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

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/14/2019 at 11:40 PM, Jingthing said:

You're joking right? Mueller didn't open his mouth for years. Don’t stress. 45 already impeached himself. What's going on now is about packaging.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Impeachment without conviction does not change anything. Didn't make any difference to Clinton. In my recollection the most unpopular man as result was Starr.

IMO the only way to get rid of Trump is to find a candidate that middle America will vote for.

Edited October 15, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[wayned]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Impeachment without conviction does not change anything. Didn't make any difference to Clinton. In my recollection the most unpopular man as result was Starr.

IMO the only way to get rid of Trump is to find a candidate that middle America will vote for.

I think that Pelosi realizes this and it is why she held off endorsing the impeachment inquiry until other members of the house "convinced" her too.  What she is now hoping is that there will be enough evidence of Trump's abuse of power that, even if the Senate doesn't remove him, it will sway some of the folks in middle America to not vote for Trump.  It's a big gamble, nut what's the other choice now that the inquiry is formally started.

[thaibeachlovers]

33 minutes ago, wayned said:

I think that Pelosi realizes this and it is why she held off endorsing the impeachment inquiry until other members of the house "convinced" her too.  What she is now hoping is that there will be enough evidence of Trump's abuse of power that, even if the Senate doesn't remove him, it will sway some of the folks in middle America to not vote for Trump.  It's a big gamble, nut what's the other choice now that the inquiry is formally started.

Agree, but the folks in middle America are not going to vote for an old white man that has skeletons in the closet, or an extreme leftist that used a falsehood to advance herself.

They need another Bernie, or a Jack Kennedy, but so far they ain't showing up. Probably because they don't want to lose to Trump, IMO.

Pelosi's nightmare must be that they manage to convict Trump and Pence wins on the backlash. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[Kelsall]

Lindsay Graham just said in an interview that if Pelosi succeeds in impeaching the President on the phone call, it will be dead as soon as it reaches the Senate..

[stevenl]

33 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Lindsay Graham just said in an interview that if Pelosi succeeds in impeaching the President on the phone call, it will be dead as soon as it reaches the Senate..

He doesn't know what has been discovered already and what is still being discovered.

Also don't forget he is one of the senators who wholeheartedly supports Trump, many others are doing this only half-heartedly.

[wayned]

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Lindsay Graham just said in an interview that if Pelosi succeeds in impeaching the President on the phone call, it will be dead as soon as it reaches the Senate..

Lindsey Graham is a big bag of wind that changes his tune every time Trump farts and blows his puckered lips away from his a**!  "I thought that you wanted me to kiss the right cheek, now it's the left"

[Kelsall]

Pelosi and Schiff just held a press conference where Pelosi announced she doesn't have the votes for the inquiry. 

 

This whole thing is a nothing burger.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Kelsall said:

Pelosi and Schiff just held a press conference where Pelosi announced she doesn't have the votes for the inquiry. 

 

This whole thing is a nothing burger.

No. She announced she will not vote on it now. Your claim is a blatant lie.

[canuckamuck]

12 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Pelosi and Schiff just held a press conference where Pelosi announced she doesn't have the votes for the inquiry. 

 

This whole thing is a nothing burger.

SHH let the kids believe in Santa Claus.

It keeps them from winning elections.

[wayned]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No. She announced she will not vote on it now. Your claim is a blatant lie.

She doesn't ever have to call for a vote on an impeachment inquiry, she only has to call for a vote to impeach the president if/when articles of impeachment are drawn up.  They aren't there yet! 

[Eric Loh]

3 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Pelosi and Schiff just held a press conference where Pelosi announced she doesn't have the votes for the inquiry. 

 

This whole thing is a nothing burger.

Those republicans must be pulling their hairs out that Pelosi and Schiff simply treat their request for votes as a nothing burger. They must be cursing themselves for their own shenanigans in 2015 and giving the Dems the power to ignore them. Karma is a bitch. Ouch.

[thaibeachlovers]

55 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Those republicans must be pulling their hairs out that Pelosi and Schiff simply treat their request for votes as a nothing burger. They must be cursing themselves for their own shenanigans in 2015 and giving the Dems the power to ignore them. Karma is a bitch. Ouch.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain please?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Pelosi and Schiff just held a press conference where Pelosi announced she doesn't have the votes for the inquiry. 

 

This whole thing is a nothing burger.

They probably, IMO, don't believe that an impeachment will result in a conviction so the plan, IMO, is to spin it out for as long as possible, and keep talking about it, to try and convince some that there is actually some there there.

As long as they don't have a vote, they don't have to produce any actual evidence. 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain please?

Before 2015, most House subpoenas needed at least some bipartisan cover, but in 2015 House Republicans changed the rules and allowed the committee chairmen to proceed unilaterally, able to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party. The Democrats vehemently objected to this at the time and witnessed the GOP wielding this new rule dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies. However the shoe is now on the other foot and the Democrats can thank the GOP for a rule change that is going to haunt Trump. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265

Edited October 16, 2019 by johnnybangkok

[johnnybangkok]

Former White House official bolsters the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower’s allegations

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/15/20915579/trump-impeachment-ukraine-fiona-hill-whistleblower

 

The noose is tightening!

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Before 2015, most House subpoenas needed at least some bipartisan cover, but in 2015 House Republicans changed the rules and allowed the committee chairmen to proceed unilaterally, able to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party. The Democrats vehemently objected to this at the time and witnessed the GOP wielding this new rule dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies. However the shoe is now on the other foot and the Democrats can thank the GOP for a rule change that is going to haunt Trump. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265

In a word -- KARMA.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They probably, IMO, don't believe that an impeachment will result in a conviction so the plan, IMO, is to spin it out for as long as possible, and keep talking about it, to try and convince some that there is actually some there there.

As long as they don't have a vote, they don't have to produce any actual evidence. 

Conviction in the senate will only have a chance if polls show around 60% of the public want it. If that doesnt happen trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still the senate would not convict.

 

But what it will do is show the public how bad trump is, and to win election they dont need that big a % to vote him out.

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Conviction in the senate will only have a chance if polls show around 60% of the public want it. If that doesnt happen trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still the senate would not convict.

 

But what it will do is show the public how bad trump is, and to win election they dont need that big a % to vote him out.

Yes I agree 60 percent would shake out more republican senators, possibly enough to do the deed. Impossible to say at this point whether that will happen but the sea change momentum towards massive support for both the inquiry and conviction in such a short time is historic in it's rapidity. So anyone that thinks they can make a definitive prediction at this point when we are in such uncharted territory should be IGNORED. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Jingthing

[Kelsall]

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Conviction in the senate will only have a chance if polls show around 60% of the public want it. If that doesnt happen trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still the senate would not convict.

 

But what it will do is show the public how bad trump is, and to win election they dont need that big a % to vote him out.

Sounds like you're saying "if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected." LOL.  Where have we heard that before?

 

The only shooting going on is the Dems shooting themselves in the foot.  As this inquiry is being conducted in secret with selective leaking, nothing can be gleaned from the process.  Pelosi does not have the votes and now it's looking like she never will. 

 

Trump is lucky Pelosi and Schiff are running this.  Somebody smart might have caused a little bit of damage.  But then somebody smart would not have gone down the "impeachment" road, as there is no there there.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Kelsall

[rabas]

4 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Those republicans must be pulling their hairs out that Pelosi and Schiff simply treat their request for votes as a nothing burger. They must be cursing themselves for their own shenanigans in 2015 and giving the Dems the power to ignore them. Karma is a bitch. Ouch.

Karma runs both ways.

 

Their constitutional glee of pushing a partisan impeachment will evaporate in the Senate, which is not constitutionally required to hold a trial. Who knows, by then the Senate could be busy placing even more karma on the Supreme Court.

[stevenl]

23 minutes ago, rabas said:

Karma runs both ways.

 

Their constitutional glee of pushing a partisan impeachment will evaporate in the Senate, which is not constitutionally required to hold a trial. Who knows, by then the Senate could be busy placing even more karma on the Supreme Court.

Yes, could happen.

 

But by that time Trump's shenanigans will be all over the news, and besides his hard core fans, about 35% of the electorate, he won't be getting many more votes. That means he is doomed with very likely some court cases against him personally waiting, without the executive protection.

 

So if enough of the electorate want his impeachment the trial will happen. It all hangs on the evidence presented, and the way it looks now that doesn't bode well for Trump.

Edited October 16, 2019 by stevenl

[Opl]

 

Trump Just Blamed Barack Obama For His Impeachment

 

Sarah Reese Jones

 

✔ @PoliticusSarah

 

 

Trump claims Obama conspired against him in 2016 and appears to blame Barack Obama for his impeachment in a rambling mess of self-pity word salad.

 

 

129

5:45 PM - Oct 16, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

98 people are talking about this

 

[Jingthing]

Karma runs both ways.
 
Their constitutional glee of pushing a partisan impeachment will evaporate in the Senate, which is not constitutionally required to hold a trial. Who knows, by then the Senate could be busy placing even more karma on the Supreme Court.

He could. He said he would hold a trial though. If it gets to 60 percent approving removal by the time of the trial and a trial isn't held well I can't even imagine what would happen then. I don't mean in the senate. I mean in the streets.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sujo]

9 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Sounds like you're saying "if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected." LOL.  Where have we heard that before?

 

The only shooting going on is the Dems shooting themselves in the foot.  As this inquiry is being conducted in secret with selective leaking, nothing can be gleaned from the process.  Pelosi does not have the votes and now it's looking like she never will. 

 

Trump is lucky Pelosi and Schiff are running this.  Somebody smart might have caused a little bit of damage.  But then somebody smart would not have gone down the "impeachment" road, as there is no there there.

I think you need comprehension overhaul. That is not what i said at all.

 

if he isnt impeached the dems still win if the public uses common sense.

[bristolboy]

Is fraud an impeachable offense?

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies

 

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017

.https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

[wayned]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He could. He said he would hold a trial though. If it gets to 60 percent approving removal by the time of the trial and a trial isn't held well I can't even imagine what would happen then. I don't mean in the senate. I mean in the streets.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

If the House impeaches Trump,  Mitch has to at least put it up for vote.  If 51 Senators vote against it then he doesn't have to go any further.  The question is whether any of the GOP will flip.  That's what Trump is worried about, reportedly calling McConnell three times a day.

[bristolboy]

Mulvaney emerges as a key facilitator of the campaign to pressure Ukraine

 

In late May, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney organized a meeting that stripped control of the country’s relationship with Ukraine from those who had the most expertise at the National Security Council and the State Department.

Instead, Mulvaney put an unlikely trio in charge of managing the U.S.-Ukraine account amid worrisome signs of a new priority, congressional officials said Tuesday: pressuring the fledgling government in Kiev to deliver material that would be politically valuable to President Trump.

The work of those “three amigos,” as they came to call themselves — diplomats Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker, plus Energy Secretary Rick Perry — has come to light in recent days through newly disclosed text messages and the testimony of government witnesses appearing before an impeachment inquiry in Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/mulvaney-emerges-as-a-key-facilitator-of-the-campaign-to-pressure-ukraine/2019/10/15/9d46b7ae-ef76-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

[riclag]

41 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Is fraud an impeachable offense?

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies

 

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017

.https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

No, especially when there is no evidence. Like the article says there can be legitimate reasons . Just another look over here 

 

"There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

Edited October 16, 2019 by riclag

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

No, especially when there is no evidence. Like the article says there can be legitimate reasons . Just another look over here 

"There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

This is your idea of no evidence? Really?

"but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

No, especially when there is no evidence. Like the article says there can be legitimate reasons . Just another look over here 

 

"There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

So, don't you think this warrants further investigation? Who knows? Maybe it will prove to be perfectly legitimate?