Pelosi announces formal Trump impeachment inquiry

Dead on accurate because the person did not have access to the information.....ie no clearance

You don’t know what you’re talking about, never mind the fact you said the law doesn’t protect whistleblowers without direct knowledge, which has nothing to do with having or not having a clearance.

Furthermore it puts the people that allegedly LEAKED information to him/her in jeparody because violated classification guidelines/mishandled classified info by sharing it with someone not read in

And that’s another baseless assertions. How do you know they didn’t have a clearance?

And that’s not even mentioning they didn’t leak anything. They send a letter to the Congress’ Intelligence Committee chair. And they certainly possess security clearances.
 
Despite not possessing first hand knowledge, while I’m not sure it’s even a matter worth harping over, the content was accurate. The allegations of the phone conversation match that of the transcript just released. While I’m sure the complaint was politically motivated, the ability to inform congress on what you believed to be wrongdoing is vitaly important.

I’m positive that if a complaint was sent to Congress alleging misconduct with similar facts when Obama was President, you all would be acting just like the left is now. “Obama is suppressing whistleblowers!”

Whether the complaint is true or not, whether if it is true supports actual misconduct or not, isn’t relevant to the ability to make a complaint. These are two separate issues.

From what I’ve seen, and based on even the allegations in the complaint, I don’t see misconduct by Trump unless he personally knew about or instructed the complaint and transcripts of the phone call be suppressed. There may be others in the White House who are guilty of misconduct though.
 
The allegations of the phone conversation match that of the transcript just released.

Really? Can you point out the part of the phone conversation where Trump: "... sought to pressure the Ukranian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid."? I read the record of the call and didn't see that, Zelensky confirmed in the press conference yesterday that there was no pressure.
 
Despite not possessing first hand knowledge, while I’m not sure it’s even a matter worth harping over, the content was accurate. The allegations of the phone conversation match that of the transcript just released. While I’m sure the complaint was politically motivated, the ability to inform congress on what you believed to be wrongdoing is vitaly important.

I’m positive that if a complaint was sent to Congress alleging misconduct with similar facts when Obama was President, you all would be acting just like the left is now. “Obama is suppressing whistleblowers!”

Whether the complaint is true or not, whether if it is true supports actual misconduct or not, isn’t relevant to the ability to make a complaint. These are two separate issues.

From what I’ve seen, and based on even the allegations in the complaint, I don’t see misconduct by Trump unless he personally knew about or instructed the complaint and transcripts of the phone call be suppressed. There may be others in the White House who are guilty of misconduct though.

Here is one genuine ATA BOY award from Adam himself. Congrats!
adam.jpg
 
If the said reporter of heresay was read into the program then they would have direct knowledge/access

Read into? Do you really think that all classified information requires one to be “read into” on? Do you know how classified information and the varying levels of classifications work? Are you aware of how information does or doesn’t become classified in the first place?

We also know that the document/transcripts were classified........which means that the persons that relayed this information also broke espionage laws in doing so......same laws that hillary clinton broke in the mishandling of classified information

You either didn’t read the complaint and/or have no idea what you are talking about. I’ll help and quote what the complaint said in a second. But firstly, supplying properly marked classified information through official channels to people with a proper classification is not mishandling classified information. It’s actually the opposite. And it is nothing like Clinton storing and transmitting classified information with a non classified network from a non classified server. The two aren’t event remotely similar.

And here’s the pertinent part about the transcripts.

“White House officials told me they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system which these transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

Instead, the transcript was loaded onto a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse... because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

They were not originally classified. They were then moved to a classified system. And them being moved to this system, allegedly inappropriately, is part of the misconduct complaint!

Stop being such a partisan hack.
 
Read into? Do you really think that all classified information requires one to be “read into” on? Do you know how classified information and the varying levels of classifications work? Are you aware of how information does or doesn’t become classified in the first place?



You either didn’t read the complaint and/or have no idea what you are talking about. I’ll help and quote what the complaint said in a second. But firstly, supplying properly marked classified information through official channels to people with a proper classification is not mishandling classified information. It’s actually the opposite. And it is nothing like Clinton storing and transmitting classified information with a non network from a non classified server. The two aren’t event remotely similar.

And here’s the pertinent part about the transcripts.

“White House officials told me they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system which these transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

Instead, the transcript was loaded onto a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse... because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

They were not originally classified. They were then moved to a classified system. And them being moved to this system, allegedly inappropriately, is part of the misconduct complaint!

Stop being such a partisan hack.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1177284234609942528
 
I don’t know why I even bothered talking to people who clearly aren’t interested in listening because they already know Trump and everyone around him is right and could never do anything wrong and anyone that alleges otherwise is themselves wrong.

It’s literally exactly the same but in inverse as the left, who already know Trump is wrong and every allegation about him is true.

I’d have thought you would be actually interested in the truth and facts ESPECIALLY since it appears they’d vindicate Trump. Guess I was wrong.

You may all now continue with your Trump suckfest.
 
I don’t know why I even bothered talking to people who clearly aren’t interested in listening because they already know Trump and everyone around him is right and could never do anything wrong and anyone that alleges otherwise is themselves wrong.

It’s literally exactly the same but in inverse as the left, who already know Trump is wrong and every allegation about him is true.

I’d have thought you would be actually interested in the truth and facts ESPECIALLY since it appears they’d vindicate Trump. Guess I was wrong.

You may all now continue with your Trump suckfest.

C'mon, man! Put your big boy shorts on and join us. We just enjoy the show with every detail, that is about it.[cheers]

View: https://youtu.be/gkXgLH54rkc
 
YES, IT DOES;......





The president and staff may classify whatever they want for any reason.......you keep trying to make the case for the tail wagging the dog......

The president is the chief executive....its up to HIM to make decisions and for others to follow

The simple fact of the matter remains.....the info was classified.....they knew it and CHOSE to break the law.

Its also up to the President to conduct/control foreign policy.....not congress and not the intelligence community which reports up to the president.

The fact of the matter remains, there's no there there......and the declassified transcript shows that

You can continue to try to refuse to accept that Trump is the duly elected president but its not going to do you any good......this is the comedy of this entire discussion

Trump and the WH just discovered a bunch of law breakers who have violated espoinage act laws.....and for all we know they did it intentionally to root out leakers.

I salute you, Sir! [bow][bow]
 
Really? Can you point out the part of the phone conversation where Trump: "... sought to pressure the Ukranian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid."?

The characterizations were not accurate, so that’s a fair point. I probably should have said mostly matched. The three bullets outlining the content of the conversation were pretty accurate.

My point being, just dismissing something entirely because it’s not from a first hand source, is dumb, particularly when it turns out to be at least partially accurate. It’s not like the whole thing was baseless made up information like has happened in the past.

But I get it. Partisanship requires people to unconditionally support their side and denounce the other. Truth and facts not relevant. The right believes that as much as the left. Which ironically is why this whole thing came about in the first place.
 
You can continue to try to refuse to accept that Trump is the duly elected president but its not going to do you any good

I’ve been here defending Trump but your such a hack who thinks anything less than unconditional blind love of him means otherwise. You’ve full on embraced the lefts tactic of accusing others of your own shortfalls.
 
I read the transcript and I didn't see anything egregious in there. Even if he did ask for interference, which he didn't, how can they even argue it benefits him politically? Biden isn't the nominee and last I checked he's not leading in the polls either. Granny is.

All Trump said was hey, Biden is bragging he got a prosecutor who was investigating his son fired by threatening to withhold aid to your country. That was so he could get off with the crimes he committed. I want you to know, I'm calling the shots now and if there was a crime, then criminals should be prosecuted. So have your people get with my people and serve up some justice...

What's wrong with prosecuting criminals?
 
So a transcript that was just released to the entire public by Trump is so sensitive it is required to be top secret? And sharing that information with the Intelligence Comitees of Congress is a violation of the Espionage Act?

Or maybe the transcript isn’t sensitive and was only ever classified because people wanted to hide it? No. That just cannot be!
 
So a transcript that was just released to the entire public by Trump is so sensitive it is required to be top secret? And sharing that information with the Intelligence Comitees of Congress is a violation of the Espionage Act?

Or maybe the transcript isn’t sensitive and was only ever classified because people wanted to hide it? No. That just cannot be!

Diplomacy is a delicate tight rope. Conversations between world leaders should be kept close to the chest. Don't care who has them. Else other leaders would be put off by talking to America's President if everything they say ends up in the newspapers.

Conversations with your wife aren't exactly classified. But you don't want them in the papers do you?
 
Diplomacy is a delicate tight rope. Conversations between world leaders should be kept close to the chest.

diplomacy is a tight rope of screwing each respective working class. they like to keep things on the DL so we arent aware of their shady self serving deals. If world leaders and diplomats we’re actually working for the people they would want it all to be made public
 
Whistle-Blower Is a C.I.A. Officer Who Was Detailed to the White House


The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him.
 
diplomacy is a tight rope of screwing each respective working class. they like to keep things on the DL so we arent aware of their shady self serving deals. If world leaders and diplomats we’re actually working for the people they would want it all to be made public

Eh... what if they were talking about how to deal with Iran, for example. Should that be made public? I don't think so. World leaders need to be able to have conversations in confidence.
 
Joe Biden, his son and the case against a Ukrainian oligarch - New Cold War: News and Analysis of the Multipolar World

Hunter Biden, 45, a former Washington lobbyist, joined the Burisma board in April 2014. That month, as part of an investigation into money laundering, British officials froze London bank accounts containing $23 million that allegedly belonged to Mr. Zlochevsky.

Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, an independent government agency, specifically forbade Mr. Zlochevksy, as well as Burisma Holdings, the company’s chief legal officer and another company owned by Mr. Zlochevsky, to have any access to the accounts.

But after Ukrainian prosecutors refused to provide documents needed in the investigation, a British court in January ordered the Serious Fraud Office to unfreeze the assets. The refusal by the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to cooperate was the target of a stinging attack by the American ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, who called out Burisma’s owner by name in a speech in September.

“In the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people,” Mr. Pyatt said. Officials at the prosecutor general’s office, he added, were asked by the United Kingdom “to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court, and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.”

Mr. Pyatt went on to call for an investigation into “the misconduct” of the prosecutors who wrote the letters. In his speech, the ambassador did not mention Hunter Biden’s connection to Burisma.

But Edward C. Chow, who follows Ukrainian policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the involvement of the vice president’s son with Mr. Zlochevsky’s firm undermined the Obama administration’s anticorruption message in Ukraine.

“Now you look at the Hunter Biden situation, and on the one hand you can credit the father for sending the anticorruption message,” Mr. Chow said. “But I think unfortunately it sends the message that a lot of foreign countries want to believe about America, that we are hypocritical about these issue.
------
Hunter Biden, 45, a former Washington lobbyist, joined the Burisma board in April 2014. That month, as part of an investigation into money laundering, British officials froze London bank accounts containing $23 million that allegedly belonged to Mr. Zlochevsky.

Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, an independent government agency, specifically forbade Mr. Zlochevksy, as well as Burisma Holdings, the company’s chief legal officer and another company owned by Mr. Zlochevsky, to have any access to the accounts.

But after Ukrainian prosecutors refused to provide documents needed in the investigation, a British court in January ordered the Serious Fraud Office to unfreeze the assets. The refusal by the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to cooperate was the target of a stinging attack by the American ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, who called out Burisma’s owner by name in a speech in September.

“In the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people,” Mr. Pyatt said. Officials at the prosecutor general’s office, he added, were asked by the United Kingdom “to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court, and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.”

Mr. Pyatt went on to call for an investigation into “the misconduct” of the prosecutors who wrote the letters. In his speech, the ambassador did not mention Hunter Biden’s connection to Burisma.

But Edward C. Chow, who follows Ukrainian policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the involvement of the vice president’s son with Mr. Zlochevsky’s firm undermined the Obama administration’s anticorruption message in Ukraine.

“Now you look at the Hunter Biden situation, and on the one hand you can credit the father for sending the anticorruption message,” Mr. Chow said. “But I think unfortunately it sends the message that a lot of foreign countries want to believe about America, that we are hypocritical about these issue
 
The characterizations were not accurate, so that’s a fair point. I probably should have said mostly matched. The three bullets outlining the content of the conversation were pretty accurate.

My point being, just dismissing something entirely because it’s not from a first hand source, is dumb, particularly when it turns out to be at least partially accurate. It’s not like the whole thing was baseless made up information like has happened in the past.

But I get it. Partisanship requires people to unconditionally support their side and denounce the other. Truth and facts not relevant. The right believes that as much as the left. Which ironically is why this whole thing came about in the first place.

I don't think the three bullets or the content of the call are particularly incriminating given the history involved. You have to take something that's not from a first hand source and partially accurate (and therefore partially inaccurate) for what it is. There are definitely some subjectivity involved when the whistle-blower makes statements like "...take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid" based on second and third hand accounts when there's nothing in the telephone call record to back that up. There is a history here w/ Biden, his son, and the Ukraine, the DNC and there have been investigations (including ones that were terminated at Biden's demand).

Truth and facts are relevant, however evidence of wrongdoing is required and what we see here just doesn't rise to that level. This isn't a lot different from Blasey-Ford, whatever you think of her story there has to be some credible evidence to derail someone's career. You don't impeach a sitting President (or SCOTUS Justice) based on hearsay, without evidence, for something that someone thinks may be politically motivated. If we're getting rid of a President there damn well better be a smoking gun and there absolutely is not.
 
Why do I get the feeling Obama & Company's 'flexibility' towards Russia actually meant giving them the green light to seize Crimea in exchange for kickbacks? The Deep State is deathly afraid of whatever info there is to be found in Ukraine and is trying to throw enough stray voltage in that theater of operations to distract or discredit investigations.
 
I don't think the three bullets or the content of the call are particularly incriminating given the history involved. You have to take something that's not from a first hand source and partially accurate (and therefore partially inaccurate) for what it is. There are definitely some subjectivity involved when the whistle-blower makes statements like "...take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid" based on second and third hand accounts when there's nothing in the telephone call record to back that up. There is a history here w/ Biden, his son, and the Ukraine, the DNC and there have been investigations (including ones that were terminated at Biden's demand).

Truth and facts are relevant, however evidence of wrongdoing is required and what we see here just doesn't rise to that level. This isn't a lot different from Blasey-Ford, whatever you think of her story there has to be some credible evidence to derail someone's career. You don't impeach a sitting President (or SCOTUS Justice) based on hearsay, without evidence, for something that someone thinks may be politically motivated. If we're getting rid of a President there damn well better be a smoking gun and there absolutely is not.

I completely agree. I've said from the beginning I don't see how anything Trump said shows misconduct, AND that if it does, Democrats would be forced to admit what Biden did is substantially worse. Of course they won't be doing that. I've also said this whole thing is a sham. The left has said from even before Trump was sworn into office they would find something, anything, to try and impeach him over. Time is running out, and this is what they went with.
 
I think we're losing sight of what is at the root of all of this.... BIDEN'S CRIMES and the OBAMA administration's crimes. Obama/Biden threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor investigating his son was fired. THAT IS A CRIME. It's also an impeachable offense. That is textbook definition of using presidential powers for personal and political gain. The very thing they now charge Trump with.

The bottom line is Biden and Obama leveraged Presidental power for personal gain and are also guilty of extortion. All Trump was trying to do was shine a light on that. How can you argue that prosecuting actual criminal activity is illegal and now impeachable... Is that seriously where we've gotten to as a country?
 
Back
Top Bottom