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

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

I don’t know that it was a priority for him then, it didn’t sound like it was.

In any event, I thought he was a Russian agent, no?

The way I see it, with the argument the left is making, anything he asked anyone to do, could be considered campaign finance fraud.

If Biden is clean, what’s the big deal? It he’s not, should it not be brought to light?
 

Should not what be brought to light?  So far nobody has presented any evidence of anything regarding Joe Biden. 

 

I don't know where you got the idea that Trump is a Russian agent.  There's plenty of evidence he is a useful idiot for Putin, if not a willing partner is corruption and undermining democratic government and western values.  Where did you get the Russian agent stuff?

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, wayned said:

Now there's a classic statement!  Replace Biden with Trump and answer the question.   He's ignoring the law by refusing to release his taxes, by not releasing documentation that has been subpeonaed, by refusing to let government employees testify in congress and on and on.  If he's clean, what's the big deal?  If he's not, should it not bee brought to light?  He's certainly acting like he's not by obstructing congress and allegedly bribing the Ukraines.  And not telling what he arranged with Turkey to throw the Kurds under the bus and put Russia, Iran and ISIS back in control of Northern Syria. IMHO I think that he thinks that he is host of the ultimate reality show instead of being POTUS>

He's ignoring the law by refusing to release his taxes

Wrong. there is no law that says he must.

Enough with the tax release already. He is not obligated to do so. Past presidents may have done so, but there isn't any sort of law that he has to.

 

put Russia, Iran and ISIS back in control of Northern Syria.

News to me that IS is working with Russia and Iran.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

 

I don't know where you got the idea that Trump is a Russian agent.  There's plenty of evidence he is a useful idiot for Putin, if not a willing partner is corruption and undermining democratic government and western values.  Where did you get the Russian agent stuff?

LOL

He was being sarcastic.

[wayned]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He's ignoring the law by refusing to release his taxes

Wrong. there is no law that says he must.

Enough with the tax release already. He is not obligated to do so. Past presidents may have done so, but there isn't any sort of law that he has to.

 

put Russia, Iran and ISIS back in control of Northern Syria.

News to me that IS is working with Russia and Iran.

Totally wrong! He is required to release his taxes as is anybody if the chairman of the House ways and Means committee requests them as Representative Neal, the chairman of the committee did.  There is no room for negotiation as it says the IRS "shall" turn over the documents.  That doesn't mean that they are released to the public, they main confidential to the committee until charges are brought against the individual whoever that might be.  While there is no law requiring Trump to publicly release his tax returns, federal law of IRS Code section 6103(f) does require Trump's (or anyone else's) tax returns to be given to Congress if they request it.

 

Isn't Russia and Iran bad enough?  Just wait a while and ISIS will rear it's ugly head.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL

He was being sarcastic.

And I was being serious about Trump being a useful idiot or willing accomplice in corruption and undermining democracy.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He's ignoring the law by refusing to release his taxes

Wrong. there is no law that says he must.

Enough with the tax release already. He is not obligated to do so. Past presidents may have done so, but there isn't any sort of law that he has to.

 

put Russia, Iran and ISIS back in control of Northern Syria.

News to me that IS is working with Russia and Iran.

Yes, there are laws, he should release if required by a prosecutor like in NY or if requested by Congress.

[wayned]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, take it up with the IRS then. 

You're the one that said that there wasn't a law that required him yo release his taxes, I called you out with a direct reference to the law that requires him to which you conveniently left out of the quote.  Then you tried to laugh it off, 5555555555555, and now you're telling me to take it up with the IRS.  Someone that can't admit that they were wrong, a true  follower of the Trumpian cult!

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies removed.  

 

[Crazy Alex]

On 10/21/2019 at 8:26 AM, Sujo said:

Why do you think the dems cant find enough.

 

What is trump getting on with? Making decisions to get allies killed?

If Democrats found enough, they'd be scheduling an impeachment vote instead of just telling everyone they're impeaching Trump.

[Crazy Alex]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, there are laws, he should release if required by a prosecutor like in NY or if requested by Congress.

Or he can exercise his civil rights and object to such subpoenas- which is precisely what is happening.

[Crazy Alex]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, there are laws, he should release if required by a prosecutor like in NY or if requested by Congress.

Actually, that's incorrect. It's the IRS that may be under obligation to release tax returns when subpoenaed by Congress, not the taxpayer.

 

That is why Congress went to the IRS for the tax returns and not Trump himself.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Actually, that's incorrect. It's the IRS that may be under obligation to release tax returns when subpoenaed by Congress, not the taxpayer.

 

That is why Congress went to the IRS for the tax returns and not Trump himself.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts

And trump ordered irs to ignore the request.

[RideJocky]

It is my position they adopted the tactics of those who attempt to overthrow the government.  These Representatives are probably too stupid to realize that, but mindless mobs are often influenced to act that way.
 
How is it you consider a bi-partisan investigation a stunt, while a disruptive mob crashing a secure meeting room is legitimate?

How is interrupting a hearing to stop or delay it different from staging a walkout to stop a vote?

I didn’t say it was a stunt, not did I say I considered it legitimate, you just made that up. You do a lot of that.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

How is interrupting a hearing to stop or delay it different from staging a walkout to stop a vote?

I didn’t say it was a stunt, not did I say I considered it legitimate, you just made that up. You do a lot of that.

 

Who has walked out to stop a vote, and why do you think that is relevant to this topic?

 

In post #1734 you posted "I think it could be that they think the whole thing if’s just another political stunt from the left, and they hope to expose it as such."  

 

[RideJocky]

Who has walked out to stop a vote, and why do you think that is relevant to this topic?
 
In post #1734 you posted "I think it could be that they think the whole thing if’s just another political stunt from the left, and they hope to expose it as such."  
 

Exactly. Nowhere does it say what I think, rather I was speculating on what I thought the guys trying to overthrow the government may have been thinking.

Reading is FUN-damental!

I see a walkout as a similar type of disruption, you don’t, whatever.

[bristolboy]

DOJ wrong to block release of whistleblower complaint to Congress, IG council says

 

The Justice Department was wrong to block releasing to Congress the whistleblower’s complaint about President Trump’s phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, a group of government inspectors general said in a letter released Friday.

Roughly 70 inspectors generals signed the letter calling the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion — that the complaint was not an “urgent concern” — “wrong as a matter of law and policy.”

The letter issued by the Council of Inspectors General asked the Justice Department to withdraw or modify the opinion.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/25/council-inspectors-general-doj-was-wrong-block-rel/

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

Exactly. Nowhere does it say what I think, rather I was speculating on what I thought the guys trying to overthrow the government may have been thinking.

Reading is FUN-damental!

I see a walkout as a similar type of disruption, you don’t, whatever.

I agree reading is fundamental.  If you had read your own post in which you stated the impeachment inquiry was a political stunt, you might not have denied posting what you posted.

 

Speculate on your own, I'm not getting diverted by your irrelevant questions about off-topic speculation.

[Scott]

Bickering, troll posts and replies removed.   Continue and face a suspension.

 

[RideJocky]

I agree reading is fundamental.  If you had read your own post in which you stated the impeachment inquiry was a political stunt, you might not have denied posting what you posted.
 
Speculate on your own, I'm not getting diverted by your irrelevant questions about off-topic speculation.

That’s what I thought.

In any event, how is disrupting a meeting by walking in any different from disrupting a meeting by walking out?

As both interfere with the workings of our fearless leaders, should they both be considered attempts to overthrow the government?

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

That’s what I thought.

In any event, how is disrupting a meeting by walking in any different from disrupting a meeting by walking out?

As both interfere with the workings of our fearless leaders, should they both be considered attempts to overthrow the government?
 

 

Because you are allowed to leave a meeting you are invited to.

 

But you are not allowed to go to a meeting you are not invited to.

[RideJocky]

Because you are allowed to leave a meeting you are invited to.
 
But you are not allowed to go to a meeting you are not invited to.

I said nothing of an invitation, that is something you made up, seems to be a lot of that going around.

When congress meets, do the members not have a responsibility to be attend?

I know it there was an important meeting where I worked, and half the staff decided to walk out for no other reason than to disrupt the meeting because they were unhappy about what was being discussed, it would not be considered okay.

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

I said nothing of an invitation, that is something you made up, seems to be a lot of that going around.

When congress meets, do the members not have a responsibility to be attend?

I know it there was an important meeting where I worked, and half the staff decided to walk out for no other reason than to disrupt the meeting because they were unhappy about what was being discussed, it would not be considered okay.
 

How desperate are you to deflect from the topic?

[Becker]

Breaking News: 

Link: Judge says impeachment inquiry is legal and justifies disclosing grand jury material

 

"A federal judge on Friday gave a legal endorsement to the House Democrats' impeachment probe into President Donald Trump and ordered the Justice Department to release grand jury information redacted from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

The ruling is a blow to the Trump administration's claims that the House is not conducting a valid impeachment inquiry since there's been no formal vote to authorize the probe."

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

That’s what I thought.

In any event, how is disrupting a meeting by walking in any different from disrupting a meeting by walking out?

As both interfere with the workings of our fearless leaders, should they both be considered attempts to overthrow the government?
 

 

I think the best answer to this is the one given during the Benghazi investigation chaired by Republican Trey Gowdy. When a Democratic congressman who was not on the committee tried to get into the hearing, Gowdy's response was:

 

Quote

"I'm a prosecutor, we always follow the rules. ... non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules and we have to follow them - no exceptions made."

I think this is a clear case of, "What's sauce for the goose..."
 

[GroveHillWanderer]

17 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

If Democrats found enough, they'd be scheduling an impeachment vote instead of just telling everyone they're impeaching Trump.

You really don't even understand the fundamentals here, do you? This is the investigative stage of the impeachment inquiry. As mentioned before, it works like Grand Jury proceedings. You don't convene a Grand Jury and then on the first day, ask them to immediately vote on whether to hand down an indictment, before there's even been a chance to look at any of the evidence, hear from any witnesses etc.

 

You go through the process, gather and carefully consider the evidence, you listen to all the witnesses and only when that process is fully completed, do you hold a vote on whether to indict (or in this case, impeach) the subject of the investigation.

[Tippaporn]

I would bet a dollar to a donut that this impeachment attempt and the origins of Russiagate are inextricably linked.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-durham-investigation-fbi-misconduct-criminal-probe

 

Of course the left is already heavily beating the narrative drum (without any facts whatsoever) that this turn of events is solely due to a corrupt Bill Barr and a corrupt John Durham and a hijacked DOJ trying to help Trump with this attempted impeachment.  Expect a non-stop smear campaign to be launched by the MSM and the left against these two men to commence in 3-2-1 . . . 

 

Nadler & Schiff posting jointly on Twitter:

"These reports, if true, raise profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under Attorney General William Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump's political revenge."

 

"If the Department of Justice may be used as a tool of political retribution or to help the president with a political narrative for the next election, the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage," they said.

 

Chuck Todd opened his show Friday by dismissing the latest developments in U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal probe into the origins of the Russia investigation as something that is "largely" based on President Trump's "personal grievances and conspiracy theories."

 

LOL

 

So for the left out there the above are your new talking points to be regurgitated ad nauseam.  Prepare for it.

 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

37 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

When a Democratic congressman who was not on the committee ...

Sorry, I just re-checked this and realised I got one detail wrong - it was actually another Republican that Gowdy wouldn't allow into the Benghazi hearings. The principle of what he said, still applies, of course.

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I would bet a dollar to a donut that this impeachment attempt and the origins of Russiagate are inextricably linked.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-durham-investigation-fbi-misconduct-criminal-probe

 

Of course the left is already heavily beating the narrative drum (without any facts whatsoever) that this turn of events is solely due to a corrupt Bill Barr and a corrupt John Durham and a hijacked DOJ trying to help Trump with this attempted impeachment.  Expect a non-stop smear campaign to be launched by the MSM and the left against these two men to commence in 3-2-1 . . . 

 

Nadler & Schiff posting jointly on Twitter:

"These reports, if true, raise profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under Attorney General William Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump's political revenge."

 

"If the Department of Justice may be used as a tool of political retribution or to help the president with a political narrative for the next election, the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage," they said.

 

Chuck Todd opened his show Friday by dismissing the latest developments in U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal probe into the origins of the Russia investigation as something that is "largely" based on President Trump's "personal grievances and conspiracy theories."

 

LOL

 

So for the left out there the above are you're new talking points to be regurgitated ad nauseam.  Prepare for it.

 

 

"I would bet a dollar to a donut that this impeachment attempt and the origins of Russiagate are inextricably linked."

 

It's a safe bet.  The Mueller investigation was initiated to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, which it found.  Trump leaned on Zelenski to come up with something that could cast doubt on Russia's proven interference.  This abuse of power has become a key part of the impeachment investigation.

 

It still leaves the question of why Trump is so keen on exonerating Russia.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

"I would bet a dollar to a donut that this impeachment attempt and the origins of Russiagate are inextricably linked."

 

It's a safe bet.  The Mueller investigation was initiated to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, which it found.  Trump leaned on Zelenski to come up with something that could cast doubt on Russia's proven interference.  This abuse of power has become a key part of the impeachment investigation.

 

It still leaves the question of why Trump is so keen on exonerating Russia.

It still leaves the question of why Trump is so keen on exonerating Russia.

 

Trump is only keen on getting at the truth.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

Thanks for the repost.