U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

[thaibeachlovers 32,999]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Senate will follow public opinion.

 

I’m pleased you are loving it, just as well because its only just started.

LOL. The GOP senators will vote according to the wishes of their voters if they want to be re elected. They won't, presumably, be voting according to the wishes of the Dems on the coasts.

[Chomper Higgot 35,622]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had the Dems co operated with Trump rather than trying to tear him down for the past 2 + years, America would have been a far better place than it is now. Clinton did co operate with the GOP following his impeachment and is remembered fondly today.

The people who cooperated with Trump are going to prison.

[candide 11,542]

35 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

And if that’s true then he should be investigated and the truth be out!

So far though there is literally nothing. 
trump on the other hand....

Exactly. If there is so much evidence of Biden's corruption, why isn't there an official investigation following the usual procedure? There is even a cooperation treaty with Ukraine that would make it easy.

Could it be that there isn't even the slightest evidence to officially justify starting an investigation? 

[doggie1955 863]

On 9/25/2019 at 5:24 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

This will hurt Biden and help Trump. Funny, it was only a few months ago that he was about to be impeached for colluding with Russia to game an election. It looks like they are desperate to impeach Trump seeing as he will thrash any Dem candidate, yet don't have a reason to do it. Not good optics for them heading into 2020.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-ukraine-ambassadors-testimony-throws-cold-water-democrats-quid-pro-quo-argument-against-trump?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[doggie1955 863]

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The Guardian article reads like Schiff's parody in his "reading" of Trump's call transcript.  It's written to make him look bad.  Not unexpected from the Guardian.  I don't have time to read all of the appended docs now but I will.  And then see if there was cherry picking from those docs to create a very forbidding narrative.

 

As far as the letter you posted I wouldn't expect anything less.  Of course they're going to write a damning indictment of Trump.  They want to impeach him!!  So what did you expect?  An endorsement?  I don't see the page with the member's signatures, though.  And if this letter is meant to imply a full consensus of this committee I wouldn't believe that for a nanosecond.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-ukraine-ambassadors-testimony-throws-cold-water-democrats-quid-pro-quo-argument-against-trump?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[RideJocky 1,009]

It is so funny to see Trump supporters objecting to some people lying, while remaining deaf, dumb and blind to the constant lying of their psychopathic leader.

It’s so funny to see the left moaning about Trump lying, but when there guys lie openly it’s always but-but-but-Trump.

[RideJocky 1,009]

Exactly. If there is so much evidence of Biden's corruption, why isn't there an official investigation following the usual procedure? There is even a cooperation treaty with Ukraine that would make it easy.
Could it be that there isn't even the slightest evidence to officially justify starting an investigation? 

Had Biden not obstructed justice by getting a prosecutor fired (and bragging about it) perhaps we’d have some evidence.

[Tippaporn 8,980]

Per npr: Trump Challenges House On Impeachment Vote. Pelosi Says She's Unmoved

 

Word is now that the White House will refuse to cooperate unless Pelosi holds a vote.

 

Which way to go, Nancy?  It doesn't matter because she and her Dem cabal will lose.

 

Rep. Doug Collins spells it out for Nancy.

 

 

[Tippaporn 8,980]

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The people who cooperated with Trump are going to prison.

I'll be here, Chomper, when the dust settles.  Doubt you'll show up.

 

Trump explaining his legitimate fight against corruption.  Starts around the 2:45 mark.

 

 

[Jingthing 69,892]

It’s so funny to see the left moaning about Trump lying, but when there guys lie openly it’s always but-but-but-Trump.

That might work for normal politicians. But with 45 we've objectively got an Olympic champion level rate of lying and severity of lying. Thus your attempt there falls totally flat in the facts and reality based world.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[candide 11,542]

27 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Had Biden not obstructed justice by getting a prosecutor fired (and bragging about it) perhaps we’d have some evidence.
 

 

You missed the boat already. This has been debunked some time ago. The IMF, the EU, the USA, Ukraine's parliament wanted "the very good prosecutor" to be fired because he was not investigating corruption. The IMF also threatened to block funds in 2016.

Actually, the investigation against Burisma was already closed at that time, and was only reopened after the "very good prosecutor" was fired.

Keep up with the news,

[AussieBob18 3,394]

2 hours ago, Becker said:

OK then, but this guy begs to differ.

 

Link: Judge Napolitano: Trump's brazen acts of corruption

 

"Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains how President Trump asking a foreign government or any foreign national to get dirt on a political rival is an impeachable offense."

Transcript says something very different - but time will tell - come back in 2020 

[candide 11,542]

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Per npr: Trump Challenges House On Impeachment Vote. Pelosi Says She's Unmoved

 

Word is now that the White House will refuse to cooperate unless Pelosi holds a vote.

 

Which way to go, Nancy?  It doesn't matter because she and her Dem cabal will lose.

 

Rep. Doug Collins spells it out for Nancy.

 

 

As mentioned by another poster, it would be an evidence of obstruction. Pelosi may eagerly wait for the official letter to be sent in order to add it to the impeachment investigation proceedings.

[Tippaporn 8,980]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The Dems have to maintain the assault any way they can.  Their 1st whistle blower will be a fail and the Dems realize it.  So keep up the attack because some of these people are in deep trouble.  They cannot afford to lose this charade.

 

A 2nd whistle blower?  Bring him on!

 

The article is the usual NYT drivel.  They describe in the article that Trump's released transcript is "reconstructed."  Prove it, NYT.  The Guardian used similar language, "reconstituted," in the article posted by a member yesterday.  A pattern amongst the MSM?  Of course there's no proof that Trump's call was anything other than the full and exact transcript of the entire call.  Doesn't stop those honest journalists at the Times and elsewhere from using the term in such a way as to promote it as fact.  I wonder exactly how many people the CIA has embedded in the MSM?

 

The article is mostly blah, blah, blah and doesn't include anything new other than another "potential" whistle blower.  What I believe is the likeliest possibility here is that if the 1st whistle blower's sources must be outed in an impeachment inquiry and they would be forced to then be to give testimony.  So the 2nd whistle blower would be one of the sources of the 1st whistle blower.  Which would make it appear as there are "more" of them out there.

 

They then go on to touch on the latest "incriminating" news, the "explosive" texts exchanged by the State Dept. and Giuliani.  Of course the choice of their descriptor is to give the impression that these texts are, without question, damning to Trump.

 

Keep following the MSM, the Dem's pied piper, right off the cliff.

Just wanted to add another example of how this NYT article paints a misleading and dishonest picture.  They have a paragraph about the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine raising concern about freezing $391 million in military assistance.  And they directly quote him per the released documents:

 

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] (Ambassador) Bill Taylor:  As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

 

And then continue on only to mention that a "dispute" arose between him and Sondland.  Dispute?  Sondland simply corrected Taylor.  But the NYT did not publish Sondland's response:

 

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] (Ambassador) Gordon Sondland:  Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions.  The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind.  The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.

 

That was conveniently left out because the NYT wants to imply wrong doing.  Sondland's response would then be exculpatory.  And to think the NYT has any business being on an approved list of media sources.

 

 

 

 

[4675636b596f75 1,159]

How is the coup going?  Not well for the Democrats?