House to vote on impeachment inquiry procedures to impeach Crooked Donald

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccielover

If I'm not mistaken Lindsey Graham currently has 50 co-sponsors to his resolution to condemn the House Impeachment proceedings.

Can you say nowhere near 2/3rds to convict Trump.

I'd suspect the only thing that might cause a conviction would be a tape or transcript clearly showing Trump intended to link the aid to an investigation of the Bidens. It's possible that Tim Morrison this week may testify that he heard Trump say that, although I tend to doubt it, and doubly doubt there's a recording.

[eccieuser9500]

No recording?

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by eccielover

If I'm not mistaken Lindsey Graham currently has 50 co-sponsors to his resolution to condemn the House Impeachment proceedings.

Can you say nowhere near 2/3rds to convict Trump.

So what? Miss Lindsey is a piss boy for the fat lying bastard and his resolution is irrelevant. Just another piece of rancid meat thrown at the trump party.

[eccieuser9500]

Shutdowns — even when they're brief — have become a repeated spectacle in the Trump administration amid fights over immigration funding. A record 35-day funding lapse affecting parts of the government in December and January forced hundreds of thousands of workers to miss two paychecks.

Jacob Pramuk

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/chuc...peachment.html

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

No recording?

Do you think there may be one? I think Trump's too smart to let that happen. He's pretty good at letting people know what he wants without actually straight out saying something that would get him in legal trouble. Remember for example this from Michael Cohen's opening statement to Congress,

Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That's not how he operates.

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there's no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.

To be clear: Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it.

And so I lied about it, too -- because Mr. Trump had made clear to me, through his personal statements to me that we both knew were false and through his lies to the country, that he wanted me to lie.



But who knows. I also would have thought Trump's too smart to have the conversation he did with Zelensky with 15 people listening in.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Do you think there may be one? I think Trump's too smart to let that happen. He's pretty good at letting people know what he wants without actually straight out saying something that would get him in legal trouble. Remember for example this from Michael Cohen's opening statement to Congress,

Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That's not how he operates.

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there's no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.

To be clear: Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it.

And so I lied about it, too -- because Mr. Trump had made clear to me, through his personal statements to me that we both knew were false and through his lies to the country, that he wanted me to lie.



But who knows. I also would have thought Trump's too smart to have the conversation he did with Zelensky with 15 people listening in.

what in the transcript of the call with the Ukraine president (incoming meaning Trump was correct to speak to him before allowing any aid) shows any bribe, quid pro quid or abuse of power?

to date not one person has contradicted the transcript as false or inaccurate.

and no one will including Vindman who's opinion is just that, a biased opinion without substance.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Do you think there may be one? I think Trump's too smart to let that happen. He's pretty good at letting people know what he wants without actually straight out saying something that would get him in legal trouble. Remember for example this from Michael Cohen's opening statement to Congress,




But who knows. I also would have thought Trump's too smart to have the conversation he did with Zelensky with 15 people listening in.

First of all, you give him too much credit. Second, I have not looked it up, but I just assumed ALL phone calls by the president would be recorded. Unless, of course, the dumbass called from his own cell phone.

Besides, wouldn't the entity on the other end of the line record it?

He GAVE the edited text version of the phone call to the committee. How do you get ten minutes of conversation out of a twenty minute phone call?

Traditionally, officials from the US national security council (NSC) brief the president before a call with a foreign leader. Then the briefers sit in the Oval Office with the president while he speaks on the phone with the foreign leader. "At least two members of the NSC are usually present," according to USA Today.

There will also be officials sitting in a secure room in another part of the White House, listening to the president's call and taking notes. Their notes are known as a "memorandum of telephone conversation", and like many things in Washington it has an abbreviation: "memcon".

The president's calls with foreign leaders are also transcribed by computers. Afterwards, as former White House officials explain, the human note takers compare their impressions with an electronic version of the call. The notes from the officials and from the computerised transcriptions are combined into one document. This transcript may not be perfect, but it is done as carefully as time and resources allow.

[...]

Officials who work in the executive secretary's office of the US national security council decide on the level of classification for the transcript of a call, explain former White House officials.

If the transcript contains information that could put national security or lives of individuals at risk, the transcript is classified as top secret and is kept in a protected area.

As former officials explain, these transcripts are shared through a system known by an acronym, Jwics, which stands for Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, a network that is used by people who work in the intelligence services.

Frequently, though, the transcripts are stored in areas that are secret but not guarded with this extraordinary level of security.

Classifying a transcript as secret - but not top secret - means that officials can discuss the contents of the presidents' calls more easily with others who work in the government.

By Tara McKelvey

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49858318

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

First of all, you give him too much credit. Second, I have not looked it up, but I just assumed ALL phone calls by the president would be recorded. Unless, of course, the dumbass called from his own cell phone.

Besides, wouldn't the entity on the other end of the line record it?

He GAVE the edited text version of the phone call to the committee. How do you get ten minutes of conversation out of a twenty minute phone call?

how do you know the transcript is less than the actual call? you do know that no one who was actually present has yet to contradict the transcript yet you presume the transcript is false.


you presume too much without anything to prove it

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

how do you know the transcript is less than the actual call? you do know that no one who was actually present has yet to contradict the transcript yet you present the transcript is false.


you presume too much with out anything to prove it

I have never stated the edited memo of the conversation is false. It's incomplete.

The POTUS hung himself with that phone call. Witness after witness has testified that he abused his role. He violated his oath. From the very first goddamn day he has been violating his oath. That's enough to remove him. But the not-so-GOP holds their allegiance to their party, not the country.

[eccieuser9500]

The POTUS can barely read, but he is a fast talking con man. Vindman hears him say Burisma, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the memo.

The word count does not match the reported length of the conversation: It takes about 10 minutes to read the White House-released summary, whereas the conversation took three times that long. It has half the number of words per minute as transcripts of other calls Trump has had with foreign leaders.

By Jonathan Chait

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...peachment.html

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I have never stated the edited memo of the conversation is false. It's incomplete.

The POTUS hung himself with that phone call. Witness after witness has testified that he abused his role. He violated his oath. From the very first goddamn day he has been violating his oath. That's enough to remove him. But the not-so-GOP holds their allegiance to their party, not the country.

witness after witness has stated an opinion not based on fact of the transcript that Trump abused his power. in fact, Trump does have the power to conduct foreign policy and not Congress.


Trump in fact has Treaty with Ukraine to ask for an investigation and the fact that Corn Pop the fag Biden happens to be running for president does not mean he is above the law. his son stinks of political connects of Daddy Plugs and has admitted it.


Plugs Jr. will soon have a hole in his noggin like his brother so Corn Pop can gracefully exit so the socialist bitch Warren the puppet of the global socialist elites can be defeated/rejected by the masses of Americans who do not share your inglorious view of socialist America


thank you socialist poster!

[eccieuser9500]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the executive has the DOJ under its thumb. Now:

"What about . . . "

You finish it.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the executive has the DOJ under its thumb. Now:

"What about . . . "

You finish it.

Loretta Lynch.


you finish it.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'd suspect the only thing that might cause a conviction would be a tape or transcript clearly showing Trump intended to link the aid to an investigation of the Bidens. It's possible that Tim Morrison this week may testify that he heard Trump say that, although I tend to doubt it, and doubly doubt there's a recording.

I wouldn't care if there were. This type of negotiation goes on all the time. Presidents have the ability to grant and take away foreign aid. Presidents are in charge of enforcing laws. Biden is already on tape admitting he strong armed Ukraine into dropping an investigation into Hunter - while VP.

It's an all-beef nothing burger. And the country is going to be brought to its knees by a crackhead who got kicked out the Army and was colluding with his father to sell influence?

Soon Biden will be polling third or fourth in the Dim primaries and America will be wondering who the fuss was over.

Hard pass.

[eccieuser9500]

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON et al.,

Plaintifs,


v.



Donald J. Trump et al.,

Defendants.

US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson expressed confusion about why the government couldn't take the extra step of confirming it would preserve certain categories of information for now and avoid forcing her to make a swift decision on potentially complex legal questions.

He's finished.