DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: The Gauntlet

They had a second vote on impeachment since the President took office. As expected the resolution did not move forward, losing with 355 votes to kill the resolution. Most members of both parties voted to kill the resolution, with 66 Democrats and no Republicans voting for impeachment proceedings to begin.

Either Nancy doesn't have the votes this time or she knows the Democrats in swing states will be crushed if they go on record for impeachment.

Keep playing tho, its humorous.

You don't live in reality.

History will judge Democrats harshly for impeachment of Trump, Ken Starr says

History will judge congressional Democrats harshly for their handling of President Trump's impeachment inquiry due to their lack of public debate and failure to be transparent with the American people, former special prosecutor Ken Starr said on "America's Newsroom" Monday.

"The text of the Constitution just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it's being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives," Starr said.

"But history will, I think, judge this not well. It should judge it not well. [You] didn't have a full debate on the floor of the House -- and that just lends itself to, 'then to let's go to court and have this litigated.'

"And of course, the chairman then says, 'you go to court, you're in contempt.'"

Starr urged House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to strive for the appearance of fairness and chastised him for already declaring the president guilty, and attempting to sway public opinion.

"For [Schiff to] essentially declare guilt... is another procedural irregularity. He should try his best... to give the appearance of fairness and open-mindedness," he said.

"He's already declared the president substantively guilty, as well as procedurally guilty."

Starr also commented on the investigation of the investigators, being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham, into corruption within the federal government and it's intelligence agencies, as well as any unauthorized leaks or political bias.

"During the [Richard] Nixon years, we had an attorney general go to jail. We've had FBI Directors who have been discredited. And that's our system," he said. "We have checks and balances."

"Let's not declare anyone guilty -- as Chairman Schiff just basically did," Starr added. "That's incompatible with our system of fundamental fairness... but I believe there's a housecleaning underway... If criminal charges are brought, we'll be able to read the indictment, just as we did during the Mueller investigation.

"We can read those indictments, evaluate them and of course, see what happens."

This the same guy who got Clinton impeached over an affair?

If THAT was impeachable, then what trump did deserves prison time.

House to vote on impeachment inquiry procedures

https://cnn.it/36c64gb

Welp, the false narrative that Nancy doesn’t have the votes just got squashed.

About time.

Now you will see the difference between a lynch mob and due process.

If by they you mean watching Nacy dog walk Trump again, then sure.

Not in depositions you won't. Only the committee members will be allowed. And some of them are already Republicans. Republicans are already allowed to ask questions during these depositions and all you do is whine and say otherwise.

Oh boy.

Sondland Testified Trump-Ukraine Pressure Was Quid Pro Quo, His Lawyer Tells WSJ

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gordon-sondland-donald-trump-quid-pro-quo.html

After all these witnesses have testified, anyone with a brain should know this by now.

Yep. And there’s a few republicans in the house who have been on these closed door sessions, and they will probably vote to impeach. And once it’s all out to see....there won’t be a spin job viable enough to save trump.

The senate on the other hand....

If Trump ever has to actually "take the stand" and answer questions.. I could totally see him confessing to ordering the code red...

The dude has that same type of ego and he won't allow himself to admit that anything happened without his direction... and he won't understand why anything he asked to be done, is wrong.... because America NEEDS HIM ON THAT WALL!!!!!!

The sad thing about what you just said is that in a last ditch effort to defend trump, I could see the republicans using that defense:

Trump isn’t a politician, so he didn’t know it was wrong.

Basically the “affluenza” defense. The one that got the rich teen probation for driving drunk and killing 4 people.

I didn't know you could put that many people in a baseball stadium.

The vote Pelosi is offering is to layout procedures going forward with the open public hearings. She doesn't have to do it, but she is taking away the only GOPer talking point for defending Trump. Now they have to go on record in the face of the evidence with America watching.

You think the boos at the baseball game was harsh? Wait until America sees the GOP acting like traitors defending this POS POTUS.

Sondland has now admitted Trump's quid pro quo in his second appearance before committees. Whoops, somebody got caught lying and it looks bad for Trump.

EDIT: He also added that he told Trump is was a quid pro quo! Trump was counseled against it and told it was illegal! BOOM!

This is probably why Nancy said let's go public now.

Exactly what the mob said about Emmett Till.

When will you consider what the key witness, the President of Ukraine has said? It never happened. I was never pressured.

This case is based on witnesses saying something like, Trump punched the President of Ukraine in the nose! Trump says no I didn't while the President of Ukraine says he never touched me.

Witch Hunt.

Oh you mean the guy reliant on the US for protection from Russia? The one depending on Trump for help? That guy? Yep, why in the world would he cover for Trump? hmmm...

No it isn't. And it's damn funny that all you got is basically a compete and total fabrication.

A congressman was just on CNN and said they needed a vote for a few things.

A. To release the statements from the closed hearings.
B. To turn over at some time in the future to the Department of Justice the evidence so they can take further action if so warranted.
C. To enable public hearings.

I find it hilarious that GOPers like 40 consider this a win. Pelosi has owned Trump every step of the way on this. She's playing 3d chess while Trump is still playing go fish.

I just want to ask everyone to go into this with an open mind.

Trump supporters, be open to the possibility that Trump has done a lot of bad stuff and deserves to be removed from office.

Impeachment supporters, be open to the possibility that the things Trump has done might not really be that bad.

There is a lot of information to come that we are not privy to yet. Don't set your opinion in stone before it's time.

That ball wouldn't have been out of a lot of parks
Name one
Yellowstone

If'n its legit, he's got to quit.

But just to be blunt, I suspect another witch hunt.

Ghost of Johnnie Cochran, is that you?

Is this guy a never trumper, too? And, he listened to the call:

Army Officer on White House Staff Reported Concerns on Trump’s Ukraine Dealings

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/po...pgtype=Homepage

WASHINGTON — A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine’s president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior.

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a “sense of duty,” he plans to tell the inquiry, according to a draft of his opening statement obtained by The New York Times.

He will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, in which Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”

Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden’s son served while his father was vice president.

“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump’s comments in the call.

The colonel, a Ukrainian-American immigrant who received a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb and whose statement is full of references to duty and patriotism, could be a more difficult witness to dismiss than his civilian counterparts.

“I am a patriot,” Colonel Vindman plans to tell the investigators, “and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country irrespective of party or politics.”

He was to be interviewed privately on Tuesday by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees, in defiance of a White House edict not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.
The colonel, who is represented by Michael Volkov, a former federal prosecutor, declined to comment for this article.

In his testimony, Colonel Vindman plans to say that he is not the whistle-blower who initially reported Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. But he will provide an account that corroborates and fleshes out crucial elements in that complaint, which prompted Democrats to open their impeachment investigation.

“I did convey certain concerns internally to national security officials in accordance with my decades of experience and training, sense of duty, and obligation to operate within the chain of command,” he plans to say.

He will testify that he watched with alarm as “outside influencers” began pushing a “false narrative” about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests. According to documents reviewed by The Times on the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, was leading an effort to prod Kiev to investigate Mr. Biden’s son, and to discredit efforts to investigate Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his business dealings in Ukraine.

His account strongly suggests that he may have been among the aides the whistle-blower referred to in his complaint when he wrote that White House officials had recounted the conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky to him, and “were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call.”

Colonel Vindman did not interact directly with the president, but was present for a series of conversations that shed light on his pressure campaign on Ukraine.

He will also testify that he confronted Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, the day the envoy spoke in a White House meeting with Ukrainian officials about “Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president.”

Even as he expressed alarm about the pressure campaign, the colonel and other officials worked to keep the United States relationship with Ukraine on track. At the direction of his superiors at the National Security Council, including John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, Colonel Vindman drafted a memorandum in mid-August that sought to restart security aid that was being withheld from Ukraine, but Mr. Trump refused to sign it, according to documents reviewed by the Times. And he drafted a letter in May congratulating Mr. Zelensky on his inauguration, but Mr. Trump did not sign that either, according to the documents.

Colonel Vindman was concerned after he learned that the White House budget office had taken the unusual step of withholding the $391 million package of security assistance for Ukraine that had been approved by Congress. At least one previous witness has testified that Mr. Trump directed that the aid be frozen until he could secure a commitment from Mr. Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens.

While Colonel Vindman’s concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.

On two occasions, the colonel brought his concerns to John A. Eisenberg, the top lawyer at the National Security Council. The first came on July 10. That day, senior American officials met with senior Ukrainian officials at the White House, in a stormy meeting in which Mr. Bolton is said to have had a tense exchange with Mr. Sondland after the ambassador raised the matter of investigations he wanted Ukraine to undertake. That meeting has been described in previous testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

At a debriefing later that day attended by the colonel, Mr. Sondland again urged Ukrainian officials to help with investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals.

“Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,” Colonel Vindman said in his draft statement.
“I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate” and that the “request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the N.S.C. was going to get involved in or push,” he added.

The colonel’s account echoed the testimony of Fiona Hill, one of his superiors, who has previously testified behind closed doors that she and Mr. Bolton were angered by efforts to politicize the interactions with Ukraine.

The colonel said that after his confrontation with Mr. Sondland, “Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.”

Ms. Hill, the former senior director for European and Russian affairs, also reported the incident to Mr. Eisenberg.

The colonel went to Mr. Eisenberg a couple of weeks later, after the president’s call with Mr. Zelensky. This time, the colonel was accompanied by his identical twin brother, Yevgeny, who is a lawyer on the National Security Council.

The picture painted by Colonel Vindman’s testimony has been echoed by several other senior officials, including William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, who testified last week that multiple senior administration officials had told him that the president blocked security aid to Ukraine and would not meet with Mr. Zelensky until he publicly pledged to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals.
While the White House has urged witnesses subpoenaed by Congress not to participate in the impeachment inquiry, failing to comply with a congressional subpoena would be a risky career move for an active-duty military officer.

As tensions grew over Ukraine policy, the White House appears to have frozen out Colonel Vindman. Since early August, he has been excluded from a number of relevant meetings and events, including a diplomatic trip to three countries under his purview: Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus.

Colonel Vindman said he had reported concerns up his chain of command because he believed he was obligated to do so.

“On many occasions I have been told I should express my views and share my concerns with my chain of command and proper authorities,” he said. “I believe that any good military officer should and would do the same, thus providing his or her best advice to leadership.”

__________

Now, it’s a long article and we know you MAGA hatters hate reading anything without pictures, crayons, and pop ups, but I’m sure losers like rep. Nunes are gonna go ahead and claim this army officer is anti-trump, too.

Everyone enjoys saying Trump wanted "His Political Rivals" investigated but the truth is Trump wanted a Criminal investigation of those involved in the "Russia Collusion lie" one of which happened to be Joe Biden.

Hillary, Brennan, Clapper and others included.

Political Rival was not the focus, Criminal Conspiracy is.

That’s not the truth at all.

I’ll take the army officer, ex ambassador and ex diplomat over yours.

NY Times tomorrow-top WH Ukraine expert who is a Army officer and is on the National Security Council he twice told his superiors about Trumps pressure on Ukraine. He was in on the phone call and he will say that Trump told Ukraine to investigate Bidens son.

He said I and I am paraphrasing that the call was so alarming what was in the call he had to have superiors look into

Wow... a Purple Heart Colonel says it was quid pro quo and you respond with this? smh

And he says he is not the whistleblower nor does he know who it is

Under the Constitution the President has every right to order the investigation of possible criminal actions. Biden's son is suspected of a criminal action, as is his father.

The President has every right to pressure foreign nations to do what he feels is right. In this case, investigate possible corruption.

In Venezuela's case, to take control of the government as we recognize their duly elected President.

In the case of China, to keep hands off the people of Hong Kong.

He can then punish other nations who don't abide by placing sanctions on them, expelling diplomats, ending trade negotiations, withholding funds etc...

Yada, yada... He had every right to abandon the Kurds too, but that didn't make it right. He wanted dirt on Biden to damage biden in the upcoming election, period. There is NOTHING right about that.

40, I thought you were done talking about this?

I should probably remind you that this process was initiated by Republicans with the Benghazi hearings, there have been Republican committee members listening to each testimony during the inquiry, and evidence will be presented to McConnell and the Senate if there is something that needs to be shown.


Also, are you game for a ban bet for the 2020 election?

Republicans hit back Monday at Pelosi over the planned vote, with South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham -- the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would play a role in a Senate impeachment trial -- saying, “A vote now is a bit like un-ringing a bell as House Democrats have selectively leaked information in order to damage President Trump for weeks."

Foreign governments should not be investigating US citizens, period.
And it sure as hell should not be used to hold up aid that congress already approved .

And Peter Navarro a couple days ago refused to answer if they pressed the Chinese for dirt on the Bidens as part of the trade talks

Of course Foreign governments can investigate US citizens suspected of crimes in their country!

How about that gal that Italy investigated for murder?
How about that rapper that Sweden investigated for fighting?

They can lock them up too!

If the Biden family is suspected of crimes in China, the President has every right to ask China to investigate.

If the Biden family didn't pay taxes on the billions they received from China, they can be investigated in the US too.

Lol 40 is trying so hard. Refuses to abandon ship. Oh well.