To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

Your mind is closed, but the revelations will persist, and the process will unfold. If you need to call for all the Republicans participating in the impeachment inquiry to be indicted for complicity in a fraudulent conspiracy, you can, of course.

 

What a diversion from the impeachment inquiry, occurring over the weekend, and the photo op on Sunday when members of the House are at home. This is a common tactic, used by Trump many times when he is in serious trouble.

Surrounded by his yes men, Trump announced the demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

If true, and there are serious doubts because the only source of Baghdadi's demise has come from Trump and his yes men in the Pentagon, Esper and Milley..

The Daily Mail reports, "Russia has mocked America's claim that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died during a raid at the weekend, calling it the 'umpteenth' report of the cleric's death.

"Moscow's Defence Ministry said it 'does not have reliable information about the actions of the US army' while suggesting that the terrorist leader may still be alive.

"Baghdadi has been reported dead several times since he rose to prominence as ISIS's leader in 2014, most recently by Russia - which claimed to have killed him in an airstrike in Raqqa in June 2017."

On the other hand, Russia is just as capable of lying as is Trump and the White House, so, who knows?

I guess the real question is, noting that Baghdadi is merely a figurehead -- he has been seen and heard from once in five years -- he is hardly an inspirational leader. So, what good is it to have killed a mute figurehead of a terrorist organization? Did this weaken ISIS one little bit? I doubt it.

Trump did the damage when his retreat caused hundreds of ISIS terrorists to escape.

Somebody has been buried at sea already. What was the rush? Considering the doubts arising from the operation, the quick burial is suspicious. In fact, why bury him at sea? Bring him to the U.S. for unquestioned verification.

But Trump didn't do that. Why?

 

Prior to Oct. 6, American commanders had assured their Kurdish counterparts that they would be able to keep the peace in northern Syria for the foreseeable future. Then Trump suddenly changed his mind, and on Oct. 6, after a phone call with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, he ordered American troops to leave the border area.

He betrayed the Kurds who had destroyed the caliphate in Syria and Iraq, and marginalize the ISIS guerilla army, imprisoning close to 10,000 terrorists.

There has been a great amount deal-making over Syria, culminating in a triumphant summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Sochi. Turkey agreed to halt its invasion into Syrian territory, and it will seize less Kurdish-held territory than the 20-mile-deep “safe zone.” Russia will work with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s forces to push the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) from the Turkish-Syrian border. Russia and Turkey will then conduct joint military patrols within Syrian territory along a substantial chunk of the border. The deal will strengthen the Assad government and diminish the power of the YPG, Turkey’s main concern.

The rape of the Kurdish people was complete.

Now we are being told that the Kurds helped Trump eliminate Baghdadi.

NBC news reports, "Kurdish-led forces allied with the United States provided information that was key to the operation that killed the Islamic State group's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Kurdish forces in Syria said Monday.

"In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Gen. Mazloum Abdi of the Syrian Democratic Forces said his intelligence service had a source deep in al-Baghdadi's inner circle who described a room-by-room layout of the terror leader's compound on the Turkish border, including the number of guards, floor plan and tunnels.

"Abdi said the unidentified source was on location during the raid and left with the attacking U.S. forces."

Since this began, some wondered how the Delta force came up with a sample of Baghdadi's DNA to compare with the body of the ISIS leader.

Well, that came from the Kurds, too. NBC continued, "The source, whom Abdi described as one of al-Baghdadi's security advisers, proved to U.S. intelligence that he had direct access to al-Baghdadi this summer by turning over the ISIS leader's used underwear and later a sample of his blood.

"U.S. intelligence tested those samples and got positive DNA matches for al-Baghdadi."

So, the Kurds, who Trump betrayed which led to the loss of their homes, provided both the informant and the DNA sample.

Suspicions abound.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...tel-operation-killed-isis-leader-abu-n1072921

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/28/putin-erdogan-deal-syria-kurds-agreement-war-continues/

 

It didn't work. Pelosi and the impeachment inquiry are right back in the news, upstaging Trump with a blockbuster of an announcement.



Politico reports, "House Democrats are moving into a new phase of their impeachment inquiry, with plans to vote this week on a resolution to formalize the next steps of the investigation into President Donald Trump.

"The House vote signals Democrats are preparing to take the probe public, and Democratic leaders say it should neutralize GOP attacks on their process — though Republicans quickly pivoted toward new angles to blast the legitimacy of the probe."

“This resolution gives us more opportunity in the committee, spells out protection of the rights for the president and his counsel. They should welcome this,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said

The full House is expected to vote on the resolution Thursday.

What a beautiful maneuver. I wonder what Trump and his small number of Republican defenders will say now. Are they still going persist in the process rather then the mounting evidence?

Pelosi outmaneuvered Trump again. Of course, that is a given when one is guilty as hell.

 

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert, testified today. He is first current White House staffer to testify, and the Ukrainian expert was in on the phone call, Vindman, a decorated veteran from the Iraq War, speaks both Ukrainian and Russian, a distinct advantage over other witnesses who have confirmed the quid pro quo nature of the call.

According to a copy of his statement, Vindman was so troubled by the call that he reported his concerns to a superior.

"I was concerned by the call. I 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," Vindman said in his opening statement. "I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained."

"This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel."

According to the Ukrainian expert on the NSC, Trump created a national security threat to our country.

Why? Ukraine is the first line of defense against Russian aggression.

There is more. Suffice to say Vindman's testimony was devastating for Trump. It is why Trump, his press secretary, and Trump's Republican defenders in the House made complete fools of themselves trying to change the subject and resorted to name calling.

 

With a transcript of the call and the statements from the principals on the call available, what logical people would care what someone else's opinion of the call is, and how is that probative in any way? (Fodder for the gladiators at the gate is not probative.)

 

All we have is an edited edition of the transcript. Vindman can shed light on what was taken out which adds additional context to what was said.

 

It is called testimony in an impeachment hearing, not opinion.

While Republicans have been highly critical of the process, Trump is urging his allies to defend him on the substance of the allegations against him. He argues he did nothing wrong during the July call in which he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Is Trump really that dense, or is he speaking only to his gullible base? They will believe anything, as the post above indicates.

After two years of the Mueller investigation that examined Russia's interference in our 2016 Presidential election, does Trump really think there is nothing wrong asking for foreign interference in our 2020 Presidential election to benefit him politically? Does he really think using Congressionally approved military aid to extort others to do what he wants is not an impeachable offense?

Is Trump ignoring what the transcript put out by his White House says?

Has he forgotten that he demanded foreign interference from Ukraine and China in front of a nationally televised audience?

Is our President really that stupid?

 

I'm sorry,but his testimony is his opinion and not probative.

 

I omitted one very important point. Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed that quid pro quo was a part of the July 25 phone call. He told journalists on national television, "that the aid was withheld in part until Ukraine investigated an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for hacking Democratic Party emails in 2016."

Then he told the reporters and television audience, “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

Trump has forgotten that, but Americans haven't.

 

Yes, it is obvious when one reads the transcripts provided by the White House that includes ellipsis or (...), indicating missing words.

 

Damn!

House impeachment investigators on Wednesday summoned John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, according to a person familiar with the notice, but a lawyer for Mr. Bolton responded that he was “not willing to appear voluntarily.”

The letter, along with two others sent to top White House officials Wednesday for depositions early next month, took the form of a voluntary request, rather than a subpoena.

If Mr. Bolton is subpoenaed, his lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, is likely to ask a federal judge to determine whether he needs to comply. Another of Mr. Cooper’s clients — the former deputy national security adviser, Charles M. Kupperman — did so when he was subpoenaed by the House but ordered by the White House to not speak with investigators, and a hearing on that matter is scheduled for Thursday.

Based on the accounts of witnesses who have already spoken with investigators, Mr. Bolton could be a marquee witness. They have described how he was alarmed in real time about the actions of Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and other administration officials close to Mr. Trump. Mr. Bolton left his position in September amid disagreements with Mr. Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-updates.html

 

The Hill reports,"Senate Republicans are taking the House impeachment proceedings against President Trump more seriously as damaging revelations against the president mount and the possibility of a quick dismissal of the charges shrinks.

"Earlier this year, GOP senators pledged to quickly quash any articles of impeachment passed by the House. But as the Democrats compile more evidence that Trump withheld military assistance from Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, they are adopting a more sober tone.

"While no Senate Republican has said the charges against Trump rise to the level of being an impeachable offense, many have expressed concern over the drip-drip of damaging revelations."

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) may have said it best.

“I certainly think we need to hear it out from the House. This is a serious thing. You’re considering removing somebody from office or impeaching them in that way. I think you got to hear it,” she said.

The idea that many witnesses are confirming that Trump asked for foreign interference in our Presidential election to benefit him politically is making Senate Republicans nervous.

The fact that more and more witnesses are coming forward, some working in the White House like acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, are confirming the quid pro quo aspect of the conversation is making Senate Republicans nervous.

All this is making Trump fans nervous, too. They have nothing to say. What can they say? Asking for foreign intervention in our Presidential election is not an impeachable offense? Give me a break.

 

I wish Trump's supporters would come forward and defend their choice for President, a President facing impeachment.

I wish they would come forward and use Trump's statements in defense of the President.

I wish they would come forward and use the arguments made by Congressional Republicans like Jordan and Scalise to defend Trump.

I wish they would come forward and use the arguments made by Fox News to defend Trump.

I wish they would use any of their own arguments to defend Trump.

But they say nothing, nothing at all.

 

The Guardian reports, Trump has "made the extraordinary suggestion that he appear on live TV to read the full transcript of his controversial phone call with the Ukrainian president in a “fireside chat'"

Oh, please do, Mr. President, pretty please.

Ah, it is just another lie. He wants his gullible fan base -- who probably have never read the White House transcript of the call -- to believe he truly is innocent because he is willing to read it a national television.

But it will never happen. His aides won't let him read it on a "fireside chat" or any other kind of chat. This lie will either be forgotten or some lawyer will come up with some excuse as to why Trump can't incriminate himself -- like the Fifth Amendment.

 

Several days after Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine, a White House lawyer, John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, instructed a senior national security official, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, not to discuss his grave concerns about the conversation with anyone outside the White House.

The directive from Eisenberg adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of Trump’s attempt to pressure Zelensky to provide information that could be damaging to Biden.

The instruction to stay quiet came after Eisenberg moved the rough transcript of the call into a highly classified computer server to hide it from public view.

The White House does not have a war room to discuss strategy regarding impeachment. Press secretary Grisham said, "Trump is the war room."

Is anyone surprised?

 

Questions mostly from Trump and Trump Republicans trying desperately to defend him, have been asked why closed door hearings in the impeachment inquiry.

The answer is, to determine if there are grounds for impeachment much like a grand jury. And, like a grand jury, it is done in secret. The actual determination if there is impeachment comes later.

Up until 1999 this chore was handled by the independent prosecutor. Archibald Cox and later, Leon Jaworski, in the Nixon impeachment. Ken Starr handled the duty in the Clinton impeachment. His investigation took five years. The investigations by Cox and Jaworski took 14 months.

Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal statutory law governing the appointment of a special counsel. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels like Robert Mueller.

That is what happened in Trump's case, except Mueller's report did not lead to an impeachment inquiry. Trump's request for foreign intervention in our election and his extortion of Ukraine did that. There was no independent prosecutor. His duties became the responsibility of the House, mostly Adam Schiff's Intelligence Committee.

Oct. 9, 2019, for the fourth time ever in American history, the House of Representatives has launched an impeachment inquiry into a sitting president. https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20882860/house-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-donald-trump-nancy-pelosi

So, in other words, the grand jury portion of the inquiry to determine if there are grounds for impeachment took 20 days, not five years 14 months.

You won't hear that from Trump, the White House, or the likes of Grisham, Jordan, Scalise or Meadows.

In other words, Trump fans, you are being lied to again.

The public testimony will begin in a week or two. Americans will be fully informed. That is really what scares the pants off Trump, the White House, or the likes of Grisham, Jordan, Scalise or Meadows.

 

Trump's supporters do not want to know the truth. They continue with their lies and disinformation.

Most of them have given up on Trump. That is quite evident.

 

You just made TEN responses in a row to your own post. Sandy, you just set a new PF record. Thank God you are not a republican, they would be very embarrassed that one of their party members would go to that extreme just to be noticed.
Response to your OP, please take the vote to impeach him tomorrow morning at the crack of dawn.

 

Why is it Trump's fans don't defend Trump? Why do they give me a free hand to accuse him of impeachment offenses?

Trump's fans are very strange. They do not defend their choice for President. Why?

 

I think the fact that most people can't afford to sit on this forum all day every day like you can is part of your answer. Not everyone is an entitled white male such as yourself with literally no other life than forum posting, as evident by your constant replying to your own posts, and even more bizarre to me, cross posting the exact same post in other threads. I assume you are paid by the post? If not, that sort of behavior is bizarre.

But the true answer about defending Trump is that I, among many others, have defended Trump, however what else is there to be said at this point? The last new factual information that we've had in reference to this Ukrainian impeachment nonsense was Trump releasing the transcript. Every other "witness: or "whistleblower" have had statements that contradicted the transcript, meaning they're lying. Yet you are still pretending that there are new revelations every day.

There have not been.

But keep driving your post count up (and clue me in where I can get hired for such a sweet gig!)

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was asked by a reporter if he would say Trump has done nothing wrong.

“A very clear yes,” he responded. The cadre of House GOP leaders standing behind him yelled in affirmation as McCarthy responded.

McCarthy claimed Republicans in Congress will vote on impeachment — if and when articles are formally introduced — "based on the facts."

"Show us the truth. We always vote based on the facts," he said.

McCarthy and Republicans are going to have a hard time insisting that Trump did nothing wrong. The White House transcript of the July 25 phone call clearly shows that Trump asked for foreign interference in our Presidential election for his political advantage. This has been confirmed by the ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, and the Russian expert on the NSC, Colonel Alexander Vindman. Trump confirmed it himself to a national television audience when he asked Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens. Various witnesses -- some still working for the White House -- also confirm Trump's request for foreign interference in our election, a violation of federal law.

Various witnesses -- some still working for the White House -- confirm the quid pro quo, or extortion, part of the phone call, Trump's chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed quid pro quo was used in the conversation and admitted that was standard procedure in the Trump administration. "Get over it," he said.

In the meantime, McCarthy and his lot completely avoid these facts and say Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing.

The truth is going to smack them right in the face. Soon everything will be out in the open, and American voters will know the truth, too.

 

Let us assume for the moment that Trump is completely innocent. Despite the transcript of the July 25 call that clearly shows that Trump asked for foreign interference in our Presidential election, and his own chief of staff confirmed quid pro quo with military aid was used, somehow Trump is innocent of all charges.

If one has this point of view, one has a very serious problem. If Trump is innocent, why is he not allowing his own staff to provide his side of the story?

The Washington Post writes, "President Trump has sought to intimidate witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, attacking them as “Never Trumpers” and badgering an anonymous whistleblower. He has directed the White House to withhold documents and block testimony requested by Congress. And he has labored to publicly discredit the investigation as a “scam” overseen by “a totally compromised kangaroo court.'"

That defiance has culminated in White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declaring that the administration will not cooperate in any way with an impeachment inquiry that it regards as “illegitimate” and “constitutionally invalid.”

Trump's true believers and Trump Republicans like Jordan, Scalise, Meadows, and Graham have a real serious problem. If Trump is somehow innocent, why is Trump blocking his people from telling his side of the story?

 

False, or should I say prove it. Show me in the transcript that "clearly shows that Trump asked for foreign interference in our Presidential election."

 

An emerging defense of Trump by Trump Republicans is they will admit the obvious, but they are being coy about it. Some are saying that, yes, it is true, Trump did ask the Ukrainian President to investigate the Bidens, but that is not an impeachable offense.

That is like saying, yes, it is true, my friend did withdraw money from the bank, omitting the fact that the man's friend robbed the bank.

Similarly, Trump Republicans will not say that, in the wake of the 2016 election, Russian interference in our election on behalf of Trump, and the Mueller Report, that Trump requested foreign interference in our Presidential election on his behalf.

Nor will they admit that Trump's own chief of staff told a television audience that Trump used quid pro quo to get what he wanted. That amounts to bribery, an impeachable offense in its own right.

Trump Republicans may try to get this by American voters, but, when the impeachment inquiry goes public, Americans will learn the truth. Following the 2016 election and foreign interference in that election, it is extremely doubtful Americans will accept that as business as usual in 2020.

There is no wonder why Trump will not allow his people to testify to all this. Thus, his obstruction of Congress and the game of delay. It is the only thing he can do.