The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, John Adams said:

No.

 

 

Perhaps, and this is his only out. 

 

But his obsession with Joe Biden, his lead opponent in the election, and his desire to go to the president of another country (not his own significant resources) for help, as well as his withholding of approved aid in what was a quid pro quo among other aspects of this, don't paint a pretty picture. 

 

 

If Trump had stated that he only wanted the Bidens investigated and was only holding up money for that reason, you'd have an argument.  But Ukraine has long been a corrupt country to whom we've given/wasted billions of dollars and Zelensky ran on a platform of anti-corruption, therefore bringing up corruption, in which the Bidens are ostensibly embroiled like it or not, and wanting to withhold money until he's sure the corruption is being curtailed, is wholly within his purview. 

[Rob's House]

18 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

No.

 

 

Perhaps, and this is his only out. 

 

But his obsession with Joe Biden, his lead opponent in the election, and his desire to go to the president of another country (not his own significant resources) for help, as well as his withholding of approved aid in what was a quid pro quo among other aspects of this, don't paint a pretty picture. 

 

 

So if Trump had a buddy in India and he called him to ask if he knew anything about some Indian corruption ring that he'd heard Biden was wrapped up in, would you claim he'd violated the statute?

[DC Tom]

14 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

So if Trump had a buddy in India and he called him to ask if he knew anything about some Indian corruption ring that he'd heard Biden was wrapped up in, would you claim he'd violated the statute?

 

Of course he would have.  The President can't request foreigners look into any accusation of wrong-doing by a political opponent, even if that opponent isn't an opponent yet, and especially if it's backed by evidence such as a public statement about his actions.  The President needs real evidence, like a half-assed dossier.

[Koko78]

36 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Doesn't make it illegal or in anyway an abuse of power.

 

Which is the point. 

 

I'm sorry, but it's clear that Trump knew what he was doing was wrong when he abused his power and extorted a bribe out of Ukraine to screw over poor innocent never-done-a-thing-wrong Joe Biden. All of the witnesses agree that their interpretation of how they feel about the second-hand information conclusively and irrefutably implies their speculation that Trump is 100% guilty.

 

We won't even get into how horrific and improper Trump's obstruction by ignoring of the subpoenas is. What kind of man refuses to cooperate with fact finders who have already pre-determined guilt (and, you know, actually ran on finding him guilty of something?)

Edited December 11, 2019 by Koko78

[Buffalo_Gal]

Still waiting for the answer on why it was fine to investigate the Trump campaign for "Russian collusion" during the 2016 presidential election, but it is not ok to investigate the Obama administration for Ukraine collusion (money laundering, graft, election interference) during the 2016 presidential election...

 

People are purposely, disingenuously, acting like this has to do with 2020. It does not. It has to do with 2016 (and prior).

 

 

[Rob's House]

I'd probably give the Dems a pass on this whole thing if they'd included an article of impeachment for being literally Hitler.

 

I mean, if you're going to go full ret@rd at least do it with style.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Rob's House

[Buffalo_Gal]

8 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I'd probably give the Dems a pass on this whole thing if they'd included an article of impeachment for being literally Hitler.

 

I mean, if you're going to go full ret@rd at least do it with style.

 

At the very least there should be an "Epstein didn't kill himself" in the footnotes. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal
Holy crap autocorrect is on crack

[Rob's House]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

At the very least there should be an "Epstein didn't kill himself" in the footnotes. 

 

They'd never throw Hillary under the bus like that.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Now THAT's Cocaine Mitch: 

 

 

Odds of the vote on impeachment failing just went up. Not sure how much, but it increases with this move. 

[B-Man]

 

BAD RATINGS FOR THE SCHIFF SHOW:  

 

Quinnipiac: Opposition to impeachment and removal reaches 51%, highest number since September.

 

 

.

[John Adams]

8 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

BAD RATINGS FOR THE SCHIFF SHOW:  

 

Quinnipiac: Opposition to impeachment and removal reaches 51%, highest number since September.

 

 

.

 

Averaging 5 polls (including the 10 point outlier that is Quinnipiac) shows little movement. But you and DR can keep beating the drum of favorable polls.

 

DISHONEST!

 

ASSHAT!

 

NPC! 

 

 

 

[Nanker]

15 hours ago, snafu said:

 

 

(1) what never got explained was whether Mueller was going to be fired and replaced.  That may be obstruction.

(2) probably more important, Mueller said directly and repeatedly that he was provided with all materials he requested from the Trump White House.  How does that possibly square with obstruction?

(3) Mueller found that there was no collusion.  It is tough to understand how someone who didn't actually obstruct an investigation that turned up NO wrongdoing could be found to obstruct anything.

(4) Mueller wasn't fired.

 

I'd lay off the Mueller/Obstruction angle if I were you.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, but Orange Man BAD!!! Every honest neutral journalist and newscaster says so - repeatedly. No need to read the documents. The headlines are enough. 
 

13 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

 

It was close. Trump asked for a favor of a foreign national for sure. And it was in connection with an election. And he's done it a couple of times now. But he's right at the line. 

 

Don't be so naive as to think Trump is as clean as the wind-driven snow. 

 

And his first call should be to the president of a foreign country to perform this investigation? As a favor? And withhold aid to that country. And send his personal lawyer to dig up dirt on this person? 

 

It's not a great picture. 

So kind of you to not have used the qualifier “yellow.” You know, with the Left’s prurient fascination with the “Pee” trope and all. 

[SoCal Deek]

As you read the articles of impeachment you have to wonder what the last few weeks and months were all about. The Democrats could have written these articles without a single sentence of testimony from anyone. And as it turns out they probably would have been better off had they done so, because not a single ‘witness’ made their case any stronger. 

[Hedge]

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

At what point does California vote to reject being a part of the United States. They inch closer to independence with each passing year.

[KRC]

[row_33]

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

At what point does California vote to reject being a part of the United States. They inch closer to independence with each passing year.

 

hopefully it falls into the Pacific during our lifetime

 

[B-Man]

After the big Schiff show finale, public support craters for impeachment -poll

Monica Showalter

 

Original Article

 

Not too long ago, the press was calling President Trump a goner. Remember this early October Fox News poll that shocked so many people? They had it that a majority of randomly selected registered voters, 50% to 41%, were all in for impeaching and removing President Trump. We had our doubts, but the press reported that as perfectly representative of public opinion, undoubtedly a lit fuse to the eventual ouster of President Trump.