The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[BigRedBuster]

I'm glad she's testifying.  But, I really don't expect much to come of it.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

Here is something I don't understand and maybe someone can explain it.  Why is it a big story that Trump put pressure on the State Department to fire an ambassador?  I'm guessing this happens all the time.  If the US government doesn't like working with a particular person, they tell that government they would like them replaced.  That government then can do what that or not.  If some other country doesn't like working with one of our ambassadors, they tell our government and we then decide if we want to replace them.

 

If I don't like a sales person that calls on me, I might put pressure on the company so that I can work with a different sales person.  Is this any different?

 

I sure hope there's more damning issues with this person than....Trump put pressure on for her to be replaced.

 

PS....I don't have a subscription to WP so I'm just going off of the headline in the tweet.

 

 

[TGHusker]

Maybe enough GOP senators will rise to the occasion. This writer thinks it is a possibility. 

 

 

https://www.greenwichtime.com/opinion/article/The-Senate-is-likelier-to-remove-Trump-after-14514050.php

[TGHusker]

We may soon find out what impeachable offense could be found in Trump's tax returns

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/appeals-court-rejects-trump-appeal-of-subpoena-for-tax-returns.html

Quote

 

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a subpoena for President Donald Trump’s financial records from the Democrat-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

The 2-1 ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump’s bid to block the committee from getting eight years’ worth of his financial records from the accounting firm Mazars USA.

 

The committee on April 15 issued Mazars a subpoena for various financial statements related to the Trump Organization, the Trump Corporation and the Trump Old Post Office in Washington.

“Contrary to the President’s arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply,” Judge David Tatel wrote in the majority opinion.

“We conclude that in issuing the challenged subpoena, the Committee was engaged in a ‘legitimate legislative investigation,’ ” wrote Tatel, who was joined by Judge Patricia Millett in the majority decision.

Tatel was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton; Millett was appointed by President Barack Obama.

The dissenting opinion came from Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed by Trump.

 

Quote

 

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, said, “Today’s ruling is a fundamental and resounding victory for Congressional oversight, our Constitutional system of checks and balances, and the rule of law.”

“For far too long, the President has placed his personal interests over the interests of the American people,” Cummings said.

“After months of delay, it is time for the President to stop blocking Mazars from complying with the Committee’s lawful subpoena. We must fulfill our stated legislative and oversight objectives and permit the American people to obtain answers about some of the deeply troubling questions regarding the President’s adherence to Constitutional and statutory requirements to avoid conflicts of interest.”

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Ummmm.......

 

 

[DevoHusker]

"No president likes to have his own party argue with him," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who's also an informal Trump adviser. He said Republicans have legitimate concerns with Trump about the decision, including the lack of advance notice.

But by disagreeing with Trump over Syria, "they're proving they are independent" of him, said Gingrich, who led the 1998 investigation to impeach former President Bill Clinton. "They're proving that they're not automatically going to do what Trump wants."

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

"No president likes to have his own party argue with him," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who's also an informal Trump adviser. He said Republicans have legitimate concerns with Trump about the decision, including the lack of advance notice.

But by disagreeing with Trump over Syria, "they're proving they are independent" of him, said Gingrich, who led the 1998 investigation to impeach former President Bill Clinton. "They're proving that they're not automatically going to do what Trump wants."

 

 

The bigger problem is that there was someone who had advance notice....and that's the leader of the country that benefited from it and is now killing civilians.

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Here is something I don't understand and maybe someone can explain it.  Why is it a big story that Trump put pressure on the State Department to fire an ambassador?  I'm guessing this happens all the time.  If the US government doesn't like working with a particular person, they tell that government they would like them replaced.  That government then can do what that or not.  If some other country doesn't like working with one of our ambassadors, they tell our government and we then decide if we want to replace them.

 

If I don't like a sales person that calls on me, I might put pressure on the company so that I can work with a different sales person.  Is this any different?

 

I sure hope there's more damning issues with this person than....Trump put pressure on for her to be replaced.

 

PS....I don't have a subscription to WP so I'm just going off of the headline in the tweet.

 

 

 

 

 

This detail is what makes this different. It was for personal reasons related to Trump. That s#!t shouldn’t have anything to do with his work in the government.

 

Quote

Federal prosecutors say two businessmen had a motive for making illegal contributions to U.S. political campaigns. The two men sought to remove an American diplomat in Ukraine, according to an indictment unsealed on Thursday.

The two men, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were associates of President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. They also have business interests in Ukraine.

 

Quote

What emerges is the story of a longtime government employee who made enemies in Ukraine while representing U.S. interests. Her Ukrainian enemies undermined her by spreading unsubstantiated claims to the U.S. — in particular, that she was disloyal to Trump.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/11/768662050/how-former-ambassador-marie-yovanovitch-became-a-target-in-ukraine

 

[knapplc]

You guys Rudy may be out of a job.

[commando]

50 minutes ago, knapplc said:

You guys Rudy may be out of a job.

rudy....meet the underside of this bus

[knapplc]

And remember, Trump gave Turkey intel before they attacked. This is all premeditated.

 

These ISIS dudes are going to end up in Europe and America doing attacks.

 

And it's all going to benefit Putin.

 

 

[knapplc]

This doesn't sound like a unified message.

 

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

LMAO.

"I did those crimes at the direction of the president, you can't charge me!"

 

It's like watching a pile up in slow motion.

[ZRod]

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

And remember, Trump gave Turkey intel before they attacked. This is all premeditated.

 

These ISIS dudes are going to end up in Europe and America doing attacks.

 

And it's all going to benefit Putin.

 

 

A NATO country shelling another NATO country on purpose. Just what Vlad wanted after he sold them the missle system. Erdogan is a loose cannon right now for the US and Russia, but I'm sure Putin will take chaos in NATO if he has to make some Syrian sacrifices.