Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Kelsall said:

Good points.  I believe the Senate has a lot of options and could do any of the things you suggest.  I would like to see them move slowly, calling the Bidens, Adam Schiff, and the others involved in the coup.  That, timed with the indictments provided by Durham and Barr, would provide the leverage to destroy the communist Democratic party which would be a good thing for America.

 

In all fairness the dems are trying to time it to be the most damaging it can be if it goes nowhere. This could backfire very badly on them. Once it is handed to the senate it could as you say be the Biden's for the main show in the late summer early fall leading into the election. 

[elmrfudd]

35 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

An interesting article just came out that suggested one way that Trump could be convicted in the senate.  To put it simply, allow the senators to vote in secret.  Then we'll see if Republican senators really support Trump, or just do so out of fear. 

 

[By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.]

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

 

 

Amazing the amount of irrational, emotional unfounded wishful speculation on the TVF....wait, it is not surprising, it has been happening since 2016

[Berkshire]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

39 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

An interesting article just came out that suggested one way that Trump could be convicted in the senate.  To put it simply, allow the senators to vote in secret.  Then we'll see if Republican senators really support Trump, or just do so out of fear. 

 

[By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.]

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

 

 

Amazing the amount of irrational, emotional unfounded wishful speculation on the TVF....wait, it is not surprising, it has been happening since 2016

Hmmm, it wasn't my idea.  I take it you didn't bother to read the article. 

[Eric Loh]

33 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The reps who control the senate have said with no whistleblower they will declare it invalid and it is DOA.

The whistleblower has offered to answer any questions by the Reps in writing replicating and faithfully following the action of the dear leader in the Muller investigating. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

The whistleblower has offered to answer any questions by the Reps in writing replicating and faithfully following the action of the dear leader in the Muller investigating. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

The whistleblower has offered to answer any questions by the Reps in writing replicating and faithfully following the action of the dear leader in the Muller investigating. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

 

Okay that isnfine as long as we know who it is just like the dear leader. Otherwise when it goes to trial they should set out on empty chair that says whistleblower. When the witness fails to appear all testimony is cast out. 

 

[elmrfudd]

so they are performing a sham investigation and are worried about a sham investigation.....

 

 

 

Right

[Tug]

30 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The Biden Crime Cartel's actions in the Ukraine, China etc says different. 

Brother you need an intervention bad lol very funney tho lol

[Cryingdick]

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

Brother you need an intervention bad lol very funney tho lol

 

What a golden reply. Brother you alwaze be ceeping it real.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Skallywag]

Vindman , Sondland, Taylor, Morrison, all have said POTUS used quid pro quo with the $361 Million aid package with Ukraine. 

Really don't understand why they need anymore "witnesses" and cannot vote on impeachment soon. 

 

These televised testimonies are just so Dems can get face time on air for re-election ( so many voters in the U.S. do not even know who their representatives in Congress are) 

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Okay that isnfine as long as we know who it is just like the dear leader. Otherwise when it goes to trial they should set out on empty chair that says whistleblower. When the witness fails to appear all testimony is cast out. 

 

The whistleblower appearance is make redundant by the large volume of evidences for impeachment from career officers appointed by Trump. Meanwhile dear leader refusal to answer direct questions in the Muller investigation make him appeared more guilty. 

[Skallywag]

43 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The Biden Crime Cartel's actions in the Ukraine, China etc says different. 

Impeachment is about May-September 2019 quid pro quo on withholding military aid to the Ukraine.

 

Biden and his "actions" were in 2014.  Different year, different allegation

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The whistleblower appearance is make redundant by the large volume of evidences for impeachment from career officers appointed by Trump. Meanwhile dear leader refusal to answer direct questions in the Muller investigation make him appeared more guilty. 

other than Sonderland, who specifically said there was no squid go pro, who else did he actually appoint?

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Vindman , Sondland, Taylor, Morrison, all have said POTUS used quid pro quo with the $361 Million aid package with Ukraine. 

Really don't understand why they need anymore "witnesses" and cannot vote on impeachment soon. 

 

These televised testimonies are just so Dems can get face time on air for re-election ( so many voters in the U.S. do not even know who their representatives in Congress are) 

 

Absolutely this is just a matter of timing. It could really blow up in their faces as the senate has the ability to get the ball right before the elections. Meanwhile you have good old Liz pissing off every successful person in the country and it seems Bernie is now dating AOC. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Impeachment is about May-September 2019 quid pro quo on withholding military aid to the Ukraine.

 

Biden and his "actions" were in 2014.  Different year, different allegation

You can park the ‘quid pro quo’, the term

is ‘Bribery’, you hear it being explained to you during the public hearings and you’ll find it gets specific mention in The Constitution. 

[Saint Nick]

On 11/13/2019 at 5:44 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

On the subject of "sham investigations". We all learn recently that the USA threatening to withhold aid to other nations unless they do x,y,z is totally illegal and leads to impeachment for the POTUS. well fair enough, but what this?......

 

"The U.S. has warned Pakistan that it will withhold $300 million in military assistance if Islamabad doesn’t do more to crack down on"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-threatens-to-withhold-pakistan-aid-1440163925

 

 Note. I post this not to make an off topic troll but to prove to the world that US aid is routinely used to pressure the recipient. Something democrats would be wise to consider at this stage.

Are you <deleted> serious?

This is the USA (as in the whole government) using aid as a means of pressure to get another government to change their policy!

And I guess, this was all in accordance with the senate.

 

What Trump did, was withholding aid that was GRANTED by the senate to get dirt on a political opponent!

I know, you want this to be about Trump's heroic fight against corruption- it simply is not!

 

 

[Eric Loh]

4 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

other than Sonderland, who specifically said there was no squid go pro, who else did he actually appoint?

Suggest you go check. You seem out of depth. 

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You can park the ‘quid pro quo’, the term

is ‘Bribery’, you hear it being explained to you during the public hearings and you’ll find it gets specific mention in The Constitution. 

 

The reason they use that term is it sounds more sophisticated. If they accused Trump of bribery their case would be dead in the water. I suggestion you learn the legal definition of what constitutes bribery.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Saint Nick]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It would never happen. Secret hearings in the basement and a secret vote. This isn't 1950s communist Russia. The only real question is will there be a vote before or after the election.

Nope, it isn't 1950's Russia...and that's why, the things you stated, never happened!

[Cryingdick]

4 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Nope, it isn't 1950's Russia...and that's why, the things you stated, never happened!

 

I never implied that they ever happened. I did surmise that those sequence of actions will never happen, would never be sanctioned and are utterly crazy ideas.

 

I don't think we are on the path to 1950s Russia.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Cryingdick

[MAGA 2020]

4 hours ago, PatOngo said:

The greatest sham in America IS President Donald Trump!

Tissue Snowflake 

[elmrfudd]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You can park the ‘quid pro quo’, the term

is ‘Bribery’, you hear it being explained to you during the public hearings and you’ll find it gets specific mention in The Constitution. 

you can park the entire phony accusation, and the blatantly biased whistleblower that created it. but keep on hoping for an impeachment, while the successful re election and another 4 years of leftists tears

[MAGA 2020]

22 hours ago, Saint Nick said:

Are you <deleted> serious?

This is the USA (as in the whole government) using aid as a means of pressure to get another government to change their policy!

And I guess, this was all in accordance with the senate.

 

What Trump did, was withholding aid that was GRANTED by the senate to get dirt on a political opponent!

I know, you want this to be about Trump's heroic fight against corruption- it simply is not!

 

 

Obviously you didn't read the transcript, this will end very badly for the Socialist Democrats, who sole purpose of trying I repeat TRYING to remove President Trump is to keep covered the wrongs and corrupt dealings they have committed. President Trump will be reelected bank on that Snowflakes 

[PatOngo]

33 minutes ago, MAGA 2020 said:

Tissue Snowflake 

Fortunately, I'm not from the clowns country, live with it, Rambo! But then again, I'm laughing so hard at the mess that is the Trump administration, I'm in tears, maybe I could use a tissue!

Edited November 13, 2019 by PatOngo

[johnnybangkok]

29 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

other than Sonderland, who specifically said there was no squid go pro, who else did he actually appoint?

It gets a bit boring having to do all you Trumpers work for you, so for one last time:-

 

Fiona Hill, former Russia expert for the National Security Council described a July 10 White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which Gordon Sondland pressured Ukraine for a political investigation in exchange for a meeting with Trump (this is quid pro quo) and insisted Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had agreed to the plan. Hill said she saw, "Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. Following the meeting, Hill said John Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, told her to tell the president’s legal adviser “that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” 

 

Michael McKinley, former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he was disturbed by a push to use U.S. diplomatic missions "to procure negative political information for domestic purposes," (quid pro quo) as well as a "failure" at the State Department to support the American diplomatic corps.

 

Bill Taylor, U.S. charge d’affaires for Ukraine told Congress that "it was becoming clear" to him that a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian President "was contingent upon the investigation of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections.”  Taylor confirmed that “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation,” (quid pro quo)

 

Decorated army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director of European affairs for the National Security Council- who was listening to the call - said he had “no doubt” that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, according to the transcript. He also said he reported his concerns to the National Security Council’s top lawyer because he was so “concerned.” (quid pro quo).

 

Which leads to the most damning of the quid pro quo accusations, which as you rightly point out was Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union who, in a dramatic u-turn, testified that he personally delivered the message on Sept. 1 to a top Ukrainian official that U.S. military aid was contingent upon the country’s ability to launch an investigation that Trump wanted after he “refreshed” his recollection. 

 

Now you are more than welcome to dispute any of these with hard facts (for a change) but they are sworn testimonies and if not true, would mean that all of these people are lying to congress, which is perjury and carries a 5 year prison sentence.

[Tippaporn]

Let's not forget that the IG report is due to come out before Thanksgiving (barring any other delays).  It's predicated that it will be quite damning and will recommend criminal referrals. That will have an extremely negative impact on this impeachment sham.

 

Do not assume that this is off topic.  It will heavily factor into the entire Pelosi, Schiff, Dem charade.

 

https://saraacarter.com/horowitz-report-will-be-damning-criminal-referrals-likely/

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by Tippaporn

[roobaa01]

it is like deja vu all over again. imo the dead on arrival invalid hoax impeachment lacking due course as well as legitimacy. what we have is 1. a obama leftover hearsay informant with secondhand knowledge. 2. a key witness yovanovitch lied in her deposition when questioned about

republic zedlin 3. a shifty schiff running a kangaroo court 4. a deranged dem senator swallvell claiming to have extortion plan evidence, whereby extortionterm is not a term applicable since it refers only to domestic cases.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

It gets a bit boring having to do all you Trumpers work for you, so for one last time:-

 

Fiona Hill, former Russia expert for the National Security Council described a July 10 White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which Gordon Sondland pressured Ukraine for a political investigation in exchange for a meeting with Trump (this is quid pro quo) and insisted Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had agreed to the plan. Hill said she saw, "Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. Following the meeting, Hill said John Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, told her to tell the president’s legal adviser “that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” 

 

Michael McKinley, former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he was disturbed by a push to use U.S. diplomatic missions "to procure negative political information for domestic purposes," (quid pro quo) as well as a "failure" at the State Department to support the American diplomatic corps.

 

Bill Taylor, U.S. charge d’affaires for Ukraine told Congress that "it was becoming clear" to him that a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian President "was contingent upon the investigation of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections.”  Taylor confirmed that “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation,” (quid pro quo)

 

Decorated army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director of European affairs for the National Security Council- who was listening to the call - said he had “no doubt” that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, according to the transcript. He also said he reported his concerns to the National Security Council’s top lawyer because he was so “concerned.” (quid pro quo).

 

Which leads to the most damning of the quid pro quo accusations, which as you rightly point out was Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union who, in a dramatic u-turn, testified that he personally delivered the message on Sept. 1 to a top Ukrainian official that U.S. military aid was contingent upon the country’s ability to launch an investigation that Trump wanted after he “refreshed” his recollection. 

 

Now you are more than welcome to dispute any of these with hard facts (for a change) but they are sworn testimonies and if not true, would mean that all of these people are lying to congress, which is perjury and carries a 5 year prison sentence.

No work for you at all.  Just a cut & paste job.

 

I've a lot on my schedule today but it's easy enough to show that all of the folks you listed above have issues with their testimonies.  Vindman himself wasn't able to show where the quid pro quo was within the Presidents call transcript when asked by a representative during his testimony.  He had nothing new to offer and the bulk of his entire testimony was his opinion pieces.  Questions swirl, too, as to some of his connections.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-democrats-have-a-col-vindman-problem

[elmrfudd]

6 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

It gets a bit boring having to do all you Trumpers work for you, so for one last time:-

 

Fiona Hill, former Russia expert for the National Security Council described a July 10 White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which Gordon Sondland pressured Ukraine for a political investigation in exchange for a meeting with Trump (this is quid pro quo) and insisted Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had agreed to the plan. Hill said she saw, "Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. Following the meeting, Hill said John Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, told her to tell the president’s legal adviser “that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” 

 

Michael McKinley, former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he was disturbed by a push to use U.S. diplomatic missions "to procure negative political information for domestic purposes," (quid pro quo) as well as a "failure" at the State Department to support the American diplomatic corps.

 

Bill Taylor, U.S. charge d’affaires for Ukraine told Congress that "it was becoming clear" to him that a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian President "was contingent upon the investigation of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections.”  Taylor confirmed that “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation,” (quid pro quo)

 

Decorated army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director of European affairs for the National Security Council- who was listening to the call - said he had “no doubt” that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, according to the transcript. He also said he reported his concerns to the National Security Council’s top lawyer because he was so “concerned.” (quid pro quo).

 

Which leads to the most damning of the quid pro quo accusations, which as you rightly point out was Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union who, in a dramatic u-turn, testified that he personally delivered the message on Sept. 1 to a top Ukrainian official that U.S. military aid was contingent upon the country’s ability to launch an investigation that Trump wanted after he “refreshed” his recollection. 

 

Now you are more than welcome to dispute any of these with hard facts (for a change) but they are sworn testimonies and if not true, would mean that all of these people are lying to congress, which is perjury and carries a 5 year prison sentence.

Well now Johnny, thank you for the preening.

 

Will it matter at all that the creation of this started with a rampantly biased democratic partisan hack? Eric ciaramella met with Schiff's staff and another vehemently Anti trump lawyer to craft the entire complaint and lied about it. But in your mind, all that is just a part of the pursuit of "the truth". Can you be so obtuse to think this is going anywhere? It is going to only bolster the support for re election with the blatant unfairness in the entire process. How irrational and emotional must you be to keep up the charade? you are GUARANTEEING another 4 year term with this phony stunt.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cant-remember-alleged-whisteblower-eric-ciaramella-was-name-fiona-hill-could-not-recall

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

it is like deja vu all over again. imo the dead on arrival invalid hoax impeachment lacking due course as well as legitimacy. what we have is 1. a obama leftover hearsay informant with secondhand knowledge. 2. a key witness yovanovitch lied in her deposition when questioned about

republic zedlin 3. a shifty schiff running a kangaroo court 4. a deranged dem senator swallvell claiming to have extortion plan evidence, whereby extortionterm is not a term applicable since it refers only to domestic cases.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Actually, roobaa01, I'm grateful for this impeachment sham.  For one, this represents the Dems last gasp at their 3-year long effort to oust Trump.  When the sham is eventually exposed as the sham it is via this absurd farce not one Dem will ever be willing to try it again.  Trump should be freed of all of their attempted shackling during his second term.

 

Secondly, it will drive a stake into the Democratic party.  Whether fatal or not will remain to be seen.

 

For another, this sham will not simply die a quiet death.  There will be repercussions.