Trump Impeachment Thread

a reply to: carewemust
New Yorks 8th congressional district
parts of brooklyn and queens
east coast enlightened elites?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: carewemust
New Yorks 8th congressional district
parts of brooklyn and queens
east coast enlightened elites?

Democrats will have to be very imaginative to talk about a crime that didn't happen over the next three days.

I wonder why Schiff didn't want Eric Cirimilla(sp?) to be named or testify...........




Link

Only 11 days after getting in Office, he is already plotting against the Administration.

Proud of yourselves Democrats?

a reply to: pavil

Here's an article to confirm .............


Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump

Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.


Sean Misko: He spoke with Ciaramella about the need to "take out," or remove, President Trump. Later he went to work for Rep. Adam Schiff's committee.


Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.


“Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.

every time I listen to schiff and nadler i feel like in need of a pain killer, oh I forgot to add Schumer

originally posted by: Dr UAE
every time I listen to schiff and nadler i feel like in need of a pain killer, oh I forgot to add Schumer

Schiff gets me into a rage faster than any other human I have ever seen. He not only lies, he lies fantastically continually.

Is mr schiff persuading any of the needed 67 votes?
I doubt it based upon his performance and results from last night.
He will simply be remembered as a loser.
One who the bad orange man beat on.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Dr UAE
every time I listen to schiff and nadler i feel like in need of a pain killer, oh I forgot to add Schumer

Schiff gets me into a rage faster than any other human I have ever seen. He not only lies, he lies fantastically continually.

your Joseph Goebbels in action

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Is mr schiff persuading any of the needed 67 votes?
I doubt it based upon his performance and results from last night.
He will simply be remembered as a loser.
One who the bad orange man beat on.

All they are doing is boring every Senator. They are keeping to the tired slogans... 2+2=4, no one is above the law ect.

I'm sure the Senators loved staying there past midnight yesterday for those votes the House prosecutors used every single minute of every single vote rambling on.

Way to try to Win over and Influence the Senate.

Schiff's entire closing statement is pure PROJECTION of his and his Democrat comrades crimes.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Is mr schiff persuading any of the needed 67 votes?
I doubt it based upon his performance and results from last night.
He will simply be remembered as a loser.
One who the bad orange man beat on.

Not sure, but his presentation is getting high marks from distinguished litigators.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical
Would you be kind enough to present an example of such?
Thanks in advance

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Doubtful. Schiff's performance is obviously more geared for the public, and not the litigators. I'm sure everyone physically there can see through his act. Quoting founding fathers, appealing to emotion and patriotism, and pounding tables is not how you conduct a trial. You need facts, which they have none.

What matters more to Schiff right now, since he knows he is beating a dead horse, is convincing the public. It's all about public opinion. The public is the only thing that carries this madness to the next attack on the president, and eventually to 2020 elections.

They won't let up !! as the lies continue 😃


Fact Check: Adam Schiff Falsely Claims Trump Conditioned Meeting, and Aid, on Investigations

CLAIM: President Donald Trump withheld a White House meeting, and military aid, from Ukraine until it agreed to announce investigations.

VERDICT: False. There is no direct evidence of that in the entire House record.

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) laid out the case against President Trump in opening arguments on Wednesday in the Senate impeachment trial. The core of his claim was that Trump withheld a White House meeting from new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as essential military aid, unless and until Ukraine announced investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and 2016 interference in the U.S. election.

Every part of that claim is untrue, and directly contradicted by the evidence that emerged in the House’s own inquiry.

Here is what is coming to mind for me...

"Abuse of Power" in itself, is subjective to those without said power, and is not in itself a crime.

"Obstruction of Congress" is also subjective, as the branches of government are designed to obstruct one another in ALL matters of government, whether it is an investigation or not. This is why there is another branch of government between the Congress and the Executive, which is the Judicial.

The House did not want to work with the Judicial, they even withdrew subpoenas for key witnesses that they are now saying are required for their case. If they were required for their case, they should have used the Judicial, period, end of story. They did not, and there is no obligation by the Senate to hear anything further on an "airtight" case with "overwhelming evidence".

If the evidence is overwhelming, why do you need more?

Denying subpoenas and access to documents is not a crime, it's just one of the ways the President can 1) defend himself from false accusations and partisan attacks and 2) make the Congress use the Judicial branch to settle disputes between the branches. It isn't because there is a cover-up, because the President and Executive branch fully understand that the Judicial would reveal whatever is necessary if it WARRANTS it. The House knows they had no chance in hell asking for artifacts from the Executive branch, that the Judicial would not intervene with the absence of EVIDENCE, of which the House has failed to produce.

Impeaching a President has to show that there is a crime.

The House keeps talking about a benefit to the President in the upcoming election, but NOT ONE piece of testimony or evidence presented, shows the President saying ANYTHING AT ALL about upcoming elections or any kind of personal benefit. The House completely ignores that Ukraine was already investigating Burisma before any of the phone calls occurred with Ukraine, which had no tie to the aid being given. The President asked for PREVIOUS events to be investigated. I keep hearing over and over how this is to interfere with the 2020 election, when not a single statement, testimony, piece of evidence has made mention of elections whatsoever.

The President has the authority to deny a meeting for whatever reason he wants. He has the authority to tie a meeting to "diplomacy", which takes on a huge umbrella of measures that are allowed to be employed by the President, including asking for validations, verifications, promises, etc... that is how treaties are negotiated and signed into law. If that's illegal, nothing on the global relationships we have with other countries would happen. In my opinion, he didn't want to give money to a corrupt nation without some reassurances that the most corrupt country in the world was going to shore up some of the KNOWN corruption, such as what happened with Burisma, which was already being investigated by Ukraine before the President expressed his interest in seeing it continue. The President has information that suggests they acted as a proxy for election tampering in 2016, and has every right to ask for it to be a closed case with certainty rather than have it hanging around as an unknown. I do not see that as a personal benefit to the President, I see that as a personal benefit to ME, the taxpaying American.

I've listened now to the entire coverage, every single thing that has been presented so far has been focused on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The President used every means available in the Executive branch of government to flex his muscle, both to Congress and foreign nations. The man campaigned on making the United Nations pay more and to stop giving away so much money, how is this any different? He gave them more money than the Obama administration and actually helped Ukraine to fend off Russia, while the Obama admin let them get desecrated by Russia. A new Ukrainian President gets elected and our President wants to test him as a leader and validate he is going to stop the corruption in his country and asks for specific reassurances to prove that he's serious. The Ukrainian President gets on the world stage and tells everyone there was no quid pro quo and he felt no pressure. The House presents him and his country as a victim, but discredits his own open admission and testimony, regardless of the events leading up to it.

It is obvious to me, and I hope most Americans, that this is a hit job by the House and the Democrats to seize power over the Executive, to paint the Senate as complicit in order to diminish their credibility so that the Democrats can try to re-take the Senate, and ultimately either remove the President through impeachment, or remove the block preventing them executing their agendas. If they win the Senate, they can nullify or remove the President. If they remove the President, they can go back to greasing palms and closed-room deals that use our tax money to enrich their own interests in the exact way that Biden has done with his family and position of power. They are ALL doing it. The President campaigned on revealing it and stopping it.

It's like saying you're going to stop a garbage disposal with your bare hands. Sure, you can do it, it is going to hurt immensely, and you're going to lose some parts of you, but if you can stand the pain and suffering you'll go through.... it can be done.

I'm looking forward to hearing the defense, because the prosecution is saying absolutely nothing different than what I've heard for the last 3 years. I hope the defense crushes them, not for Trump to win, but for our Republic, for which it stands, to continue standing.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

My guess is that there will be a string of exculpatory facts presented.

My guess is that you are mistaken

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Exactly right. In the impeachment of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton federal charges were contained within the impeachment articles.

Also, I just heard that Adam Schiff is actually helping the president. He is pointing out how President Trump suspected Joe Biden and Hunter Biden of corruption in Ukraine.

a reply to: VeeTNA

Of course you would... because your party did such a thorough job in their investigation that there is none, right?

The House sure did their best to allow objective evidence to be presented during their investigation... all of those witnesses they allowed and defensive arguments from the President and House Republicans, right?

The House has complete bi-partisan support for their impeachment claims, right?

The President has no defense, right? There's no other side of the story? Nothing else to present or hear?

It was so urgent to impeach the President, to sit on the articles for a month as political leverage, they couldn't wait for the Judicial (the House's own words) as dictated by the Constitution to get evidence they claim is necessary now for their rock-solid case, (which is in fact, a violation of the Constitution) the President and House Republican couldn't present witnesses or have counsel present during the investigation as has been done in all previous impeachments...

Sounds like no matter what defense is presented, you are convinced at whatever you believe, and that's fine, but I'm more interested in hearing the story that the House has stopped at NOTHING to prevent from being heard at any point during the investigation.

Do you really believe the President or his defense would show his hand? That they have no defense to any of this?

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

I suspect you are a Democrat.

~Namaste

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: pavil

Here's an article to confirm .............


Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump

Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.


Sean Misko: He spoke with Ciaramella about the need to "take out," or remove, President Trump. Later he went to work for Rep. Adam Schiff's committee.


Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.


“Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.

According to former colleagues
According to sources...
House colleague who overheard their conversation..
Lol..

This tweet from Rand Paul sounds like President Trump wants to attend his impeachment trial when he gets back from Switzerland.

mobile.twitter.com...