House Intelligence Committee Draft Impeachment Report

[IUclover]

Nobody in my memory has undercut an election 11 months before it happens.

Maybe Trump and other Republican elected officials counted on this fact. Isn't that a coincidence!? Crazy that he somehow found AG Barr to help him in the cover up. Another coincidence?

Why won't Trump and the WH cooperate with the investigation though? That's a pretty big question, among the two I just asked.

As a registered Independent, I'm open to both arguments but it's pretty obvious that Trump and the Republican elected representatives are producing BS as an argument. Just looking at the outlandish behavior of Republican representatives should prove the point for you. They're pathetic and you know it, unless you're maybe one of those guys with way too many obnoxious bumper stickers. I just don't get it and I feel like we're two pretty reasonable people.

 

[Cortez88]

The American Conservative “The Case for Impeachment is Overwhelming”

Trumpers are not conservatives. This is not a surprising article.

 

[Digressions]

I don’t think why Trump didn’t extort a promise from Zelensky matters. It never happened. In the light most favorable to the Democrats, the evidence shows Trump wanted to extort a promise to investigate Biden and he even talked about it. But the extortion never happened. Nothing to see here.

Several Democrats are now on record that impeachment is proceeding because they don’t trust that the 2020 election will be honest. That is totally nuts on many different levels. Nobody in my memory has undercut an election 11 months before it happens. The real Putin stooges are Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi. The Democrats got nuthin. The Democrats are ending themselves.

Sondland and Taylor testified under oath that the meeting and military aid was conditioned on an announcement of an investigation into the Biden's.

All witnesses testified under oath that they disagreed with the President's assessment of Amb. Yovonavitch.

Mulvaney admitted there was a quid pro quo.

Sondland testified that everyone was in the loop-meaning all the cabinet members that were mentioned in the hearing.

Sondland testified that no actual investigation needed to take place to meet the President's demands.

The aid was released two days after the whistleblower complaint.

The President then told Sondland, "there was no quid pro quo."

These are the facts. Not my facts. The facts. The facts were brought to light through hearings, from Americans testifying under oath under penalty of perjury.

 

[cosmickid]

We are a long way from the goal post in this thing. First down lines change as the ball is advanced. The Democrats kicked a 20 yard field goal and it was 19 yards short. Now Durham is running it up the gut.

What makes Durham and (god forbid) Barr, any more credible than Horowitz ? And if you're going to say that Durham has wider jurisdiction, that's fine. But keep in mind, Durham shared his own evidence and conclusions with Horowitz and Horwitz didn't find anything that he felt was compelling enough to change his own conclusions.

So it would seem that although Durham may possibly be able to develop a compelling case at a later date, Horowitz didn't find it to be definitive up to this point. So why do you use that analogy, and what makes you think he'll be able to back up your assertions?

What is Durham going to have to present 6 mos from now that he doesn't currently have in his arsenal? If Durham couldn't get Horowitz to revise his conclusions based on the evidence Durham currently holds, then what is going to elevate this into the vindication Trump so desperately wants?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What makes Durham and (god forbid) Barr, any more credible than Horowitz ? And if you're going to say that Durham has wider jurisdiction, that's fine. But keep in mind, Durham shared his own evidence and conclusions with Horowitz and Horwitz didn't find anything that he felt was compelling enough to change his own conclusions.

So it would seem that although Durham may possibly be able to develop a compelling case at a later date, Horowitz didn't find it to be definitive up to this point. So why do you use that analogy, and what makes you think he'll be able to back up your assertions?

What is Durham going to have to present 6 mos from now that he doesn't currently have in his arsenal? If Durham couldn't get Horowitz to revise his conclusions based on the evidence Durham currently holds, then what is going to elevate this into the vindication Trump so desperately wants?

You seem to want to find a conflict between Horowitz on the one hand, and Durham and Barr on the other. According to all the reporting and Horowitz’s testimony, there is no material difference. They agree to all the facts important to the criminal probe. The disagreement focused on the cause the FBI used start surveillance of the Trump campaign. This is legally irrelevant, as Turley explained in a couple of ways. The important facts are the conduct, misconduct, negligence, and incompetence that permeated the FBI investigation. There is substantial agreement about all of that.

 

[Cortez88]

You seem to want to find a conflict between Horowitz on the one hand, and Durham and Barr on the other. According to all the reporting and Horowitz’s testimony, there is no material difference. They agree to all the facts important to the criminal probe. The disagreement focused on the cause the FBI used start surveillance of the Trump campaign. This is legally irrelevant, as Turley explained in a couple of ways. The important facts are the conduct, misconduct, negligence, and incompetence that permeated the FBI investigation. There is substantial agreement about all of that.

If there is no conflict, why is Barr spending so much effort to dispute the IG report?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If there is no conflict, why is Barr spending so much effort to dispute the IG report?

I don’t think he has spent much time on that. As with most things, the commentariat made it bigger than it was. Barr was among those who reviewed and commented on the report before it was made public. His disagreements were behind the scenes.

 

[cosmickid]

You seem to want to find a conflict between Horowitz on the one hand, and Durham and Barr on the other. According to all the reporting and Horowitz’s testimony, there is no material difference. They agree to all the facts important to the criminal probe. The disagreement focused on the cause the FBI used start surveillance of the Trump campaign. This is legally irrelevant, as Turley explained in a couple of ways. The important facts are the conduct, misconduct, negligence, and incompetence that permeated the FBI investigation. There is substantial agreement about all of that.

Don't think Trump got this particular memo...

 

[IUclover]

Just want to submit more materials to the Cooler for the impeachment records.

Report: Trump’s Ukraine Extortion Scheme Was Financed by Russians

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...ukraine-trump-impeachment-giuliani-money.html

 

[HillzHoozier]

Sondland and Taylor testified under oath that the meeting and military aid was conditioned on an announcement of an investigation into the Biden's.

All witnesses testified under oath that they disagreed with the President's assessment of Amb. Yovonavitch.

Mulvaney admitted there was a quid pro quo.

Sondland testified that everyone was in the loop-meaning all the cabinet members that were mentioned in the hearing.

Sondland testified that no actual investigation needed to take place to meet the President's demands.

The aid was released two days after the whistleblower complaint.

The President then told Sondland, "there was no quid pro quo."

These are the facts. Not my facts. The facts. The facts were brought to light through hearings, from Americans testifying under oath under penalty of perjury.

What do you make of this? According to Time, turns out Sondland's version of things isn't exactly so. Shall he be allowed to re-amend?

Yermak: "We did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”

 

[hoot1]

What do you make of this? According to Time, turns out Sondland's version of things isn't exactly so. Shall he be allowed to re-amend?

Yermak: "We did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”

Gordon Sondland unlike other witnesses at the hearing didn't take personal notes as events took place and therefore relied on information from the State Department to prepare his testimony. Unfortunately this left Sondland in the predicament of having to rely strictly on his recollections without supporting material to assist in his recall.

This link from PBS describes the Sondland dilemma in part as follows,

Gordon Sondland says his testimony has “not been perfect” because President Donald Trump’s administration has refused to give him access to calendars, phone records and other State Department documents that he says might have helped him accurately answer questions.​

Thus we have Trump declaring the Congressional inquiry a hoax and witch hunt from the outset and thereby refusing to supply information. Looks like obstruction to a Congressional oversight in my view.

 

[HillzHoozier]

Gordon Sondland unlike other witnesses at the hearing didn't take personal notes as events took place and therefore relied on information from the State Department to prepare his testimony. Unfortunately this left Sondland in the predicament of having to rely strictly on his recollections without supporting material to assist in his recall.

This link from PBS describes the Sondland dilemma in part as follows,

Gordon Sondland says his testimony has “not been perfect” because President Donald Trump’s administration has refused to give him access to calendars, phone records and other State Department documents that he says might have helped him accurately answer questions.​

Thus we have Trump declaring the Congressional inquiry hoax and witch hunt from the outset and thereby refusing to supply information. Looks like obstruction to a Congressional oversight in my view.

The curious thing is that the amended testimony involved the linchpin to the Dems theory that Sondland put Ukraine on notice that Trump wanted a quid pro quo. Now the Ukrainian in question denies that ever happened. The only compelling aspect of Sondland's testimony was inaccurate? Do you accept "memory lapse" as an explanation for this?

I would prefer to have a full trial in the Senate with both sides having access to all pertinent evidence and the freedom to use it as they see fit. The House committees have limited who can be called by Republicans to testify and which particular questions can be asked, so it doesn't appear regular courthouse rules apply to either side. To my eyes, this is an attempt to solidify a theory based on an old-fashioned game of 'telephone', and not a good faith exercise of checks and balances.

As has been the case for 3 years or more, there have been so many accusations and investigations. Millions of dollars spent. Vows to "impeach the sonavabich" made on election day, to be fulfilled by any means necessary, looks more to me like desperate slinging of noodles till something, anything sticks.

 

[Circlejoe]

As has been the case for 3 years or more, there have been so many accusations and investigations. Millions of dollars spent. Vows to "impeach the sonavabich" made on election day, to be fulfilled by any means necessary, looks more to me like desperate slinging of noodles till something, anything sticks.

Of course, that's what it looks like to you. And it will always look that way to you, no matter what the testimony is. The House leadership is doing the right thing moving this along quickly. It's obvious to those willing to look at this without bias that Trump is guilty as charged. Trump tried to force the leader of a foreign government to make a damaging statement against his political opponent and he used foreign aid that was approved by Congress to apply the pressure. That's criminal. And that's the way Trump always operates which is why he's faced accusations for the past three years. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[HillzHoozier]

Of course, that's what it looks like to you. And it will always look that way to you, no matter what the testimony is. The House leadership is doing the right thing moving this along quickly. It's obvious to those willing to look at this without bias that Trump is guilty as charged. Trump tried to force the leader of a foreign government to make a damaging statement against his political opponent and he used foreign aid that was approved by Congress to apply the pressure. That's criminal. And that's the way Trump always operates which is why he's faced accusations for the past three years. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Your wanting it to be true, no matter how badly, does not amount to proof. You see what you want to see. My doubts come from the Mueller experience and nature of the Inquiry testimony. It's your choice to believe tje opinions and he-said-she-said by people aligned in the cause, but not the words of an actual Ukrainian fact witness. Free country I suppose.

 

[hoot1]

The curious thing is that the amended testimony involved the linchpin to the Dems theory that Sondland put Ukraine on notice that Trump wanted a quid pro quo. Now the Ukrainian in question denies that ever happened. The only compelling aspect of Sondland's testimony was inaccurate? Do you accept "memory lapse" as an explanation for this?

I would prefer to have a full trial in the Senate with both sides having access to all pertinent evidence and the freedom to use it as they see fit. The House committees have limited who can be called by Republicans to testify and which particular questions can be asked, so it doesn't appear regular courthouse rules apply to either side. To my eyes, this is an attempt to solidify a theory based on an old-fashioned game of 'telephone', and not a good faith exercise of checks and balances.

As has been the case for 3 years or more, there have been so many accusations and investigations. Millions of dollars spent. Vows to "impeach the sonavabich" made on election day, to be fulfilled by any means necessary, looks more to me like desperate slinging of noodles till something, anything sticks.

If Trump sticks to his game plan used to date, he will request his administration to. withold all evidence by declaring the Senate trial as being merely an extension of the hoax and witch hunt initiated by the biased Dem majority in the House.

This of course assumes McConnell allows the trial to take place in the first place. Looks to me as if the Supremes may have to settle this.

 

[Digressions]

What do you make of this? According to Time, turns out Sondland's version of things isn't exactly so. Shall he be allowed to re-amend?

Yermak: "We did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”

I welcome any testimony or documents that can shed light on what occurred. If you watched the hearings, you'll know that several of the witnesses testified that they were aware of the quid pro quo, but they didn't all make the connection between Burisma and Biden.

 

[Circlejoe]

Your wanting it to be true, no matter how badly, does not amount to proof. You see what you want to see. My doubts come from the Mueller experience and nature of the Inquiry testimony. It's your choice to believe tje opinions and he-said-she-said by people aligned in the cause, but not the words of an actual Ukrainian fact witness. Free country I suppose.

There is absolutely nothing in Trump's background that would lead us to believe that he isn't guilty. That you choose to believe in his innocence is telling. There is more than enough proof of his guilt in the Ukraine business. Trump's criminal behavior during his campaign is understood by most people. Some choose to ignore it. You won't be convinced, so it's a waste of time to argue the facts.

 

[Standard Issue]

There is absolutely nothing in Trump's background that would lead us to believe that he isn't guilty. That you choose to believe in his innocence is telling. There is more than enough proof of his guilt in the Ukraine business. Trump's criminal behavior during his campaign is understood by most people. Some choose to ignore it. You won't be convinced, so it's a waste of time to argue the facts.

McTurtle has already said that t-rump is going anywhere and I have no reason to believe he won't deliver on covering for rump. But assuming that t-rump and his merry band of miscreants don't totally break the country eventually there will be a new and hopefully sane and less corrupt person in charge. When that change happens (assuming it's a democratic president) does the new administration turn the Justice Department loose on t-rump, barr, pompeo,giuliani and the rest?

 

[UncleMark]

But assuming that t-rump and his merry band of miscreants don't totally break the country eventually there will be a new and hopefully sane and less corrupt person in charge. When that change happens (assuming it's a democratic president) does the new administration turn the Justice Department loose on t-rump, barr, pompeo,giuliani and the rest?

I'd be up for some kind of Truth & Reconciliation process as was done in South Africa.

 

[Timmy!]

I don’t think why Trump didn’t extort a promise from Zelensky matters. It never happened. In the light most favorable to the Democrats, the evidence shows Trump wanted to extort a promise to investigate Biden and he even talked about it. But the extortion never happened. Nothing to see here.

Several Democrats are now on record that impeachment is proceeding because they don’t trust that the 2020 election will be honest. That is totally nuts on many different levels. Nobody in my memory has undercut an election 11 months before it happens. The real Putin stooges are Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi. The Democrats got nuthin. The Democrats are ending themselves.

Psssp. Dude...your cognitive dissonance is showing.

 

[iu_a_att]

Your wanting it to be true, no matter how badly, does not amount to proof. You see what you want to see. My doubts come from the Mueller experience and nature of the Inquiry testimony. It's your choice to believe tje opinions and he-said-she-said by people aligned in the cause, but not the words of an actual Ukrainian fact witness. Free country I suppose.

Since actual beliefs are known only to the believer and because it is currently a free country Americans may choose to profess a belief in anything. Americans routinely profess beliefs in stuff they don't believe and that are, frankly, absurd. But what you profess to believe and what you actually believe are often NOT the same. We DON'T choose our actual beliefs. Americans often work really hard to make sure they never encounter their actual beliefs. I say all this because it doesn't matter here one whit what any of us profess to believe. What really matters is what we do, in fact believe. It is our actual beliefs that should drive our actions when it matters.

 

[Circlejoe]

McTurtle has already said that t-rump is going anywhere and I have no reason to believe he won't deliver on covering for rump. But assuming that t-rump and his merry band of miscreants don't totally break the country eventually there will be a new and hopefully sane and less corrupt person in charge. When that change happens (assuming it's a democratic president) does the new administration turn the Justice Department loose on t-rump, barr, pompeo,giuliani and the rest?

The investigations are already underway, they will just take more time than Trump has in office. Eventually, it will all come out.

 

[hoot1]

The investigations are already underway, they will just take more time than Trump has in office. Eventually, it will all come out.

Joe, you describe the outcome which I have always felt is inevitable.

Kinda think Pelosi would agree with us. Her reluctance to go with impeachment at first was quite possibly due to a premonition that it would help Trump win reelection.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Joe, you describe the outcome which I have always felt is inevitable.

Kinda think Pelosi would agree with us. Her reluctance to go with impeachment at first was quite possibly due to a premonition that it would help Trump win reelection.

These Democrat two banal impeachment counts should be dismissed out of hand in the Senate. The so-called extortion never came to be. SCOTUS accepting certiorari on the congressional subpoena cases should finish off the “obstruction of congress” claim based on non-compliance with other subpoenas. This whole thing is a huge black eye for the country. The Dems should nominate a sound candidate and get on with the campaign.

Reading the Democrats around here leads me to believe they want to appoint standing congressional impeachment committees to run perpetual investigations. We should always have impeachment on the table and use committees to search for a cause. The Democrats managed to trivialize a very important and rare act.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Trumpers are not conservatives. This is not a surprising article.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I welcome any testimony or documents that can shed light on what occurred. If you watched the hearings, you'll know that several of the witnesses testified that they were aware of the quid pro quo, but they didn't all make the connection between Burisma and Biden.

View embedded media

Do we know who told them there was a quid pro quo? None of them heard a quid pro quo. So are we saying they “assumed” there was therefore it is true? Sounds a little like Kavanaugh all over again. Because they say it happened it has gotta be true.....

 

[Marvin the Martian]

These Democrat two banal impeachment counts should be dismissed out of hand in the Senate. The so-called extortion never came to be. SCOTUS accepting certiorari on the congressional subpoena cases should finish off the “obstruction of congress” claim based on non-compliance with other subpoenas. This whole thing is a huge black eye for the country. The Dems should nominate a sound candidate and get on with the campaign.

Reading the Democrats around here leads me to believe they want to appoint standing congressional impeachment committees to run perpetual investigations. We should always have impeachment on the table and use committees to search for a cause. The Democrats managed to trivialize a very important and rare act.

I am curious about your "so-called" extortion. Using the old mob speak from movies, pointing out you have a nice shop here and it would be terrible if something would happen to it unless you pay $100 is in no way a crime until something happens to the shop?

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I am curious about your "so-called" extortion. Using the old mob speak from movies, pointing out you have a nice shop here and it would be terrible if something would happen to it unless you pay $100 is in no way a crime until something happens to the shop?

Marvin I find it hard to believe and trust a group of people that supported the “Resist” movement, and was calling for impeachment before the man stepped foot into the office. Lets not forget the fiasco of the Russian Collusion charges. The very man (Schiff) who said he personally had seen and read the evidence of collusion (obvious was lying) chaired the impeachment. They have serious problems with credibility.

 

[UncleMark]

I am curious about your "so-called" extortion. Using the old mob speak from movies, pointing out you have a nice shop here and it would be terrible if something would happen to it unless you pay $100 is in no way a crime until something happens to the shop?

That is exactly their point. Attempted extortion is evidently not recognized as an offence. Since Trump's attempt was aborted after it came to light, it doesn't count.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I am curious about your "so-called" extortion. Using the old mob speak from movies, pointing out you have a nice shop here and it would be terrible if something would happen to it unless you pay $100 is in no way a crime until something happens to the shop?

Hm. The $100 was never paid. Nothing happened to the shop. Good question if that was a crime. I guess there might be a RICO action, but I don’t think that is a high crime or misdemeanor.

If you see someone with a widget you covet, you ask him do you a favor and give to you or you will defriend him, and nothing happens, is that a crime?

 

[UncleMark]

Hm. The $100 was never paid. Nothing happened to the shop. Good question if that was a crime. I guess there might be a RICO action, but I don’t think that is a high crime or misdemeanor.

If you see someone with a widget you covet, you ask him do you a favor and give to you or you will defriend him, and nothing happens, is that a crime?

So attempted extortion is not an offence? That's your position? Really?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That is exactly their point. Attempted extortion is evidently not recognized as an offence. Since Trump's attempt was aborted after it came to light, it doesn't count.

if an attractive female moves into your trailer park, and you say you’d like to bang her, but she never knows you said that, is she a victim of your threatened sexual assault?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So attempted extortion is not an offence? That's your position? Really?

no that’s not my position.

 

[stollcpa]

So attempted extortion is not an offence? That's your position? Really?

No proof of attempted extortion. Maybe the Dems can extort the Ukrainians to change their story.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Hm. The $100 was never paid. Nothing happened to the shop. Good question if that was a crime. I guess there might be a RICO action, but I don’t think that is a high crime or misdemeanor.

If you see someone with a widget you covet, you ask him do you a favor and give to you or you will defriend him, and nothing happens, is that a crime?

Since befriending is not using the actions of an office, it is personal, no. But POTUS is an office.

Nixon tried to cover-up Watergate, the cover-up failed ergo Nixon committed no crime?

 

[UncleMark]

Since befriending is not using the actions of an office, it is personal, no. But POTUS is an office.

Nixon tried to cover-up Watergate, the cover-up failed ergo Nixon committed no crime?

They're grasping at straws, Marvin. Their position is absurd on its face.

 

[stollcpa]

They're grasping at straws, Marvin. Their position is absurd on its face.

Did Nadler & Schiff forget the extortion charges in their articles?

 

[UncleMark]

Did Nadler & Schiff forget the extortion charges in their articles?

That's the basis of the Abuse of Power charge.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

They're grasping at straws, Marvin. Their position is absurd on its face.

I am just not sure why we want to set the precedent that calling foreign governments to ask for investigations into our leaders is acceptable. If it is ok, it is time for Soros to offer a cool billion to anyone with proof Trump has violated laws.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Since befriending is not using the actions of an office, it is personal, no. But POTUS is an office.

Nixon tried to cover-up Watergate, the cover-up failed ergo Nixon committed no crime?

Nixon isn’t similar and I don’t intend to go into why. The most that can be said for Trump is that aid was delayed and/or a scheduled meeting was delayed. I don’t think either is anything close to an attempt, given that both happened and the the Ukrainians never saw themselves as threatened or intimidated. And I’ll even concede at this point that Trump was seeking a personal favor even bough I think that is also in serious dispute.

Some here try to make something of the fact that Trump changed course because was about to get caught. If true, that doesn’t matter. If someone abandons a criminal intention because they think about being caught, there has been no attempt.