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

Gwynbleidd

481856376_1573419383977(1).thumb.gif.279e9d0e9fa57fd9f036bea8febd2d99.gif

Will Adam deny this too? 

Quote

It further cements the fact that he's not a whistleblower, but an intelligence asset in place to try and take down trump via political coup.

Quote

Google executives deserve jail time or worse.

 

Edited by Gwynbleidd
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
8 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

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.

Thank you for your excellent investigative work as always not only here but in the Epstein thread as well. I feel a bit bad for the Groupthinkers around the world as you have once again and so deftly I might add exposed not only the cover up in the Epstein case but have shined a bright light on the highly partisan impeachment Farce playing out in our Nation's Capital. You couldn't have picked a better day to do it with it being Veterans Day in America and Remembrance Day In Australia. Thanks again and my sincere thanks to All the Veterans around the world and their families for their service and sacrifices. Millions of brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

More on the story:

'Face The Nation' Panel: Does Impeachment Resonate With Americans Outside The Beltway? 

Video: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/10/face_the_nation_panel_does_impeachment_resonate_with_americans_outside_the_beltway.html

 

'FOX News Sunday' Panel: Open Impeachment Hearings To Begin, Bloomberg Enters 2020 Field

Video: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/10/fox_news_sunday_panel_open_impeachment_hearings_to_begin_bloomberg_enters_2020_field.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
22 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

Wait.. WHAT ? It seems from this that he is essentially saying... "I will decide what testimony is relevant, and which is not". That doesn't sound like a reasonable basis for an impartial investigation to ME ? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Wait.. WHAT ? It seems from this that he is essentially saying... "I will decide what testimony is relevant, and which is not". That doesn't sound like a reasonable basis for an impartial investigation to ME ? 

Ya think?!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Rudi is singing, I guess he ain't resting his hope and faith in presidential pardons to save his skin, Bolton is turning the screws on the whole lot... 

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

President commits crimes that would have any other President Impeached in a heartbeat. Enough crimes that, if spread evenly among past Presidents,

would be enough to see every President all the way back to Nixon Impeached.

Here, Republicans, have a nice, unrelated conspiracy theory to chew on, to whisk your mind - completely unable to defend the President - elsewhere.

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Wait.. WHAT ? It seems from this that he is essentially saying... "I will decide what testimony is relevant, and which is not". That doesn't sound like a reasonable basis for an impartial investigation to ME ? 

That's his job, as the head of the Majority on the committee. 

Although, if you'd like to explain how the suggested witnesses pertain to the President's actions, when they were not witness to them or in any way involved, then go ahead.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

President commits crimes that would have any other President Impeached in a heartbeat. Enough crimes that, if spread evenly among past Presidents,

would be enough to see every President all the way back to Nixon Impeached.

Here, Republicans, have a nice, unrelated conspiracy theory to chew on, to whisk your mind - completely unable to defend the President - elsewhere.

That's his job, as the head of the Majority on the committee. 

Although, if you'd like to explain how the suggested witnesses pertain to the President's actions, when they were not witness to them or in any way involved, then go ahead.

You're kidding, right ? 

The elements of the witness list - to which Schiff was objecting - included the "whistleblower" himself, and Joe Biden's son, who was the target of the accusations of corruption at the Ukranian oil company that is at the centre of the impeachment case. 

To call the likely evidence from these two as being ".. redundant and unnecessary..." seems like breathtaking arrogance and presumption, to say nothing of a breach of all judicial process. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

when they were not witness to them or in any way involved, then go 

Didn't stop the whistleblower, who wasn't a witness or in anyway involved, from canoodling with Schiff. I want to know what happened in Schiffs office  BEFORE he formally blew his whistle. Did he have help writing up his complaint from Schiff or persons in his office? What was his connections to the democrats before this incident? If he's who is speculated to be, why was he a constant visitor to the Obama WH? All goes to motive and maybe pre-planning, if his lawyers tweets are interpreted as such. If he blew with an agenda that goes to credibility.  And if all these other people thought there were henious things going on....in a phone call everyone including the participants KNEW was being recorded for all time...why weren't they all running to blow their own whistles. 

Plenty of questions need asked and answered. Schiff tops the list of those with squirrelly behaviour!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 minutes ago, skliss said:

Didn't stop the whistleblower, who wasn't a witness or in anyway involved, from canoodling with Schiff. I want to know what happened in Schiffs office  BEFORE he formally blew his whistle. Did he have help writing up his complaint from Schiff or persons in his office? What was his connections to the democrats before this incident? If he's who is speculated to be, why was he a constant visitor to the Obama WH? All goes to motive and maybe pre-planning, if his lawyers tweets are interpreted as such. If he blew with an agenda that goes to credibility.  And if all these other people thought there were henious things going on....in a phone call everyone including the participants KNEW was being recorded for all time...why weren't they all running to blow their own whistles. 

Plenty of questions need asked and answered. Schiff tops the list of those with squirrelly behaviour!

Yet none of that alleged "squirrelly behavior" changes any of the facts involved nor does it even have the potential to. 

It's almost as if those pushing this inconsequential rabbit trail want you to be paying attention to something other than the facts. Weird. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

More on the story: Hope everyone is having a nice Holiday.

Republicans want Hunter Biden to testify in Trump impeachment inquiry

House Republicans have demanded testimony from Hunter Biden, the anonymous Ukraine whistleblower and a long list of other witnesses in the President Trump impeachment hearings set to start Wednesday. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has unilateral power to deny the GOP’s witness wishes, said he was “evaluating” the Republicans’ list. “This inquiry is not and will not serve, however, as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigations into the Bidens or 2016 that the president pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit,” Schiff added.

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/republicans-want-to-call-hunter-biden-as-a-witness-in-impeachment-hearing/

 

SCHIFF REJECTS GOP CALLS FOR HUNTER BIDEN TO TESTIFY, SAYS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WON'T PROBE 'SHAM' CLAIMS

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, rebuked House Republicans' calls for former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, to testify in the public impeachment inquiry starting next week and confirmed that the proceedings will not probe "sham" Biden claims. Current ranking member Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, in a letter to Schiff on Saturday, asked for Biden, the anonymous whistleblower and several others to testify as part of the impeachment probe, which will move from closed-door depositions to public hearings next week.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/schiff-rejects-gop-calls-hunter-biden-testify-says-impeachment-inquiry-wont-probe-sham-claims-1470839

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

A  couple articles on how the process works and possible players for those of you who may not be familiar with it.

Why Impeachment Could Be a Nightmare for Chief Justice John Roberts

The impeachment inquiry has so far unfolded largely as a fight between Congress and the White House, with federal courts weighing in occasionally. But if the House moves to impeach President Donald Trump, thus triggering a trial in the Senate, then the chief justice of the United States will be drawn in to oversee the proceedings. That would put John Roberts, a man known for his temperance and modest view of judicial power, in an uncomfortable place: at the direct center of a bitter political battle.

Read more: https://time.com/5713951/john-roberts-impeachment-oversee/

 

 

Pelosi launches impeachment inquiry into Trump: What is it and what happens next?

Impeachment is the constitutional process where the lower house of legislative branch — the House of Representatives — brings charges against a civil officer in government — in this case the president. It is similar to an indictment, and the Senate then tries the case with the chief justice of the Supreme Court overseeing the trial. A two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to convict and remove the president from office. That means 67 senators would need to agree to remove Mr. Trump.

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-impeachment-what-is-the-step-by-step-process-and-what-happens-next-if-president-trump-is-impeached-after-inquiry/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

You're kidding, right ? 

The elements of the witness list - to which Schiff was objecting - included the "whistleblower" himself, and Joe Biden's son, who was the target of the accusations of corruption at the Ukranian oil company that is at the centre of the impeachment case. 

To call the likely evidence from these two as being ".. redundant and unnecessary..." seems like breathtaking arrogance and presumption, to say nothing of a breach of all judicial process. 

Regardless of whether any of that is true (and there's no evidence to suggest that it is), that doesn't explain or excuse the abuse of power. It's not related. You can't use the defence of 'the ends justify the means' when you've abused power or broken the law while in office. And Trump has done both. His own Justice Department months ago in a report, ordered by Pompeo stated that there was is 'no legal basis' for withholding aid. As in, it was against the law - and they all knew it.

Regardless of the Biden Conspiracy theory (and you know they're trying to tie Ukraine to the 2016 election instead of Russia as part of that, don't you?), Trump's actions are the center of the investigation. The Republican narrative is nothing more than a smokescreen because they have absolutely no defence for Trump's actions.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Giuliani's henchman has flipped on Trump and Giuliani, it appears:

Quote

Lev Parnas, one of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s indicted associates in his months-long expedition to find dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine, appears to have flipped on President Donald Trump and Giuliani in the ongoing impeachment investigation.

Parnas was instrumental in Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine before he was indicted for allegedly illegally funneling foreign money to U.S. politicians, including a $325,000 contribution to a pro-Trump super PAC. He initially hired former Trump lawyer John Dowd to represent him and refused to comply with impeachment investigators. But after Trump claimed not to know Parnas, despite appearing with him at numerous events, the Giuliani associate had a change of heart. He fired Dowd and agreed to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, his new attorney, Joseph Bondy, told reporters last week.

On Sunday, Bondy revealed to The New York Times that his client has a lot to say.

Parnas claims that he told a representative of new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in May that he had to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, or the administration would freeze military aid allocated by Congress and Vice President Mike Pence would not attend his swearing-in, Bondy told The Times.

Parnas is willing to share his account with impeachment investigators, Bondy added. The claims contradict the Trump administration’s claims about the events surrounding what Trump advisers have described as an effort to extort Ukraine into investigating the Bidens while withholding nearly $400 million in military aid and directly link Giuliani to the threat, which he has denied. The claim also suggests that Trump not only withheld aid and a long-sought Oval Office meeting with Zelensky to pressure the government into launching the investigation, as aides have testified, but also threatened to pull Pence from Zelensky’s inauguration.

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/11/giuliani-henchman-flips-on-trump-says-he-threatened-ukraine-to-investigate-biden-or-lose-aid/

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 11/8/2019 at 2:40 AM, Tatetopa said:

Eventually Trump put the strong arm on the President of the Ukraine and tried to extort him for personal gain  with witnesses and something of a paper trail.

That's an opinion based on a preexisting bias.  I realize you will deny and ignore that but the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak.  Let's just see where this thrust goes, eh?  Remember, this is all political and all about perception.  More specifically, it's about the perception of the constituencies of twenty Republican Senators.  Add to this the perception among his supporters and a few Independents who may come away with a bad taste in the mouth from these tactics that Schiff is using and we have an Impeached and acquitted Trump that gets enough of a bump to be re-elected as well.  Entirely within the rules and entirely down to Dem incompetence and viciousness.  That last was proven by Nancy changing track so suddenly when her base started revolting on her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd

IIRC, isn't Jim Jordan joining Schiff's committee in the basement too?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yet none of that alleged "squirrelly behavior" changes any of the facts involved nor does it even have the potential to. 

It's almost as if those pushing this inconsequential rabbit trail want you to be paying attention to something other than the facts. Weird. 

The only reason they want hunter to testify is for the hope of catching something they can use to smear joe. The optics alone are damaging and they know that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

Well we are about 24 hours away from this kicking off. Here is more on the story:

Lights, camera, impeachment: TV phase of inquiry carries pluses and pitfalls

The opening phase of the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump has required investigators to methodically depose witnesses behind the closed doors of a secure facility in the Capitol basement. The game changes entirely on Wednesday, when the inquiry will move into a more familiar arena for Trump: television. The change of venue offers opportunities to make the case against Trump literally hit home for American voters. But Democratic strategists are concerned about the hazards of public televised hearings which are expected to last about two weeks, until the Thanksgiving break.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/12/lights-camera-impeachment-tv-phase-of-inquiry-carries-pluses-and-pitfalls

 

Public impeachment hearings scheduled for this week: Here's what you need to know

The House impeachment inquiry goes before live cameras this week with two days of public hearings, following more than a month of the Democratic-led investigation and more than a dozen closed-door depositions. The public got a preview of what key witnesses might say based on what they said behind closed doors with the release of eight transcripts last week, but the reach and impact when three of those officials testify live on Wednesday and Friday will add a new layer to the case for impeaching President Donald Trump.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/11/politics/house-impeachment-schedule-guide/index.html

 

Trump Camp:

https://www.facebook.com/FansOfDonaldTrump/

 

Democratic Camp:

https://store.democrats.org/

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
12 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Regardless of whether any of that is true (and there's no evidence to suggest that it is),

Umm.. it was a statement by Schiff ?

 

13 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

..... that doesn't explain or excuse the abuse of power. It's not related. You can't use the defence of 'the ends justify the means' when you've abused power or broken the law while in office. And Trump has done both. His own Justice Department months ago in a report, ordered by Pompeo stated that there was is 'no legal basis' for withholding aid. As in, it was against the law - and they all knew it.

The alleged 'abuse of power', and the determination of breach of law,  is what the committee is supposed to be INVESTIGATING. Now, YOU may believe that it is "self evident", or perhaps just an Article Of Faith, but the COMMITTEE is supposed to be INVESTIGATING  it, and NOT making an assumption of guilt.

My point is the high-handed dismissal by Schiff of any attempt to  subpoena Hunter Biden or the whistelblower. It seems like a massive abuse of power by the chair of the committee and an attempt to "silence" pertinent witnesses.

12 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Regardless of the Biden Conspiracy theory (and you know they're trying to tie Ukraine to the 2016 election instead of Russia as part of that, don't you?), Trump's actions are the center of the investigation. The Republican narrative is nothing more than a smokescreen because they have absolutely no defence for Trump's actions.

 That is YOUR assumption. 

To attempt to prevent the Republicans  from calling witnesses - on the unsubstantiated statement that the witnesses are "redundant and unnecessary" is just incredible. I mean... "redundant and unnecessary" for WHAT agenda ?

Sure; if your agenda as the committee chair is to impeach Trump, then fair enough. The fewer witnesses - except star witnesses for the 'prosecution', the better.

If - on the other hand - your agenda is to find the TRUTH, then these witnesses are DIRECTLY relevant. It is common legal process to question witnesses to establish if they have any ulterior motive for presenting 'evidence', so questioning the whistleblower IS relevant. (unless, of course, other evidence is presented that makes the whistleblower's testimony irrelevant. But we have not - yet - reached that point. )

Can you not see what an egregious breach of justice Schiff's statement is ? How high-handed and contemptuous it is ? 

It is the difference between an investigation, and a lynch mob. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
31 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm.. it was a statement by Schiff ?

 

The alleged 'abuse of power', and the determination of breach of law,  is what the committee is supposed to be INVESTIGATING. Now, YOU may believe that it is "self evident", or perhaps just an Article Of Faith, but the COMMITTEE is supposed to be INVESTIGATING  it, and NOT making an assumption of guilt.

My point is the high-handed dismissal by Schiff of any attempt to  subpoena Hunter Biden or the whistelblower. It seems like a massive abuse of power by the chair of the committee and an attempt to "silence" pertinent witnesses.

 That is YOUR assumption. 

To attempt to prevent the Republicans  from calling witnesses - on the unsubstantiated statement that the witnesses are "redundant and unnecessary" is just incredible. I mean... "redundant and unnecessary" for WHAT agenda ?

Sure; if your agenda as the committee chair is to impeach Trump, then fair enough. The fewer witnesses - except star witnesses for the 'prosecution', the better.

If - on the other hand - your agenda is to find the TRUTH, then these witnesses are DIRECTLY relevant. It is common legal process to question witnesses to establish if they have any ulterior motive for presenting 'evidence', so questioning the whistleblower IS relevant. (unless, of course, other evidence is presented that makes the whistleblower's testimony irrelevant. But we have not - yet - reached that point. )

Can you not see what an egregious breach of justice Schiff's statement is ? How high-handed and contemptuous it is ? 

It is the difference between an investigation, and a lynch mob. 

 

 

Thanks for the post RoofGardner, always a pleasure to read your well reasoned and let's wait until we have all the facts posts. I do hope you don't get too much hate mail from from The Group Thinkers on your spot on Lynch Mob vs Investigation comparison. I think you might be ok though because the News Media is currently focused on President Trump's misspelling of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, with the left positioning it as the next thing to use to Impeach President Trump if the Ukraine thing craps out and the Right already calling it a hoax. :yes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
49 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The alleged 'abuse of power', and the determination of breach of law,  is what the committee is supposed to be INVESTIGATING. Now, YOU may believe that it is "self evident", or perhaps just an Article Of Faith, but the COMMITTEE is supposed to be INVESTIGATING  it, and NOT making an assumption of guilt.

That's exactly what it's been investigating and is what has led to the knowledge of guilt. They've all admitted it.

49 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

My point is the high-handed dismissal by Schiff of any attempt to  subpoena Hunter Biden or the whistelblower. It seems like a massive abuse of power by the chair of the committee and an attempt to "silence" pertinent witnesses.

Hunter Biden has nothing to do with this. He wasn't involved in any way and the only reason to subpoena him (or even request he be subpoenaed) would be to distract from everyone who was involved.

49 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

 That is YOUR assumption. 

Yes, based on the evidence, of which there is a sum total of zero legitimate arguments put forward that Support Trump's actions. Not one legitimate argument. They haven't even tried.

49 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

To attempt to prevent the Republicans  from calling witnesses - on the unsubstantiated statement that the witnesses are "redundant and unnecessary" is just incredible. I mean... "redundant and unnecessary" for WHAT agenda ?

Sure; if your agenda as the committee chair is to impeach Trump, then fair enough. The fewer witnesses - except star witnesses for the 'prosecution', the better.

You're just not getting it. This is an investigation into events that were carried out by a select group of people. That is what is being investigated, not any wild conspiracy theories. A judge does not allow the defence to call witnesses or ask questions that are not directly related to the case. This is the same thing.

A police officer when caught planting evidence doesn't go with the defence of, 'but he really deserved it'. The planting of evidence exists separate from anything the alleged drug dealer might have done. Trump's admitted crimes and abuses of power is separate from any accusations leveled at Hunter Biden. The Impeachment process exists to investigate a President, not to investigate an ex-politician's son, so why on earth would anyone think it relevant to call witnesses that have nothing to do with the President's actions?

49 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Can you not see what an egregious breach of justice Schiff's statement is ? How high-handed and contemptuous it is ? 

He has the same position and power that every Majority Leader has in previous Impeachments and, honestly, he seems to be laser focussed on the specific events, evident by the testimony after testimony confirming everything, which is his job. He's done pretty great and the testimony of witnesses has made an airtight case, which is why you, still, after more than a month see no defence at all coming from Trump or Republicans. None. They cannot argue the facts of the case, so they're trying to distract with anything they can.

That you "cannot" see what's right in front of you speaks wonders for any sense of objectivity you claim to have. This is not a subjective series of events. 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
53 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

That's exactly what it's been investigating and is what has led to the knowledge of guilt. They've all admitted it.

Hunter Biden has nothing to do with this. He wasn't involved in any way and the only reason to subpoena him (or even request he be subpoenaed) would be to distract from everyone who was involved.

Yes, based on the evidence, of which there is a sum total of zero legitimate arguments put forward that Support Trump's actions. Not one legitimate argument. They haven't even tried.

You're just not getting it. This is an investigation into events that were carried out by a select group of people. That is what is being investigated, not any wild conspiracy theories. A judge does not allow the defence to call witnesses or ask questions that are not directly related to the case. This is the same thing.

A police officer when caught planting evidence doesn't go with the defence of, 'but he really deserved it'. The planting of evidence exists separate from anything the alleged drug dealer might have done. Trump's admitted crimes and abuses of power is separate from any accusations leveled at Hunter Biden. The Impeachment process exists to investigate a President, not to investigate an ex-politician's son, so why on earth would anyone think it relevant to call witnesses that have nothing to do with the President's actions?

He has the same position and power that every Majority Leader has in previous Impeachments and, honestly, he seems to be laser focussed on the specific events, evident by the testimony after testimony confirming everything, which is his job. He's done pretty great and the testimony of witnesses has made an airtight case, which is why you, still, after more than a month see no defence at all coming from Trump or Republicans. None. They cannot argue the facts of the case, so they're trying to distract with anything they can.

That you "cannot" see what's right in front of you speaks wonders for any sense of objectivity you claim to have. This is not a subjective series of events. 

< sigh> 

The main reason for the impeachment INVESTIGATION was related to Trumps alleged mis-use of power in relation to asking the President of the Ukraine to push for an investigation into Hunter Biden. Accordingly, Hunter Biden IS relevant. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The main reason for the impeachment INVESTIGATION was related to Trumps alleged mis-use of power in relation to asking the President of the Ukraine to push for an investigation into Hunter Biden. Accordingly, Hunter Biden IS relevant. 

The Impeachment Inquiry only became official once guilt had been established, if your remember the timeline properly. Back in the beginning they were just asking questions. Mulvaney admitted to the quid pro quo back on the 17th of October. It was after that, which was also around the time witnesses started testifying to the same thing, that there became less need to wonder about the situation. Read that link to see all the people who confirm the extortion of Ukraine.

There's no real 'alleged' anymore, which is why no one is even attempting to defend Trump's actions. They're not even denying them anymore. Rand Paul has even started saying Trump did nothing wrong. Like you can normalise extorting a foreign leader into announcing a non-existent investigation into your main domestic political rival. I mean, what the actual ****?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Republicans are losing it in trying to defend Trump.

Quote

On Saturday, Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, sent the committee’s chairman, Adam Schiff, a list of people Republicans want to call to testify. To understand the significance of some of the names, you’d have to plunge into the very rabbit holes Hill warned of. Luckily, Nunes made his intention clear, writing of Trump’s “documented belief that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election,” which “forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to investigate the circumstances surrounding the election.”

The conspiracy theories that undergird the president’s “documented belief” aren’t really coherent, but they don’t have to be to serve their purpose, which is sowing confusion about the well-established fact that Russia assisted Trump’s campaign. They posit not just that Manafort was set up, but also that Democrats worked with Ukraine to frame Russia for hacking Democrats’ emails, a dastardly Democratic plot that led to Trump’s election. Naturally, George Soros, perennial scapegoat for the far right, is also involved.

“George Soros was behind it. George Soros’s company was funding it,” Giuliani said on ABC in September, spinning tales of Hillary Clinton’s collusion with Ukraine. Speaking to The Post, Giuliani accused Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, of “working for Soros.” Indeed, Hill in her testimony suggested that a sort of Infowars-era McCarthyism has been loosed on the national security bureaucracy, with “frankly an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about George Soros” used to “target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment-hearings.html?action=click

 

 

  • Like 2

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.