Quantcast

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,802
19,117
Riding the baggage carousel.
Whack-a-mole
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,721
8,733
After months of expressing caution on a push for impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump Tuesday.

"The president must be held accountable," Pelosi said. "No one is above the law."

The landmark move comes after controversy over a phone call Trump had with the newly elected Ukranian leader in July and reporting that the president pressured him to investigate political rival, Joe Biden.

"The actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections," Pelosi said. "Therefore, today, I am announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I am directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry."
It's happening, finally.

 

AngryMetalsmith

Business is good, thanks for asking
Jun 4, 2006
22,042
12,734
I have no idea where I am

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,802
19,117
Riding the baggage carousel.
Man. Today was a crazy year.

Still won’t matter to the republican controlled senate, alas
Put them on record. Let the GOP defend him publicly. It is incumbent upon Democrats to set the precedent that this sort of behavior is not okay. What is the point of checks and balances if they are never used? If they aren't used against the most impeachable douche nozzle to ever walk the halls of power, what is the fucking point? It is driving me absolutely batshit that Congress seems to have forgotten not only the Duty to impeach but the even simpler processes like Inherent Contempt. If not now, when?
 

mandown

Poopdeck Repost
Jun 1, 2004
21,769
9,090
Transylvania 90210
Man. Today was a crazy year.


Put them on record. Let the GOP defend him publicly. It is incumbent upon Democrats to set the precedent that this sort of behavior is not okay. What is the point of checks and balances if they are never used? If they aren't used against the most impeachable douche nozzle to ever walk the halls of power, what is the fucking point? It is driving me absolutely batshit that Congress seems to have forgotten not only the Duty to impeach but the even simpler processes like Inherent Contempt. If not now, when?
Make sure we get him out in time to invade. President P should run that circus.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,802
19,117
Riding the baggage carousel.
I was (sorta) listening on NPR... JHFC... "most unhinged" is actually probably a bit mild a description... :disgust1:
Im gonna need some medical marijuana.

edit:
Actual quote.
"we had tremendous. tremendous. it was terrible"



I can't tell if he had a stroke, or if I did.

I'm also pretty sure he asked the UN to, or tried to fire Nancy Pelosi.
 
Last edited:

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
88,769
26,985
media blackout
This. I half believe that the Republican Senators will do all that they can to downplay this whole thing for fear of having to go on record either for, or against impeachment.
well, the whistleblower complaint was published this morning. i'm not sure they're gonna have that luxury much longer
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
88,769
26,985
media blackout
This. I half believe that the Republican Senators will do all that they can to downplay this whole thing for fear of having to go on record either for, or against impeachment.
this is from yesterday. *before* the whistleblower complaint was released. i'm curious how accurate that number really is.

1569508652779.png
 

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM MAGA!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,219
381
Bay Area, California
well, the whistleblower complaint was published this morning. i'm not sure they're gonna have that luxury much longer
I don't think the Democrats will get enough votes to even move it to the senate. If by chance it makes it that far, it will fall flat in the senate as there needs to be a 2/3's vote that they'll never get, so its kind of a big waste of time.

IMO, the Democrats are going to lengths to get Trump out of the White House (they still haven't recovered from 2016) as they are aware they don't have a lot of strong candidates that are capable of beating Trump in an election. Biden is their best hope as he's a moderate, but the cogs in his head are slipping, has way too many gaffs when speaking and now the issues with his son, Hunter its going to be Warren. Warren is too far left for most moderates Democrats, giving the victory to Trump.
 

Nick

My name is Nick
Sep 21, 2001
24,898
16,457
where the trails are
Agreed.
Evidence of overt crimes could be presented to the Senate and 2/3 would still not act in the interest of the country.

People are going to lengths to replace Trump because he appears from all angles to be a criminal. I know I believe that to be true.

There is no issue with Biden's son. It's literally a red herring.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,802
19,117
Riding the baggage carousel.
this is from yesterday. *before* the whistleblower complaint was released. i'm curious how accurate that number really is.

View attachment 137365

I know we had this conversation yesterday, but IMO those "30" are even worse than the Trump loyalists. At least the loyalists believe in something, no matter how fucked up misguided they may be. These 30 senators are waffling, self serving, chickenshits. Party before country, myopic, self-aggrandizing, chickenshits. Fuck them, especially. May they rot in hell.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
88,769
26,985
media blackout
I don't think the Democrats will get enough votes to even move it to the senate. If by chance it makes it that far, it will fall flat in the senate as there needs to be a 2/3's vote that they'll never get, so its kind of a big waste of time.
passing articles of impeachment only requires a simple majority. democrats *already* have that. numbers i've seen are 219 or 220 of the 435 reps in the house (meaning 218 are required). that doesn't include the lone independent in the house, who supports it as well.

also, re: the GOP. i will repost:

1569509369556.png
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,721
8,733
Whistle blower report is out.
the whistleblower complaint was published this morning.
Links:

ICIG letter re complaint:


Complaint itself:


I shall parse through these in a bit. Got to actually do some work for a few minutes.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
88,769
26,985
media blackout
I shall parse through these in a bit. Got to actually do some work for a few minutes.
most surprising part about this is that the trump admininistration *knew* the call was highly likely to be illegal (or at the very least politically damaging) and deliberately misclassified the transcript....... and this is apparently not the first time they've done so. so now my question is - in the course of the investigation what else will they discover that has been "misclassified"
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,721
8,733
Complaint itself:

Sweet jeebus. The whole first page and change is just on point and brutal, replete with references to the US Code to justify why he or she is taking their actions.

Page 3 lets drop that the whistleblower is not in the White House. It also details directly a coverup! "White House officials told me that they were 'directed' by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system [...]".

That is a smoking gun!

Part IV and the footnotes on page 5 provide a clearheaded examination of the (bogus) Trump-side allegations re the corrupt, non-legally-trained Prosecutor General. It also explains why Giuliani has hung himself in public already with his admissions.

Another smoking gun , on page 7:

"In mid-July, I learned of a sudden change of policy with respect to U.S. assistance for Ukraine. See [classified] Enclosure for additional information." This appears to refer to the last part of the appendix, which has not been redacted, regarding suspension of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine on July 18, without explanation other than "OMB officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistance had come directly from the President, but they were still unaware of a policy rationale."
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,721
8,733
ICIG letter re complaint:

This is much drier, but again is very clear in laying out the argument in a legal manner--standing, relevant laws, relevance.

"[...] in the ICIG's judgment, alleged conduct by a senior U.S. public official to seek foreign assistance or to interfere in or influence a Federal election would constitute a 'serious or flagrant problem [or] abuse' under [US Code ref.], which would also potentially expose such a U.S. public official [...] to serious national security and counterintelligence risks with respect to foreign intelligence services aware of such alleged conduct."

A-fucking-men. (Emphasis in quote is mine.)

Page 6 also notes that the ICIG has requested a "document access request and a document hold notice [...] to request access to and the preservation of any and all records related to the President's telephone call with the Ukranian President on July 25, 2019, and alleged related efforts to solicit, obtain, or receive assistance from foreign nationals in Ukraine, directly or indirectly, in connection with a Federal election."

So it's been laid down and documented that this shit is not to disappear...