The Impeachment Thread

[Jxn Vol]

There you go. One simply does not follow from the other. Also its Nunes, who has the credibility of a dead turtle.

He needs to improve his parody game I guess

 

[hUTch2002]

We’ve seen the “ actors “ that would be involved in that process ... are we sure that’s what we want ? I say let’s fire them all and start over .

You know, that’s even better. If only...

 

[zeppelin128]

He should be impeached for sharing a Tweet with a Nickelback song in it. That is a high crime.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Uncle Joe is toast................'Warning sign' for Biden on Ukraine controversy, as poll shows plurality of voters believes Trump allegations

Fox News misrepresented the polling information from "Monmouth" with their headline in order to present a positive spin for Trump.

If you read down the article, you will see that Monmouth University's survey shows that only "43% of registered voters believe Trump's claim that Biden did pressure Ukrainian officials to keep them from investigating his son's business ties, with 37% not buying the president's allegations and one in five unsure". That shows that a "majority" of voters DON'T believe Trump (although, a plurality might). It shows that 57% of registered voters DON'T believe Trump's claims about Biden. It further states that "among crucial self-identified independent voters, 39% believe that Biden pressured Ukrainian officials, with 27% disagreeing and a third unsure". This is where Fox News reveals their bias. They avoid saying that a "majority" don't believe Donald Trump's claims by using the word "plurality". That is pure spin.

There is a statement from a Monmouth polling director that reads: "The fact that 4-in-10 independents are inclined to believe what they have heard from Trump is a warning sign for the Biden campaign. How the candidate fights back against this charge will be crucial to his argument of electability." - Patrick Murray, Monmouth University Polling Institute director

However, 4-in-10 is still not a "majority". They show that a majority of registered voters do NOT believe Trump's accusations. This is Fox News spinning a poll to more favorably reflect on Trump.

 

[lawgator1]

So question since you are a law expert, with an agreement between Ukraine and USA to investigate criminal activity how is it breaking the law to ask the Ukrainian President to uphold that agreement?

Please. First, he asked to investigate a political rival. "We need a favor, though." And that was preceded immediately by the request to buy Javelin missiles.

Second, I am pretty sure the agreement does not contemplate that we get to pick who they investigate.

Third, I am also confident it does not contemplate the President withholding a quarter billion in aid to fight of Russia... unless of course you cooperate.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

There you go. One simply does not follow from the other. Also its Nunes, who has the credibility of a dead turtle.

He's got a lot more credibility than you can ever dream of having.

 

[BigOrangeD]

 

[Grand Vol]

Typo. Should have been “why don’t you just bring back...”

When did Pelosi admit she saw the complaint? I’ve seen some people making that inference from something she said, but it wasn’t actually what she said. That’s where the Biden reference came from. It was the same “two truths and a lie” song and dance that went on with the Biden confessed thing.

Pelosi already announced the impeachment process before she even read the transcript or the complaint. She was sure she had something impeachment worthy so she pressed ahead.

That's like putting on a condom before going clubbing knowing you're gonna get some.

However, she admitted to knowing the content:

Nancy Pelosi on Trump impeachment inquiry, Ukraine president phone call and the whistleblower in 60 minutes interview - CBS News

Nancy Pelosi: He told me it was perfect. There was nothing in the call. But I know what was in the call. I mean, it was in the public domain.

Oh, wait. It was on a secured server, not in the public domain. Yet, she called for the impeachment hearing even BEFORE the transcript had been released and she hadn't read it:

WATCH: Pelosi Slams Ukraine Call After Admitting She Hasn’t Read Transcript

Then there's this:

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

Which part of this doesn't scream "setup" to you?

 

[Grand Vol]

I think its a distraction. Let's say you are right and Pelosi and Schiff got a copy 1 to 2 days in advance of announcing impeachment inquiry.

That has no effect on the accuracy of what is contained therein.

Uh huh.

You're a lawyer. What happens to cops who chase down hearsay leads and rumors?

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Flashback: Adam Schiff Claimed ‘We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower’

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) previously claimed his panel had “not spoken directly” with a federal bureaucrat alleging wrongdoing by President Donald Trump regarding Ukraine — yet a Wednesday report reveals he received an early account of the allegations from a committee staffer who spoke to the so-called “whistleblower.”

The New York Times revealed the”whistleblower” — who the paper has said is a CIA officer — initially directed a colleague to discuss his allegations with the agency’s top lawyer. Shortly after, the Deep Stater contacted a House Intelligence panel aide to convey secondhand details of the Trump-Zelensky call in which the world leaders discussed U.S. military aid and the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President and 2020 White House candidate Joe Biden. According to the Times, the staffer some of the officer’s concerns with Schiff but did not reveal his identity.

All this purportedly happened before the complaint was filed on August 12. However, in what appears to be a direct contradiction of the Times report, Schiff told MSNBC’s Morning Joe on September 17: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.”​

“We would like to,” he continued. “But I’m sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the Director of National Intelligence just as to how he is to communicate with Congress.​

In a statement, a spokesperson for Schiff attempted to downplay the Times’ revelations, saying it is common practice for whistleblowers to consult Congress as to how to proceed with a complaint.​

Later Wednesday, President Trump responded to the Times‘ report revealing Schiff had advanced knowledge of the so-called “whistleblower” complaint, saying it shows the California Democrat is a “fraud.”​

“I think it’s a scandal that he knew before. I would go a step further: I think he probably helped write it,” said the president.​

“That whistleblower, there’s no question in my mind that some bad things have gone on and I think we’ll get to the bottom of it,” he added.​

Flashback: Adam Schiff Claimed 'We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower'​

 

[BowlBrother85]

Please. First, he asked to investigate a political rival. "We need a favor, though." And that was preceded immediately by the request to buy Javelin missiles.

Second, I am pretty sure the agreement does not contemplate that we get to pick who they investigate.

Third, I am also confident it does not contemplate the President withholding a quarter billion in aid to fight of Russia... unless of course you cooperate.

Did you see the interview with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, where he was caught not knowing the full quote? McCarthy was talking to CBS and said "you added a word" (meaning "though") and he had to be corrected, that yes, Trump did in fact say "We need a favor, though". The look on that Trump minions face was priceless... It was pure "Oh, s***!".

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Nancy Pelosi: Democrats Launched an ‘Inquiry,’ Not ‘Outright Impeachment’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) attempted to draw the distinction during a press conference Wednesday that Democrats have launched an “impeachment inquiry,” not an “outright impeachment” of President Donald Trump.

Pelosi stated during the press conference with House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) that Democrats have begun an “impeachment inquiry” into the president over his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“This is an inquiry and not an outright impeachment. And we have to give the president his chance to exonerate himself, but he thinks what he did was perfect,” she stated.

Nancy Pelosi: Democrats Launched 'Inquiry,' Not 'Outright Impeachment'

 

[lawgator1]

Uh huh.

You're a lawyer. What happens to cops who chase down hearsay leads and rumors?

All the time. Constantly. They talk to the original sources and verify what was said, as the IG did here, as Trump admits is correct, and as the transcript shows. And there could be even more corroboration of other acts tied to this, not that its necessary at this point.

 

[hUTch2002]

Please. First, he asked to investigate a political rival. "We need a favor, though." And that was preceded immediately by the request to buy Javelin missiles.

Second, I am pretty sure the agreement does not contemplate that we get to pick who they investigate.

Third, I am also confident it does not contemplate the President withholding a quarter billion in aid to fight of Russia... unless of course you cooperate.

So you are making a lot of assumptions and inferences. Got it. If this was actually an illegal act Trump wouldn’t have been so quick to volunteer the memo of the call. And how in the world do you know what the intent of that agreement would be anyway? You know absolutely nothing is coming out of this. I see through your facade.

 

[ajvol01]

Siap

Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show | Fox News

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Adam Schiff Coordinated The Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With The Inspector General

There have been a lot of mysteries surrounding the complaint filed by the so-called whistleblower in the matter of President Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president. I say “so-called” because the whistleblower did nothing more or less than leak hearsay about a conversation with the intent of either damaging President Trump or creating a pretext for an impeachment vote. The matter was not an intelligence concern, it was a policy difference, and it wasn’t in any way urgent and should not have been reported to Congress. The flimsy justification used by the IC IG, Michael Atkinson, was totally demolished by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

They mysteries include the IC IG bending over backwards to let Schiff know that he had something he wanted to report but was not being allowed to report. There is the matter of the structure of the complaint looking like it was crafted with substantial legal assistance. And you have the statements by Schiff and Pelosi indicating that they knew of the whistleblower complaint well in advance of it ever being officially reported.

A lot of pieces quickly fell together today when the New York Times ran this story today: Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

​

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.​

And by days, we can probably say that he means more than two weeks judging from when Atkinson squirted in his drawers in his effort to inform Schiff of the complaint.

​

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.​

Even with this minor admission, Schiff is still holding the line:

​

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, from turning over the complaint sooner.​

This is a masterpiece of the non-denial denial. He’s denying one small part of the picture in order to blow smoke. All he’s saying is that he didn’t see an advance copy of the complaint. He’s not saying that the whistleblower didn’t tell him in great detail about the future complaint, he just didn’t see the actual written complaint. Similarly, he’s not saying some committee staff didn’t work with the whistleblower, he’s just saying the “committee” didn’t.

Based on what we seem to know now, it looks like the whistleblower approached the Democrats working for Schiff with the complaint. According to the narrative this was after he had approached the IC general counsel and didn’t like the answer he was getting about his whistleblower status (my guess is that the general counsel read the same regulations and laws as did Department of Justice and decided this was just a vindictive f*** trying to hurt President Trump while firmly grasping a get-out-of-jail free card as a whistleblower). Some Democrat staffers interviewed him and gave him advice and helped him write his complaint. Along the line, Adam Schiff was briefed and he, I imagine, briefed Pelosi. The whistleblower now approaches the IC IG and tells him that he has a complaint and that Schiff nows. The IC IG befouls himself. He doesn’t want to get caught up in this sh**storm so he creates a special dispensation to recognized gossip monger as a class of whistleblower and notifies his boss of the “urgent” nature of the allegations. At some point in this, the whistleblower form was changed to allow hearsay allegations. The acting DNI, having read the law, says no. The IC IG notifies Schiff that he has this really urgent complaint that just has to get out but his righteous ass is being stymied by everyone. At this point, the story starts bubbling into press reports.

Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General​

 

[lawgator1]

Watching video of Pompeo fumbling around with these questions then mumbling a confession. He is a joke.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

CNN Brings On Andrew McCabe To Analyze The Case Against Andrew McCabe

CNN simply has no shame left. That’s all I can figure at this point.

CNN Brings On Andrew McCabe to Analyze the Case Against Andrew McCabe

 

[Hunerwadel]

Flashback: Adam Schiff Claimed ‘We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower’

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) previously claimed his panel had “not spoken directly” with a federal bureaucrat alleging wrongdoing by President Donald Trump regarding Ukraine — yet a Wednesday report reveals he received an early account of the allegations from a committee staffer who spoke to the so-called “whistleblower.”

The New York Times revealed the”whistleblower” — who the paper has said is a CIA officer — initially directed a colleague to discuss his allegations with the agency’s top lawyer. Shortly after, the Deep Stater contacted a House Intelligence panel aide to convey secondhand details of the Trump-Zelensky call in which the world leaders discussed U.S. military aid and the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President and 2020 White House candidate Joe Biden. According to the Times, the staffer some of the officer’s concerns with Schiff but did not reveal his identity.

All this purportedly happened before the complaint was filed on August 12. However, in what appears to be a direct contradiction of the Times report, Schiff told MSNBC’s Morning Joe on September 17: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.”​

​

“We would like to,” he continued. “But I’m sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the Director of National Intelligence just as to how he is to communicate with Congress.​

​

In a statement, a spokesperson for Schiff attempted to downplay the Times’ revelations, saying it is common practice for whistleblowers to consult Congress as to how to proceed with a complaint.​

​

Later Wednesday, President Trump responded to the Times‘ report revealing Schiff had advanced knowledge of the so-called “whistleblower” complaint, saying it shows the California Democrat is a “fraud.”​

​

“I think it’s a scandal that he knew before. I would go a step further: I think he probably helped write it,” said the president.​

“That whistleblower, there’s no question in my mind that some bad things have gone on and I think we’ll get to the bottom of it,” he added.​

Flashback: Adam Schiff Claimed 'We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower'​

 

[BowlBrother85]

Uh huh.

You're a lawyer. What happens to cops who chase down hearsay leads and rumors?

What if the hearsay happens to be accurate? Doesn't that matter? The whistleblower must have had a good source. Whoever it is, didn't just happen to make a lucky guess that Trump requested Zelensky assist Giuliani in an investigation of the Bidens on a July 25th phone call. The bottom line is.... the whistleblower was right.

 

[Grand Vol]

@RockyTop85 @lawgator1

Let's just assume based on my previous post that Pelosi didn't know a thing and launched a formal impeachment inquiry based on rumors and speculation from "sources." Does that fall into the Maxine Waters line of thinking "we have to impeach to determine the crime"? Because you both, as lawyers, know you cannot take something to court (and an impeachment is a court proceeding) without hard evidence of a crime. What's probable cause again?

A reasonable belief a crime was committed, a specific person committed the crime and the instruments used in the crime are in a particular place.

You cannot used supposition nor a "hunch" for probable cause. Especially not when you're drawing up impeachment for the President of the United States. You can argue it's not a formal "trial" but you damn well know it's the highest trial we ever hold in our nation.

Pelosi did NOT show she had sufficient probable cause to initiate such an inquiry unless she knew in advance she had something. If she knew something weeks in advance and did nothing, how's that going to look? If she was using rumors and speculation to launch an impeachment inquiry, how's that going to look?

For Pete's sake, why aren't you two up in arms over this blatant abuse of the Constitution and legal system?

 

[Septic]

Pelosi already announced the impeachment process before she even read the transcript or the complaint. She was sure she had something impeachment worthy so she pressed ahead.

That's like putting on a condom before going clubbing knowing you're gonna get some.

However, she admitted to knowing the content:

Nancy Pelosi on Trump impeachment inquiry, Ukraine president phone call and the whistleblower in 60 minutes interview - CBS News



Oh, wait. It was on a secured server, not in the public domain. Yet, she called for the impeachment hearing even BEFORE the transcript had been released and she hadn't read it:

WATCH: Pelosi Slams Ukraine Call After Admitting She Hasn’t Read Transcript

Then there's this:

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

Which part of this doesn't scream "setup" to you?

This is true because no one has seen the transcript, we've heard and seen only what the WH has allowed us to see. It may as well have read "From the desk of Donald J Trump" on the top.

 

[Grand Vol]

All the time. Constantly. They talk to the original sources and verify what was said, as the IG did here, as Trump admits is correct, and as the transcript shows. And there could be even more corroboration of other acts tied to this, not that its necessary at this point.

Uh huh...

Did Trump tie the money to them investigating Biden?

 

[Grand Vol]

This is true because no one has seen the transcript, we've heard and seen only what the WH has allowed us to see.

Not going to fall for your attempts this evening. You forgot who I am that quickly?

Nah, you missed me, I know.

 

[VolnJC]

At this point I think you gotta just call it a TKO