The Impeachment Thread

#4,929
#4,929
evillawyer said:
Donny, it's called the speech and debate clause ("...for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.").
Click to expand...

I guess his aides gave up on trying to explain the Constitution to him.

"But we told him that already."

"I know, I know. Let him be."
 
#4,930
#4,930
VolnJC said:
Trump is up 5 million jobs and 500k manufacturing ones since he took office but yeah let's talk about September He just announced 2 large contracts yesterday Trump touts new jobs in auto, tech sectors
Click to expand...

Imaginary world.

Real world:

U.S. manufacturers experience worst month since 2007-2009 Great Recession, ISM finds

Published: Oct 1, 2019 10:55 a.m. ET

MW-HS396_NAPM_20191001103725_MG.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN Ribs
#4,931
#4,931
VolnJC said:
Trump is up 5 million jobs and 500k manufacturing ones since he took office but yeah let's talk about September He just announced 2 large contracts yesterday Trump touts new jobs in auto, tech sectors
Click to expand...
Obama created more jobs in his last 31 months in office than Trump has in his first 31 months in office - by a long shot.
Of course, Trump has trillion dollar deficits now so there's that too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, tvolsfan and Hunerwadel
#4,932
#4,932
Mick said:
They never showed up for court. Everyone knew they wouldn't but that didn't stop you and your anti Government schick. You are so much against our government you would side with Russia and anyone else that said anything bad about us. All the while nesteling yourself in Trumpism and the most corrupt administration ever. You don't even understand the magnitude of our own DOJ aking foreign governments to investigate our own IC. Did the Muell or Comey or anyone else do that?
Click to expand...

The Muell gambled that they wouldn’t show and he lost. The indicted followed the rules and the Muell got egg on his face.

Our IC isn’t above the law. And the Muell along with Comey asked foreign powers to help investigate a presidential candidate and sitting president. So if you have no problems with that you shouldn’t have a problem now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC and volfanjustin
#4,944
#4,944
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually I believe that was Mulvaney you’re pointing to for not having a cohesive response. However on my musings they’ve directed the IC and ICIG to freeze and memorialize all records related to the update of these forms and policy and questions are being put to who knew what and when. That was the summary of our exchange. And we both agreed it requires a connection to Schitt at the time. The update here is a Pelosi connection but I’d submit they are interchangeable.

Also go read the current ICIG statement on the whistleblower having “first hand knowledge” and actually filling out the old form. However no first hand knowledge has been shown in the complaint and the form released was the updated form? Inquiring minds would like to know...
Click to expand...
It was definitely Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy. Both got owned pretty hard trying to defend Trump over the weekend. Mulvaney may have done the same, idk. The left pundits have been roasting Giuliani for a week for seeming drunk on TV.

I have read ICIG’s statement. I don’t see how you’re trying to claim that as anything but a full repudiation of the theory. It points out what the law is, that the law has not changed with regards to what is required to make an urgent/credible determination, the law doesn’t require first hand info, they don’t have the authority to add conditions to the legal requirements, they’ve never declined to pursue a complaint on that basis, that the whistleblower actually did have first hand information, and that his/her authorized access to that information was verified by ICIG.

That’s about as thorough of a debunking as you can get, and it came from Trump appointees. It seems like they go a step further. I read it as they’re saying that some changes have been made to the instructional materials that are supplied with the form. (I think the standard I9 or W2 forms come with a few pages of instructions before you get to the form.) If they change the instructions, the form gets a new date. That part wasn’t entirely clear, but were they not saying that no changes have been made to the contents of the actual form?

In a job where sensitive information is compartmentalized, authoring an anonymous complaint so as not to clearly distinguish between first and second hand information just seems prudent.

I didn’t mean that the theory would be credible if tied to Schiff, I just noted it was lacking any connection to him, given that he was supposedly central to it. It’s clearly a somewhat flailing attempt to repurpose the only good facts for Trump in this story (that it’s hearsay). It’ll be interesting to see what the impeachment polls look like in the second half of the week. I suspect we’re getting close to maximum occupancy on the impeachment bus, but repurposing facts in front of the jury is usually a losing argument.
 
#4,946
#4,946
I'm noticing a distinct change in the libs last day or so from cockiness to whining They are far more concerned about a call Trump made than if their former VP and current candidate for POTUS was selling influence and engaging in Quid Pro Quos that's how messed up their hate and TDS has become.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and tennvols77
#4,947
#4,947
TN Ribs said:
Obama created more jobs in his last 31 months in office than Trump has in his first 31 months in office - by a long shot.
Of course, Trump has trillion dollar deficits now so there's that too.
Click to expand...

Righties believe Trump just "miracled" this economy into being when in fact he had almost nothing to do with it. It more or less grew itself out of the vacuum created by recession while Trump was off chasing Hispanics and Muslims and poisoning the environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN Ribs and zeppelin128
#4,948
#4,948
RockyTop85 said:
It was definitely Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy. Both got owned pretty hard trying to defend Trump over the weekend. Mulvaney may have done the same, idk. The left pundits have been roasting Giuliani for a week for seeming drunk on TV.

I have read ICIG’s statement. I don’t see how you’re trying to claim that as anything but a full repudiation of the theory. It points out what the law is, that the law has not changed with regards to what is required to make an urgent/credible determination, the law doesn’t require first hand info, they don’t have the authority to add conditions to the legal requirements, they’ve never declined to pursue a complaint on that basis, that the whistleblower actually did have first hand information, and that his/her authorized access to that information was verified by ICIG.

That’s about as thorough of a debunking as you can get, and it came from Trump appointees. It seems like they go a step further. I read it as they’re saying that some changes have been made to the instructional materials that are supplied with the form. (I think the standard I9 or W2 forms come with a few pages of instructions before you get to the form.) If they change the instructions, the form gets a new date. That part wasn’t entirely clear, but were they not saying that no changes have been made to the contents of the actual form?

In a job where sensitive information is compartmentalized, authoring an anonymous complaint so as not to clearly distinguish between first and second hand information just seems prudent.

I didn’t mean that the theory would be credible if tied to Schiff, I just noted it was lacking any connection to him, given that he was supposedly central to it. It’s clearly a somewhat flailing attempt to repurpose the only good facts for Trump in this story (that it’s hearsay). It’ll be interesting to see what the impeachment polls look like in the second half of the week. I suspect we’re getting close to maximum occupancy on the impeachment bus, but repurposing facts in front of the jury is usually a losing argument.
Click to expand...
I’ve also read the ICIG statement as well as Monday’s update. And while they try to repudiate the admin claim as far as I’m concerned they raise more qurestions than they answer.

First off the ICIG stated the whistleblower claimed both first and second hand information. Only second hand information has been offered. Additionally the ICIG claimed they filled out the prior form. However the complaint submitted was on the updated form. Why the change? The law is quiet on requiring first hand information. However the previous form and explicit policy stated it has to be first hand. And the GOP has requested the history of the change and all related information on the topic. It’s a valid question.

The GOP in the House as well as the Senate committees are going to be doing their own investigation also. This is going to take more than Schitt’s railroading. Keep your dreams alive on the impeachment polls. Get prepared for disappointment if you’re expecting a removal from office

Edit: oh and no both the form and supplied guidance were updated and there are links out there pointing to both if you’re interested. Still waiting on that first hand information!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top