Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

They didn't want to find dirt - there isn't any. They wanted the Ukranians to manufacture dirt, because clearly, their internal polling must suggest Trump gets crushed by Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what does “personal gain” for Trump means in this story? We know Biden have not done anything wrong. If Ukrainian government going to confirm this, as they should on Trumps request, what is the personal gain for Trump? It seems that it will make Biden’s position much stronger, right? Does Trump wants Biden nomination over Warren? Is this the personal gain? Or I am missing something?

My interpretation was that Trump expected the Ukraine would be able to find something, or at least the appearance of something, questionable by Hunter Biden that could then be spun to taint Joe Biden by association. Unfortunately many/most Americans are fairly low-information and will believe a splashy headline without reading the rest of the article to find out what’s actually being reported, making them easy to manipulate. It’s not like Trump or the Ukraine would have to reveal it if they truly found nothing, so the worst case from Trump’s standpoint was that the found nothing and all quietly moved on. But I also think Trump is so deeply corrupt that he can’t imagine anyone else not being corrupt, so he just assumed the dirt would be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are stuck on the whole "heresay" thing, perhaps the following from a noted GOP attorney will help

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1177995935332409344

Conway?

Can you tell me what exact statements Trump made that are a crime?

You can read it with your own eyes. It has been parsed on several threads in this forum and in many media outlets, including Fox News.

If they were actual crimes, the vote would have taken place and he would be impeached. There would be no delay and no parody reading.

If there is smoke, it has to be investigated to see where the fire is, if any. One doesn't just vote on impeachment haphazardly.

I’m referring to the vote that usually takes place to investigate. Pelosi decided not to go there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are stuck on the whole "heresay" thing, perhaps the following from a noted GOP attorney will help

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1177995935332409344

Conway?

Can you tell me what exact statements Trump made that are a crime?

You can read it with your own eyes. It has been parsed on several threads in this forum and in many media outlets, including Fox News.

If they were actual crimes, the vote would have taken place and he would be impeached. There would be no delay and no parody reading.

If there is smoke, it has to be investigated to see where the fire is, if any. One doesn't just vote on impeachment haphazardly.

I’m referring to the vote that usually takes place to investigate. Pelosi decided not to go there

More than 218 members of Congress are on record as saying they want an inquiry, including those in tough districts (for democrats). What do you gain from
the vote expect forcing the republican members of Congress to take a stand. If I were them, I would be grateful to the Speaker for not making me record my vote. The democrats have already put their necks in the noose.

[Anonymous]

The house judiciary committee took a vote on the impeachment inquiry already, so you all can shut up about forcing a vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/impeachment-investigation-vote-house-judiciary-committee/index.html

[Anonymous]

Levin tears into the accusations:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-levin-growls-at-fox-host-asking-if-hes-okay-with-trumps-ukraine-conduct-your-question-is-not-honest/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The house judiciary committee took a vote on the impeachment inquiry already, so you all can shut up about forcing a vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/impeachment-investigation-vote-house-judiciary-committee/index.html

That’s a party line vote, idiot, not a whole house vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Levin tears into the accusations:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-levin-growls-at-fox-host-asking-if-hes-okay-with-trumps-ukraine-conduct-your-question-is-not-honest/

He has been shredded on Twitter by people more informed in both the law and Intel, than he is.

Sorry you believe a commentator like him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The house judiciary committee took a vote on the impeachment inquiry already, so you all can shut up about forcing a vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/impeachment-investigation-vote-house-judiciary-committee/index.html

That’s a party line vote, idiot, not a whole house vote.

As the PP said, I am sure most of the GOP are just as happy to have not had a full vote. Personally, I wish she had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are stuck on the whole "heresay" thing, perhaps the following from a noted GOP attorney will help

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1177995935332409344

Conway?

Can you tell me what exact statements Trump made that are a crime?

You can read it with your own eyes. It has been parsed on several threads in this forum and in many media outlets, including Fox News.

If they were actual crimes, the vote would have taken place and he would be impeached. There would be no delay and no parody reading.

There doesn't need to be a crime. In fact, if you or I asked the Ukranian president for a favor, it would not be a crime. For the President to do it, however, is a security risk. Note Pelosi's message is that Trump poses a grave security risk to the nation. There may be crimes that surface as part of the investigation. For example, Rudy working outside of governmental interests, and for "free" are illegal. Reclassifying presidential phone conversations into the Codeword server may be illegal. Sheilding other Trump transcripts may constitute Obstruction of Justice. And the list goes on, but none of those need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order for impeachment to happen.

Given that public sentiment has turned about 12 points in the last few days suggests that *most* of the American public gets this and why it is an issue. Another week of more information, such as testimony from the person Rudy texted with, or the Whistleblower themselves, could push the sentiment even further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what does “personal gain” for Trump means in this story? We know Biden have not done anything wrong. If Ukrainian government going to confirm this, as they should on Trumps request, what is the personal gain for Trump? It seems that it will make Biden’s position much stronger, right? Does Trump wants Biden nomination over Warren? Is this the personal gain? Or I am missing something?

No, we don't.

Sure we do. Whether Trump thinks Biden did something wrong or knows that he didn't (and there's no telling what Trump knows or thinks anymore), he's asking Ukraine to "find" dirt and give it to him. He wants Ukraine to make up some dirt and give it to him. That's his personal gain.

But this is not what he asked. He asked to investigate. The investigation would probably result in finding no illegal activity on the part of Biden. Why all Democrats and liberal media call Biden’s activities a dirt? It’s like finding him guilty before the investigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what does “personal gain” for Trump means in this story? We know Biden have not done anything wrong. If Ukrainian government going to confirm this, as they should on Trumps request, what is the personal gain for Trump? It seems that it will make Biden’s position much stronger, right? Does Trump wants Biden nomination over Warren? Is this the personal gain? Or I am missing something?

No, we don't.

Sure we do. Whether Trump thinks Biden did something wrong or knows that he didn't (and there's no telling what Trump knows or thinks anymore), he's asking Ukraine to "find" dirt and give it to him. He wants Ukraine to make up some dirt and give it to him. That's his personal gain.

But this is not what he asked. He asked to investigate. The investigation would probably result in finding no illegal activity on the part of Biden. Why all Democrats and liberal media call Biden’s activities a dirt? It’s like finding him guilty before the investigation?

Suure. Did you know that there are no hidden victims underneath Comet Ping Pong? Is your mind blown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Levin tears into the accusations:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-levin-growls-at-fox-host-asking-if-hes-okay-with-trumps-ukraine-conduct-your-question-is-not-honest/

He has been shredded on Twitter by people more informed in both the law and Intel, than he is.

Sorry you believe a commentator like him.

Yeah, I don't think so. Has Pelosi named a statute yet? Curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The house judiciary committee took a vote on the impeachment inquiry already, so you all can shut up about forcing a vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/impeachment-investigation-vote-house-judiciary-committee/index.html

That’s a party line vote, idiot, not a whole house vote.

As the PP said, I am sure most of the GOP are just as happy to have not had a full vote. Personally, I wish she had.

Dear LORD!

It would benefit the GOP to have been part of the vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are stuck on the whole "heresay" thing, perhaps the following from a noted GOP attorney will help

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1177995935332409344

Conway?

Can you tell me what exact statements Trump made that are a crime?

You can read it with your own eyes. It has been parsed on several threads in this forum and in many media outlets, including Fox News.

If they were actual crimes, the vote would have taken place and he would be impeached. There would be no delay and no parody reading.

There doesn't need to be a crime. In fact, if you or I asked the Ukranian president for a favor, it would not be a crime. For the President to do it, however, is a security risk. Note Pelosi's message is that Trump poses a grave security risk to the nation. There may be crimes that surface as part of the investigation. For example, Rudy working outside of governmental interests, and for "free" are illegal. Reclassifying presidential phone conversations into the Codeword server may be illegal. Sheilding other Trump transcripts may constitute Obstruction of Justice. And the list goes on, but none of those need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order for impeachment to happen.

Given that public sentiment has turned about 12 points in the last few days suggests that *most* of the American public gets this and why it is an issue. Another week of more information, such as testimony from the person Rudy texted with, or the Whistleblower themselves, could push the sentiment even further.

High CRIMES and misdemeanors.

May, might, possibly. Those words come up over and over and over and so far, nothing. The public sentiment has turned (if it actually has) because of the media spin, which is THE goal.