DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: The Gauntlet

"Amid" - surrounded by; in the middle of.

Paleeze, I ain't got time for this.

"explicitly"

We all know you dont have time to read

GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz files ethics complaint against Schiff, cites 'unprofessional and divisive' conduct

“Today I filed an ethics complaint against @RepAdamSchiff for: Distorting @POTUS’s call with President Zelensky; Lying to the public about ‘Russian Collusion;’ Blocking Members of Congress from attending impeachment depositions,” Gaetz tweeted. “Schiff must be held accountable.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-rep...achment-inquiry

Has Matts nose always been brown?

If Trump witnessed Warren robbing a bank, yes of course he should tell someone. The police.
What he shouldn't do is go to the local gang leader and tell them that he will give them money if they take her down because he heard a rumor that she may have known someone who robbed a bank

You mean the local gang leader like Corn Pop?

And if the Police said nothing happened while the House started investigating Trump for making it all up, Trump shouldn't request an FBI investigation into the crime?

If it happened in a foreign country, Trump witnessed it, and a cover up ensued, Trump shouldn't order an investigation?

And the rumor you spoke of...

FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...r.html?src=ilaw

Baseless shenanigans! The GOP is shameless and repulsive in their tireless attempts to defend this traitorous POS Potus.

I'd go back through the thread and give you an education but I see everyone else beat me to it. Your boy is going down because he's a creepy ass crook.

This is want the Trump lovin' likes of 40 are being fed over at Fox News. This is about as far from reality as it gets:

Laura Ingraham warns Republicans: 'There is no GOP in 2020 without Trump'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/laura-ingraham-warns-gop-there-is-no-gop-in-2020-without-trump

White House lawyer moved transcript of Trump call to classified server after Ukraine adviser raised alarms

Moments after President Trump ended his phone call with Ukraine’s president on July 25, an unsettled national security aide rushed to the office of White House lawyer John Eisenberg.

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine adviser at the White House, had been listening to the call and was disturbed by the pressure Trump had applied to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rivals, according to people familiar with Vindman’s testimony to lawmakers this week.

Vindman told Eisenberg, the White House’s legal adviser on national security issues, that what the president did was wrong, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

Scribbling notes on a yellow legal pad, Eisenberg proposed a step that other officials have said is at odds with long-standing White House protocol: moving a transcript of the call to a highly classified server and restricting access to it, according to two people familiar with Vindman’s account.

The details of how the White House clamped down on information about the controversial call comes as the House impeachment inquiry turns its focus to the role of Eisenberg, who has served as deputy White House counsel since the start of Trump’s administration. House impeachment investigators on Wednesday evening announced they have asked Eisenberg and a fellow White House lawyer, Mike Ellis, to testify Monday.

On Thursday, the House is scheduled to vote on rules governing the next phase of the inquiry and hear from Tim Morrison, a former deputy to national security adviser John Bolton. Bolton has also been asked to testify next week.

Vindman’s account marks the first known instance in which a witness before the impeachment inquiry has provided a firsthand account linking Eisenberg to the decision to move the problematic transcript to a highly classified server.

Eisenberg did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesman declined to discuss Eisenberg’s role in handling the July 25 transcript or how he addressed the concerns he heard from staff.

“Consistent with the practices of past administrations from both parties, we will not discuss the internal deliberations of the White House Counsel’s Office,” said deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley.

Eisenberg, who worked in the Washington office of the law firm Kirkland & Ellis before joining the Trump administration, also served in the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration. He has been deputy White House counsel overseeing national security issues since Trump’s inauguration, serving under both former White House counsel Donald McGahn and his successor, Pat Cipollone.

By the time Vindman came to him in late July, Eisenberg was already familiar with concerns among White House officials about the administration’s attempts to pressure Ukraine for political purposes, as The Washington Post previously reported.

Three weeks earlier, Vindman and another senior official had gone to him after a contentious July 10 meeting in which they said European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland had pushed two Ukrainian officials to investigate Trump’s political rivals, including former vice president Joe Biden, whose son Hunter served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.

Sondland’s attorney, Robert Luskin, said Wednesday that his client did not mention the Bidens in the July 10 meeting or any other discussions about Ukraine policy.

“Ambassador Sondland has nothing to add to his prepared testimony in which he makes clear that he did not then or on any other occasion mention any Biden by name and did not then know that Burisma was linked to Biden,” Luskin said.

That day, two officials representing the newly elected Ukrainian president had come to the White House hoping to shore up relations with the Trump administration.

Instead, the visitors found themselves caught in a showdown between top White House officials.

The two Ukrainian visitors — Andriy Yermak, a top Zelensky adviser, and Oleksandr Danyliuk, the head of Ukraine’s national security and defense council — were first escorted to Bolton’s office, where they met with Vindman, Sondland, White House Russia adviser Fiona Hill and Kurt Volker, the State Department’s special envoy to Ukraine.

As the group discussed the United States’ desire to see Kyiv crack down on corruption, Sondland turned the conversation away from ongoing corruption probes to pursuing specific investigations that were important to Trump, according to testimony from Hill and Vindman.

Bolton was so alarmed by the comments that he cut the meeting short, according to people familiar with the testimony.

Sondland then asked the Ukrainians to accompany him to a previously scheduled debriefing in the Ward Room, a basement conference area used by the national security team.

During that meeting, Sondland “emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma,” a reference to a gas company that tapped Biden’s son Hunter to be on its board, according to Vindman’s opening statement to lawmakers.

Vindman objected, telling Sondland that the request was “totally inappropriate,” according to a person familiar with his testimony.

As tensions mounted, Sondland asked the two Ukrainian officials if they would like to step out of the meeting temporarily, the person said.

Hill, whom Bolton had instructed to monitor Sondland, had just entered the Ward Room. She immediately echoed Vindman’s objections that the request was counter to national security goals, according to her testimony.

“She was very emotional,” one person who heard Vindman’s account of the meeting recalled, adding that Hill raised her voice and strongly objected.

Vindman and Hill complained directly to Eisenberg about the episode, according to his testimony and people familiar with their actions. It is unclear whether Eisenberg took any steps in response.

Weeks later, Vindman grew even more alarmed as he sat in the Situation Room listening to Trump speak with Zelensky, according to a person familiar with his testimony. Among the officials present were Morrison, who had just replaced Hill as the senior Russia adviser at the White House, and retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Vice President Pence’s national security adviser.

“I would like you to do us a favor,” Trump told the Ukrainian president, then asked him to look into the debunked conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee server was transported to Ukraine after it was hacked in 2016, according to a rough transcript released by the White House. Trump also asked Zelensky to pursue an investigation into Biden and his son, the transcript shows.

Stunned, Vindman looked up and made eye contact with Morrison, the person said.

In his statement to lawmakers, Vindman said he “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.”

After the call, Vindman hurried to Eisenberg’s door, bringing with him his twin brother, Yevgeny, an ethics attorney on the National Security Council. Ellis, a deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council, also joined the discussion, the person said.

Vindman read out loud notes he took of the president’s call. Eisenberg then suggested that the National Security Council move records of the call to a separate, highly classified computer system, Vindman told lawmakers.

The White House lawyer later directed the transcript’s removal to a system known as NICE, for NSC Intelligence Collaboration Environment, which is normally reserved for code-word-level ­intelligence programs and top-
secret sources and methods, according to an administration official.

Former Trump national security officials said it was unheard of to store presidential calls with foreign leaders on the NICE system but that Eisenberg had moved at least one other transcript of a Trump phone call there.

On Sept. 25, under mounting political pressure, the White House released the rough transcript of the Zelensky call. Trump has declared it a “perfect call” and proof that he has not done anything wrong.

In his testimony, Vindman recalled that on the call, Zelensky raised Burisma by name in response to Trump’s request that the Ukrainians look into the Bidens — a detail not included in the transcript released by the White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...6e01_story.html

So what he said was so bad that they had to put it on a top secret server to hide it. Then Trump furnished us with the sharpie version. I can't understand how any GOPer thinks reports from these career officials SERVING IN THE TRUMP WHITEHOUSE are something the dems made up... smh

Oh look, conservatives, servers again!

Im not worried about it. Nothing is going to come of this, the news media is just hyping things up for clicks.

the House has "nothing" and they know it. If they did, they would be doing something by now. All they got is what amounts to "hearsay" with not a single shred of proof that would stand scrutiny in any Court of Law in this country.

their chances of getting a conviction in the Senate is ZERO...they will drag this out thinking they can damage Trump's re-election bid, but they are going to find out, this is just going to give Trump more votes, and the House is going to lose 30+ Seats in the House in the elections...they are just too dumb to realize it.

The Dems promised everyone they would:

sign infrastructure bills
Help with prescription drugs
Help with healthcare
Fund education
Help the homeless problem

they have done nothing but try and impeach Trump. For 3 years during the Mueller investigation Pelosi kept telling her party "Impeachment is NOT what the people want, we need to focus on passing the above legislation" Folks like Schiff, AOC, and others wouldn't listen. Pelosi is now forced to ride the wave, but she knows this strategy is 100% sure to lead to defeat.

Honestly, I think this is Pelosi plan, she wants the Squad, Schiff, and others out of Congress...what better way then to allow them to follow their foolish plan that the American people don't want?

there is reason she has been in there as long as she has...She is using Trump to ensure the people she doesn't want there get ousted.

Somebody has bent been paying attention to....well anything.

You’re post was filled with all the wrong things.

You can simply do a google search on everything you just said and find out how hilariously wrong you are.

Sad.

The House voted 232-196 to proceed with the impeachment investigation.

A great Bipartisan event.

Does a C-SPAN Video Show Joe Biden ‘Confessing to Bribery’?


The U.S. may have pushed for the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor, but not for the reasons implied in a video clip.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/

But 40 ...No one is above the law except for their guys and about 8 mil. illegals

I think you meant inquiry.

Hey- both start with an "i."
That's close enough for the likes of him.

Trump is gonna have to quit calling us do nothing dems now.

Twenty-nine of those 31 Democrats voted Thursday for the resolution setting up the impeachment probe strategy. Of all House districts held by Democrats, Peterson's 7th District in Minnesota gave Trump the most support: The president carried the area by about 30 percentage points. Peterson first won election to the seat in 1990.

Trump won Van Drew's 2nd District in New Jersey by fewer than 5 percentage points. The Democrat is serving his first term in the House.

Others Democrats whose districts were more pro-Trump than Van Drew's, such as Reps. Anthony Brindisi of New York, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Jared Golden of Maine, voted for the House resolution.

So, the Dems won a bunch of seats in districts that trump carried in 2016. Just like that could mean danger for those Dems, it also means danger to trump and the GOP since it could ALSO mean that those voters are sick of trump already.

Just in case you weren’t aware, he’s starting to lose the suburbia demographic. And it’s picking up.

Yeah, just like you told us and the polls showed Trump didn't have the Suburban Women's vote going into 2016.

I never claimed white women weren’t going to vote for trump. The majority of women didn’t vote for trump overall.

Remember, it was white suburbia women that voted 53% in favor of trump. The Eve’s and all those.

Y’all boy out here trying to bribe his way to loyalty again

Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-lures-gop-senators-impeachment-090036960.html

GOP lawmaker invokes possibility of 'civil war' after House votes on Trump impeachment procedures

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said on Thursday that House Democrats’ ongoing inquiry into the president's dealings in the Ukraine is “about to push this country to a civil war if they were to get their wishes.”

Gohmert, speaking after the House voted along party lines to approve a measure establishing procedures for the impeachment process, added, “And if there’s one thing I don’t want to see in my lifetime, I don’t want to ever have participation in, it’s a civil war. Some historian, I don’t remember who, said, guns are only involved in the last phase of a civil war."

During his address on the House floor Thursday afternoon, Gohmert said that while some say the vote “was very important,” he believes it “didn’t do so much.”

The Texas Republican further contended that he is still of the opinion that the House will “not end up having a vote in this chamber on whether or not to actually impeach President Trump because if that happens, it goes to the Senate,” where he predicted it would get a “slam dunk down” on the basis of “massive failure of due process, as well as no evidence, no direct evidence of any wrongdoing.”

He went on to call the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Trump a “sham” and echoed concerns from other Republicans about the Democratic-led House closing hearings and depositions for the ongoing inquiry off to just members serving on select committees, of which Gohmert is not a member.

Gohmert also complained that there were “armed guards outside of the sensitive, compartmented information facility, the SCIF,” where depositions from witnesses testifying as part of the inquiry took place.

"Never in the history of this country have we had such gross unfairness that one party would put armed guards with guns to prevent the duly authorized people from being able to hear the witnesses and see them for themselves," he continued.

The vote on Thursday marked a major step in the House Democrats’ path to impeachment and sets up procedures for open hearings and testimonies for the inquiry as Democrats aim to shift part of the process into the public view in the coming weeks.

The House passed the measure in a 232-196 vote largely along party lines, with no Republicans voting in favor in the legislation.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/46841...ump-impeachment

You know what? I'm tired of this threat. I say bring it.

If ignorant GOPers want to pick up guns and kill other Americans over Trump, then they deserve a bloody beat down.

It’s funny because that’s all they got now.

Attack the process and makes threats of civil war. Notice none of them can actually defend the president’s actions.

White House Russia expert defends Trump-Ukraine call: Nothing 'illegal'

Tim Morrison, the outgoing top White House Russia expert, testified behind closed doors that he doesn't believe anything illegal was discussed during President Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to a copy of his prepared remarks.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-secu...ne-call-nothing

Morrison also corroborated how Taylor remembered a briefing the aide gave to him regarding EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, saying "the substance of the statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate." Taylor testified that he'd spoken with Sondland, who "told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election." "'Everything' was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,'" Taylor later said Sondland told him.

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-aide-backs-william-214818995.html

Him and Sondland are gonna have to make another appearance. Especially sondland, because he had some major inconsistencies with his testimony compared to everyone else.

So you have a problem with the President wanting an investigation of Burisma and possible Ukrainian interference in our 2016 elections?

Nothing illegal there. Using leverage to get them to do so is also not illegal.

Didn't we investigate possible Russian interference in our 2016 elections also?

He wanted an investigation for his own political gain. Which is illegal.

It was never about corruption, or he would’ve been all over twitter talking about it the moment he got the tip.

The fact that you’re believing what the president is claiming only AFTER we find out he has his personal lawyer trying to dig up for his re-election bid says a lot about your own willingness to look past corruption in order to defend trump.

We all know what you’d be saying right now if that was a Democrat who did what trump did. The very definition of being fake.

Take your conspiracy theories to court and watch them laugh you out the door. Your hate Trump bubble has blinded you.

Everyone is crying we don't do enough to secure our elections, we investigate Russian interference, and we also investigated Ukrainian interference.

Not for Political gain, for election security!

lol, we shall see, won’t we?

Evidence not looking too good for your boy.

All the evidence you have was given in secret, behind locked doors, and selective leaked by Shifty Shiff.

And you have been misled just like when Shifty told you he had undeniable evidence of Russian Collusion with our President. He lied then, he lies now.

Just wait till the Republicans can call witnesses and cross examine, in public for all to see.

1. The evidence is collected behind closed doors to prevent coordination of cover stories. It's SOP for all inquiries, whether for impeachment or some other alleged crime. It's done this way all the time. That's how the system operates. You are crying crocodile tears because this time it's Your Boy under the magnifying glass, but it works that way for/to everyone. Yes, it was run that way during Cankles' Benghazi waste of time, too. Private first, public second.

2. The committee is bipartisan. Despite what that intellectually challenged POTUS of yours says, Republicans are investigating this thing, too. Look it up- it's really a thing.

3. By the way, a number of the "protesting" GOP mob in that hallway were actually authorized and welcome behind those doors. They chose to stand outside in front of cameras and grandstand some cheap publicity stunt instead of walking through that SCIF door and actually doing their effing jobs. That's right. Fact. Look it up. The rest of them know full well that open hearings are the next step, not the present step. They just did this to rile up Roobz, Noobz, and FoxDoopz® who'll just throw rocks for the Home Team, without bothering to research the procedural steps for themselves.

Another fun fact: Those Reps who crashed the party? They actually broke the law in doing so. Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities require security clearance. No phones or electronic devices. Their intrusion was a breach of national security. Period. The minute they opened those doors, they broke the law. MOst of them were carrying mobile phones, which are strictly prohibited. This dumbazz publicity stunt was a breach of national security- the very kind of breach the SCIF room was created to prevent. Fact. Not opinion, belief or spin. It's codified law- and this troupe of Howler Monkeys broke it without bothering to consider their larger responsibility to The Nation. Now, they too have Trump's scent clinging to them like a flat skunk on 1-75. Broken norms, rules, and laws follow this guy everywhere he goes, and those who are stupid enough to attach themselves to him wind up swindled, discredited, tainted, thrown under buses... or in jail. No one escapes his proximity undamaged. It's been like that with him for 40 years.


There IS evidence. Pages of it. It's in the Mueller report. Mueller himself was asked directly whether his report exonerated the President. Without hesitation, Mueller looked the Senator in the face and said: "No." He even leaned into the microphone when he said it. Fact.



I'm looking forward to that.

Your Boy has "crooked" in his personal and professional resume going back decades. He's a low character con artist who has a gaggle of goons tap-dancing around his illegalities and running interference for him. Folk like you have tried repeatedly to make this about some Dem witch hunt, but there has been a stink around this dude since before he blasphemed by placing his hand on that Bible. The people who are now coming forward are career professionals of both parties. People who have served this country for decades under both R and D admins. They are stepping up because things are not right and proper- and it's time to show them to the entire country. Agent Orange keeps trying to label them as 'Never-Trumpers' and that's exactly what they are. They are also 'Never-Obamaites' and -Never-Bushies,' as well. They just do their jobs. Calling attention to a Presidential shakedown of a weaker ally country is gonna get flagged. Because: professionalism. Your Boy never bothered with that concept, and now his pasty, flabby tit is in the wringer.

I told you directly on the first day after the election that this man was too arrogant, intellectually lazy, and stupid to avoid impeachment. I was right. On his way out the door, John Kelly warned Your Boy about the same damned thing. He was right, too.

So yeah. I await what's next. It's time for some questions and answers.

If Orange Glow is truly crime-free, he should be willing to take the stand/answer depositions, so he can school the inquisitors on his sparkling cleanliness. Let's see how eager he is to clear his name face up-front. Like a man. I can pretty much already predict how this will go, and you can too.

This has been going on for how long now? a month? 6 weeks?
The "secret" part of the Nixon investigation lasted 4 month.
The "secret" part of the Clinton investigation lasted almost 4 years.

Just FYI