Jump to content
Alias Detective

Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

We all know where we stand on lying trolls who make things up.  :thumbsup:

Typical Trump cultist lashing out in response to any criticism, just like the Toddler in Chief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

The projection is strong in this one.  

I agree: You accusing anyone of hackery or trolling is hilariously ironical. :thumbsup: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fireballer said:

And the change in who a whistleblower can be?  Wtf?  They change it from 1st person info to hearsay and, violia!  We immediately have a wistleblower. 

They changed it days after Schiff got a copy of the complaint. The timeline on this is incredible. Incredibly corrupt. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much money are the Bidens getting from foreign influence?

This is very troubling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Flake?  :lol:

Are you serious with this?  I can't think of a better name than "Flake" for this guy.  No, thanks.  You can have him.

The same people that want the GOP to "save their souls" (other than Flake) are the same ones that put Hillary Clinton on their ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Flake? Got any Jeb! Bush quotes on the matter? You guys.....still don't get it.  We're the ones who had the revolution against the system. Now you're the ones running to the same people you railed against during Bush. Do you know how stupid it looks trotting out quotes from the very people that were rejected? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDC said:

I seriously have no idea what this verbal diarrhea even means or why you’re incapable of saying where you stand on a sitting POTUS suggesting a whistleblower gets the firing squad. 

It's very simple, either a whistleblower is protected or is not, Trump is a whistleblower, he is trying to out the corruption of the previous admin and the Dem's are virulently trying to stop him....so....if someone can do it, anyone can do it.....

If Obama can negotiate American situations on the down low with Russian leaders, Trump can do it with Ukrainian ones....fair is fair....though I freely admit I have more issue with what Obama did, I will allow that as a leader he has to do some stuff....to get stuff done....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

It's very simple, either a whistleblower is protected or is not, Trump is a whistleblower, he is trying to out the corruption of the previous admin and the Dem's are virulently trying to stop him....so....if someone can do it, anyone can do it.....

If Obama can negotiate American situations on the down low with Russian leaders, Trump can do it with Ukrainian ones....fair is fair....though I freely admit I have more issue with what Obama did, I will allow that as a leader he has to do some stuff....to get stuff done....

What does this have to do with Trump suggesting the whistleblower is a traitor who should face the firing squad? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MDC said:

What does this have to do with Trump suggesting the whistleblower is a traitor who should face the firing squad? 

Ah! I am glad you asked, because there is a reason that Snowden continues to not come back to the USA, even though he has tried....because he fears the death penalty....

How you threaten is not the matter, the threat exists.  But again, Snowden did the right thing, I get why Obama and the intel community hate him, but he did the right thing.....whistleblowers are important to keeping people honest, so I hope Trump can get to the heart of the Obama admin's role in the russian hoax.....I think Ukraine can help, and I think the Democrats know it....

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MDC said:

What does this have to do with Trump suggesting the whistleblower is a traitor who should face the firing squad? 

Because one can speculate that he is based on his actions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

There Is No Whistleblower, Just an misinformed Leaker!

There is no Dana, only Zuul!!!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

There is no Dana, only Zuul!!!

Nicely done.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Swung over by FBGheys and holy shnikes!  Those guys are jerkin' each other off like it's the Jerk-Off Olympics.  They're now convinced that they got him this time, 200%!

It is awesome.  They are so clueless and 100% convinced Trump is done.  Trump derangement syndrome is very strong at FBGheys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, naomi said:

I had to school myself about what really happened with Trump and Zelensky. Major media and talking heads from either side are unreliable.

This is coming from a pro-impeachment yet fairly forensic stance: https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-understand-whistleblower-complaint

A good case (which I didn't necessarily expect) is made there. 

I doubt Trump is that exceptional compared to other presidents as far as the lengths he'll go to move his agenda forward. But if you focus solely on principle and forget anyone else, this is not behavior to accept simply because he's still better than alternatives, or because there is plenty of bogus bloodthirst against him. We lose our national foundation that way. We outright reject the founders' explicit warnings about how we throw everything away. The foundation we supposedly stand on is now hollow. Our house collapses.

But then there's a more cynical thought - we've already lost it. Lots of corners are playing dirty in an abject way. Join the game with your at least more palatable guy before they beat you and implement their unwittingly dystopian ideology with new gusto.

Just a heads up, lawfare is  partisan blog designed to push propaganda to the media,  so they can say "all these really smart attorneys think Orange Man is Bad".

They are no different than Fusion GPS and WaPo. Just another controlled outlet to push the narrative. 

Lawfare wrote the complaint.

Fock them, they make ambulance chasers look honest.

If you doubt my post go look at their history. They were some of the dipshits pushing for the electoral college to change the will of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MDC said:

I was wondering why he’s implying that the whistleblower was a spy who should get the death penalty. :doh: 

You are too focking stupid to understand English so don't bother replying.

For the rest of you, I just wanted to point out to you that it was posted last week, the NYT reported the "whistleblower" was in fact a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House. And it was the CIA who changed the rules on whistleblowers last month, at the same time this complaint was submitted, to allow heresay to qualify rather than requiring first hand knowledge.

The "whistleblower" appears to be a CIA officer who was spying on the White House, likely because his former boss is under investigation.

"Whistleblower" likely is a traitor. Deserves the proper punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is this traitor/so called whistleblower and whis direction is he falling under. All must be exposed and charged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Intense Observer said:

Just a heads up, lawfare is  partisan blog designed to push propaganda to the media,  so they can say "all these really smart attorneys think Orange Man is Bad".

They are no different than Fusion GPS and WaPo. Just another controlled outlet to push the narrative. 

Lawfare wrote the complaint.

Fock them, they make ambulance chasers look honest.

If you doubt my post go look at their history. They were some of the dipshits pushing for the electoral college to change the will of the people.

I read a different article from them right before that one and I noticed that the 3 authors were Brookings Institute staff. So I figure they're left of center. But (and I need to read it again) nothing was said in that piece that made me think it was intellectually dishonest. 

The complaint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, naomi said:

I read a different article from them right before that one and I noticed that the 3 authors were Brookings Institute staff. So I figure they're left of center. But (and I need to read it again) nothing was said in that piece that made me think it was intellectually dishonest. 

The complaint?

Pay no mind. When they don’t like—but can’t refute—the message, they attack the messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Intense Observer said:

You are too focking stupid to understand English so don't bother replying.

For the rest of you, I just wanted to point out to you that it was posted last week, the NYT reported the "whistleblower" was in fact a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House. And it was the CIA who changed the rules on whistleblowers last month, at the same time this complaint was submitted, to allow heresay to qualify rather than requiring first hand knowledge.

The "whistleblower" appears to be a CIA officer who was spying on the White House, likely because his former boss is under investigation.

"Whistleblower" likely is a traitor. Deserves the proper punishment.

None of this in any way shows whether what he said is true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Intense Observer said:

You are too focking stupid to understand English so don't bother replying.

For the rest of you, I just wanted to point out to you that it was posted last week, the NYT reported the "whistleblower" was in fact a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House. And it was the CIA who changed the rules on whistleblowers last month, at the same time this complaint was submitted, to allow heresay to qualify rather than requiring first hand knowledge.

The "whistleblower" appears to be a CIA officer who was spying on the White House, likely because his former boss is under investigation.

"Whistleblower" likely is a traitor. Deserves the proper punishment.

The change the rules on whistleblower thing is just flat out false. Pure bullsh1t Trump Administration propaganda.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/legal-experts-debunk-trumps-claim-whistleblower-rules-changed/story%3fid=65964036

Inspector General himself said this.

And it’s a really focking stupid “defense” to boot. In no way does it deny the contents of the report. In fact the Trump Administration and Giuliani have confirmed many of the allegations along with rampant corroboration in the summary of the July 25 call. So what exactly is the point to all this anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

The change the rules on whistleblower thing is just flat out false. Pure bullsh1t Trump Administration propaganda.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/legal-experts-debunk-trumps-claim-whistleblower-rules-changed/story%3fid=65964036

Inspector General himself said this.

And it’s a really focking stupid “defense” to boot. In no way does it deny the contents of the report. In fact the Trump Administration and Giuliani have confirmed many of the allegations along with rampant corroboration in the summary of the July 25 call. So what exactly is the point to all this anyway?

What's exact law or statute has trump allegedly broken here ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I could go on and on and on at what a terrible defense that is.

If your wife says “I heard you’re cheating on me” do you counter with “well that’s just hearsay”? Only if you’re absolutely cheating on her and a terrible liar to boot.

And it’s not even hearsay! I can tell you that most of that complaint would probably be admissible in a court of law so long as the whistleblower himself testified to it. Something is hearsay only if it’s offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and most of this stuff is not. It makes no difference if Trump’s insane wack job conspiracy theories are true — in fact it’s explicitly assumed they are not! All that matters is his act of arm twisting a foreign government into investigating a political opponent. This is a fine point of the law I wouldn’t expect most people to understand, but believe me when I say most of this stuff doesn’t even fit the legal definition of hearsay.

ANOTHER REASON it isn’t hearsay is statements of a party are not hearsay. So in a proceeding against Trump all of his statements and all of his agents’ statements (so Giuliani, Barr, state department officials, etc) are not hearsay. If you’d like to see the rule of evidence yourself here it is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801

But fockin A, lets just assume for the hell of it that the complaint was mostly or entirely hearsay. What the law requires IS NOT that the whistleblower have first hand knowledge. That is a demonstrably false and purposefully misleading bullsh1t statement from the Trump team. The law requires that the inspector general conduct an initial inquiry and corroborate the allegations with persons who do have first hand knowledge, AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE HERE. Hence, the inspector general determining after an initial investigation that the allegations were “credible and urgent.”

And we all know they are! You can read the summary of the July 25 phone call and it unquestionably corroborates the bulk of the whistleblower complaint! Basically everything the whistleblower reported about that call was verified as correct from the summary released by the Trump White House itself. The only parts that are even moderately in doubt is the additional info of events transpiring leading up to and following the phone call. Many of those are also implicitly corroborated by the summary but hey, guess what, that’s why it’s called an impeachment INQUIRY. There will be further investigation and corroboration so to the extent the complaint needs to be further examined—that’s the whole point of the process!!

I mean, my god, this “defense” is so mind-blowingly stupid. Your typical moron criminal off the street comes up with a better defense than this even when caught red-handed. And yet some of you guys are so far gone you buy right into it anyways. It’s incredible. The whole thing is really incredible.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, drobeski said:

What's exact law or statute has trump allegedly broken here ?

 

Another really very terrible defense. I mean is it really your assertion that there’s nothing wrong with subverting American power and foreign policy to a personal quest to arm twist a foreign government into investigating a political opponent? And withholding military aid as a part of that scheme—aid intended to protect American national security interests against Russia?? Is that really your assertion??!

And then covering it up to boot! By placing summaries of calls on a black ops only server when the real reason the calls are hidden is to prevent political and possibly criminal repercussions against the president. PLUS when the whistleblower complaint was determined credible it had to be presented to Congress and yet that was covered up too! Let’s not forget extortion, bribery, and witness intimidation either, as well as whatever you might call his attempts to put Adam Schiff in danger.

Look I’m not drafting the articles of impeachment but you’ll probably see all this and much more in there, with reference to specific laws. Again there’s laws on the whistleblower complaint and use of the black ops server. As for the underlying actions colloquially I’d say they’re tantamount to treason. He has betrayed his country and the very foundation of democratic principles. I know this is where you guys like to get cute and say ha ha technically it’s not treason because technically we aren’t at war with Russia. Good for you, though you’ve lost the focking battle if that’s what your defense. But alright, if we’re talking precise statues and so forth we can start here:

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Here’s what the FEC head had to say when this nut job president you blindly support said he would accept dirt on political adversaries from foreign governments:

Weintraub tried to clarify: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

“This is not a novel concept,” she wrote. “Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the founding of our nation.”

Here’s the law: 52 USC 30121: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

This shouldn’t even be open for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lawyer defending hearsay as enough evidence to bring about charges. Wow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Another really very terrible defense. I mean is it really your assertion that there’s nothing wrong with subverting American power and foreign policy to a personal quest to arm twist a foreign government into investigating a political opponent? And withholding military aid as a part of that scheme—aid intended to protect American national security interests against Russia?? Is that really your assertion??!

And then covering it up to boot! By placing summaries of calls on a black ops only server when the real reason the calls are hidden is to prevent political and possibly criminal repercussions against the president. PLUS when the whistleblower complaint was determined credible it had to be presented to Congress and yet that was covered up too! Let’s not forget extortion, bribery, and witness intimidation either, as well as whatever you might call his attempts to put Adam Schiff in danger.

Look I’m not drafting the articles of impeachment but you’ll probably see all this and much more in there, with reference to specific laws. Again there’s laws on the whistleblower complaint and use of the black ops server. As for the underlying actions colloquially I’d say they’re tantamount to treason. He has betrayed his country and the very foundation of democratic principles. I know this is where you guys like to get cute and say ha ha technically it’s not treason because technically we aren’t at war with Russia. Good for you, though you’ve lost the focking battle if that’s what your defense. But alright, if we’re talking precise statues and so forth we can start here:

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Here’s what the FEC head had to say when this nut job president you blindly support said he would accept dirt on political adversaries from foreign governments:

Weintraub tried to clarify: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

“This is not a novel concept,” she wrote. “Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the founding of our nation.”

Here’s the law: 52 USC 30121: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

This shouldn’t even be open for debate.

After this and your previous two posts, I'm sure that will completely clear things up for most members of the GC.  At least have everyone here will now have a through understanding of of the terms and use them correctly in presenting their future arguements.  

Well done.  :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

After this and your previous two posts, I'm sure that will completely clear things up for most members of the GC.  At least have everyone here will now have a through understanding of of the terms and use them correctly in presenting their future arguements.  

Well done.  :thumbsup:

He done a great job of cutting and pasting the appropriate material meant to steer the conversation. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, drobeski said:

I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with an election. 

 

He will win the next one, their only hope is to smear in order to sway voters to their side, their ideas suck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RLLD said:

He will win the next one, their only hope is to smear in order to sway voters to their side, their ideas suck.....

Their whole argument is retarded.  The Democrats are headed to Ukraine to try and gather dirt on trump.  Election interference or is he not a candidate? 

Cant touch criminals as long as they are running for office. 

Idiots

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Another really very terrible defense. I mean is it really your assertion that there’s nothing wrong with subverting American power and foreign policy to a personal quest to arm twist a foreign government into investigating a political opponent? And withholding military aid as a part of that scheme—aid intended to protect American national security interests against Russia?? Is that really your assertion??!

And then covering it up to boot! By placing summaries of calls on a black ops only server when the real reason the calls are hidden is to prevent political and possibly criminal repercussions against the president. PLUS when the whistleblower complaint was determined credible it had to be presented to Congress and yet that was covered up too! Let’s not forget extortion, bribery, and witness intimidation either, as well as whatever you might call his attempts to put Adam Schiff in danger.

Look I’m not drafting the articles of impeachment but you’ll probably see all this and much more in there, with reference to specific laws. Again there’s laws on the whistleblower complaint and use of the black ops server. As for the underlying actions colloquially I’d say they’re tantamount to treason. He has betrayed his country and the very foundation of democratic principles. I know this is where you guys like to get cute and say ha ha technically it’s not treason because technically we aren’t at war with Russia. Good for you, though you’ve lost the focking battle if that’s what your defense. But alright, if we’re talking precise statues and so forth we can start here:

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Here’s what the FEC head had to say when this nut job president you blindly support said he would accept dirt on political adversaries from foreign governments:

Weintraub tried to clarify: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

“This is not a novel concept,” she wrote. “Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the founding of our nation.”

Here’s the law: 52 USC 30121: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

This shouldn’t even be open for debate.

 

It seems like Biden did that and Trump is having it looked into though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all. The trump accusations are debunked. 

Second of all, you cant his political opponents cannot investigate him, since he's running for office.  

Thread over 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Another really very terrible defense. I mean is it really your assertion that there’s nothing wrong with subverting American power and foreign policy to a personal quest to arm twist a foreign government into investigating a political opponent? And withholding military aid as a part of that scheme—aid intended to protect American national security interests against Russia?? Is that really your assertion??!

And then covering it up to boot! By placing summaries of calls on a black ops only server when the real reason the calls are hidden is to prevent political and possibly criminal repercussions against the president. PLUS when the whistleblower complaint was determined credible it had to be presented to Congress and yet that was covered up too! Let’s not forget extortion, bribery, and witness intimidation either, as well as whatever you might call his attempts to put Adam Schiff in danger.

Look I’m not drafting the articles of impeachment but you’ll probably see all this and much more in there, with reference to specific laws. Again there’s laws on the whistleblower complaint and use of the black ops server. As for the underlying actions colloquially I’d say they’re tantamount to treason. He has betrayed his country and the very foundation of democratic principles. I know this is where you guys like to get cute and say ha ha technically it’s not treason because technically we aren’t at war with Russia. Good for you, though you’ve lost the focking battle if that’s what your defense. But alright, if we’re talking precise statues and so forth we can start here:

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Here’s what the FEC head had to say when this nut job president you blindly support said he would accept dirt on political adversaries from foreign governments:

Weintraub tried to clarify: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

“This is not a novel concept,” she wrote. “Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the founding of our nation.”

Here’s the law: 52 USC 30121: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

This shouldn’t even be open for debate.

Yes, I mean American Presidents shouldn't want to investigate American citizens who have publicly admitted to their foreign intrigues and corruption.  They should just blindly give our tax dollars to foreign governments, corrupt or not.  Honestly, this scenario is so focking stupid, as are the people pushing it and supporting it, that you all should be lined up against a wall and shot live on T.V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×