House to vote on impeachment

[detbuch]

[Pete F.]

Well since her 2nd and 3rd points are incorrect
I’ll say she’s full of ..it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well since her 2nd and 3rd points are incorrect
I’ll say she’s full of ..it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2nd point may be a stretch, and 3rd is in dispute. First point is OK and I like the rest of the video. I didn't expect you to approve.

BTW, your five "Trump is" points that we are supposed to keep in mind are full of ..it.

[ReelinRod]

And again, it's obvious that the whistleleaker wasn't motivated by an overarching concern for the nation, he was concerned that his involvement and coordination with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa would be exposed by any investigation into the in Ukraine interference in our 2016 election, which is directly attributable to Chalupa's actions.

It is obvious that the whistleleaker was given a readout of the call by Vindman. After Vindman admitted he gave multiple people copies of the readout, Rep. Jordan asked him who he gave copies to; Schiff immediately shut down questioning and ordered Vindman not to answer, claiming the identity of the whistleleaker was at risk.

Vindman was the genesis of all this and his stated motivation, that he was, "deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the President to subvert U.S. foreign policy" is either a ruse or an act of insubordination.

Doesn't this dumb clerk understand that the President is the sole authority to establish and implement US foreign policy? Whatever Vindman's subjective characterization is of the President's performance during the call, Vindman's opinion of it is of zero consequence or importance.

Vindman's actions, by sharing the "troubles" he had with the call, was and is the real subversion of US foreign policy. That he shared the classified readout of the call with other (yet unnamed) subversives, should be treated as the criminal offense it is, under both civilian law and the UCMJ.


.

[ReelinRod]

To top it all off, nothing the President did was a crime. The US and Ukraine have a treaty to cooperate to investigate crime and Ukraine is compelled to assist when asked . . .

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-docu.../document-text

"The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be self-executing and will not require new legislation.

Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, which may be civil or administrative in nature.

Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute an offense under the laws of the Requested State."

The following website, -- https://www.globallegalinsights.com/...ations/ukraine -- explains the legal action of the treaty, especially as it relates to corruption investigations.


That site does not allow copy and paste, a screenshot of pertinent passage follows:

Ukraine is required to assist upon request . . . The President of the United States made that request to the President of Ukraine.

It's ironic that Ukraine's "Anti-Corruption Bureau" was established with he assistance of Quid Pro Joe Biden.

And just for fun, let's assume the House does vote out articles and it goes to the Senate . . . Perhaps Quid Pro Joe will be called to testify for the defense, as to his perceived need for Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Bureau and what he believed its powers to be and the requirements for cooperation demanded by the above mentioned treaty.



Just for fun, Quid Pro Joe could be asked if he believes the actions of Burisma, as it relates to his son, would be of interest to Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Bureau as he contemplated it. Now that would be worth watching!


.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The full transcripts were not shown. Only selected excerpts. Selected by whom? Were any of the selected questions asked by Republicans?

I tried to pour through the Yovanovitch selections which were opinions of her perceptions. I couldn't submit myself to try the selected excerpts of McKinley. Like I said, well choreographed.

I downloaded both full transcripts with no issue.

[Pete F.]

"It's ironic that Ukraine's "Anti-Corruption Bureau" was established with he assistance of Quid Pro Joe Biden."

What's ironic is that the only corruption the Trump administration is concerned with involves political opponents.

Since its first days in office, the Trump administration has exhibited indifference—and at times hostility—toward anti-corruption efforts in U.S. foreign policy. Less than a month after his inauguration, for example, President Trump signed into law a measure repealing a 2010 Obama-era regulation that imposed transparency on the oil and gas industry, a sector that has historically been at very high risk for graft. In the lead-up to the passage of this measure, former Sen. #^&#^&#^&#^& Lugar (R-IN)—a sponsor of the 2010 law authorizing the regulation—warned that repeal would mean “undoing a clear act of moral leadership, turning our back on corruption. This would betray our own principles and severely undercut our allies in Europe and Canada. It would cost countless lives over the long run and harm our security.”

Trump’s early action was a portent of things to come. Over the past three years, the White House has slashed funding for vital foreign assistance programs, allowed strongmen to quash popular anti-corruption initiatives, and either ignored or threatened to undercut multilateral transparency initiatives. Even worse, officials have actively ignored massive corruption when politically convenient, such as when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo praised the government of Guatemala despite its recent expulsion of an anti-corruption body or when Trump commended the corrupt governments of Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and Honduras. The administration has even sought to cut the budget of the critical State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, which is tasked with anti-corruption policy, by around 40 percent for the upcoming fiscal year.

This retreat from anti-corruption policies has been paralleled by the president’s unprecedented use of his official position to enrich himself, his family, and his friends. After his election, President Trump refused to divest from his businesses and instead gave control to his sons, a move that transparency advocates question. Foreign officials and corporations have regularly booked rooms in Trump hotels, in what may amount to public attempts to ingratiate themselves with the president. Trump has also used his private properties to conduct official government business, and his administration has announced that the next G-7 summit will be held at Trump’s resort in Doral, Florida, before reversing the decision amid public outcry. He faces three ongoing federal lawsuits for violations of the emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. officials from receiving gifts or payments from foreign officials. Yet, even U.S. officials have used Trump’s properties for questionable reasons, including up to 40 trips to his Scottish resort taken by members of the U.S. Air Force.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I downloaded both full transcripts with no issue.

May be a problem with my computer. Tried your link again and just got blank pages or a not found notice for full transcripts. But if the full are like the selected for Yovanovitch, I doubt there is conclusive substance. Mostly perception.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"It's ironic that Ukraine's "Anti-Corruption Bureau" was established with he assistance of Quid Pro Joe Biden."

What's ironic is that the only corruption the Trump administration is concerned with involves political opponents.

Ironic like the only corruption your concerned with is Trump.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ironic like the only corruption your concerned with is Trump.

CAN YOU SAY POTUS..

Or all corruption is equal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

CAN YOU SAY POTUS..

Or all corruption is equal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s not all equal, but even non-trump corruption is worth looking at, at least to most people.

WDMSO, they were chanting “impeach the morherf*cker” from day one. i’m not saying he’s innocent, but i’m saying they are never going to stop digging, whether there’s reasonable cause or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

CAN YOU SAY POTUS..

Or all corruption is equal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We no longer have co-equal branches of government? Corruption in opposition to POTUS is less important than corruption of POTUS? Corruption is not important if it is "not as"?

Are you the judge of what is not as important?

Corruption in our political leaders, whether they are Presidents, Senators, Vice Presidents, judges, bureaucrats, is important to root out and eliminate. President is a temporary office. Career politicians and bureaucrats and judges are here far longer and have a far greater cumulative effect in terms of corruption or otherwise.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ironic like the only corruption your concerned with is Trump.

Plenty of it, and it is not hard to find.

All you have to do is look at what Trump whines/projects about and there it is in his administration.

Libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and classical liberals believe in protecting whistleblowers to expose government corruption. Trump Republicans believe in exposing whistleblowers to protect government corruption.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We no longer have co-equal branches of government? Corruption in opposition to POTUS is less important than corruption of POTUS? Corruption is not important if it is "not as"?

Are you the judge of what is not as important?

Corruption in our political leaders, whether they are Presidents, Senators, Vice Presidents, judges, bureaucrats, is important to root out and eliminate. President is a temporary office. Career politicians and bureaucrats and judges are here far longer and have a far greater cumulative effect in terms of corruption or otherwise.

right. potential corruption behind efforts to un-do a fair presidential election, nothing to see there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Plenty of it, and it is not hard to find.

All you have to do is look at what Trump whines/projects about and there it is in his administration.

Libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and classical liberals believe in protecting whistleblowers to expose government corruption. Trump Republicans believe in exposing whistleblowers to protect government corruption.

As I said, "Ironic like the only corruption your concerned with is Trump."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

right. potential corruption behind efforts to un-do a fair presidential election, nothing to see there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment is not undoing an election.

What would the result be if the election was "undone"?

What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Impeachment is not undoing an election.

What would the result be if the election was "undone"?

What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?

"Impeachment is not undoing an election"

It might be, when the losing side has decided on impeachment before the inauguration. It might be, if (big "if") they used the DOJ to improperly violate the rights of a US citizen, for the purposes of hurting the Trump campaign. If Durham and the IG conclude there was noting fishy there, I'm fine with that and can let it go.

"What would the result be if the election was "undone"?"
That the man they hate with irrational intensity (a subject with which we all believe you are familiar), won't be POTUS anymore. But we elected him.

"What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?"

Based on what we know at this time? How much would you like to bet that the senate does not convict, not unless another bombshell is revealed? No sane person thinks that will happen.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Impeachment is not undoing an election"

It might be, when the losing side has decided on impeachment before the inauguration. It might be, if (big "if") they used the DOJ to improperly violate the rights of a US citizen, for the purposes of hurting the Trump campaign. If Durham and the IG conclude there was noting fishy there, I'm fine with that and can let it go.

"What would the result be if the election was "undone"?"
That the man they hate with irrational intensity (a subject with which we all believe you are familiar), won't be POTUS anymore. But we elected him.

There is nothing in the Constitution about how an election is undone, so what are you talking about?

"What will the result be when Trump is impeached and tried and convicted in the Senate?"

Based on what we know at this time? How much would you like to bet that the senate does not convict, not unless another bombshell is revealed? No sane person thinks that will happen.

While I am glad to see that you admit that the memo of the phone call was a bombshell, why would you think that no sane person thinks that another bombshell could not be lurking?

Impeachment is not the undoing of an election.
It is the remedy provided in the Constitution for an unfit President.
In every prior impeachment the Presidents followers cried the same tale as the Trumplicans are now.

Impeachment came about as a tool for a problem other than unpopularity: unfitness. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office,” William Davie told his fellow delegates on July 20 about the proposed president, “he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.” In Trump's case this has been very evident. Delegates’ arguments throughout the convention against an impeachment process, including the claim that a reelection of a president would be “sufficient proof of his innocence,” were rejected. Benjamin Franklin even argued that assassination had often been the only recourse for unfit leaders when policies lacked an impeachment process. “It [would] be the best way therefore,” he said, “to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” Elbridge Gerry, a future vice president, added his view of impeachments: “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Gerry, along with Davie, Franklin and the others, neither suggested nor obtained any restriction on when in his term the president would be subject to impeachment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

While I am glad to see that you admit that the memo of the phone call was a bombshell, why would you think that no sane person thinks that another bombshell could not be lurking?

Impeachment is not the undoing of an election.
It is the remedy provided in the Constitution for an unfit President.
In every prior impeachment the Presidents followers cried the same tale as the Trumplicans are now.

Impeachment came about as a tool for a problem other than unpopularity: unfitness. “If he be not impeachable whilst in office,” William Davie told his fellow delegates on July 20 about the proposed president, “he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.” In Trump's case this has been very evident. Delegates’ arguments throughout the convention against an impeachment process, including the claim that a reelection of a president would be “sufficient proof of his innocence,” were rejected. Benjamin Franklin even argued that assassination had often been the only recourse for unfit leaders when policies lacked an impeachment process. “It [would] be the best way therefore,” he said, “to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” Elbridge Gerry, a future vice president, added his view of impeachments: “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Gerry, along with Davie, Franklin and the others, neither suggested nor obtained any restriction on when in his term the president would be subject to impeachment.

the issue is, your side made no secret that they planned to pursue impeachment, on the first day the guy took office. When you commit to impeachment before he’s done anything and never stop digging, you open your findings to skepticism. that’s why it’s not a good idea to go all in on
impeachment from day one. at a minimum, it creates the appearance of bias, and that's putting it very, very mildly.

he’s such an idiot i wouldn’t bet against him giving them a valid reason to cast him aside. but i don’t see it yet, all
i see are things very similar to things done recently by democrats who were never questioned. another way to give off an appearance of bias, is to have obvious, glaring double standards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the issue is, your side made no secret that they planned to pursue impeachment, on the first day the guy took office. When you commit to impeachment before he’s done anything and never stop digging, you open your findings to skepticism. that’s why it’s not a good idea to go all in on
impeachment from day one. at a minimum, it creates the appearance of bias, and that's putting it very, very mildly.

You have forgotten the last President and the efforts to impeach him.

Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that the clear majority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, while a majority of Republicans were in favor; for example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported these efforts while about two thirds of adult Americans in general disagreed with them.


he’s such an idiot i wouldn’t bet against him giving them a valid reason to cast him aside. but i don’t see it yet, all
i see are things very similar to things done recently by democrats who were never questioned. another way to give off an appearance of bias, is to have obvious, glaring double standards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment is for Presidents who are "such an idiot", incompetent or otherwise unfit.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"It's ironic that Ukraine's "Anti-Corruption Bureau" was established with he assistance of Quid Pro Joe Biden."

What's ironic is that . . .

All you can muster in rebuttal to an on-point original post is an unattributed stolen pile of crap from a site where leftists go for their periodic programming -- https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...t-kleptocrats/

All that proves is that you are owed no respect, you have neither the intelligence or the integrity to discuss anything besides cheating in fishing tournaments.

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and classical liberals believe in protecting whistleblowers to expose government corruption. Trump Republicans believe in exposing whistleblowers to protect government corruption.

SMH.

"All of these whistleblowers have axes to grind. [We need] to f--k these guys, . . . we need to get whatever dirt we can on these guys and take them down" -- Scott Thomasson

It's as if you demand we not remember that before there was a fake whistleblower named Eric Ciaramella, there was a real whistleblower by the name of John Dodson.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Impeachment is for Presidents who are "such an idiot", incompetent or otherwise unfit.

please describe the gop efforts to impeach obama, compared to the energy devoted to impeaching trump? you’re going to suggest it was comparable? trying to talk to you like an adult, you don’t make it easy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

please describe the gop efforts to impeach obama, compared to the energy devoted to impeaching trump? you’re going to suggest it was comparable? trying to talk to you like an adult, you don’t make it easy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not nearly as much ammunition in Obama’s administration
You spent years screaming like a girl about Obama, didn’t you?
Trump spent years pushing the birther theory
Google is easy
But you deflect so to get back on task
The U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key witness in the impeachment inquiry, acknowledged delivering a quid pro quo message to Ukraine in a major revision to his impeachment testimony.
Or have you already moved from no quid pro quo to everyone does that.

Putin’s very proud of your boy and his disinformation campaign.
They’re even going to resume joint cyber security cooperation according to TASS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Not nearly as much ammunition in Obama’s administration
You spent years screaming like a girl about Obama, didn’t you?
Trump spent years pushing the birther theory
Google is easy
But you deflect so to get back on task
The U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key witness in the impeachment inquiry, acknowledged delivering a quid pro quo message to Ukraine in a major revision to his impeachment testimony.
Or have you already moved from no quid pro quo to everyone does that.

Putin’s very proud of your boy and his disinformation campaign.
They’re even going to resume joint cyber security cooperation according to TASS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i hated obama. the remedy for that is winning the next election, not reversing the previous one.

you dodged, completely. you brought up efforts to impeach obama, i asked you to describe the lengths that republicans went to, to try and impeach him. yes they tried to beat him in 2012, there was no serious talk of impeaching him. even though he did ask russia to postpone missile talks until after he win re-election, because he’d have “more flexibility” to work with the russians the way he wanted, after he no longer needed to worry about re-election. but it’s ok when obama
asks a foreign power ( russia in this case), to do him a favor for the purposes of political gain for himself. impeachable when trump does it, swell when obama
does it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i hated obama. the remedy for that is winning the next election, not reversing the previous one.

you dodged, completely. you brought up efforts to impeach obama, i asked you to describe the lengths that republicans went to, to try and impeach him. yes they tried to beat him in 2012, there was no serious talk of impeaching him. even though he did ask russia to postpone missile talks until after he win re-election, because he’d have “more flexibility” to work with the russians the way he wanted, after he no longer needed to worry about re-election. but it’s ok when obama
asks a foreign power ( russia in this case), to do him a favor for the purposes of political gain for himself. impeachable when trump does it, swell when obama
does it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment doesn't "reverse" elections, it removes a incompetent, unethical or otherwise failed president from office.

Nowhere's in the Constitution is anything said about when it could occur.

You keep citing all the false equivalents you are fed by the Trumplicans, to justify Floridaman's actions.

Their wish and I assume yours, public hearings are coming.

It should be interesting to see the performances.

You should donate money to buy Gym Jordan a suitcoat, since he will be on stage.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Impeachment doesn't "reverse" elections, it removes a incompetent, unethical or otherwise failed president from office.

Nowhere's in the Constitution is anything said about when it could occur.

You keep citing all the false equivalents you are fed by the Trumplicans, to justify Floridaman's actions.

Their wish and I assume yours, public hearings are coming.

It should be interesting to see the performances.

You should donate money to buy Gym Jordan a suitcoat, since he will be on stage.

impeachment/conviction had the effect of un-doing the will
if the people in a national election.

for the third and final time. you, not i, chose to bring republican efforts to impeach obama, into this. please tell us how serious and vast those were, or
kindly admit you made it up.

and you keep calling my equivalents false, but you can’t specify how its false. as if saying false is enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

All you can muster in rebuttal to an on-point original post is an unattributed stolen pile of crap from a site where leftists go for their periodic programming -- https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...t-kleptocrats/

All that proves is that you are owed no respect, you have neither the intelligence or the integrity to discuss anything besides cheating in fishing tournaments.



SMH.

"All of these whistleblowers have axes to grind. [We need] to f--k these guys, . . . we need to get whatever dirt we can on these guys and take them down" -- Scott Thomasson

It's as if you demand we not remember that before there was a fake whistleblower named Eric Ciaramella, there was a real whistleblower by the name of John Dodson.

BIOYA

Issa introduced new Whistleblower protection legislation in November 2011. Retaliating against whistleblowers is a crime.

Just what are Floridaman and his Trumplicans doing to this whistleblower?

Two wrongs don't make a right, or perhaps they do in Trumpworld.

Floridaman has no anticorruption agenda for anything other than his political opponents.

He also has no idea how to manage a bureaucracy and therefore can't persuade his administration to push things in the direction he wants them to go.
So he does what he always has, as he was taught by Roy Cohn. Then it was call Michael Cohen, now it's call Rudy Guiliani, and when that falls apart, send Barr and Pompeo to investigate. As they say in Queens: "Just tell em ya ain't getting nuttin unless ya get me da goods"

VEG

Now you can do a round of But Kavanaugh with a chorus of The Economy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

impeachment/conviction had the effect of un-doing the will
if the people in a national election.

for the third and final time. you, not i, chose to bring republican efforts to impeach obama, into this. please tell us how serious and vast those were, or
kindly admit you made it up.

and you keep calling my equivalents false, but you can’t specify how its false. as if saying false is enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Feel free to use Google
As far as the false equivalency you consistently come up with, it’s asked and answered again and again
Scroll back
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Feel free to use Google
As far as the false equivalency you consistently come up with, it’s asked and answered again and again
Scroll back
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in other words, you know there was no republican effort to impeach obama, but you can’t admit it.

as to clarifying the differences, the best you could come up with, is that trumps quid pro quo was in private, while biden’s was in public. That makes as much sense as saying Trump did it on a Monday, Biden on a Tuesday.

it was asked, it was not answered.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Feel free to use Google
As far as the false equivalency you consistently come up with, it’s asked and answered again and again
Scroll back
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in other words, you know there was no republican effort to impeach obama, but you can’t admit it.

as to clarifying the differences, the best you could come up with, is that trumps quid pro quo was in private, while biden’s was in public. That makes as much sense as saying Trump did it on a Monday, Biden on a Tuesday.

it was asked, it was not answered.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device