Will Trump be impeached?

[Caballus]

No, not a mountain out of a molehill. You asked, "where is the outrage" for Pres Bush political appointees being recalled. The answer is there should be no outrage, because it is standard procedure and not a procedure that has anything to do with this situation--AMB Yovanovitch is not a political appointee and was not part of that recall.

You also said that Pres. Trump did not do the same, which is not true. Per his prerogative as president, he recalled all political appointees and went a step further by not extending any or allowing for transition time. This also didn't affect the Ambassador to Ukraine, as she is not a political appointee.

So, when placed into context, the statement is wrong, irrelevant, and misleading.

Neither a mountain nor a molehill, just fact.

It's good that the system is working as it should. Based on the comments you made about Ambassador Yovanovitch, recommend you look at her opening statement as well--not Q&A.

Them meeting, right or wrong, has no bearing on the charges the whistleblower made. The whistleblower is not and should not be the issue in the eyes of the American people. The issue here is that the President either did or did not, himself, do something wrong no matter how the possibility came to light. He either did or did not improperly engage a foreign government with the intent of involving them in the American democratic process. The IC IG felt there was enough of a possibility to raise the issue for further consideration.

Regarding firsthand knowledge, the whistleblower was provided the transcript of the call in the course of his responsibilities. That, the IC IG determined, constituted first hand knowledge.

So, you are correct. Context matters.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

So where's the source that says the IG wasn't involved with the WB's complaint? And if not, how did the impeachment hearing even begin without a green light. If it wasn't all done per the required legal channel the Reps would have surely found/had a legal way to prevent the hearings of even happening.

I highly doubt with literally hundreds of people involved in this fiasco, that if the whole WB reporting was done wrong we wouldn't be at this point in this process. There is a lot of straw grasping by a large majority of the public in this country that don't understand or care to believe that the laws are being followed.

The CNN link I posted earlier said this WB reported it correctly. The reporting requirements differ some depending on who's filing the WB complaint.

"The anonymous whistleblower who made the complaint about Trump's phone call with Ukraine's president did follow proper procedures, as acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire repeated in his testimony on Capitol Hill on Thursday."

 

[Docscurlock]

Only the left gets to be outraged.

 

[Docscurlock]

Schiff is making promises he can't keep. Trump nor anyone else can force a whistle blower to testify. If he wanted to, then maybe he could/would.

https://www.whistleblowers.org/news/supreme-court-issues-decision-on-key-whistleblower-rights-case/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

The whistle blower sparked off an investigation. Once he reported the possible crime(s) then what he says after that doesn't really matter.

Yeah, per the Supreme Court whistle blowers are heavily protected so that people are more likely to report crime without ramifications.

Did you ever watch that show "Whisleblower"? Quite interesting.

Whistleblower https://g.co/kgs/BVEjGA

The senate can issue a subpoena and he will be forced to testify eventually. He might as well get it over in Schiff's kangaroo court where he can be coached properly.

 

[Docscurlock]

Them meeting, right or wrong, has no bearing on the charges the whistleblower made. The whistleblower is not and should not be the issue in the eyes of the American people. The issue here is that the President either did or did not, himself, do something wrong no matter how the possibility came to light. He either did or did not improperly engage a foreign government with the intent of involving them in the American democratic process. The IC IG felt there was enough of a possibility to raise the issue for further consideration.

Regarding firsthand knowledge, the whistleblower was provided the transcript of the call in the course of his responsibilities. That, the IC IG determined, constituted first hand knowledge.

So, you are correct. Context matters.

It's blatantly obvious that in this case the President didn't do anything wrong so the matter should be dropped but because of deep partisan hatred it won't be. I think the American people deserve to know if this person (that everyone knows already) is in fact deeply tied to Democratic politicians and in fact was coached in what to say by the ranking member of the house intelligence (misnomer) committee to get this farce started in the first place. If this person (so called whistleblower) is on the up and up then fine, if there are nefarious circumstances they need to be brought to light. Our country can't afford to be shackled by low level administrative appointees and their biases in cases of National security. It is the President's discretion (whether right or wrong, whether you like him or not, whether it shows class) to interact with other heads of state and further the interests of the United States. If exposing corruption causes some feathers to be ruffled then that's fine. The whole thing started with evident corruption by a former Vice President, that needs to be investigated. If he did nothing wrong, great, maybe we can start to trust our government a little more. If he used his position to enrich his family, he needs to be punished (regardless of party affiliation). Do you think the left would have made such a spectacle out of this if Trump had said, " I heard Mitch McConnell has had some shady deals in Ukraine, can you do me a favor and look into it"?

 

[Weather Man]

If a person is incapable of critical thinking and watches the MSM, they are pretty much screwed. It is why I do not watch them at all for any show they have on.

...The latest study by the Media Research Center's Rich Noyes finds that during the six weeks since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry (Sept. 24 through Nov. 5), "the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts churned out 398 minutes of coverage to the Ukraine scandal." Important, yes, but it's "more than three-fifths of all administration news during this period." It neatly resembles their fiendish obsession with their last "fake news" chapter: Trump and Russia.

Here's what's truly amazing. The tone of overall coverage was 96 percent negative. That makes the long-running average of 90 percent look good....

The most heinous terrorist gets better coverage than Trump, LOL.

...Here's the one that puts everything in its proper perspective. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was the world's most dangerous terrorist -- was. The U.S. commander in chief took him out. How did the media cover his role in it? The tone was 67 percent negative! They criticized him for anything they could find, from his refusal to brief congressional leaders to his swaggering commentary on how this foul terrorist died disgracefully by blowing himself up....

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/abc-cbs-nbc-trump-study-bozell-graham

 

[GT Pony]

The senate can issue a subpoena and he will be forced to testify íeventually. He might as well get it over in Schiff's kangaroo court where he can be coached properly.

The motion to subpoena was done in the House with a yes to go ahead, so let's see if it happens and what he says in his testimony. His testimony may still be behind closed doors in the Senate (not televised to the public), not sure about that.

If the WB can only testify in the Senate trial, and this whole thing might not even get that far, then we might not hear his testimony. I doubt it would matter much anyway because we all pretty much know why he blew the whistle, unless he has a surprise smoking gun to divulge, which I doubt.

 

[GT Pony]

It's blatantly obvious that in this case the President didn't do anything wrong so the matter should be dropped but because of deep partisan hatred it won't be. I think the American people deserve to know if this person (that everyone knows already) is in fact deeply tied to Democratic politicians and in fact was coached in what to say by the ranking member of the house intelligence (misnomer) committee to get this farce started in the first place.

I don't think any thing is "blatantly obvious" at this point - you're being a bit politically biased I would say, or jumping to conclusions without all the evidence. This isn't really that far into the hearings, so only the tip of the ice berg has been exposed so far. If we hear from the WB then we should also hear from Rudy, Barr and Bolton ... and anyone else who was involved in a first hand basis.

If this person (so called whistleblower) is on the up and up then fine, if there are nefarious circumstances they need to be brought to light. Our country can't afford to be shackled by low level administrative appointees and their biases in cases of National security.

Agreed ... that sounds less biased. Let the process unfold, that's what it's designed for. There is always going to be political party strife and friction, and both sides look at the other with disdain and hatred, accusing each other of making up lies, etc. Christ, I hope this country doesn't spit up into two counties at some point ... that what it's beginning to feel like.

It is the President's discretion (whether right or wrong, whether you like him or not, whether it shows class) to interact with other heads of state and further the interests of the United States. If exposing corruption causes some feathers to be ruffled then that's fine. The whole thing started with evident corruption by a former Vice President, that needs to be investigated. If he did nothing wrong, great, maybe we can start to trust our government a little more. If he used his position to enrich his family, he needs to be punished (regardless of party affiliation). Do you think the left would have made such a spectacle out of this if Trump had said, " I heard Mitch McConnell has had some shady deals in Ukraine, can you do me a favor and look into it"?

And by the same token, if Trump used his power in office to help benefit and further himself under the excuse/cloak of "investigating corruption" then he should be held accountable. Sure the Pres has the power to interact with other countries, but only for the sole benefit of benefiting and protecting this country, not himself.

But I think some people believe it's OK to "use corruption to investigate corruption" as a way and excuse to make this all somehow look legitimate and nothing wrong was done. When all the pieces of the puzzle come together hopefully the actual truth will come out.

 

[GT Pony]

If I came across as biased it wasn't meant too - I never once mentioned that I think the whistleblower shouldn't testify. I was just trying to cover (and not totally accurately) the reporting requirements and rights of a whistleblower; there are a lot of laws about it and it's not always clear depending on where they work, what the whistle blowing is about, etc.

I'm with you, I want ANYONE involved to testify. Hell, put Trump on the stand if it's possible. All testimony seats should be wired up with a lie detector.

 

[Docscurlock]

I don't think any thing is "blatantly obvious" at this point - you're being to politically biased I would say. IMO, only the tip of the ice berg has been exposed. If we hear from the WB then we should also hear from Rudy, Barr and Bolton ... and anyone else who was involved in a first hand basis.



Agreed ... that sounds less biased. Let the process unfold, that's what it's designed for. There is always going to be political party strife and friction, and both sides look at the other with disdain and hatred, accusing each other of making up lies, etc. Christ, I hope this country doesn't spit up into two counties at some point ... that what it's beginning to feel like.



And by the same token, if Trump used he power to help benefit and further himself under the excuse/cloak of "investigating corruption" then he should be held accountable. Sure the Pres has the power to interact with other countries, but only for the sole benefit of benefiting and protecting the this country, not himself. But I think some people believe it's OK to "use corruption to investigate corruption" as a way and excuse to make this all somehow look legitimate and nothing wrong was done. When al the pieces of the puzzle come together hopefully the actual truth will come out.

I'm really just biased by right and wrong. Endless baseless allegations and investigations are just wrong, if there is wrong doing, present it to the country and let them decide. This whole thing is being run by people who have been for almost 3 years stating they have "unequivocal" evidence of first Russian collusion and then a quid pro quo and now they changing to bribery. It is bullshit, it is completely partisan and the whole process is rigged to smear the President and try and effect his reelection. Schiff has to shut down daily reminders of his hypocrisy. If there was some impropriety in the phone call, a legislative censure may be an appropriate punishment. If this was you on trial should innuendo, hearsay, consciousness of thought, third hand recollections be enough to convict you? Trump has already been impeached in the minds of most democrats. This is all political show.

On your other point it would be a shame if the country fractured over something like this, it appears we would be on opposites sides of the line, brother. Maybe the US is due for disaster, who knows.

 

[Docscurlock]

If a person is incapable of critical thinking and watches the MSM, they are pretty much screwed. It is why I do not watch them at all for any show they have on.

...The latest study by the Media Research Center's Rich Noyes finds that during the six weeks since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry (Sept. 24 through Nov. 5), "the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts churned out 398 minutes of coverage to the Ukraine scandal." Important, yes, but it's "more than three-fifths of all administration news during this period." It neatly resembles their fiendish obsession with their last "fake news" chapter: Trump and Russia.

Here's what's truly amazing. The tone of overall coverage was 96 percent negative. That makes the long-running average of 90 percent look good....

The most heinous terrorist gets better coverage than Trump, LOL.

...Here's the one that puts everything in its proper perspective. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was the world's most dangerous terrorist -- was. The U.S. commander in chief took him out. How did the media cover his role in it? The tone was 67 percent negative! They criticized him for anything they could find, from his refusal to brief congressional leaders to his swaggering commentary on how this foul terrorist died disgracefully by blowing himself up....

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/abc-cbs-nbc-trump-study-bozell-graham

This
The liberal bias in the media makes me want to puke! Don't forget he was an "austere religious scholar"

 

[GT Pony]

I'm really just biased by right and wrong. Endless baseless allegations and investigations are just wrong, if there is wrong doing, present it to the country and let them decide.

That's what's happening ... but your statement of "Endless baseless allegations and investigations are just wrong" is something nobody here knows for sure one way or the other right now. Like I said, when a party hat is put on then premature (and maybe false) conclusions are made.

This whole thing is being run by people who have been for almost 3 years stating they have "unequivocal" evidence of first Russian collusion and then a quid pro quo and now they changing to bribery. It is bullshit, it is completely partisan and the whole process is rigged to smear the President and try and effect his reelection. Schiff has to shut down daily reminders of his hypocrisy. If there was some impropriety in the phone call, a legislative censure may be an appropriate punishment. If this was you on trial should innuendo, hearsay, consciousness of thought, third hand recollections be enough to convict you? Trump has already been impeached in the minds of most democrats. This is all political show.

But all of that talk is basically all driven by political viewpoint. Take off the hat (have no love for anyone involved) and truly try to look at this as a trial where each side has to PROVE their stance. The evidence presented will determine the outcome.

On your other point it would be a shame if the country fractured over something like this, it appears we would be on opposites sides of the line, brother. Maybe the US is due for disaster, who knows.

The part in red may also be a false conclusion. I guess you really don't know where I stand. Just because I might think Trump and associates could have done something wrong for personal gain doesn't mean I don't stand for many of the things that the party believes in - yes I lean right more than left. Seems these days you eigher have to be 3 or 4 sigma left or right to be heard. My morals are too strong to become a zombie follower of anyone that's a corrupt politician (that's why I basically hate politics), regardless of party. That really throws a lot of people off, it's hard for most to grasp.

 

[Docscurlock]

That's what's happening ... but your statement of "Endless baseless allegations and investigations are just wrong" is something nobody here knows for sure one way or the other right now. Like I said, when a party hat is put on then premature (and maybe false) conclusions are made.



But all of that talk is basically all driven by political viewpoint. Take off the hat (have no love for anyone involved) and truly try to look at this as a trial where each side has to PROVE their stance. The evidence presented will determine the outcome.



The part in red may also be a false conclusion. I guess you really don't know where I stand. Just because I might think Trump and associates could have done something wrong for personal gain doesn't mean I don't stand for many of the things that the party believes in - yes I lean right more than left. Seems these days you eigher have to be 3 or 4 sigma left or right to be heard. My morals are too strong to become a zombie follower of anyone that's a corrupt politician (that's why I basically hate politics), regardless of party. That really throws a lot of people off, it's hard for most to grasp.

I was basing that on being from the Pacific NW, you will at least be behind enemy lines.

 

[Weather Man]

Sponsored