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

[Jingthing 65,728]

14 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Before 2015, most House subpoenas needed at least some bipartisan cover, but in 2015 House Republicans changed the rules and allowed the committee chairmen to proceed unilaterally, able to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party. The Democrats vehemently objected to this at the time and witnessed the GOP wielding this new rule dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies. However the shoe is now on the other foot and the Democrats can thank the GOP for a rule change that is going to haunt Trump. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265

In a word -- KARMA.

[Sujo 12,212]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They probably, IMO, don't believe that an impeachment will result in a conviction so the plan, IMO, is to spin it out for as long as possible, and keep talking about it, to try and convince some that there is actually some there there.

As long as they don't have a vote, they don't have to produce any actual evidence. 

Conviction in the senate will only have a chance if polls show around 60% of the public want it. If that doesnt happen trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still the senate would not convict.

 

But what it will do is show the public how bad trump is, and to win election they dont need that big a % to vote him out.

[Jingthing 65,728]

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Conviction in the senate will only have a chance if polls show around 60% of the public want it. If that doesnt happen trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still the senate would not convict.

 

But what it will do is show the public how bad trump is, and to win election they dont need that big a % to vote him out.

Yes I agree 60 percent would shake out more republican senators, possibly enough to do the deed. Impossible to say at this point whether that will happen but the sea change momentum towards massive support for both the inquiry and conviction in such a short time is historic in it's rapidity. So anyone that thinks they can make a definitive prediction at this point when we are in such uncharted territory should be IGNORED. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Jingthing

[Kelsall 4,315]

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Conviction in the senate will only have a chance if polls show around 60% of the public want it. If that doesnt happen trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still the senate would not convict.

 

But what it will do is show the public how bad trump is, and to win election they dont need that big a % to vote him out.

Sounds like you're saying "if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected." LOL.  Where have we heard that before?

 

The only shooting going on is the Dems shooting themselves in the foot.  As this inquiry is being conducted in secret with selective leaking, nothing can be gleaned from the process.  Pelosi does not have the votes and now it's looking like she never will. 

 

Trump is lucky Pelosi and Schiff are running this.  Somebody smart might have caused a little bit of damage.  But then somebody smart would not have gone down the "impeachment" road, as there is no there there.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Kelsall

[rabas 4,617]

4 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Those republicans must be pulling their hairs out that Pelosi and Schiff simply treat their request for votes as a nothing burger. They must be cursing themselves for their own shenanigans in 2015 and giving the Dems the power to ignore them. Karma is a bitch. Ouch.

Karma runs both ways.

 

Their constitutional glee of pushing a partisan impeachment will evaporate in the Senate, which is not constitutionally required to hold a trial. Who knows, by then the Senate could be busy placing even more karma on the Supreme Court.

[stevenl 26,619]

23 minutes ago, rabas said:

Karma runs both ways.

 

Their constitutional glee of pushing a partisan impeachment will evaporate in the Senate, which is not constitutionally required to hold a trial. Who knows, by then the Senate could be busy placing even more karma on the Supreme Court.

Yes, could happen.

 

But by that time Trump's shenanigans will be all over the news, and besides his hard core fans, about 35% of the electorate, he won't be getting many more votes. That means he is doomed with very likely some court cases against him personally waiting, without the executive protection.

 

So if enough of the electorate want his impeachment the trial will happen. It all hangs on the evidence presented, and the way it looks now that doesn't bode well for Trump.

Edited October 16, 2019 by stevenl

[Opl 4,576]

 

Trump Just Blamed Barack Obama For His Impeachment

 

Sarah Reese Jones

 

✔ @PoliticusSarah

 

 

Trump claims Obama conspired against him in 2016 and appears to blame Barack Obama for his impeachment in a rambling mess of self-pity word salad.

 

 

129

5:45 PM - Oct 16, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

98 people are talking about this

 

[Jingthing 65,728]

Karma runs both ways.
 
Their constitutional glee of pushing a partisan impeachment will evaporate in the Senate, which is not constitutionally required to hold a trial. Who knows, by then the Senate could be busy placing even more karma on the Supreme Court.

He could. He said he would hold a trial though. If it gets to 60 percent approving removal by the time of the trial and a trial isn't held well I can't even imagine what would happen then. I don't mean in the senate. I mean in the streets.

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

[Sujo 12,212]

9 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Sounds like you're saying "if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected." LOL.  Where have we heard that before?

 

The only shooting going on is the Dems shooting themselves in the foot.  As this inquiry is being conducted in secret with selective leaking, nothing can be gleaned from the process.  Pelosi does not have the votes and now it's looking like she never will. 

 

Trump is lucky Pelosi and Schiff are running this.  Somebody smart might have caused a little bit of damage.  But then somebody smart would not have gone down the "impeachment" road, as there is no there there.

I think you need comprehension overhaul. That is not what i said at all.

 

if he isnt impeached the dems still win if the public uses common sense.

[bristolboy 18,041]

Is fraud an impeachable offense?

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies

 

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017

.https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

[wayned 5,815]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He could. He said he would hold a trial though. If it gets to 60 percent approving removal by the time of the trial and a trial isn't held well I can't even imagine what would happen then. I don't mean in the senate. I mean in the streets.

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

If the House impeaches Trump,  Mitch has to at least put it up for vote.  If 51 Senators vote against it then he doesn't have to go any further.  The question is whether any of the GOP will flip.  That's what Trump is worried about, reportedly calling McConnell three times a day.

[bristolboy 18,041]

Mulvaney emerges as a key facilitator of the campaign to pressure Ukraine

 

In late May, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney organized a meeting that stripped control of the country’s relationship with Ukraine from those who had the most expertise at the National Security Council and the State Department.

Instead, Mulvaney put an unlikely trio in charge of managing the U.S.-Ukraine account amid worrisome signs of a new priority, congressional officials said Tuesday: pressuring the fledgling government in Kiev to deliver material that would be politically valuable to President Trump.

The work of those “three amigos,” as they came to call themselves — diplomats Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker, plus Energy Secretary Rick Perry — has come to light in recent days through newly disclosed text messages and the testimony of government witnesses appearing before an impeachment inquiry in Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/mulvaney-emerges-as-a-key-facilitator-of-the-campaign-to-pressure-ukraine/2019/10/15/9d46b7ae-ef76-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

[riclag 5,833]

41 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Is fraud an impeachable offense?

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies

 

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017

.https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

No, especially when there is no evidence. Like the article says there can be legitimate reasons . Just another look over here 

 

"There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

Edited October 16, 2019 by riclag

[bristolboy 18,041]

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

No, especially when there is no evidence. Like the article says there can be legitimate reasons . Just another look over here 

"There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

This is your idea of no evidence? Really?

"but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

[bristolboy 18,041]

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

No, especially when there is no evidence. Like the article says there can be legitimate reasons . Just another look over here 

 

"There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. “It really feels like there’s two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender,” said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. “It’s hard to argue numbers. That’s black and white.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

So, don't you think this warrants further investigation? Who knows? Maybe it will prove to be perfectly legitimate?