Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump and the deplorable R's are not shifting their defense to

"yes he did do it, yes there was a quid pro quo, yes Trump held up the Congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine unless they find dirt on Biden, yes the call WAS a problem, yes becasue Trump is a mobster and discussed a favor on that call we now have to hide the FULL transcript on a secure NSC server cuz it's bad, very bad, yes, Trump did abuse the office, and yes Trump did obstruct justice.. But...

So what? Get over it! Presidents can do whatever they want!"

Well that's at least clise to the truth. The truth is, he can do whatever 34 Senators say he can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for Republicans....if shaking down a foreign country isn't impeachable, exactly what (besides lying about oral sex) would be impeachable? I ask because both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers specifically note this exact action is impeachable.

+1
Jon meacham (historian) today said that this is a trial for our country as our political leaders will have to decide whether they find this kind of behavior acceptable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Republicans....if shaking down a foreign country isn't impeachable, exactly what (besides lying about oral sex) would be impeachable? I ask because both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers specifically note this exact action is impeachable.

+1
Jon meacham (historian) today said that this is a trial for our country as our political leaders will have to decide whether they find this kind of behavior acceptable

Not a question for political leaders at all. It's a question for the 40-45% of voters who still back him. If his approval goes much below 38%, Republican politicians will start to abandon him. If it approaches 30%, they will dump him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Republicans....if shaking down a foreign country isn't impeachable, exactly what (besides lying about oral sex) would be impeachable? I ask because both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers specifically note this exact action is impeachable.

+1
Jon meacham (historian) today said that this is a trial for our country as our political leaders will have to decide whether they find this kind of behavior acceptable

Not a question for political leaders at all. It's a question for the 40-45% of voters who still back him. If his approval goes much below 38%, Republican politicians will start to abandon him. If it approaches 30%, they will dump him.

It will never go down because many of his supporters get their news from Fox and FB who spew lies.
Democrats need to do some serious public service announcements on Facebook

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Republicans....if shaking down a foreign country isn't impeachable, exactly what (besides lying about oral sex) would be impeachable? I ask because both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers specifically note this exact action is impeachable.

+1
Jon meacham (historian) today said that this is a trial for our country as our political leaders will have to decide whether they find this kind of behavior acceptable

Not a question for political leaders at all. It's a question for the 40-45% of voters who still back him. If his approval goes much below 38%, Republican politicians will start to abandon him. If it approaches 30%, they will dump him.

You think political leaders vote according to public will? What planet do you live on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for Republicans....if shaking down a foreign country isn't impeachable, exactly what (besides lying about oral sex) would be impeachable? I ask because both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers specifically note this exact action is impeachable.

Don't waste your time. GOP sold its soul a long time ago. They would only impeach Democrats. The blathering and outright lies of the GOP House members at today's vote was nauseating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for Republicans....if shaking down a foreign country isn't impeachable, exactly what (besides lying about oral sex) would be impeachable? I ask because both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers specifically note this exact action is impeachable.

+1
Jon meacham (historian) today said that this is a trial for our country as our political leaders will have to decide whether they find this kind of behavior acceptable

Not a question for political leaders at all. It's a question for the 40-45% of voters who still back him. If his approval goes much below 38%, Republican politicians will start to abandon him. If it approaches 30%, they will dump him.

You think political leaders vote according to public will? What planet do you live on?

You think Republicans in Congress are backing Trump because they like having their heads up his behind? What planet are you on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

So far no witness adds any facts remotely worthy of impeachment.

Oh, yeah, Trump's hair is orange, and he's fat! Let's impeach him.

1) Illegally asking a foreign country for personal aid in a federal election.
2) Illegally withholding congressionally appropriate funds from a foriegn state that happens to be vulnerable at the hands of an adversary.
3) Covering up said actions by illegally placing proof of the shakedown on an NSA server.
4) Covering up said action by having the DOJ ignore valid complaints files by White House Staff.
5) Covering up said action by having the DOJ ignore a valid Whistleblower complaint.
6) Covering up said action by illegally withholding binding subpoenaed materials.
7) Covering up said action by illegally invoking an non-existent privilege.

I really want to add, as a non-lawyer who just reads the Constitution:
8) Obstruction of Justice (in the Russia probe)
9) Emoluments Clause Violations (so many I can't even list them)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

So far no witness adds any facts remotely worthy of impeachment.

Oh, yeah, Trump's hair is orange, and he's fat! Let's impeach him.

1) Illegally asking a foreign country for personal aid in a federal election.
2) Illegally withholding congressionally appropriate funds from a foriegn state that happens to be vulnerable at the hands of an adversary.
3) Covering up said actions by illegally placing proof of the shakedown on an NSA server.
4) Covering up said action by having the DOJ ignore valid complaints files by White House Staff.
5) Covering up said action by having the DOJ ignore a valid Whistleblower complaint.
6) Covering up said action by illegally withholding binding subpoenaed materials.
7) Covering up said action by illegally invoking an non-existent privilege.

I really want to add, as a non-lawyer who just reads the Constitution:
8) Obstruction of Justice (in the Russia probe)
9) Emoluments Clause Violations (so many I can't even list them)

+1
And it’s not included in this, but everything he did with Russia. I want to know what else is on his top secret server.

[Anonymous]

[The president’s] defenders describe the unthinkable disaster of impeachment. But it should not be unthinkable. The framers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a doomsday scenario; they thought it necessary to remove bad men from the offices they were subverting.

The president’s defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether [he] committed a felony …. [but] ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law.

It becomes clear that the White House has never before been occupied by such a reckless and narcissistic adventurer. Sociopath is not too strong a word.

We are regularly lectured about a constitutional crisis if the House goes forward with hearings and ultimately votes a bill of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Consider the alternative. Perhaps American presidents, by and large, have not been a distinguished lot, but if we ratify [his] behavior in office, we may expect not just lack lack of distinction in the future but aggressively dishonest, even criminal, conduct. The real calamity will not be that we removed a president from office but that we did not.

- Former U.S. Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, in a glowing review of Ann Coulter’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” published in The Wall Street Journal in 1998.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[The president’s] defenders describe the unthinkable disaster of impeachment. But it should not be unthinkable. The framers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a doomsday scenario; they thought it necessary to remove bad men from the offices they were subverting.

The president’s defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether [he] committed a felony …. [but] ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law.

It becomes clear that the White House has never before been occupied by such a reckless and narcissistic adventurer. Sociopath is not too strong a word.

We are regularly lectured about a constitutional crisis if the House goes forward with hearings and ultimately votes a bill of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Consider the alternative. Perhaps American presidents, by and large, have not been a distinguished lot, but if we ratify [his] behavior in office, we may expect not just lack lack of distinction in the future but aggressively dishonest, even criminal, conduct. The real calamity will not be that we removed a president from office but that we did not.

- Former U.S. Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, in a glowing review of Ann Coulter’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” published in The Wall Street Journal in 1998.

Far stronger than what Lindsay Graham said around the same time, but similar sentiments. Now listen to Graham. I wonder if Bork would sound like him now.

[Anonymous]

Oh hey, Ukrainian President Zalensky "reshuffles" prosecutor deck to the benefit of Paul Manafort.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine-exclusi/exclusive-overhaul-of-ukraine-prosecution-agency-buries-manafort-inquiries-investigators-idUSKBN1XB4JZ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tim Morrison confirms the story others have told. He simply didn't make a legal judgement of right vs. wrong.

“Top White House official tried to find out if ambassador went rogue or acted at Trump's direction on Ukraine”

“To to find out whether Sondland had talked to the President, Morrison went so far as asking Trump's executive secretary if the President had actually talked with Sondland. The ambassador's claims about the conversations checked out each time, Morrison said in his testimony Thursday, according to the sources. In his own opening statement, Sondland downplayed both Trump's role and his own in the effort to pressure Ukraine -- suggesting he was reluctantly working with Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal attorney, who was running a shadow diplomatic operation in Ukraine.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/01/politics/tim-morrison-gordon-sondland-trump/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Rick Perry refusing to testify:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468639-perry-asked-to-testify-for-house-impeachment-inquiry?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

More coming attractions:

Monday!
- John Eisenberg, NSC lawyer
- Rob Blair, Mulvaney deputy
- Michael Ellis, Eisenberg deputy
- Brian McCormack, former Perry chief

 Tuesday
- Wells Griffith, NSC official
- Mike Duffey, OMB

Wednesday
- Russ Vought, OMB
- Ulrich Brechbuhl, State
- David Hale, State