Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[Casual Observer 597]

59 minutes ago, drobeski said:

He will ignore this, and run with shiftys theatrics. That's how he rolls

I think you're right.  It's been about 45 minutes and he hasn't addressed that post.

[OldMaid 1,838]

1 hour ago, The Observer said:

Is Fox News reporting this?

No one is, because it’s a pile of garbage.

Every google search links back to this Federlist article with no way to fact check it. Meanwhile everyone else is reporting that the law/rules have not been changed. Only the forms for reporting, and that those forms were changed before the complaint was filed. Changing the reporting forms can not change the law/rules. And that the forms were changed to clarify that first hand knowledge is not required, not has it ever been.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

What am I ignoring? Some dumbass question about subpoenas? Who gives a flying fock. What’s the point here??

[The Observer 641]

1 hour ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Bank records show Hunter Biden was actually getting $166,000 per month (not $50,000)

 

How much is he allowed to earn?  How about Kushner and Ivanka?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

How much is he allowed to earn?  How about Kushner and Ivanka?

[The Observer 641]

13 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

No one is, because it’s a pile of garbage.

Every google search links back to this Federlist article with no way to fact check it. Meanwhile everyone else is reporting that the law/rules have not been changed. Only the forms for reporting, and that those forms were changed before the complaint was filed. Changing the reporting forms can not change the law/rules. And that the forms were changed to clarify that first hand knowledge is not required, not has it ever been.

Exactly. And he isn't bright enough to figure out that Fox News would do ANYTHING to run a story like this. It would be breaking news on their TV channel and they'd be dropping pamphlets from planes.  And as much of a conspiracy whacko that he is, he knows that. He can't do anything to dispute Trump's own words when it comes to asking for foreign help, so he has to turn to conspiracy theories that he knows are bullsh*t. That's how pathetic the right has become.

Here's the litmus test that righties should use when they read the latest conspiracy theory: Is it on Fox News' website?  That's it. That's the test. If it's not, then the story you read is bullsh*t. Because Fox News is inching closer and closer to Arthur Jones territory and if the story is too much of a lie for even them to post, then you know it's made up.

[drobeski 3,061]

20 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What am I ignoring? Some dumbass question about subpoenas? Who gives a flying fock. What’s the point here??

Um rules and established procedures ...but orange man bad and it was her turn so throw those out the window. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Just now, drobeski said:

Um rules and established procedures ...but orange man bad and it was her turn so throw those out the window. 

What rules and established procedures? What in the hell are you talking about? Quit playing coy

[Casual Observer 597]

26 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What am I ignoring? Some dumbass question about subpoenas? Who gives a flying fock. What’s the point here??

The point is the subpoena or subpoenas are illegitimate and should be ignored.  I should think that's something important to consider as a lawyer.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

18 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

No one is, because it’s a pile of garbage.

Every google search links back to this Federlist article with no way to fact check it. Meanwhile everyone else is reporting that the law/rules have not been changed. Only the forms for reporting, and that those forms were changed before the complaint was filed. Changing the reporting forms can not change the law/rules. And that the forms were changed to clarify that first hand knowledge is not required, not has it ever been.

You think CNN and MSNBC would actually WANT to report this?  I find your naivety cute.......

Some of the research on finding this thing was recently edited. 

Back to the Federalist article: 

Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August. Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.

Take some time to actually research stuff. Use www.duckduckgo.com as your research engine and look around.

[OldMaid 1,838]

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

[OldMaid 1,838]

5 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

You think CNN and MSNBC would actually WANT to report this?  I find your naivety cute.......

Some of the research on finding this thing was recently edited. 

Back to the Federalist article: 

Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August. Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.

Take some time to actually research stuff. Use www.duckduckgo.com as your research engine and look around.

Back to the Federalist article... 

[drobeski 3,061]

15 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

The point is the subpoena or subpoenas are illegitimate and should be ignored.  I should think that's something important to consider as a lawyer.

Theres no way he's a lawyer. 

[The Observer 641]

9 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

You think CNN and MSNBC would actually WANT to report this?  I find your naivety cute.......

Some of the research on finding this thing was recently edited. 

Back to the Federalist article: 

Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August. Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.

Take some time to actually research stuff. Use www.duckduckgo.com as your research engine and look around.

Why are you insisting on ignoring the fact that this isn't mentioned by Fox News?   Explain to me why that might be?

[drobeski 3,061]

Just now, The Observer said:

Why are you insisting on ignoring the fact that this isn't mentioned by Fox News?   Explain to me why that might be?

You watch fox ? 

[The Observer 641]

Just now, drobeski said:

You watch fox ? 

I'd rather watch you devour a cheesecake in one sitting.

Feel free to find it on Fox's website and prove me wrong.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

And you can thank the Democrats for why Atkinson's Congressional testimony is not available for public consumption for the very reason I stated earlier; the Dems used the House Intelligence to do these interviews to hide the testimony. Now this guy Atkinson's admission and non-answering is hidden by design.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

12 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

Where does the Russia/Trump collusion fall?  Rebellion I guess.

But the overall Trump attacks from the left are totally Shotgun Argumentation.  Right? 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

6 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Why are you insisting on ignoring the fact that this isn't mentioned by Fox News?   Explain to me why that might be?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-could-not-explain-18-days-between-ukraine-call-and-whistleblower-complaint-sources-say.amp

Oh Newbie...............

[Mr. Hand 482]

Just now, Filthy Fernadez said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-could-not-explain-18-days-between-ukraine-call-and-whistleblower-complaint-sources-say.amp

Oh Newbie...............

Such a meathead.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-could-not-explain-18-days-between-ukraine-call-and-whistleblower-complaint-sources-say.amp

Oh Newbie...............

Second day back and he's already been made a fool numerous times. 

[The Observer 641]

3 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-could-not-explain-18-days-between-ukraine-call-and-whistleblower-complaint-sources-say.amp

Oh Newbie...............

Nice try.

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Second day back and he's already been made a fool numerous times. 

I've totally destroyed you numerous times since yesterday. Embarrassingly so.   "You said Bush was anti-LGBT"  ROFL     You should probably keep your mouth shut.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

I've totally destroyed you numerous times since yesterday. Embarrassingly so.   "You said Bush was anti-LGBT"  ROFL     You should probably keep your mouth shut.  

No you didn't. You were just being wormy with your statement. Everyone knows what you were saying. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

37 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

The point is the subpoena or subpoenas are illegitimate and should be ignored.  I should think that's something important to consider as a lawyer.

People testify before Congress all the time without a subpoena. In fact it’s probably quite rare to compel testimony by subpoena. It’s actually usually the case in legal proceedings as well. Witnesses are usually going to be much more favorable and willing to talk if you can get them there voluntarily versus having some process server show up at their house and serve them in front of their wife and kids.

But if the witness refuses to show well then that’s usually because they have something to hide, so then you do go ahead and issue a subpoena which is what I read the House has done. You seem to be claiming the subpoena is invalid and I guess that’s for the courts to figure out. I’d have to imagine the House knows how to issue a valid subpoena but stranger things have happened. But at the end of the day all you’re really arguing is that Sodland can’t be jailed for his noncompliance—even if true we can still infer that he has plenty to hide since he won’t just show up.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

So Newbie and Old Maid................you're asserting because the Office of the I.C. IG released a statement saying this change was under review and was changed in August it must be true. Do you believe criminals when they say they're innocent?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

People testify before Congress all the time without a subpoena. In fact it’s probably quite rare to compel testimony by subpoena. It’s actually usually the case in legal proceedings as well. Witnesses are usually going to be much more favorable and willing to talk if you can get them there voluntarily versus having some process server show up at their house and serve them in front of their wife and kids.

But if the witness refuses to show well then that’s usually because they have something to hide, so then you do go ahead and issue a subpoena which is what I read the House has done. You seem to be claiming the subpoena is invalid and I guess that’s for the courts to figure out. I’d have to imagine the House knows how to issue a valid subpoena but stranger things have happened. But at the end of the day all you’re really arguing is that Sodland can’t be jailed for his noncompliance—even if true we can still infer that he has plenty to hide since he won’t just show up.

Why should WH officials or anyone for that matter, ONLY testify behind closed doors and ONLY in front of Democrats so that Democrats can make up whatever sh!t they want about the testimony? 

Does that sound like transparency to you? Why are the Dems hiding this stuff?

[Casual Observer 597]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

People testify before Congress all the time without a subpoena. In fact it’s probably quite rare to compel testimony by subpoena. It’s actually usually the case in legal proceedings as well. Witnesses are usually going to be much more favorable and willing to talk if you can get them there voluntarily versus having some process server show up at their house and serve them in front of their wife and kids.

But if the witness refuses to show well then that’s usually because they have something to hide, so then you do go ahead and issue a subpoena which is what I read the House has done. You seem to be claiming the subpoena is invalid and I guess that’s for the courts to figure out. I’d have to imagine the House knows how to issue a valid subpoena but stranger things have happened. But at the end of the day all you’re really arguing is that Sodland can’t be jailed for his noncompliance—even if true we can still infer that he has plenty to hide since he won’t just show up.

1.  I can tell that you've never tried a case.

2.  You're posting about subpoenas in this thread as if they have validity.

3.  This is the continuing innuendo argued by libs going back to the Russian interference.  Why not show up if you have nothing to hide?  Trump insists he's not going to play that game.  Dishonest Worms continuing to be dishonest.

[drobeski 3,061]

5 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Why should WH officials or anyone for that matter, ONLY testify behind closed doors and ONLY in front of Democrats so that Democrats can make up whatever sh!t they want about the testimony? 

Does that sound like transparency to you? Why are the Dems hiding this stuff?

Great questions.

 

[Reality 2,710]

4 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Why should WH officials or anyone for that matter, ONLY testify behind closed doors and ONLY in front of Democrats so that Democrats can make up whatever sh!t they want about the testimony? 

Does that sound like transparency to you? Why are the Dems hiding this stuff?

 

1 minute ago, Casual Observer said:

1.  I can tell that you've never tried a case.

2.  You're posting about subpoenas in this thread as if they have validity.

3.  This is the continuing innuendo argued by libs going back to the Russian interference.  Why not show up if you have nothing to hide?  Trump insists he's not going to play that game.  Dishonest Worms continuing to be dishonest.

And scene.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

3 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Why should WH officials or anyone for that matter, ONLY testify behind closed doors and ONLY in front of Democrats so that Democrats can make up whatever sh!t they want about the testimony? 

Does that sound like transparency to you? Why are the Dems hiding this stuff?

Well the trial occurs in the senate after the house issues articles of impeachment (essentially the indictment). Grand jury indictments are done in secret so I’d say already this process has probably been far more transparent than you’d expect and there doesn’t seem to be anything odd about closed-door testimony. Now when the actual trial occurs in the senate then of course that should be public with right to confrontation etc.

Now it would seem odd if only Democrats were in the closed-door session. You got a link for that? And please no conservative treehouse bullsh1t.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

2 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

1.  I can tell that you've never tried a case.

2.  You're posting about subpoenas in this thread as if they have validity.

3.  This is the continuing innuendo argued by libs going back to the Russian interference.  Why not show up if you have nothing to hide?  Trump insists he's not going to play that game.  Dishonest Worms continuing to be dishonest.

I can tell you have no idea what you’re talking about 

[drobeski 3,061]

This is no different than the Russia scam. They know they have nothing so they're going to go after an obstruction charge. 

Obstruction was the target in both cases. They will fail in this as they failed in the last one. 

The real question is why are they so desperate? 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Well the trial occurs in the senate after the house issues articles of impeachment (essentially the indictment). Grand jury indictments are done in secret so I’d say already this process has probably been far more transparent than you’d expect and there doesn’t seem to be anything odd about closed-door testimony. Now when the actual trial occurs in the senate then of course that should be public with right to confrontation etc.

Now it would seem odd if only Democrats were in the closed-door session. You got a link for that? And please no conservative treehouse bullsh1t.

The closed door testimony is such that Republicans can be and most likely are being excluded hence the term Kangaroo court. 

Also, the Dems are doing this with no Judicial authority by going through the Intel Committee; it's an invalid impeachment inquiry.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Just now, Filthy Fernadez said:

The closed door testimony is such that Republicans can be and most likely are being excluded hence the term Kangaroo court. 

Also, the Dems are doing this with no Judicial authority by going through the Intel Committee; it's an invalid impeachment inquiry.

Sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook you most likely got from QAnon. And no link 

[vuduchile 1,941]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Why should WH officials or anyone for that matter, ONLY testify behind closed doors and ONLY in front of Democrats so that Democrats can make up whatever sh!t they want about the testimony? 

Does that sound like transparency to you? Why are the Dems hiding this stuff?

This is the problem I have with the whole process.  

If there’s to be an impeachment inquiry or proceeding, the entire House of Representatives needs to be involved. 

This while thing is nothing but partisan politics in advance of the next POTUS election.  

[drobeski 3,061]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook you most likely got from QAnon. And no link 

You are very uninformed,  change the channel. 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Now it would seem odd if only Democrats were in the closed-door session. You got a link for that? And please no conservative treehouse bullsh1t.

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181231/116-HRes6-SxS.pdf

[IGotWorms 3,315]

2 minutes ago, drobeski said:

This is no different than the Russia scam. They know they have nothing so they're going to go after an obstruction charge. 

Obstruction was the target in both cases. They will fail in this as they failed in the last one. 

The real question is why are they so desperate? 

I don’t think they’re going for an obstruction charge here. It may be included in the articles of impeachment but the main charge will be much meatier. It has to be.

And your narrative is false since they could have gone with obstruction from the mueller inquiry. Mueller found like 15 possible instances of it and basically said congress could or should impeach. But they didn’t. So in fact the truth is exactly opposite of what you said, but that’s hardly a shocker.

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t think they’re going for an obstruction charge here. It may be included in the articles of impeachment but the main charge will be much meatier. It has to be.

And your narrative is false since they could have gone with obstruction from the mueller inquiry. Mueller found like 15 possible instances of it and basically said congress could or should impeach. But they didn’t. So in fact the truth is exactly opposite of what you said, but that’s hardly a shocker.

He did not say they should impeach.