Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Breccia]

Oh hey... The WH is attacking Vindman now with an out of context quote.

I can provide context.

The quote's source is Tim Morrison, who is also wrapped up in all this. In particular, he confirmed the quid-pro-quo and

also told House impeachment investigators that he was advised by then-White House official Fiona Hill to stay away from the parallel Ukraine policy being pursued by Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, according to one of the sources.

In other words
a) this is one defendant attacking another defendant, and
b) Vindman responded by reading aloud former top Russia adviser Fiona Hill's final performance review of his work: "Alex is a top 1% military officer and the best Army officer I have worked with in my 15 years of government service. He is brilliant, unflappable and exercises excellent judgment.", and
c) I see Trump has learned nothing. Having the WH tweet instead of him is no less witness intimidation.

[DocSavageFan]

Just the numbers: 332-206 means Obama got 61% more EC votes. 306-232 means Trump got 31% more. I would really not equate the two margins.

It's all a matter of perspective and subjective judgement. Spin at your own peril.

[Belize]

It's all a matter of perspective and subjective judgement. Spin at your own peril.

Is that a warning based on experience? Are you getting dizzy from all the spinning you do?

[Thekri]

Jordan specifically said electoral landslide iirc.

Since Obama won by electoral landslide in 2012 (332-206)...it certainly can be reasonably argued that Trump won by electoral landslide in 2016 (306-232).

Which is notably a smaller margin of victory. In fact, Trump's "Landslide" is the 46th greatest margin of victory out of a total of 58 Presidential elections. So no, it isn't true. Obama didn't win in a landslide in 2012 either.

Still, as many other people have pointed out, it is entirely irrelevant, it was said purely to get brownie points from the world's most fragile ego. For context, Richard Nixon won the electoral college 520 to 17, and he was still impeached and forced to resign. Now that is a landslide. Still didn't save him when he was caught in criminal activity.

[Endus]

Jordan specifically said electoral landslide iirc.

Since Obama won by electoral landslide in 2012 (332-206)...it certainly can be reasonably argued that Trump won by electoral landslide in 2016 (306-232).

I don't believe anyone ever claimed Obama won in a "landslide" in the Electoral College.

And if we're looking just at the electoral college margins, here's those figures; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...College_margin

Donald Trump only comes in at #46 of 58. Obama was #37. That means 45 of the 58 elections were won by wider margins than Trump. Which means Trump's margins are fairly narrow, in any objective sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps we'll find out assuming Schiff let's him testify. But I won't hold my breath.

The whistleblower has already testified. That's what the whistleblower complaint is. Testimony.

[pathora44]

It's all a matter of perspective and subjective judgement. Spin at your own peril.

Trumpers before Impeachment findings begin: "The Whistleblower has nothing but here say and secondhand knowledge so it can not be trusted."

Trumpers after Impeachment findings begin with multiple firsthand testimonies: "Why are we not hearing from the Whistleblower? None of their testimony matters he/she was the one who launched the complaint."

[DocSavageFan]

Google "obama electoral landslide 2012" and note that numerous MSM outlets reported Obama's 2012 win as an electoral landslide. I'm done on this subject.

[pathora44]

I don't believe anyone ever claimed Obama won in a "landslide" in the Electoral College.

And if we're looking just at the electoral college margins, here's those figures; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...College_margin

Donald Trump only comes in at #46 of 58. Obama was #37. That means 45 of the 58 elections were won by wider margins than Trump. Which means Trump's margins are fairly narrow, in any objective sense.

Well obviously 46 is a larger number then 37 so Trump had a better victory. Don't you know how numbers work? /s

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...m-when-he-goes

Trump is claiming he's never met and doesn't know Vindman. Which for Trump, is actually pretty reasonable.

But it sure makes you wonder why Trump seems to know so few of his staffers/aides, and if that's normal for a president.

[Thekri]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...m-when-he-goes

Trump is claiming he's never met and doesn't know Vindman. Which for Trump, is actually pretty reasonable.

But it sure makes you wonder why Trump seems to know so few of his staffers/aides, and if that's normal for a president.

I thought that was funny as well. Trump not knowing who any of his advisors on key foreign policy issues are is not a thing that reflects well on him. For the advisor, that is just frustrating, he can't brief someone that doesn't want to be briefed. Ultimately it is the President who is required to receive that counsel, it is not the responsibility of an advisor to force it on him.

[Crispin]

Google "obama electoral landslide 2012" and note that numerous MSM outlets reported Obama's 2012 win as an electoral landslide. I'm done on this subject.

There's like 2, LA times and Thenation "never heard of it before"

Let's be honest, you struck luck on some reporting it as such, and ran for the hills.

On first page you got news like

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ery-close.html

Add the several front pages on the guardians sitem none talking about a landslide

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ults-live-blog

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like Vindman is the whistleblower's source.

Who gives a rats ass about the whitleblower at this point..... listen to the far better sources, geesh you people.

And out of curiosity, why do you have the observation deck listed as location? It leaves the impression that you aren't American tbh. (not that it matters, neither am I)

[Edge-]

Who gives a rats ass about the whitleblower at this point..... listen to the far better sources, geesh you people.

Republicans do. Because they think if they can discredit him, they discredit everything.

Because they think that's how reality works.

[DocSavageFan]

Trumpers before Impeachment findings begin: "The Whistleblower has nothing but here say and secondhand knowledge so it can not be trusted."

Trumpers after Impeachment findings begin with multiple firsthand testimonies: "Why are we not hearing from the Whistleblower? None of their testimony matters he/she was the one who launched the complaint."

I personally think the whistleblower's extreme personal animus towards Trump needs to be made public. I also think the public also needs to know if Schiff's office colluded in any way with the whistleblower.

But, that said, I can understand why Democrats are so opposed to this kind of transparency since it would clearly undermine their partisan narrative. I'm sure this was decided after reviewing the results of their secret focus groups...that this fact wouldn't play well with Average Joe American.

[DocSavageFan]

Trumpers before Impeachment findings begin: "The Whistleblower has nothing but here say and secondhand knowledge so it can not be trusted."

Trumpers after Impeachment findings begin with multiple firsthand testimonies: "Why are we not hearing from the Whistleblower? None of their testimony matters he/she was the one who launched the complaint."

Schiff and the whistleblower both wanted public testimony. Now Schiff doesn't. What changed?

House intel committee has reached an agreement for Trump-Ukraine whistleblower to testify ‘very soon,’ Schiff says
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/29/schi...t-inquiry.html

[Thekri]

I personally think the whistleblower's extreme personal animus towards Trump needs to be made public. I also think the public also needs to know if Schiff's office colluded in any way with the whistleblower.

But, that said, I can understand why Democrats are so opposed to this kind of transparency since it would clearly undermine their partisan narrative. I'm sure this was decided after reviewing the results of their secret focus groups...that this fact wouldn't play well with Average Joe American.

I like how you know he/she has extreme personal animus, you just don't know who he is. Very well thought out argument there. Anyway, everything he/she said has been confirmed by someone else, so there really is nothing left to discuss on that point.

As far as "Colluded with the whistleblower", what does that even mean? The facts are being discussed in public, in front of the cameras of every major new network in the world. You can't get much more transparent then that. You aren't even addressing the evidence, you are just shrieking at imaginary boogiemen. Like "Secret Focus groups" and "Anti-Trump whistleblower" and other purely invented characters. Care to address the very public content of the investigation that is being laid out?

- - - Updated - - -

Schiff and the whistleblower both wanted public testimony. Now Schiff doesn't. What changed?

House intel committee has reached an agreement for Trump-Ukraine whistleblower to testify ‘very soon,’ Schiff says
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/29/schi...t-inquiry.html

Maybe a few thousand death threats from Trumphadis?

[draynay]

Google "obama electoral landslide 2012" and note that numerous MSM outlets reported Obama's 2012 win as an electoral landslide. I'm done on this subject.

I guess it couldn't be reasonably argued then.

[Skroe]

If Democrats had any sense they will plaster military communities in Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvannia with ads of Nunes trying to shit on Vindman's service.

We are living in an embryonic authoritarian regime.

[pathora44]

I personally think the whistleblower's extreme personal animus towards Trump needs to be made public. I also think the public also needs to know if Schiff's office colluded in any way with the whistleblower.

But, that said, I can understand why Democrats are so opposed to this kind of transparency since it would clearly undermine their partisan narrative. I'm sure this was decided after reviewing the results of their secret focus groups...that this fact wouldn't play well with Average Joe American.

Why am I not surprised at the ramblings of a Trumpster. The whistleblower's "extreme personal animus" forced him to report the crimes of Trump? I forgot only unyielding loyalty to the God Emperor Trump is permitted in these lands all else is heresy and is punishable by death. How about the Investigator General finding the complaint extremely credible and took it to Congress. Oh wait I forgot he must be in the Deep State, George Soros, Illuminati, Lizard People Shadow Council that runs the world and only Trump and his cronies, I mean loyal followers, can save us from their evil clutches. Finally I find it hilarious you complaining about transparency when Trump at every turn blocks everything that makes him look bad. His taxes he is still trying to block even though he said he would release them. The phone call to the Ukranian president where he had it hidden in a server for highly classified intelligence. Telling everyone in his administration to refuse subpoenas and he will pardon them if they are arrested. He truly is the bastion of transparency just about as clear as a wall made of Vantablack.

- - - Updated - - -

I like how you know he/she has extreme personal animus, you just don't know who he is. Very well thought out argument there. Anyway, everything he/she said has been confirmed by someone else, so there really is nothing left to discuss on that point.

As far as "Colluded with the whistleblower", what does that even mean? The facts are being discussed in public, in front of the cameras of every major new network in the world. You can't get much more transparent then that. You aren't even addressing the evidence, you are just shrieking at imaginary boogiemen. Like "Secret Focus groups" and "Anti-Trump whistleblower" and other purely invented characters. Care to address the very public content of the investigation that is being laid out?

Trumpsters have only received their orders to attack the witness and the process because their handlers have no idea or way to attack the evidence. So the Trumpsters only mindlessly attack the witness and the process because that is what their handlers tell them to do.

[DocSavageFan]

Republicans do. Because they think if they can discredit him, they discredit everything.

Because they think that's how reality works.

The whistleblower will discredit themself when their extreme animus becomes obvious to the public.

But by all means, blame Republicans for the Dem's shitty witness that they now want to desperately hide. Because that's how your reality works.

[Edge-]

I personally think the whistleblower's extreme personal animus towards Trump needs to be made public. I also think the public also needs to know if Schiff's office colluded in any way with the whistleblower.

"Extreme personal animus"

We already know that this person wasn't a fan of Trump and actively dislikes them. But we also know that their personal views didn't factor into the facts and events they blew the whistle on, as the IG investigated and determined that their claims were credible and that their bias was not a factor.

So you're asking for confirming of something we've actually confirmed. And again, their personal views no longer have any relevance as we've moved far beyond the whistleblower to interviewing named witnesses to the call plus those associated with the events, and we would have more first-hand witnesses but the White House is stonewalling.

But, that said, I can understand why Democrats are so opposed to this kind of transparency since it would clearly undermine their partisan narrative.

Or because there are laws in place protecting whistleblowers, including from retaliation, and the Trump base has established themselves to harbor more than a few violent nutjobs, so naming them puts them in physical jeopardy.

Why are conservatives so amped to see the whistleblower harmed by another Trump nutter?