawg, and other Trump supporters. Every day there's more bad news coming out about Trump. HIC should take it's time and investigate this Halkbank stuff. It is **exactly** what the R's accuse Biden of doing, and unlike Biden, there's evidence of Trump doing the favor:
You feel bad for them when trump will be easily cleared in any senate trial, he's smashing fundraising records, polls show him looking good in swing states, and he's putting conservative justices on the bench at a record pace
I'd like to see what happens when you feel good for them.
Damn! I'd never thought about that.aggiehawg said:IIRC, these guys, Parnas and Fruman seemingly arrived out of nowhere to suddenly become huge GOP donors. Their very short back story never made much sense to me. Thought we would have had more details come out about them by now.Rapier108 said:Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking the same thing.Quote:
Was Parnas a plant to lead Rudy (and by extension Trump) into a trap? I think the jury is out on that right now.
They planted spies in the Trump campaign, so using some guys to try and setup Rudy would be no surprise at all.
Curious.
How many frickin' alternatives and insurance policies did these *******s have? I remember campaign finance news about these two, but didn't think too much about it. It's a news cycle, and the Left would soon use it to their benefit. Sure enough, they came running here to prove our dastardly nature.
But, I've got to admit it's extremely advanced forward thinking by the Left. I guess they knew so many of their plans are thin, so they drew up several.
Once again, this may not be the case, but it won't surprise me. It kinda does surprise me I didn't thiink of it. I guess I don't think like a conspiracists yet.
Nah...Rudy likely didn't do anything wrong...he will need to be proven of committing a crime for him to go down, and frankly, Rudy ain't that dumb...agsfan said:
Giuliani is already under investigation, and based on the way Nunes talked about Parnas, I don't think anybody in Washington is going to spend much time trying to save Giuliani.
He had/has a lot of hands in the Ukraine jar. Doing an investigation as a personal lawyer, working in some capacity as a state department official, personal business stuff and then whatever he was doing politically with Parnas and Fruman. You start mixing those roles up, and you're gonna find yourself in trouble quick.
Featured Stories
See All
27:33
1d ago
11k
14:13
22h ago
2.4k
Efficiency, coaching experience trends point to A&M's true capabilities
by Luke Evangelist
9:44
1d ago
4.2k
Three Things: Superlatives for the 2025 in-state class & more
by Jason Howell
El Mero Mero 14
Rich Get Richer - Dick Sports and Texas Athletics
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
42