Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Templar 331]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...YyM?li=BBnbfcL

Nunes Aide Is Leaking the Ukraine Whistleblower’s Name, Sources Say

Anyone surprised? Anyone? I mean this is Trump's lackey in the House.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/polit...ity/index.html

Republicans are still trying to figure out who the whistleblower is, the desperation is palpable.

And at least one Republican present, though not named, didn't contest that's exactly what Republicans were trying to do.

[zenkai]

Someone alert Zenkai that Nancy is no longer scared.

Thank you for admitting at one point she was, glad she is doing the right thing and holding a vote.

[Julez]

Not from foreign governments. And not withholding legal aide to that country by leveraging the aide on the condition that they investigate a political rival publicly.

But that never occurred. Trump never withheld the aide, and the investigation was never opened. Even President Zeleinsky said there was no quid pro quo. Are you accusing Zelensky of lying? Or is he just another Trump stooge, groveling at the feet of the USA so he can get his aid?

[cubby]

I'm curious, if Trump asked the Ukraine to gather dirt on Biden as a quid pro quo, and Biden has not been nominated by the DNC to be their representative in 2020, wouldn't it be in Trump's best interest to gather dirt on all of his so-called political rivals?

Why hasn't Trump tried to gather dirt on Warren, Sanders, Beto, Klobuchar, and the rest of them? Why only focus on Biden? Biden is the least likely of all of them to get the DNC nomination. If Trump was really trying to gather dirt on his political rivals he should be focusing on Warren at the least.

How do you know he didn't? In fact, I wonder what the over/under is on that?

[Belize]

But that never occurred. Trump never withheld the aide,

EEEHHHHHH WRONG

The Aid was withheld for over 6 months.
The WH said it was releasing it on Feb. 28. Guess what didn't happen.

[Julez]

Thank you for admitting at one point she was, glad she is doing the right thing and holding a vote.

She is not holding a vote on the actual impeachment inquiry, she is only holding a vote about the process.

The Democrats have voted on impeachment 3 times so far and every time the measure was tabled. Al Green brought articles in 2017 and 2019. Brad Sherman tried in 2017.

If I were the Democrats I would have backed Al Green. He actually has a sound reason for his articles and he has not wavered in his stance.

[Xeones]

She is not holding a vote on the actual impeachment inquiry, she is only holding a vote about the process.

The Democrats have voted on impeachment 3 times so far and every time the measure was tabled. Al Green brought articles in 2017 and 2019. Brad Sherman tried in 2017.

If I were the Democrats I would have backed Al Green. He actually has a sound reason for his articles and he has not wavered in his stance.

I didn't back them because it wasn't politically a good idea at the time.

Trump's impeachable behavior is unquestionable at this point. Only task is to lay out the facts after finishing the investigation to make the public force Republicans to vote for it.

[Elegiac]

I'm curious, if Trump asked the Ukraine to gather dirt on Biden as a quid pro quo, and Biden has not been nominated by the DNC to be their representative in 2020, wouldn't it be in Trump's best interest to gather dirt on all of his so-called political rivals?

Curious why the fuck you seem to think this matters when the entire issue is one of using public funds to extort foreign governments to gather dirt, which is extremely illegal.

[Julez]

Curious why the fuck you seem to think this matters when the entire issue is one of using public funds to extort foreign governments to gather dirt, which is extremely illegal.

That never occurred. Even President Zelensky agrees.

On the other hand, how is investigation Joe Biden, who we have on video saying that he extorted the Ukraine government by telling them if they did not fire a prosecutor that they would not receive their money, gathering dirt? That is not gathering dirt, the dirt already exists. That is looking into corruption. When did running for president make you immune to being investigated for corruption?

[Infraction]

[Xeones]

That never occurred. Even President Zelensky agrees.

On the other hand, how is investigation Joe Biden, who we have on video saying that he extorted the Ukraine government by telling them if they did not fire a prosecutor that they would not receive their money, gathering dirt? That is not gathering dirt, the dirt already exists. That is looking into corruption. When did running for president make you immune to being investigated for corruption?

You're basing your entire argument on the words of a man under pressure that conflicts with all testimony.

[Elegiac]

That never occurred. Even President Zelensky agrees.

We have multiple testimonies admitting as such, so - no. Miss me with your conspiracy theories.

[Julez]

We have multiple testimonies admitting as such, so - no. Miss me with your conspiracy theories.

You have not testimony. No testimony has been shown to the public aside from opening statements. They only thing you have so far is selective leaks from both sides, which is funny considering Adam Schiff said that these hearings were akin to a Grand Jury.

[pathora44]

That never occurred. Even President Zelensky agrees.

On the other hand, how is investigation Joe Biden, who we have on video saying that he extorted the Ukraine government by telling them if they did not fire a prosecutor that they would not receive their money, gathering dirt? That is not gathering dirt, the dirt already exists. That is looking into corruption. When did running for president make you immune to being investigated for corruption?

The idea that Joe Biden was the one and only reason the Ukrainian corrupt prosecutor was removed is the same level of conspiracy as the Hillary Clinton Uranium-1 deal. Joe Biden did not single handily have that prosecutor removed Congress backed him, the E.U. backed it along with other groups. This is literally no different then Alt-Right Republicans saying Hillary sold our Uranium to Russia for her personal gain. Hillary was one part of a 9 part council that voted on the sale of Uranium to Russia.

[Julez]

Zelensky only agrees that there wasn't any explicit quid pro quo on the phone call. The Ukraine has declined to involve itself in this investigation beyond that.

But that is the entire basis of this impeachment inquiry. That is what triggered the whistleblower, that Trump specifically mentioned a quid pro quo on the August 25th, 2019 phone call to Zelensky. Are you saying that the entire reason for this inquiry is based on a a lie? If the President of the Ukraine and Trump both say there was no quid pro quo on that phone call, and the transcript bears that out, then how is the impeachment inquiry legitimate?

[kaelleria]

The resolution is out for the vote tomorrow -
https://www.axios.com/impeachment-re...757cf62c1.html

Big thing - The minority can request witnesses but the Majority needs to sign off.

No circus for you Republicans!

[Julez]

What's funny is that it'll all be made public soon and you're busy denying reality.

I cannot wait, looking forward to it.

[cubby]

Thank you for admitting at one point she was, glad she is doing the right thing and holding a vote.

Pelosi is not holding the vote that you think she is, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

But that is the entire basis of this impeachment inquiry. That is what triggered the whistleblower, that Trump specifically mentioned a quid pro quo on the August 25th, 2019 phone call to Zelensky. Are you saying that the entire reason for this inquiry is based on a a lie? If the President of the Ukraine and Trump both say there was no quid pro quo on that phone call, and the transcript bears that out, then how is the impeachment inquiry legitimate?

Four people have confirmed quid pro quo - aide to Ukraine for investigating Biden. Denying that at this point is pushing lies. Please don't derail the conversation. Quid pro quo is settled fact at this point.

[Julez]

Joe Biden did not single handily have that prosecutor removed Congress backed him

So, the entire Congress an EU are guilty of extorting the Ukraine?

The fact remains that Biden said specifically if the Ukraine did not fire the prosecutor than the US would not give them their aid. Textbook definition of a quid pro quo. There is nothing conspiratorial about that at all, those are the facts.

[pathora44]

You really need to look into this all again. It's clear you don't understand even the basis of the inquiry. See, it's a violation of the law to even ask for the investigation into Biden. The quid pro quo, that we've seen was surely happening, is just another crime on top of that base crime. Good luck with your spin though.

Oh, and you don't have to be explicit for it to be a crime.

He/she and other Trumpsters have no understanding of anything that is going on. All they need is to get their daily talking points from Breitbart, qanon, r/the_Donald, or their usual spew of "experts" i.e. random fuckos on Youtube.

- - - Updated - - -

So, the entire Congress an EU are guilty of extorting the Ukraine?

The fact remains that Biden said specifically if the Ukraine did not fire the prosecutor than the US would not give them their aid. Textbook definition of a quid pro quo. There is nothing conspiratorial about that at all, those are the facts.

It isn't extortion when the government as a whole is withholding aid to remove a corrupt prosecutor. Now the president withholding aid to investigate a political rival that most definitely is extortion because it is for his own personal gain.