Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED

[Kutnupe14]

About this whole Biden thing having already been investigated there is new information being reported that casts doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story. If this is indeed legit information coming out then it would certainly be within reason for the President to make a request of the Ukrainian leader to consider re-opening the investigation concerning the Biden matter.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

Here's the problem with that. Trump was asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden, sending along Rudy, and offering Bill Barr up in the process. Now, I freely admit that I don't think the president is the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if there was damning information, in-house, concerning Biden you'd think that those would be the sources relied upon. That fact that this administration wanted to export the investigation makes it reasonable to believe that there's not much to it.

 

[Ingomike]

If the transcript is inaccurate, you have a point. If it is accurate, I have seen all the relevant facts necessary to "buy in."

There are a reported 500 words between favor and the Biden discussion. (I did not count them)

 

[BugI02]

Here's the problem with that. Trump was asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden, sending along Rudy, and offering Bill Barr up in the process. Now, I freely admit that I don't think the president is the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if there was damning information, in-house, concerning Biden you'd think that those would be the sources relied upon. That fact that this administration wanted to export the investigation makes it reasonable to believe that there's not much to it.

So kind of like asking Steele to ask the Russians if Trump was a Russian operative?

 

[Alamo]

Russian Collusion 2.0.

Bogus dossier? Check!
"Whistleblower complaint" by a government agent with political bias against Trump, who did not listen to the call nor had not seen a transcript, supposedly based it on unnamed sources.

Actual illegal use of office powers by Democrat who wants to be president? Check!
Biden threatens to torpedo deal with Ukraine if prosecutor investigating company paying his son quite handsomely. Which Biden not only admits to but brags about.

Democrat Presidential Candidate actually took money from the [STRIKE]Russians [/STRIKE]Ukrainians in the recent past. Check!
Hillary used a foundation to launder her money, Joe uses his family.

Bogus official investigation by people known to be hostile to Trump to be dragged out through elections to hurt Trump? Check!
Pelosi commits House to "impeachment investigations" (6 committees!) immediately even though, (or more likely, because) the White House announces it will declassify and release the transcript the next day.

Actual evidence (the transcript) fails to support complaint. MSM, Dems, fellow travelers, ignore, keep beating the impeachment drum.

2nd half of the first game, but still running the same plays.

 

[Ingomike]

New information is being reported concerning the whistleblower, his connections, apper to an orchestrated plan to get Trump.

the reports are:

The whistleblower was a CIA officer. Reported by NYT

The complaint was likely written by a lawyer. Reported by NYP

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]The whistleblower complaint appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.”[/COLOR]


Schiff tweeted about this exact issue back in August, dems had this for a while. Reported by Paul Sperry

The whistleblower sprinkles throughout his document footnotes referring to a publication with the initials OCCRP.
​

OCCRP – Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project is funded by the Soros Open Society Foundations.



The deep state is pulling all the stops to get this president. No president in history has been surveilled, investigated, and set up. The government has spent millions investigating this guy. I believe the major "news" organizations have spent untold millions investigating this guy.

And this is all they got...

 

[Kutnupe14]

New information is being reported concerning the whistleblower, his connections, apper to an orchestrated plan to get Trump.

the reports are:

The whistleblower was a CIA officer. Reported by NYT

The complaint was likely written by a lawyer. Reported by NYP

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]The whistleblower complaint appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.”[/COLOR]


Schiff tweeted about this exact issue back in August, dems had this for a while. Reported by Paul Sperry

The whistleblower sprinkles throughout his document footnotes referring to a publication with the initials OCCRP.
​

OCCRP – Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project is funded by the Soros Open Society Foundations.



The deep state is pulling all the stops to get this president. No president in history has been surveilled, investigated, and set up. The government has spent millions investigating this guy. I believe the major "news" organizations have spent untold millions investigating this guy.

And this is all they got...

I'd imagine that, like the FBI, there are a fair number of lawyers in the CIA. Professionals of that type: lawyers, accountants, engineers are regularly recruited into those agencies.

 

[Leadeye]

What a hoot it would be to find out that the lawyer is the same one Stormy Daniels used.

 

[jamil]

Question? From the transcript of the call... if you had to make a choice.... are the details of the conversation more to benefit "the nation (United States)," or "Donald Trump the person."

So you have to read through the tea leaves to get yourself there? Oh yeah. Clearly impeachable.

BTW, if I had to make a choice? I'd answer your question with both. If it is a crime to withhold assets because of personal gain, then it is in the interest of the United States to determine if the Vice president committed a crime. One can argue that a standard process for figuring that out wasn't followed. But I would certainly like to know if Biden did it because his son asked him to. So, I think the details of the conversation could benefit both. Not ideal. It is what it is.

Also, are you reluctant to believe that Biden did his bit for personal gain? I'm kinda thinking that's evident. Is it because you're eager to believe the worst about the guy you don't like, as much as you're eager to believe the best of the guy you want?

 

[NKBJ]

Some of us have, hence the skepticism. Assuming you'll accept Fortune as a source?

https://fortune.com/2019/09/23/repo-market-big-deal-400-billion-bailout-unnerving/



The estimated total is only $400 billion for the next year. It would seem the maximum of $75 billion per day is not thought to likely be reached every day ($400 billion over 260 trading days averages out to about $1.54 billion per day). I acknowledge that some of the people reassuring us are liars but I doubt all of them are

The actual fed statement here:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/operating_policy_190920

Please note that the Fed has made no committments to injecting liquidity into the repo market beyond 10 October 2019, with the last of three 14 day terms expiring on 11 October 2019. I acknowledge that that doesn't mean they won't continue the process beyond that time, but i think I'll wait and see whether this is a short term liquidity crisis in an obscure market or a full blown crisis

Exactly. Hence my take on it being watch for what happens after the 10th.
I'm glad someone went and looked at what the fed said. And by the way, now that they are openly discussing the desk I suspect that they are setting the stage set for it's functioning in an open manner.
Now, what was your skepticism about?

 

[jamil]

Here's the problem with that. Trump was asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden, sending along Rudy, and offering Bill Barr up in the process. Now, I freely admit that I don't think the president is the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if there was damning information, in-house, concerning Biden you'd think that those would be the sources relied upon. That fact that this administration wanted to export the investigation makes it reasonable to believe that there's not much to it.

According the the transcripts, unverified status notwithstanding, didn't the Ukrainian president bring up Rudy first? The fact that the "investigation" doesn't seem to go through typical channels doesn't invalidate that *an* investigation is appropriate and beneficial for the US. Well. Or is it only beneficial to investigate a presidential candidate you don't like?

ETA: The way I read the tea leaves, it would be a typical Trump move to have his own people do it. Not saying it's right. But just acknowledging that's how he is. But, that's not indicative that there's not much to it. If he thought there wasn't much to it, he'd not have asked for the investigation in the first place.

 

[bwframe]

Now the CIA joins the FBI in their involvement in the deep state...

We need to fire all those dirty cops and start over.

 

[KG1]

Here's the problem with that. Trump was asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden, sending along Rudy, and offering Bill Barr up in the process. Now, I freely admit that I don't think the president is the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if there was damning information, in-house, concerning Biden you'd think that those would be the sources relied upon. That fact that this administration wanted to export the investigation makes it reasonable to believe that there's not much to it.

Look I understand that you are trying to make the case that Trump abused his power to enhance his chances as a political candidate and I am trying to make a case that Trump is exercising his authority as duly elected President of the United States and chief executive of domestic and foreign affairs along with the designation of being top law enforcement official as a legit alternative in principle in this matter.

The difference is that I am not trying to imply or embellish or rearrange certain aspects in order to buttress my point.

 

[BugI02]

Just for you, Kut

In these times of contention, it's not my intention to make things plain
I'm looking through mirrors to catch the reflection that can't be mine
I'm losing control now, I'll just have to slow down a thought or two
I can't feel the future and I'm not even certain that there is a past
I believe in the worker's revolution
And I believe in the final solution
I believe in, I believe in
I believe in the shape of things to come
And I believe, I'm not the only one
Yes, I believe in, I believe in

[video=youtube;_V8jbA1x-Cs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V8jbA1x-Cs[/video]

 

[BugI02]

Exactly. Hence my take on it being watch for what happens after the 10th.
I'm glad someone went and looked at what the fed said. And by the way, now that they are openly discussing the desk I suspect that they are setting the stage set for it's functioning in an open manner.
Now, what was your skepticism about?

That they were committing to $75 billion per day, every (trading) day, for the foreseeable future. I shall wait and see

 

[Kutnupe14]

So you have to read through the tea leaves to get yourself there? Oh yeah. Clearly impeachable.

BTW, if I had to make a choice? I'd answer your question with both. If it is a crime to withhold assets because of personal gain, then it is in the interest of the United States to determine if the Vice president committed a crime. One can argue that a standard process for figuring that out wasn't followed. But I would certainly like to know if Biden did it because his son asked him to. So, I think the details of the conversation could benefit both. Not ideal. It is what it is.

Also, are you reluctant to believe that Biden did his bit for personal gain? I'm kinda thinking that's evident. Is it because you're eager to believe the worst about the guy you don't like, as much as you're eager to believe the best of the guy you want?

That not what the question asked... I asked which benefited more. Not if one did something that the other didn't.

And, for the record, I think Biden would use his influence for personal gain. The problem is, that the Ukraine has already ended their investigation, finding no wrongdoing. Because they did investigate. Now we have our current president asking that an investigation be re-opened. Obviously the Ukraine has all the information needed one way or the other, because if they didn't the WH wouldn't be asking them to start a new investigation. So we're at the point that it appears that this WH didn't like the findings of the original investigation, and are seeking to re-litigate the initial decision. It just so happens, that the person the WH wants re-investigated, is a political rival of the president. If the president is attempting to strong arm the Ukraine holding arms, that the desperately need, over their heads, how confident can we be that if the Ukraine goes back and finds wrongdoing (again after finding nothing initially), that it was done so on the "up and up?"

 

[jamil]

Look I understand that you are trying to make the case that Trump abused his power to enhance his chances as a political candidate and I am trying to make a case that Trump is exercising his authority as duly elected President of the United States and chief executive of domestic and foreign affairs along with the designation of being top law enforcement official as an alternative in principle.

The difference is that I am not trying to imply or embellish or rearrange certain aspects in order to buttress my point.

Yes. He gets much room to do what he sees fit. Obama did. And although I thought Obama abused his power, I don't think it rose to the level of impeachment. I haven't seen anything here that rises to the level of impeachment. If people think Trump is abusing power, they can vote for someone else. But we have too many people, and apparently at least an INGO member is in agreement, who think they should make the choice for the people.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Look I understand that you are trying to make the case that Trump abused his power to enhance his chances as a political candidate and I am trying to make a case that Trump is exercising his authority as duly elected President of the United States and chief executive of domestic and foreign affairs along with the designation of being top law enforcement official as a legit alternative in principle in this matter.

The difference is that I am not trying to imply or embellish or rearrange certain aspects in order to buttress my point.

In this I agree. He is exercising his authority. The issue, IMO, is whether a president "exercising his authority," is impeachable when there is corrupt intent. I personally believe it is. Others do not. In any instance within government, when a person uses their authority with corrupt intent, they are either fired are arrested. Since the president can't be arrested, then that must mean he can be fired (i.e. impeached).

 

[jamil]

That not what the question asked... I asked which benefited more. Not if one did something that the other didn't.

And, for the record, I think Biden would use his influence for personal gain. The problem is, that the Ukraine has already ended their investigation, finding no wrongdoing. Because they did investigate. Now we have our current president asking that an investigation be re-opened. Obviously the Ukraine has all the information needed one way or the other, because if they didn't the WH wouldn't be asking them to start a new investigation. So we're at the point that it appears that this WH didn't like the findings of the original investigation, and are seeking to re-litigate the initial decision. It just so happens, that the person the WH wants re-investigated, is a political rival of the president. If the president is attempting to strong arm the Ukraine holding arms, that the desperately need, over their heads, how confident can we be that if the Ukraine goes back and finds wrongdoing (again after finding nothing initially), that it was done so on the "up and up?"

That's an irrelevant question. It doesn't matter who benefited more, if both benefited at all. It seems obvious that the president doesn't believe the results of the Ukrainian investigation, which he gets to do. And since Ukraine is corrupt--I'm sure neither of us is so naive to believe that corruption ended with the previous Ukrainian president--it's reasonable to suspect that the investigation achieved a predetermined result, especially when it is the result that the VPOTUS would benefit from personally, after the VPOTUS threatened Ukraine if things didn't go his way with the firing of the investigator.

 

[jamil]

In this I agree. He is exercising his authority. The issue, IMO, is whether a president "exercising his authority," is impeachable when there is corrupt intent. I personally believe it is. Others do not. In any instance within government, when a person uses their authority with corrupt intent, they are either fired are arrested. Since the president can't be arrested, then that must mean he can be fired (i.e. impeached).

You can't prove corrupt intent here. All you can do is read tea leaves. It's not obvious from the objective facts we have now. It's only obvious to certain subjective impressions of the ink blot.

 

[jamil]

In this I agree. He is exercising his authority. The issue, IMO, is whether a president "exercising his authority," is impeachable when there is corrupt intent. I personally believe it is. Others do not. In any instance within government, when a person uses their authority with corrupt intent, they are either fired are arrested. Since the president can't be arrested, then that must mean he can be fired (i.e. impeached).

Cite the US law which Trump violated, in your opinion.