The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[BDKJMU]

It's akin to a Grand Jury except as outlined in the Constitution... which gives the House the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't say the House should appoint a random selection of the populace.

You keep thinking this is akin trial, which it isn't. The analogy isn't a trial but a Grand Jury. Yes, impeachment is unique. It's not 100% analogous to any other process. Do you think this is the first impeachment that is political?

It sounds like your gripe is with the Constitution.

Yeah a grand jury where all the non randomly selected jurors have publicly proclaimed the the defendant a guilty scoundrel in one way or another. Nothing more than a pre ordained charade..

[Ibanez]

In an open process, you honestly think the witness would be denied? Something tells me that any credible witness brought by the Republicans would be allowed. Otherwise, the Democrats run a huge risk of appearing to be denying POTUS the ability to defend himself. The Dems may loathe Trump, but they appear to be ready to make this as legit as possible . Right now the Dems are essentially holding a grand jury, which has no due process.

Btw, that wouldn't be a transparency issue. Probably more like due process. Ivy, can I get a ruling?


According to the Constitution, there's very little guidance.

I expect nothing less from the donks..
They just want to give the facade of it being legit..

But Republicans asked for what the Dems offered.


I’m sorry, I don’t follow your logic. The Reps want something. The Dems give it to them. The Reps refuse and it’s because it’ll make the process legit. But it’s only a facade? I’m honestly lost here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

BDK's example definitely isn't about transparency. And, I don't think it's a due process issue either. It isn't a trial. It's akin to a Grand Jury deciding whether there is enough evidence to go to trial. The defense doesn't get to call witnesses in a Grand Jury.

And, which witnesses that Republicans want to testify have had subpoenaed rejected?

Like Ivy said, Grand Jury's are RANDOMLY selected, NON POLITICAL from among the populace. There's nothing randomly selected or non political about this at all. So it's not akin to a grand jury.

It’s impeachment. Of course it’s political. And is a responsibility of the HoR, the people’s representatives.

But the fact that it’s behind closed doors, no due process, the accused has no role in the proceedings are why it’s like a grand jury.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Agree. So why all the hand wringing about process? If the laws are on your side you argue the laws, not the process.

Which part of the process? The part where the whistleblower rules were changed to get hearsay on the docket? Or the formalized impeachment inquiry rules where everything and anything has to be approved by Schiff?

And btw, where the hell is JSO to tell us all how the impeachment polls have been holding up over the last month?

Hasn’t the whistle blower rules change been debunked?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I’d like to see this all become public ASAP. Let Trump defend himself and let us move on. We’ve started the process - let’s get through it our parasites (re: congresspeople) can return to doing nothing of importance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

The part where the whistleblower rules were changed to get hearsay on the docket?

The whistleblower rules weren't changed to allow hearsay.

Or the formalized impeachment inquiry rules where everything and anything has to be approved by Schiff?

It's the way house committees work and have always worked. Was Nunes giving Schiff unilateral subpoena power when he had the gavel? Of course not

Impeachment inquiries work the same way.

The House worked the same during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. I posted the relevant rule from each a few pages back.

Yeah... Old SD was kinda proving my point there.

[BDKJMU]

I expect nothing less from the donks..
They just want to give the facade of it being legit..

But Republicans asked for what the Dems offered.


I’m sorry, I don’t follow your logic. The Reps want something. The Dems give it to them. The Reps refuse and it’s because it’ll make the process legit. But it’s only a facade? I’m honestly lost here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re telling me in the House there’s not a single conk never Trumper, or conk who doesn’t like Trump, who would have voted to proceed if they saw a valid reason to?

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, there was one - but, he was kicked to the curb, made an example of, and is no longer a Republican.

So, is there a single current Republican in the House ready for the Amash treatment? No.

[Ibanez]

But Republicans asked for what the Dems offered.


I’m sorry, I don’t follow your logic. The Reps want something. The Dems give it to them. The Reps refuse and it’s because it’ll make the process legit. But it’s only a facade? I’m honestly lost here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re telling me in the House there’s not a single conk never Trumper, or conk who doesn’t like Trump, who would have voted to proceed if they saw a valid reason to?

1) There's nothing wrong with a "Never Trumper". What's your problem with people having a difference of opinion? Why are Republicans so thin-skinned when it comes to criticism of Trump?
2) I suspect many of them are trying to preserve their seats since we're coming up on an election year.

[Skjellyfetti]

Lol.

Sondland reverses himself on Ukraine quid pro quo

Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the impeachment inquiry, told a top Ukrainian official that hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the beleaguered U.S. ally would “likely” be held up unless the country’s government announced investigations of President Donald Trump’s political rivals — a major reversal from his previous closed-door testimony.

The acknowledgment of a potential quid pro quo is an explosive shift that threatens to upend claims by the president’s allies that military aid was not used as a bludgeon to advance his domestic political interests .

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/0 ... quo-000318

[Ibanez]

Lol.

Sondland reverses himself on Ukraine quid pro quo

Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the impeachment inquiry, told a top Ukrainian official that hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the beleaguered U.S. ally would “likely” be held up unless the country’s government announced investigations of President Donald Trump’s political rivals — a major reversal from his previous closed-door testimony.

The acknowledgment of a potential quid pro quo is an explosive shift that threatens to upend claims by the president’s allies that military aid was not used as a bludgeon to advance his domestic political interests .

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/0 ... quo-000318

Get over it

[SeattleGriz]

You’re telling me in the House there’s not a single conk never Trumper, or conk who doesn’t like Trump, who would have voted to proceed if they saw a valid reason to?

1) There's nothing wrong with a "Never Trumper". What's your problem with people having a difference of opinion? Why are Republicans so thin-skinned when it comes to criticism of Trump?
2) I suspect many of them are trying to preserve their seats since we're coming up on an election year.

The issue isn't that there is anything wrong with a Never Trumper, it's that they didn't accomplish anything with all their ideals, but still lecture.

[BDKJMU]

Lol.

Sondland reverses himself on Ukraine quid pro quo

Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the impeachment inquiry, told a top Ukrainian official that hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the beleaguered U.S. ally would “likely” be held up unless the country’s government announced investigations of President Donald Trump’s political rivals — a major reversal from his previous closed-door testimony.

The acknowledgment of a potential quid pro quo is an explosive shift that threatens to upend claims by the president’s allies that military aid was not used as a bludgeon to advance his domestic political interests .

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/0 ... quo-000318

Lol, you left off the other half of the story:
https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/stat ... ke-news%2F

[AZGrizFan]

Well, there was one - but, he was kicked to the curb, made an example of, and is no longer a Republican.

So, is there a single current Republican in the House ready for the Amash treatment? No.

Didn’t he leave of his own accord?

[SDHornet]

But Republicans asked for what the Dems offered.


I’m sorry, I don’t follow your logic. The Reps want something. The Dems give it to them. The Reps refuse and it’s because it’ll make the process legit. But it’s only a facade? I’m honestly lost here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re telling me in the House there’s not a single conk never Trumper, or conk who doesn’t like Trump, who would have voted to proceed if they saw a valid reason to?

I made this point a while back. If the donks had the goods, there would have been plenty of Never Trumpers that would have voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry.

[Skjellyfetti]

Who are the Never Trumpers in the House? Can you name 3?

[SDHornet]

Who are the Never Trumpers in the House? Can you name 3?

Nope, don't care. But I'm sure you have a wiki dossier on all of them.

[CID1990]

All of this is irrelevant and will be completely down the memory hole as soon as the actual impeachment proceedings begin. It is nothing but political gamesmanship on both sides right now.

[kalm]

You’re telling me in the House there’s not a single conk never Trumper, or conk who doesn’t like Trump, who would have voted to proceed if they saw a valid reason to?

I made this point a while back. If the donks had the goods, there would have been plenty of Never Trumpers that would have voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry.

^^^^^^yep.

Self preservation.

Trump gets impeached but they’ve either already been assured or are betting against conviction at which point Trump gets to claim the witch hunt narrative. In the event more comes out they can always publicly admit to not knowing without much repercussion. If Trump looses the election they get the sympathy from the base of standing up for a victim who got railroaded.

If they vote to impeach they run the risk of getting primaried and Trump’s strong pimp hand.

The allegations, while clearly illegal, aren’t exactly like shooting someone on 5th Avenue. They are technocratical wrongdoings in an age where all politicians are deemed corrupt.

[93henfan]

*loses

[kalm]

*loses

I had ball cancer.

[93henfan]

*loses

I had ball cancer.

My nigga.

[Ivytalk]

No matter which side you’re on, I think we can all agree that Gordon Sondland is a scumbag.

[kalm]

No matter which side you’re on, I think we can all agree that Gordon Sondland is a scumbag.

His memory has been "refreshed" he said.

And the Dems released the transcript of his testimony.

[Ivytalk]

The USA would be much better off if it awarded plum ambassadorships to State Department professionals who knew a few things about foreign policy and the countries they were posted to, rather than to political hack campaign contributors.