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

[rabas]

26 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You just described that the conversations are recorded,just not recorded the same way they were back then. 

These "contemporaneous records " are saved, yet this record was stored at different place, a Top Secret  place, WHY??? 

BECAUSE?

 

You want them saved on Hillary's unsecured home server available to all? This is Ukraine, Putin would love to see what was said.

[Scott]

More off-topic posts and replies removed.   The topic is not about Hunter Biden.   Stay on topic, be civil or face a suspension.  

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

This may come as a shock to you, Trump, and everyone else who believes in an imperial presidency, but Trump doesn't make the rules for an impeachment inquiry.  There are few rules spelled out in the constitution, but the constitution clearly states it is the House's job to decide on impeachment and the Senate's job to decide on conviction.

 

In other words, the House makes the rules.

As of today there is no impeachment inquiry.  Fact.

 

Here's the full text of the White House letter sent to Pelosi and Schiff.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PAC-Letter-10.08.2019.pdf

[Tippaporn]

Just finished reading the text of the letter.  It was awesome in laying out all of the abuse of the Dems in Congress point by point with citations provided for each point.

 

There is no official impeachment inquiry despite the improper labeling of the current proceedings as such.  What is currently being run as an "impeachment inquiry" is a sham political theater and a travesty to all Americans.  Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, Engel, and Cummings should all be impeached for their treasonous behavior at a minimum.  Further investigations should be conducted to uncover their collusion to usurp a legitimately elected president and to purposely influence an upcoming election and be held to account using the stiffest penalties prescribed by law for such behavior.

 

[Tippaporn]

From the Washington Examiner.  Per Atkinson the "whistle blower" not only was a registered Democrat but professionally tied in some manner to one of the Dem presidential hopefuls.  Red flag!!

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

 

Remember all of the posters who claimed that the identity of the "whistle blower" was irrelevant?

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From the Washington Examiner.  Per Atkinson the "whistle blower" not only was a registered Democrat but professionally tied in some manner to one of the Dem presidential hopefuls.  Red flag!!

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

 

Remember all of the posters who claimed that the identity of the "whistle blower" was irrelevant?

Yes its irrelevant. Why is it relevant?

 

what he reported was true as admitted by trump. Doesnt matter if it came from santa clause, what he stated is admitted facts.

 

The one the IG said that notwithstanding any connection or perceived bias, after investigation his complaint was credible.

 

Dont forget there is a second wb, the one with first hand knowledge that also backs up the complaint.

[Sujo]

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Just finished reading the text of the letter.  It was awesome in laying out all of the abuse of the Dems in Congress point by point with citations provided for each point.

 

There is no official impeachment inquiry despite the improper labeling of the current proceedings as such.  What is currently being run as an "impeachment inquiry" is a sham political theater and a travesty to all Americans.  Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, Engel, and Cummings should all be impeached for their treasonous behavior at a minimum.  Further investigations should be conducted to uncover their collusion to usurp a legitimately elected president and to purposely influence an upcoming election and be held to account using the stiffest penalties prescribed by law for such behavior.

 

Because trump says there is no impeachment investigation doesnt make it true. Just because he says its unconstitutional doesnt make it true.

 

The letter gives no legal argument. The constitution is clear.

 

The investigation will continue and failure to provide evidence or documents will be obstruction of justice and considered further impeachable offences.

 

When polls continue to rise showing the public in favour of impeachment proceedings Republicans will start to jump ship. Some have already done so.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

As of today there is no impeachment inquiry.  Fact.

 

Here's the full text of the White House letter sent to Pelosi and Schiff.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PAC-Letter-10.08.2019.pdf

" Therefore, today I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry and directing our six committees to proceed with their investigation under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry. "   https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/24/20882453/impreachment-trump-nancy-pelosi-statement

 

The House of Representatives decides if there is an impeachment inquiry, not the White House.  The US doesn't have an imperial president.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Just finished reading the text of the letter.  It was awesome in laying out all of the abuse of the Dems in Congress point by point with citations provided for each point.

 

There is no official impeachment inquiry despite the improper labeling of the current proceedings as such.  What is currently being run as an "impeachment inquiry" is a sham political theater and a travesty to all Americans.  Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, Engel, and Cummings should all be impeached for their treasonous behavior at a minimum.  Further investigations should be conducted to uncover their collusion to usurp a legitimately elected president and to purposely influence an upcoming election and be held to account using the stiffest penalties prescribed by law for such behavior.

 

The letter is awesome in laying out alternative facts that Trump's conspiracy theory base accept without question.  The Constitution gives the House the responsibility for impeachment and gives very little guidance on how it is done.  Just because Trump doesn't want to be impeached and doesn't like anything about the process doesn't invalidate the impeachment inquiry.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The letter is awesome in laying out alternative facts that Trump's conspiracy theory base accept without question.  The Constitution gives the House the responsibility for impeachment and gives very little guidance on how it is done.  Just because Trump doesn't want to be impeached and doesn't like anything about the process doesn't invalidate the impeachment inquiry.

Please stop with the facts. Its not how they operate.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Because trump says there is no impeachment investigation doesnt make it true. Just because he says its unconstitutional doesnt make it true.

 

The letter gives no legal argument. The constitution is clear.

 

The investigation will continue and failure to provide evidence or documents will be obstruction of justice and considered further impeachable offences.

 

When polls continue to rise showing the public in favour of impeachment proceedings Republicans will start to jump ship. Some have already done so.

The house hasn't voted to hold an impeachment investigation, so why should he submit anything? It's just one sub committee playing politics at the moment, far as I can see.

[thaibeachlovers]

57 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The letter is awesome in laying out alternative facts that Trump's conspiracy theory base accept without question.  The Constitution gives the House the responsibility for impeachment and gives very little guidance on how it is done.  Just because Trump doesn't want to be impeached and doesn't like anything about the process doesn't invalidate the impeachment inquiry.

So, why doesn't the house vote to start an investigation and stop messing about? If they've got all the facts, as claimed my many on here, they have what they need to start an official investigation.

Seems to me they are trying to make political capital before failing to convict in the senate.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

" Therefore, today I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry and directing our six committees to proceed with their investigation under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry. "   https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/24/20882453/impreachment-trump-nancy-pelosi-statement

 

The House of Representatives decides if there is an impeachment inquiry, not the White House.  The US doesn't have an imperial president.

How can Pelosi say the house is holding an official investigation when there has not been a vote to do so. She's the speaker, and a speaker is normally supposed to be impartial.

[johnnybangkok]

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How can Pelosi say the house is holding an official investigation when there has not been a vote to do so. She's the speaker, and a speaker is normally supposed to be impartial.

Do try and keep up with the conversation. This has been gone over to death.

There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

They don't have to do it and are choosing not to. It's that simple.

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The house hasn't voted to hold an impeachment investigation, so why should he submit anything? It's just one sub committee playing politics at the moment, far as I can see.

See post #1208 above.  The investigation has started. 

[sirineou]

4 hours ago, rabas said:

BECAUSE?

 

You want them saved on Hillary's unsecured home server available to all? This is Ukraine, Putin would love to see what was said.

 You mean all other tromp conversations are stored on unsecured servers?  but this one had to be saved on a top secret server ?

I am shocked 

Perhaps you should be a whistleblower ????

[Tippaporn]

From the website www.local.gov

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=The impeachment process in the house&orderBy=Relevance

 

At the top it you should find a pdf entitled:  The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

 

The document has last been revised on Aug. 12th, the same day that the whistle blower complaint form was changed.  I would imagine that someone will examine the changes that have been made.  In any case the document spells out the specifics in, I imagine, absolute detail.  I haven't the time to read it now as it runs 17 pages.

 

BTW, the next document list is entitled:  Impeachment Investigations: Law and Process

 

This seems to be another document worth reading.  Revised Oct. 2, 2019.

 

There was another document which changes coincides with the changes made on the whistle blower complaint doc.  Both changes are integral for this whistle blower complaint to have validity.  I can't remember where I saw the other document change but I'll find it.  The change on the other document changes an important condition whereas previously the president was excluded and the new change removes that exclusion.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From the website www.local.gov

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=The impeachment process in the house&orderBy=Relevance

 

At the top it you should find a pdf entitled:  The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

 

The document has last been revised on Aug. 12th, the same day that the whistle blower complaint form was changed.  I would imagine that someone will examine the changes that have been made.  In any case the document spells out the specifics in, I imagine, absolute detail.  I haven't the time to read it now as it runs 17 pages.

 

BTW, the next document list is entitled:  Impeachment Investigations: Law and Process

 

This seems to be another document worth reading.  Revised Oct. 2, 2019.

 

There was another document which changes coincides with the changes made on the whistle blower complaint doc.  Both changes are integral for this whistle blower complaint to have validity.  I can't remember where I saw the other document change but I'll find it.  The change on the other document changes an important condition whereas previously the president was excluded and the new change removes that exclusion.

Look over there.

 

Irrelevant again.

[Tippaporn]

Lawmakers in both chambers have demanded that IC IG Michael Atkinson explain why he backdated to August secret changes he made to whistle blower rules in September. Atkinson is stonewalling them, which is a weird thing to do if there's nothing to hide.

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Lawmakers in both chambers have demanded that IC IG Michael Atkinson explain why he backdated to August secret changes he made to whistle blower rules in September. Atkinson is stonewalling them, which is a weird thing to do if there's nothing to hide.

Yeah, weird that Trump would stonewall this and every other investigation when he has nothing to hide.

 

What are your sources for the above?

[candide]

12 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

It's all in the treaty.

 

And this guy was there when the treaty was created and signed.

 

 

Cry now boys ... 

 

U.S./Ukraine Treaty Authorized Everything Trump Did - Lunch Alert! - DickMorris.com at DickMorris.com

The treaty with Ukraine does not apply because the conditions set in the articles of the treaty are not met. In particular it would have required an official request by the central authority (the AG) and following a precise procedure. 

 

"Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request. Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General.Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information required in each request."

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

[candide]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

From the website www.local.gov

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=The impeachment process in the house&orderBy=Relevance

 

At the top it you should find a pdf entitled:  The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

 

The document has last been revised on Aug. 12th, the same day that the whistle blower complaint form was changed.  I would imagine that someone will examine the changes that have been made.  In any case the document spells out the specifics in, I imagine, absolute detail.  I haven't the time to read it now as it runs 17 pages.

 

BTW, the next document list is entitled:  Impeachment Investigations: Law and Process

 

This seems to be another document worth reading.  Revised Oct. 2, 2019.

 

There was another document which changes coincides with the changes made on the whistle blower complaint doc.  Both changes are integral for this whistle blower complaint to have validity.  I can't remember where I saw the other document change but I'll find it.  The change on the other document changes an important condition whereas previously the president was excluded and the new change removes that exclusion.

You are so obsessed by conspiracy theories that you did not notice that the documents referenced are research papers. They are analyses or opinions by specialists, they are not stating the official rules. 

[JHolmesJr]

President Trump bringing more heat....fighting fire with fire.

They've got a small bonfire and he's got a flamethrower.

Barr and Durham are coming...lock up your hard drives.

Fitting end to an illegitimate and one-sided impeachment

farce dressed up as an enquiry.

 

[Tippaporn]

I'll say this.  By opening up this sham impeachment inquiry the Dems are now playing for all of the marbles.  They are now forced to throw everything they have at this, including the proverbial kitchen sink.  If they lose this will be their last gasp.

 

My belief is that they will never take a House vote.  Why?  Because it won't be necessary.  They will self destruct before they get to that juncture.  Their scam is falling apart rapidly.

 

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll say this.  By opening up this sham impeachment inquiry the Dems are now playing for all of the marbles.  They are now forced to throw everything they have at this, including the proverbial kitchen sink.  If they lose this will be their last gasp.

 

My belief is that they will never take a House vote.  Why?  Because it won't be necessary.  They will self destruct before they get to that juncture.  Their scam is falling apart rapidly.

 

Will be hard for the Republicans to convince the rising majority well past 50% who believe this inquiry is legit. Even within Republican, there seem a 6-8% increase since Sept that the investigation is warranted. I doubt the Dem is losing too much sleep on the WH stonewalling tactics. They will not dance to the WH tune and will just proceed on their own as laid down by the constitution and courtesy of the 2015 Republican own doing. Thanks a lot Rep. 

[RideJocky]

Will be hard for the Republicans to convince the rising majority well past 50% who believe this inquiry is legit. Even within Republican, there seem a 6-8% increase since Sept that the investigation is warranted. I doubt the Dem is losing too much sleep on the WH stonewalling tactics. They will not dance to the WH tune and will just proceed on their own as laid down by the constitution and courtesy of the 2015 Republican own doing. Thanks a lot Rep. 

That more people want the dems to move ahead with the proceedings does not mean they think Trump is guilty.

[Eric Loh]

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

That more people want the dems to move ahead with the proceedings does not mean they think Trump is guilty.

Explain. 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll say this.  By opening up this sham impeachment inquiry the Dems are now playing for all of the marbles.  They are now forced to throw everything they have at this, including the proverbial kitchen sink.  If they lose this will be their last gasp.

 

My belief is that they will never take a House vote.  Why?  Because it won't be necessary.  They will self destruct before they get to that juncture.  Their scam is falling apart rapidly.

 

Of course they will do a vote. When the courts tell trump he has to comply with the constitution and the investigation is complete.

 

In my opinion trump dragging this out will hurt him. It will be finalised near time for the election and people wont need the senate to tell them he is a corrupt traitor.

[RideJocky]

Explain. 

Some people believe it’s just another nothing burger that Nancy will never call a vote on, but that she will continue on with a one-sided secret “investigation” she can make last until the election.

These would like to see her move ahead with it.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Explain. 

I completely agree with RideJockey.  I actually want the Dems to go for it.  Go ahead, try and impeach Trump.  In their effort the Dems will only show the American people who they really are.  Talk about giving someone enough rope.