Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

Open Impeachment Inquiry Hearing Starts 11/13

1,277 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind
35 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

AFAIK, the "neutrals", aka Independents, are split 50/50 on if Trump committed a crime worthy of impeachment or not.

I dont think the arguement is what Trump did, but if it reaches the level of requiring impeachment. Given, it is looking more and more like the case, but guilt, or even illegality, has not been established yet. At least IMHO. 

At this stage of Nixon's impeachment, the public support for removal was much, much lower. The televised hearings changed that very quickly.

Well, I'd imagine that trying to bribe a foreign leader itself would be impeachable, considering bribery is mentioned specifically in the Constitution. But there are loads of other crimes and abuses of power. The crime and cover-up amount to conspiracy (and a large one, given how many people were involved), there's obstruction and witness intimidation, bribery, abuse of power, campaign fraud and likely perjury if he actually testifies. It's in reality it's closer to extortion than bribery, but I believe the law states that when a foreigner is extorted his life must be threatened for it to apply. There are probably others I'm missing. It's genuinely difficult to keep track of all his crimes.

Regardless, Impeachment doesn't require a crime, just misusing public office. There are plenty of things you can be fired from public office for without it reaching the level of criminal.

To suggest that a demonstrable crook, who it was revealed just yesterday admitted to stealing millions from his fake charity, should hold the position of President is yet more evidence that the timeline split and we're now living in an episode of Dark Mirror. What Republicans are doing right now to protect Trump would have been unthinkable ten years ago and unimaginable twenty. Imagine if your Founding Fathers had looked forward in time and seen Donald Trump?

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
20 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Let me know how I'm doing so far with my well reasoned and thought out reply when you have a minute because I sincerely value your opinion on this matter.

Well, you created a strawman rather than reply to my question, so I'm going to go with 'not well'.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Like Dark Mirror reference... :tu:

Well, Nixon didnt have to deal with the internet, and almost everyone leaking to anyone that will listen, and a 24/7/365 news cycle on multiple channels/sites.

But I agree on the Trump self inflicted slow self destruction. I'd rather some other GOP candidate stood up and ran against Trump.

Failing someone else running. And given Warren as the D candidate, I still think I'd have to vote Republican.  Even though Biden is a bit creepy. I could see supporting him to a lesser, or greater degree. Meaning, I'd either stay home, or vote for him. Warren, I think, I would actively vote against, regardless of the R candidate.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

Try as the Dems might it doesn't look like this Farce gets past the Senate. Hopefully these hearings will be the end of the partisan bickering and both parties will go back to talking about the real issues facing Americans and the solutions they have for each of them.

On a humorous note ads for Pepto Bismol were plastered on both of these articles, I'm sure their sales are up in DC if not around the Country. :lol:

Senator Tim Scott doesn't believe Trump committed an "impeachable offense"

Senator Tim Scott believes "there is not an impeachable offense in the transcript" of President Trump's July 25th call with the Ukrainian president. Should Mr. Trump be impeached by the House of Representatives, it would fall to Scott and the rest of the Senate to be jurors in the trial of the president and determine whether he should be removed from the presidency. On "The Takeout" podcast this week, the South Carolina Republican told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett that the testimony of Bill Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, was "confusing and inconsistent," and he cited Sondland's revised testimony this week as a contradiction of his original testimony. 

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-hearings-senator-tim-scott-doesnt-believe-trump-committed-impeachable-offense-2019-11-08/

 

Republicans Railed Against Secret Impeachment Hearings, But Now Say They Won’t Watch The Public Ones

Despite loudly criticizing the closed-doors secrecy of the impeachment inquiry, Senate Republicans widely say they will not watch the public hearings next week. Some said they would be too busy, others cited a lack of faith in the inquiry itself. Sen. Richard Shelby argued it would be inappropriate to watch the hearings since impeachment will likely lead to a trial before the Senate. “I wouldn’t want to see that,” he said of the hearings. “That wouldn’t affect me at all.”

Read more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/republicans-secret-impeachment-hearings-tv-wont-watch

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

More on the story: 

 

Jim Jordan to be moved to House Intelligence Committee

House Republicans announced Congressman Jim Jordan as an addition to the House Intelligence Committee, replacing Congressman Rick Crawford. The pugilistic Jordan, a former wrestling coach known for his avoidance of suit jackets, has been a strong defender of President Trump as the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and a prominent member of the House Judiciary Committee. Republican leaders in the House are hoping that Jordan can bring his combative questioning style to the first open hearings in the impeachment inquiry held by the Intelligence Committee next week. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has sole discretion over Intelligence Committee assignments. 

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-jordan-to-be-moved-to-house-intelligence-committee/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Try as the Dems might it doesn't look like this Farce gets past the Senate. Hopefully these hearings will be the end of the partisan bickering and both parties will go back to talking about the real issues facing Americans and the solutions they have for each of them.

Oh cousin you are a devious one.  Were you smiling when you wrote that line?

When this is over, if he has retained power, the President will begin the revenge and humiliation cycle that is characteristic of his dealing with rivals.  His true followers will expect no less.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
41 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Oh cousin you are a devious one.  

Tatetopa you sweet talker you, thanks for the compliment you made my day ;)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

When this is over, if he has retained power, the President will begin the revenge and humiliation cycle that is characteristic of his dealing with rivals.  His true followers will expect no less.

That's a scary thought. His entire Presidency is nothing more than revenge for Obama roasting him in 2012, so God knows how he'd top that to get back at his enemies. Supreme Emperor of the Sol System?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
11 hours ago, Gromdor said:

It seems to me that Trump is dead set on adding violating the whistle blower protection law to his list of impeachment crimes. 

NPR claimed it's technically legal to reveal the whistleblower. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
34 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The fourth line down in your article says he can be impeached for it.

They said there are no actual laws against it.

They say legislative members could try to argue its retaliation, then try to impeach. Which dosent mean much.

Legislative members can technically try to impeach for any reason. 

Quote

If Trump thinks he knows the name, he can come out and say it, and he's probably as protected as anyone is," said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama.

Litt and several other legal experts who talked to NPR said Trump uttering or tweeting the name could in theory trigger an article of impeachment for retaliating against a whistleblower, but it would not run afoul of any federal criminal statutes.

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
18 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

They said there are no actual laws against it.

They say legislative members could try to argue its retaliation, then try to impeach. Which dosent mean much.

Legislative members can technically try to impeach for any reason. 

 

No broken law unless there is retaliation.  Now, Trump said the democrats don't want to name the whistleblower because there "will be hell to pay" is a pretty damning statement.  ANY negative action against the whistleblower will certainly hold up in court as a violation of the protection act.  If I was the whistleblower, I would stroll on in to work, smiling and whistling with the smuggest of looks on my face.  It would be epic.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Another witness testified:

Quote

Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council staffer responsible for Russia and Ukraine, told lawmakers during her testimony that it became clear during a July 10 meeting at the White House that an Oval Office visit for Ukraine’s president was contingent on him opening an investigation into President Trump’s political rivals.

Hill told lawmakers that Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, said there was an agreement with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that “they would have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting, if the Ukrainians started up these investigations again.”

“Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations,” Hill said.

She said the suggestion alarmed then-national security adviser John Bolton, who “immediately stiffened” and ended the meeting.

Separately, top White House expert on Ukraine Alexander Vindman testified that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland characterized the request for investigations by Ukraine — or a “deliverable” — as coordinated with Mulvaney, according to the transcript of his testimony released today.

https://edition.cnn.com/webview/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-11-08-2019/h_49b09d780c91259d0c812bbe07c98c96

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

That's a scary thought. His entire Presidency is nothing more than revenge for Obama roasting him in 2012, so God knows how he'd top that to get back at his enemies. Supreme Emperor of the Sol System?

Yes, as it should be. Based on his own comments, I don't think he will ever conceive of losing the 2020 election. It does seem unlikely, but it could happen.  A lot of people did not wan to vote for Clinton and many others,  so disenchanted with the status quo of politics  that they were looking for a change.  They may decide Trump is not the change they were looking for.

 If it happens, he may denounce it as fake and likely call upon his supporters to put things to right.  He will be worried about his ego, not the nation.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
On 11/8/2019 at 9:08 AM, BrooklynGuy said:

Senator Tim Scott believes "there is not an impeachable offense in the transcript"

Unless something Earth shattering happens more and more Im starting to think the Republicans may fall back on : hes innocent on the phone call  but he's guilty of obstruction of congress and maybe the campaign finance violation regarding the request for a public announcement on CNN in exchange for a meeting with Trump. 

This will allow them to publicly support Trump on the issues he can obfuscate through his Twitter screeds while being able to save face on the incontrovertible stuff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

Here is the latest Propaganda from the news media on the Impeachment Inquiry. I tried to find something from Fox Fake News but I think they are preoccupied with the IG's investigation into the alleged FISA abuses so Politico will have to do. 

Whistleblower's attorney reacts to GOP call for testimony reiterating client will answer questions in writing

An attorney for the unnamed intelligence whistleblower who came forward with information about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine reacted Saturday to calls for his client to testify in the coming public impeachment hearings by reiterating that person is only willing to answer questions in writing. “My client’s complaint has been largely corroborated. Nonetheless, I have offered to have my client respond in writing, under oath, and under penalty of perjury to Republican questions,” Andrew Bakaj said in a statement to CNN.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-11-10-2019/index.html

 

Trump says he'll release transcript of a second call with Ukrainian president Tuesday

President Donald Trump on Saturday said he plans to release a transcript of a second phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday, one that occurred months before the July call that kickstarted House Democrats' impeachment inquiry. "They want to have a transcript of the other call, the second call, and I'm willing to provide that. We'll probably give it on Tuesday, Monday being a holiday," Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews before boarding Air Force One to attend a college football game in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/trump-impeachment

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Unless something Earth shattering happens more and more Im starting to think the Republicans may fall back on : hes innocent on the phone call  but he's guilty of obstruction of congress and maybe the campaign finance violation regarding the request for a public announcement on CNN in exchange for a meeting with Trump. 

This will allow them to publicly support Trump on the issues he can obfuscate through his Twitter screeds while being able to save face on the incontrovertible stuff. 

Very much like with the Mueller Report. Claim the crime didnt happen, but work to obstruct, which turns into the only actual actionable crime. :lol:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

GOP request for wittinesses of the whistle blower and Biden's son for the public testimony phase.

And a third.

Quote

Republicans also planned to call the younger Biden's former long-time business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the board of Burisma. Republicans claim Archer can help the public to understand "the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country."

Schiff himself said in September the whistleblower would appear before Congress “very soon,” but in recent weeks has suggested that testimony is unnecessary.

Schifft reports he will deny both.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-republicans-impeachment-inquiry

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd

FYI

Eric CIAramella was in the Obama 2015 Visitor Logs.  Feb 26th.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/disclosures/whitehouse_waves-2015_12.csv_.zip

You're welcome. ;) 

Edited by Gwynbleidd
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
10 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

GOP request for wittinesses of the whistle blower and Biden's son for the public testimony phase.

And a third.

Schifft reports he will deny both.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-republicans-impeachment-inquiry

Of course he will. What has Biden got to do with the investigation? The actions by Trump and his administration exist separate from any conspiracy theory accusations they have.

Calling witnesses that have nothing to do with the Impeachment does nothing but distract from the proceedings, which is what Republicans want to do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-graham-impeachment-dead-on-arrival-in-senate-dem-prevent-whistleblower-testimony

 

Quote

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., of not caring about the truth, and said Schiff's impeachment efforts will go nowhere unless he calls the anonymous whistleblower to come forward and testify about their complaint against President Trump.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
17 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Of course he will. What has Biden got to do with the investigation? The actions by Trump and his administration exist separate from any conspiracy theory accusations they have.

Calling witnesses that have nothing to do with the Impeachment does nothing but distract from the proceedings, which is what Republicans want to do.

 

I'm just reporting the news at this point.

 

I basically feel alot how @DieChecker feels. This is his quote below. It's a **** spot to be in.

Quote

Like Dark Mirror reference... :tu:

Well, Nixon didnt have to deal with the internet, and almost everyone leaking to anyone that will listen, and a 24/7/365 news cycle on multiple channels/sites.

But I agree on the Trump self inflicted slow self destruction. I'd rather some other GOP candidate stood up and ran against Trump.

Failing someone else running. And given Warren as the D candidate, I still think I'd have to vote Republican.  Even though Biden is a bit creepy. I could see supporting him to a lesser, or greater degree. Meaning, I'd either stay home, or vote for him. Warren, I think, I would actively vote against, regardless of the R candidate.

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
21 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Of course he will. What has Biden got to do with the investigation? The actions by Trump and his administration exist separate from any conspiracy theory accusations they have.

Calling witnesses that have nothing to do with the Impeachment does nothing but distract from the proceedings, which is what Republicans want to do.

I think they should call Hunter Biden in.   Then he can testify under oath that he was neither under investigation nor knew anything about/was involved in Trump's call.

Perhaps we should also call in Donald Trump and put him under oath?  I'm skeptical that he would do it given his refusal during the Mueller investigation.  He's one of those "innocent guys" that clams up under oath but has plenty to say about those backstabbing witnesses when he isn't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
1 hour ago, Gwynbleidd said:

FYI

Eric CIAramella was in the Obama 2015 Visitor Logs.  Feb 26th.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/disclosures/whitehouse_waves-2015_12.csv_.zip

You're welcome. ;) 

1573420691798.thumb.png.67423915e30bdfce00d26497bf70c48f.png1573420724248.thumb.png.1a5e1a2e7e99950aac188998c85d8f31.png1573420740247.thumb.png.ac40fa39d606fd968cb91f62cc79f968.png1573420753620.thumb.png.a0a313c0a74c9e86cedd3bfb6f0dbe19.png

Feb 26th is simply one date.  If you open the zip file you'll see the following.  Each line item is a different date.  If you argue that Eric CIAramella worked at the Whitehouse and he would have to sign in.  Remember, this is the Visitor's log.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd

1573420766082.thumb.png.98b28cfbc65a95cad1e92d73d530a521.png1573420783626.thumb.png.d105f759713ccd90be79425febbf6e35.png

I'm not going to post any more, you get the idea.  There is a lot more than 14 times in the Visitors log.

Edited by Gwynbleidd
ugh spelling
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.