House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
Here are just some of Trump's staff, appointees and associates who have said or suggested Trump is stupd.


Sam Nunberg describes his ignorance. Nunberg, was sent to “explain the Constitution” to Trump when he was a candidate. “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment,” Nunberg recalled, “before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Steve Bannon " like an 11 year old child"
White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh "Working with Trump is “like trying to figure out what a child wants”—

Rupert Murdoch "a ******* idiot"
Roger Ailes. 'a moron"
Rex Tillerson Secretary of State "a ******* moron"
Gary Cohen Economic advisor "dumb as ****"
H R McMaster National security advisor "a dope"
John Kelly Chief of staff "an idiot"
Steve Mnuchin Secretary of Treasury "an idiot"
Reince Preibus Chief of staff "an idiot"
Sam Nunberg "he's an idiot"

There are lots more. But as I said before. Read his speeches. They really are stupid. And yet people voted for this moron.

You should also note that Trump has threatened legal action against every school he's attended. If Trump is really "a stable genius" why is he frightened of evidence?
Click to expand...


A great listicle there. :thumbsup::)
 
Belz, theprestige

I don't care if you two resolve your issues in private messages, another thread, or a seedy motel room that charges by the hour. As long this nonsense stops getting dragged into other threads multiple times, I'll be happy. Please just stop.
 
Dr. Keith liked the post:
I Am The Scum said:
Belz, theprestige

I don't care if you two resolve your issues in private messages, another thread, or a seedy motel room that charges by the hour. As long this nonsense stops getting dragged into other threads multiple times, I'll be happy. Please just stop.
Click to expand...
 
Democrats to subpoena Gordon Sondland, after the State Department blocked his voluntary testimony

Sondland had interacted directly with Trump around the time of the Ukraine phone call, and was the man who told Ron Johnson that the phone call had involved quid pro quo.

This is how Trump responded on twitter: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181560708808486914

I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public....

....to see. Importantly, Ambassador Sondland’s tweet, which few report, stated, “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” That says it ALL!
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if they found any dirt

Does anyone know what kind of dirt they were looking for? Obviously they had to have a hunch of something before risking everything.
 
DkCreative said:
Does anyone know what kind of dirt they were looking for? Obviously they had to have a hunch of something before risking everything.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You're assuming they give a crap about the truth.

The point of the investigation was to have an investigation. Propagandists could take care of the rest, accusing Biden of everything under the sun and especially the crimes Giuliani was currently in Ukraine committing. It almost worked, too, even with the whistleblower calling attention to it.

As for "before risking everything," I'll put ten bucks down that Trump has asked everyone to do something similar, in every single negotiation.
 
Last edited:
DkCreative said:
Does anyone know what kind of dirt they were looking for? Obviously they had to have a hunch of something before risking everything.
Click to expand...

It goes back to a Alt-Right Wing Conspiracy Theory that Hunter was hired by Burisma for nefarious purposes and was paid extreme amounts of money to hide Burisma's corrupt practices and then Joe Biden had the prosecutor who was "looking into" Burisma's supposed corruption fired so as to protect both his son and the company. There is also claim that the company that Hunter set up with several others, acting as a go-between for Chinese investors wanting to invest in the US, were involved in money laundering and fraud.

There is no actual evidence of either claim, and in fact a lot of evidence that is contradictory to them.
 
DkCreative said:
Does anyone know what kind of dirt they were looking for? Obviously they had to have a hunch of something before risking everything.
Click to expand...
The whole matter is out in the open and other than Biden being too close to the oil industry, there's nothing there.

That doesn't stop Trump or the GOP from shouting accusations from the roof tops which then stick in many people's heads.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
ftfy
Click to expand...
No, it was right the first time. Democrats in the House keep slowly plodding through the motions, each time pretending that this time, THIS time, their chamber will be shown the respect it deserves. If they understood that Trump is going to block everything, they'd have had a subpoena in hand for what's his name's deposition. You're not allowed to testify now? Okay, here's some paperwork, we order you to testify... now.

The Trump administration has obstructed and intimidated every single witness so far. There is every indication they will continue to do so, even with subpoenas, even with impeachment. They need to understand that and plan for it, not simply act outraged every time Lucy pulls the football away and back up for another run at it.
 
The House Committees should hold uncooperating witnesses in contempt, fine them $5,000 a day and send the bill to Trump, personally.
That will get him to cooperate.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The House Committees should hold uncooperating witnesses in contempt, fine them $5,000 a day and send the bill to Trump, personally.
That will get him to cooperate.
Click to expand...

No, they should hold them in contempt, arrest them and fine them.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The House Committees should hold uncooperating witnesses in contempt, fine them $5,000 a day and send the bill to Trump, personally.
That will get him to cooperate.
Click to expand...

Why would he care about this bill?

His SOP is to decree that he doesn't have to pay for things like the little people do.
 
JoeMorgue said:
They're in contempt in the same way a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it makes a sound.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately true. My understanding, limited as it is, is that Congress would have to take them to court and have a judge tell them (Barr and Ross) to comply with the subpoena. Then, when they don't, the judge can determine they are in contempt of COURT, then penalties can be applied. One to 12 months in jail and/or up to $100,000.

I don't know if Congress has taken the contempt citation to court yet.
 
Last edited:
slyjoe said:
Unfortunately true. My understanding, limited as it is, is that Congress would have to take them to court and have a judge tell them (Barr and Ross) to comply with the subpoena. Then, when they don't, the judge can determine they are in contempt of COURT, then penalties can be applied. One to 12 months in jail and/or up to $100,000.

I don't know if Congress has taken the contempt citation to court yet.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think Congress has the ability to enforce subpoenas, outside of the courts.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena.
...
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).

If that's true, then Congress certainly has the authority to "play hardball"... to issue subpoenas and if Trump or his minions fail to respond, to have them arrested.

(I will of course defer to anyone with more legal expertise than myself.)
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually, I think Congress has the ability to enforce subpoenas, outside of the courts.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena.
...
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).

If that's true, then Congress certainly has the authority to "play hardball"... to issue subpoenas and if Trump or his minions fail to respond, to have them arrested.

(I will of course defer to anyone with more legal expertise than myself.)
Click to expand...

You pretty much nailed it. Journey v Mackracken 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Democrats to subpoena Gordon Sondland, after the State Department blocked his voluntary testimony

Sondland had interacted directly with Trump around the time of the Ukraine phone call, and was the man who told Ron Johnson that the phone call had involved quid pro quo.

This is how Trump responded on twitter: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181560708808486914
Click to expand...

What I love about this is the way Trump refuses to let Sondland testify under oath at the same time he uses the unsworn testimony of his "tweet" (actually a text message Sondland sent Taylor- the message that is at the center of the question)- he'll use the message to proclaim his innocence but refuse to let anyone ask questions about it. In Trump-land, you can eat your cake and have it too.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
No, it was right the first time. Democrats in the House keep slowly plodding through the motions, each time pretending that this time, THIS time, their chamber will be shown the respect it deserves. If they understood that Trump is going to block everything, they'd have had a subpoena in hand for what's his name's deposition. You're not allowed to testify now? Okay, here's some paperwork, we order you to testify... now.

The Trump administration has obstructed and intimidated every single witness so far. There is every indication they will continue to do so, even with subpoenas, even with impeachment. They need to understand that and plan for it, not simply act outraged every time Lucy pulls the football away and back up for another run at it.
Click to expand...
No, I had it right. Just because Trump is huffing and puffing and making up fake talking points like an imaginary rule the whole House has to vote before proceeding with an Impeachment, and trying to gaslight his base doesn't mean ****.

The longer Trump drags it out, the closer to the election it gets and the more nervous the Senate Republicans are getting.

Why you think the Democrats aren't going to write up Articles of Impeachment because Trump is huffing and puffing is beyond me.

Keep in mind Trump appears successful while he fails at everything given enough time. He's failing at being POTUS and that's par for the course.
 
turingtest said:
What I love about this is the way Trump refuses to let Sondland testify under oath at the same time he uses the unsworn testimony of his "tweet" (actually a text message Sondland sent Taylor- the message that is at the center of the question)- he'll use the message to proclaim his innocence but refuse to let anyone ask questions about it. In Trump-land, you can eat your cake and have it too.
Click to expand...

It's not just one message, it is a series of messages and how the series shows a clear consciousness of guilt. It is how Sondland broke off his text conversation and resumed it 5 hours later with a message with an entorely different tone. A text that looks like was written by a lawyer. Why did Sondland break off the conversation and call the President? Trump keeps touting that text while ignoring the other texts. It appears as if Sondland was conspiring with the President and others to get their stories straight.
 
DkCreative said:
Does anyone know what kind of dirt they were looking for? Obviously they had to have a hunch of something before risking everything.
Click to expand...


Yep, congratulations, that's exactly what you're supposed to assume, just like all those crimes detailed in Hillary's email.
 
I channel-surfed past the 700 Club this morning and saw Pat Robertson repeating the GOP/Trump talking point that the whole House (as opposed to a committee) has to vote before starting the Impeachment investigation.

Typical of these liars, he claimed he talked to "two legal scholars" that agree with him.

His audience I'm sure just eats those lies up.

I guess God has forgiven Trump's mistake of withdrawing from Syria.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I channel-surfed past the 700 Club this morning and saw Pat Robertson repeating the GOP/Trump talking point that the whole House (as opposed to a committee) has to vote before starting the Impeachment investigation.

Typical of these liars, he claimed he talked to "two legal scholars" that agree with him.
Click to expand...


This is the same show that had a "trained martial artist" say that you can kill someone with a single well-placed blow from a baton, so the fact that the police hit Rodney King so many times proved that they weren't really trying to hurt him.
 
acbytesla said:
It's not just one message, it is a series of messages and how the series shows a clear consciousness of guilt. It is how Sondland broke off his text conversation and resumed it 5 hours later with a message with an entorely different tone. A text that looks like was written by a lawyer. Why did Sondland break off the conversation and call the President? Trump keeps touting that text while ignoring the other texts. It appears as if Sondland was conspiring with the President and others to get their stories straight.
Click to expand...

Yep. But it's the one isolated message that Trump wants to use, as (unsworn) testimony for his innocence, out of a whole that needs to be explored under oath and that may show guilt. And that's a pattern Trump (and his defenders) seem to follow, taking evidence, including his own words/actions, out of a properly-considered whole and pretending that the piece-meals proclaim innocence. "Great and unmatched wisdom?" "He was joking!"- ignoring all the times he has said things that reveal an unmatched superiority complex. "He asked foreign countries (Ukraine and China) to investigate Biden for corruption." "Well, shouldn't the President be allowed to ask people to investigate possible corruption, even if those people are in another country?"- ignoring that the only "corruption" he seems concerned with is what he attributes, without any actual investigation, to a man who is, I'm sure by coincidence, a political rival.

All this wide-eyed innocence coming from Trump supporters just is not very convincing.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Belz, theprestige

I don't care if you two resolve your issues in private messages, another thread, or a seedy motel room that charges by the hour. As long this nonsense stops getting dragged into other threads multiple times, I'll be happy. Please just stop.
Click to expand...

Belz..., please don't correct people when they make errors or tell untruths, it's disruptive. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom