Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure Russia holds many, many Trump Inc loans. That's got to be it. Money. I don't think a video of pros peeing on him is enough or even that he visited with them. It's got to be money.

There are lots of stories about this.

The Russian mob has been laundering money through POTUS's properties for years.

Back in the 80s, after all the bankruptcies, American banks would not lend to POTUS, but suddenly he had money. Where did it come from? Eric told the press that money from Russia was "pouring in."

It's clear Russian money is what keeps POTUS's empire afloat. Without Russia , he's broke.

I thought it was Jr who said they were mostly Russian money? I don’t dispute the essence of your post. The Drumpfs are kept afloat by crime.

Eric Trump told golf writer James Dodson in 2014, responding to his question about who’s funding their golf course construction, ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/eric-trump-russia-investment-golf-course

Donald Junior spoke at a real estate investment conference in 2008 and said “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets” and “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-said-money-pouring-in-from-russia-2018-2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure Russia holds many, many Trump Inc loans. That's got to be it. Money. I don't think a video of pros peeing on him is enough or even that he visited with them. It's got to be money.

There are lots of stories about this.

The Russian mob has been laundering money through POTUS's properties for years.

Back in the 80s, after all the bankruptcies, American banks would not lend to POTUS, but suddenly he had money. Where did it come from? Eric told the press that money from Russia was "pouring in."

It's clear Russian money is what keeps POTUS's empire afloat. Without Russia , he's broke.

I thought it was Jr who said they were mostly Russian money? I don’t dispute the essence of your post. The Drumpfs are kept afloat by crime.

Eric Trump told golf writer James Dodson in 2014, responding to his question about who’s funding their golf course construction, ‘Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he said, ‘Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.’
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/eric-trump-russia-investment-golf-course

Donald Junior spoke at a real estate investment conference in 2008 and said “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets” and “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-said-money-pouring-in-from-russia-2018-2

Look at that! We’re both right because they’ve just got that much money from the Ruskies!

[Anonymous]

Thought I'd just place this here. It's a link to all of the impeachment documents:

https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/

[Anonymous]

I just thought I'd remind readers that even in a criminal law case, the State has to prove voluntariness under common law, right? With respect to due process voluntariness, there are 3 situations where the per se rule of exclusion applies.

One of these scenarios is the prohibition against lying about a suspect's constitutional rights.

I'm just gonna leave this right here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just thought I'd remind readers that even in a criminal law case, the State has to prove voluntariness under common law, right? With respect to due process voluntariness, there are 3 situations where the per se rule of exclusion applies.

One of these scenarios is the prohibition against lying about a suspect's constitutional rights.

I'm just gonna leave this right here.

Look at you with the law talking words. Why do I, a non lawyer, suspect that you’re babbling about who shut the barn door when the horses are in the next county?

[Anonymous]

Well, this undercuts the whole "Trump was trying to stop corruption" argument.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/12/trump-just-undercut-his-own-spinners-latest-line-propaganda/

[Anonymous]

NY Times: Trump considered firing the Inspector General who found the whistleblower complaint credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NY Times: Trump considered firing the Inspector General who found the whistleblower complaint credible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/trump-michael-atkinson-inspector-general.html#click=https://t.co/UNkopaqm5k

Btw. This is not normal. Yes everyone in the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the President but there are also meant to be checks and balances within the executive branch to prevent corruption and abuse of power

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NY Times: Trump considered firing the Inspector General who found the whistleblower complaint credible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/trump-michael-atkinson-inspector-general.html#click=https://t.co/UNkopaqm5k

Btw. This is not normal. Yes everyone in the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the President but there are also meant to be checks and balances within the executive branch to prevent corruption and abuse of power

This would be as bad as if Trump had fired Mueller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NY Times: Trump considered firing the Inspector General who found the whistleblower complaint credible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/trump-michael-atkinson-inspector-general.html#click=https://t.co/UNkopaqm5k

Btw. This is not normal. Yes everyone in the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the President but there are also meant to be checks and balances within the executive branch to prevent corruption and abuse of power

This would be as bad as if Trump had fired Mueller.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NY Times: Trump considered firing the Inspector General who found the whistleblower complaint credible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/trump-michael-atkinson-inspector-general.html#click=https://t.co/UNkopaqm5k

Btw. This is not normal. Yes everyone in the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the President but there are also meant to be checks and balances within the executive branch to prevent corruption and abuse of power

This would be as bad as if Trump had fired Mueller.

Yep.

U.S. Code §?1513
Whoever takes action to interfere with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person providing truthful information relating to the possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NY Times: Trump considered firing the Inspector General who found the whistleblower complaint credible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/trump-michael-atkinson-inspector-general.html#click=https://t.co/UNkopaqm5k

Btw. This is not normal. Yes everyone in the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the President but there are also meant to be checks and balances within the executive branch to prevent corruption and abuse of power

This would be as bad as if Trump had fired Mueller.

Yep.

U.S. Code §?1513
Whoever takes action to interfere with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person providing truthful information relating to the possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Holy sh1t.

Is he on the commit-an-impeachable-offense-a-day plan or what?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if the impeachment hearings will be broadcasted on any radio stations? Will be on the road a bit tomorrow, and am looking for some entertainment on the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NY Times: Trump considered firing the Inspector General who found the whistleblower complaint credible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/trump-michael-atkinson-inspector-general.html#click=https://t.co/UNkopaqm5k

Btw. This is not normal. Yes everyone in the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the President but there are also meant to be checks and balances within the executive branch to prevent corruption and abuse of power

This would be as bad as if Trump had fired Mueller.

Or if Clinton fired Reno. Or if Clinton fired Starr. Or when Bork borked Cox.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if the impeachment hearings will be broadcasted on any radio stations? Will be on the road a bit tomorrow, and am looking for some entertainment on the road.

where will you be? Good chance that WAMU will carry the live broadcast. Does C-Span still have the old UDC station? If so, might be carried there.

sure someone will livestream it - fairly sure WNYC (93.9) will do if you have the TuneIn Radio app.