Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[drobeski 3,061]

5 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Let me help you:

“I told Mr. Morrison in early September 2019 that the resumption of U.S. aid to Ukraine had become tied to a public statement to be issued by Ukraine agreeing to investigate Burisma.”

 

“I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.”

 

“I now recall speaking individually with Mr.Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. Ialso recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.”

 

“I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a laterconversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelenskyhimself.“

 

“I cannot specifically recall if I had one or two phone calls with President Trump in the September 6-9 time frame. Despite repeated requests to the White House and the State Department, I have not been grantedaccess to all of the phone records, and I would like to review those phone records, along with any notes and other documents that may exist, to determine if I can provide more complete testimony to assist Congress. However, although I have no specific recollection of phone calls during this period with Ambassador Taylor or Mr. Morrison, I have no reason to question the substance of their recollection about my September 1 conversation with Mr. Yermak.”

 

 Straight up threw em under the bus too. Goodbye Pence. “Can’t remember” if I heard it from the president but yes I talked to him perhaps multiple times around the same period when I “became aware” that aid was tied to announcing an investigation on Biden and there are notes and other materials but White House is hiding them.

 

Good job, good effort.

I think they got their aid without announcing this investigation, no ? 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

7 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Let me help you:

“I told Mr. Morrison in early September 2019 that the resumption of U.S. aid to Ukraine had become tied to a public statement to be issued by Ukraine agreeing to investigate Burisma.”

 

“I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.”

 

“I now recall speaking individually with Mr.Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. Ialso recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.”

 

“I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a laterconversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelenskyhimself.“

 

“I cannot specifically recall if I had one or two phone calls with President Trump in the September 6-9 time frame. Despite repeated requests to the White House and the State Department, I have not been grantedaccess to all of the phone records, and I would like to review those phone records, along with any notes and other documents that may exist, to determine if I can provide more complete testimony to assist Congress. However, although I have no specific recollection of phone calls during this period with Ambassador Taylor or Mr. Morrison, I have no reason to question the substance of their recollection about my September 1 conversation with Mr. Yermak.”

 

 Straight up threw em under the bus too. Goodbye Pence. “Can’t remember” if I heard it from the president but yes I talked to him perhaps multiple times around the same period when I “became aware” that aid was tied to announcing an investigation on Biden and there are notes and other materials but White House is hiding them.

 

Good job, good effort.

September would appear to be months after the phone call and whistleblower complaint.

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

2 hours ago, drobeski said:

I think they got their aid without announcing this investigation, no ? 

 

Quote

 

Timeline

August 9: Trump tells reporters that Zelensky had been invited to the White House.

August 12: A whistleblower files a complaint with the intelligence inspector general.

August 15: Gordon and Coats depart the Office of Director of National Intelligence.

August 26: Intelligence IG forwards complaint to the acting DNI.

August 28: Then-national security adviser John Bolton meets with Zelensky in Kiev.

August 30: Trump considers blocking $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, effectively pausing disbursement of the funds during a formal review process.

September 1: Vice President Mike Pence meets with Zelensky in Warsaw.

September 2: Deadline for DNI to send whistleblower complaint to Congress -- he does not send it.

September 9: Intel IG notifies House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of an "urgent concern" that DNI has overruled.

September 9: Three House committees launch investigation of efforts by Trump, Giuliani and others to pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President's reelection efforts. The committees request information about Trump's July phone call with Zelensky.

September 10: Schiff demands acting DNI turn over the complaint.

September 12: The administration hold on Ukraine aid is lifted.

 

No, they did not.   

[vuduchile 1,941]

8 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

He’s flat wrong, though

Please tell me which of those lines explains that it’s illegal to ask a foreign official to investigate a political rival. 

[drobeski 3,061]

10 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

No, they did not.   

So Ukraine announced an investigation into Biden prior to receiving aid ? I must have missed that in your list of irrelevant bullshit. Written in invisible ink ?

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

10 minutes ago, drobeski said:

So Ukraine announced an investigation into Biden prior to receiving aid ? I must have missed that in your list of irrelevant bullshit. Written in invisible ink ?

My bad, I thought you meant the US side of whistleblower/investigation.  

[drobeski 3,061]

20 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

My bad, I thought you meant the US side of whistleblower/investigation.  

So the accusation of a quid pro quo is bullshit.  There clearly was no quo. 

 

[Cdub100 3,380]

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

 Straight up threw em under the bus too. Goodbye Pence. “Can’t remember” if I heard it from the president but yes I talked to him perhaps multiple times around the same period when I “became aware” that aid was tied to announcing an investigation on Biden and there are notes and other materials but White House is hiding them.

 

Good job, good effort.

Just to be clear. This guy is NOT saying Aid will come when you look into it. He's saying HE thinks (nobody told him it was the case) aid will come if they look into it. He also says he doesn't know how he knows it. 

Let me help you out. I think Justin Truedue is the love child between his mom and Fidel Castro. I don't know how I know it, but that's what I believe.

Both of our statements hold the same weight.

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

2 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Just to be clear. This guy is NOT saying Aid will come when you look into it. He's saying HE thinks (nobody told him it was the case) aid will come if they look into it. He also says he doesn't know how he knows it. 

Let me help you out. I think Justin Truedue is the love child between his mom and Fidel Castro. I don't know how I know it, but that's what I believe.

Both of our statements hold the same weight.

The only difference between the statements is when the Mainstream Media throws their weight behind one to make it appear credible. They are one of the greatest threats to our country.

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

27 minutes ago, drobeski said:

So the accusation of a quid pro quo is bullshit.  There clearly was no quo. 

 

An attempted quid pro quo still is an abuse of power along with other legal issues, whether or not it was completed.   

[drobeski 3,061]

33 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

An attempted quid pro quo still is an abuse of power along with other legal issues, whether or not it was completed.   

Oh so it's an insinuated thought crime. Got it.

So if only trump was able to get the quo part completed like Joe did, he'd be scott free

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

21 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

An attempted quid pro quo still is an abuse of power along with other legal issues, whether or not it was completed.   

Holy Spit Batman! TDS is so real.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 hour ago, vuduchile said:

Please tell me which of those lines explains that it’s illegal to ask a foreign official to investigate a political rival. 

I think this article explains my view on the whole thing.  It's possible that Trump did something illegal but it's also possible he didn't.  It all depends on Trump's intent which we probably won't know for sure.  Basically, nothing will happen.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

40 minutes ago, drobeski said:

Oh so it's an insinuated thought crime. Got it.

So if only trump was able to get the quo part completed like Joe did, he'd be scott free

 

Let me help you with an analogy.

 Quid pro quo sexual harassment is against the law. That’s where you say hey there sweetheart, if you blow me like your life depends on it I’ll give you a raise.

 If the girl in question says go fock yourself you fat stinky pervert, well you’ve still violated the law. Obviously. The fact she wouldn’t go along with it doesn’t vindicate your action. I mean that’d be pretty focking stupid if it did, right? So stupid nobody could actually suggest that with any intellectual honesty.

And here, the only reason the Ukraine got their aid is the heat got too high on Trump and he realized he’d be completely focked if he didn’t release it. But the damage had already been done through his attempts to extort a foreign government into announcing an investigation against a domestic political rival for his own person gain.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

25 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I think this article explains my view on the whole thing.  It's possible that Trump did something illegal but it's also possible he didn't.  It all depends on Trump's intent which we probably won't know for sure.  Basically, nothing will happen.

That’s stupid. Intent can be inferred and it’s clear as day here.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

And here, the only reason the Ukraine got their aid is the heat got too high on Trump and he realized he’d be completely focked if he didn’t release it. But the damage had already been done through his attempts to extort a foreign government into announcing an investigation against a domestic political rival for his own person gain.

I understand the trolling.  But you have to prove about 5 elements in order the prove the whole.  Good enough for a sideshow. Which this is.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s stupid. Intent can be inferred and it’s clear as day here.

So we shouid remove a sitting president based on the interpretation of intent? Aren't you the one always going off about us being a banana republic? 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Just now, TimmySmith said:

I understand the trolling.  But you have to prove about 5 elements in order the prove the whole.  Good enough for a sideshow. Which this is.

Trolling? Quite the opposite. This is what Nixon did but far worse for involving a foreign government and trying to extort them by withholding military aid designed to protect US national security interests. He needs to go.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s stupid. Intent can be inferred and it’s clear as day here.

The problem is that too many people share differing opinions on this.  Who gets to ultimately make the final decision?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Trolling? Quite the opposite. This is what Nixon did but far worse for involving a foreign government and trying to extort them by withholding military aid designed to protect US national security interests. He needs to go.

  Stop it, you're killing me.  

Tip: Switch Nixon with Hitler the next time around.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Trolling? Quite the opposite. This is what Nixon did but far worse for involving a foreign government and trying to extort them by withholding military aid designed to protect US national security interests. He needs to go.

Trump bugged a guys psychiatrist office? 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

2 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

  Stop it, you're killing me.  

Tip: Switch Nixon with Hitler the next time around.

Now who’s trolling?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,643]

Nixon is the new Hitler. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Now who’s trolling?

My mistake, you obviously talking about Biden. 

 

 

[drobeski 3,061]

12 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Trolling? Quite the opposite. This is what Nixon did but far worse for involving a foreign government and trying to extort them by withholding military aid designed to protect US national security interests. He needs to go.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing presidents. It was Obama who refused military aid, and Biden who refused any aid unless they fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma. You know a real quid pro with the quo ? 

Hack much?

[vuduchile 1,941]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I think this article explains my view on the whole thing.  It's possible that Trump did something illegal but it's also possible he didn't.  It all depends on Trump's intent which we probably won't know for sure.  Basically, nothing will happen.

So none of what you posted earlier speaks to the accusations.  Thanks. 

I'm not seeing it here either.  Again, this article speaks to a "Thing of Value" being given to a political campaign.  

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

1 minute ago, vuduchile said:

So none of what you posted earlier speaks to the accusations.  Thanks. 

I'm not seeing it here either.  Again, this article speaks to a "Thing of Value" being given to a political campaign.  

Information can be a thing of value.  Gaining an advantage over an opponent can be a thing of value.  It does not specify monetary value.  That's how I was interpreting it.

[vuduchile 1,941]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Information can be a thing of value.  Gaining an advantage over an opponent can be a thing of value.  It does not specify monetary value.  That's how I was interpreting it.

Maybe good faith wouldn’t be an adequate defense if Trump violated campaign finance laws by seeking a “thing of value” from foreign governments in support of his reelection campaign. But I would argue that some presidential conversations with foreign leaders must be considered beyond the scope of campaign finance regulation. The exercise of commander in chief responsibility in pursuit of the national interest should not get caught up in the interpretation of regulations that fundamentally are designed to protect American elections from foreign money.

Nor is a quid pro quo offer—if that is what Trump made to Ukraine when asking for an investigation—necessarily a sign of bad faith. Such an offer could be considered legitimate if it is in the service of a valid foreign policy objective, as Michael McFaul, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia, recently observed.

[Casual Observer 597]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Trolling? Quite the opposite. This is what Nixon did but far worse for involving a foreign government and trying to extort them by withholding military aid designed to protect US national security interests. He needs to go.

Oh please.  What National Security Interests?  Ukraine had already started and announced these investigations.  I wouldn't want a dime of taxpayer money going to some corrupt gov't. or entity unless I was assured they'd cleaned up their act.  All the whistleblowers and Ambassadors and insiders on this thing are Obama holdovers that believe their mission is to carry out the policies of the last President, not the current one.  The Ukraine thing and the Russian collusion thing are so ham-handed and poorly done that only assclowns like you believe it.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Just now, Casual Observer said:

The Ukraine thing and the Russian collusion thing are so ham-handed and poorly done that only assclowns like you believe it.

He doesn't.  Thus the trolling.  

[Casual Observer 597]

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Information can be a thing of value.  Gaining an advantage over an opponent can be a thing of value.  It does not specify monetary value.  That's how I was interpreting it.

How do you gain advantage over an opponent that publicly and proudly told us about his misdeeds?

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

8 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

How do you gain advantage over an opponent that publicly and proudly told us about his misdeeds?

I'm not sure.

[RLLD 3,455]

I think the Dem's need to see this through, I know it will backfire so lets GET IT ON!!!!

[Strike 3,975]

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1191860980554354688/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1191860980554354688&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fstreiff%2F2019%2F11%2F06%2Ffbi-foul-general-flynns-questioning-leaves-whole-agency-looking-like-clowns%2F

https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1190021242415468545

Case against Flynn falling apart.  But keep using that Worms.  Will make you look even dumber when the case gets tossed.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

14 minutes ago, Strike said:

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1191860980554354688/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1191860980554354688&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fstreiff%2F2019%2F11%2F06%2Ffbi-foul-general-flynns-questioning-leaves-whole-agency-looking-like-clowns%2F

https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1190021242415468545

Case against Flynn falling apart.  But keep using that Worms.  Will make you look even dumber when the case gets tossed.

At the very least it's (more) proof of FBI ineptness in perhaps the biggest case in the history of the U.S.   A bunch of buffoons led by traitors.

[drobeski 3,061]

17 minutes ago, Strike said:

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1191860980554354688/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1191860980554354688&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fstreiff%2F2019%2F11%2F06%2Ffbi-foul-general-flynns-questioning-leaves-whole-agency-looking-like-clowns%2F

https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1190021242415468545

Case against Flynn falling apart.  But keep using that Worms.  Will make you look even dumber when the case gets tossed.

Notice how hacks like worms avoid playing the "military hero" card with Flynn ? 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

6 minutes ago, drobeski said:

Notice how hacks like worms avoid playing the "military hero" card with Flynn ? 

I think that gets trumped (no pun intended) by the “convicted felon” part.

[drobeski 3,061]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

I think that gets trumped (no pun intended) by the “convicted felon” part.

Convicted eh ? By a jury ? Got a link?

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Just now, drobeski said:

Convicted eh ? By a jury ? Got a link?

This is an especially weak play, even by your standards.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

This is an especially weak play, even by your standards.

I'm not really shocked an astute lawyer like yourself doesnt understands what convicted means.