Pompeo's chief of staff gives testimony today; McConnell preps Senate for impeachment trial

www.americanbar.org... reply to: Extorris

Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open

and

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

you were saying?

www.npr.org... even frigging NPR says no collusion jesus how is it hard to realize that

Mueller Report Doesn't Find Russian Collusion, But Can't 'Exonerate' On Obstruction

and

special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress by Attorney General William Barr. "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election," Barr wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees on Sunday afternoon. That was despite "multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign," he wrote.

the "russia collusion narrative" has been dead since march gotta update your talking points.


and lol there is no way least with what we know now that McConnell votes to remove the president,and we have to wait to see if the house is even gonna go down that route as pelosi isn't holding a vote as red state dem's vulnerable in 2020 dont want to attempt it


www.cnn.com... older link from early in october

The reasons Pelosi is not planning a vote are both practical and political: Taking the step of passing a formal impeachment inquiry resolution is a complicated and time-consuming endeavor that has political downsides, from drafting the exact language of the resolution, to holding a complicated floor debate and to putting some members in a tough spot. Moreover, having a vote on an impeachment inquiry resolution would give Republicans an opening to argue they should have subpoena power like in past impeachment proceedings, something that Democrats would almost certainly never allow.

so there was this and now there is this

www.cnbc.com... from yesterday

House Democrats will not hold a vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as of now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday, defying calls from the White House and Republicans to do so.

then this from the WSJ www.wsj.com...

WASHINGTON—House Democratic leadership is holding off on a vote to launch a formal impeachment inquiry for now, a move that could have upended a central Republican argument but also put vulnerable Democrats at risk.

they KNOW they dont have the votes in the senate and that it will burn them in 2020 elections

www.politico.com...

Yet Pelosi and other top Democrats couldn't come to an agreement among themselves during internal discussions on Tuesday over whether to move forward with the vote, which would mark an escalation of their impeachment battle with Trump. Vulnerable House Democrats from swing districts were also largely opposed, with some lawmakers fearing that the American public would confuse a vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry as actually impeaching Trump. Inside the leadership, Hoyer and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.). were opposed to the vote, as were Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), two key players in the impeachment drama, said several Democratic aides. Pelosi privately told other Democrats she was "agnostic" on the issue, said a Democratic aide. During Tuesday's meeting, Pelosi told her colleagues that she "only has license this caucus gives me," meaning she wouldn't pressure her rank-and-file to hold the vote. House Democratic leaders also quietly reached out to the most vulnerable members of their caucus to gauge whether they would support a formal vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry against Trump, according to multiple Democratic aides. The response was "pretty strongly no," said an aide close to the issue. The idea has met with anxiety among some of the battleground Democrats, who fear it could distract from the rest of their agenda, according to multiple aides. Several “Frontliners” in key districts raised concerns as well, including freshman Reps. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.).

what McConnel is doing its setting it up so when they do vote in the house it does not take long in the senate to end this nonsense

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

I HAVE to applaud you for this post.

You took a bald-faced lie in the thread and nuked it from space.

No one has shown anything yet where Trump had quid quo pro.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

"No quid pro quo" has become a rallying cry among those opposed to an impeachment inquiry.

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said "It's really important to know this: There is no requirement that there be a quid pro quo in the conversation. We don't ask foreign governments to help us in our elections, that's what we tried to stop with Russia. It's wrong."
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Adam Schiff, Ranking Member of the
House Intelligence Committee, said "It's not necessary for us to find evidence of quid pro quo, you don't need an explicit quid pro quo to betray your country."
www.dailymail.co.uk...

The anonymous leaker WORKED for Biden and the DNC and met with Brennan

Please show us the identity of the whistleblower, only way you can know this.
And sell it to every major news organization...THIS WOULD BE BREAKING NEWS!!!!

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

How could trump obstruct in reference to crimes he didn't commit...?

This whole time trump was somehow behind a mastermind Russia deal...? He couldn't pay off a cheap slapper quietly and trump can coordinate with a mastermind such as Putin?


His crime was attempting to stop an illegal framing of him

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Oraculi

according to a person familiar with the meeting.

stop embarrassing yourself!

I commented citing a familiar source and my comment was immediately squashed. The MODS have spoken. References to familiar sources are now a serious violation of the terms and conditions or my first amendment rights do not exist here

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: drewlander

Do You Know the Definition of " Jack Sheit " ? It's Similar to what the Dems Claim to Have on President Trump . Yes , we are ALL Being " Entertained " with All this BS , but it is " Entertaining " for Just So LONG ............

I know man. Honestly its getting exhausting. Every day is a repeat of the last.

a reply to: Oraculi

Not going to be an impeachment. Pelosi would open her and her son to inquiry, Schiff, Biden and Hunter. Just suggesting hitting this war drum has impaled Biden. Lost millions in campaign donations and is no longer the front runner. All it did was give Trump more funding. He bought a bunch of commercials with it. Biden is now spending more on private jets begging for cash than receiving it. It's bankrupting his campaign. Bet he stops taking private jets within a couple of weeks.

a reply to: odzeandennz

How could trump obstruct in reference to crimes he didn't commit...?

ON THE DAY TRUMP'S LAWYER GIULIANI REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS, LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE

www.newsweek.com...

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: odzeandennz

How could trump obstruct in reference to crimes he didn't commit...?

ON THE DAY TRUMP'S LAWYER GIULIANI REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS, LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE

www.newsweek.com...

Everything is impeachable. Until they have to vote on it. Then not so much.

So, which part of the source article do you guys think is not true again?

You don't think McConnell is prepping for an Impeachment trial? He is: Politico

You don't think Michael McKinley actually resigned? You don't think he was in goverment 37 years? You don't think he testified? All true: Wall Street Journal

What was it that you guys doubt? Why would you dismiss information so completely and damn a source so thoroughly?

Oh, yeah, it sounded slightly critial of Trump in spots.

I applaud questioning everything. I agree totally that we should double and triple check anything the corporate media puts out there. (All the media, not just Trump enemies like CNN...)

What is irrational is the immediate knee-jerk response to anything that seems negative for Trump to deny, discredit and discount it and then heap ludicrous unnecessary praise on any and all actions of Trump, no matter how stupid.

That's the behavior of cult members toward the cult leader. It's not healthy, y'all.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, which part of the source article do you guys think is not true again?

The part where everyone assumes the Democrats will have this wrapped up by Thanksgiving. Its better for them to drag it out as long as possible.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Oraculi

" McConnell preps Senate for impeachment trial "


Hmm... How do you prep for a Senate Impeachment Trial ? Look at Presented " REAL " Evidence from the House Request , or just Say it SEVEN TIMES and just " Wing " it . ?

You could collect evidence and rigorously document testimony to be used in the trial. That's usually the way these things go.

a reply to: chr0naut

" rigorously document testimony "


Who is to Determine if said Testimony is Admissible in a Non Court of Law ? Politicians ? ....LOL

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Investigate first.

Then vote.

It's a hard concept, I know. Read it over a few times, it may sink in.

a reply to: odzeandennz

oh im not in disagreement with you the veritable walls of text i tend to post was just to show that the dems have moved from "trump colluded with the Russians" which was debunked by Muller him self and now shifted to "obstruction obstruction obstruction" (for more fun read in brady bunch voice)

and yeah im in general agreement the dem's don't have anything for 2020 so as al green said "they have to impeach him so he does not win re election"

they just dont get that we knew who we were electing when we chose him over Clinton and all they are giving us in 2020 is gonna be repeat of 2016. does trump some times say brash or insensitive things? sure but we dont care . does trump some times upend the status quo? yup that's why we wanted him. is trump not politically correct? hell yeah he isnt we didnt want that.and even when he does things that we may not be a fan of or personally support we see that overall he does more good for us then bad and that is why his base has been un moving in its support for our president who the left has a hard on full of hate for .

and as just as an aside to some of our democratic supporters here what does it say that such a brash arrogant "non politician" who has been called almost every bad name in the book managed to not only crush the democrats best hope after working his way through the republican dynasties he unseated and crushed to become POTUS?

to quote Louise from bobs burgers "we smell fear on you" hence democrats increasing desperation after muller failed to deliver and all their other schemes to upset a dully elected presidents presidency

a reply to: Gryphon66

i think McConnel is gonna shut this nonsense down i keep seeing links on how many more members of the house and what not "support impeachment" but what you seem to forget despite being constantly reminded of is sure the house votes to impeach but the senate votes to remove and they ain't doing that so its all political theater designed to try to help them have a small shot at 2020

do you have any links stating that the republicans in senate will vote to impeach? id assume not which is why pelosi isnt holding a vote to do that as red state dems and others in purple states worry they will loose their power if they try and then fail in the attempt

www.vanityfair.com... some general links on the whole impeachment shenanigans

As far as Rose is concerned, both parties bear responsibility for screwing over his constituents. The only thing that unifies the GOP, he storms, “is tax cuts for wealthy people.” But he also faults the Democratic Party for falling out of step with the people that built it. “Quite frankly, the Democratic Party should win most elections because if you poll traditional bread-and-butter Democratic policies here—pro-infrastructure, lowering health care costs, righting significant power asymmetries, making sure that the wealthiest among us don’t get away with total tax robbery—80% of these people support this,” he says. But voters “don’t trust Democrats as far as they can throw them.” Instead of trying to understand their constituents, Rose argues, too many Democrats end up patronizing them. They pander during elections, then abandon voters when they get to Washington.

so there is this which sums it up nicely

www.theguardian.com... here is how cardi b of all people (LOL) feels

Chance said: “I think Trump is going to win again at the next election because he’s got the biggest base.” Cardi agreed: “I really hate to say it, but sometimes I do believe that Trump will be winning. Just because every single time I don’t see nobody saying they love a Democratic candidate. There’s no candidate that people are saying like we love, we want them to win.”

and this is why democrats are scared they NEED to imepach him as more and more time goes on it becomes more clear they cant beat him ,or in the R/donald parlance" you cant stump the trump" but i guess using a known prostitute who rolled johns by drugging them isnt the best rebuttal but those on the left seem to love them some cardi b

www.wsj.com... i guess we could take the WSJ opinion that trump is 3 for 3 for winning the debates that the dems have had with out him even needing to show up here is the head line

Trump Wins Every Democratic Debate Lots of voters dislike the president but will be convinced to vote for him by seeing his opponents.

now we will get into the meat of the article but its behind a paywall so ill post this

The Republican National Committee should offer to be the official sponsor of a weekly Democratic presidential debate. There would be no better advertisement for President Trump’s re-election. Every time the Democratic presidential contenders gather together, it’s a contest between the merely delusional, the vaguely vindictive and the patently absurd.

but perhaps others will quote from this link least those that subscribe


www.cnn.com... here is CNN's take on the issue but hey it would be another first for trump and im sure he would love that notch on his belt he could be the first president impeached to then be re-elected after the house votes to impeach him but the senate declines .

www.marketwatch.com... Market watch is calling for a "landlside" but i don't think we will get that but i do think he will win

According to Moody’s Analytics, Trump is headed toward another four years in the White House. And, if the numbers are right, it won’t even be close. In fact, his Electoral College victory could very well be wider than the 304-227 margin he enjoyed over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Since 1980, Moody’s has managed to nail the outcome every time but once — like many, it didn’t see Trump coming. “In our post-mortem of the 2016 presidential election model,” the report said, “we determined that unexpected turnout patterns were one of the factors that contributed to the model’s first incorrect election prediction.” Here’s Moody’s track record, including a 2016 adjustment for the turnout variable:

and goes on to say this

Moody’s uses three models to come up with its forecast. In each case, Trump gets at least 289 Electoral College votes. The “pocketbook” measure, which focus on how people feel about their money situation, is where Trump shines brightest, grabbing a whopping 351 electoral votes. “If voters were to vote primarily on the basis of their pocketbooks, the president would steamroll the competition,” the report said. The stock-market model gives him the slightest edge of 289-249, as investors continue to navigate a volatile investing landscape. Then there’s the unemployment model, which leans heavily in his favor at 332-206.

so dont count good old trump out yet but hey the dems have made a hobby of under estimating him

a reply to: Extorris

the goal of ATS is "deny ignorance"

But when it comes to trump and especially on impeachment (to be fair before that was russian collusion, stormy danials, ect ect ect) you, gryphon66 and other anti trump you more believe in the saying from the book 1984

that is "ignorance is strength"

lets deal in FACTS on this for the umpteenth time

1. the cornerstone of our constitutional rights (and might note not shared by alot of countries) is this
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW

not guilty by association, by innuendo, unnamed sources , those "close to the case", public opinion, expert opinion , main stream media, or hell even an individual judges OPINION.

but PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

this RIGHT is for THE PRESIDENT (no matter who they be or what party) , the drug addict in the gutter and EVERYONE IN BETWEEN.

2. an impeachment is the same (for all practical purposes both logical and legal) as a grand jury.

3. the impeachment process has a SET PROCEDURE that while not often used is CLEARLY STATED.
you must FIRST TAKE A VOTE BY SIMPLE MAJORITY to conduct an impeachment investigation.
then you must present the evidence gathered (btw ALL PARTIES ARE PRIVY TO) to the full house for a majority up (impeachment) or down / not get majority which means the impeachment is DEAD/ ENDED.
in fact if the first vote is not majority then it (as an impeachment investigation) is dead.

4. you CANNOT HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION (with all powers granted to such) IF YOU DID NOT HAVE THE VOTE.

5 . if a president is impeached then THEY STILL NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING.
they still enjoy the RIGHT OF PRESUMED INNOCENT . Same as an indited person is NOT GUILTY at that time

6. the senate then HOLDS AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. In which THE PRESIDENT can defend himself, call witnesses , cross examine, ect.
Also another right comes into play.. the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER .
in short the "whistle blower" must come forward and also be cross examined by trumps lawyer.
yes they are protected (if what they say is true , BIG STIPULATION) for their job but not from being questioned.

7. then after the "trial" is done , after deliberation THEN THEY MUST VOTE TO REMOVE (FIND GUILTY) THE PRESIDENT BY 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE.

8. If they dont get the 2/3 then UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/RIGHTS any president is INNOCENT.
just as anyone indicted by a grand jury if not convicted is INNOCENT UNDER THE EYES OF THE LAW.


just because your "impeached" does NOT MEAN YOUR GUILTY OF A DAMN THING.

now on a side note the claim the senate majority leader is preparing for impeachment is technically ok but not what your (and press) claiming it means they think he is guilty.

if he is (as I suspect given the cherry picking of the media, anti trump and democrats) going over PROCEDURES how THE TRIAL would be run IF IT COMES TO IT... thats fair and reasonable.
there has only been TWO impeachments and as clinton impeachment showed it has not been done enough for everyone to know how the procedure is supposed to go. From the pomp and bull# (sorry circumstance) to the actual practical workings.

but if (as implied by the news articles and IMO the hopes of the democrats and anti trump) he is deciding (even remotely) if the impeachment is legit... than that is CLEARLY WRONG.
Especially since "impeachment" is the overall procedure and name . But the ACTUAL CHARGES (you know that "high crime and misdemeanor" thing) have been stated (much less the EVIDENCE and DEFENSE) , then there is nothing to go over.


so overall your cries of guilt are rantings at best.
the claim if (key word IF , which is blunted by you WONT EVEN TAKE A DAMN VOTE TO OFFICIALLY START AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION that is REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW) impeached he is guilty of charges is also FALSE.

in short your (and other supporters) rants, claims , ect of guilt is just OPINION with no PROVEN FACTS IN COURT OF LAW / SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS / TRIAL.

trump is still PRESUMED INNOCENT UNDER THE LAW.

the rest of your comments are just emotional (and at times clearly ignorant) rants in hopes of (if repeated often enough) people taking it at fact.

sadly FACTS are what matters.

not opinions or "truth"

scrounger