Anonymous wrote:
Pelosi made a huge mistake when she pulled the impeachment trigger before seeing any of the relevant documents.

The transcripts of the phone conversation did not contain the bombshells she was expecting - namely, evidence of a quid pro quo, or Trump pleading for dirt on Biden and son "eight separate times", or Rudy Giulianni being offered in the role of a "fixer". Instead, Biden was mentioned once, in the context of having bragged in 2018 about having gotten a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (this actually happened). Biden's son was mentioned once, in the context of being a board member of a Ukrainian gas company that was under investigation by the prosecutor who was fired. And Giuliani was brought up by the Ukrainian President - not Trump. Since then, it's come to light that the fired prosecutor gave a sworn deposition that he was ordered to stop the investigation into the gas company, at Biden's insistence, or resign. He resigned. Altogether, it doesn't support a strong case for any impeachable act.

Then there's the so-called "whistleblower". The first problem with their complaint is that they mention right at the top that they had no first hand knowledge of any of the events they described in the complaint, and that everything they described came from other government employees or public news sources. Repeating what someone else told you is called "hearsay" in any court of law. Repeating what you read in the newspaper is not "whistleblowing". Still, if the most serious allegations could somehow be proven then their might be some meat in that burger. The most serious allegations were the alleged quid pro quo and the pressure to investigate Biden, both of which were pretty much disproven by the transcript.

The news media hasn't helped here. ABC reported that an ex-aide to the Ukrainian President claimed that a promise to investigate the Bidens was a prerequisite for the phone call in July. Problem - the ex-aide assisted the Ukrainian President in the post election transition, and then resigned. He wasn't working for the President at the time the phone call took place. Second, he stated to a US reporter that he never told ABC that he had any knowledge of the phone call or any prerequisite conditions. ABC retracted the following morning. And so it goes with the other mainstream media outlets. Bombshell, retraction. Bombshell, retraction.

Pelosi took a blind leap into an empty pool, and Democrats now need to clean this up as quickly as possible. Their hopes of having this linger into next year's elections have evaporated. Pelosi wants this done and forgotten before the primaries. Don't worry. We won't forget.

Anonymous wrote:Please keep going Dems:

"The Trump campaign raised a massive $15 million in small-dollar donations following Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) announcement of the Democrat-led House impeachment inquiry against President Trump, Eric Trump announced on Friday.

In the days following the announcement of the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry, the Trump campaign raised $15 million in small-dollar donations and gained tens of thousands of new donors."


Brad Parscale
?
@parscale
In the 24 hours since news of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment announcement, @realDonaldTrump’s campaign & @GOP have BLOWN OUT fundraising!

?$5 Million combined in 24 hrs
?Donors in all 50 states


Jennifer Jacobs
?
Verified account

@JenniferJJacobs

Trump’s at hedge fund manager John Paulson’s on 86th between 5th and Madison for fundraiser. Aides say it will bring in $5M for Trump Victory.

Another tomorrow a.m. at Cipriani on 42nd Street (same place as a Dec 2017 fundraiser) will do $3M.

So they’re saying $13M in 3 days.

Anonymous wrote:
Pelosi made a huge mistake when she pulled the impeachment trigger before seeing any of the relevant documents.

The transcripts of the phone conversation did not contain the bombshells she was expecting - namely, evidence of a quid pro quo,one doesn't need a quid pro quo, this has been explained many times or Trump pleading for dirt on Biden and son "eight separate times"we have only seen a summary of the call, not the transcript. there are a lot of elipsses indicating a break in the conversation, or Rudy Giulianni being offered in the role of a "fixer"Rudy wasn't offered the role of fixer, he was operating illegally on behalf of fhte federal government, this is a prima facia illegal action. Instead, Biden was mentioned once, in the context of having bragged in 2018 about having gotten a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (this actually happened). Biden's son was mentioned once, in the context of being a board member of a Ukrainian gas company that was under investigation by the prosecutor who was firednot true. And Giuliani was brought up by the Ukrainian President - not Trump.Trump specifically see 'work with Giuliani and Barr Since then, it's come to light that the fired prosecutor gave a sworn deposition that he was ordered to stop the investigation into the gas companya manufactured document creted by the exiled former prosecutor and the Oligarch Firtash, at Biden's insistence, or resign.the whole world, including the GOP here, wanted this guy gone, Biden was just the messenger He resigned. Altogether, it doesn't support a strong case for any impeachable act.

Then there's the so-called "whistleblower". The first problem with their complaint is that they mention right at the top that they had no first hand knowledge of any of the events they described in the complaint, Niether did Linda Tripp - yet that was ok with the GOP in 1998 and that everything they described came from other government employees or public news sources. Repeating what someone else told you is called "hearsay" in any court of law.Impeachment isn't a court of law, sorry you can be impeached for lying about a blowjob or chewing gum Repeating what you read in the newspaper is not "whistleblowing".yes, isn't it amazing this illegal activity was conducted in plain sight? Still, if the most serious allegations could somehow be proven then their might be some meat in that burger.If only the president AND Rudy didn't admitted to the crimes on national television and on social media The most serious allegations were the alleged quid pro quo and the pressure to investigate Biden, both of which were pretty much disproven by the transcript. [/b]No, the most serious crimes are asking a foreign state for help in your re-election in violation of several federal laws and you think it was just magic that the funds were being withheld (illegally) or that they were magically released when the report surfaced?

The news media hasn't helped here. ABC reported that an ex-aide to the Ukrainian President claimed that a promise to investigate the Bidens was a prerequisite for the phone call in July. Problem - the ex-aide assisted the Ukrainian President in the post election transition, and then resigned. He wasn't working for the President at the time the phone call took place. Second, he stated to a US reporter that he never told ABC that he had any knowledge of the phone call or any prerequisite conditions. ABC retracted the following morning. And so it goes with the other mainstream media outlets. Bombshell, retraction. Bombshell, retraction.Where is the Seth Rich Fox retraction? At least some news orgs correct the story as they get more info[b]

Pelosi took a blind leap into an empty pool, and Democrats now need to clean this up as quickly as possible. Their hopes of having this linger into next year's elections have evaporated. Pelosi wants this done and forgotten before the primaries. Don't worry. We won't forget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Pelosi made a huge mistake when she pulled the impeachment trigger before seeing any of the relevant documents.

The transcripts of the phone conversation did not contain the bombshells she was expecting - namely, evidence of a quid pro quo, or Trump pleading for dirt on Biden and son "eight separate times", or Rudy Giulianni being offered in the role of a "fixer". Instead, Biden was mentioned once, in the context of having bragged in 2018 about having gotten a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (this actually happened). Biden's son was mentioned once, in the context of being a board member of a Ukrainian gas company that was under investigation by the prosecutor who was fired. And Giuliani was brought up by the Ukrainian President - not Trump. Since then, it's come to light that the fired prosecutor gave a sworn deposition that he was ordered to stop the investigation into the gas company, at Biden's insistence, or resign. He resigned. Altogether, it doesn't support a strong case for any impeachable act.

Then there's the so-called "whistleblower". The first problem with their complaint is that they mention right at the top that they had no first hand knowledge of any of the events they described in the complaint, and that everything they described came from other government employees or public news sources. Repeating what someone else told you is called "hearsay" in any court of law. Repeating what you read in the newspaper is not "whistleblowing". Still, if the most serious allegations could somehow be proven then their might be some meat in that burger. The most serious allegations were the alleged quid pro quo and the pressure to investigate Biden, both of which were pretty much disproven by the transcript.

The news media hasn't helped here. ABC reported that an ex-aide to the Ukrainian President claimed that a promise to investigate the Bidens was a prerequisite for the phone call in July. Problem - the ex-aide assisted the Ukrainian President in the post election transition, and then resigned. He wasn't working for the President at the time the phone call took place. Second, he stated to a US reporter that he never told ABC that he had any knowledge of the phone call or any prerequisite conditions. ABC retracted the following morning. And so it goes with the other mainstream media outlets. Bombshell, retraction. Bombshell, retraction.

Pelosi took a blind leap into an empty pool, and Democrats now need to clean this up as quickly as possible. Their hopes of having this linger into next year's elections have evaporated. Pelosi wants this done and forgotten before the primaries. Don't worry. We won't forget.

The House is investigating, dumbass. The evidence already proves two strong articles of impeachment, but first they need to subpoena and depose the people involved. You guys have no clue how the investigative process works, because you have supported dysfunctional idiots like Gowdy and Nines.

Anonymous wrote:
Pelosi made a huge mistake when she pulled the impeachment trigger before seeing any of the relevant documents.

The transcripts of the phone conversation did not contain the bombshells she was expecting - namely, evidence of a quid pro quo, or Trump pleading for dirt on Biden and son "eight separate times", or Rudy Giulianni being offered in the role of a "fixer". Instead, Biden was mentioned once, in the context of having bragged in 2018 about having gotten a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (this actually happened). Biden's son was mentioned once, in the context of being a board member of a Ukrainian gas company that was under investigation by the prosecutor who was fired. And Giuliani was brought up by the Ukrainian President - not Trump. Since then, it's come to light that the fired prosecutor gave a sworn deposition that he was ordered to stop the investigation into the gas company, at Biden's insistence, or resign. He resigned. Altogether, it doesn't support a strong case for any impeachable act.

Then there's the so-called "whistleblower". The first problem with their complaint is that they mention right at the top that they had no first hand knowledge of any of the events they described in the complaint, and that everything they described came from other government employees or public news sources. Repeating what someone else told you is called "hearsay" in any court of law. Repeating what you read in the newspaper is not "whistleblowing". Still, if the most serious allegations could somehow be proven then their might be some meat in that burger. The most serious allegations were the alleged quid pro quo and the pressure to investigate Biden, both of which were pretty much disproven by the transcript.

The news media hasn't helped here. ABC reported that an ex-aide to the Ukrainian President claimed that a promise to investigate the Bidens was a prerequisite for the phone call in July. Problem - the ex-aide assisted the Ukrainian President in the post election transition, and then resigned. He wasn't working for the President at the time the phone call took place. Second, he stated to a US reporter that he never told ABC that he had any knowledge of the phone call or any prerequisite conditions. ABC retracted the following morning. And so it goes with the other mainstream media outlets. Bombshell, retraction. Bombshell, retraction.

Pelosi took a blind leap into an empty pool, and Democrats now need to clean this up as quickly as possible. Their hopes of having this linger into next year's elections have evaporated. Pelosi wants this done and forgotten before the primaries. Don't worry. We won't forget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congressional Research Service: The Impeachment Process in the House
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

“In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.”

Updated August 12, 2019 Geez, how convenient.

CRS reports are constantly updated. It is a resource for Congress so it needs to be current.

Pelosi changed the rules about then. Yep she did.

You’re an idiot. The impeachment rules haven’t changed. Committees investigate allegations. That is what is happening. The House is following protocol. The people who do not honor rules, standards, and protocols are the President, White House, Cabinet, and all the other outlaws acting on his behalf. But of course you don’t think rules apply to Republicans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congressional Research Service: The Impeachment Process in the House
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

“In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.”

Updated August 12, 2019 Geez, how convenient.

CRS reports are constantly updated. It is a resource for Congress so it needs to be current.

Pelosi changed the rules about then. Yep she did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congressional Research Service: The Impeachment Process in the House
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

“In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.”

Updated August 12, 2019 Geez, how convenient.

CRS reports are constantly updated. It is a resource for Congress so it needs to be current.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congressional Research Service: The Impeachment Process in the House
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

“In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.”

Updated August 12, 2019 Geez, how convenient.

Anonymous wrote:Congressional Research Service: The Impeachment Process in the House
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

“In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just said that I was incorrect - that an inquiry doesn't actually require a vote but that the Democrats are not talking publicly about "let's have an inquiry". They are screaming 'corruption' and 'impeachment. You are saying they are not doing that? Seriously? There's video.

I missed that you said you were incorrect. Thanks for clarifying.

As your "conservative treehouse" (?) link indicates, there is no requirement for a formal full House vote before inquiry. The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities was conducting an investigative inquiry into Watergate for about a full year before the House held a vote. As for Clinton, an investigation was done by Ken Starr, appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation, with that morphing into an investigation into the Lewinsky scandal and whether Clinton lied under oath.

It also says this (which you conveniently ignored, but I'm not surprised at all by that)

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.

I'm sorry, I thought you said "It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?"

Which is not required.