Author Topic: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment  (Read 1036 times)

rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2019, 03:58:30 AM »
Well, well, well.  The putative person claiming to a be a whistleblower was White House liaison with Ms. Chalupa from the DNC and was moved out of his NSC position for leaking.  No wonder he claims to be a whistleblower.  He already has one strike against him on his record.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
From Rick's post above re Alexandra Chalupa
« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2019, 08:28:48 AM »
From "Conservapedia':


https://www.conservapedia.com/Alexandra_Chalupa

This 33 yo mid level government employee surely did not work alone.

His name will be all over the airways very soon.
I put him in the category of John W. Booth.  Who were his accomplices?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
CIA arbiters of "truth"
« Reply #52 on: November 01, 2019, 05:39:17 AM »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #54 on: November 01, 2019, 04:52:23 PM »
There is no question that the US President may cooperate and communicate with a country like Ukraine in the investigation of potential corruption that involves the two countries.  There is no question that the US President may attach a condition of cooperating with us on corruption in order to receive aid.  As I understand it, they are required by treaty to cooperate with us on this type of investigation.

Why on earth would anyone think the President and the country lose that right if it a competing candidate for President is potentially involved.

Adam Schiff [falsely] said, “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. ..."

Jeffrey Toobin article:  “The idea behind the case would be Trump conditioned the release of military aid to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine coming across with the dirt on the Biden family,”
---
One small problem, we have the transcript and that isn't what happened.  He said the name Biden in the context of a wider probe that both ends of the phone call were already well aware of it.  He gave no indication that he wanted the information on Biden or anyone else to be 'dirt'.  That is in the mind of the beholder.  He may have wanted the Americans to be cleared in the investigation.  Either way, it wasn't in the call.
---
Toobin continued:  "There are problems with this theory, starting with the President’s constitutional prerogatives to conduct foreign policy under Article II. Trump, or his lawyers, could argue that such a case would criminalize the give-and-take of negotiation with foreign governments. International negotiations, by their very nature, involve exchanges of things of value. Quid pro quos are not only legal; they are the goal of most such interactions. The response to this argument would be that the terms of these sorts of negotiations must involve the national interest, ..."

Is what Trump wanted from Ukraine, cooperation on investigations that included the 2016 election, arguably in the national interest?  Most certainly yes.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #55 on: November 01, 2019, 05:16:51 PM »
*Adam Schiff [falsely] said, “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent*

The only place I heard this come from is the Democrats

totally made up
no biggy





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48440
    • View Profile
Seisenbrenner and Chabot: The Clinton Impeachment was Fair
« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2019, 09:29:08 AM »
second post

The Clinton Impeachment Was Fair
We were on the House prosecution team. Unlike Pelosi and Schiff, we safeguarded due process.
By Jim Sensenbrenner and Steve Chabot
Nov. 3, 2019 3:40 pm ET

Tensions ran high 20 years ago as we stood in the well of the Senate before Chief Justice William Rehnquist, all 100 senators and the nation. As House impeachment managers, we presented our case against President Clinton. We were somber but confident, knowing that we had afforded Mr. Clinton every due-process right to defend himself.

Now we find ourselves on the verge of another presidential impeachment. But this time the process is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served. For the past two months, House Democrats, led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, have conducted a sham investigation with predetermined conclusions. It will do unthinkable damage to the credibility of the House and to the nation.

Since President Trump took the oath of office, Mr. Schiff has led a quest to overturn the 2016 election. We have both worked with Mr. Schiff on the Judiciary Committee, and one of us (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has managed two judicial impeachments (of Samuel B. Kent and G. Thomas Porteous Jr. ) alongside him. While in those cases he was fair and reasonable, here he has let his blind hatred of the president poison his conduct and destroy his credibility.

For more than two years, Mr. Schiff misled the public about having clear evidence that Mr Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. Special counsel Robert Mueller found no such evidence. Mr. Schiff then set his eyes on the next “scandal.” A seemingly too-good-to-be-true report appeared, accusing the president of improper action. Mr. Schiff took to cable news to propagate the new narrative, but it soon began to crumble. We learned that the biased “whistleblower” had contacted Mr. Schiff’s committee before filing his report, and Mr. Schiff lied about it.

Nevertheless, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decreed the House to have begun an impeachment inquiry and Mr. Schiff launched three weeks of closed-door hearings. He played judge and jury, selectively leaking private testimony to fuel a smear campaign. In blatant disregard of congressional practice, he has prevented elected members from asking certain questions of his “star witnesses.”

The American people saw through this charade, and Mrs. Pelosi brought the rules for this process up for a vote last week. But it’s too little and too late.

The rules resolution falls woefully short of the Constitution’s due-process standard. Every American has the right to hear all evidence presented against him, face his accuser directly, and mount a defense. We made sure to afford Mr. Clinton these rights in 1998-99.

The president’s counsel must have the right to participate in all impeachment proceedings. The congressional minority must have an equal right to call witnesses, subpoena documents and cross-examine witnesses.

Last week’s resolution is an absolute failure to protect those rights. It permits Mr. Schiff to continue with his closed-door depositions, and it grants him sole authority to decide which information is relevant, which witnesses can testify and which evidence will be transferred to the Judiciary Committee.

When the Intelligence Committee turns over the proceedings to the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Jerry Nadler will then have the authority to deny the president’s counsel access to evidence, the ability to cross-examine witnesses and the full ability to participate in other ways. It’s laughable to claim that’s fair or impartial.

Americans should be concerned about the denial of fundamental constitutional rights to the president of the United States. If it can happen to him, whom can’t it happen to?

From day one, the Democrats have had their sights set on impeachment and have charted a process that could only lead to that end. By denying due process to this president, Democrats have delegitimized the House and its constitutional powers, and have done irreparable damage to the country.

Messrs. Sensenbrenner and Chabot, both Republicans, represent Wisconsin’s Fifth and Ohio’s First congressional districts, respectively.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48440
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile
Re: Extreme clarity!
« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2019, 03:18:57 PM »
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/bureaucrats-hurt-feelings-on-foreign-policy-dont-justify-impeachment/

"Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Remember when Donald Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and still maintain his support? Suppose a candidate for office did shoot somebody and the only witness was a Russian national who then hopped a plane back to Moscow."

And what if the only people who cared about having it investigated happened to be political opponents. 
-----
Separate from the foreign government involvement, Democrats want the IRS to investigate Donald Trump's tax returns - because he is a political opponent.  What if the phone call was Pres. Trump calling the IRS commissioner, asking him for a favor, to investigate Americans with family in high places here - people who served on foreign boards including the Bidens.  The impeachment effort would be the same.

Why don't we just have an up or down vote on having two sets of rules?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
school records would be more important than fling pay offs
« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2019, 05:50:40 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-tax-returns-second-circuit-rules-against-president/

I don't get how a Democrat State government can make it illegal to pay off a few consensual women , who gladly took the money I might add,
near a campaign.

Brock never released his school records and did everything he could to conceal his socialist background

That is ok
but to pay off a couple women is somehow a major crime.

Where is it law a President or candidate must release tax returns?

answer - nowhere - except in Democrat NY - for no other reason than to get Trump.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48440
    • View Profile
Morris: Ignore Impeachment Polls
« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2019, 09:39:16 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48440
    • View Profile
This is really not good
« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2019, 08:54:34 PM »
From Pravda on the Hudson:

Welcome back to the Impeachment Briefing. Today, a central figure in the investigation changed his story, saying he had personally delivered a quid pro quo message from the White House to Ukraine.


What happened today


•   Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the E.U., revised the testimony he gave to investigators last month, admitting he told a top Ukraine official that U.S. military aid was contingent on the country’s publicly committing to investigations requested by President Trump.

•   Mr. Sondland said testimony by other witnesses had “refreshed my recollection.” His revised statement, along with a transcript of his testimony, was released today by impeachment investigators. Lawmakers also released the testimony of Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine.

•   Mr. Volker’s transcript shows that, via text, he sent a Ukrainian official the script that the White House wanted President Volodymyr Zelensky to read, including announcing an investigation into Burisma (the energy company that employed Hunter Biden) and a conspiracy theory about the 2016 U.S. election.

•   Lev Parnas, one of the Rudy Giuliani associates who was indicted on campaign finance charges, agreed to cooperate with impeachment investigators yesterday. Mr. Parnas was deeply involved in efforts to oust the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.







Why Sondland ‘refreshed’ his testimony


I asked my colleagues Michael Crowley, who wrote a profile of Mr. Sondland a few weeks ago, and Mike Schmidt, who wrote today about the changes in Mr. Sondland’s story.


Why did he change his answers? Did he actually perjure himself?


CROWLEY: Mr. Sondland was always something of a fair-weather friend to Donald Trump. Remember that during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Sondland backed out of a fund-raiser after Mr. Trump attacked a Gold Star family. When Mr. Trump won, Mr. Sondland suddenly became an outspoken advocate for him. Now the winds have shifted again, and in a way that could even involve legal jeopardy — and at a minimum severe embarrassment — for Mr. Sondland. So it now appears that he may be rethinking his loyalties to Donald Trump for the third time in a little more than three years.


Why is Mr. Sondland’s word important at this moment in the investigation?


SCHMIDT: The White House’s initial argument that there was no quid pro quo was based on what Mr. Sondland had said in a text message. His testimony showed that that was truly just a talking point. So hearing Mr. Sondland confirm the quid pro quo enhances the credibility of arguably the most important anecdote in this investigation, which other witnesses have described. Now we have the person directly involved in it saying it under oath.


CROWLEY: His revised testimony is a particularly serious blow to the president. Mr. Sondland is not part of a “Deep State.” He’s not a “radical Democrat.” He’s a political appointee who gave a million dollars to the president’s inaugural. It’s really hard for Mr. Trump and his defenders to explain this away.







Rudy’s role in the transcripts


 




The two witness testimonies released today provided new insight into the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy — particularly the outsize role of Mr. Giuliani, whose name appears more than 200 times in the documents. Here’s what we learned.


•   Mr. Sondland told impeachment investigators that he assumed Mr. Giuliani’s campaign to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens was improper and illegal. The allegations Mr. Giuliani was pushing “kept getting more insidious,” Mr. Sondland said, but his diplomacy goals in Ukraine were dependent on making sure Mr. Giuliani was “satisfied.”


•   Mr. Sondland described a circle of top officials exasperated by Mr. Giuliani’s involvement. When he asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about whether Mr. Giuliani had to be involved in Ukraine policy, Mr. Pompeo rolled his eyes and said, “Yes, it’s something we have to deal with.”


•   Mr. Volker told investigators that Mr. Giuliani planted the idea in Mr. Trump’s mind that Ukraine was out to get him. “He gave the example of hearing from Rudy Giuliani that they’re all corrupt, they’re all terrible people, that they were — they tried to take me down — meaning the president in the 2016 election,” Mr. Volker told investigators.

•   Mr. Volker also said that he met with Mr. Zelensky in early July and warned him that Mr. Giuliani’s involvement was problematic. And at a breakfast Mr. Volker had with Mr. Giuliani days before the July 25 call, he told Mr. Giuliani that the negative information he heard about Mr. Biden was misleading and “not credible.”



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
quid pro quo or not
« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2019, 05:51:47 AM »
Dems can twist all their legal gamesmanship and word and arguments in any, or all directions they want.

Bottom line to DNC, CNN, NYT, WP, Dem lawyers, Ivy league profs:

you are not going to get your way
screw you.
Trump stays!

comprende!

So I don't give a hoot.
So vote impeachment get it over with and stop milking the same arguments over and over again - most of the US is sick of it one way or the other
and 40 % ain't going to budge. 

Gee and they can't figure out  why.  Why would we accept such a man . Duh.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile
Re: This is really not good
« Reply #65 on: November 06, 2019, 07:32:43 AM »
Andy McCarthy warned supporters recently to drop the 'no quid pro quo' defense of Trump and stick with argument that nothing happened here that rises to the level of impeachable offense.

There is nothing wrong with pressuring a country to cooperate with the US in an investigation that goes after corruption that affected our country - even if that corruption includes the Bidens.  For one thing, maybe further investigation vindicates the Bidens.  There is nothing wrong with using our billions in aid to pressure them in what our commander in chief reasonably believes in in our national interest.

It is Adam Schiff who actually had this spot on.  IF the message was for Ukraine to manufacture false evidence to discredit or destroy a Trump opponent, that is what would cross the line of using his official position of power for personal political gain that is not in the nation's best interest.  [Reminds me of what the DOJ/CIA/FBI did to Trump under Obama.]

That is not what happened here.

The more real the corruption was, the more justified Trump was in pressuring their cooperation.  Therefore in a Senate trial, the defense will be allowed all the time and opportunity necessary to delve into all that was known about that corruption.  I think is that where this strange work Giuliani seems to have been doing comes in.  Prove the corruption and you acquit the President.  More importantly, what did he know about the corruption case at the relevant times in the accusations tells us whether aggressively pursuing their cooperation was arguably justified.

After all the Russia collusion drama, preceded by sexual predator charges, followed by white supremacist charges...  it is a very strange gamble that Democrats a betting their entire existence on this petty charge.  Can even their own supporters follow the gymnastics of it?

What if they come across real stuff right after this ordeal, do they run through the whole thing again?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2019, 07:35:26 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile
Re: quid pro quo or not
« Reply #66 on: November 06, 2019, 08:22:49 AM »
Dems can twist all their legal gamesmanship and word and arguments in any, or all directions they want.

Bottom line to DNC, CNN, NYT, WP, Dem lawyers, Ivy league profs:

you are not going to get your way
screw you.
Trump stays!

comprende!

So I don't give a hoot.
So vote impeachment get it over with and stop milking the same arguments over and over again - most of the US is sick of it one way or the other
and 40 % ain't going to budge. 

Gee and they can't figure out  why.  Why would we accept such a man . Duh.

Dems need to rush this charge against the clock now or miss their opportunity.  But the more they rush it, the more they screw it up.  Threes years of trying to impeach and they have only had the transcript of this non-event phone call for a month along with a bunch of 'witnesses' who heard about the phone call. Don't they have to end the investigation in order to present the findings, but the goal was endless investigations and smear, not cross examination of accusers in a fair trial. They need to keep the charges simple [The high crime was ____.] but leave something out and they can't just go back and add it; this is a serious process.

What Dems really need is a way to back out of this gracefully without damage to themselves.  They need to say we exposed him but we trust the voters to finish this.  The case against Trump is larger than this incident.

A vote in the House is a nightmare for red and swing district Democrats.  A trial in the Senate will be a nightmare for all Democrats and especially for those [5 at this point] running for President and the one [Biden] who is at the center of the corruption.  The trial will be long and detailed and go places not intended by the House managers, such as calling Adam Schiff as a fact witness.  Meanwhile Trump will be out governing and holding rallies while his Democrat rivals are grounded.  The only ones excused from the circus will be the President of the United States and the mayor of small town in Indiana.

If a vote fails in the House, Trump is vindicated.  If the vote passes in the House without all Democrats and  without a single Republican vote, Trump is vindicated.  If acquitted in the Senate, trump is vindicated, and if removed in the Senate, Pence becomes President and Trump is still on the ballot and holding rallies.  But f they damage him sufficiently and wait for the election, Biden or Warren have their best chance.  [Isn't that what Crafty said the goal was?]  But how do they back out now after driving down this one-way, dead end street?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
DT jr "outs " whisteblower
« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2019, 03:49:12 PM »
supposedly

he outs what has already effectively been "out".

yet I cannot find it on any news site
 :x

but this whole MSM issue is a joke anyway
like Dershowitz said on Fox a few nights ago
the name of the whistle blower is already known by everyone in DC

Obviously the LEFT is worried about the partisan nature of these people or they wouldn't be trying to keep it a secret.

And of course we have the mitt romneys using the losing formula of playing by gentlemen's rules.

Sorry but I am not concerned for his safety
a bunch of anonymous people are not going to bring down a President I voted for and will again .

I want to know who they are .  Even more so if they are mid level government employees etc
« Last Edit: November 06, 2019, 03:51:23 PM by ccp »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
some legaleeze on whistle blowers
« Reply #68 on: November 06, 2019, 04:50:55 PM »
from east coast pravda:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/whistleblower-complaint.html

"These laws were written with job reprisals in mind. They were not written for, and do not cover, the highly unusual situation in which a president uses his public platform to denigrate and vaguely threaten a whistle-blower."

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17084
    • View Profile
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384184.php

Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep State Will Impeach Trump and His Friends at CNN Will Play a Key Role

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2019, 04:36:50 AM »
" .Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep State Will Impeach Trump and His Friends at CNN Will Play a Key Role"

I would highly suspect that if we had inside people "whistleblowing " all the dirt on any and all Democrats we would be seeing President , Governor , Senators and Congressman being thrown out of office every day.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384184.php

Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep State Will Impeach Trump and His Friends at CNN Will Play a Key Role

The Client Attorney Privilege is abused when it is the lawyer who hires the client.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48440
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17084
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
enjoy your holidays
« Reply #75 on: November 07, 2019, 06:00:40 PM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384193.php "

"LGBTQP?"

probably hangs with Don and Anderson.

Rush earlier today was talking how the Dems want everyone to talk about impeachment  over Thanksgiving ; he was a bit off =>

now it is Christmas = later it will be

then it will be past the New Year

dirtballs......

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/democrat-impeachment-timeline/index.html
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 06:04:00 PM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #76 on: November 07, 2019, 07:42:33 PM »
P = Pedaphile
Someday Leftists will accuse conservatives of not being tolerant of the entire LGBTQP spectrum.  With Clinton and Epstein we could add the R for rape as an alternative sexual orientation.  Who are we to judge? Put me down as close minded and intolerant.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48440
    • View Profile
JW: Obama White House logs detail meetings of CIA's Ciaramella
« Reply #78 on: November 08, 2019, 06:32:24 PM »
Whoa!!! :-o :-o :-o :x :x :x

   
White House Visitor Logs Detail Meetings of the CIA’s Eric Ciaramella
 
 


We have conducted an in-depth analysis of Obama-era White House visitor logs, and we have learned a good deal about the people who controversial CIA employee Eric Ciaramella met with while assigned to the White House.

Ciaramella reportedly was detailed to the Obama White House in 2015 and returned to the CIA during the Trump administration in 2017.

Real Clear Investigations named Ciaramella as possibly being the whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment proceedings against President Trump. As reported by the Examiner, Fox News’ legal analyst Gregg Jarrett indicated that a key takeaway was the “reported direct relationship” Ciaramella had with former President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan and national security adviser Susan Rice, as well as the “Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

The visitor logs also reveal Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election, who coordinated with Ukrainians to investigate President Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, visited the White House 27 times.

The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White House:

•   Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She visited on December 9, 2015
The Hill reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, “took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC).”
•   Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
•   Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
•   Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
•   Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.
On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
•   Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department’s policy planning staff where he specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
•   James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama’s Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.
On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.
•   Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with the Clinton-funded dossier. Judicial Watch also released documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department’s “urgent” gathering of classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)
•   Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:
•   Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9, 2015.
•   Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That meeting was on June 2, 2015.
•   Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016. Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work for the City of Chicago Treasurer’s office.
Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.
On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.

Spreadsheets of visitor records are grouped alphabetically by last name and available below:
A – Coi
Coig – Gra
Graz – Lau
Laug – Pad
Padd – Sor
Sorr – Zyz

Our analysis of these Obama White House visitor logs raises obvious additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump. Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17084
    • View Profile
FaceHugger works to protect CIA/Soros operative
« Reply #79 on: November 08, 2019, 06:56:13 PM »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48440
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 08:43:20 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48440
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #83 on: November 10, 2019, 08:43:55 AM »
Some thoughts of mine regarding the impeachment attempt:

Back when I was in law school, one of the things that was drummed into us was the importance of framing the question presented to the benefit of our client.
Defining investigating Biden & Son as "seeking dirt on a political rival" is an example as such but it is a misdirect. It is simple: Biden does not get immunity for his actions by running for the Presidency.

The question presented is whether even if Biden were not running, there is plenty of good reason to look into his son and him and therfore it is perfectly proper for the chief legal officer of America, the President, to approach the Ukrainian head of state in this regard-- as Vice President Biden was the point man for American foreign policy in Ukraine and there is no legitimate reason for his son to be making over $3,000,000 with Burisma.

Add in the Biden modus operandi shown with Hunter's massive $1,500,000,000 (!!!) deal with China as well as the deal with Kerry's stepson with China in a dual purpose company accompanied by extraordinary American flacidity as the Chinese took military control of the South China Sea (where one third of the world's trade sails)

For good measure throw in the previous Ukrainian government's assist to the Clinton campaign and there is plenty of reason to suspect skullduggery and plenty of reason for President Trump to say "Would you look into this please?"

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9806
    • View Profile
Moyer's: Trumps brainwashed followers of their master
« Reply #84 on: November 11, 2019, 06:32:39 AM »
If only a few "wake up" and see the threat to our nation :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-moyers-impeachment-cnn-survival-052619799.html

Of course , we should just give in to the Democrats.

For the good of the country and the world and "democracy"
with threat of Trump far worse than WW 2, Cold war, and everything else in history .

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #85 on: November 11, 2019, 07:40:18 AM »
Some thoughts of mine regarding the impeachment attempt:

Back when I was in law school, one of the things that was drummed into us was the importance of framing the question presented to the benefit of our client.
Defining investigating Biden & Son as "seeking dirt on a political rival" is an example as such but it is a misdirect. It is simple: Biden does not get immunity for his actions by running for the Presidency.

The question presented is whether even if Biden were not running, there is plenty of good reason to look into his son and him and therfore it is perfectly proper for the chief legal officer of America, the President, to approach the Ukrainian head of state in this regard-- as Vice President Biden was the point man for American foreign policy in Ukraine and there is no legitimate reason for his son to be making over $3,000,000 with Burisma.

Add in the Biden modus operandi shown with Hunter's massive $1,500,000,000 (!!!) deal with China as well as the deal with Kerry's stepson with China in a dual purpose company accompanied by extraordinary American flacidity as the Chinese took military control of the South China Sea (where one third of the world's trade sails)

For good measure throw in the previous Ukrainian government's assist to the Clinton campaign and there is plenty of reason to suspect skullduggery and plenty of reason for President Trump to say "Would you look into this please?"

Well said.  "It is simple: Biden does not get immunity for his actions by running for the Presidency."

..."the importance of framing the question presented to the benefit of our client."  Beyond "seeking dirt on a political rival", Schiff entered 'make up dirt on a rival' into the record and the narrative.  It just doesn't happen to be true.

Their were plenty of reasons in the national interest to push for this investigation.  Using our leverage in our interest is partly what the aid is for.

Both sides are having a hard time framing their message.  We hear quid pro quo, like we heard "collusion", as if that alone was a crime, yet we have the tape of Biden saying you've got 6 hours to fire the prosecutor and I've got a billion dollars leaving with me if you don't.  Biden's quid pro quo is not criminal in their mind because ___.  This quid pro quo, if it existed, is not criminal or even wrong because ... same reason, only true this time.

You can't help but cringe in the transcript when Trump mentions Biden, though he was mostly talking about investigating the 2016 election.  The mention of Biden presents the question, is this targeting?  Yet Trump has been the target since before he entered the Oval Office - to no concern of anyone on the Left.   Obama's IRS targeted and we haven't discovered a soul on the Left who gives a rat's @ss about that Stalin-like tactic, most certainly an impeachable offense if it reached to the top.  Not even an investigation.  When do they lose credibility with their selective outrage?

In the first day of the 'scandal', Trump got it out there that Biden's name was mentioned in the call.  On roughly the second day he put out the transcript.  He received brilliant political advice there.  Ever since we have non-stop inquiries and no further revelation.  They think their false polling justifies what they are doing, but really it is encouraging them to run in the wrong direction.  [Where is their health care legislation?  How about ratifying the Canadian trade agreement?]

This will go on in a partisan way until either House Democrats stop or until Senate Republicans kill it.  Both sides are forgetting the fight is for the middle.  As Crafty pointed out, the point is to damage Trump, but the fight for the House is almost as important, and they are making themselves look bad with their methods and by shirking all other responsibilities.

Is their going to be a rushed impeachment that doesn't mention Russia?  After all we've been through?!  That alone vindicates Trump.  And if it's in there, we get a full trial on it with cross examination and witnesses for the defense.

Democrats have about 8 full days of business left in the government year.  Are they going to skip Thanksgiving and Christmas for this?  How does impeachment get presented, debated, passed, sent to the Senate and have a full trial in that time?  It doesn't, so it just becomes an election year charade helping no one except maybe the President.

You wonder how an incumbent President can run against the deep state establishment as an outsider, an underdog, and then they play right into his hands.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile
Re: Moyer's: Trumps brainwashed followers of their master
« Reply #86 on: November 11, 2019, 07:44:05 AM »
Condescending the voters you need to win is not the winning strategy. 


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11586
    • View Profile