US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[Ludicus]

Pelosi says Trump's Ukraine scandal compromised US national security. Really? well, I hate hypocrisy.
---
It comes to my mind that Biden had a bizarre obsession with "Ukraine's corruption", but not with Ukraine's security.
Ready to withhold military aid from Ukraine, Biden bribed the country, and by doing so he was ready to compromise Ukraine military security without batting an eyelid.
Read below and take the following analogy, I quote "...at the expense not just of Ukraine’s interests but also those of the United States".
How Vital Is U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine? - The Atlantic ( read the full article)

When Adam Schiff asked Bill Taylor, the first witness in the House’s public impeachment hearings, to explain to Americans why U.S. security assistance to Ukraine matters for their own security, America’s top diplomat in Kyiv went big. Really big.
“It affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in and our grandchildren,” Taylor declared. “Ukraine is on the front line” of a struggle to prevent Russia from trampling on the post–World War II order, which “actually kept the peace in Europe for nearly 70 years.”
We’ve heard this sentiment repeatedly during the inquiry, but is it true?
The problem with the argument is that it is a simplistic portrayal of the support that the United States provides Ukraine, fueled in part by the logic of the impeachment inquiry: Democrats must prove that the president’s actions were so harmful to the republic that they warrant the extreme constitutional recourse of removing him from office. That encourages them to play up the connection between Donald Trump’s pressure tactics on Ukraine and the fallout for the nation’s security...

[B. W.]

"I can't imagine how anyone can look at that set of facts and have the idea that maybe, possibly, something isn't quite right."

I suppose this is un-ironically you then.

You do realize that that the Clinton campaign sought damaging information about Trump and his campaign manager, Manafort, during the the 2016 election right. And as we all know Manafort was convicted for money laundering in connection to his work in Ukraine.

Of course no one is talking about prosecuting HRC, and for good reason. It turns out getting dirt on your political opponent is not illegal. I'm happy to admit that It doesn't look good for the candidate (or the president as the case may be) to be seen doing it especially when it come from a foreign source.

The legal and impeachment question is, was there a quid pro quo, specially was Trump holding back US taxpayer money to Ukraine, in exchange for the Ukraine government looking for dirt on the Bidens. That quid pro quo is not in the phone call. Possible it exists elsewhere, perhaps the whistle blower complaint will shed some light on where that might be.

I watched the Schiff circus in its entirety. It is clear that you didn't. You been reading left-wing spin.

[tgoodenow]

Trump's popularity is not budging. It is slowly returning back to the normal levels (~41-42%) he enjoyed in his whole presidency.

Thinking about it, do we actually think the people that voted for him to lock a political rival in prison would turn on him because he tried to do that to a different rival?

His loyal supporters were never going to turn anyways, the problem with this impeachment circus is that independents have gone from supporting it in October (48% in favor vs 39% against) to no longer supporting it (34% in favor vs 49% against). Losing a quarter of your support in a month is pretty telling.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...54469.html/amp

As predicted this has gone absolutely no where fast.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Rofl the Epoch Times? Really? And here I thought American Thinker held the prize for the most worthless garbage source on this forum.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/ho...rs-66596933716

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

[tgoodenow]

Rofl the Epoch Times? Really? And here I thought American Thinker held the prize for the most worthless garbage source on this forum.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/ho...rs-66596933716

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

It literally lists 4 different polls and surveys. Rather than disputing them you post a video and a link to Nate Silver’s Hillary has a 70% chance of winning the presidential election garbage. Nice

[Lord Thesaurian]

It literally lists 4 different polls and surveys. Rather than disputing them you post a video and a link to Nate Silver’s Hillary has a 70% chance of winning the presidential election garbage. Nice

WhAt AbOuT HilLaRy.... don’t you ever get tired of repeating yourself? Also, probability estimates and projections =\= opinion polls. Try harder.

[Ferdiad]

His loyal supporters were never going to turn anyways, the problem with this impeachment circus is that independents have gone from supporting it in October (48% in favor vs 39% against) to no longer supporting it (34% in favor vs 49% against). Losing a quarter of your support in a month is pretty telling.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...54469.html/amp

As predicted this has gone absolutely no where fast.

The only way these hearings are a circus are if u see Trump and the admin as the clowns they are. Sondland and the rest have blown open every GOP manufactured talking point so all that's left now is to do the usual ranting and raving for FOX soundbites.

[B. W.]

The only way these hearings are a circus are if u see Trump and the admin as the clowns they are. Sondland and the rest have blown open every GOP manufactured talking point so all that's left now is to do the usual ranting and raving for FOX soundbites.

That's just wrong. Sondland testified that the President said he did not want a quid pro quo. Schiff and the Democrats would finish their questioning and then call for a break during which they would go out to their media allies and give them an inaccurate version of what the witness actually said. when the break was over and the Republicans were able to cross examine the witness they would present a copy of the headline to the witness and ask them if it was accurate and in every case the witness said it wasn't. The news media did not retract the earlier account that was given them by the Dems.

So, once again, Sondland did not say that the President requested a quid pro quo. It was exactly the opposite.

[the_mango55]

It literally lists 4 different polls and surveys. Rather than disputing them you post a video and a link to Nate Silver’s Hillary has a 70% chance of winning the presidential election garbage. Nice

Do you understand what the concept of chances are?

If I bet on a game of craps and someone tells me I have a 30% chance of winning, it doesn't make him wrong or dumb if I end up winning even though he said I had a higher likelihood of losing.

[Coughdrop addict]

Giuliani associate willing to inform Congress of meeting between Nunes and former Ukrainian official: report

An indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer, is willing to inform Congress about a meeting between the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and a former Ukrainian prosecutor.

Joseph A. Bondy, the attorney for Lev Parnas, told CNN that the Ukrainian official told his client about the meeting with Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, in which the GOP lawmaker sought to find dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.
"Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December," Bondy said.
Shokin was dismissed from his post in 2016 after a pressure campaign from Western leaders, including Biden, over concerns that he was taking insufficient action to tackle corruption.
Nunes is one of the White House’s chief allies on Capitol Hill and emerged as one of the most vocal defenders of President Trump during the impeachment hearing, which he dubbed a “circus.”
Nunes’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
Bondy told CNN that Parnas put Nunes in touch with Ukrainians to help Nunes get damaging information on Biden, one of the president’s chief political rivals.
Giuliani has previously discussed his conversations with Shokin and Parnas as part of his work on behalf of the president. However, Bondy’s discussions with CNN mark the first time Nunes has been implicated in the effort to dig up dirt on Biden.
Parnas and his business partner, Igor Fruman, have been thrust to the heart of the House’s impeachment investigation into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
The two were allegedly involved in a shadow campaign to help oust former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, whom they viewed as an obstacle they needed to remove in order to pave the way for Giuliani’s push for politically beneficial investigations by Kyiv.
Parnas and Fruman were indicted in connection with an alleged campaign finance fraud scheme in which they planned to use a shell company to donate money to a pro-Trump election committee. Parnas has indicated that he will cooperate with the House’s impeachment investigation.

So Nunes traveled and collaborated with Lev and Ivan, Rudy's indicted pals, to develop their file of dirt on Biden. And then Nunes simultaneously ran the Republican smear campaign in the hearings, attacking Biden. So the only question left is if Nunes is willing to fall on his sword for Trump like a good little lackey?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The only way these hearings are a circus are if u see Trump and the admin as the clowns they are. Sondland and the rest have blown open every GOP manufactured talking point so all that's left now is to do the usual ranting and raving for FOX soundbites.

Sonland? This Sondland?

[Katsumoto]

Two plus two equals four, my dude. Don't fall for Republicans trying to insult your intelligence.

Mr Sondland said he believed military aid was held up to put pressure on Ukraine. He said he had never directly heard Mr Trump link the withholding of military aid from Ukraine with his desire for the country to launch investigations that might benefit him but said he could draw that conclusion.

What he said: "President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from (Trump's personal lawyer Rudy) Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The aid was my own personal, you know, guess, based again on your analogy two plus two equals four."

Analysis: Sondland was very clear in his testimony that a White House visit by Ukrainian President Zelensky was conditioned on Ukraine launching investigations that could be politically helpful to Trump.

"Was there a quid pro quo?" Sondland asked. "As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

What Sondland said he did not initially understand, however, was that US military aid to Ukraine was also being held to increase pressure on Ukraine.

Under questioning, he testified that while he was not directly told why military aid was being held up, it eventually became as obvious to him as "two plus two equals four".

Republicans say that this is unfounded speculation on Sondland's part and fiercely contest the conclusion. That's because while it would be troubling if a White House visit was being used to pressure Ukraine, it's significantly more serious if congressionally authorised aid to a nation fighting a war for its survival was at play, as well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50493440

[B. W.]

Giuliani associate willing to inform Congress of meeting between Nunes and former Ukrainian official: report




So Nunes traveled and collaborated with Lev and Ivan, Rudy's indicted pals, to develop their file of dirt on Biden. And then Nunes simultaneously ran the Republican smear campaign in the hearings, attacking Biden. So the only question left is if Nunes is willing to fall on his sword for Trump like a good little lackey?

HaHaHa! More fake news! It never happened! Nunes is suing CNN (the source for this whopper) and it is so obviously a provable lie that CNN is likely to have to pay for this piece of journalistic garbage.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ted_story.html

Two plus two equals four, my dude. Don't fall for Republicans trying to insult your intelligence.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50493440

One presumption plus one presumption equals two presumptions, not one fact. I watched the proceedings and Sondland clarified his statement under cross examination and said specifically Trump did not want a quid pro quo.

[Coughdrop addict]

HaHaHa! More fake news! It never happened! Nunes is suing CNN (the source for this whopper) and it is so obviously a provable lie that CNN is likely to have to pay for this piece of journalistic garbage.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ted_story.html

Reflexively declaring anything you don't want to hear "fake" won't make it go away. Nor do objective facts suddenly become lies because you don't like the source. If your boss fired you or CNN said a natural disaster was headed your way you could shout "fake news" all you liked and it wouldn't change cold hard facts.

One presumption plus one presumption equals two presumptions, not one fact. I watched the proceedings and Sondland clarified his statement under cross examination and said specifically Trump did not want a quid pro quo.

Trump frantically told Sondland no quid pro quo after he was caught. It's like declaring you didn't do anything when caught standing over a body holding a smoking gun.

[tgoodenow]

538 now has support for impeachment at 46.3%-45.6%, support for “impeach and remove” is at 45.6-45.5. The majority of which comes from Democrats. Unless there’s some big announcement, these numbers will continue to fall. Pelosi isn’t going to move this to the Senate with 41% support from independents.

[Heathen Hammer]

WhAt AbOuT HilLaRy.... don’t you ever get tired of repeating yourself? Also, probability estimates and projections =\= opinion polls. Try harder.

You posted pro-Democrat blogs and then complain about sources? Ironic.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You posted pro-Democrat blogs and then complain about sources? Ironic.

You heard it here first, folks. FiveThirtyEight is a “pro-Democrat blog.”

[Heathen Hammer]

You heard it here first, folks. FiveThirtyEight is a “pro-Democrat blog.”

It takes some crazy double standards to complain about a sourced article on Epoch Times and then posting a link to NBC in the same post. What's next? CNN? Huffpost?

[Lord Thesaurian]

It takes some crazy double standards to complain about a sourced article on Epoch Times and then posting a link to NBC in the same post. What's next? CNN? Huffpost?

NBC is a “pro-Democrat blog” too? Goodness gracious. My brain is already in recovery mode from taking in so many high level ideas!

[Heathen Hammer]

NBC is a “pro-Democrat blog” too? Goodness gracious. My brain is already in recovery mode from taking in so many high level ideas!

Credibility wise, alphabet legacy media is not different from blogs. Which is why you got called out for complaining about B.W.'s source and posting a link to NBC in the same post.