trump impeachment watch thread

[vy65]

When political theater blows up in your face

Whistleblower complaint of Trump threatening Zelensky for political dirt sparks Pelosi’s “impeachment inquiry”

Trump releases actual call from Whistleblower complaint, no threat made, no quid pro quo.

Whistleblower found to have met with Schiff/Schiff staff before meeting with ICIG.

Schiff lied about it.

Whistleblower withheld meeting from ICIG form.

ICIG found to have conveniently modified form to allow second hand info allowed on whistleblower complaint form.

ICIG reveals whistleblower has professional ties to a Dem presidential candidate.

Burisma case re-opened before Zelensky even elected

This is pure partisan hackery. No threat/quid pro quo/bribe is needed for an impeachable defense. The quid pro quo thing is being made out of whole cloth to distract from what's plainly stated on the transcript the White House released. When you stop speaking in punditry and look beyond the tag lines, you'll see a pretty clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment.

[TSA]

This is pure partisan hackery. No threat/quid pro quo/bribe is needed for an impeachable defense. The quid pro quo thing is being made out of whole cloth to distract from what's plainly stated on the transcript the White House released. When you stop speaking in punditry and look beyond the tag lines, you'll see a pretty clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment.

Which is?

[TSA]

This is pure partisan hackery. No threat/quid pro quo/bribe is needed for an impeachable defense. The quid pro quo thing is being made out of whole cloth to distract from what's plainly stated on the transcript the White House released. When you stop speaking in punditry and look beyond the tag lines, you'll see a pretty clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment.

And LOL at you calling that out as partisan hackery while ignoring all the partisan hackery revolving around the “whistleblower”

[vy65]

Which is?

Misread this post. I thought you were responding to the below but I should have known you're avoiding it like the plague. Can you answer?

So you agree that there's nothing illegal or uncons utional or otherwise improper that Pelosi is doing. You agree that Pelosi is not violating "appropriate procedures" that would include "at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony."

You also agree that the committee has no obligation and is not required to dislcose all evidence favorable to the President.

You just don't like the theme of what Pelosi is doing because, as I garner it, it's political theatre and not grounded in the reality of anything the President has done?

[TSA]

This is pure partisan hackery. No threat/quid pro quo/bribe is needed for an impeachable defense. The quid pro quo thing is being made out of whole cloth to distract from what's plainly stated on the transcript the White House released. When you stop speaking in punditry and look beyond the tag lines, you'll see a pretty clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment.

What happened first, Pelosi’s announcement or the release of the call transcript?

[vy65]

And LOL at you calling that out as partisan hackery while ignoring all the partisan hackery revolving around the “whistleblower”

You're doing it again. I didn't mention the whistleblower - I cabined my comment to the transcript released by the white house. I know you want to wave your hands and obfuscate, but stay on topic.

[TSA]

This is pure partisan hackery. No threat/quid pro quo/bribe is needed for an impeachable defense. The quid pro quo thing is being made out of whole cloth to distract from what's plainly stated on the transcript the White House released. When you stop speaking in punditry and look beyond the tag lines, you'll see a pretty clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment.

You said there is clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment. State your case.

[hater]

Which is?

There is no compelling case. That's why this thread is 70 pages and congress still has not voted on it

The daily drip drip drip leaks by intelligence agencies parroted by media will never amount to a case but just there to sway public opinion

All the so called law experts were certain they had a case with Russia gate, but they were wrong

The same experts were certain they had a case against Kavanaughty boy they were wrong

This case is even weaker than those 2

[vy65]

What happened first, Pelosi’s announcement or the release of the call transcript?

Why does that matter? The white house stood by the call transcript, right? They didn't claim it was doctored or altered, did they?

[TSA]

You're doing it again. I didn't mention the whistleblower - I cabined my comment to the transcript released by the white house. I know you want to wave your hands and obfuscate, but stay on topic.

Oh so you now don’t think it’s important to discuss the whistleblower complaint that launched Pelosi’s “impeachment inquiry”?

[Pavlov]

Oh so you now don’t think it’s important to discuss the whistleblower complaint that launched Pelosi’s “impeachment inquiry”?

Not terribly important anymore since the memo provides the damning evidence the whistleblower was talking about.

The whistleblower was right saying something was wrong. Dennison proved it for him.

[vy65]

You said there is clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment. State your case.

Oh so you now don’t think it’s important to discuss the whistleblower complaint that launched Pelosi’s “impeachment inquiry”?

I never mentioned the whistleblower. I said that Trump's statements, according to the transcript the White House released, are sufficient for impeachment. Those comments are:

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

and

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

[vy65]

I'm not going to do the RandomGuy thing TSA. I'm just going to say that you're refusing to answer my question about the White House letter so you agree with me that it's straight up wrong.

[vy65]

Not terribly important anymore since the memo provides the damning evidence the whistleblower was talking about.

The whistleblower was right saying something was wrong. Dennison proved it for him.

That's why, you know, the Prez made worse this time around ... Hard to believe some people don't understand DJT provided more, not less, evidence for impeachment, regardless of any whistleblower(s)

[hater]

I never mentioned the whistleblower. I said that Trump's statements, according to the transcript the White House released, are sufficient for impeachment. Those comments are:

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

and

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

Nothing burger

[vy65]

Nothing burger

Solid analysis.

[TSA]

I'm not going to do the RandomGuy thing TSA. I'm just going to say that you're refusing to answer my question about the White House letter so you agree with me that it's straight up wrong.

No, I don’t agree. I think the letter served its purpose in challenging Pelosi and will tie it up in court.

[hater]

Solid analysis.

Yet it's an analysis.

Where's your analysis?

[vy65]

No, I don’t agree. I think the letter served its purpose in challenging Pelosi and will tie it up in court.

Not the question I asked. I asked whether the statements regarding due process, confrontation of witnesses, disclosure of evidence are or are not correct. Try again.

[Pavlov]

That's why, you know, the Prez made worse this time around ... Hard to believe some people don't understand DJT provided more, not less, evidence for impeachment, regardless of any whistleblower(s)

Hiding the actual transcript on the super secret server didn't help.

And now every time he ignores or blocks a subpoena he just adds obstruction to the articles of impeachment that will come to a vote....

[TSA]

I never mentioned the whistleblower. I said that Trump's statements, according to the transcript the White House released, are sufficient for impeachment. Those comments are:

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

and

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

I’m not going to do the RandomGuy thing either. I’ll just assume you have no case when you refuse to answer. You said there is clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment. What specifically did Trump say that is sufficient for impeachment. State your case.

[TSA]

Not the question I asked. I asked whether the statements regarding due process, confrontation of witnesses, disclosure of evidence are or are not correct. Try again.

Already answered. Court will decide.

[vy65]

Yet it's an analysis.

Where's your analysis?

A president facing re-election should not engage his private attorney to facilitate an investigation into the likely candidate he will face in said election. It's an improper use of presidential power and is an affront on the democratic system. If there is a concern about the Biden's it should not be politicized - but handed off to a neutral law enforcement agency.

[vy65]

Already answered. Court will decide.

Nope. They decided 27 years ago. I'm asking you whether, based on that decision, Trump's lawyer is correct or incorrect. Stop dodging.

[vy65]

I’m not going to do the RandomGuy thing either. I’ll just assume you have no case when you refuse to answer. You said there is clear, straightforward, and compelling case for impeachment. What specifically did Trump say that is sufficient for impeachment. State your case.

A president facing re-election should not engage his private attorney to facilitate an investigation into the likely candidate he will face in said election. It's an improper use of presidential power and is an affront on the democratic system. If there is a concern about the Biden's it should not be politicized - but handed off to a neutral law enforcement agency.

And that brings us back to the word "other." What distinguishes certain offenses as "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" must be not the fact that serious crimes are involved but the fact that those offenses are similar, in ways relevant to what the devices of impeachment and removal are for, to treason and bribery. But that in tum means that, like treason and bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, as terms of art, must refer to major offenses against our very system of government, or serious abuses of the governmental power with which a public official has been entrusted ( as in the case of a public official who accepts a bribe in order to tum his official powers to per#sonal or otherwise corrupt ends), or grave wrongs in pursuit of governmental power ( as in the case of someone who subverts democracy by using bribery or other nefarious means in order to secure government office and its powers, or in order to hold onto such office once attained). And, sure enough, even a cursory examination of the precise history of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," and of the path that phrase took as it found its way from fourteenth-century England into the Cons ution of the United States in the summer of 1787, confirms that understanding of what the words meant.

Defining High Crimes and Misdeameanors: Basic Principles
Lawrence H. Tribe, Tyler Professor of Cons utional Law, Harvard Law School

https://heinonline.org/HOL/PDFsearch...n&from=dropbox