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

[snafu]

5 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Posted 1 hour ago

 

There's zero evidence of a crime, whether it is a high crime or a misdemeanor.  That makes this strictly political.  Saying this is political is not a "chaff" statement.  When Schiff analogized the "investigation" to a Grand Jury, he brought a criminal element into the process.  Partisans have been banging the "attempted extortion" and "attempted bribery" drum.  So expecting things to go like a criminal proceeding isn't a "chaff" statement, either.  The fact that the two most recent Impeachments were run in a totally different, bipartisan way is also a disheartening contrast to what's going on now.

 

Chaff is a reference to the aircraft defense tactic of trying to thwart missile attacks by discharging 'decoys' to distract the attack.  The chaff is this instance is the whining about the process unfairness by those that actually know the sequence of process steps.  You may not so I won't assume, but most do know that this is impeachment is a bit different.  This time, unlike with Nixon or Clinton, there has been no special prosecutor that has assembled the case.  The House Intel committee is doing that now.

 

The Independent or Special Prosecutors in prior proceedings may have been partisan (depending upon whom you ask), but they didn't ignore or exclude potentially exculpatory evidence.  They didn't exclude inquiries into the accusers' motives.  They didn't exclude witnesses who believe that the actions complained of don't rise to the level of a smelly fart.  THAT'S the difference here.  If you don't see it then you're not independent.  The job of Congress in an impeachment proceeding to to vet ALL OF THE FACTS in order for a fully informed decision to be made to (A) issue articles of impeachment and then (B) deliberate on the articles and vote on whether or not to impeach.

 

When you've got "investigators" knocking on your door looking at what you've done, wouldn't you want them to talk to anyone and everyone involved in the matter?  Maybe they figure out that what they suspect you of doing isn't worthy of pursuing.  That's not what's happening here.  This is a one-sided kabuki show meant to influence 2020 voters.  Nothing more.  Like I said in my prior post, this is meant to carry on as long as possible in order to run as deep as possible into the election cycle.  Republicans on the Committee have requested several witnesses to be called.  Schiff shot down every one of them.  These are supposed to be people investigating the matter -- NOT building a case.  Otherwise, Pelosi and Schiff should stop lying about the process and stop calling it an "investigation".

 

They are investigating and deciding whether or not to bring charges.  I am unsure why that is considered an invalid step in the process.

 

The Democrats in charge of the investigation have basically shut out the Republicans who are also supposed to be part of the process.  They held closed-door hearings in order to see which witness makes a public appearance.  They selectively let out leaks to the press from their closed-door hearings in order to shape opinions of people who aren't really paying attention.  Then they've opened up the "public" portion of the investigation, again by selecting only witnesses they believe will have an impact on ONE SIDE of the matter.  That's what makes it invalid.  Not the mere fact that is it happening or should happen at all.

 

I may be just a skeptic but I suspect you know that both the Dems and the Repubs engage in political theater.  The Repubs called the whistleblower and Hunter Biden.  If given the opportunity Jordan would attempt to derail the Trump investigation.  If it gets to the Senate, Repubs will control the witnesses.  Do you think that the process may be political then?

 

If the House would run the inquiry properly, this matter would not get to the Senate.

 

There are many reasons why someone would not come forward, but refusals are mainly based upon privilege.  You can read whatever you want into a refusal to testify, but the focus is foreign policy.  That's not coffee talk.  Also, and more important, the phone transcript speaks for itself.  It has been out in the public for nearly two months.  In fact, I think the White House released another transcript related to a prior phone call.  Do you know what might help us understand things a bit more clearly:  the Whistleblower.  Who did he get his information from about the call?  He never heard it.  Someone thought it was a funky situation and reported his or her concerns to THAT guy?  Why him?  There were 14 or so people on the call.  How many thought it was a big deal?  Too bad we won't get to hear from the Whistleblower, huh?  Funny how it is only Schiff who controls whether he testifies or not.

 

If the whistle blower could answer Repub questions that are not designed to unmask him to the public, that sounds perfectly reasonable.  But, if the intent is public outing in order to punish and deter other whistle blowers, then I would be against that.  It appears to me that some wish to out the person and wish in addition to coax the unstable to attack this person for coming forward.

 

Why are the Whistleblower's rights more important than the President's rights?  Why take sides on that?

 

Too many people in Congress have concluded that Trump did something wrong, even though there's an "investigation" going on.  The "investigation" is more designed to be confirmation of partisan conclusions.  I think Congress should just issue Articles already and get to the vote.

 

The transcripts were released.  Lots of info yet to come but it is reasonable that folks have formed preliminary opinions.  On the other hand, if they, like Lindsey Graham, declare that their mind is closed, then I think they are being overly partisan and dishonest.

 

While I don't think anyone should pre-judge, you basically stated that Lindsay Graham's "preliminary opinion" is less than anyone else's.

 

I disagree with your statement here, completely.  Stop clutching your pearls over this.  Is election interference wrong -- of course.  Has that stopped anyone before -- no.  Off the top of my head, I can think of four historical examples of calling on a foreign nation or individual to assist a Presidential candidate:  Nixon/Vietnam; Ted Kennedy/Soviets; Obama/Russians; Hillary/Steele-Russians.  Only if it turns out to be true,  the only difference  this time is #orangemanbad.

 

Well, let me ask, do you think in the instances mentioned, was it ethical and OK with you or was it improper?

Nobody started an impeachment investigation over any of it.  Do you recall anyone starting an impeachment investigation or issuing articles of impeachment over any of those things?

 

 

What "spine" do you want Congressional Republicans to assert?  Rolling over to this absolute sham would be spineless.  Standing up to it is commendable.

 

The point is that there does not appear to be anyone on the Repub side of the aisle that will risk their political future to stand up to Trump.  I hope some would if he does shoot someone on 5th Avenue but I am certain some Repubs would not.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Dr. Who]

27 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

A partisan impeachment push, without a proper foundation or a crime, is a dangerous precedent to set. It's a threat to the republic, and something the founders feared way back at the very start of this experiment. The dems have a long history of ignoring Murphy's Law/The Law of Unintended Consequences because they're prisoners of the moment rather than serious thinkers (think: Reid's filibuster move -- and how that played out). 

 

At some point, whether it's in a year, four years, or twelve years, a democrat will be sitting behind the Resolute desk. What do you think will happen the MOMENT the GOP gets a majority in the House (which they will at some point)?

 

They'll launch an impeachment scam -- based on this precedent -- and there won't be a thing the left can argue to deter this move. Because they established the precedent. Not because there was a crime committed, or because Trump is guilty -- but because they know they cannot beat him fairly at the ballot box.

 

Play that out and you're looking at impeachment moving from a drastic measure rarely used to a common political tool. 

 

Once that happens, it's lights out for the republic. 

 

Your analysis is on point as usual. The only rejoinder I would offer is that the cynicism of the Dems is such that I suspect they believe the GOP less likely to engage in such political expediency, partly because many conservatives have principles and they would not want to engage in actions harmful to the republic (the left interprets this as an exploitable weakness.) Also, the Dems count on the entrenched bias of the deep state, education, and media to consistently promote their causes and to dismiss as illegitimate any charges brought by Republicans. They are not wrong about that.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

When CNN says you have a loser, you should listen. Considering they own the market on being losers. They can smell their own.

 

[Nanker]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Your analysis is on point as usual. The only rejoinder I would offer is that the cynicism of the Dems is such that I suspect they believe the GOP less likely to engage in such political expediency, partly because many conservatives have principles and they would not want to engage in actions harmful to the republic (the left interprets this as an exploitable weakness.) Also, the Dems count on the entrenched bias of the deep state, education, and media to consistently promote their causes and to dismiss as illegitimate any charges brought by Republicans. They are not wrong about that.

Yes, but Trump is not a RINO. He's quite capable - and adept - at rolling around in the gutters which has previously been the nearly exclusive purview of the Dems.

It's something I haven't seen (in reverse, actually) since Chuck Schumer gleefully rolled around in the hog swallow with Al D'Mato in their race to be the Senator from NY. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, GG said:

What in the world is happening in this crazy hall of mirrors?

 

They're clearly obscured by a haze of smoke...

[Nanker]

 

[Tiberius]

41 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

I thought Trump asked for an investigation not an announcement?

 

Ukraine never knew the money was being held, and the whistleblower should not have know either.

 

So someone leaked classified info to the WB?

Trump asked for both. Ukraine did know the money was being held up, despite the public (not under oath) statement of their president, and the WB along with many others were aware of shady plan being hatched by Trump. 

 

You do understand the WB complaint and the outcry following is what caused the aid to finally be released, right? 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

 

 

BobGarTibs cannot respond to that clip. 

 

It gave the game away in 2017 -- and they ignored it... now, we see it was very real. 

 

Nothing like a sitting US Senator going on cable news and threatening the legally elected POTUS on behalf of a segment of the IC which is crooked beyond all repair. If these TDS addled folk had any semblance of principles (or functioning frontal lobes), they'd realize that this whole thing is a spook job from soup to nuts. 

 

And what's MORE dangerous than politicizing impeachment? 

 

Letting the IC run roughshod over the constitution and our election process in the name of preserving the establishment's agenda. 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

BobGarTibs cannot respond to that clip. 

 

It gave the game away in 2017 -- and they ignored it... now, we see it was very real. 

 

Nothing like a sitting US Senator going on cable news and threatening the legally elected POTUS on behalf of a segment of the IC which is crooked beyond all repair. If these TDS addled folk had any semblance of principles (or functioning frontal lobes), they'd realize that this whole thing is a spook job from soup to nuts. 

 

And what's MORE dangerous than politicizing impeachment? 

 

Letting the IC run roughshod over the constitution and our election process in the name of preserving the establishment's agenda. 

The intel community is a hundred times more patriotic than the Russian stooge in the WH, that’s for sure. 

 

Those career public servants yesterday were Patriots the likes of which Trump can’t hold a candle too. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Rob's House]

14 minutes ago, Foxx said:

you can't really fault the people on the short bus. their minds are so weak that they rely on others (read: main stream propagandists) to tell them what to believe and what to think. that they grew up lacking critical thinking skills is plainly evident because it doesn't take much to understand that simple logic should dictate, to even a caveman that one plus one equals two. not three, four, seven or twenty-two, but just two.

 

another factor to consider is that they are so invested in what they have been sold, that to find out or have to admit that they have been gamed would shatter the precious little world they reside in. we call them muckers because they just plod through the mire not wanting to actually have to do anything to survive. ***** up the works of what was the most successful engine in the world.

 

strange energies from space are the only logical explanation for the madness we are experiencing.

 

That's the big one. Facing the possibility that the belief system you've built your identity upon may be wrong is hard.

 

The part that's interesting to me is how little the actual beliefs matter as compared to the group identity. The extent to, and readiness with which so many people will suspend disbelief and unquestioningly adhere to the teachings and orders of a perceived authority figure from their identity group, even when it runs counter to the information available to them, is both fascinating and disturbing.

 

The scary part is that we're all like that to some degree. I think this bizarre "progressive" movement as it currently exists is the product of ambitious people with power taking advantage of those at the far end of the spectrum.

 

I find it easier with each passing day to understand how authoritarian regimes gain support and rise to power.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Albwan]

38 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

BobGarTibs cannot respond to that clip. 

 

It gave the game away in 2017 -- and they ignored it... now, we see it was very real. 

 

Nothing like a sitting US Senator going on cable news and threatening the legally elected POTUS on behalf of a segment of the IC which is crooked beyond all repair. If these TDS addled folk had any semblance of principles (or functioning frontal lobes), they'd realize that this whole thing is a spook job from soup to nuts. 

 

And what's MORE dangerous than politicizing impeachment? 

 

Letting the IC run roughshod over the constitution and our election process in the name of preserving the establishment's agenda. 

Didnt JohnAdams hear from GaryBusey that BobfromMichigan thought he saw a post from DR that mentioned Tibs

[Deranged Rhino]

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1195134448624422912

 

One thing I’ve learned over the past two years — no one researches as well or as quickly as Rosie. 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Deranged Rhino
Added a link

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

BobGarTibs cannot respond to that clip. 

 

 

 

I'd have gone with "GarBoTib" myself.

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

BobGarTibs cannot respond to that clip. 

 

It gave the game away in 2017 -- and they ignored it... now, we see it was very real. 

 

Nothing like a sitting US Senator going on cable news and threatening the legally elected POTUS on behalf of a segment of the IC which is crooked beyond all repair. If these TDS addled folk had any semblance of principles (or functioning frontal lobes), they'd realize that this whole thing is a spook job from soup to nuts. 

 

And what's MORE dangerous than politicizing impeachment? 

 

Letting the IC run roughshod over the constitution and our election process in the name of preserving the establishment's agenda. 

 

Who writes Rachel Maddow's scripts?  

 

Because that's not an ad-libbed interview.

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'd have gone with "GarBoTib" myself.

 

 So much better. 

 

(For any League fans)

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, Albwan said:

Didnt JohnAdams hear from GaryBusey that BobfromMichigan thought he saw a post from DR that mentioned Tibs

 

That's what Schiff likes to call "clear and indisputable evidence."

 

[DC Tom]

Just now, IDBillzFan said:

 

That's what Schiff likes to call "clear and indisputable evidence."

 

 

Of collusi-...no, wait, coercio-..., er, bribery.  Yeah, that's it, bribery!

[Doc]

7 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Republicans have not offered a single piece of exculpatory evidence to contradict Trumps crimes. Nothing, not a thing, just lame excuses and distractions 

 

Sure they have: Voldymyr Zelensky.  You know, the guy who Dems allege was extorted/bribed/pressured but who himself said that he wasn't.  And Taylor's admission that Zelensky didn't express any concerns to him in the several meetings after the phone call back that up.  Then there's the fact that the aid got released without any conditions.