158 thoughts on “Pelosi bends, will announce impeachment inquiry today

  1. I wouldn’t say “Pelosi bends”, the revelations about UkraineGate have changed the landscape so much that now it’s much safer for the Dems to impeach because the crime is so obvious.

    Before the Ukraine revelations (only 3 days ago?) I think the Dems would be on (politically) shakey ground with an impeachment, but now their in great shape.

    I’m glad Pelosi was able to hold off impeachment until this point.

    1. ‘Dems to impeach because the crime is so obvious.’

      What exactly is the crime? (It’s a sincere question — I am not trying to pick an argument 🙂 )

      1. Here’s a sequence of events:

        * Congress approves $250 million for aid to Ukraine.
        * Trump puts a hold on it and the admin makes up a bogus excuse for that hold.
        * Trump, in phone call with Ukraine, asks them to investigate one or both of the Bidens.

        Even without an explicit quid pro quo, that’s extortion.

        Plus there’s using U.S. dollars for his own advantage.

        1. You should look up the XYZ Affair, it’s exactly the same thing, but the with US on the receiving end of the extortion.

          As for the ‘Gang of Four’ being able to avoid vicious ranting, I seriously doubt it, it’s not what they’ve been taught to do, just look at Evergreen, or any other college in the US.

          After all to quote a SJW, “Free speech is the right to educated speech. If you utilize your right to ‘freedom of speech’ but then are socially or politically apathetic, you don’t vote, educate yourself on social issues, if you are not involved in the community, if you are not involved in being a citizen, an educated citizen, you have no right to free speech.”

  2. in re “read and smile,” O my !

    Even ‘fore I read those three words ? ! I was !

    Exactly that ! I read the headline … …
    and soooo smiled ! Yes = ” judiciously and
    carefully,” please.

    Still smilin’,

  3. Congress must step up and exercise its duty as a co-equal branch of government, for the legitimacy of our system of governance is at stake. I do not see any equivalence between the impeachment of Clinton and the impeachment of Trump, on the merits or on the politics, so I’m baffled by Pelosi’s reluctance to hold Trump accountable.

    1. I’m baffled by Pelosi’s reluctance to hold Trump accountable.

      A number of Democrat congress people in moderate/conservative districts told Pelosi that impeachment would make their re-election very difficult. One of Pelosi’s main jobs is to maintain Democrat majority in the House.

      But the Ukrainegate revelations have changed all that. It’s much safer to proceed with impeachment now.

      1. I don’t know that it is so safe. What of Biden’s son really was being given special favors by foreign governments? I don’t know much about this case but the bits I have read seem highly suspicious and suggest corruption. This could backfire very badly on Biden.

        1. I don’t know that it is so safe.

          It’s safer than it was 3 days ago. And certainly some Dem congresspersons are a little nervous about it, but I think not moving towards impeachment at this point would be politically worse for the party as a whole.

        2. It may well be that Ukraine *should* investigate Biden (son) but that’s for *them* to decide, not the US president, with threats / bribes to go along.

          (That said, it seems unlikely that there’s anything to do.)

  4. It’s about time. I know she framed this as something well beyond what Trump has already done but really it is not. It is simply easier to see this one. But the Mueller report and all that has already happened is the same thing just different country. It was all Russia before and now we include Ukraine. Finally the democrats do something.

      1. Well, we will see. They are going to need to up their game a great deal as this proceeds. Trump and his spineless republicans will attempt to throw mud on everyone including the whistleblower. On Thursday we will see if the guy who blocked this thing will produce the whistleblower’s report or continues to break the law. Since he is only acting DNI and will never be the DNI I don’t know if he wants to go to jail for Trump? So far many have.

        1. It wilk be interesting. I’m still wondering if there will be desertions of Trump by his remaining allies. We have seen them stick by him so far so how long will they stick around? Could be forever. Could be a slow desertion. Who knows?

          1. That is going to be the big question as this thing moves forward. I remember when the Watergate hearings first started, there were no republicans going against him. But as the hearings progress it started to change slowly. When they got the tapes, it was over, so you never know.

        2. I was under the impression that by calling for a formal impeachment, the House had more power at it’s disposal to obtain facts. Thus, it should not be possible for tRump to block and stonewall. If someone knows for sure how this changes the power balance, I’d like to know about it.

            1. Just something I have heard from time to time is, once they officially go into impeachment hearings it should make the judicial stuff happen faster. As if the court gives them higher priority or something like that. We will see because so far, the Trump side had everything stopped in the courts.

              1. I had heard that once impeachment inquiries were officially on, Trump would have to hand over his tax returns.

            2. I’m not an expert in this area. (Few lawyers are, aside perhaps from some constitutional law professors with a particularized interest, since these issues arise so infrequently),

              Nevertheless, FWIW, I don’t think there’s any additional powers in this regard expressly conferred by law in the case of impeachment proceedings, but I believe the courts would hear such matters on an expedited basis. (For example, in the Watergate case, it took just four months, start to finish, from the time a subpoena was issued for Nixon’s White House tapes until SCOTUS issued a final decision compelling that those tapes be produced).

              Also, once there has been a crime or fraud formally alleged, as in an impeachment proceeding, various testimonial privileges (such as those for executive and attorney-client communications) that would otherwise shield evidence from production no longer apply.

              1. Thanks for the input. I was hoping to hear there would be additional powers, but just the elevation of the issue to the level of impeachment should mean much closer attention by the voters – which is really the goal.

    1. The Mueller report found no evidence of conspiracy between Trump and Russia. IT did find evidence that Trump obstructed the investigation but refused to commit on whether a criminal offence was committed.

      This is different because there potentially is evidence that Trump tried to extort the president of the Ukraine.

      1. I believe that Mueller declined to say whether or not a crime had been committed. This was because when a person is accused of a crime, they must have their ‘day in court’. Since a Department of Justice memo exists that states that a sitting President cannot be indicted, there would be no court case where Trump could, theoretically, be cleared of the crime. Mueller’s position appears to have been that it would be unfair for him to make an accusation of a crime when Trump would not be able to clear his name. (Ahem.)
        I’ve listened to many hours of lawyers debating this point. The concensus, at least amongst those in the conversation, was that it was clear that there were many things for which Trump *could* be charged – *but* for that pesky memo.
        I may be in error here. Go easy on me. I’m just an elderly Australian Sheila who’s somehow become rather obsessive about seeing Trump get his come-uppance.

        1. I think you are exactly correct on this. Also, the extortion part of this current item really makes no different. If the request was put to the Ukrainian that he wanted dirt on Biden, that is plenty without any further extortion. Dealing with a foreign govt. to screw with an election is simply illegal. And that is exactly what he had done with Russia.

        2. And of course there is this letter by the US Department Of Justice Alumni, signed by hundreds of former DOJ prosecutors, both Republican and Democratic, from across many POTUS administrations, saying that based largely on the Mueller report Trump has committed many indictable offenses and would have been indicted already if he were anyone other than POTUS. To my mind it really doesn’t get any clearer than that.

          1. Helpful, but not completely reassuring. I believe tRump had committed indictable offenses during his time as a New York City real estate developer. As far as I know he was never held to account.

        1. Even that is not quite right, Paul. Mueller didn’t think he had authority to prosecute in any case. But he found lots of evidence that was prosecutable if the target wasn’t protected by the “can’t prosecute a sitting president” rule.

    1. The other day I accused Nancy Pelosi of having undescended testicles. I knew the woman has cojones but was mighty frustrated that even in the face of these latest revelations, she was silent. But no more. In my opinion she made her declaration at the right time; even the day before would have been premature; tomorrow some other abomination would probably come to the fore and detract from the momentous import of her statement.

      The gauntlet has been thrown. Will Trump actually release an unredacted transcript of the phone call as he said he would — that was before Pelosi’s statement.

      And what’s Barr up to, busy with his figurative scissors and white-out? What’ll Mitch McConnell cook up to stonewall the process.

      1. I meant that as a stand-alone comment but forgot to move to that box because I was thinking about responding to your comment by opining that sending them to Guantanamo was far better than my thought of sending them to St. Helena for the rest of their lives. Guantanamo is the place for them. In fact, if all of Trump’s cronies and enablers were brought to justice, Guantanamo would be full.

    1. Me too. Can’t unring this bell, so let’s hope for the best.

      Living in interesting times can be a curse or a blessing. Usually it’s a curse, though.

  5. You Lefties, you’re all a quiver over something that will like all the other delusions (Russia etc) will turn out to be nothing. You all speak of holding Trump accountable? For what? His defence of the US, the economy? exposing the delusions of the elite media and it’s sycophants? I could go on but have any of you thought of holding Biden accountable and his son? Maybe Hilary and the FBI and CIA using false dossiers etc to undermine an elected President? Maybe Hilary and the dodgy Clinton Foundation, maybe Hilary selling control of the US uranium to Russia? Both sides do wrong and both make mistakes but your self absorbed hatred ruins your judgement.

              1. I think you got that worng, darwinwins.

                Trump IS eminently attackable (original point).

                Is there anyone in history more attackable? (Probably not).

                Therefore everyone in history must be less attackable. (From the viewpoint of our current argument).

                I think.


        1. You are delusional. How are we supposed to address that? You haven’t merely had a drink of the kool-aid, you’ve guzzled the entire pitcher.

    1. Trump obstructed a federal investigation

      Trump declared a fake emergency in order to override a funding decision arrived at by Congress.

      Trump’s administration routinely puts children in cages and holds immigrants in inhumane conditions.

      Trump is funnelling US tax payers’ money into his private businesses (this one on its own should be enough to get him fired)

      Trump is soliciting business for his private companies from foreign powers (e.g. by encouraging them to stay at his hotels, suggesting that a G7 summit be held at one of his properties).

      Trump falsified a NWS weather report (albeit in a hilariously stupid way) and then pressured it into not issuing statements that contradict the word of Trump.

      Trump tried to extort a favour from a foreign power by withholding a quarter of a billion dollars worth of aide.

      Have I missed any of his “achievements” out?

  6. At the risk of interrupting this circular gratifying pleasure soiree, please consider the following:
    1. Trump is going to release the transcript of the call at issue and already knows what is in the transcript. Therefore there is not likely to be anything in the transcript that is damaging to Trump in reasonable minds.

    2. Hunter Biden was paid large sums of money by a notoriously corrupt Ukranian oil and gas company as a consultant in a field in which he had no background. He was being targeted by the Ukranian state prosecutor. Joe Biden has publicly said that he would unilaterally refuse to release an authorized $1Billion to Ukraine unless the prosecutor was canned. He was canned.

    3. Joe Biden has stated that there was no relationship between his actions and the pending investigation of his son. In the past, folks I knew would have considered that assertion questionable at best. But I would like to know the truth of it. Wouldn’t you?

    4. Can a president ever ask that a foreign country investigate allegations of corruption or provide evidence of corruption by a current political opponent? (I mean actual evidence of plausible corrupt activities, not made-up stuff like the Steele dossier.) Under the circumstances, is there anything wrong with a Ukranian investigation except for the fact the Trump requested it? What about Biden’s son, can you investigate him? What if Biden had chosen not to run, but was out campaigning for Dem. candidates? Would it be OK then? And so forth.

    As to impeachment, I dunno what will happen or who it would benefit/harm the most. Suspect that Pelosi might know that Ginsberg isn’t going to make it and wants an impeachment fight to stop Trump from nominating a replacement, but that’s just my guess.

    1. 4. Can a president ever ask that a foreign country investigate allegations of corruption or provide evidence of corruption by a current political opponent?

      Of course not. Asking for political help from a foreign power is the slam-dunk crime that makes it easy for the Dems to go forward.

      1. Well, the Obama administration recruited the Brits, the Australians, the Germans, and perhaps other nation states to investigate (spy on?) the Trump campaign in 2016. That’s what I call asking for political help from a foreign power against a political opponent.

        But is calling for an investigation “asking for political help”. I have no idea if Hunter Biden getting big bucks from a sketchy Ukranian outfit violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or whether his dad’s political hardball with the Ukrainians shielded Hunter from the consequences. As said above, I think I’d like to know. If the Bidens did nothing wrong, they should have nothing to fear. Your contention is that Trump should not call for an investigation into the son of a political opponent, even if the investigation is otherwise warranted, because he would benefit politically. Being related to someone running for office does not immunize you from potential criminal liability.

        1. Well, the Obama administration recruited the Brits, the Australians, the Germans, and perhaps other nation states to investigate (spy on?) the Trump campaign in 2016.

          Wrong, they weren’t investigating the Trump campaign, they were investigating Russian influence. They actually warned the Trump campaign about possible Russian influence.

    2. 1. No one cares about Trump’s edited transcript, unless it is edited with a sharpie, which would be good for shits and giggles.

      2. The Ukraine case against Burisma was shelved in 2014. The ouster of Shokin was supported by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform. It was not Biden winging it.

      3. Even if Biden was guilty of something, that wouldn’t make it ok for the president to do.

      4. Involving foreign countries in Federal election politics is forbidden by law. Using government money as leverage makes it worse.

      1. 1. Not being a true believer, I will wait for evidence of the editing before I claim that it happened. Evidence easily obtained, BTW, since there was another party on the other end of the phone.

        2. I agree. There were lots of parties wanting the ouster of that prosecuter. But Ukraine didn’t even start the investigation till late 2014. Biden’s ultimatum came in 2016.

        3. Pass.

        4. See my comment above about the Obama administration’s use of foreign governments against Trump in 2016.

        1. 4. See my comment above about the Obama administration’s use of foreign governments against Trump in 2016.

          The Obama admin didn’t use foreign governments against Trump.

    3. 1) The transcript is not at issue here. The whistleblower complaint is at issue. The phone call is just once piece of the puzzle, the whistle blower may have more info then just that one phone call. Plus, we saw Trump doctor a weather map for some asinine reason. Oh, that violation of the law wasn’t a big deal? Well, then how about the slow, piece meal release of the Mueller report? It was a coordinated effort to give Trump a chance to set the narrative (Exoneration!, No collusion, no obstruction!) even though the report documented 10 instances of obstruction of justice. He can’t be trusted to release a proper transcript.

      2) Hunter Biden was not under investigation, as you incorrectly claim. Burisma Holdings was under investigation. H. Biden took the gig after the company was already under investigation, presumably to help them with corporate governance. Yeah, he was trading off the Biden name but that isn’t illegal.

      3) The truth of it is known already. The prosecutor in question was wanted out by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Great Britain and the Obama Administration. The reason was because he was looking the other way instead of investigating corruption. One of the dormant investigations was Burisma Holdings.

      4) Let’s make pretend that the owner of Trump University is concerned about corruption. Why use his personal attorney as the liaison? Why not go through the state department?

      1. 1. Well, the transcript…what was said on the phone call…is certainly one of the issues. As to altering the transcript, I prefer to wait on the facts rather than rely on a belief system.

        2. Agree the investigation was against the company rather than Hunter, who was on the board, having been placed on the board shortly after his dad was made Obama point man in Ukraine. Which raises the point…did Trump really ask them to investigate JOE Biden? Why would Ukraine investigate Joe? Or to investigate Hunter? Or investigate Burisma? Are those all the same things under the theory that it all hurts Joe in the end. Then the allegations get more attenuated.

        3. Well,that is certainlyJoe’s argument, along with the claim that he had no idea what the boy was doing with his life. BTW the shall we say questionable optics of the Hunter/Joe Biden situation was raised bu U.S. anti corruption folks back in 2014 but they were ignored.

        4. My understanding is that the State Department requested Rudy to act as an intermediary with Ukrainian whistleblowers.

        1. Are you ‘that’ Mike Savage? You know, the rabid right wing dude on the radio? The one who rides on Air Force One with Trumplestiltskin?

          1. Jerry can answer that, if he desires. But I am in awe of folks who sit around and come up with child-like taunting names the likes of which I heard when I was 8 years old. Trumplestiltskin!

          2. @Jenny

            No, “Mike Savage” is not the Michael Alan Weiner/Michael Savage.

            Twitter Michael Savage, @ASavageNation, is like this: “ANOTHER BLACK MOB BEATS ANOTHER INNOCENT WHITE! STOP THE BLACK HATE CRIMES. FBI WHERE ARE YOU?” and “whites need not apply! cam-puss sci-tech fair to only feature scholars ‘of color’; deny this sham-pus all federal funds!” – he is fond of slogan phrases & wordplay scattered throughout his racist bullshit, but he knows his audience & keeps it all at a ten year old reading level for his knuckle draggers.

            Bookish Michael Savage is an entirely different beast, he’s a very good, engaging writer. I’m judging from The Savage Nation, although some of the stories I think he’s had published before – they ring bells with me from the dim & distant.

            Then there’s Michael Savage wearing his medical/nutritional hat as Michael A. Weiner [his birth name] who writes complete bollocks rather well about homeopathy & ‘alternative’ medicine.

            None of those faces of Michael Savage [opportunist extraordinaire] match Mike Savage, who doesn’t sloganeer & isn’t as interesting unfortunately.

            The real Michael Savage would use “Michael”, would have proudly linked to his website & would have freely admitted who he is, while this Mike Savage will not even squeak a protest about your question. Not made of the same stuff you see.

        2. 1) I don’t trust Trump, with cause. But sure, we should wait for more facts before final judgement. The whistle blower complaint is more pertinent then the one phone call, you didn’t address that.

          2) You say now the company, not Hunter was under investigation. But that’s not what you stated above. Your obfuscations will fool no one here.

          3) Perhaps that’s JOE’S argument because it’s the truth? Steve Gerrard also made the argument above, better then I. BTW, you are making TRUMP’S arguments. Does putting it in caps make a difference?

          4) Just today, the state department said Guiliani doesn’t speak for the state department. Rudy kazootie is in more then a little bit of trouble. He better hope Trump survives conviction of senate so he can get that promised pardon. He isn’t getting it before hand, that’s for sure.

          1. 1. I think you’ll find the whistleblower report is being released as well.

            2. Hunter was a director of the company being targeted. Not much of an imprecision.

            3. Might be true. Let them investigate. I suspect that the Ukrainian investigation will go forward.

            4. It’s pretty clear Giuliani was working with State. Lots of specifics have been set forth. If you want to ask why State was working with him, I dunno. But you really do have some great grade-school type nicknames. “Rudy Colludy”. Sort of like the children’s cartoon, right?

            1. 1) Indeed, just now reported to be released. A little late and we’re not likely to see it.

              Will you trust congress’s interpretation of it?

              2) No. Frankly, I think you meant to cast it a certain way until you couldn’t. The public record shows HB did nothing wrong vis-à-vis Bursima. (He’s had other issues. I don’t like playing the what about-ism game, but you do. Are Trumps children clean? Never mind. I don’t care your opinion on it.)

              3) There was an investigation, and the HB was cleared. Should it be like Benghazi? Four investigations, millions of dollars spent, all came up empty. But hey, at least it gave Hannity talking points.

              4) Before it was your ‘understanding’. Now it’s pretty clear. I wonder what made you shift your opinion. What I seeing, his story is falling apart.

    4. 4. Can a president ever ask that a foreign country investigate allegations of corruption or provide evidence of corruption by a current political opponent?

      Let’s see what Donald Trump’s own appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray had to say on a closely related topic, under questioning by Republican US senator Lindsey Graham:


      If a president has concerns about illegal conduct by an American citizen on foreign soil, he can certainly request a formal investigation by the Justice Department. What he ought not to do is send a private mouthpiece, with no governmental or law enforcement standing (like Rudy Giuliani) to try shake the information loose or to try to hondle it out of a foreign president himself during a personal phone call (especially when the call occurs immediately after the president has personally put a hold on a quarter billion dollars in appropriated military assistance to the country from which the information is being sought).

      1. It’s my understanding that the State Department asked Giuliani to act as liaison with Ukrainian whistleblowers. Though I am unclear as to why the intermediary was necessary, just as I am unclear as to why Jimmy Carter was forever being sent over to negotiate with the North Koreans.
        Apparently we agree that Trump was entitled to press for an inquiry, but you believe he didn’t do it thru proper channels. He’s President, he can do it any way he wants. Certainly my preference is that he’d be a little more corporate about things.
        The big issue is the delay in release of funds. Biden did that too, of course, but got what he wanted within six hours. Trump released the funds too but has not as of yet gotten what he purportedly wanted. I haven’t heard about Trump’s reason for the delay but I’m sure there is one, as there was with Biden, that will be plausible. Whether one believes it or not depends on one’s predispositions.

        1. Jimmy Carter is the former president of the United States. It is common practice to have a person of such international stature travel to foreign nations to engage in official, public diplomatic missions on behalf of the United States.

          Your comparison of him to Rudy Giuliani is disingenuous. Giuliani has no such standing. He has never acted as a government diplomat, and was not representing the United States on his trips to Ukraine. He is Donald Trump’s personal lawyer (and, during the special counsel’s investigation, did not even function as an actual “lawyer,” but as Trump’s public relations television mouthpiece). Giuliani was not acting as an official representative of the State Department, but merely had his travel to Ukraine facilitated by the State Department at Trump’s request, under as-yet to be revealed circumstances. Moreover, Jimmy Carter was never sent to a foreign country to dig up dirt against a sitting president’s political opponent.

          You say of Donald Trump, “He’s President, he can do it any way he wants.” No he cannot. He has such powers as are granted him by Article 2 of the US constitution, and no more. For him to have a private citizen act as his personal representative to negotiate with a foreign nation for Trump’s own personal political gain is an abuse of those powers, at the very least.

          You also say, “Whether one believes it [Trump’s excuse for withholding congressionally apportioned military financial aid to Ukraine] or not depends on one’s predispositions.” No it doesn’t; it depends upon the evidence to be adduced at public hearings.

          1. The Donald and Rudia go waaaay back, don’tcha know. They’ve been involved at least since 2000, when he was reprising his moves on E. Jean Carroll.


            As one comment puts it: “Ladies and gentlemen let me introduce to you the 45th president of the United States and his legal counsel.”

        2. …just as I am unclear as to why Jimmy Carter was forever being sent over to negotiate with the North Koreans.

          Incredible. Literally incredible.

      2. Kudos to KK for use of the word “hondle.” Haven’t heard it since my grandfather, who always mixed Yiddish in with English, passed on.

        1. It’s a great word; I can’t think of synonym that captures its nuance.

          That goes for a lot of Yiddish words, which is why I sprinkle them in from time to time — although, as a goy, my motto is “hondle with care.” 🙂

    5. “Trump is going to release the transcript of the call at issue and already knows what is in the transcript. Therefore there is not likely to be anything in the transcript that is damaging to Trump in reasonable minds.”

      And you trust Trump and his minions to be forthcoming and truthful? How does that fit any pattern associated with them, especially Trump? Trump lies about everything, reflexively, even when it is child’s play to prove his lies.

    6. And the story changes! The Trump Admin is going to release a “summary report” of the conversation.

      So much for an unredacted transcript!

      And we all wonder why? Even from what the Admin has stated, we know Trump broke the law. It must be bad.

  7. There’s an interesting article written in Politico by Renato Mariotti who’s very good when it comes to law at this level. He cautions against calling what Trump has done extortion or bribery as it could aid his defense.

    “Trump Didn’t Bribe Ukraine. It’s Actually Worse Than That. Mislabeling what the president has done could make impeachment more difficult to achieve.”


    1. Thanks for the link. Yes, it’s a very interesting article and the distinctions he makes are critical but are apparently being overlooked in the heat of the moment. I certainly hope that those who need to read it do so asap, because the correct strategy needs to be formulated and the observations of a sober outsider can help define and refine the specifics of the problem.

  8. To prepare myself for the upcoming inquiry, I looked up the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. I thought, my God except for chronic intoxication it describes Trump to a T.

    “The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion.”

  9. Where did these Trump Based yoyos come from. Does Fox have them standing by and then send them out to sites like this to harass people? At least you don’t have to watch all that sick crap on Fox news but listen to these parrots regurgitate it in comments here. Kind of makes you sick wondering what kind of a cult that really is. It will be fun to watch the republican zombies in congress as this thing comes out. Imagine being so afraid of losing your job and then losing it anyway.

        1. Yeah, I seem to recall Jerry dropping the banhammer on him, too. He was all wet with his politics, and could be a disputatious pain in the ass, but I didn’t mind having him around either. He was good for getting my blood up and forcing me to organize my arguments.

          1. Well, at least he’s remembered. Damn water-head that he is. I don’t remember JAC dropping the hammer. I think the rust left on his own accord. Probably not a dull boy, get out when then getting is good.

    1. To be fair, this is a free speech web site.

      Steve Savage had his say. I’m the dumbest guy on this site, and I think I did an OK job debunking him. Others did a better job. I doubt he made any headway.

      That is the way it should be. No safe space here!

      He is a yoyo, though. I’ll give you that.

  10. All that wonder if either Biden is guilty of something should remember that they weren’t being investigated until Trump needed an excuse when he got caught by the whistleblower, even though he is highly motivated against them and practically owns the Justice Dept. Here’s a guy whose well-known modus operandi when caught with his hands in the cookie jar is to push back by claiming someone else had their hands in it too but deeper.

  11. I just want to add one thing.

    I do not subscribe to the idea that Nancy Pelosi waited to long to act on impeachment.

    Her timing is impeccable. It’s complicated, but it’s my belief that impeachment would have been viewed as a partisan gesture prior to this point in time.

    Now, she has the Senate Republicans by the balls. Trump brazenly admitted to what he did, collude with a foreign government to influence an election, the underlining crime unproven in the Mueller report. There is apparently plenty of corroborating evidence, though the Whistle Blower complaint is still outstanding. (The general public may never see that).

    She waited till she could make her case.

    Granted, you can say her hand was forced at this time. Well, perhaps that was what she was waiting for.

    There is a good chance that Trump will be removed from office. The case against Trump is that strong. This is my prediction.

    I give her full marks and my gratitude.

    1. I think she waited until circumstance dragged her kicking and screaming past the point where she could delay any further. Virtually all the Dem Presidential candidates had publicly supported an impeachment inquiry.

      1. Are you kidding? No way this is sorted before November next year. Even if it is, the Senate is never going to go for it. That makes it a campaign issue, that’ll suck up all the oxygen from the democratic primaries, is incredibly unpopular, and looks very weak on paper. Trump can now run on being hard done by and win.

        1. I think it could easily be over by November. It doesn’t have to end in an actual impeachment trial to effectively kill Trump’s reelection hopes.

          Things are moving very fast on the investigation side. It is also a charge that resonates much more with the public and the politicians than the results of Mueller’s investigation. Obstruction without a charge for the underlying crime was never going to convince many people in this political climate. On the other hand, using his office to coerce foreign officials in digging up dirt on his political enemies is a fairly easy story to digest and is a much more “real” crime than obstruction alone.

          If the Senate blocks even voting on impeachment or treats it lightly, Trump will certainly claim exoneration but I’m not sure politicians and the public will. While the GOP senators may be forced to back him, they won’t like it as this as a politician is the victim in Trump’s crime.

          1. I’d only add that as tRump’s prospects for election dim through revelations in the hearings to come, Republicans are going to fear him less. At some point, he will lose control of the party.

  12. We don’t yet know whether President Trump delayed some military aid to Ukraine as leverage to get Ukraine’s president to reopen an investigation into Hunter Biden. But if we are concerned about U.S. officials inappropriately threatening aid to Ukraine, then there are others who have some explaining to do.

    It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

    So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

    That’s different because shut up.

    1. We don’t yet know whether President Trump delayed some military aid to Ukraine as leverage to get Ukraine’s president to reopen an investigation into Hunter Biden

      Actually, we now know exactly that. Donald released some notes on the call, and it’s quite clear.

    2. The senators did not initiate the investigations. Trump tried to initiate one.

      The investigations in Ukraine were the result of US intelligence finding questionable activities and investigating them. It happens to be their job to do that.

  13. Trump is releasing the complaint, the transcript of the phone call, and the IG report. He is waiving privilege to allow the whistleblower to testify. So, what stonewalling?

    No one here has seen these documents yet but most seem absolutely certain anyway. What is a word for certainty without evidence?

    1. They stonewalled (illegally) right up to the point of the impeachment motion. Wonder why?

      Will the transcript be true and unredacted? Don’t hold your breath. They lie about everything, why would this be any different?

      It all fits a pattern of deep, ingrained corruption of the Drumpfkin.

      1. I suspect that Trump’s lawyers informed him that once the impeachment process has started, stonewalling was ultimately going to fail. So they are now falling back on an old strategy: Release the transcript of the Ukraine call, perhaps the least damning part of the evidence, let it simmer in the media for a while so it gets forgiven somewhat by anyone still on the fence about Trump, declare exoneration, then let the rest come out and have its impact blunted by the “exoneration”. It probably won’t work but it’s their best shot.

        1. So they are now falling back on an old strategy: Release the transcript of the Ukraine call…

          Nothing coming from this White House should be trusted, everything needs to be verified.

          Remember, this White House has already been caught putting out deceptively edited transcripts, not to mention clumsily modified weather maps.

          1. Oh, there’s no doubt this is heavily edited – it’s not an actual transcript, which would be a verbatim version, but a memorandum of the conversation. Since there’s no recording we won’t actually know. At the least, a 30 minute conversation should be 2-3 times longer than the 5 pages released. But if these are the best parts they could pull out…well, geez, what does the rest look like.

            1. We might know if the whistleblower heard the call. The Trump admin have floated the idea that the whistleblower’s knowledge is hearsay but we don’t know if that’s the case.

              1. I’m thinking, too, there may be more than one whistleblower before we’re done. Others on the call not as keen on coming forward may be waiting in the wings.

    2. Trump is releasing the complaint, the transcript of the phone call, and the IG report.

      Lol, sure. Just like he released his tax returns.

      1. He refused to turn over his tax returns, so actually not like that at all. The transcript has been released has it not?

        The fervent belief that there must be more is testimony to how little there is. There is nothing. Trump wants to investigate a confessed interference by an American official, who happens to be Biden. That’s not even improper. It is in fact just what the house committees want to do.

        A disaster for Democrats.

        1. The transcript has been released has it not?

          No, it has not. A memo with parts of the transcript has been released, but the Trump admin is still hiding a lot.

        2. I suggest you look at the history of how transcripts are used by presidents being investigated. Look in the “Nixon” section.

        3. “A disaster for Democrats.”

          Yeah, you betcha’. Trumpkins everywhere will rue this day and yesterday and days ahead. Bullshit and lies have no foundation, thus they eventually collapse. Read any facts about Trump and his business career? Thought not.

  14. Three years ago I noted that in a few years time there would be a major documentary series “X: A Warning From History” and the question was whether X would be Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.

    Now, of course, it could also be Boris Johnson or even all three.

    However, we’re not talking classic BBC2 documentary any more, we’re talking Major Motion Picture starring the future equivalent of Daniel Day-Lewis.

    So, which will come out first, the Trump film or the Johnson/Brexit film?

    Possible titles could be as simple as “Trumped” or “Boris”.

  15. At this point, starting the process is required.

    I want to see:

    1) Will Drumpf turn over the transcript (and other records)?

    2) Will it be redacted (they lie about everything, why wouldn’t they lie about this?)

    3) What did he say? (It must be bad, despite his protestations of “perfect”ion!)

    The congress of the USA must stand up to Drumpf and challenge his illegal (imperial) actions. Even if the Senate stonewalls (and we don’t know that — the few vertebrate GOP Senators haven’t yet seen/heard the evidence), well, the, make them show their hand on this issue.

    (Thank goodness for the UK Supreme Court! Would that we have witnessed the turning of the tide on this B.S.!)

  16. As of about 9:15 am. central time the transcript or whatever they call it of a phone call with Trump and Ukraine was released. It pretty much verifies everything Trump did regarding asking the Ukrainian president to look into the Biden thing. He also asks him to look into another conspiracy even (crowdstrike). He also said be sure and talk to Giuliani. Also talk to Barr, the attorney general. He has done everything accept the direct threat to withhold money. It is all there in one call.

    1. To show just how removed from reality the republicans are, I just listened to one of them say they had seen this transcript and said – Trump has done nothing wrong or illegal in the conversation. So that is proof positive, just how corrupted and apparently afraid some of these people are. It is pathetic to actually see this. When they refer to bought and paid for, they are not kidding.

    2. I’m starting to think that Trump truly believes his behavior is acceptable. I keep hearing pundits say that Trump is lying and covering up because he knows he broke the law. I don’t think that’s right. He does this because he knows it reduces others’ opinion of him and hurts his reelection chances. In his mind, going after a political opponent with whatever power you wield is just how one gets ahead in business and politics.

      1. I think you’re exactly right. To Trump, this is just how you do business.
        Adam Schiff gets it exactly right:

        The transcript of the call reads like a classic mob shakedown:

        – We do a lot for Ukraine
        – There’s not much reciprocity
        – I have a favor to ask
        – Investigate my opponent
        – My people will be in touch

        Nice country you got there.

        It would be a shame if something happened to her.

      2. That’s my take as well. He operates impulsively and instinctively to adverse situations as if he has not thought it through. He is drawing on decades of learning how intimidation and deception can win the day. It’s really not done in a wrathful way, but rather in an amoral way. Much like the Mafia managing business.

  17. Paraphrasing Trump to Zelensky: “That’s a nice little javelin missile deal ya got goin’ there. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Now, I’ve got a favor to ask.”

    Who does that remind you of?

    1. Another line I heard today to interpret Trump on the call. “That is a nice little country you have over there, Ukraine, too bad if something happened to it.”

    1. If you read the 5 page transcript it all shows up quite well. The way these things are done is maybe three different people are listening to the conversation. They are typing away taking down what is said. At the end, the three of them get together, look over all their notes and create the finished notes. So yes, it is not exact, but it is pretty close. It reads like a mob shakedown in some places. Trump talking and the other guy mostly kissing his ass and doing whatever it takes to make Trump happy. This is likely the way all of them play Trump. At one point the guy says, we are about ready to buy more Javelins from the U.S. for defense. (these are shoulder fired missiles.) The next words from Trump are — I would like you to do us a favor and then goes on into all the stuff he wants Ukraine to do. Nothing about oh sure, we will supply more Javelins or a damn thing.

      1. I just read the call transcript and I got the distinct feeling that this was wholly made up by the Trump admin. It will be interesting to see what the whistleblower says about it.

  18. What I want to know is what happens if the House passes articles of impeachment.

    In particular, is it optional for the Senate to take them up?

    It seems to me that the trial would be conducted by chief justice Roberts, and the senate would function as jury. Can the senate take a pass on that?

    I am curious because I hear people saying “if there is even a trial in the Senate,” as if it was up to Moscow Mitch. I’m not sure it is up to him. Wouldn’t Roberts have to organize a trial in the Senate?

    Help me out here, Ken et al.

    1. It is definitely up to McConnell, who might not even bring it to the floor, or could have the Senate vote to dismiss the whole thing without hearing any evidence or witnesses. In fact, this may be the most likely outcome. How that would play politically is anyone’s guess.

      1. There were many precedents for the Senate to “advise and consent” to Supreme Court nominations, but they were ignored under McConnell. The Constitution does not direct the Senate to try an impeachment by the House. In fact, it confers on the Senate “the sole power to try,” which is not a command, any more than the “sole power to impeach” given to the House is a command. The House can impeach or not and the Senate, in its “sole power” can try the case or not.

        in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. In addition to being the “jury,” the Senate makes the rules on how the trial will proceed. There are a myriad of ways McConnell could scuttle the proceeding. The simplest would be to simply adjourn and terminate the proceedings. This is what happened with Andrew Johnson–after voting on three articles they adjourned and ignored the other eight.

        If it ever reaches the Senate, it would be no surprise for McConnell to declare the evidence is too weak to even consider, and hold a vote to dismiss the whole case. That is why the Democrats must overcome the stonewalling and propaganda and bring to light as much corruption as possible before the election.

  19. Looking at Twitter posts lately, I see that the Dems HAVE learned a thing or two about how to position things in this battle. The Republicans are defending Trump by suggesting the lack of explicit quid pro quo in the Ukraine phone call exonerates him. The Dems are wondering why Trump’s team would release the transcript as it is so damning. Trying to be as objective as I can, the latter is a much more compelling argument.

Leave a Reply