U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Today I learned that asking for information is more serious crime than using campaign funds to finance burglary on your presidential rivals offices and secretly taping the opposing candidates meeting during an election.

 

Again - "asking for information" is a talking point label. That's about as accurate a representation of the issue as can be expected from a diehard Trump supporter, but still.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

For a rock band to be considered popular do they have to have more than 50% of the nations approval?

Trump has his base and in it he is popular. 46% is more than a few eh?

 

I doubt you do not understand the comment. Relative to past presidents, Trump's approval ratings are low. He's not a very popular president.

[Waterloo]

15 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

For a rock band to be considered popular do they have to have more than 50% of the nations approval?

Trump has his base and in it he is popular. 46% is more than a few eh?

Interesting deflection I salute your inventiveness, but from what I can see from previous presidents approval ratings he does not fair well.

[canuckamuck]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's a fact that you insist on it. By itself, no - what you assert is not a fact. And that's even considering your assertion is loaded to begin with.

 

You're not having a discussion. You keep trying to sneak in facts in the guise of loaded statements and phrases. You ignore previous posts and rehash issues which were addressed. When something doesn't suit you simply gloss over it and move on. You do not actually address points others make, but simply repeat  your own views.

 

I meant work in general. It wasn't a very serious question or comment. Just fell out of the habit of having a boss (the Mrs. aside)

Well I have been around a while and I know nothing more dreary than when posters detail every point back and forth ad infinitum. The service I provide is narrowing down the discussion to the more salient points. Plus you say lots of stuff that really need no response.

[Scott]

Post from an unapproved source reported and removed.  

 

[Tippaporn]

20 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Be still my heart.

 

Obviosuly all calls were recorded, by the other end. Leaks on the Australia and Mexico calls were leaked by those countries.

 

. . . . 

mtls2005, you've made a factual claim that the leaked Australian and Mexican calls were leaked by those countries.  Where is the factual source for your claim?  This is the 2nd time I'm asking you.

[Tippaporn]

From the WSJ:

 

Pelosi’s Permanent Impeachment

 

Informative article about Pelosi's decision to start an impeachment process by fiat rather than a full House vote.  An some alarming resultant implications.

[Tippaporn]

We finally have the IC IG's explanation of its whistleblower form change.  It appears to confirm that there was no discernible 1st hand knowledge and the form was updated after the fact.  That's not good.

 

From Byron York of the Washington Examiner:

 

 

[Tippaporn]

How long will they be able to mask the identity of the whistle blower (and his 2nd hand sources)?  And how unusual is it that a whistle blowers identity is kept masked?

 

Patrick Eddington is a former CIA employee and now a research fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank.  He's been quoted as saying, "I’m not aware of a circumstance in which" a whistle-blower from the intelligence community "has made allegations of this magnitude and managed to remain anonymous."

 

An individual by law has the right to meet his accuser, and this includes Trump.

 

The whistle blower's lawyer is claiming that a $50,000 'bounty' for any information about the whistleblower's identity has been offered.  And that becomes the basis for hiding his identity.  There appears to be no verifiable evidence that this bounty exists.  Made up or not?  Legit or not?

[canuckamuck]

11 hours ago, Waterloo said:

I'm sorry but I am confused how do you draw the conclusion that he is a popular president?

Correct me if I am wrong but he lost the popular vote and his approval rating has never exceeded 46%!

Legitimate president yes, popular nahh

51% in August, 49% today link

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Today I learned that asking for information is more serious crime than using campaign funds to finance burglary on your presidential rivals offices and secretly taping the opposing candidates meeting during an election.

Still haven't picked up on the difference between "asking" and "extorting", have you?

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Obama's economy is garbage compared to what Trump has done,

Trump has marginally improved the strong economy in place when he took office, and he achieved this "improvement" with a massive increase in the deficit.

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

How long will they be able to mask the identity of the whistle blower (and his 2nd hand sources)?  And how unusual is it that a whistle blowers identity is kept masked?

 

Patrick Eddington is a former CIA employee and now a research fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank.  He's been quoted as saying, "I’m not aware of a circumstance in which" a whistle-blower from the intelligence community "has made allegations of this magnitude and managed to remain anonymous."

 

An individual by law has the right to meet his accuser, and this includes Trump.

 

The whistle blower's lawyer is claiming that a $50,000 'bounty' for any information about the whistleblower's identity has been offered.  And that becomes the basis for hiding his identity.  There appears to be no verifiable evidence that this bounty exists.  Made up or not?  Legit or not?

You can't refute the message so you go after the messenger.  Standard Trump play.

 

An individual by law has a right to meet his accuser when the individual is being tried in court.  Be patient, Trump's time will come.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Still haven't picked up on the difference between "asking" and "extorting", have you?

Where's your proof of Trump attempting to extort anything?  The whistle blower complaint?  The text of the actual phone call?  Where is proof that cannot be considered speculation?  Or have you simply concluded for yourself that it's extortion based simply on your personal bias?

 

No substance to your above statement and you know it.

[metisdead]

Some off topic baiting posts and the subsequent off topic replies have been removed. 

[Tippaporn]

58 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You can't refute the message so you go after the messenger.  Standard Trump play.

 

An individual by law has a right to meet his accuser when the individual is being tried in court.  Be patient, Trump's time will come.

It would be ludicrous and illogical to suggest that the messenger has no relevance to or bearing on the issue.  Who he/she is, their background, their temporary placement, their intention and more has bearing.  It is quite in the realm of possibility that a "crime" has not been committed by Trump but the whistle blower himself (and potential accomplices, such as perhaps Adam Schiff).  Therefore who they are is of utmost significance.

 

And to then dress up perfectly legitimate questioning as "standard Trump play" is a lame and utterly foolish attempt at suggesting "nothing to see here, folks."

 

Edit:  I may as well add that there are numerous aspects of the message to be refuted.  The complaint is by no means 100% waterproof.

[Scott]

Conspiracy post removed.

 

[Tippaporn]

so the ICIG did not even review the call before finding a 'critical' need to be forwarded...

 

Say what????  The article contains the actual text of the declassified letter from the IC IG to acting DNI where the IC IG confirms that the transcript of Trump's call had never been accessed before forwarding the complaint.  Unbelievable!!

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Where's your proof of Trump attempting to extort anything?  The whistle blower complaint?  The text of the actual phone call?  Where is proof that cannot be considered speculation?  Or have you simply concluded for yourself that it's extortion based simply on your personal bias?

 

No substance to your above statement and you know it.

Let's see:

 

1.  Trump froze almost $400 million of aid to Ukraine without giving any reason (he unfroze the aid after Congress started investigating his actions)>

 

2.  Trump sent Giuliani, his personal attorney, to meet with Ukrainian officials to explain what kind of investigations he wanted conducted.

 

3.  After President Zelensky stated his country was ready to buy anti-tank weapons, Trump responded with the now notorious "do us a favor" and asked for an investigation of a conspiracy theory that about the Clinton emails and actions of former VP Biden, who happens to be the front-runner in the Democratic campaign.

 

It's funny that people who can find credence in all kinds of conspiracy theories can't fathom the above.

 

It's also funny that people who support Trump don't want to talk about what Trump did, they want to speculate on any kind of diversion on what Trump did.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It would be ludicrous and illogical to suggest that the messenger has no relevance to or bearing on the issue.  Who he/she is, their background, their temporary placement, their intention and more has bearing.  It is quite in the realm of possibility that a "crime" has not been committed by Trump but the whistle blower himself (and potential accomplices, such as perhaps Adam Schiff).  Therefore who they are is of utmost significance.

 

And to then dress up perfectly legitimate questioning as "standard Trump play" is a lame and utterly foolish attempt at suggesting "nothing to see here, folks."

 

Edit:  I may as well add that there are numerous aspects of the message to be refuted.  The complaint is by no means 100% waterproof.

It would be ludicrous and illogical to limit discussion about the whistle blower complaint to speculation about the whistle blower, without discussing the complaint.  But that's what you are doing.

 

You claim many parts of the complaint can be refuted.  Do you mean with legitimate news sources?  If so, by all means go ahead and refute.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It would be ludicrous and illogical to suggest that the messenger has no relevance to or bearing on the issue.  Who he/she is, their background, their temporary placement, their intention and more has bearing.  It is quite in the realm of possibility that a "crime" has not been committed by Trump but the whistle blower himself (and potential accomplices, such as perhaps Adam Schiff).  Therefore who they are is of utmost significance.

 

And to then dress up perfectly legitimate questioning as "standard Trump play" is a lame and utterly foolish attempt at suggesting "nothing to see here, folks."

 

Edit:  I may as well add that there are numerous aspects of the message to be refuted.  The complaint is by no means 100% waterproof.

What is ludicrous is your interpretation on things.

 

The whistleblower is totally irrelevant. It could be hitler himself but it matters not. What matters is what trump did.

 

All you are doing s deflecting.

 

And, in US law a whistleblower is protected and there is no right for anyone to know who they are. Its the evidence that matters, not the person who provides that evidence.

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

so the ICIG did not even review the call before finding a 'critical' need to be forwarded...

 

Say what????  The article contains the actual text of the declassified letter from the IC IG to acting DNI where the IC IG confirms that the transcript of Trump's call had never been accessed before forwarding the complaint.  Unbelievable!!

 

 

What is this source you find so reliable? 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Let's see:

 

1.  Trump froze almost $400 million of aid to Ukraine without giving any reason (he unfroze the aid after Congress started investigating his actions)>

 

2.  Trump sent Giuliani, his personal attorney, to meet with Ukrainian officials to explain what kind of investigations he wanted conducted.

 

3.  After President Zelensky stated his country was ready to buy anti-tank weapons, Trump responded with the now notorious "do us a favor" and asked for an investigation of a conspiracy theory that about the Clinton emails and actions of former VP Biden, who happens to be the front-runner in the Democratic campaign.

 

It's funny that people who can find credence in all kinds of conspiracy theories can't fathom the above.

 

It's also funny that people who support Trump don't want to talk about what Trump did, they want to speculate on any kind of diversion on what Trump did.

All 3 of your points are speculative.  Nothing proven yet on any of them.  I asked for proof of your insinuation that Trump extorted anything and you provide me with well known speculation.  Where's your proof of extortion?

 

It funnier still how no one here has ever referred to the libs points as conspiracy theories yet you seem to suggest that our quite valid questions and points are nothing more than conspiracy theory.  The ruse in that approach is so blatantly apparent.

 

And we do talk about what Trump did and said and do not find anything so concretely damning as the "foul" criers are claiming.  And again you allude to any questioning of any kind into matters which are related as diversionary tactics used by us.  Another dishonest approach the libs use which we are well aware of because it is sooooo worn out.

 

 

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

All 3 of your points are speculative.  Nothing proven yet on any of them.  I asked for proof of your insinuation that Trump extorted anything and you provide me with well known speculation.  Where's your proof of extortion?

 

It funnier still how no one here has ever referred to the libs points as conspiracy theories yet you seem to suggest that our quite valid questions and points are nothing more than conspiracy theory.  The ruse in that approach is so blatantly apparent.

 

And we do talk about what Trump did and said and do not find anything so concretely damning as the "foul" criers are claiming.  And again you allude to any questioning of any kind into matters which are related as diversionary tactics used by us.  Another dishonest approach the libs use which we are well aware of because it is sooooo worn out.

 

 

You don't believe Trump suspended the aid to Ukraine?  Trump admitted it.

 

You don't think Giuliani met with Ukrainian officials to explain what Trump wanted investigated?  Giuliani admitted it.

 

You don't think Trump asked "do us a favor"?  It's in the phone call transcript.

 

You are getting desperate.

 

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You don't believe Trump suspended the aid to Ukraine?  Trump admitted it.

 

You don't think Giuliani met with Ukrainian officials to explain what Trump wanted investigated?  Giuliani admitted it.

 

You don't think Trump asked "do us a favor"?  It's in the phone call transcript.

 

You are getting desperate.

 

You don't believe Trump suspended the aid to Ukraine?  Trump admitted it.

 

Who here is denying this as fact, heybruce?  No one.  Can you name anyone?  Connecting the suspended aid directly to an attempt at extortion is something that has not been proven.  It can, though, be interpreted that way.  And you are interpreting it that way with the belief that it is indeed fact.  It is, officially, nothing more than speculation.

 

You don't think Giuliani met with Ukrainian officials to explain what Trump wanted investigated?  Giuliani admitted it.

 

Same as above, heybruce.  No one here is denying the fact.  Can you name anyone?  It's well documented.  But again, as long as Giuliani was legally tasked then there is nothing egregious about it.  It can, though, be interpreted that way.  And you are interpreting it that way with the belief that it is indeed fact.  It is, officially, nothing more than speculation.

 

You don't think Trump asked "do us a favor"?  It's in the phone call transcript.

 

Same as above, heybruce.  No one here is denying the fact.  Can you name anyone?  It's well documented.  Trump has the legal authority, and the constitutional responsibility, to investigate crime.  It can, though, be interpreted that the specific verbiage he used unquestionably points to a mafia style way of conveying an "understanding."  And you are interpreting it that way with the belief that it is indeed fact.  It is, officially, nothing more than speculation.

 

BTW, Trump can only ask for assistance in a criminal investigation from a foreign leader.  He cannot demand it.  So how many ways can you word a request for assistance without the verbiage being able to be construed as something other than it's true meaning?

 

Who are you to say I'm getting desperate, heybruce?  You have no idea.

[mtls2005]

So it was Rudy G. who compiled the phony Ukranian Dossier, gave it to the WH , which then sent it to pompeo.

 

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

 

 

State Department inspector general gives Congress documents that Giuliani provided

 

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.

Giuliani told CNN on Wednesday evening that some of the documents provided to Congress by the State Department's inspector general had originated with him. Giuliani gave the documents to the White House, which then passed them to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Pompeo gave the documents to a subordinate, who provided them to the legal counsel at the State Department, the source said. The documents were ultimately given to the inspector general.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/politics/state-department-inspector-general-briefing-congress/index.html

[roobaa01]

28 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You don't believe Trump suspended the aid to Ukraine?  Trump admitted it.

 

You don't think Giuliani met with Ukrainian officials to explain what Trump wanted investigated?  Giuliani admitted it.

 

You don't think Trump asked "do us a favor"?  It's in the phone call transcript.

 

You are getting desperate.

 

it is the same <deleted> like russian delusion collusion or does it clearly nail bribery, misdemeanor or high treason ??? if yes explain pls.

 

important didn't adam schiff and dem intel committee decipels made contact with the whistleblower weeks before the compain was filed ??? allegedly did schiff help write the complaint ??? what about schiff's ukraine contacts ???? imo the whole thing was a set-up, fraud, hoax in line with dirty steele dossier.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Tippaporn]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are you referring to the Prosecutor fired for incompetence, or the replacement prosecutor who actually investigated the company Biden's son worked for and found nothing wrong?

So goes the story that some paint.  Is it true?  I don't know for certain.  And I would guarantee that neither do you.  Just data points so far.

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You don't believe Trump suspended the aid to Ukraine?  Trump admitted it.

 

Who here is denying this as fact, heybruce?  No one.  Can you name anyone?  Connecting the suspended aid directly to an attempt at extortion is something that has not been proven.  It can, though, be interpreted that way.  And you are interpreting it that way with the belief that it is indeed fact.  It is, officially, nothing more than speculation.

 

You don't think Giuliani met with Ukrainian officials to explain what Trump wanted investigated?  Giuliani admitted it.

 

Same as above, heybruce.  No one here is denying the fact.  Can you name anyone?  It's well documented.  But again, as long as Giuliani was legally tasked then there is nothing egregious about it.  It can, though, be interpreted that way.  And you are interpreting it that way with the belief that it is indeed fact.  It is, officially, nothing more than speculation.

 

You don't think Trump asked "do us a favor"?  It's in the phone call transcript.

 

Same as above, heybruce.  No one here is denying the fact.  Can you name anyone?  It's well documented.  Trump has the legal authority, and the constitutional responsibility, to investigate crime.  It can, though, be interpreted that the specific verbiage he used unquestionably points to a mafia style way of conveying an "understanding."  And you are interpreting it that way with the belief that it is indeed fact.  It is, officially, nothing more than speculation.

 

BTW, Trump can only ask for assistance in a criminal investigation from a foreign leader.  He cannot demand it.  So how many ways can you word a request for assistance without the verbiage being able to be construed as something other than it's true meaning?

 

Who are you to say I'm getting desperate, heybruce?  You have no idea.

I see.  You can't see any connection between Trump suspending aid, Giuliani spelling out what Trump wanted investigated, and Trump redirecting the conversation with President Zelinsky from military aid to a "favor". 

 

Funny, you are full of suspicions about anyone who upsets Trump.  You don't find any of the above the least bit suspicious?

[Tippaporn]

On 10/2/2019 at 8:53 AM, mtls2005 said:

 

Be still my heart.

 

Obviosuly all calls were recorded, by the other end. Leaks on the Australia and Mexico calls were leaked by those countries.

 

. . . . 

mtls2005, this is my 3rd request to you to for verification that the governments of Australia and Mexico were the leakers of Trump's calls with them.  Or did you just make a blatantly false claim?