To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

AP: 2nd Embassy Staffer Overheard Call In Which Trump Asked Sondland About Investigations
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...ich-trump-asked-sondland-about-investigations

Two embassy staffers in Kyiv, not just one, overheard a phone call in which President Donald Trump asked EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland about “the investigations,” the Associated Press reported Thursday.

 

Which side is Trump on?

"Trump’s mistake in Syria is the unexpected ‘lottery win’ that further strengthened Moscow’s position in the Middle East and undermined America’s prestige as a rational political player and a reliable partner,” raved Mikhail Rostovsky in his article for the Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets.

The Post reports, "Kremlin-funded Russian state television has openly sided with Trump throughout the Ukraine scandal and even during the events that led up to it. For months on end, Dmitry , the host of a Sunday news show called “Vesti Nedeli” (or “The Weekly News”) on state-controlled television station Rossiya-24, encouraged Trump’s push for a Ukrainian investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son, as well as the groundless theory that Ukraine — not Russia — interfered in U.S. presidential elections in 2016."

Which side Trump is on is very difficult to determine in view of the support he is getting from hostile dictatorships.

 

The fact that Trump supporters are avoiding this thread has to be embarrassing for them. They are giving free rein to Trump's critics.

Why? I don't get that.

 

Uh-oh!

A longtime career employee at the White House Office of Management and Budget is expected to break ranks and testify Saturday in the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, potentially filling in important details on the hold-up of military aid to Ukraine.

Mark Sandy would be the first OMB employee to testify in the inquiry, after OMB acting director Russell T. Vought and two other political appointees at the agency defied congressional subpoenas to appear.

Double uh-oh!

He was among the career staffers who raised questions about the hold-up on the military aid to Ukraine, people familiar with the matter said, and his role gave him responsibility for signing the documents required to hold it up.

 

Just how dumb is our President?

Trump's order to retreat in Syria betrayed a key ally who suffered 11,000 casualties in quelling the ISIS terrorist threat. Trump's retreat order facilitated the Turkish invasion of Syria and the attempt by the Turkish dictator, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to annihilate the Kurds who he regards as terrorists.

Trump enabled Erdogan to kill hundreds of Kurds and causing thousands more to abandon their homes, becoming refugees.

While desperate Republicans are trying vainly to defend Trump from his own incriminating statements, guess who Trump invites to the White House.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

"Trump’s mistake in Syria is the unexpected ‘lottery win’ that further strengthened Moscow’s position in the Middle East and undermined America’s prestige as a rational political player and a reliable partner,” raved Mikhail Rostovsky in his article for the Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets.

Kremlin-funded Russian state television has openly sided with Trump in the impeachment inquiry.

The President of the United States committed witness intimation in real time by assailing the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, while she was being questioned by members of the House of Representatives. "Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad," Trump wrote.

Another close associate of Trump's is convicted of a felony. Roger Stone, 67, was convicted in federal court of seven felonies for obstructing the congressional inquiry, lying to investigators under oath and trying to block the testimony of a witness whose account would have exposed his lies. Jurors deliberated for a little over seven hours before convicting him on all counts. Together, the charges carry a maximum prison term of 50 years.

Stone joins Trump's campaign manager, Trump's deputy campaign manager, Trump's former NSA, Trump's former personal lawyer, Trump's campaign foreign policy advisor on the list felons who have worked for Trump.

How in the world did this man become our President?

 

So the American people don't want to impeach the president?

 

I love how Trump's supporters are giving Trump's detractors free rein on this thread. They are totally incapable of defending Trump.

Here is the next update. It just keeps getting worse and worse for Trump who is his own worst enemy as shown below.



Republicans said Trump's mid-hearing attack sabotaged their strategy:

• Republicans recognized going in that she's a highly respected career official, and planned to focus their questions on showing how she had little knowledge of what is being investigated.
• After the tweet, Republicans went even further out of their way to praise her (even calling her "Your Excellency" at one point) — which just made her abrupt recall to Washington look even more puzzling.

 

The post you responded to dealt with the Senate, not the American people. The American people are split almost evenly on removing Trump, although a majority endorse the impeachment inquiry.

 

We live in a representative democracy, no? For all intents and purposes, the senate IS the American people. The government IS the people, according to the statists.

 

As usual you say nothing to a damaging post for Trump.

 

So Trump gets impeached - at the rate this is going it will not be until very close to the election - then gets re-elected !! Priceless

 

Sorry I missed the damage. Keep trying. Maybe if you double your post count and reply to your own comments three times, I might finally get it.

 

Again, I can't help it if Trump's fans do not have the balls to defend Trump. Still, I will try to keep readers informed as to what is happening, such as:

A senior career official at the Office of Management and Budget testified on Saturday about a budget process that went off the rails when nearly $400 million in US military aid to Ukraine was withheld earlier this year by Trump. He said he did not know for sure the reasoning behind the freeze in funds.

Mark Sandy testified on Saturday for a more than five-hour closed-door deposition in the House impeachment inquiry..He spoke about how unusual of a process it was that a political appointee came in, took over the apportionment process and placed a hold on the military aid.

Michael Duffey, the OMB's associate director for national security programs and a Trump political appointee, signed the documents delaying aid to Ukraine. Normally a career budget official signs such documents.

Sandy testified that he raised questions to the OMB general counsel about whether the move violated the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. He would not discuss what the OMB general counsel said because of concerns it could violate privilege.

 

OK since you brought it up, what exactly did Mark Sandy say that you feel is evidence sufficient to justify impeachment?

 

That is a foolish statement borne of desperation as you view the mounting evidence against Trump. It is not what Sandy alone says to justify impeachment. It is the massive volume of evidence against Trump, including his own words and those of his chief of staff.

Sandy, the deputy associate director for national security programs at OMB, testified that he was instructed to sign the first of several apportionment letters in which budget officials formally instituted the freeze on funds. He was never given a specific reason as to why the letter was being sent out.

The letter Sandy signed was dated July 25 — the same day that Trump spoke by phone with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

 

You brought up Mark Sandy, so it was fair to inquire, and it was fair to ask what he said that was so damning. And the answer to that is nothing, something that will be even more clear I suspect when the full transcript of his testimony is released. In the meantime, you just keep dreaming of all of that "massive volume of evidence against Trump," just like you did during your Russian Collusion fiasco.

 

A "fair" question to inquire is certainly permissible. You asked a loaded question.

That's what all of Trump's fans say. Yet you haven't challenged any of the evidence on this thread. You just say it doesn't exist.

If Trump is impeached, it is very likely that obstruction of justice in the "Russian Collusion fiasco" will be included.

 

House is investigating whether Trump lied to Mueller, its general counsel told a federal appeals court
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...97aa5c-0173-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

The statement came during arguments over Congress’s request to have secret grand jury evidence from the Mueller report released urgently for its impeachment inquiry.

The request followed closely on the heels of Friday’s conviction of longtime Trump friend Roger Stone. Testimony and evidence at his trial appeared to cast doubt on written replies from Trump to Mueller about the president’s knowledge about attempts by his 2016 campaign to learn more about the release of hacked Democratic emails by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

 

As noted in your experience with the Russia collusion hoax, an accusation is not the same thing as evidence.

 

Gee, you think.

Anyone who thinks Trump is innocent has to ask themselves a simple question. Why is it Trump is determined not to allow those close to him to testify? People who are a part of the Ukraine issue like Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, and Giuliani will not be available. Why is that if Trump is innocent and the phone call was "perfect?"

The answer is obvious. Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses.

That also explains why his supporters are incapable of defending him as shown by this thread. It is a thread Trump's fans are avoiding.

 

Trump on Monday suggested he would be open to testifying publicly or in writing as part of the House impeachment inquiry.

“Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!” Trump tweeted.

Trump is being the comedian again. The guilty President will never play a part in his own impeachment.

 

So your "evidence" is that Trump doesn't want his people to testify in front of the kangaroo court?

That explains why there is nothing to defend against.

 

The post you replied to did not contain evidence. This is evidence.

This is from the transcript provided by the White House. This is what Trump told the Ukrainian president.

"I would like you to do us a favor though. The other thing, there's a lot of.talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

No hearsay, no second or third hand testimony, the quote above is straight from the horse's mouth.

So, is this.

At a recent briefing, White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney blithely described quid pro quo. “What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted a reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in [Trump's] foreign policy.”

 

Impeachment Hearings Live Updates: Republicans Question Vindman’s Loyalty

Republicans, as usual, cannot challenge the evidence against Trump so they attack the integrity of the witness.

The top Ukraine expert at the National Security Council, Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, testified that Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president in which Trump asked for investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was “inappropriate” and “a partisan play.”

Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio cited critical comments about Colonel Vindman’s judgment from two other impeachment witnesses, Timothy Morrison and Fiona Hill, Vindman’s former boss at the National Security Council.

“Any idea why they have those impressions?” Mr. Jordan inquired.

“Alex is a top one percent military officer and the best army officer I have worked with in my 15 years of government service,” Vindman said, quoting Hill. “He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment.”

Republicans also pressed Colonel Vindman, an American citizen and Army officer who was born in Ukraine, about how Oleksandr Danylyuk, the director of Ukraine’s national security council, had approached him three times to offer him the job of defense minister in Kiev.

This as if, because the Ukrainians offered Vindman a job three times, has something to do with Vindman's loyalty. In defending their guilty President, Republicans are reaching. Vindman confirmed the offers and testified that he repeatedly declined, dismissing the idea out of hand and reporting the approaches to his superiors and to counterintelligence officials.

“Every single time, I dismissed it,” he said, adding that “I’m an American. I came here when I was a toddler. And I immediately dismissed these offers, did not entertain them.”