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

[B-Man]

FTA:

 

House Democratic leaders announced two articles of impeachment this morning – alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Even if a few concerned Democrats in vulnerable districts break with their party, Pelosi should still have enough votes within her House majority to impeach President Trump.

 

But as it has always been through the three years the American people have been subjected to the left’s “he much be impeached!” efforts, the Senate is another matter entirely when it comes to impeachment – and not just because there’s a Republican majority.

 

As The Hill reports, two Democratic Senators in deep red states will likely face lot of pressure back home to acquit Trump:

While most of the public attention has been focused on which GOP senators might vote to convict Trump, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has to worry about whether his caucus can stick together.

Early indications are that Manchin is more likely than Jones to vote to acquit Trump, but both are considered more in play than the rest of their Democratic colleagues.

Trump, who faces no real prospect of being removed from office given the level of GOP support for him in the Senate, is projected to win both West Virginia and Alabama handily in next year’s election. He carried West Virginia by 42 points and Alabama by 28 points in 2016.

Any vote the Democratic senators cast to convict Trump would likely be countered by their constituents in November, political experts in both states say.

 

 

To say that Democratic impeachment efforts have backfired on them badly with voters is the understatement of the decade. What remains to be seen is just how spectacular that fail will look once the Senate begins their part.

 

Update: Will Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) “defect”, too?

 

https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2019/12/10/impeachment-support-dropping-speculation-grows-possible-democratic-defections-senate/

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, njbuff said:

What I truly don’t understand is that the Dems know that the Senate has already rejected this sham with a sledgehammer, yet they wanna waste everyone’s time with this frivolous garbage.

 

I simply don’t understand.

 

So, then I guess it will ok for Republicans to impeach a Democratic President in the future based on NOTHING? I would bash that too.

 

Is this where we are as a society?

You are correct in that the dems know without a doubt that the Senate will never find Trump guilty based on these trumped up charges. They are attempting to satisfy their very leftist base while simultaneously spreading doubts about Trump with the electorate. What they don't fully comprehend is that the MSM no longer controls the narrative in its entirety. Social Media is going to play a large part in getting the truth out there. They (the dems) should brace themselves for an old fashioned ass kicking. 

[Bakin]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

un*****ing real.

who is that guy?  Telling Slimfast Nads to pound the gavel?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bakin said:

who is that guy?  Telling Slimfast Nads to pound the gavel?

 

A democratic donor/lawyer who was also a witness previously. 

 

It's quite literally a puppet and his master. 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Bakin said:

who is that guy?  Telling Slimfast Nads to pound the gavel?

Jerry the Hutt's boss.

[Bakin]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

A democratic donor/lawyer who was also a witness previously. 

 

It's quite literally a puppet and his master. 

name?

I mean, that's insane...

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Bakin said:

name?

I mean, that's insane...

 

Barry Berke:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/barry-berke-impeachment.html

[3rdnlng]

17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Barry Berke:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/barry-berke-impeachment.html

From your link:

 

Barry H. Berke, a New York-based white-collar defense lawyer, has served as the special oversight counsel to the committee since February, working to build the investigative framework that now appears destined to end in the impeachment of Mr. Trump. On Monday, he will take a rare turn at the witness table to present for 30 minutes the facts before the committee and how they square with the law.

 

So, Barry Berke has been working on impeachment since February and the only charges that have come up are in the Ukraine matter? It's almost as if it was an investigation searching for a crime. 

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

From your link:

 

Barry H. Berke, a New York-based white-collar defense lawyer, has served as the special oversight counsel to the committee since February, working to build the investigative framework that now appears destined to end in the impeachment of Mr. Trump. On Monday, he will take a rare turn at the witness table to present for 30 minutes the facts before the committee and how they square with the law.

 

So, Barry Berke has been working on impeachment since February and the only charges that have come up are in the Ukraine matter? It's almost as if it was an investigation searching for a crime. 

 

it's a favourite method of prosecutions when all they care is about nailing someone

 

they pick the ending narrative and start from that end and find anything possible to make it work, tossing out all exculpatory evidence and basic rules of law

 

it's fun to take a sledgehammer to this approach when working for the D

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

"It's confusing."  

 

No. It's really not, Manu. It's REAL simple. Mueller proved the Russia narrative was fiction. Horowitz proved it was known to be fiction by the FBI and the media since January 2017. The public KNOWS this. Pelosi knows it. And more importantly, she knows she can't sell it based on the polls. 

 

 

 

 

Manu is a sad excuse for a reporter.

[Albwan]

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[billsfan89]

5 hours ago, snafu said:

 

It was a bad idea then.  It is a bad idea now.

I don't think comparing whether the charges are frivolous or not is relevant.  I will say that this "Obstruction of Congress" article is absolutely stupid.  Schiff said what Trump is doing (regarding obstruction) in "unprecedented" but I recall a prior administration ignoring and blowing off Congressional subpoenas..  I also think that if the Democrats in Congress say that this is an "investigation" up until now, then they can't complain that the person they're investigating didn't HELP them.  How stupid is that??  One of the "legal experts" said in his testimony last week that it isn't "obstruction" of anything until a Court requires Trump to produce evidence and witnesses.

 

They were talking about why there are only two Articles.  The reason is that Pelosi couldn't get support for more charges from her Democrat Members in districts that are on shaky ground for re-election.  And don't you think that they would have tried emoluments, or Trump Foundation, or Russian hoax, or ANYTHING a lot earlier if they had anything to stick on him?

 

As it is, these two Articles are weak.  No reason to put more weak charges on top.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's fair to say that you think it was bad then and it is bad now. My only point in bringing up Clinton is to point out that neither political party is above it. I think the case against Trump is stronger (he most certainly violated campaign finance laws specifically) than it was against Clinton. But I think that the way the Dems have handled it has been poor. Granted I think that even if the Dems played it right the Senate would vote to acquit. I honestly think that Impeachment might only work if Trump and Guliani are called to testify and make such egregious errors. Which honestly given the moronic nature of both might actually happen. Other than that maybe Bolton could damage them politically but I think the Senate would still just call it partisan and explain away anything and everything.  

Edited December 10, 2019 by billsfan89

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

"It's confusing."  

 

No. It's really not, Manu. It's REAL simple. Mueller proved the Russia narrative was fiction. Horowitz proved it was known to be fiction by the FBI and the media since January 2017. The public KNOWS this. Pelosi knows it. And more importantly, she knows she can't sell it based on the polls. 

 

 

 

 

Manu is a sad excuse for a reporter.

So the 2+ year Mueller probe with dozens of dem prosecutors and immense money spent on prosecution didn't bring up anything worth impeachment but Schiff & Nadler  could spend a few weeks and find something worthy of impeachment? Gotcha.

[billsfan89]

17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

"It's confusing."  

 

No. It's really not, Manu. It's REAL simple. Mueller proved the Russia narrative was fiction. Horowitz proved it was known to be fiction by the FBI and the media since January 2017. The public KNOWS this. Pelosi knows it. And more importantly, she knows she can't sell it based on the polls. 

 

 

 

 

Manu is a sad excuse for a reporter.

 

Muller did prove obstruction of Justice (Trump's own staff not listening to him saved his ass), although the Dems narrative on Trump being a Russian puppet always was stupid. But the Muller chargers were always going to be hard to get the public to get behind. The Ukraine stuff was much easier to understand. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

That's fair to say that you think it was bad then and it is bad now. I think the case against Trump is stronger (he most certainly violated campaign finance laws specifically) than it was against Clinton.

 

Yet they didn't charge him with that... so it can't be that strong, right? 

 

Clinton committed perjury. It was backed by evidence which was not debatable. 

 

The same cannot be said about the charges against Trump. 

 

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

But I think that the way the Dems have handled it has been poor. Granted I think that even if the Dems played it right the Senate would vote to acquit. I honestly think that Impeachment might only work if Trump and Guliani are called to testify and make such egregious errors. Which honestly given the moronic nature of both might actually happen. Other than that maybe Bolton could damage them politically but I think the Senate would still just call it partisan and explain away anything and everything.  

 

Are you not at all concerned about the damaging precedent a purely partisan driven impeachment drive, without the proper evidence or foundation to support it, will have on the future of the republic? 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Muller did prove obstruction of Justice (Trump's own staff not listening to him saved his ass), although the Dems narrative on Trump being a Russian puppet always was stupid. But the Muller chargers were always going to be hard to get the public to get behind. The Ukraine stuff was much easier to understand. 

No they didn't. Neither did Mueller's staff. 

[billsfan89]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yet they didn't charge him with that... so it can't be that strong, right? 

 

Clinton committed perjury. It was backed by evidence which was not debatable. 

 

The same cannot be said about the charges against Trump. 

 

 

Are you not at all concerned about the damaging precedent a purely partisan driven impeachment drive, without the proper evidence or foundation to support it, will have on the future of the republic? 

 

 

 

Trump violated campaign finance laws specifically and technically obstructed justice according to Muller's report (your own staff not listening to you doesn't absolve you of the crime) he was just as guilty if not more so than Clinton. This Trump impeachment has been merely following the Clinton impeachment paradigm. It is no different, so in my mind there really isn't a new precedent. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

Muller did prove obstruction of Justice

 

False. False. False. Nothing was proven. None of the "evidence" was tested in court or under cross. Saying it was "proven" is not reality. 

 

And, what we learned yesterday from the OIG report is that Mueller KNEW when he took the case that there WAS no there-there to Russia -- yet he went forward anyway specifically to entrap the president in an obstruction trap (of a crime that DID NOT HAPPEN). 

 

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 although the Dems narrative on Trump being a Russian puppet always was stupid. But the Muller chargers were always going to be hard to get the public to get behind. 

 

Not stupid. 

 

Fake. 

 

Fiction. 

 

Created whole cloth by the FBI, CIA, and DOJ working for 44. 

 

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The Ukraine stuff was much easier to understand. 

 

All polling proves this statement to be incorrect. 

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

Trump violated campaign finance laws specifically and technically obstructed justice according to Muller's report 

 

False. On every count. 

 

Read the report. 

Just now, billsfan89 said:

This Trump impeachment has been merely following the Clinton impeachment paradigm. It is no different, so in my mind there really isn't a new precedent. 

 

You're just a partisan then, with no understanding of the topic you're supporting, the history involved, or how ***** dangerous it is. 

 

Remember this moment. You're going to end up thinking back and seeing how foolish your position is.

[billsfan89]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

No they didn't. Neither did Mueller's staff. 

 

Trump ordered to have Mueller fired, it was Don McGahn not listening to him that saved his ass. Attempting a crime is still a crime.What world do you people live in? 

 

Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?

Mueller: I think that generally is true.

Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?

Mueller: Where do you have that quote?

Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.

Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Muller did prove obstruction of Justice (Trump's own staff not listening to him saved his ass), although the Dems narrative on Trump being a Russian puppet always was stupid. But the Muller chargers were always going to be hard to get the public to get behind. The Ukraine stuff was much easier to understand. 

not sure you can prove obstruction of an underlying crime that you didn't commit.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

Trump ordered to have Mueller fired,

 

This was not proven. It was never tested in court or under cross. It's not a "fact", it's a supposition. 

 

 

 

And now we know had Trump fired Mueller, he would have been justified because Mueller knew, from the time he took the job, that he was investigating something that DID NOT HAPPEN. 

 

You can't dodge that fact, even though you're trying to rewrite history.

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

... This Trump impeachment has been merely following the Clinton impeachment paradigm. It is no different, so in my mind there really isn't a new precedent. 

lol, sorry but no. there differences are quite stark.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

.What world do you people live in? 

 

In reality. You should join us.

 

Warning, you will suffer withdrawals from weening yourself off the narrative pushed on you by proven liars and manipulators. But you can do it. I have faith in you.

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Trump ordered to have Mueller fired, it was Don McGahn not listening to him that saved his ass. Attempting a crime is still a crime.What world do you people live in? 

 

Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?

Mueller: I think that generally is true.

Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?

Mueller: Where do you have that quote?

Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.

Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.

it is completely within the President's purview to fire anyone within the executive branch, period.

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Trump ordered to have Mueller fired, it was Don McGahn not listening to him that saved his ass. Attempting a crime is still a crime.What world do you people live in? 

 

Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?

Mueller: I think that generally is true.

Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?

Mueller: Where do you have that quote?

Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.

Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.

Mueller stated that President Trump did not in any way commit collusion/conspiracy. He also stated that he had no evidence of Obstruction of Justice. 

[Deranged Rhino]

[snafu]

37 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

That's fair to say that you think it was bad then and it is bad now. My only point in bringing up Clinton is to point out that neither political party is above it. I think the case against Trump is stronger (he most certainly violated campaign finance laws specifically) than it was against Clinton. But I think that the way the Dems have handled it has been poor. Granted I think that even if the Dems played it right the Senate would vote to acquit. I honestly think that Impeachment might only work if Trump and Guliani are called to testify and make such egregious errors. Which honestly given the moronic nature of both might actually happen. Other than that maybe Bolton could damage them politically but I think the Senate would still just call it partisan and explain away anything and everything.  

 

Fair enough.  Though even if Trump's charge is "worse" than Clinton's, I'm not sure either rises to the level of impeachable (though Clinton perjured himself -- which is fairly simple to grasp, and wrong to do).  And neither should support a conviction for removal (in my opinion).  We certainly agree that the Dem handling of this matter is bad.  I'd say very bad.

 

 

[snafu]

34 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Trump ordered to have Mueller fired, it was Don McGahn not listening to him that saved his ass. Attempting a crime is still a crime.What world do you people live in? 

 

Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?

Mueller: I think that generally is true.

Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?

Mueller: Where do you have that quote?

Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.

Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.

 

 

(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.

 

 

 

 

 

[row_33]

is obstruction a crime?

 

is collusion?

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

That's fair to say that you think it was bad then and it is bad now. My only point in bringing up Clinton is to point out that neither political party is above it. I think the case against Trump is stronger (he most certainly violated campaign finance laws specifically) than it was against Clinton.

 

That's just bizarre, considering there was concrete factual evidence of perjury against Clinton, but absolutely no such concrete factual evidence against Trump.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's just bizarre, considering there was concrete factual evidence of perjury against Clinton, but absolutely no such concrete factual evidence against Trump.

 

Forget it, Jake. It's NPC-town.

[row_33]

Bill knew the evidence was stacked against him and continued to lie about it, even when the jig was totally up.

 

nobody would have cared if he admitted it and went on his way, but the continual lying, even under oath, left no choice

 

 

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Bill knew the evidence was stacked against him and continued to lie about it, even when the jig was totally up.

 

nobody would have cared if he admitted it and went on his way, but the continual lying, even under oath, left no choice

 

 

I said this at the time and I say it now. If Clinton wasn't so filled with hubris he might have come up with a statement regarding his previous denials were to only protect the  reputation of a young lady. He could have come out of it viewed in a much more sympathetic light and almost be considered a stand up guy. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[row_33]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

I said this at the time and I say it now. If Clinton wasn't so filled with hubris he might have come up with a statement regarding his previous denials were to only protect the  reputation of a young lady. He could have come out of it viewed in a much more sympathetic light and almost be considered a stand up guy. 

 

nobody believed he was a saint

 

his hitman Carville made it much worse for him

 

[billsfan89]

43 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's just bizarre, considering there was concrete factual evidence of perjury against Clinton, but absolutely no such concrete factual evidence against Trump.

 

Simple question, if your boss tells you to commit a crime, you decide to not listen to your boss did your boss commit a crime? Before you take any negative comments about your great leader as I support impeaching him over that. I think that this type of obstruction charge would be as equally flimsy a charge as the Clinton impeachment. Both committed crimes  but neither crimes were sever enough to warrant removal. 

"President Donald Trump reportedly ordered last June that special counsel Robert Mueller be fired, and White House counsel Don McGahn threatened to quit rather than ask the Justice Department to do that."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-ordered-mueller-firing-white-house-counsel-threatened-to-quit

[Rob's House]

There is no rational argument to support the assertion that President Trump violated campaign finance laws.

 

None. At all. It's not even close.

 

If there was an argument that wouldn't get you laughed out of court the Dems would be coming with it full force.

 

There's a reason why no one outside of fringe partisan Twitter trolls are even suggesting such a thing.

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Simple question, if your boss tells you to commit a crime, you decide to not listen to your boss did your boss commit a crime? Before you take any negative comments about your great leader as I support impeaching him over that. I think that this type of obstruction charge would be as equally flimsy a charge as the Clinton impeachment. Both committed crimes  but neither crimes were sever enough to warrant removal. 

"President Donald Trump reportedly ordered last June that special counsel Robert Mueller be fired, and White House counsel Don McGahn threatened to quit rather than ask the Justice Department to do that."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-ordered-mueller-firing-white-house-counsel-threatened-to-quit

The question is: Would firing Mueller be a crime? 

[billsfan89]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The question is: Would firing Mueller be a crime? 

 

Yes that would literally be obstruction of justice.