Trump Impeachment Under Full Swing

The inquiry is definitely legitimate even if it is limited in scope to just this single crime of the BLOTUS.

However given his attempt at Witness Intimidation yesterday he just added another count to his Articles of Impeachment indictment. (Ref: 18 USC 1512)

That crime was committed LIVE and the impact on the witness was recorded on video in front of Congress. The Senate would have a very hard time trying to evade their Constitutional Duty to impeach on that High Crime.

The RAMIFICATIONS of not removing the BLOTUS given that it was a woman who was needlessly threatened will hurt the GOP next November. At this stage it looks more and more like a Lose-Lose situation for the Republicans. There is still time to dump the BLOTUS and run with Pence instead.

 

Are you an alt account for Andrew Jackson?

 

Are you an alt account for your BLOTUS or one of his family members?

 

Lots of new sock latelly

 

Ironic projection coming from a newbie!

 

How is the article biased?

 

The GOP doesn't have to go low to find things to impeach a Democrat president, believe me - unless it was Tulsi Gabbard.

 

How much lower did the GOP need to go than Clinton's crotch?

 

"...and asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory that claims that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

Did you see any such thing as that in the transcript of the Trump/Zelenskyy call? It's not there.

Why was that invented?

 

What does blotus mean?

 

It is there.

 

No, it isn't.

 

Good luck thinking that.

 

We know for a fact that Ukrainian government officials conspired to influence our election. = not debunked.

OK, I forgot about the server issue. I didn't remember that theory. I saw those two parts as two separate issues.

 

You have credible references and backstory to share? I want to hear all sides here.

 

Regarding the Ukrainian election interference?

 

I am quoting you Go for it.

 

You haven't clarified your question.

Are you asking about the known Ukrainian election interference, as reported here:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...n-interference-is-being-investigated-n2553684

or, are you referring to the speculations that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked into the DNC server?

I'm not interested in defending the second point.

 

My question was crystal clear, but I will look over your references.

The first politico link you pasted I did read a few times and it really does not provide much evidence and the actual article does not describe what the title, which is largely clickbait claims. I will read the town hall link though.

Here are some links of my own:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/08/ukraine-interfere-elections-testimony-068095

Look above, also a Politico article:

"The testimony undercuts a conspiracy theory that has been pushed by Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, as he sought to upend the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia sought to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
According to Giuliani, Ukrainian officials conspired with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to help boost the Democratic nominee’s campaign and damage Trump’s candidacy. No evidence has emerged to support that idea.
In his testimony, Vindman said there was no “factual basis” for such claims. “I am, frankly, unaware of any authoritative basis for Ukranian interference in 2016 elections, based on my knowledge,” he said."


https://moosegazette.net/marie-yova...ador-testifying-in-impeachment-hearing/81087/

https://www.newsweek.com/marie-yova...o-engages-witness-intimidation-former-1469780

https://apnews.com/23c9022665dc40a1a69e613459955112


"A discredited conspiracy theory that blames Ukraine, and not Russia, for interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election reared its head again during the first day of public impeachment hearings into President Donald Trump’s alleged attempt to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political opponent.

First, California Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, referenced it obliquely in defending Trump, saying “indications of Ukrainian election meddling” had troubled the president."

"Subsequently, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George P. Kent, under questioning, said there was “no factual basis” to any theory of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election — while there is ample evidence of Russian interference."

"In broad outline, the theory contends, without evidence, that the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee was a setup somehow perpetrated with Ukrainian complicity in which computer records were fabricated to cast blame on Russia. One key figure in this supposed conspiracy: CrowdStrike, a security firm hired by the DNC that detected and analyzed the hack five months before the 2016 election."

"THE CALL

During that July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump made a brief and cryptic reference to CrowdStrike. According to a reconstructed transcript of the call released by the White House, which is not a verbatim account, he said:

“I would like to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike . I guess you have one of your wealthy people. The server, they say Ukraine has it.” Trump added that he’d like to have Attorney General William Barr call “you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”

THE FACTS

"CrowdStrike determined in June 2016 that Russian agents had broken into the committee’s network and stolen emails that were subsequently published by WikiLeaks. Its findings were confirmed by FBI investigators, with whom it later shared the forensic evidence."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/08/gop-theory-that-ukraine-set-up-trump/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48268762

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...2684a8-03c3-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html

Happy reading. I will read the town hall link you left 3 times prior to replying.

 

Referring to the POTUS as BLOTUS indicates a level of instability which tends to automatically delegitimize what follows. Which of course itself does not disappoint when you refer to a Trump tweet regarding the Ambassadors lack of success in her appointments as "threatening". Furthermore, wasn't it Schiff who read the tweet to the Ambassador during questioning? In short, the entire anti Trump escapade is a gigantic absurdity.

 

I agree we should refrain from namecalling but the evidence against Trump is building every day.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...but-his-own-familys-business-raises-questions


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...id-hale-news-today-impeachment-inquiry-latest

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interviews/theme/putin-and-trump/

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-kent-demolishes-trumps-crowdstrike-conspiracy-no-factual-basis/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/tech/what-is-crowdstrike/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...25f824-04a5-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/poli...dishonesty-ukraine-and-impeachment/index.html

 

CNN? Washington Post? Don't you have any damning articles from the Joe Biden Gazette? Jacob, get outta here with that fake news.

 

You don't want a serious discussion; acknowledged.

 

I do, but you gotta give us something to work with. Dissecting CNN conspiracy theories is not a serious discussion.

 

I have used Foreign Policy and Politico as well; if you doubt all references, then what about what the FBI and CIA confirmed?