House Speaker Pelosi to announce formal impeachment inquiry of Trump

[Sam]

He shouldn't have known about it at all.

What folks who want to make this scandalous need to do:

1) Explain why it was unreasonable for the whistleblower or their attorney to approach HPSCI staff on how to proceed

2) Explain why Schiff's staff directing the whistleblower to the Trump-appointed ICIG broke any legal or ethical rules

3) Explain exactly what they find scandalous: are they alleging that Schiff knowing about the complaint is scandalous or are they alleging that Schiff's staff actually helped craft the complaint?

Anything other than the very last proposition isn't a scandal; it merely shows that HPSCI staff followed the law when approached.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Ol' Nancy doesn't seem very enthusiastic about the Democrat party's current course of action. At a press conference today, she basically said, "Doesn't anybody want to ask me about anything other than impeachment?"

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...t-impeachment/

[Sam]

Pelosi often uses these pressers to push unrelated House legislation that demonstrate Democratic priorities. Actually watching the pressers would show that this is effective, as the first questions are directed toward that legislation, allowing Pelosi and others to get some headlines.

Today, Pelosi pushed aggressively on both oversight and legislation, trying to show that Democrats remain focused on "getting things done" on the legislative side and continue to try to work with the President on USCMA, drug pricing, etc., even as impeachment inquiries move forward.

--Sam

Ol' Nancy doesn't seem very enthusiastic about the Democrat party's current course of action. At a press conference today, she basically said, "Doesn't anybody want to ask me about anything other than impeachment?"

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...t-impeachment/

[firstfloor]

If you don’t mind, I feel I must add Pompeo to the list of delinquents.

Oh, and Mike (lame excuse) Pence too. The picture is becoming gradually clearer.

[rogue06]

He didn't have prior knowledge of the details of the complaint, just that there was a complaint. Common practice, no big deal. Besides, this is just another attempt to deflect. The evidence is the transcript itself, not the process of making the complaint. More lies from Trump, par for the course!

You are correct that the evidence is the transcript itself, not what a gossip sloughing off second and third hand erroneous hearsay claims, not weird and distorted versions of it (and that includes "parodies"). And the simple fact remains that the transcript reveals that Trump didn't engage in any illegal behavior.

00000000000000a00aa1.gif

[rogue06]

Pelosi often uses these pressers to push unrelated House legislation that demonstrate Democratic priorities.

Considering that the House has been doing little else than try to come up with something to impeach Trump for you really can't say she was trying to push unrelated House legislation that demonstrate Democratic priorities.

[Tassman]

You are correct that the evidence is the transcript itself, not what a gossip sloughing off second and third hand erroneous hearsay claims, not weird and distorted versions of it (and that includes "parodies"). And the simple fact remains that the transcript reveals that Trump didn't engage in any illegal behavior.

Well he did at several levels. The whistle-blower complaint sums it all up: “The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 US election.” The complaint also describes an effort by the White House to hide the president’s conversation with Zelenskiy because officials knew how damning it was. And then, the White House and the Department of Justice intervened to prevent the complaint from making its way to Congress as the law requires. In short Trump used the power of the presidency to extort a foreign government to help his own re-election chances and his administration then tried to cover it up.

[Sam]

Considering that the House has been doing little else than try to come up with something to impeach Trump for you really can't say she was trying to push unrelated House legislation that demonstrate Democratic priorities.

Right hard to argue this with a straight face if one knows anything at all about legislation that's passed the House but stalled in the Senate, where McConnell has bragged about making "a graveyard" for House bills.

--Sam

[Sam]

If folks around here were dedicated to carving out a position and holding it, I'd say this is a painfully weak limb to climb out on. We know that the complaint alleged numerous incidents surrounding the phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy. We know that the whistleblower claimed direct knowledge of some of those events and documents. We know that the ICIG, a Trump appointee, found the claim credible and urgent. We know that Giuliani has been running around doing downright weird, nutty stuff. We know that Republican members of Congress who looked at the unredacted complaint and materials came away troubled.

But all this is just first-responder stuff: as soon as something newly damaging comes out that makes these false claims even more untenable, a bunch of people here will just latch onto some new excuse or phony distinction that doesn't hold up to scrutiny and just happens to mirror talking points disseminated by the WH to Republican politicians and pundits.

--Sam

You are correct that the evidence is the transcript itself, not what a gossip sloughing off second and third hand erroneous hearsay claims, not weird and distorted versions of it (and that includes "parodies"). And the simple fact remains that the transcript reveals that Trump didn't engage in any illegal behavior.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40072[/ATTACH]

[Mountain Man]

We know that the complaint alleged numerous incidents surrounding the phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy. We know that the whistleblower claimed direct knowledge of some of those events and documents. We know that the ICIG, a Trump appointee, found the claim credible and urgent. We know that Giuliani has been running around doing downright weird, nutty stuff. We know that Republican members of Congress who looked at the unredacted complaint and materials came away troubled.

Even if we accepted every one of your premises as true (purely for the sake of argument, you understand), it doesn't necessarily lead to where you think it leads. Especially given the fact that the actual transcript of the phonecall, which is the only hard evidence we have, doesn't reveal anything illegal or even mildly improper.

As the saying goes, there's no "there" there.

[JimL]

You are correct that the evidence is the transcript itself, not what a gossip sloughing off second and third hand erroneous hearsay claims, not weird and distorted versions of it (and that includes "parodies"). And the simple fact remains that the transcript reveals that Trump didn't engage in any illegal behavior.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40072[/ATTACH]

Wrong, and Trump and his co-horts know you're wrong which is why they are all running for cover. First Pompeo lied about it, saying he knew nothing about the details of the conversation when in reality he was on the call himself, admitting to it only after the evidence came out, and Pence saying that he didn't know anything about the call when he met with Zelensky when his own National security advisor was on the call as well.

Fact is, there is a quid pro quo in the text itself and that text is said to only include 10 minutes worth of a 30 minute call. Congress will get the full text. But it is not only the transcript, it is the freezing of desperately needed, bi-partisan appropriated military aid leading up to the call and to Pences meeting with Zelensky.

On top of that, no quid pro quo is needed, he abused the power of his office in the request itself, that Zelenky find dirt on Biden, not to mention his attempt to undermine his own intelligence agencies by trying to get Ukraine to take the fall for the 2016 election interference. And his risking U.S. national security by withholding the military aid, which in doing so he was actually aiding and abetting our common adversary. All of this for his own personal political gain, not the country's best interests. The guy is unfit for the office, no matter how you look at it!

[JimL]

Even if we accepted every one of your premises as true (purely for the sake of argument, you understand), it doesn't necessarily lead to where you think it leads. Especially given the fact that the actual transcript of the phonecall, which is the only hard evidence we have, doesn't reveal anything illegal or even mildly improper.

As the saying goes, there's no "there" there.

Theres no "there" there in your head, that's the problem. And btw, there is more to it than just the transcript itself, there's the surrounding activity by Trumps enablers before and after the phone call. Not to mention the lie of the cover-up story that the president withheld the aid because he was concerned about corruption. The Pentagon who was overseeing Ukraines cleaning up of the corruption had already briefed the president in May that Ukraine had sufficiently cleaned up the corruption in the government. So what's his excuse now?

[Bill the Cat]

He didn't have prior knowledge of the details of the complaint, just that there was a complaint. Common practice, no big deal. Besides, this is just another attempt to deflect. The evidence is the transcript itself, not the process of making the complaint. More lies from Trump, par for the course!

He tweeted almost identical words to the complaint. He had knowledge and LIED that he didn't.

[Mountain Man]

Wow... Nancy really doesn't want to own this impeachment thing!

"This is an inquiry and not an outright impeachment."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...t-impeachment/

As if there's any meaningful difference. I believe the appropriate metaphor is "like trying to split hairs on a bald man".

[Charles]

Interesting article in USA TODAY: Perilous times for Trump: By 45%-38%, Americans support impeaching him over Ukraine allegations, poll finds

Americans by a 45%-38% plurality now support a vote by the House of Representatives to impeach President Donald Trump, a USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, as allegations continue to swirl around an embattled White House.

By a similar margin, 44%-35%, those surveyed say the Senate, which would then be charged with holding a trial of the president, should convict Trump and remove him from office.

The question of impeachment opens a huge partisan divide. Among Democrats, 74% in the new USA TODAY/Ipsos poll support impeachment; just 17% of Republicans agree. Independents are split down the middle, 37%-37%.

Even among Republicans, however, 30% say the president asking Ukraine to look into the behavior of former vice president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, would be an abuse of power. And 80% of Republicans – a higher number than among Democrats or independents – say the president is subject to all laws, just like any other citizen.