Steun groeit voor afzettingsprocedure tegen Trump #4

quote:

Op maandag 7 oktober 2019 09:25 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Wat snel getriggerd...lol

Maar de subject matter was waarheidsvinding dat jij zelf aansneed en dan vervolgens mijn punten daartegen inhoudelijk weer vermijdt.
Maarje, dit zal dan waarschijnlijk wel weer te complex zijn, ofzo.

quote:

Op maandag 7 oktober 2019 10:06 schreef EchteLiberaal het volgende:

[..]

Goh wat een grap, de rode pil slikkende idioot die niet verder komt dan als je tegen mijn held Trump bent dan moet je wel voor Pelosi/Clinton/enz zijn denkt dat zijn reacties te complex zijn, wat een triestheid bij die achterlijke Trumpanzees.

Vind je sommige termen op reddit te lastig om te vertalen naar het Nederlands?

quote:

Op maandag 7 oktober 2019 10:22 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

De overtreffende trap? Dat gespeel op de man zegt mij weer genoeg, wordt ook een beetje boring (saai.).

quote:

Op maandag 7 oktober 2019 10:31 schreef EchteLiberaal het volgende:

[..]

Door gebrek aan inhoud bij die rode pillen slikker en zijn algehele achterlijkheid in de discussie is de enige mogelijkheid om hem nog aan te pakken door het op de persoon te spelen.

"Jouw Pelossi" gebruiken in een discussie op een Nederlands platform zegt toch wel genoeg over de zeer beperkte capaciteiten van die redpilled

quote:

Op maandag 7 oktober 2019 10:33 schreef MangoTree het volgende:

[..]

Maar Trumpgod? Beetje hypocriet niet?

quote:

Op maandag 7 oktober 2019 09:25 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Wat snel getriggerd...lol

Maar de subject matter was waarheidsvinding dat jij zelf aansneed en dan vervolgens mijn punten daartegen inhoudelijk weer vermijdt.
Maarje, dit zal dan waarschijnlijk wel weer te complex zijn, ofzo.

quote:

Justice Department officials took less than a month to abandon an inquiry into President Trump’s communications with his Ukrainian counterpart about investigating former vice president Joe Biden — reigniting concerns among Democrats and legal observers that the law enforcement agency is serving as a shield for the commander in chief.
Just weeks after intelligence leaders asked the Justice Department and FBI to consider examining a summer phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,the head of the department’s criminal division determined there was not sufficient cause to even launch an investigation, senior Justice Department officials said.

quote:

In tense testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on Friday, the inspector general for federal spy agencies refused to disclose why his office backdated secret changes to key whistleblower forms and rules in the wake of an anti-Trump whistleblower complaint filed in August, sources told The Federalist.

quote:

Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August. Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.

quote:

When pressed on the curious changes and attempts to obscure the timeline of his revisions, Atkinson refused to explain why the forms were backdated to August even though they were not made until September. The ICIG previously stated that it changed its forms and guidance “in response to recent press inquiries regarding” the anti-Trump complaint, of which Congress was not even notified until the second week of September. The new forms, which were not uploaded to the ICIG website until September 24, nonetheless stated that the revisions were made back in August.

quote:

Atkinson has not answered their questions, either, raising questions that his behavior following his receipt of the anti-Trump complaint might not be completely above board. Atkinson ignored legal guidance from both the director of national intelligence and the Department of Justice that the anti-Trump complaint was statutorily deficient and forwarded it to HPSCI even though it did not meet the legal definition of an “urgent concern” that is required to be given to Congress.

The embattled ICIG also admitted on Friday that the anti-Trump complainant lied on his whistleblower complaint form by concealing the complainant’s previous secret interactions with House Democratic staff prior to submitting the complaint. Atkinson never even bothered investigating potential coordination between the complainant, whom DOJ said showed evidence of partisan political bias, and House Democrats prior to the filing of the anti-Trump complaint.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 oktober 2019 04:46 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Een bericht van twee weken geleden, dat imo laat zien dat in deze topic argumenten uit een alternatieve realiteit worden opgevoerd.
[..]

bron

There's need for some catching up!

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 oktober 2019 04:46 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Een bericht van twee weken geleden, dat imo laat zien dat in deze topic argumenten uit een alternatieve realiteit worden opgevoerd.
[..]

bron

There's need for some catching up!

quote:

Department officials and career public integrity prosecutors reviewed a rough transcript of the call and verified its authenticity, but — because a case was not opened — took no other steps, such as conducting interviews, the officials said. They looked only at whether Trump might have violated campaign finance laws, not federal corruption statutes, even though some legal analysts said there seemed to be evidence of both.

Repeatedly in the July 25 phone call, Trump pressed Zelensky to launch an investigation into Biden and his son, and to greenlight another inquiry into the origins of the special counsel probe that once dogged Trump’s presidency, according to a rough transcript released by the administration Wednesday. He interspersed his demands with casual references to help that the U.S. government had given Ukraine, and a vague promise of how Zelensky might one day be able to meet Trump at the White House, the document shows.

Trump also mentioned that his attorney general, William P. Barr, and his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, could aid the inquiries he wanted.

Legal analysts said that was suggestive not only that Trump was seeking a contribution from a foreigner — which would violate campaign finance laws — but that he also seemed to hint at a corrupt bargain in which Zelensky would get a White House meeting or other help in exchange for digging up dirt on Trump’s political foe.

“I was really startled that they put this out there with the spin that they thought it was somehow exculpatory,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor in Washington. “When I look at it, I’m like, ‘Holy cow.’ ”

quote:

Hasen, the law professor, said he thought the Justice Department’s determination that Trump’s request could not be quantified was “laughable.”

“You’re talking about information on a potential rival that could be used in a presidential campaign, a presidential campaign which likely would run into the billions of dollars,” Hasen said. “I don’t think there’s any question that a prosecutor could go forward with the theory.”

For his part, Trump seemed to focus on another allegation that legal analysts said he might have faced: trying to extort or solicit a bribe from Ukraine’s government. The president insisted he had not offered a “quid pro quo” to his Ukrainian counterpart, which is an aspect of a federal corruption case.

“It’s all a hoax, folks, it’s all a big hoax,” he said in New York on Wednesday. “No push, no pressure, no nothing . . . There was no quid pro quo.”

Legal analysts noted that the context of Trump’s call — at the time, the administration was withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from Ukraine at Trump’s direction — suggests he was trying to strike a bargain. Eliason, the former federal prosecutor, noted that in most bribery cases, those accused seldom offer an explicit bargain.

“You normally don’t have a quid pro quo stated expressly,” Eliason said. “This is almost as close as you can get.”

quote:

Barr has previously faced criticism from Democrats for shielding Trump, especially in his descriptions of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's report on whether the president had conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 election. Before the report was released, Barr offered what he termed its "principal conclusions" and hewed closely to Trump's favorite talking points on the special counsel investigation: no collusion, no obstruction. Mueller complained later that Barr's characterization "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of his work.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 oktober 2019 11:35 schreef fliert het volgende:
Ter illustratie van de waanzinnige kloof op alle niveau's in de VS: de 'unmatched wisdom' van Trump en hoe de vorige president omging met zijn tegenstanders.

John McCain funeral: Barack Obama FULL eulogy

Het contrast is mindbloggling. A day in the life vs Sha-la-lie.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 oktober 2019 16:28 schreef fliert het volgende:
Oke, beetje flauw. Nog een poging dan.

President Obama Addresses the British Parliament

Durf je met droge ogen te beweren dat Trump 1/10e van deze speech zou kunnen houden zonder over zijn eigen buitengewone successen te beginnen? Eerlijk?

Het contrast tussen deze presidenten kan onmogelijk groter zijn.

Flashback: McCain tells supporter Obama is 'a decent...

quote:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham reversed course Tuesday and announced he’ll open a Ukraine inquiry that would give President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, an opportunity to testify in a counter to the impeachment inquiry by House Democrats.

Graham has previously said he would not open such an investigation, pushing instead for someone outside of politics at the Department of Justice to look at matters involving Ukraine, including Trump’s and Giuliani’s allegations about the actions of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.

“Given the House of Representatives’ behavior, it is time for the Senate to inquire about corruption and other improprieties involving Ukraine,” Graham said on Twitter, citing actions leading to the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor.

“Therefore I will offer to Mr. Giuliani the opportunity to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee to inform the committee of his concerns,” Graham, a Republican and close ally of Trump, said on Twitter.

Graham’s counter-attack on the House’s impeachment inquiry came after days of pressure from top Trump allies including Donald Trump Jr. for Graham to act. It presents the Trump White House with a high-profile congressional forum to present its own narrative about unsubstantiated allegations about Biden, a potential challenger to Trump in 2020.

But it also would put Giuliani on the record about his months-long public and private effort to push Ukraine’s government to launch a probe even as Trump himself was blocking military aid to Ukraine’s new government.

twitter:

LindseyGrahamSC twitterde op dinsdag 08-10-2019 om 17:33:38 Unlike the House of Representatives, I’m tired of only hearing one side of the story. It’s now time to give voice to everything Ukraine. Let the chips fall where they may! reageer retweet

quote:

The White House outlined in a defiant eight-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats on Tuesday why it will not participate in their “illegitimate and unconstitutional” impeachment inquiry, charging that the proceedings have run roughshod over congressional norms and the president's due-process rights.

Trump administration officials called the letter, which was written by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and obtained by Fox News, perhaps the most historic letter the White House has sent. The document tees up a head-on collision with Democrats in Congress, who have fired off a slew of subpoenas in recent days concerning the president's apparent effort to get Ukraine to investigate political foe Joe Biden during a July phone call with Ukraine's leader.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 00:28 schreef MangoTree het volgende:
Ik denk dat de steun voor afzetting flink aan het afbrokkelen is.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 00:28 schreef MangoTree het volgende:
White House announces it will not comply with 'illegitimate and unconstitutional' impeachment inquiry
[..]

Hij laat zich dus niet als een mak schaap wegleiden en terecht. Ik denk dat de steun voor afzetting flink aan het afbrokkelen is.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 oktober 2019 00:54 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

Als er niets fout aangetroffen wordt zou dan een flinke slag zijn tegen de Democraten. Dus waarom laat Trump niet gewoon zien dat er niets aan het handje is? Slaat ie een mooie slag mee.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 oktober 2019 15:45 schreef fliert het volgende:
Tuurlijk Edje. Sha-la-lie is de veel betere compositie.

quote:

Whistleblower had 'professional' tie to 2020 Democratic candidate

[...]

Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.

"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

[...]