The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[B-Man]

 

UKRAINE: DEMOCRAT ORTHODOXY EVOLVES

Inside the impeachment inquiry is a classic satire of democratic politics struggling to get out.

 

On the substance of yesterday’s hearing in the impeachment inquiry hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, I wondered: wasn’t it only yesterday that the Obama administration refused to provide lethal military aid to the Ukraine? Obama, as I recall, didn’t want to ruffle Putin’s feathers. That sounds like an impeachable offense by itself.

 

Now support of lethal military aide appears to have become a holy sacrament in the evolving Democratic orthodoxy, one with its own martyrs and rites and hymns. You know, like abortion and liberation from biological reality.

 

I am somewhat surprised by how little the evolution of Democratic orthodoxy on the Ukraine has been noted. This aspect of Obama foreign policy has been deposited down the memory hole. Miranda Devine notes the evolution of Democratic orthodoxy on the Ukraine in her New York Post column addressing the so-called whistleblower. 

 

 

Digression: The identity of the “whistleblower” is apparently known by everyone in DC except House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, although the “whisteleblower” consulted with Schiff’s staff before filing his “complaint.” Something tells me that Chairman Schiff is not entirely on the level. End of digression.

 

more at the link:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/ukraine-dem-orthodoxy-evolves.php

[Tiberius]

Trump supporters remind me a lot of the OJ Simpson defenders 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 hours ago, Nanker said:

This "low rent Ukrainian sequel" is most definitely the CIA Vs. POTUS.

The DOS and CIA are kissing cousins. EVERY US Embassy has CIA officers and operatives and they work in concert with the station's diplomatic team. 

This charade is Brennan's last (best?) hope to take down Trump and it's doomed to failure.

Brennan should get a present IMO... nine grams of lead.

Rope is cheaper because it’s reusable.

[RochesterRob]

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Trump supporters remind me a lot of the OJ Simpson defenders 

  I am sure that a fair number of your masters believe Simpson was treated in an unfair racist manner.  Watch where you step on such analogies.  

[Figster]

On one hand, you can easily see how the whole Hunter Bidden can of worms would hurt Joe Biddens run for the presidency. 

 

On the other hand, shouldn't it though...

 

...be investigated...

[dubs]

Disengaged for a while yesterday, going to catch up in a bit.  Question: Is Hillary President now?

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I am sure that a fair number of your masters believe Simpson was treated in an unfair racist manner.  Watch where you step on such analogies.  

But ALL the Trump supporters are simply ignoring the evidence just like OJ supporters were 

 

Its very similar. 

[Bob in Mich]

This discussion sort of got lost when this new replacement thread was started.  I just saw Lindsey Graham in an impromptu interview and was reminded of it.

 

If he ever had it, he has no integrity left.  He has come down with an absolutely dreadful case of the vapors over this supposed completely unfair , illegal impeachment proceeding.

 

Posted yesterday at 10:38 AM (edited)

On 11/13/2019 at 8:54 AM, snafu said:

This whole, so called: “public portion of the investigative phase” feels so strange.  It is so one-sided.  It is likely to hit a dead end even if it progresses to an impeachment vote and on to the Senate.  It has all the earmarks of a political show to smear the President ahead of the full blown election season — and actually deep into the 2020 race.  I think that’s part of the ploy here — roll out this first part slowly and partisan so that the process takes even longer to play out.  

 

The people who already hate the President will dig deeper into their position.  I suppose the Democrats in Congress are also hoping to sway independents against Trump, that’s why the press keeps reporting poll numbers about independents. But if that’s their goal, it would seem that they take inspdependents for fools. Nobody should be comfortable with the way this obviously tilted process is playing out.  Dems might win over independents if (I) the process was fair and (ii)if it allowed the President or his proxies to mount any sort of defense and (iii) in conclusion the President did something wrong.  Im open to that.  Unfortunately, since (so far) this is a railroad job, nobody is going to be swayed, not yet.  

 

It also occurs to me that the House Democrats are being hypocritical.  They can’t make any coherent case that an actual crime has occurred.  They can repeat the words “extortion” and “bribery” all they want, but that’s not what happened here.  And if it is what happened here, then I’m sure that there are innumerable cases when prior Presidents used leverage in dealing with foreign heads of state.  A fair response to that is that impeachment doesn’t require a criminal act.  Well if that’s true (and I don’t deny it) then impeachment is much more of a political act. And since the Senate is not going to convict unless there’s more than what’s being presented by the House, this turns out to be a political act to smear the President during his re-election cycle.  That’s exactly the charge against Trump (smearing the former VP). 

 

If this his post sounds obvious to you, then it is probably obvious to a lot of the country that’s following along. And if that’s the case, I really don’t know why the Democrats in the House are traveling this road.  It smacks of desperation. And if they stop now, they look like fools — so they have to play this game right out to the end. 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Post.  I disagree on several fronts but, well stated.  I am an Independent but have been of the opinion that this impeachment process should move forward.  Most certainly, it is a political process that only loosely resembles assembling charges or putting on a criminal trial.  Those that are unaware may be honestly upset but those knowledgeable of the process should stop throwing out this chaff.

 

Claiming it is one-sided is true but there are 2 main reasons for that.  I am sure that you are aware that this is not really yet the trial phase.  That will happen in the Senate.  In this phase, Democratic 'prosecutors' are making their case to bring charges to the representatives in the House.  The House will likely eventually vote to (or not to) send the charges to the Senate for the trial phase.  I believe that the defense will then be able to call whoever they wish, especially since the Republicans control the Senate.

 

The other reason we don't have the Republican side of the story is that the President's defenders have defied subpeonas to testify to the House committees.  There were no transcripts released from the president's soldiers because they are afraid to go under oath and testify, just like their leader.   It seems to me that they are afraid of perjury.  Would you want to get folks under oath speaking on your behalf if you were guilty?  How about if you were innocent?  Those answers should be telling to an unbiased observer.

 

Presidents have historically overstepped their authority, that is true.  Differences here are that Trump's actions appear to be for personal political gain, as opposed to being in the interests of our country.  He also continues to see election interference by foreigners as acceptable.  He has repeatedly proved that point.  Foreign election interference taints the upcoming election.  That must be stopped cold. 

 

Perhaps if the Congressional Republicans had a spine to stand up to this president, the whole impeachment process would be unnecessary.  As it is today, there appears to me to be a severe integrity shortage in the Republican party in Congress.

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, dubs said:

Disengaged for a while yesterday, going to catch up in a bit.  Question: Is Hillary President now?

I think Nancy is?  ?

 

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

But ALL the Trump supporters are simply ignoring the evidence just like OJ supporters were 

 

Its very similar. 

 

And surely Trump's tiny hand would slide right into that glove, so....just maybe .....

[Figster]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But ALL the Trump supporters are simply ignoring the evidence just like OJ supporters were 

 

Its very similar. 

Smoking gun is the Hunter...

[GG]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Perhaps if the Congressional Republicans had a spine to stand up to this president, the whole impeachment process would be unnecessary.  As it is today, there appears to me to be a severe integrity shortage in the Republican party in Congress.

 

Why?  Because the totality of the GOP members in both chambers recognize that it's a sham?   Shouldn't the Dems be more concerned that they're dragging swing district compatriots through Schiff's swamp?

[Gary M]

55 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You didn't trust the witnesses? 

 

What witnesses, those two jokers that repeated what they were told that someone heard?

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Gary M

[B-Man]

 

Where Was Madame Speaker After the Hearing? Her Absence Speaks Volumes

 

No matter how the Democrats try to spin it, the first day of public hearings did not go well for them.

 

From Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-CA) powerful opening statement, to the brutal cross-examinations of Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and other Republicans, the weakness, the partisan nature and yes, even the frivolity of their case against the President was exposed. The ultimate indicator that the day had been a bust for Democrats was the absence of a press conference from their fearless leader, Nancy Pelosi. Where was Madame Speaker after the hearing?

 

 

Pelosi issued a brief statement to CNN. She said, “What has come forth has further, of course, given us the truth of what happened at the time.” She told CNN she was “consumed with other legislative matters — prescription drugs, Dreamers, appropriations and the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement today,” but that she had “caught a few minutes” of the beginning of the hearing.

 

Now, impeachment is a relatively rare and deadly serious action for Congress to take. Generally, one wouldn’t expect the Speaker of the House to be consumed with other matters on the first day of public hearings.

 

Pelosi knows it did not go well. And it will likely get worse.

 

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/11/14/madame-speaker-hearing-absence-speaks-volumes/

 

.

Edited November 14, 2019 by B-Man

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Where Was Madame Speaker After the Hearing? Her Absence Speaks Volumes

 

No matter how the Democrats try to spin it, the first day of public hearings did not go well for them.

 

From Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-CA) powerful opening statement, to the brutal cross-examinations of Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and other Republicans, the weakness, the partisan nature and yes, even the frivolity of their case against the President was exposed. The ultimate indicator that the day had been a bust for Democrats was the absence of a press conference from their fearless leader, Nancy Pelosi. Where was Madame Speaker after the hearing?

 

 

Pelosi issued a brief statement to CNN. She said, “What has come forth has further, of course, given us the truth of what happened at the time.” She told CNN she was “consumed with other legislative matters — prescription drugs, Dreamers, appropriations and the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement today,” but that she had “caught a few minutes” of the beginning of the hearing.

 

Now, impeachment is a relatively rare and deadly serious action for Congress to take. Generally, one wouldn’t expect the Speaker of the House to be consumed with other matters on the first day of public hearings.

 

Pelosi knows it did not go well. And it will likely get worse.

 

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/11/14/madame-speaker-hearing-absence-speaks-volumes/

 

.

 

She's speaking now ... and it's a disaster. 

 

She can barely string a full sentence together.

[Nanker]

She is Putin's mouthpiece.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

She literally just said it was in our best national interest to fund the Ukraine to fight Russia ... funny, how that was 180 degrees from her position for 4 years under 44.

 

What changed? 

 

Oh. Right. 

 

"All roads lead to Putin" -- she said it twice. After three probes proved this is a lie, she's still pushing it (between drunken slurring of her speech). 

 

Nancy is working for Trump, I'm sure of it now.  

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

Just now, GG said:

 

Why?  Because the totality of the GOP members in both chambers recognize that it's a sham?   Shouldn't the Dems be more concerned that they're dragging swing district compatriots through Schiff's swamp?

 

Seriously?  You are saying to the man that all congressional Repubs think in lockstep that Trump is completely innocent of wrongdoing in this Ukraine saga?  It seems much more likely that they are afraid to step out of line.  Trump and his followers will attack anyone that does that and then that particular pol's re-election campaign becomes much more difficult if not impossible.  This is why we have seen that many of the Repub politicians that have been critical of Trump are those that have decided that they are not seeking re-election.

 

His Congressional support most certainly holds, regardless of what evidence is brought out in this impeachment process.  As mentioned I think breaking with Trump would take more integrity than appears evident.....unless the break is done by a large number of Repub pols at once.  Safety in numbers if it happens, though personally I don't see this dam busting.

 

Yes, the Dems should fear backlash.  Trump will cry victim at every opportunity and it will hurt Dem chances in Trump country.  But, without any Republican in Congress willing to check Trump's actions when he pushes boundaries, it seems to me that the impeachment process should go forward if not to remove Trump, only to check his future impulses with regard to illegal election interference.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

 

Seriously? 

 

Yes, you're seriously under informed on this entire subject. You're a (stoned) partisan who offers nothing but (debunked) talking points. You're fine with impeachment being used as a political weapon because you think Orange Man is so bad that the republic must be destroyed to save it. 

 

That's how ***** stupid your position is, Bob. It's so stupid only a stoner could hold it and think it's somehow above the fray. 

 

Don't be like Bob, PPP. Be better. 

 

 

 

And now Pelosi just said that it's "fraudulent" to point out that the witnesses yesterday were all second/third/forth hand witnesses... 

 

...Despite it being 100% true. 

 

Nancy Pelosi lies to your face, America. And people like Bob believe it fully because she KNOWS they're too stupid to question it. 

[dubs]

Thought this article was hilarious. Can you be any more NPC than this article?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/us/politics/npc-twitter-ban.amp.html