Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[Baker Boy 1,703]

And while Pelosi talks impeachment the USMCA has not even been brought up for ratification. This would be a boom for our economy which is exactly why the Dems won’t approve it.

very sad 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,513]

9 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Random Twitter/4chan user who claims to have insider deepstate knowledge or something like that. The left thinks everyone on the right follows him, but they are out of touch retards so that makes sense. 

So it's some guy. Got it. 

[KSB2424 3,148]

12 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You’re not this dumb. We can assess the veracity if the complaint by comparing to the “transcript” (which isn’t really a transcript) that is now available. That shows the whistleblower was very accurate in his rendition of the facts. Therefore the rest of the complaint is likely accurate and credible as well.

Of course the Ukrainian President being shaken down by the mob boss leader of the US is going to deny victimization.

Worms, I like you, so I'm trying to be nice.

The "transcript" and the words from the Ukraine President are actual, factual words direct from each of the horses mouth. 

What you want us to do, is to *NOT* look at the actual factual words but instead read between the lines......or assess (guess) at what a whistleblower (who doesn't have direct knowledge) *may* know.  It is likely that there is maybe some more information to possibly come out. 

Why would I  ignore the actual transcript and interviews from the horses mouths but instead try and read between the lines with all of our confirmation bias?

[MDC 7,498]

Quote

The President has retweeted QAnon supporters dozens of times. On one such recent occasion, he shared a video critical of the Transportation Security Administration that originated from a Twitter account called Deep State Exposed that is operated by a QAnon follower. More recently, the President retweeted two accounts that promote the conspiracy theory in order to share allegations against Democrats related to election security and voter fraud. The Washington Post’s headline itself blared, “Trump shares Twitter accounts linked to conspiracy theory QAnon.” QAnon supporters are “overjoyed when Trump does retweet, believing it’s evidence he supports their movement,” according to responses reviewed by the Post.

Perhaps more significant is the President’s eagerness to engage personally with individuals who advance the conspiracy theory. For instance, right wing media personality Bill Mitchell “has regularly used his radio show and Twitter account to boost and legitimize ‘Q,’ the central figure of the QAnon conspiracy theory, sometimes hosting major QAnon believers,” according to Alex Kaplan at Media Matters. Mitchell was among the extremists invited to the White House for its recent Social Media Summit. Another QAnon supporter and conspiracy theorist, Michael Lebron, was photographed with Donald Trump in the Oval Office last summer, according to CNN. The news outlet headline also amplified the encounter, “QAnon-believing ‘conspiracy analyst’ meets Trump in the White House.” Occasionally appearing on RT, Lebron is a YouTube and social media personality. Other individuals associated with the President occasionally rub shoulders with QAnon supporters, whether on purpose or not. Vice President Mike Pence tweeted and then later deleteda photograph of himself with a Q supporter recently, and former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders will join a conference with a prominent Q proponent and a variety of other fringe personalities this fall.  

The President has also welcomed QAnon supporters at his rallies. Believers sometimes travel long distances to join others who espouse the conspiracy theory. Gaggles of Q supporters wearing QAnon paraphernalia (there are over 1,000 items for sale on Amazon) have been photographed and appeared in the frameduring the broadcast of Trump rallies, including one in Cincinnati this week. Q has “been talking to all of us,” noted a rally goer last summer, “letting us know the covert battles that are waging between the Deep State and President Trump.” 

All of the attention from the President helps QAnon proponents and other fringe figures build reach. After attending Trump’s social media summit, “15 of the event’s invitees have seen their Twitter audiences grow by a combined 197,000 followers — a 75 percent jump over the number of followers they’d gained in the same time span before the event,” according to an analysis for the Washington Post. There is a documented affinity between Trump supporters and QAnon believers. Before the main QAnon subreddit was banned for inciting violence, Vox’s Alvin Chang analyzed the behaviour of Reddit users that engaged with the page and found a substantial overlap with pro-Trump Subreddits. [/quotes]

https://www.justsecurity.org/65659/trumps-encouraging-qanon-may-result-in-violence-just-ask-the-fbi/

Trump knows how badly is fawning worshippers want to believe in the gospel according to QAnon.  

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Read the whistleblower complaint, I would suggest everyone else do the same rather than just accepting QueefAnon’s whack job spin on it.

The complaint is NOT covered by the whistleblower statute. It was a mistake for the I.C. I.G. to even take it seriously as it's all hearsay.

'No Direct Knowledge'  i.e. rumor.

[Baker Boy 1,703]

17 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You’re not this dumb. We can assess the veracity if the complaint by comparing to the “transcript” (which isn’t really a transcript) that is now available. That shows the whistleblower was very accurate in his rendition of the facts. Therefore the rest of the complaint is likely accurate and credible as well.

Of course the Ukrainian President being shaken down by the mob boss leader of the US is going to deny victimization.

But you are the one who has been wrong about Trump since the election. You still believe Trump colluded with the Russians. Did you ever consider that you might be the dumb one?

[Reality 3,121]

5 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Worms, I like you, so I'm trying to be nice.

The "transcript" and the words from the Ukraine President are actual, factual words direct from each of the horses mouth. 

What you want us to do, is to *NOT* look at the actual factual words but instead read between the lines......or assess (guess) at what a whistleblower (who doesn't have direct knowledge) *may* know.  It is likely that there is maybe some more information to possibly come out. 

Why would I  ignore the actual transcript and interviews from the horses mouths but instead try and read between the lines with all of our confirmation bias?

Spot on.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/26/devin-nunes-democrats-wanted-nude-photos-trump/

Hey, remember back in the day Schiff was working with a 'foreign government' to get nude photos of Trump?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

3 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

The complaint is NOT covered by the whistleblower statute. It was a mistake for the I.C. I.G. to even take it seriously as it's all heresay.

'No Direct Knowledge'  i.e. rumor.

Which as we can easily guess, is a lie.  The whistleblower pretty clearly, IMO, illegally obtained access to the phone log and is playing it off like 2nd hand info.  

[Gladiators 1,995]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Do Trumpers face toward the White House when they genuflect to the Orange Messiah each morning?  

Portly Jesus needs your thoughts and prayers to wage war against the Matrix.  

She lost.  

[Gladiators 1,995]

28 minutes ago, MDC said:

QAnon is sort of a modern day Apostle who is documenting the Orange Messiah’s secret war against the Democratic pedo pizza Satanic cabal.

Moses brought his tablets down from Mt. Sinai but QAnon spreads the good word through 4chan.

Amen.  

It was her turn!  

 

 

[Mike Honcho 5,297]

23 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Worms, I like you, so I'm trying to be nice.

The "transcript" and the words from the Ukraine President are actual, factual words direct from each of the horses mouth. 

What you want us to do, is to *NOT* look at the actual factual words but instead read between the lines......or assess (guess) at what a whistleblower (who doesn't have direct knowledge) *may* know.  It is likely that there is maybe some more information to possibly come out. 

Why would I  ignore the actual transcript and interviews from the horses mouths but instead try and read between the lines with all of our confirmation bias?

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation

Quote

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the note taker was unable to hear.

 

[Baker Boy 1,703]

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation

 

I guess you don’t understand the difference between first hand knowledge and hearsay. Who do you think has the better chance at being correct.

[Strike 5,591]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation

 

Well then Worms' assertion that since the whistleblower's memo matches the transcript he is credible should be discounted.  I mean, if we can't trust the transcript it doesn't matter if the whistleblower recalls it similarly, does it?

[IGotWorms 4,059]

30 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Worms, I like you, so I'm trying to be nice.

The "transcript" and the words from the Ukraine President are actual, factual words direct from each of the horses mouth. 

What you want us to do, is to *NOT* look at the actual factual words but instead read between the lines......or assess (guess) at what a whistleblower (who doesn't have direct knowledge) *may* know.  It is likely that there is maybe some more information to possibly come out. 

Why would I  ignore the actual transcript and interviews from the horses mouths but instead try and read between the lines with all of our confirmation bias?

Well no, nothing is straight from the horse’s mouth since it’s not a verbatim transcript. I’m not sure it matters since what is reflected in the summary of the call is pretty damning in itself, but I think it’s important to be accurate on what the document is and is not.

If the whistleblower complaint only reported on the call then I agree the summary would probably be the better source. My point is the whistleblower wrote this a month and a half ago way before any summary was released, yet he had the contents of the call correct according to the summary. So when folks are trying to completely discredit the complaint as unreliable hearsay, that’s where I’d point to from what we do know at this point and can compare, the whistleblower had it right.

Now why does that matter? Because there’s much more to the complaint than just the July 25 call. There’s the months-long shakedown effort leading up to it and the actions taken by Giuliani after it. Though we don’t know that the whistleblower’s account of these events is totally accurate, we can probably assume they may very well be since he had the rest of it correct. But yes, further investigation is certainly necessary to verify and probably expand upon those events.

[KSB2424 3,148]

12 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation

 

I put transcript in quotes.  What do you want us to call it?  I don't care.....

It's first hand, detailed noting of the conversation, including actual words that came out of their mouth (transcribe).   Is that not more credible than hearsay?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

10 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

I guess you don’t understand the difference between first hand knowledge and hearsay. Who do you think has the better chance at being correct.

I think he is saying that it's hearsay based on hearsay. I agree.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

17 minutes ago, Strike said:

Well then Worms' assertion that since the whistleblower's memo matches the transcript he is credible should be discounted.  I mean, if we can't trust the transcript it doesn't matter if the whistleblower recalls it similarly, does it?

I have to think all phone transcripts from the WH are specifically handled (2nd party remembrance) so as not to be admissible to an investigation. Not just Trumps, all Presidents. Just smart policy.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

25 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation

 

Objection your honor; hearsay.

Sustained.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

This one's for you Honcho. 

That bit about the prosecutor not being tough on corruption? Fake news put out there by Biden's legal team.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Audio tape of the whistleblower complaint:   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFZNK2AXYAAhicq.jpg

[KSB2424 3,148]

The "transcript" doesn't read like notes or a summary.  It reads like a court reporter transcribing spoken word down on paper for the official court reporting.  Or is that just me?

[drobeski 3,061]

"I was not a witness to any of it" : whistleblower 

My God, these must be some pretty massive crimes the dems are covering up to be this panicked illogical and retarded. 

 

[vuduchile 1,945]

18 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

we can probably assume they may very well be 

Well that’s good enough for me.  Lock him up!  

[Strike 5,591]

25 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

we can probably assume they may very well be

Which legal standard does this meet?   Preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, or partisan Worms is full of sh*t?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

This one's for worms and his assertion the complaint is authentic.

Simply put, whoever wrote the whistleblower's complaint NEVER thought the transcript of the call would be released, or for that matter the whistleblower complaint would be released. It's full of outright lies along with ZERO firsthand knowledge.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/complaint-from-so-called-whistleblower-is-riddled-with-gossip-blatant-falsehoods/

The complainant begins by falsely characterizing a July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky, the transcript of which was released by the White House on Wednesday.

Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike,” the complainant alleges. A review of the transcript of the call shows that while Trump mentioned Crowdstrike once during the call, he never made such a request about locating and turning over multiple servers to the U.S.

The complainant also falsely alleges that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.

“The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep him in his position,” the complainant alleges, based on gossip he says he heard from unnamed White House officials.

Trump made no such suggestion to Zelensky, according to the transcript of the phone call. While Trump did say that it was “unfair” that a prosecutor who was “very good” was “shut down,” it’s not clear that Trump was even referring to Lutsenko, as a previous prosecutor named Viktor Shokin was fired after he opened investigations into a Ukrainian energy company that placed Hunter Biden, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, on its board.

Trump directly references Shokin later in the conversation.

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that,” Trump said.

In 2018, Joe Biden bragged on camera that his threats to withhold a billion dollars in loan guarantees from Ukraine directly led to Shokin’s firing.

The complainant then alleges, without evidence, that efforts to secure the records of the call to prevent unauthorized access to classified information are themselves proof of corruption.

The transcript was “loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature,” the complainant claims. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

The complainant provides zero evidence beyond the opinion of an anonymous official that phone conversations between world leaders do not contain “anything remotely sensitive.” Trump formally declassified the transcript of the phone call, which had previously been classified as “SECRET/NOFORN,” meaning the information could not be shared with uncleared U.S. individuals or any foreign nationals, earlier this week.

In a footnote, the complainant even alleges that the mere classification of phone calls between world leaders was itself a corrupt act.

Following the section on Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, the complainant then devotes several pages to summaries of various news articles as proof of the underlying allegations in the complaint. The complainant quotes George Stephanopoulos (an ABC News employee who previously served in President Bill Clinton’s White House), The Hill, Bloomberg News, Politico, Fox News, the New York Times, and even Twitter.

The document itself is riddled not with evidence directly viewed by the complainant, but repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

A review of the entire complaint shows it is not so much an example of whistle-blowing, an act that can only be done by the individual holding the whistle, but an elaborate gossipy game of telephone between unnamed individuals whose motives and credibility are impossible to ascertain.

In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found in its review of the complaint from the anonymous official that the intelligence community inspector general found “indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

[Hardcore troubadour 15,513]

It's time to start treating the libtards like worms and MDCuck like a homeless person yelling out gibberish on the corner. 

[sderk 1,040]

3 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

full of outright lies along with ZERO firsthand knowledge.

Pretty good one liner to describe Worms. Accurate as hell if nothing else. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

19 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

The "transcript" doesn't read like notes or a summary.  It reads like a court reporter transcribing spoken word down on paper for the official court reporting.  Or is that just me?

I agree, and might be. But they are described as remembrances of trained staff. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It's time to start treating the libtards like worms and MDCuck like a homeless person yelling out gibberish on the corner. 

worms simply forgets all his fake lawyer training in these threads. The Helen Keller of lawyering could get see the holes already.  MDC is a nut.

[iam90sbaby 2,621]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It's time to start treating the libtards like worms and MDCuck like a homeless person yelling out gibberish on the corner. 

Way ahead of you. Attempting to have dialogue with a liberal is a complete waste of time. Point, laugh and make fun of them and continue on with your day. 

[MDC 7,498]

It’s time to ignore MDC!

- Guy who begs for my attention 24/7.  

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Since rumors are now considered to be true, it's rumored Lawfare lawyers wrote this for the whistleblower and that he/she met previously with the Dems on the House Intelligence Committee.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

37 minutes ago, Strike said:

Which legal standard does this meet?   Preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, or partisan Worms is full of sh*t?

I think it meets a standard of warranting further inquiry. You must be confused as we are not in a court of law. Now if impeachment moves to the senate there is then a “trial” and I’m really not sure what that specifically entails but maybe then you’d have some kind of point

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Nunes opening statement:

I want to congratulate the Democrats on the rollout of their latest information warfare operation against the President, and their extraordinary ability once again to enlist the mainstream media in their campaign.

This operation began with media reports—from the prime instigators of the Russian collusion hoax—that a whistleblower is claiming President Trump made a nefarious “promise” to a foreign leader. The released transcript of the call has already debunked that central assertion, but that didn’t matter. The Democrats simply moved the goalposts and began claiming that there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo for this conversation to serve as the basis for impeaching the president.

Speaker Pelosi went even further when asked earlier if she’d put the brakes on impeachment if the transcript turned out to be benign. She responded, “We have many other candidates for impeachable offenses.” So there you go—if their whistleblower operation doesn’t work out, the Democrats and their media assets can always drum up something else.

And what other information has come to light since the original false report of a “promise” being made? We’ve learned the following:

• The complaint relied on hearsay evidence provided by the whistleblower.
   
• The Inspector General did not know the contents of the phone call at issue.
   
• The Inspector General found that the whistleblower displayed “arguable political bias” against Trump.
   
• The Department of Justice investigated the complaint and determined no action was warranted.
   
• The Ukrainian President denies being pressured by President Trump.  

So, once again, this supposed scandal ends up being nothing like what we were told. And once again, the Democrats, their media mouthpieces, and a cabal of leakers are ginning up a fake story, with no regard to the monumental damage they’re causing to our public institutions and to trust in government, and without acknowledging all the false stories they propagated in the past, including countless allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to hack the 2016 election. We’re supposed to forget about all those stories but believe this one. In short, what we have with this storyline is another Steele dossier.   

I’ll note here that, in the Democrats’ mania to overturn the 2016 elections, everything they touch gets hopelessly politicized. With the Russia hoax it was our intelligence agencies, which were turned into a political weapon to attack the president. And today, the whistleblower process is the casualty. Until about a week ago, the need to protect that process was a primary bipartisan concern of this committee. But if the Democrats were really concerned with defending that process, they would have pursued this matter with quiet and sober inquiries, as we always do for whistleblowers.

But that would’ve been useless for them. They don’t want answers, they want a public spectacle. And so we’ve been treated to an unending parade of press releases, press conferences, and fake news stories.

This hearing itself is another example—whistleblower inquiries should not be held in public at all, as our Senate counterparts, both Democrats and Republicans, obviously understand—their hearing with Mr. Maguire is behind closed doors. But again, that only makes sense when your goal is to get information, not to create a media frenzy.

The current hysteria has something else in common with the Russia hoax. Back then, they accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russians when the Democrats themselves were colluding with Russians in preparing the Steele dossier. Today, they accuse the president of pressuring Ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. And yet, there are numerous examples of Democrats doing the exact same thing. For example:

• Joe Biden bragged that he extorted the Ukrainians into firing a prosecutor, who happened to be investigating Biden’s own son.
   
• Three Democrat senators wrote a letter pressuring the Ukrainian general prosecutor to reopen investigations it reportedly froze on former Trump campaign officials.
   
• Another Democratic senator went to Ukraine and pressured the Ukrainian President not to investigate corruption allegations involving Biden’s son.   BOOM         Who was this Senator?!!!
   
• According to Ukrainian officials, Democratic National Committee contractor Alexandra Chalupa tried to get Ukrainian officials to provide dirt on Trump associates and tried to get the former Ukrainian President to comment publicly on their alleged ties to Russia.
   
• Ukrainian official Serhiy Leshchenko was a source for Nellie Ohr, wife of Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, as she worked on the anti-Trump operation conducted by Fusion GPS and funded by the Democrats.
   
• And of course, Democrats on this very committee negotiated with people they thought were Ukrainians in order to obtain nude pictures of Trump.  

 As you see, it’s a reliable rule of thumb in these information operations that whatever the Democrats accuse you of doing, they’re doing themselves.

People can reasonably ask why the Democrats are so determined to impeach this president when in just a year they’ll have a chance to vote him out of office. In fact, one Democratic congressman—one of the first to call for Trump’s impeachment—gave us the answer when he said, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get reelected.”

Yes, winning elections is hard, and when you compete you have no guarantee you’ll win. But the American people should have a say in all this, and they made their voices heard in the election. This latest gambit by the Democrats to overturn the people’s mandate is unhinged and dangerous.

They should end this entire dishonest, grotesque spectacle and get back to solving problems, which is what every member of this committee was sent here to do. Judging by today’s charade, however, the chances of that happening anytime soon are zero to none.

[KSB2424 3,148]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

I think it meets a standard of warranting further inquiry. 

Okay, and that is fine.  However the House Democrats via Pelosi have already talked (maybe even started the process?) of Impeachment proceedings.   Seems like they've made their mind up already.  I don't think impeaching a sitting POTUS should be a shoot first ask questions later sorta thing. 

[Strike 5,591]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I think it meets a standard of warranting further inquiry. You must be confused as we are not in a court of law. Now if impeachment moves to the senate there is then a “trial” and I’m really not sure what that specifically entails but maybe then you’d have some kind of point

Are you focking kidding me?  The transcript simply asks the Ukraine to investigate corruption.  It's unfortunate the target of that corruption is a potential challenger in the next Presidential election but hey, Biden, if you don't want to be investigated for corruption don't do corrupt things.  Wow, we shouldn't want corruption investigated all of a sudden?  And the whistleblower document is a bunch of allegations without evidence.  If that's your standard for investigating the President, we're in trouble going forward. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Just now, KSB2424 said:

Okay, and that is fine.  However the House Democrats via Pelosi have already talked (maybe even started the process?) of Impeachment proceedings.   Seems like they've made their mind up already.  I don't think impeaching a sitting POTUS should be a shoot first ask questions later sorta thing. 

They are desperate to get to a vote on this.  Impeach Trump, then turn it over to the Senate, who will dismiss it.  The left will consider that a win-win.  Right now they are polling the heck out of this.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

4 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Okay, and that is fine.  However the House Democrats via Pelosi have already talked (maybe even started the process?) of Impeachment proceedings.   Seems like they've made their mind up already.  I don't think impeaching a sitting POTUS should be a shoot first ask questions later sorta thing. 

Well no, I believe they’ve announced an “inquiry” which is exactly what’s warranted here. Though it’s worth mentioning it probably isn’t limited to just this instance. Remember Trump also benefitted from Russian interference in the 2016 election as obstructed justice?