US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[Cope]

And yet the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community said, 'I have determined that the Complainant has reported an "urgent concern" that "appears credible.'

It's not about "my judgement"; its about well understood standards of determining reliability. Again, if even a civil court wouldn't accept this sort of obscured 2nd and 3rd hand evidence then neither will I - nor should any independent minded person. The released transcript (the only piece of primary evidence which we've seen) simply doesn't support the editorialized complaints that were presented by the "whistleblower" unless, as I stated, you're willing to jump through sophistic and hypocritical hoops.

This speculation is pretty non-sensical since it's pretty common knowledge that Pelosi was holding off on any impeachment inquiry precisely because it would damage the Democrats' election strategy, not help it.

Since the Mueller report flop, its become increasingly obvious that Trump - who has approval rates which are comparable with Obama's - was probably going to be re-elected if the Democrats just did nothing. The impeachment inquiry is an obvious risk, but at this stage a necessary, and clearly engineered, one. The fact that you openly acknowledged that Pelosi's first thought vis-a-vis impeachment was "election strategy" rather than truth serves only to prove right my "non-sensical speculation" that her rationale remains predicated on electioneering.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I appreciate that, but, how can someone whistleblow on a phone call they’ve never heard?


Whistleblower who claims Trump repeatedly pressured Ukraine president to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter for corruption during phone call 'DID NOT actually listen to the communication between the leaders'

The call transcript released by the White House confirms Trump asked the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. Moreover, the same transcript confirms Trump made the request on the basis of a long-debunked lie about Biden. Per the conversation, Trump had no factual basis for investigating Biden/Ukraine or for blocking the aid, let alone asking a foreign government to investigate his political opponent. One needn’t rely on the whistleblower report for any of that information, and it’s damning enough on its own. Even so, Trump’s hand-picked DNI backs the whistleblower and the report. We know all this before the impeachment inquiry has even gotten underway.


Trump claimed his administration blocked the aid because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and in the call, he names Biden and the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor as an example of those concerns. Best case, Trump used his position as POTUS and government resources to advance his personal political interests. More than that, by repeatedly asking Ukraine to coordinate the investigation of Biden with his personal attorney and the AG, Trump made it clear he was soliciting election interference from a foreign power. On top of that, Giuliani has been looking into Biden/Ukraine, liaising directly with Ukrainian officials and the ex-prosecutor, for nearly a year now, and expressed frustration this past June that the Ukrainian government didn’t seem to be taking action re: Biden.


Recall that Team Trump’s Russia defense hinged on the idea that Trump never explicitly solicited the help he got from the Russians, and the help itself is not a crime, therefore Trump can’t obstruct an investigation into a crime he didn’t commit - no crime, no obstruction (not true, by the way). Now, we have Trump explicitly asking a foreign government to advance his personal political agenda and investigate his political opponent. Lo and behold, the goalposts have moved again. Team Trump now says even though Trump solicited election interference, the quid pro quo is circumstantial, so he didn’t do anything wrong. We’ll see how long that narrative holds up under an impeachment inquiry.

[Roma_Victrix]

If he, as a supposed whistleblower, testified in court, his testimony would be thrown out because he didn’t witness anything.

Why doesn’t the third party that heard the call come forward instead of passing it on.

Right, because fellow whistleblower Edward Snowden is also living comfortably in the United States right now with nothing to fear.

This speculation is pretty non-sensical since it's pretty common knowledge that Pelosi was holding off on any impeachment inquiry precisely because it would damage the Democrats' election strategy, not help it.

Pelosi quite honestly was never going to impeach Trump until this landed in her lap and even then it took the proverbial arm twisting and words of revered figures like Rep. John Lewis to finally sway her and see where the wind was already blowing in her own caucus. She made it clear that she was quite happy using Trump's reelection in 2020 as a means to galvanize the Democratic base around the party's chosen primary winner and future general election candidate. Contrary to what she believed, though, this has not hurt the Dems thus far in regards to polling. Numbers favoring impeaching just shot up 7 points according to a new poll and those disfavoring it dropped the same amount (from 36 favorable to 43 in the matter of a week):

Support for impeachment jumps in new poll
(Politico/Morning Consult poll)

It goes to show that when Democrats have balls and grow spines and lead by example the country follows eventually. People aren't inspired by headless chickens like the current incarnation of the Democratic party. They are inspired and willing to change their minds with bold actions outlining why something needs to be done.

As bad as this looks for Trump, though, I could also see it hurting Biden since issues about his son Hunter being on the board of a Ukrainian energy company being investigated in a criminal probe is not a good look. It's another conflict of interest. Fortunately for Biden, though, Trump has (unsurprisingly) managed to divert all the attention to himself instead this week and it will probably remain that way. Oops! Even if the Senate doesn't convict him, the House impeaching him is not a good look for 2020 when trying to sway the Independents and swing voters to his side. I don't think that's going to happen now.

[Ludicus]

The new President of Ukraine also has a new prosecutor

As far as I know, there is no new Prosecutor in Ukraine.
Edit, I'm wrong, since August 29 the new prosecutor is Ruslan Riaboshapka
Zelensky: Prosecutor General Riaboshapka "my man", but not "my property
-----
From the Ukrainian perspective- let's summarize,
Zelensky said "We had, I think, good phone call ... It was normal. We spoke about many things. I think you read that nobody pushed me.”

Yuriy Lutsenko, former Ukrainian prosecutor (May 12, 2016 — August 29), said that "from the perspective of Ukrainian legislation Biden's son did not "violate anything" and he also said he did not know of any Trump administration officials going to Ukraine to investigate the claims against the Bidens."No American groups came to Ukraine for an investigation".

Who is Lutsenko?

Ukraine chief prosecutor Lutsenko resigns - bne IntelliNews

Yuriy Lutsenko signed a letter of resignation on August 29, as the nation's newly elected parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, meets for its first day of work.
The signing of the letter was broadcasted live the same day. The document was dated August 29, according to local media.
Lutsenko was a close personal ally of former President Petro Poroshenko and much vilified by observers as he was seen as one of the main obstacles to pushing through Ukraine’s anti-corruption campaign.

Houston, we have a (credibility) problem. Everything so nebulous,
Both statements are...
- true
-false
One of them is false.
----
The Guardian hit the nail on the head,
Beware, Democrats. Impeaching Trump will backfire

While, from a legal point of view, the case for impeaching Trump may well have become difficult to resist, politically, it is imperative that the Democratic party not allow this to overshadow the more substantive grounds for its opposition to him. For, what ultimately matters to electors are the concrete political alternatives that are being offered to them.
If Trump has committed any crimes, he should be tried for them according to the procedures that are in place for doing so. But this is not what Democrats should be making the upcoming presidential election about.

Moreover, it remains to be seen if the Bidens are ethically compromised- or not.

[Aexodus]

I’ve had a look at the transcript and it looks very bad for Trump, he brings up Biden out of nowhere and asks Zelensky to investigate events surrounding him and his son, obviously with the aim of getting dirt.

In the continuing impeachment process, how will it be proven by the relevant committees and intelligence that the other claims, like the phone call being recorded in a classified server, were true.

[Ludicus]

Trump... asks Zelensky to investigate events surrounding him and his son, obviously with the aim of getting dirt.

...as I have already said before. But that's not my point.
Nancy Pelosi orders impeachment inquiry to focus on Trump-Ukraine

But there will be impeachment.Even if the House could pass the vote, it would go nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
In Ukraine, Ryaboshapka could eventually lead any new investigation into the Biden family, but he will not dare, after Trump accused of pushing Ukraine to meddle in the US election.
As a side note, as we have abundantly seen, Russia is not the only country to try influencing Ukraine's elections and the Ukraine's system of government. In a successful reconstruction of a country, the political economy of exporting democracy entails finding and establishing a set of incentives...including economic blackmail.

[B. W.]

As usual, when democrats are guilty of something they simply accuse Trump of doing it to deflect any inquiry into their behavior:

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elect...tor-was-fired/

[Gaidin]

No, I didn't say that. I don't understand what the question is.

The law says the IG determines what whistleblown material needs to be sent to congress or not. Not the DNI, not the AG, not even the President. The IG. In fact, the DoJ has it's own IG to send DoJ whistleblown issues to congress around the AG. The DNI and the AG are just not a part of these decisions.

And yet, they tried to be. Against the law.

That is what started all of this.

[Big War Bird]

Apparently the Ukrainians did not even know the aid was being held up at the time of the call, so Zelensky couldn't have perceived any threat (or promise) from Trump about the aid. So far as he knew everything was fine. It is rather hard to demonstrate even an implicit quid pro quo when one party doesn't even know what the other might be threatening.

In the continuing impeachment process, how will it be proven by the relevant committees and intelligence that the other claims, like the phone call being recorded in a classified server, were true.

I just read a report that Trump has been storing all phone calls he has on the more secure server and has been for quite some time. It is his prerogative to classify, declassify or store information is whatever way he wants. He was burned early in his presidency with leaks about his calls to the presidents to Mexico and Australia so he switched to more secure record keeping. There is no reason to beleive the White House went out of their way to hide this conversation in particular.

[Prodromos]

Donald Trump, famed anti-corruption crusader, pestering a foreign government to investigate the alleged corrupt dealings of a man who through sheer coincidence happens to be his most formidable political opponent at home. Nothing to see here.

[Gaidin]

The President is not allowed to even ask for help from a foreign entity with a political election. Much less pressure a foreign entity for help with a political election. Those discovered to be involved by foreign intelligence in such a call would be discovered to have broken federal united states law and would have something over their heads. Thus the relevance to an intelligence community whistleblower action and decision. Presidential privilege is not relevant when he is doing something he is not allowed to do. Nothing to see here indeed.

[Big War Bird]

The President is not allowed to even ask for help from a foreign entity with a political election.

That is absolutely not true. That would violate his own free speech and that foreign entity's. Furthermore candidates do it all the time, just remember the Steele dossier, it was compiled by a British citizen investigating Trump's business dealings and activities around the world for the Clinton campaign. The coffee fetcher famously assured Putin that he would have more flexibility toward Russia after his 2012 election. If we are reading tea leaves and hearing unspoken implications, it sure looks like a quid pro quo.

What he cannot do use the US governmental power to his personal advantage.

[Gaidin]

That is absolutely not true. That would violate his own free speech and that foreign entity's. Furthermore candidates do it all the time, just remember the Steele dossier, it was compiled by a British citizen investigating Trump's business dealings and activities around the world for the Clinton campaign. The coffee fetcher famously assured Putin that he would have more flexibility toward Russia after his 2012 election. If we are reading tea leaves and hearing unspoken implications, it sure looks like a quid pro quo.

What he cannot do use the US governmental power to his personal advantage.

Trump is free to bring up that case in court when he wants discovery to bring out that he withheld Congressionally delegated resources from Ukraine to hold over their head lest they decide not to do his bidding against Joe Biden.

I warned you in 2016 BWB. When he takes office he was going to have a HELLUVA lot more public scrutiny than he was used to than as just Trump CEO. This is what his usual antics lead to. Smoking gun on the second day of Impeachment. All through the questioning of Acting DNI, not a single Republican was singing Trump's defense. They were ranting at the Democrats sure. But not a single one of them was singing Trump's defense. You consider that for a few days and what that means.

[Big War Bird]

Trump is free to bring up that case in court when he wants discovery to bring out that he withheld Congressionally delegated resources from Ukraine to hold over their head lest they decide not to do his bidding against Joe Biden.

Ukrainian president didn't know he was holding anything "over their head." They didn't know he was holding up the aid, and Trump didn't tell them.

I warned you in 2016 BWB. When he takes office he was going to have a HELLUVA lot more public scrutiny than he was used to than as just Trump CEO. This is what his usual antics lead to.

I don't remember you warning me of anything, but I will say yet again on this forum Trump is a fool and it does not surprise me one bit that his big mouth has gotten him in trouble. I thought he would get himself impeached long ago, so it has surprised me that it has taken this long.

They were ranting at the Democrats sure. But not a single one of them was singing Trump's defense. You consider that for a few days and what that means.

No doubt your super secret decoder ring and dog whistle hearing ears tell you much. As for me I will keep to the facts and the plain meaning of words. By all means we should get to the bottom of this, but as the facts stand right now, I'm not convinced Trump had a plan for wrongdoing. As I see it right know, Trump mouths off to anyone and everyone and this isn't any different.

[Ludicus]

The whistleblower alleges Trump tried to solicit interference from a foreign country. Crystal clear - but let's call the things by their proper names. The expression "foreign country" is a misnomer. Highly dependent on US aid, the right name is "quasi-protectorate". I was not surprised to hear that Ukraine promises a new investigation. It won't involve Joe Biden or his son

[The spartan]

I think we are all missing something important:

"They say I have the most loyal people, did you ever see that? I could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters."

-Donald J. Trump


Now, this is only an inquiry at the moment, but it appears Republicans discovered the magical defense for presidential impropriety: just not caring at all no matter what happens.

[Love Mountain]

Accusations made by an unnamed, 2nd hand source are fundamentally unreliable. This is precisely why hearsay is inadmissible (almost always) even in cases determined by a preponderance of the evidence. You couldn't even get a judgement against someone for driving over your grass verge on the basis of this sort of evidence.

The word evidence was not used. Whether an allegation is credible or not is often determined by the source of the allegation. Considering that the allegation was "credible", the investigation or "Witch-Hunt" as you and Nunes would put it, is more than warranted. Especially considering the extensive history of poor and suspicious conduct of this administration.

Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry prior to the release of the transcript. She had clearly already decided to peruse the impeachment route as an electioneering strategy irrespective of what the evidence actually indicated, but it was necessary to shroud the decision in this fabricated scandal in order to give it added legitimacy (given the Mueller flop). So as I said, we all understand that this is just a 2020 play, not a genuine attempt at truth seeking.

Now I'd always stopped short of referring to Russiagate as a conspiracy because, despite the fraudulence of the Steele dossier and the laughable partiality of the liberal press, it was clear that the Kremlin had opposed a Clinton presidency and there were substantive reasons for suspecting that the Russians had been involved in the theft and exposure of the DNC emails. Trump had also painted a target on his own back by arguably soliciting Russian help in recovering the tens of thousands of emails which HRC had deleted. This Ukrainian controversy, however, is nothing more than cynical politicking - which is something we all here understand, even if some people will never admit it.

The impeachment was considered before the transcript because the circumstances were already deeply disturbing. The White House refused to cooperate with an inquiry and the leaked transcript merely accelerated the matter. You do not need "evidence" to launch an investigation. A serious allegation such as this is more than sufficient to justify an investigation, and as far as many people are concerned, the conduct of this administration over the last couple years warrants impeachment with or without the Ukraine scandal.

The Steele dossier was not proven "false", absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your remark about the press is laughable, I mean what, is the press supposed to ignore the disturbing ties between dozens of Trump staffers, foreign governments, and their suspect behavior? The only reasons why the media is criticized, is because of the hyper partisan nature of current politics where tribalism trumps civility. There is no thing to admit about the Ukraine scandal. This is yet another instance in which the President is acting suspiciously, refusing to cooperate with an inquiry, and thus reaping the political consequences. Of course conservatives will never admit this, because it's much easier to allege partisanship than it is to admit wrongdoing of a President they support.

Apparently the Ukrainians did not even know the aid was being held up at the time of the call, so Zelensky couldn't have perceived any threat (or promise) from Trump about the aid. So far as he knew everything was fine. It is rather hard to demonstrate even an implicit quid pro quo when one party doesn't even know what the other might be threatening.

What is this based on?

I just read a report that Trump has been storing all phone calls he has on the more secure server and has been for quite some time. It is his prerogative to classify, declassify or store information is whatever way he wants. He was burned early in his presidency with leaks about his calls to the presidents to Mexico and Australia so he switched to more secure record keeping. There is no reason to beleive the White House went out of their way to hide this conversation in particular.

There are too many reasons to believe the White House went out of their way to hide the conversation. The suspect nature of the call being one of them.

That is absolutely not true. That would violate his own free speech and that foreign entity's. Furthermore candidates do it all the time, just remember the Steele dossier, it was compiled by a British citizen investigating Trump's business dealings and activities around the world for the Clinton campaign. The coffee fetcher famously assured Putin that he would have more flexibility toward Russia after his 2012 election. If we are reading tea leaves and hearing unspoken implications, it sure looks like a quid pro quo.

What he cannot do use the US governmental power to his personal advantage.

Free speech has nothing to do with asking a foreign government to help him with re-election. I'm not sure what you are referencing with the Steele dossier either.

[Ludicus]

They say I have the most loyal people, did you ever see that? I could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters."

Obviously,Trump, the incompetent, racist idiot deserves to be impeached. However, amidst the heat of the bipartisan fight, trust me, nothing will happen.
-------
I'm more interested in knowing - for the sake of transparency - Joe Biden's ethical position, and what H. Biden had done for Burisma to justify his fee. Yoshiko M. Herrera, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison told to the W. Post,

I think there is a conflict of interest even if it doesn't break any laws. It's a big deal. It's the vice president, who is the point person of the Obama administration's policy on Ukraine, and his son is suddenly hired to be a director on the board of Ukraine's largest private gas producer".

In Hunter Biden's career from Ukraine to China, his ... - Washington Post
----
It's "just" a matter of "legal, social acceptable corruption", as the Atlantic has put it? "legal corruption", really? Hunter Biden's Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption - The Atlantic

[Gaidin]

Ukraine envoy resigns amid scandal.

[Bob69Joe]

Hey, don't put your sense of self-esteem on the matter. It's probably just nothing again.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...f-russia-hoax/

Has the non-verbatim conversation between the two presidents been linked to yet?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ader-zelensky/