Trump Impeachment Thread

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Their present area of explanation concerns why it was perfectly fine for Biden to have a Ukrainian official removed by withholding appropriated funds but not Trump asking for an investigation into potential corruption into Burisma. Their reasoning seems to be "because we and our allies agreed that Shokin was corrupt and we don't think Burisma is corrupt."

Interestingly, Lindsey Graham gave an interview this morning before the Schiff Show began. He now has serious questions about Hunter Biden and Burisma and is planning an investigation in the Senate. He is not, unless something new gets presented, planning on voting for removal, nor for more witnesses (something about not willing to use his vote to remove the decision of the American people, nor to draw out something the American people do not want). He will investigate the Biden/Burisma connection in the Senate after the trial.

Sounds like the Democrats in the House just did the very thing they are trying to avoid doing. Graham has a lot of power as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Their present area of explanation concerns why it was perfectly fine for Biden to have a Ukrainian official removed by withholding appropriated funds but not Trump asking for an investigation into potential corruption into Burisma. Their reasoning seems to be "because we and our allies agreed that Shokin was corrupt and we don't think Burisma is corrupt."

Interestingly, Lindsey Graham gave an interview this morning before the Schiff Show began. He now has serious questions about Hunter Biden and Burisma and is planning an investigation in the Senate. He is not, unless something new gets presented, planning on voting for removal, nor for more witnesses (something about not willing to use his vote to remove the decision of the American people, nor to draw out something the American people do not want). He will investigate the Biden/Burisma connection in the Senate after the trial.

Sounds like the Democrats in the House just did the very thing they are trying to avoid doing. Graham has a lot of power as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

TheRedneck

Yeah, Graham was obviously annoyed that he was subjected to continuous propaganda from the Democrat managers who kept repeating that the Biden courruption allegation had been debunked. It hasn't. In fact , there is direct evidence of what he did. What the Democrats tried to do was repeat the same lie over and over again to try to convince the Senate that there was no possible reason that the President would order an investigation other than to help his campaign.

Goes back to what I said a couple of weeks ago. THE major issue is whether there was enough reason to look into Ukraine, Burisma and the Bidens. If there was then the President was actually doing his constitutional duty in demanding an investigation into corruption before sending tax payer money abroad. The Democrats understand this which is why they are trying so hard to convince everyone that it is just a conspiracy theory about Ukraine and Biden.

Just a reminder for everyone - in the Clinton Senate trial NO witnesses were heard from publicly. Just 3 witnesses gave video taped depositions for Senators to view. The questions that the witnesses were asked by the House manager at the time were strictly limited.

Many lies are being told about the Clinton impeachment trial and witness participation - in an attempt to force the Republican led Senate to allow public testimony and extend the 2020 Election campaign road show for the Democrats, which this whole saga is actually all about.

Rebublicans need to hold firm and end this Schiff show as soon as possible.

a reply to: UKTruth

Many lies are being told

you said a mouthful there!

originally posted by: carewemust
Here is ONE of the revelations that will end Adam Schiff's career, if he is called as a Senate Impeachment Trial witness.

Adam Schiff used taxpayer money to settle a sex-related claim with 19 year old kid.

Source: twitter.com...

Lol.
Every person who's against Trump has been linked to pedophilia or xyz sexual conduct.
This is so predictable.
Now quoting anonymous twitter accounts?

a reply to: XCrycek

Every person who's against Trump has been linked to pedophilia or xyz sexual conduct.

feeling confessional today?
interesting approach....

LOL! Nadler pissed off Lisa Murkowski by accusing the Republicans of trying to cover up Trump's (fictional) crimes.

That might turn out to be impeachment's "basket of deplorables" moment.
Murkowski was one of the moderate Republicans the Dems were hoping would vote for them.
Also, Ted Cruz seems to have taken a hard right turn lately.

Insulting the people you're trying to win over is not a winning strategy.

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: carewemust
Here is ONE of the revelations that will end Adam Schiff's career, if he is called as a Senate Impeachment Trial witness.

Adam Schiff used taxpayer money to settle a sex-related claim with 19 year old kid.

Source: twitter.com...

Lol.
Every person who's against Trump has been linked to pedophilia or xyz sexual conduct.
This is so predictable.
Now quoting anonymous twitter accounts?

Rumors have been swirling for a week or two that some Republicans have seen pictures the FBI seized from Ed Buck's place. (He's the Democratic donor who had drugged-up black guys die at his house on no less than three separate occasions.) These particular pictures are said to feature Buck and Adam Schiff, with one of those victims.

Damn! Now I'm reading Schiff was talking about arresting Republican senators who voted against them!

At the rate they're going, if they get even one Republican vote for removal, I'll be surprised. I'm going place my bet on a motion to dismiss passing 56-44, with Manchin (WV), Tester (MT), and Jones (AL) joining all Republicans.

From Rudy Giuliani. In addition to being NYC mayor, this has been his specialty.

Starting tomorrow we will begin cracking through the Swamp media’s cover-up of TOP level Democrats selling their public office, resulting in multi-millions, in Ukraine and the conspired attempt with foreign officials to “destroy” the Trump candidacy.

Source: twitter.com...

Yawn...I must admit that these first 2 days are putting me to sleep. I imagine it may be entertaining if you were not listening before now, but to be honest am hoping the defense team will be more awakening.

They did not have much of a voice during the house inquiry so am looking forward to hearing another view and hoping for some actual evidence not just biased hearsays. It is what it is...I have yet seen any real evidence of guilt...just biased opinions and innuendos.

Thankful at this point that our justice system in America, one is innocent until Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are guilty. I personally have jumped the gun on being biased and assumed someone was guilty and was humiliated when the truth revealed their innonence. I will never do that again.

Just because some one is a dick and you would never think of them as a friend...does not making them guilty of every and any accusation.

Edit add: what blows my mind is that they keep saying Zelinsky still has not had a white house meeting. To be honest, Trump did meet with Zelensky and if he made that meeting at this time at the white house...Dems would just say it was meaningless or it meant that it is a bribe so Ukraine backs Trump.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Tester may be a dem and im not a big fan of him as a Montanan but i do remember when he was asked about what gun control he was going to try to implement in Montana and basically said "do you not know who my constituents are?" so i can totally see him voting against it as were pretty pro trump up in montucky

i.imgur.com... there was this i saw on twitter apparently Obama was breifed on the biden Ukraine situation and wanted the story buried ,again with the meeting being orginized by the whistle blower himself . i have a feeling when the republicans get to their turn it will have more then a few surprises for the dem's that will be really interesting to hear and see the reactions from the Dem members of the house


www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Fox News host Laura Ingraham reported Wednesday evening that she obtained a chain of State Department emails stemming from a standard request for comment from New York Times journalist Ken Vogel, whose reporting helped generate scrutiny of Hunter Biden's ties to Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Hunter Biden, 49, is the son of Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden, and Republicans have called for him to testify during the Ukraine-related Senate impeachment trial against President Trump. On May 1, 2019, Vogel contacted State Department official Kate Schilling about a story he was working on regarding an Obama administration meeting in January 2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and mentioned the name of the CIA analyst believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment proceedings that led to two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

edit to add news link it also goes on to say that fox news is banned from mentioning the whistleblower by name for some reason

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
i.imgur.com... there was this i saw on twitter apparently Obama was breifed on the biden Ukraine situation and wanted the story buried ,again with the meeting being orginized by the whistle blower himself . i have a feeling when the republicans get to their turn it will have more then a few surprises for the dem's that will be really interesting to hear and see the reactions from the Dem members of the house


www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Fox News host Laura Ingraham reported Wednesday evening that she obtained a chain of State Department emails stemming from a standard request for comment from New York Times journalist Ken Vogel, whose reporting helped generate scrutiny of Hunter Biden's ties to Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Hunter Biden, 49, is the son of Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden, and Republicans have called for him to testify during the Ukraine-related Senate impeachment trial against President Trump. On May 1, 2019, Vogel contacted State Department official Kate Schilling about a story he was working on regarding an Obama administration meeting in January 2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and mentioned the name of the CIA analyst believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment proceedings that led to two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

edit to add news link it also goes on to say that fox news is banned from mentioning the whistleblower by name for some reason

I saw this come up but couldn't find any links to it, so thank you for sharing!

We know who the whistleblower is, Ciramella (sp) was mentioned in many news circles.

~Namaste

So they are trying to argue that a meeting in the White House in exchange for a favor is bad? When trying to work with other people, companies, countries, etc. why would you invite them for a meeting if they don't show willingness to work with you?

This is politics, how do you expect the president to make any deals or negotiations or relationships with other countries if they don't have any mutual goal or favors? They don't make any sense.

How many times are the House Managers going to play Fiona Hills testimony?

I haven't watched that much and I have seen the same exact testimony 4 times. I can't imagine how many times the Senators have seen the same bits shown over and over.

So I heard testimony today that made me rethink my opinion on this impeachment. Testimony made by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman that I had not heard prior to today.

Dad, I'm sitting here today in the US Capitol talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family, Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth.

My simple act of appearing here today, just like the courage of my colleagues who have also truthfully testified before this committee, would not be tolerated in many places around the world, offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life.

The drama is simply way to thick and out of place.

"Don't worry dad"? Seriously? Like I'm to believe his dad would really be worried for his safety for testifying in front of Congress in the United States in such a high profile case?

Ok his dad was a compulsive worrier and often worried over nonsensical fears; some people are like that in this world.

But than Vindman had to make such an emotionally charged statement during a public hearing to Congress ... why? Who cares about his dad? And I don't mean to say that to sound claus, I'm sure his dad was a wonderful man. But I would never air my private life like that when it simply had no baring on the reason I was at such public venue. And further I don't know anyone who would unless they where putting on an act.

I than started to pay closer attention to a lot of the other testimony by other witnesses and a lot of it started to sound contrived. Like it had been rehearsed prior to the testimony. Is that normal during hearings? I figured the testimony would be more contemporaneous, its as if the witnesses were the ones trying to build a case rather than simply recanting what they could remember from weeks and months earlier.

Ask me what I did at work a month ago and I could tell you in detail, but it wouldn't be a smooth recanting and it would have lot of round abouts... and I actually have a good memory.

Even some of the words these people used are not the type you hear in common speak, but rather what you read in an essay.

Very strange if you ask me.

Wow! Managers saying OMB says they never had experience a President put congress approved aid on hold in ten years!?

That is rediculous and an absolute lie. Trump put a hold on Pakistan in Sept 2018 and refused the nearly 300 million aid.

I really am hoping the Democrats take some time and listen to the defense side as well.

originally posted by: pavil
How many times are the House Managers going to play Fiona Hills testimony?

I haven't watched that much and I have seen the same exact testimony 4 times. I can't imagine how many times the Senators have seen the same bits shown over and over.

It's maddening, right?

I've watched every excruciating minute of this and it's an embarrassment to think that my fellow Americans have elected these officials to represent them in such a travesty of justice and pretend that our Founders words mattered while they stand in front of the camera and the Senate and piss all over our Constitution.

If I were the President, I would have the Sergeant at Arms escort every single person complicit in this out of the building and right to jail for charges of treason. Talking about abuse of power, it's painfully obvious that all of these people are covering their own asses for crimes they have committed that they now know the President will eventually look into. The connections between Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, Obama, Lynch, Clinton, Brennan, Comey, the FISA court, all of them should be hung for what they have done with our taxpaying money and our Country.

~Namaste

a reply to: DanDanDat

The House interviewed all of these witnesses and taken depositions from the ones that "played ball", and then cherry picked the ones that had the most believable credibility that they could sell to everyone, and coached the ones that could be most damaging. Even with that, not a single person has said that the President did anything in relation to the 2020 election or for personal gain. It has all been hearsay and opinion, not ONE first hand account.

Vindman is a joke. His opening statement, as you pointed out, was designed to have an emotional impact. I'm sure he was told "connect with the viewers with something personal" - because that's the same thing they tell you in a regular court when you're being coached as a witness. They want you to earn instant credibility, that's why the House managers keep referring to his purple heart, to the time they have spent in foreign relations and worked for the government, the respect they have from their peers. There are hundreds of people that work in the State Department and National Security Council, but the public should believe the words of just 7 or 8 people solely?

It's a joke. This whole thing is a joke. A bad joke. I'll wait for the defense to deliver the punchline.

~Namaste