DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: The Gauntlet

No they are not. Stop lying. They are following the rules the GOP made in 2015.

Could you please elaborate with specific examples?

Nope. Trey Gowdy did that to y'all.

I posted examples in my Lindsey Graham post. You can read them there. But...

Allow me to sum it up this way...

It is time for Nancy Pelosi to play the grownup and end this laughable impeachment farce.

She should blame it on Trump then say something like, "We can not allow America to be split any further so we will step away from impeachment and move on to the Nations Business."

Yea, that works!

N O T G O N N A H A P P E N !

Trump deserves every bit of this scrutiny and the result. He is not above the law.

None of this should have happened except perhaps in the old Soviet Union.

The impeachment proceedings are a disgrace and all Americans should be appalled.

Please explain, in your own words, how the procedures being used are wrong. These are rules and decorum set by the GOP.

Keep duck, diving, and dodging me. It's the only thing you're good at.

No.

I spent 2 years telling you and others how Trump colluding with the Russians as a spy and traitor were BS and no one would listen until Mueller told you, and still you won't accept it.

I will waste no more time on these matters.

You can not fool the American People by holding secret meetings and leaking your side only, to your media.
The American People see right through this treachery.

How are these meetings secret when there's GOP committee members attending them?

So the hired gun AG that acts like Trump's personal legal lapdog is doing more BS to help Trump help Putin and distract from the real crimes!

Barr's investigation into origins of Trump-Russia probe is now a criminal investigation

(CNN) Attorney General William Barr's probe into the intelligence and origins of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation is now a criminal investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The so-called investigation of the investigators is led by John Durham, a Connecticut-based federal prosecutor, who so far has conducted some interviews but also has run into some obstacles from witnesses who have declined voluntary interviews, CNN reported last week.

The move to make it a criminal inquiry was always anticipated, and it allows Durham to use subpoenas to compel testimony and comes as President Donald Trump faces an onslaught of negative headlines stemming from the House impeachment inquiry into his dealings with Ukraine. It's not clear what, if any, part of the Trump-Russia investigation is a target of Durham's criminal probe.

The New York Times was first to report on the new stage of the investigation.

The investigation has been driven by Barr's suspicions that some of the officials overseeing the counterintelligence probe of the 2016 Trump campaign may have acted improperly.

Barr's embrace of these theories aligns with Trump's chief grievance that he was the victim of a "deep state" spy operation that has clouded his presidency.

The President has publicly called for investigations of former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, among others.

And in recent weeks the President's eagerness for the Justice Department to focus on his perceived critics has caused awkward issues for Durham and the department.

Department officials have said Barr didn't know that Trump had mentioned his name in a July call with Ukraine's President, suggesting he work with the attorney general and Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal attorney, whose activities are near the center of the congressional impeachment inquiry. And a senior Justice official disavowed comments from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who linked a freeze of Ukraine aid to the Justice Department probe.

The probe has been unusual for various reasons, not least because Barr has taken a hands-on role to closely manage it.

He, along with Durham, traveled to countries overseas, including Italy twice, to meet with officials seeking to gather information.

One particular fixation for Barr has been Joseph Mifsud, a shadowy professor whose discussions with a Trump campaign associate became part of Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Mifsud has been a regular fixture in conservative media stories, which claimed he was working for US or Western intelligence and was tasked to spy on the Trump campaign.

Barr has also said that the review would include an examination of former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele's work compiling research about Trump and Russia in a dossier that was commissioned by Fusion GPS, a research and investigative firm.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/barr-probe-russia-2016-criminal-investigation/index.html

Investigating the investigators, destroying institutions, and bringing shame on his office. The timing is suspect as team Trump is desperate to change the impeachment narrative.

But, we should all just wait to see and watch what kind of circus this will be. I'm expecting a dog and pony show to distract from the House impeachment inquiry, specifically designed to sew the seeds of doubt in Trump supporters. Nobody else will believe a damn thing Barr does after the Mueller report, Ukraine, and this conspiracy theory based investigation.

Libs should demand this investigation be done in an open forum with them participating and being able to counter every step. They should barge into the grand jury and demand the proceedings stop... smh

I will guess the names of those being investigated further:

James Comey
Andrew McCabe
Peter Strock
Lisa Page
John Brennan

While the right covers for a deplorable pos. Geez how dumb can they be? Here’s the cliff .. the GOP goes full Geronimo!

12 of the people storming the meeting had permission to attend.
Want to comment on that? They are not secret meetings republicans are there! It was all BS.

Graham, critic of House Dem process, praised depositions in 1998 impeachment proceedings

John Bolton's lawyers are talking to impeachment inquiry committees

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-25-2019/index.html

What sad times we live in, when war mongers like this loser are showing more honor and integrity than the POTUS.

This doesn’t make up for all the crap he has been apart of dealing with foreign policy, but when the POTUS does something so bad that even THIS guy has to speak out, we’re in uncharted waters.

I suspect that John Bolton and Dan Coats would be interesting depositions.

Especially Bolton....

Obviously Bolton is in everyman for himself mode.

Anonymous author promises "You will hear a great deal from Donald Trump directly" in new book

The back cover of the book “A Warning” to be published next month — written by the senior Trump administration official who wrote a 2018 New York Times op-ed — promises “You will hear a great deal from Donald Trump directly, for there is no better witness to his character than his own words.”

According to Axios, which first reported that the conversations will be recounted in the book, the anonymous official was a frequent participant in meetings with the President and had access to internal notes they plan to include in their new book.

Here's a look at the back cover of the book:



https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-25-2019/index.html

I'd prefer that he expose Trump or address violations within the WH without the sensationalizing part that is an effort to sell books and profit.

That's about exactly what I think/thought.

Oh, someone is trying to sell a book, and the best way to sell a book is to claim you have inside information.

The link provided didn't say anything.

So, an anonymous person spills on the president in his or her book that he/she wants to sell so they can............make money.


If this person had any intentions of anything other than making money for themselves, they'd have handled this differently.

I don't think saying, "They're trying to sell a book" is an excuse to dismiss everything contained between the covers.

Let's be honest here, if they are a Republican, a tell all book is probably the only thing left of their career. They certainly won't be working inside the party anymore.

I think this person being a republican goes with out saying, not?

And yes, writing a book to attempt to dump on a republican is certainly a "I give up on ever working for a republican again" kind of thing.

But, if the book promises insights, true or not, and sells enough (to the dems?), this person won't have to work anymore.


Anonymous is cool though.

And once again that brings me back to my original point. Once the book comes out, his career is probably ruined.

So how else would you conclude he makes a living without selling the book?

The things that come out in the book will tell many within the Trump circle who it is. As we've seen from both parties, once someone points a finger at them, they attack the messenger. They degrade them, attack their character and make them out to be some kind of monster. Their life is forever changed.

Under your scenario it seems we should dismiss anything and everything that any books reveals from anyone telling their story involving politics.

I don't see everything as that black and white.

Much like the way Trump has convinced many people to dismiss everything certain news sources say. Do media outlets sometimes get things wrong? Do they sometimes trust sources that turn out to be incorrect? Yes they do. But that works both ways. And far more often than not these sources Trump slams get it right.

Just as I don't take everything I see in the news as gospel, I also don't dismiss things without consideration.

im sorry but your post are freaking funny.

you over here whining about a book criticizing trump....even though you and others INSTANTLY tried to fry hillary clinton over uranium one.

accusations that came from? thats right, a freaking book.

just shut up.

In case you aren't aware, which is obviously the case, I don't put much faith in any "tell all" book, regardless of who, or which person/party writes it. It's a money grab. There need be no truth in what is written.

What is written, in a situation like this, is usually half truths or flat out untruths - again - regardless of a Dem writing it, or an R writing it.

Sensationalism sells, regardless of party.

Please don't tell me to shut up. It's a bad look for you. Intolerance, really.

They are donating all profits/proceeds, they made that statement a week ago to put that to bed.

Arch - it's painfully transparent that you dismiss everything and anything that challenges your predetermined reality. It's a free world and that's your choice .... You appear to repeat Trump talking points, excuses and distractions and avoid talking about real issues with Trump by dismissing the sources, over and over.

That's cool. Kudo's to them. Got a link?

Well I have to say that is a good thing. It puts a slightly different light on things but we'll see what the book says.

That certainly squashes the monetary incentive aspect in all of it.

There are still some people left in this world that care about standards, accountability and the rule of law. I've found out that there aren't nearly as many of those people that I had hoped there were.

you clearly do as long as it backs up whatever your beliefs are.

such as uranium one. you and others wouldnt shut up about it, so please stop lying about not putting much faith into the context of a book when you clearly have shown to do that very thing.

you can't even practice what you preach. yea, you need to shut up.

Poor 40. Facts are not your friend.

House Republicans are now protesting rules they created themselves in 2015

As the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump uncovers more and more evidence of possible wrongdoing, House Republicans have increasingly focused their argument on complaining about the process.

Earlier this month, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy demanded inquiry proceedings be stopped unless the minority got the power to subpoena witnesses. On Wednesday, Minority Whip Steve Scalise, and others even likened the secure, closed-door investigation into sensitive foreign policy matters to something out of the Soviet Union. That same day, a group of angry House Republicans barged into the secure facility and effectively halted hearings for several hours, complaining about transparency.

But if they find the process unfair, they have only themselves to blame. The House rules that govern this process were adopted in 2015, by the then-Republican majority. And the same Republican leaders leading this criticism helped establish those majority-centric rules at that time.

McCarthy wrote an letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Oct. 3, complaining that without giving the minority House Republicans equal power, Democrats would be creating "a process completely devoid of any merit or legitimacy."

But while minority-party members once had significant say in who was subpoenaed, a major 2015 rule change rammed through by the Republican majority stripped them of this power. The majority leader at that time was McCarthy himself.

On Wednesday, Scalise took part in a press conference organized by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) to demand that the secure hearings be more "transparent."

"Maybe in the Soviet Union this kind of thing is commonplace," he charged. "This shouldn't be happening in the United States of America, where they're trying to impeach a president in secret, behind closed doors."

Obviously any actual impeachment vote would be done in public, should the majority decide to charge him with "high crimes and misdemeanors." Under the Constitution, that would trigger a trial in the GOP-controlled Senate, where a two-thirds super-majority would be required to remove Trump from office.

But the House rules, which McCarthy and Scalise helped enact, also allow this fact-finding portion of the impeachment inquiry to be done in private, by the relevant committees. Indeed many of the House Republicans protesting the lack of "transparency" of the secure hearings are allowed to attend them and have been participating.

On Thursday, Fox News' senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano surprised his colleagues by noting that he had actually read the House rules and discovered that the Democrats were following them.

"As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors, the hearings over which Congressman [Adam] Schiff [D-CA] is presiding, they are consistent with the rules," he noted.

"When were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? [Then Speaker] John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority," Napolitano noted.

He added, "The rules say this level of inquiry, this initial level of inquiry can be done in secret."

https://www.sourcepolitics.com/house-rep...GKZ0n2E9dIphVGA

Here is an article from 2015 when the rules change took effect....

Several House Committee Chairmen to Get Unilateral Subpoena Power

https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/1...subpoena-power/

All the fake outrage among the Republicans is due to the fact now they wish to lie and circumvent the very rules they created themselves.

Rudy Giuliani butt-dials NBC reporter, heard discussing need for cash and trashing Bidens

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic...d-cash-n1071901

You just can't make this stuff up!

I'm not really trying to go bat for anyone here, but it often times happens that people believe things without knowing where they originate. I mean we see it all the time. Stories get passed around and told through channel after channel, from source to source that it gets to the point you may get the story from one place not even knowing where the story started.

It happens a lot.

Really? Nah dude, you may have me mistaken with someone else. I don't go in for what "books" say. Even this book.

Got something? Take it to the prosecutors. Don't have anything? Make sure you say

I believe that.

So if he took the money you don't believe it. If he didn't take the money you don't believe it.

You must have missed that the DOJ claims you can't prosecute a president. So what good would a prosecutor do?

It seems that no matter that when your first theory about making the money blew up, you simply changed tactics to discredit the source. That's what politicians do.

Or did you miss that I posted Forbes as a source with a link to back up he didn't take the money?

This post is now the frontrunner for the Captain Obvious award.