Senior Democrat says next step underway in Trump impeachment probe

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Kelsall said:

Yet another nothing burger.  The will simply show up and claim executive privilege.

 

No impeachment, censure only.

You believe executive privilege is an absolute shield? It's not even mentioned in the Constitution. Whereas impeachment most definitely is. In addition to which, Trump already allowed McGahn to be interrogated. Which seriously weakens any claim to executive privilege now.

[stevenl]

27 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Yet another nothing burger.  The will simply show up and claim executive privilege.

 

No impeachment, censure only.

No surprise truth finding doesn't matter to many anymore. I wonder why though, because when truth comes out you can always deny or simply ignore.

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No surprise truth finding doesn't matter to many anymore.

 

If truth finding was the mission then they wouldn't be leaking and feeding to the press. 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

If truth finding was the mission then they wouldn't be leaking and feeding to the press. 

Your post has nothing to do with truth finding.

 

I see you left out part of my post, as you know that is allowed for brevity. So why did you do that with only 2 lines in the post, not even worth the effort.

Edited November 26, 2019 by stevenl

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

If truth finding was the mission then they wouldn't be leaking and feeding to the press. 

Why?

[Tounge Thaied]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And actually there's nothing new there. Just filing statements that are already in the public record including a published article from John Solomon. You have to wonder if Tounge Thaied even bothered to read it. Including the statements from the 5 ex ambassadors denouncing the attacks on Yovanovitch.

Nothing to see here folks... American government business. Move along. Business as usual. Nothing new here. Bristolboy got it right. 

[Xavnel]

19 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

He won with the help of Russia. He is still diverting attention of Russia to Ukraine so they can help him again in 2020. That’s a fact. 

It has been over 3 years, and I have yet to see even one person announce that they voted for Trump because they were influenced by Russia,  ir filled by Russia.... 

If you know if anyone,  please tell us... 

Because,  really.... I have never seen anyone say such a thing 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Xavnel said:

It has been over 3 years, and I have yet to see even one person announce that they voted for Trump because they were influenced by Russia,  ir filled by Russia.... 

If you know if anyone,  please tell us... 

Because,  really.... I have never seen anyone say such a thing 

Many were influenced but they didnt know it. They probably still dont know it. Even senators are influenced by russia when they think ukraine meddled in the election.

[Becker]

8 minutes ago, Xavnel said:

It has been over 3 years, and I have yet to see even one person announce that they voted for Trump because they were influenced by Russia,  ir filled by Russia.... 

If you know if anyone,  please tell us... 

Because,  really.... I have never seen anyone say such a thing 

Because, really, that would be something anyone would want to admit even if they did come to this realization?

 

"Hell, I've been so stupid that I've managed to become influenced by Russian troll sites and posts!"

Yeas, right!

[stevenl]

19 minutes ago, Xavnel said:

It has been over 3 years, and I have yet to see even one person announce that they voted for Trump because they were influenced by Russia,  ir filled by Russia.... 

If you know if anyone,  please tell us... 

Because,  really.... I have never seen anyone say such a thing 

You clearly have no idea about how this works, you won't even know you have been influenced.

[Eric Loh]

42 minutes ago, Xavnel said:

It has been over 3 years, and I have yet to see even one person announce that they voted for Trump because they were influenced by Russia,  ir filled by Russia.... 

If you know if anyone,  please tell us... 

Because,  really.... I have never seen anyone say such a thing 

Many people are influenced by social media misinformation without knowing it especially those who are recalcitrant supporters of the crooked Trump. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Tounge Thaied said:

Nothing to see here folks... American government business. Move along. Business as usual. Nothing new here. Bristolboy got it right. 

All the stuff in that document you linked to has already been in the public domain and extensively reported on and thoroughly debunked. Shokin's and Lutsenko's statements have been out there for a long time. As has Solomon's artice. There's absolutely nothing new there at all. Did you think that presenting this rehashed information presented as a formal complaint to the government makes any difference? Gives it extra weight? Did you even read it?

[roobaa01]

On 11/25/2019 at 10:50 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I suspect the next step will include the investigation of other crimes.

 

We shall today get the court ruling on McGahn giving testimony, a ruling that will equally apply to Bolton. 

 

Lav Parnas has handed documents and recordings to Congress and expressed a desire to give testimony.

 

Trump’s tax records court battle is nearing an end.

 

And in the background NY has a Grand Jury in process examining Trump’s businesses.

 

Trump’s impeachment hearings have only just started.

reality also started with gallup- 53 % against trump impeachment and removal, 43 % are in favour,

a 10 % reality.

 

see what the supreme court can do for donald, tax return issues have gone well.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[candide]

13 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

reality also started with gallup- 53 % against trump impeachment and removal, 43 % are in favour,

a 10 % reality.

 

see what the supreme court can do for donald, tax return issues have gone well.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Date? Source?

[Tippaporn]

On 11/25/2019 at 8:58 AM, darksidedog said:

You seem to be missing the fact that the whole of the EU, and many in the US, not just Mr. Biden were trying to get the prosecutor fired, because he was notoriously corrupt.

I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever by either of the Bidens, only unsubstantiated allegations, which have been debunked as utter rubbish.

If you are in a position to provide any evidence, not hypothesis and general slander, please share it with us.

I am making no judgment on the issue regarding Mr. Trump. It is not my prerogative. The general rule of law is that when someone is suspected of committing a crime, that action is investigated, which is what is happening here. When all of the facts are in, a call will be made.

Trying to smear others while suggesting a legitimate inquiry should not happen, flies in the face of adherence to the legal system.

Plenty of evidence has been provided throughout Trump related threads.  Problem is that the left discounts them and/or the sources.  The plain and simple truth is that if someone hates Trump they'll never accept evidence to the contrary.  I believe that eventually, and maybe sooner than most think, evidence so incontrovertible will be exposed that even the most die hard Trump haters will be unable to spin it.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 11/25/2019 at 8:58 AM, darksidedog said:

<snip>

I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever by either of the Bidens, only unsubstantiated allegations, which have been debunked as utter rubbish.

<snip>

Apparently there is enough evidence to warrant this:

 

https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-BURISMA/0100B32N28V/us-senate.pdf

 

It must be understood that the MSM will never, never report on any of this and continue only with the "unsubstantiated allegations," "conspiracy theory" angle.  Why?

[Tippaporn]

On 11/25/2019 at 8:58 AM, darksidedog said:

You seem to be missing the fact that the whole of the EU, and many in the US, not just Mr. Biden were trying to get the prosecutor fired, because he was notoriously corrupt.

I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever by either of the Bidens, only unsubstantiated allegations, which have been debunked as utter rubbish.

If you are in a position to provide any evidence, not hypothesis and general slander, please share it with us.

I am making no judgment on the issue regarding Mr. Trump. It is not my prerogative. The general rule of law is that when someone is suspected of committing a crime, that action is investigated, which is what is happening here. When all of the facts are in, a call will be made.

Trying to smear others while suggesting a legitimate inquiry should not happen, flies in the face of adherence to the legal system.

Here's more.  This is not a joke.  Actual recording.  There are a lot of players involved and it's highly complex.  Lots of disinformation being created to obfuscate the truth.  A lot of people wielding great influence with much to lose.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 11/25/2019 at 8:58 AM, darksidedog said:

You seem to be missing the fact that the whole of the EU, and many in the US, not just Mr. Biden were trying to get the prosecutor fired, because he was notoriously corrupt.

I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever by either of the Bidens, only unsubstantiated allegations, which have been debunked as utter rubbish.

If you are in a position to provide any evidence, not hypothesis and general slander, please share it with us.

I am making no judgment on the issue regarding Mr. Trump. It is not my prerogative. The general rule of law is that when someone is suspected of committing a crime, that action is investigated, which is what is happening here. When all of the facts are in, a call will be made.

Trying to smear others while suggesting a legitimate inquiry should not happen, flies in the face of adherence to the legal system.

And more.  Of course people will jump all over the fact that it's . . . John Solomon.  Ever hear of smear campaigns?  Believe they exist?  Do you think that if anyone ever got close to the truth that that individual wouldn't be targeted?

 

Solomon provides a lot of documented evidence.

 

https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/

[Xavnel]

9 hours ago, Tug said:

Well the ruling just came down on trumps minions stonewalling they must testify so my guess this is going to go on a bit longer heck maybe we will hear from the big mouth himself lol

That is not exactly true.... 

They must show up ....  that is all that is required. 

When they do show up and start to get questioned,   then, they can claim Executive Privilege  and not answer any questions.. 

[Tippaporn]

Information came out last month that ex-ambassador Yovanovich was illegally monitoring conservatives and conservative reporters:

 

Jack Posobiec

Donald Trump Jr.

Laura Ingraham

Sean Hannity

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)

Dan Bongino

Ryan Saavedra

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

John Solomon

Lou Dobbs

Pamella Geller

Sara Carter

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/05/fired-ambassador-to-ukraine-says-she-did-not-know-whether-her-staff-monitored-don-jr-conservatives/

 

Just remember, everyone acts innocent.  And if someone is corrupt would they admit it?

[metisdead]

Some inflammatory posts, troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

One more time, if you are unable to post a link to a source of information, don't bother posting.

 

15) Any links posted must lead to the website the link indicates. Links that are misleading or direct to a site different than the one indicated are not allowed.

 

 

[Xavnel]

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

Many were influenced but they didnt know it. They probably still dont know it. Even senators are influenced by russia when they think ukraine meddled in the election.

So... your theory is that people are influenced, and too stupid (as someone else said) to even know that they were influenced.... and those people who were influenced are in total denial about being influenced because you say that they were influenced...... ???   That is your theory?

So, going off that theory....  maybe you were "influenced" by Botswana and just don't know it.  Now, don't bother denying it because you don't even know it...  

See how ridiculous is your explanation?

Maybe in 5 years  10 years... you will understand the full extent in which you personally been influenced by those Botswanans.... *sarcasm off*

[candide]

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Apparently there is enough evidence to warrant this:

 

https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-BURISMA/0100B32N28V/us-senate.pdf

 

It must be understood that the MSM will never, never report on any of this and continue only with the "unsubstantiated allegations," "conspiracy theory" angle.  Why?

Lol. As usual Trumpist link sources that provide no evidence.

The document is a lame attempt by the GOP Senate to justify ex-post (letter dated 15 Nov.) Trump's allegation.  And as usual citing Solomon's biased report (biased and concocted by Giuliani and Parnas).

Plenty of evidence that Shokin was not investigationg, i.e. this citation from the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in September 2015, while Schokin was General prosecutor?

"We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.

For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky [cq], the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

 

 

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Lol. As usual Trumpist link sources that provide no evidence.

The document is a lame attempt by the GOP Senate to justify ex-post (letter dated 15 Nov.) Trump's allegation.  And as usual citing Solomon's biased report (biased and concocted by Giuliani and Parnas).

Plenty of evidence that Shokin was not investigationg, i.e. this citation from the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in September 2015, while Schokin was General prosecutor?

"We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.

For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky [cq], the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

 

 

Plenty of evidence has been provided throughout Trump related threads.  Problem is that the left discounts them and/or the sources.  The plain and simple truth is that if someone hates Trump they'll never accept evidence to the contrary.

 

Confirmation of the above.

[roobaa01]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

Lol. As usual Trumpist link sources that provide no evidence.

The document is a lame attempt by the GOP Senate to justify ex-post (letter dated 15 Nov.) Trump's allegation.  And as usual citing Solomon's biased report (biased and concocted by Giuliani and Parnas).

Plenty of evidence that Shokin was not investigationg, i.e. this citation from the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in September 2015, while Schokin was General prosecutor?

"We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.

For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky [cq], the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

 

 

we will see imo about the bidens after lindsay graham has received the documents from pompeo about the ukraine.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[candide]

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Plenty of evidence has been provided throughout Trump related threads.  Problem is that the left discounts them and/or the sources.  The plain and simple truth is that if someone hates Trump they'll never accept evidence to the contrary.

 

Confirmation of the above.

What you call evidences are allegations.

 

And when you are confronted with evidence, you never contradict them. Just come up with general blah blah like in this post.

 

So two former ambassadors publicly complaining that Zlochevsky and Burisma were not investigated (including while Shokin was General prosecutor): is it fake news? Do you deny it?

The EU and IMF also asking for Shokin to be fired, and IMF's Lagarde publicly threatening to withold funds, is it fake news?

Shokin quasi-unanimously voted out by the Ukraine parliament, is it fake news?

Former Ukranian vice- general prosecutors and general prosecutor confirming there was no active investigation at that time, is it fake news?

Biden applying official US policy and supporting complaints by ambassadors, is it fake news?

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by candide

[roobaa01]

1 hour ago, candide said:

What you call evidences are allegations.

 

And when you are confronted with evidence, you never contradict them. Just come up with general blah blah like in this post.

 

So two former ambassadors publicly complaining that Zlochevsky and Burisma were not investigated (including while Shokin was General prosecutor): is it fake news? Do you deny it?

The EU and IMF also asking for Shokin to be fired, and IMF's Lagarde publicly threatening to withold funds, is it fake news?

Shokin quasi-unanimously voted out by the Ukraine parliament, is it fake news?

Former Ukranian vice- general prosecutors and general prosecutor confirming there was no active investigation at that time, is it fake news?

Biden applying official US policy and supporting complaints by ambassadors, is it fake news?

 

fake news is what cnn hoax news and the daily beast reported about senator nunes and ukraine last friday for that nunes goin to drag cnn etc...to court, lovely.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Edited November 26, 2019 by roobaa01

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, candide said:

What you call evidences are allegations.

 

And when you are confronted with evidence, you never contradict them. Just come up with general blah blah like in this post.

 

So two former ambassadors publicly complaining that Zlochevsky and Burisma were not investigated (including while Shokin was General prosecutor): is it fake news? Do you deny it?

The EU and IMF also asking for Shokin to be fired, and IMF's Lagarde publicly threatening to withold funds, is it fake news?

Shokin quasi-unanimously voted out by the Ukraine parliament, is it fake news?

Former Ukranian vice- general prosecutors and general prosecutor confirming there was no active investigation at that time, is it fake news?

Biden applying official US policy and supporting complaints by ambassadors, is it fake news?

 

What you call allegations I call facts.

 

While you present certain undeniable facts there are many more.  No doubt some news outlets report certain facts while omitting others in order to paint a particular narrative.  All of the available facts need to be considered in order to understand the situation correctly, not just some of the facts.  Dispute the facts within the various links I've posted.  Or debate them, especially if they're contradictory.

 

Keep in mind that there are differing accounts of some of the aspects depending on what sources you use.  Shokin, for example, disputes the claim that he was not investigating Burisma.  Someone is lying.  Question is, who?

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

 

All in all, though, the left tends to go no further than the spoonfed MSM narrative.  And it appears not even remotely interested in digging deeper as evidenced by the fact that no matter what information is produced the consensus of replies is always the same . . . conspiracy theory, no substantiated evidence, nothing to see here folks, etc.

 

And if you can, explain why Hunter Biden was asked to be on Burisma's board.  No experience with energy, no experience with the Ukraine, can't speak the language, and has drug abuse issues.  What did he bring to the table that made him so valuable?  Connections (as documented evidence in the form of no less than bona fide emails seem to show)?  Why would Burisma not come to his defense, such as issuing a statement or evidence clarifying what it was exactly that Hunter was doing for them?  Job functions?  Seriously, what's your take?

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

fake news is what cnn hoax news and the daily beast reported about senator nunes and ukraine last friday for that nunes goin to drag cnn etc...to court, lovely.

 

wbr

roobaa01

I thought it was funny to see how quickly the left took that hook, line and sinker and began immediately to regurgitate the report as "fact."

[candide]

41 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

fake news is what cnn hoax news and the daily beast reported about senator nunes and ukraine last friday for that nunes goin to drag cnn etc...to court, lovely.

 

wbr

roobaa01

I don't understand how Nunes can suit them. They only reported what a lawyer working for Parnas said. This is not illegal, unless they invented it, which is very  unlikely (the lawyer has not denied anything)

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/25/20982011/nunes-cnn-daily-beast-lawsuits-parnas-ukraine

Edited November 26, 2019 by candide