Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Impeachment inquiry


TheStatGuy

Recommended Posts

I am confident every Democrat politician and journalist are fully aware that their statements on the Russiagate and impeachment hoaxs are complete and total lies. They all know they are lying to manipulate public opinion. However, libtards suffer from a mental illness known as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Libtards are easily manipulated, gullible fools. A retard has more common sense than a libtard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-schiff-cnn-toobin

CNN legal analyst has a differing take....

That article was written 11 weeks ago...and specific to

1) the the transcript of Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian President where he abused his authority and tried to get the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden's while holding Congressionally approved military funds hostage

and

2) the White House and DOJ's obstruction of justice by not handing over said transcript when there was a "credible and urgent" inspector general's report.

The fact that Toobin said there wasn't much juice has absolutely nothing to to with the articles of impeachment as it was specific to the handing over  of the transcript.

Did you read the article?

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/13/21011471/house-democrats-impeachment-vote-trump

And let the defections start........Surely won't be enough defections to get this to drop, but fun to watch the dems in the red states squirm.......

Did you read the article?  

Stick to memes calling other people stupid....

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Yes...I read the article.  Would you like me to send more that challenge the levels of depth alleged by the Dems?

If you read it, you clearly didn't grasp what it said.

It was written 11 weeks ago....10 weeks prior to the articles of impeachment that I was referring to and you were responding to.

No I don't want you to send more that "challenge the levels of depth alleged by the Dems"....I don't even know what the hell that means.

All I was saying is that the articles of impeachment are clear and concise.  Trump abused his power and tried to cover it up.

You posted a link and claimed that CNN's legal analyst did not think the articles of impeachment were clearly laid out but the link had nothing to do with the actual articles of impeachment.

 

Edited by BARRYOSAMA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2019/12/12/heres-the-likely-whistleblower-and-the-questions-he-should-answer/

In the middle of Russia fever, the liberal press took a hectoring tone to any outlet that showed a glimmer of doubt. How dare any journalist not believe that President Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin! Who would question the upstanding virtues of the FBI?

Of course, we now know that the conspiracy theories were wrong. There was no Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

And, moreover, the inspector general report proves that the FBI trampled over civil liberties and common sense in pursuit of the case. While idle conversation during a meeting with George Papadopoulos and an Australian official may have sparked the inquiry, Crossfire Hurricane, it was only because of outlandish gossip in a Democrat-funded opposition report, the Steele dossier, that the FBI was able to land a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Even as the agency found that Steele’s sources did not back up the dossier, that facts did not back up the dossier, they continued the red scare. When it came out that Page was an informant for the CIA, an FBI lawyer lied about it.

Every suspicion of FBI agents was leaked to the press and printed without skepticism. Few questioned their methods.

It is only now that the New York Times begrudgingly publishes an “analysis” that, oops, maybe this was “A Disturbing Peek at U.S. Surveillance.”

Forgive us, then, for the sense of déjà vu when it comes to the impeachment hearings. This time, the press is near united in arguing that you shall not question the narrative of how this whole thing got started. Don’t you dare name the whistleblower. Don’t ask how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) might have helped him write his complaint. Or even that Schiff is lying when he says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. Or why Schiff is subpoenaing the phone records of his colleagues.

This is the same Schiff, by the way, who in 2018 said that the Department of Justice’s warrants for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISAs, met “the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed.”

Schiff had the same information as Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who found the exact opposite. So we know Schiff is a liar.

Two years from now, will we find out the real story? It may not change either side’s view of impeachment, but isn’t that what the press does — try to find the truth?

The whistleblower is most likely CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella.

Journalist Paul Sperry reported his name in late October, saying that sources inside the closed-door impeachment hearings identified him. Ciaramella has put out no statement denying these reports. Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps. In a sign of how farcical this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats angrily denounced the “outing.” If you don’t know the man’s name, how do you know the man’s name?

Politico’s Jack Shafer has eloquently argued that the press should name the whistleblower. It is not against the law — whistleblower protections are to prevent retaliation in the workplace and apply to his superiors, not the media. Yet while the press eagerly tried to out Deep Throat or the anonymous author of “A Warning,” they suddenly lack curiosity.

They’ve also been hypocritical. In September, the Times reported the whistleblower was a male CIA officer who worked at the White House and was now back at the CIA. Why? Executive editor Dean Baquet said, “We wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.” A cynic might say they were trying to argue that the whistleblower was credible.

But if that’s the argument, and if Ciaramella is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that he, according to Sperry, previously worked with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered Democrat and that he was — again, according to Sperry — accused of leaking negative information about the Trump administration and that’s why he was transferred back to Langley?

What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him? How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?

This is only the fourth time in our history that a president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two or three years when the inevitable official reports and tell-all books come out? Why must we wait for the truth?

Spot on.....

image.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2019 at 3:37 PM, swordfish said:

FINALLY Kudos to W82 for bringing this one home - Yep you are correct sir - Kinda like  the "abuse of power" argument the left uses that alleges the President "says he can do whatever he wants" when they always fail to note the context (every time he said it) was responding or referring without fail to the Meuller probe where the President does indeed have the authority to hire/fire whoever he wants in that capacity.

See how that works........Scary stuff indeed........

What? The abuse of power allegation in the impeachment articles concerns Trump's effort to get the Ukranians to "announce" that they were investigating Joe Biden. How was that effort a "response" to anything in the Mueller investigation? 

Trump also did press his cockimamie "it was really Ukraine who hacked the Dems email server!" thing with the Ukranians President, which is a tinfoil hat theory that I guess you could say he has latched onto in "response" to the Mueller investigation. But that tragic sign of his basic ignorance of the modern world (the guy apparently actually thinks modern cloud email servers are like a single "black box" hard drive that someone can physically take and hide in another country) is not the subject of the abuse of power article of impeachment. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://nypost.com/2019/12/12/heres-the-likely-whistleblower-and-the-questions-he-should-answer/

In the middle of Russia fever, the liberal press took a hectoring tone to any outlet that showed a glimmer of doubt. How dare any journalist not believe that President Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin! Who would question the upstanding virtues of the FBI?

Of course, we now know that the conspiracy theories were wrong. There was no Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

And, moreover, the inspector general report proves that the FBI trampled over civil liberties and common sense in pursuit of the case. While idle conversation during a meeting with George Papadopoulos and an Australian official may have sparked the inquiry, Crossfire Hurricane, it was only because of outlandish gossip in a Democrat-funded opposition report, the Steele dossier, that the FBI was able to land a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Even as the agency found that Steele’s sources did not back up the dossier, that facts did not back up the dossier, they continued the red scare. When it came out that Page was an informant for the CIA, an FBI lawyer lied about it.

Every suspicion of FBI agents was leaked to the press and printed without skepticism. Few questioned their methods.

It is only now that the New York Times begrudgingly publishes an “analysis” that, oops, maybe this was “A Disturbing Peek at U.S. Surveillance.”

Forgive us, then, for the sense of déjà vu when it comes to the impeachment hearings. This time, the press is near united in arguing that you shall not question the narrative of how this whole thing got started. Don’t you dare name the whistleblower. Don’t ask how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) might have helped him write his complaint. Or even that Schiff is lying when he says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. Or why Schiff is subpoenaing the phone records of his colleagues.

This is the same Schiff, by the way, who in 2018 said that the Department of Justice’s warrants for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISAs, met “the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed.”

Schiff had the same information as Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who found the exact opposite. So we know Schiff is a liar.

Two years from now, will we find out the real story? It may not change either side’s view of impeachment, but isn’t that what the press does — try to find the truth?

The whistleblower is most likely CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella.

Journalist Paul Sperry reported his name in late October, saying that sources inside the closed-door impeachment hearings identified him. Ciaramella has put out no statement denying these reports. Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps. In a sign of how farcical this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats angrily denounced the “outing.” If you don’t know the man’s name, how do you know the man’s name?

Politico’s Jack Shafer has eloquently argued that the press should name the whistleblower. It is not against the law — whistleblower protections are to prevent retaliation in the workplace and apply to his superiors, not the media. Yet while the press eagerly tried to out Deep Throat or the anonymous author of “A Warning,” they suddenly lack curiosity.

They’ve also been hypocritical. In September, the Times reported the whistleblower was a male CIA officer who worked at the White House and was now back at the CIA. Why? Executive editor Dean Baquet said, “We wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.” A cynic might say they were trying to argue that the whistleblower was credible.

But if that’s the argument, and if Ciaramella is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that he, according to Sperry, previously worked with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered Democrat and that he was — again, according to Sperry — accused of leaking negative information about the Trump administration and that’s why he was transferred back to Langley?

What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him? How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?

This is only the fourth time in our history that a president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two or three years when the inevitable official reports and tell-all books come out? Why must we wait for the truth?

Spot on.....

image.gif

Naming the whistleblower....just another distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/15/ratcliffe_democrats_made_the_mistake_of_staking_impeachment_on_adam_schiffs_credibility.html

MARIA BARTIROMO: We're expecting impeachment vote on Wednesday. What are you expecting in the week ahead and tell me about the reaction you're seeing from the I.G. Report?

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE: Yeah. As you said the vote will be on Wednesday, despite what a Democratic scholar called the fastest, thinnest, weakest impeachment in U.S. history. That's the direction that we're going. The real question is, how big will the jailbreak be by the Democrats. We've already seen one democrat apparently switching parties over it. Another saying he will vote against it. So really the question is, how many more before Wednesday's vote.

The reason for that, Maria is, because the Democrats made the mistake staking the credibility of all this on Adam Schiff, the person that they put in charge of this investigation, turns out is the one that helped start it by meeting with a person who walked out of Adam Schiff's office and became the whistleblower. At the very same time that is happening, as you mentioned, now there is an inspector general report that comes out and says during the last impeachment hoax, the Trump/Russia one, Adam Schiff repeatedly made false statements to the American people about the FBI's actions.

So I think you know, that is what's happening. That's why the Democrats have been rushing to keep this from unraveling and keep their folks in line. They're having a really hard time to do that. I wouldn't want to bank my political future on Adam Schiff's credibility but they made that mistake.

MARIA BARTIROMO: I mean, going back to the I.G. report, you know, Adam Schiff was certainly out and about a lot throughout the last three years saying there is collusion in plain sight. And now we get the I.G. Report. We actually see the misconduct and what they called, errors, fraud, whatever you want to call it, what is your reaction to what you learned from Michael Horowitz?

JOHN RATCLIFFE: Well, it wasn't just that Adam Schiff was out and about, he put out a report says there was no FISA abuse by the FBI. That was false. He said that the FBI didn't fail to turn over exculpatory information. That was false. He said that the Steele dossier was not a central part of the FISA applications against Carter Page. That was false. The inspector general's report, the findings in there detail all of that. It is an indictment of the things that Adam Schiff was saying. It was an indictment of Jim Comey's leadership at the FBI.

The biggest takeaway out there, maria, what the inspector general's findings clearly delineate, even if you concede, and I don't, even if you concede there was a predicate to start this, there was no predicate to continue a counterintelligence investigation against the president of the United States. They had to do it by making those false representations to the FISA court.

MARIA BARTIROMO: Yeah. We'll speak to Devin Nunes shortly of course. You referred to the Nunes memo back in 2018, February of 18, where he wrote out all of the misconduct that took place by that cabal of people. Then Schiff came out with that "correcting the record" memo which we know now was wrong, just flat-out wrong. You mentioned some of the wrongdoing. One of them we know from the Michael Horowitz report was altering of a document by a FBI lawyer. Tell me about that. Where are you expect accountability, congressman?

JOHN RATCLIFFE: Well, as the inspector general's findings outline, what are referred to as "errors and omissions" are false statements, misrepresentations, destruction or alteration of documentary evidence. What you have are FBI lawyers literally changing evidence to make false representations to the court to continue this counterintelligence investigation against the president.

So you know, it details -- now everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Democrat never want to give one to Donald Trump, but the inspector general's findings really outline what is criminal activity. We're talking about FBI lawyers who are depriving folks like carter page of their civil rights under color of law. Tampering with evidence. Taking documents and making them say the opposite what they really represent and certifying that to the court.

So you know, really terrible, again an indictment of Jim Comey's leadership at the FBI and of the things that the Democrats said, again, most important point, to continue a counterintelligence investigation against a sitting president of the United States when there was no probable cause to continue it. That they started by making seven errors and omissions that were misrepresentations, alterations of evidence, then added 10 more to continue it along the way. You know, I don't think the American people can really appreciate the damage that was done to the FBI during Jim Comey's tenure there.

MARIA BARTIROMO: Are you saying there was criminal activity against Carter Page and against a sitting president?

JOHN RATCLIFFE: Certainly, I would love to be Carter Page's lawyer. His civil rights, as alleged, in the findings by inspector general Horowitz, very clearly delineate that.

But there were actions taken by individuals at the FBI to continue a counterintelligence investigation against a sitting president, against his campaign. Against his presidency. You know, so these are things that, findings made by inspector general Horowitz I would now expect John Durham to look at from a criminal standpoint. I'm not saying that anyone, I'm not making allegations that anyone should be convicted. These are allegations, everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence but do I think there is activity detailed in this, that should be investigated and prosecuted? Absolutely. Tampering with evidence, destruction of evidence.

MARIA BARTIROMO: Could people go to jail over this?

JOHN RATCLIFFE: Absolutely. What would an aggressive prosecutor do with this if the folks involved were George Papadopoulos or Michael Flynn? The findings of fact made by the inspector general here, you know, certainly detail potential criminal activity which would send people away for a long period of time.

Will the vote happen before Wednesday to keep the team together?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis.......The  origin or coming into being of something......

Unless the two topics are in someway not related at all.....and are not a continuation of a conspired strategy.....

The reason for that, Maria is, because the Democrats made the mistake staking the credibility of all this on Adam Schiff, the person that they put in charge of this investigation, turns out is the one that helped start it by meeting with a person who walked out of Adam Schiff's office and became the whistleblower. At the very same time that is happening, as you mentioned, now there is an inspector general report that comes out and says during the last impeachment hoax, the Trump/Russia one, Adam Schiff repeatedly made false statements to the American people about the FBI's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swordfish said:

Genesis.......The  origin or coming into being of something......

Unless the two topics are in someway not related at all.....and are not a continuation of a conspired strategy.....

You can spin it how you’ve been instructed to all you want. Have at it. At least you’re attacking an adult now. Baby steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

You can spin it how you’ve been instructed to all you want. Have at it. At least you’re attacking an adult now. Baby steps.

Hmm, exactly who do you believe is "instructing" swordfish, Gonzo?    And who exactly is the adult being attacked?

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

LOL.....that  child is nothing more than a pawn being used by liberals.  They will discard her the moment they have played her to diminishing returns.  Ask Christine Blasey Ford how that works......

 

Image may contain: text

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Image may contain: text

Your insipid links to facebook pictures don't work for some of us, including me.   I believe that is a good thing. And the fact that your political views are primarily based on a facebook circle jerk,  not so good.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
  • Sit and spin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Your insipid links to facebook pictures don't work for some of us, including me.   I believe that is a good thing. And the fact that your political views are primarily based on a facebook circle jerk,  not so good.

 

 

I go out of my way to post memes from Facebook just for you.

  • Like 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...