The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

Nunes is such a shithead. He opens the questioning of Yovanovitch by making the assertion this is all just an HR issue that should be shuffled off to a subcommittee and has no relevance to impeachment.

[QuickSilver]

@HurricaneDitka

I’d characterize it as the President of the United States engaging in free speech of a mildly undignified nature. I certainly don’t see anything criminal / impeachment-worthy in his tweet.

You don’t say.

[QuickSilver]

@Lance_Turbo

Throw another thing on the pile of things that you don’t understand.

He understands. He doesn’t care.

[GIGObuster]

A bit more context, besides what NPR mentioned about the thugs that have the ear of the president, this had already been reported before the whistleblower came in:

Is it actually illegal to accept "campaign dirt" from foreigners?

“I would not have thought I needed to say this,” Federal Election Commission head Ellen Weintraub tweeted regarding a statement she’d issued outlining why it’s illegal for US political candidates to accept contributions from foreign governments.

Because somehow, the country is debating this yet again after President Donald Trump told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview that aired Wednesday that if someone from a foreign country called him offering damaging information on a 2020 rival, “I think I’d want to hear it.”

He also said he’d “maybe” call the FBI if that happened, but only maybe. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, ‘oh let’s call the FBI.’ The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it.”

It was a remarkable statement — not least because the special counsel just finished a two-year investigation into this very thing.

Trump tried to (sort of) walk it back in an interview with Fox & Friends on Friday: “You’d have to look at [the information being offered], because if you don’t look at it, you won’t know it’s bad. But, of course, you give it to the FBI or report to the attorney general or somebody like that.”

It wasn’t exactly an unequivocal condemnation. And ahead of the 2020 election, it’s renewed questions about what is and isn’t legal when it comes to the involvement of foreign nationals in US campaigns.

House Democrats said they would roll out a bill that would require campaigns to report to the FBI if any foreign government approaches them offering dirt on their opponents. Republicans largely tried to brush off the president’s comments while also claiming Hillary Clinton’s campaign did something similar by commissioning a firm that hired a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to compile that infamous dossier on Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia.

Weintraub tried to clarify: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

“This is not a novel concept,” she wrote. “Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the founding of our nation.”

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@HurricaneDitka

This whole “impeachment inquiry” is an attempt to influence the Senate. That’s what happens in politics.

This whole “investigation” into criminal behavior is just an attempt to influence the jury.

Unfair! SAD!

Funniest thing I’ve heard all day. Thanks for the laugh.

[JohnT]

@HurricaneDitka

As do I. It’s like you guys already forgot (or never learned in the first place) the lessons of impeachment from a couple of decades ago.

WE’RE GONNA GET A BALANCED BUDGET? FUCK YEAH!

(That’s what you meant, right?)

[Max_S]

@HurricaneDitka

No, there’s nothing “clear” about that. How is it “witness intimidation” of Yovanovitch? He thinks Yovanovitch was bad at her job. That’s been pretty clear at least since he fired her back in May. Now she’s testifying and he publicly reiterated that he thinks she’s bad at her job. How is that supposed to be “intimidation”?

Ms. Yovanovitch is still a federal employee under the State Department, she was only recalled from her post as Ambassador. This was mentioned during today’s hearings, and I only listened during the ten minute drive to work this morning.

It follows that the President did not fire her, but only demoted her. Witness intimidation is still possible with regards to Ms. Yovanovitch.

~Max

[davidm]

Maybe if we all just stopped responding to a certain individual this would be a better thread.

[ThelmaLou]

@Ravenman

I think that definition would have to include the words, “I, Donald J. Trump, am intimidating you, a witness in a Federal matter, in this communication!” before his supporters miiiiiight consider it to be actual intimidation. Leave any of those words out, and hey – it just might be a perfecto communication.

Nah, for the Ditkas and other deplorables to concede that it was intimidation, he would have to say, “You’d better stop saying those things about me right now or I’m going to hunt you down and kill you and your dog.” Wait… no. That wouldn’t be enough either. I got nuttin’.

@GIGObuster

It looks like it because Trump should know better, but ignoring the context is what is silly here. NPR just reported on the background, and in essence, Trump is just there listening to foreign gangsters that are close to Rudy Giuliani and others, instead of our intelligence community. They were the ones that made a campaign of lies designed to dismiss the ambassador because they knew that she would likely… actually do her job and not to be a lackey of the President.

So much for being a nationalist…

And it shows how corrosive is to have a president that ignores good advice from Americans and continues to rely on international mobsters.

I listened to that whole backstory on Yovanovich and it’s 100% clear that she was railroaded by Ukrainian criminals with the help of Rudy, and the the soon-to-be Former President fell for it without blinking an eye.

[Airbeck]

@HurricaneDitka

steronz asked me a question and I gave a one-word answer. Is that what you’re referring to?

I’m saying that everyone in this thread is aware of the fact that there is nothing that can happen that will change your mind and support impeachment.

I say we consider that settled at this point and I suggest that there isn’t much point continuing to explore that question.

However as I said it’s only a request, so however the conversation proceeds so be it.

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

Ms. Yovanovitch is still a federal employee under the State Department, she was only recalled from her post as Ambassador. This was mentioned during today’s hearings, and I only listened during the ten minute drive to work this morning.

It follows that the President did not fire her, but only demoted her. Witness intimidation is still possible with regards to Ms. Yovanovitch.

~Max

I believe she has sufficient cause for filing an official Harassment complaint against the President with the Fed EEOC. This will not look good on his yearly Performance Appraisal Review.

[sps49sd]

@RitterSport

sps49sd, can you directly respond to these responses to you above? In my mind, the really tear apart the point you made, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

…

I disagree. I believe at this moment that Schiff is engaging in political theater without real evidence, and that it is a continuation of trying to throw anything and everything at the President until something hopefully sticks. And if Schiff lied about anything to do with the inquiry, then I believe it calls into question his entire proceeding even more.

[Gyrate]

@sps49sd

I disagree. I believe at this moment that Schiff is engaging in political theater without real evidence, and that it is a continuation of trying to throw anything and everything at the President until something hopefully sticks. And if Schiff lied about anything to do with the inquiry, then I believe it calls into question his entire proceeding even more.

Your “belief” is noted.

Meanwhile, they have multiple actual witnesses, plus statements from the White House itself, plus open attempts to obstruct the proceedings by preventing individuals under subpoena from testifying. That constitutes “real evidence” by most people’s standards.

[steronz]

OMFG THAT BURN! “Sometimes that happens on social media.” I’m fucking dying right now.

[iiandyiiii]

@sps49sd

I disagree. I believe at this moment that Schiff is engaging in political theater without real evidence, and that it is a continuation of trying to throw anything and everything at the President until something hopefully sticks. And if Schiff lied about anything to do with the inquiry, then I believe it calls into question his entire proceeding even more.

Why are you so focused on Schiff? And what does any of this have to do with the facts and testimony presented in the hearings? Are you like Lindsay Graham, just trying to find excuses to avoid dealing with any of the facts that might be harmful to your side?

[RitterSport]

@sps49sd

I disagree. I believe at this moment that Schiff is engaging in political theater without real evidence, and that it is a continuation of trying to throw anything and everything at the President until something hopefully sticks. And if Schiff lied about anything to do with the inquiry, then I believe it calls into question his entire proceeding even more.

OK, you’re factually wrong about the lack of real evidence. There is gobs and gobs of evidence that the president did what he’s been accused of. The question is whether those actions are impeachable. But, given our different perspective on the facts at hand, I don’t see how we can bridge the gap and I doubt our continued conversation on the subject will be fruitless.

Thanks for responding, though!

[JohnT]

Are we sure Castor is a lawyer?

[Max_S]

Also apropros of nothing, but Ambassador Yovanovitch is quite soft-spoken.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Max_S

Ms. Yovanovitch is still a federal employee under the State Department, she was only recalled from her post as Ambassador. This was mentioned during today’s hearings, and I only listened during the ten minute drive to work this morning.

It follows that the President did not fire her, but only demoted her. Witness intimidation is still possible with regards to Ms. Yovanovitch.

~Max

She just testified that her official State duties now consist of a fellowship at Georgetown University (teaching one class of about 14 students); and that her compensation has not been affected by her recall from Ukraine; that her colleagues at State still hold her in high regard (in her opinion).

I’m not yet making a judgement on witness tampering or intimidation but the door is open if the President threatens to retaliate against Ms. Yovanovitch for her testimony.

~Max

[Buck_Godot]

@sps49sd

I disagree. I believe at this moment that Schiff is engaging in political theater without real evidence, and that it is a continuation of trying to throw anything and everything at the President until something hopefully sticks. And if Schiff lied about anything to do with the inquiry, then I believe it calls into question his entire proceeding even more.

The fact that my client has a rap sheet a mile long, means that the police must be biased against him and so therefore he’s innocent.