News (FoxNews) White House announces it will not comply with 'illegitimate and unconstitutional' impeachment inquiry

[jackstar7]

The interesting thing about the 'truth is not truth, evidence is not evidence' delusional reality mindset is that when it suits them they can all of a sudden discover that they never supported Trump in the first place and they knew he was a crook from the start! They will have no idea why all those other people supported him, but they certainly didn't!

I worry that by then they will have all had NYT profiles to document their previous stance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well get your forks out boys and girls, he's done.

Taylor's damning opening statement.

 

[thilanliyan]

...

i'd like to see ol' donny try to wriggle his way out of this one

"Guys guys it's not a quid pro quo it's just a business deal, like my other bigly smart deals."

Case closed, Donny says it's not a quid pro quo.

 

[jackstar7]

Well get your forks out boys and girls, he's done.

Taylor's damning opening statement.

He's not done until the public starts to let the information sink in.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He's not done until the public starts to let the information sink in.

We're at 50% now for impeachment not just the investigation and this can only drive it higher. The only way to defend against this is to pretend it doesn't exist and cry about Trump being lynched. For 30% of voters, murder isn't a good enough reason to remove Donnie but that leaves more than enough to worry even Mitch and Graham.

Going out on a limb I'm going to say that in 7-10 days the sentiment will be 55-60 percent as this penetrates the thick heads needed for removal and as more people are called to testify that sink will more likely look like a bidet and maybe DC's ass can be cleaned up a bit.

 

[Jhhnn]

I worry that by then they will have all had NYT profiles to document their previous stance.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. How can you possibly say otherwise?

 

[VRAMdemon]

I wonder how soon Giuliani will be thrown into the fire.

Rudy's been awful quiet lately...

I guess he's "Biden" his time

 

[Fenixgoon]

Rudy's been awful quiet lately...

I guess he's "Biden" his time

nice pun 😁

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Looks as if the whistleleaker is a guy named Eric Ciaramella. It's been out for over 6 hours.

 

[soundforbjt]

Looks as if the whistleleaker is a guy named Eric Ciaramella. It's been out for over 6 hours.

Sure he is...https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...uces-new-conspiracy-into-congressional-record
I noticed it's only being reported on right-wing sites as usual.

 

[interchange]

Looks as if the whistleleaker is a guy named Eric Ciaramella. It's been out for over 6 hours.

Why use a derogatory descriptor? Do you think the man has done a disservice to our country to get this information into the hands of those capable of oversight of the President?

 

[fskimospy]

Why use a derogatory descriptor? Do you think the man has done a disservice to our country to get this information into the hands of those capable of oversight of the President?

I’m still waiting for an answer to why his identity matters. If it turns out it was Hillary Clinton herself who cares? The information provided was accurate and it described illegal activity.

 

[interchange]

I’m still waiting for an answer to why his identity matters. If it turns out it was Hillary Clinton herself who cares? The information provided was accurate and it described illegal activity.

It doesn't. The IG and DNI had already indicated the individual was operating under good faith and that the underlying information was credible. At that point, all that matters is the evidence that is uncovered during the investigation. The whistleblower complaint isn't likely to be evidence in an impeachment trial, but it's up to the Senate to determine the evidentiary standard used at that stage. There really shouldn't be any argument against it unless it is of relevance then. Nothing wrong with it being used as source to guide an investigation, and it absolutely could be used in a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause that a crime was committed to move to criminal trial. That's more or less the corollary to impeachment in the House.

I don't think smear the whistleblower is a good strategy at this point because of all the evidence that has been uncovered in the interim, but sadly I think that hypothesis will be tested.

 

[PJFrylar]

I’m still waiting for an answer to why his identity matters. If it turns out it was Hillary Clinton herself who cares? The information provided was accurate and it described illegal activity.

They are looking for an easy "out" to ignore the issue without actually addressing the substance of the issue.

 

[sactoking]

I’m still waiting for an answer to why his identity matters. If it turns out it was Hillary Clinton herself who cares? The information provided was accurate and it described illegal activity.

I mean, that's the whole point of whistleblower laws, isn't it? It doesn't matter who comes forward or why, just that the information given exposes wrongdoing.

 

[fskimospy]

I mean I guess it all makes sense if you come at it from the place where Republicans don't actually care if Trump committed crimes, just how it plays for them politically.

In that lens the identity of the whistleblower probably does matter as if they can paint him/her as some sort of partisan then that probably helps them even though the information they provided about crimes is ironclad.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The whistleblower living in Trump's head- still, and for the rest of Trump's life

https://twitter.com/x/status/1186985677176655872

 

[SMOGZINN]

I’m still waiting for an answer to why his identity matters. If it turns out it was Hillary Clinton herself who cares? The information provided was accurate and it described illegal activity.

For the same reason that they think the FISA investigation is so important. They are trying to convince people that where and how information was gathered is more important than if that information was accurate.

 

[K1052]

We're at 50% now for impeachment not just the investigation and this can only drive it higher. The only way to defend against this is to pretend it doesn't exist and cry about Trump being lynched. For 30% of voters, murder isn't a good enough reason to remove Donnie but that leaves more than enough to worry even Mitch and Graham.

Going out on a limb I'm going to say that in 7-10 days the sentiment will be 55-60 percent as this penetrates the thick heads needed for removal and as more people are called to testify that sink will more likely look like a bidet and maybe DC's ass can be cleaned up a bit.

It really comes down to if McConnell decides to roll the dice that Trump can push through this or looking at the possible loss of 6-10 senate seats, the presidency, numerous down ballot contests, and a House firmly in the grip of his rivals if he'd rather back a Pence/whoever ticket and try to save his power.

 

[Jhhnn]

I’m still waiting for an answer to why his identity matters. If it turns out it was Hillary Clinton herself who cares? The information provided was accurate and it described illegal activity.

Because he's a traitorous rat bastard who should be brought before the Divine Leader in the middle of Fifth Avenue to receive his just reward!

Or something like that.

 

[K1052]

lol...Trump's already lost almost every last person outside his base that he acted to help himself wrt Ukraine. This is extremely bad news.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It really comes down to if McConnell decides to roll the dice that Trump can push through this or looking at the possible loss of 6-10 senate seats, the presidency, numerous down ballot contests, and a House firmly in the grip of his rivals if he'd rather back a Pence/whoever ticket and try to save his power.

We've never been in this position as a nation and I wonder if Mitch not being in absolute control of the proceedings means anything? What does "preside" mean when it comes to the Chief Justice? Does he just sit there wordless or does he have a role to play?

I have a lot of questions and no real answers.

 

[UNCjigga]

Hey guys I heard from the former Deputy AG that “abuse of power is not a crime” and obvi he’s super knowledgeable about this stuff (and big dick toilets) so this whole impeachment is a sham! No harm no foul!!

 

[K1052]

We've never been in this position as a nation and I wonder if Mitch not being in absolute control of the proceedings means anything? What does "preside" mean when it comes to the Chief Justice? Does he just sit there wordless or does he have a role to play?

I have a lot of questions and no real answers.

I think he sets the process and schedule but Roberts presides over the actual proceeding. I don't think Mitch has a lot of say once the trial begins.

 

[fskimospy]

I think he sets the process and schedule but Roberts presides over the actual proceeding. I don't think Mitch has a lot of say once the trial begins.

Depends on how much support Mitch has. Roberts presides over the proceedings based on the rules of the Senate but 51 senators can change them at any time if they feel like it. I do doubt McConnell would have sufficient support to alter the rules in any meaningful way after the trial begins though so maybe it doesn't matter.