Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[BmorePat87]

(10-07-2019, 08:48 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This may be the ring wing media talking point, but since we have the transcript, does a second whistleblower for the same phone call really matter?

It takes away the Right's "It was second hand knowledge/hearsay" argument away, but that was taken away when the transcript was released anyway. 

Did the second whistleblower provide more context under which the call was made, rather than the actual content? (I.E., does he have some information that would suggest that the call was made with the pretext of withholding the money or something?)

I would say that it does matter for two reasons:

1) The transcript is not verbatim 

2) The hearsay argument is still being used to dismiss the whistleblower despite the WH admitting it

[Vas Deferens]

Apparently some people are ok with foreign entities directly involving themselves in our elections. That’s about as unAmerican as it gets in my book. But fuxk, maybe that’s the times we’re living in. ‘I’m ok with some other country dictating where my tax dollars go as long as I don’t have to justify my blind misguided allegiance’

Sad times. Sad sad times.

[BakertheBeast]

The so called "transcript" the WH released was not verbatim. IE, it was edited by the WH with certain parts of the conversation left out. WHY? Why did the WH do that? (dumb question, we know why). Can't the committees investigating this felony get the full un edited copy of the transcript?  

The GOP'S response this week is "do you think the president was serious? He was just joking around" when he said China should investigate the Bidens also.


Now Trump is pulling troops out of Syria for the sole purpose of creating a diversion from the Ukraine scandal.

The right wing eunuch's in congress are scared to death of the conman.

[GMDino]

Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct.  Or least try too.  Which is still obstruction no matter what his defenders say.

IMPORTANT: It is not Trump's decision whether or not to allow Sondland to testify.

By ordering him not to testify, Trump is breaking the law.

This tweet should be attached as an exhibit to the articles of impeachment pic.twitter.com/IYhssgz4Be

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 8, 2019

 

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2019, 10:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct.  Or least try too.  Which is still obstruction no matter what his defenders say.

IMPORTANT: It is not Trump's decision whether or not to allow Sondland to testify.

By ordering him not to testify, Trump is breaking the law.

This tweet should be attached as an exhibit to the articles of impeachment pic.twitter.com/IYhssgz4Be

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 8, 2019

 

The new conservative talking point is that they need to vote on impeachment charges FIRST then they can interview these people...

First they complained there was an inquiry before evidence (LOL) and now they want a full on charge before they can gather evidence. 

[BmorePat87]

The White House told the House that they will not be participating in the impeachment inquiry. Said it was "unconstitutional" and an attempt to overturn the democratic process. Jim Jordans and Matt Goetz have been good little stooges and are using Trump's line of all of this being a "kangaroo court" and that Schiff is "Captain Kangaroo".

Imagine a president refusing to recognize official impeachment proceedings as being valid. Imagine actual members of Congress supporting this.

[GMDino]

(10-08-2019, 10:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The White House told to the House that they will not be participating in the impeachment inquiry. Said it was "unconstitutional" and an attempt to overturn the democratic process. Jim Jordans and Matt Goetz have been good little stooges and are using Trump's line of all of this being a "kangaroo court" and that Schiff is "Captain Kangaroo".

Imagine a president refusing to recognize official impeachment proceedings as being valid. Imagine actual members of Congress supporting this.

Imagine all the people who say they "don't defend or support Trump" not saying a dang thing about it either.

I keep saying there is no way the GOp can get any worse...and they keep proving me wrong.

I keep thinking there is no way the courts can defend Trump's "position" on impeachment...and I'm not sure at this point.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2019, 10:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The White House told the House that they will not be participating in the impeachment inquiry. Said it was "unconstitutional" and an attempt to overturn the democratic process. Jim Jordans and Matt Goetz have been good little stooges and are using Trump's line of all of this being a "kangaroo court" and that Schiff is "Captain Kangaroo".

Imagine a president refusing to recognize official impeachment proceedings as being valid. Imagine actual members of Congress supporting this.

As I've said from giddy up. Trump and his admin's reactions to this process is far more troubling that the action he his accused of. I cannot consider myself objective for ridiculing the day 1 talks of impeachment while not simultaneously finding this to be equally absurd.

It's my hope someone steps up. Looking at you Mitt

[CJD]

(10-08-2019, 10:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Imagine all the people who say they "don't defend or support Trump" not saying a dang thing about it either.

I keep saying there is no way the GOp can get any worse...and they keep proving me wrong.

I keep thinking there is no way the courts can defend Trump's "position" on impeachment...and I'm not sure at this point.

haha, I thought that back in the Bush era.

I was so naive back then.

I'm now thinking that 12 to 16 years from now, the GOP will put forth a literal KKK Grand Wizard who openly uses the N word and he'll win the election but lose the popular vote. 

It seems to be the trend XD.

[*bfine32*]

What exactly is an "unofficial" impeachment inquiry and why should the White House be a part of it?

[BakertheBeast]

Why bother with all this impeachment talk? The Republican Eunuchs in the senate will never vote to impeach Trump. Just drop it and let the people decide in 2020 if they want this crooked conman for another four years.

[Belsnickel]

(10-09-2019, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What exactly is an "unofficial" impeachment inquiry and why should the White House be a part of it?

There really isn't such a thing. An impeachment inquiry is an impeachment inquiry. The Constitution grants the House the power of impeachment, full stop. SCOTUS has continually upheld that power, as well, and has said that it has no dog in the fight with the process, that the power solely rests with the House. How they conduct the inquiry is entirely up to them. No vote is needed before beginning one.

[Au165]

The administration has now proclaimed itself untouchable from all criminal investigations and from cooperating with an investigation for the singular mechanic put it place to check them. The "law and order" platform apparently meant "Above the law at my order". I have said it for a couple years now, the precedent being set by this administration for it's disregard of the laws, roles and processes in place for our government will have long lasting and negative impacts on our country.

[GMDino]

(10-08-2019, 10:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Imagine all the people who say they "don't defend or support Trump" not saying a dang thing about it either.

I keep saying there is no way the GOp can get any worse...and they keep proving me wrong.

I keep thinking there is no way the courts can defend Trump's "position" on impeachment...and I'm not sure at this point.

(10-08-2019, 10:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I've said from giddy up. Trump and his admin's reactions to this process is far more troubling that the action he his accused of. I cannot consider myself objective for ridiculing the day 1 talks of impeachment while not simultaneously finding this to be equally absurd.

It's my hope someone steps up. Looking at you Mitt

(10-09-2019, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What exactly is an "unofficial" impeachment inquiry and why should the White House be a part of it?

[GMDino]

(10-09-2019, 09:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: The administration has now proclaimed itself untouchable from all criminal investigations and from cooperating with an investigation for the singular mechanic put it place to check them. The "law and order" platform apparently meant "Above the law at my order". I have said it for a couple years now, the precedent being set by this administration for it's disregard of the laws, roles and processes in place for our government will have long lasting and negative impacts on our country.

This is the Trump M.O. Ignore, countersue, etc.

He never cared about the country.  He cares about people cheering HIM.

But a bunch of people bought his snakeoil and here we are.  

[hollodero]

*sigh*

I want to comment on two things. First, what kind of talking point is "there were impeachment cries from day 1, which was soooo ridiculous, hence no impeachment talk can ever be taken seriously again"? - This has to be among the intellectually worst arguments ever. On a sidenote, it's also factually doubtful. Who cried impeachment from day one? Maxine Waters? Someone on the streets? And what gives?

Second, all GOP defenders are aware that Trump is officially argueing in court that a president shall never be indicted, impeached or even investigated - and that Nixon was treated wrongly. This is actually amazing, that open quest for absolutism. Tough to defend imho, but some seem up to the challenge. Because someone was "hysterical" once or whatever. Solid reasons for sure.

Oh, and there is no "unofficial" inquiry. That talking point is flat-out wrong and even I know that. Congress has a right to oversight and denying them that right is unconstitutional. The inquiries are not. A vote in the house on impeachment procedures is not necessary for having that right.

[jj22]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/09/trumps-very-inaccurate-claim-whistleblower-is-very-inaccurate/

[jj22]

Facebook is becoming the most AntiAmerican social media outlet out there.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/facebook-biden-ad-request-trump-ukraine/index.html

No wonder these counties use it to attack Americas Democracy. And Facebook willingly complies.

[*Nately120*]

This whole thing, as well as Trump even being president in the first place, sort of reminds me of the whole OJ or Casey Anthony trial. We all have this notion that he is guilty and we don't like that he is getting away with stuff, but we are far more judgmental on the people who are supposed to be smart and talented enough to put him away.

Much like those high-profile trials, there is evidence that isn't explained away by a "not guilty" verdict, but it's more about sticking it to the smug elitists who had the gall to think they had things won while the proverbial fish slipped off the hook. Marsha Clark, Hilary Clinton and (I had to google this one) Linda Drane Burdick can all cry into their pantsuits for botching such easy cases...and we don't even feel bad that this stuff happened because it was such a slam dunk!

Suck it, Nancy Grace! Admit it, it wasn't a good thing that a 4 year old girl was murdered, but seeing Nancy Grace meltdown after Casey Anthony walked was pretty entertaining. Gah, it's so awesome seeing elitists get humbled!

[Belsnickel]

(10-09-2019, 11:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: *sigh*

I want to comment on two things. First, what kind of talking point is "there were impeachment cries from day 1, which was soooo ridiculous, hence no impeachment talk can ever be taken seriously again"? - This has to be among the intellectually worst arguments ever. On a sidenote, it's also factually doubtful. Who cried impeachment from day one? Maxine Waters? Someone on the streets? And what gives?

I can somewhat understand this whole thing about the impeachment discussions from day 1. Granted, you are correct that it was only the fringe making the cries at the time, it should be noted that there could have been abuses of power from day 1 that could've warranted at the very least oversight from Congress. The issue now is that things have become so egregious that it can't be ignored. Hell, the letter itself is evidence of obstruction and could result in articles of impeachment all on its own. But there are still those that will deny this.