Impeachment Inquiry

[fraurosena]

It was perfect. Quite exquisitely perfect. To get you impeached and removed from office.

 

[onekidanddone]

29 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

This is all fine and dandy, but those Senators need to find their balls and admit they'd also vote to remove Trump from office publicly.

Yup. We are looking at YOU Ms. Collins

[fraurosena]

The backstabbing, pointing fingers, implicating others has begun in earnest.

It wasn't Trump who wanted the transcript hidden, it was his lawyers! And under the bus they go. ?

White House says lawyers directed moving Ukraine transcript to highly secure system

Quote

The White House acknowledged Friday that administration officials directed a now-infamous Ukraine call transcript be filed in a highly classified system, confirming allegations contained in a whistleblower complaint that have roiled Washington.

In a statement provided to CNN, a senior White House official said the move to place the transcript in the system came at the direction of National Security Council attorneys.

"NSC lawyers directed that the classified document be handled appropriately," the senior White House official said.

White House officials say the transcript was already classified so it did nothing wrong by moving it to another system.

The admission lends further credibility to the whistleblower complaint description of how the July 25 transcript with the Ukrainian president, among others, were kept out of wider circulation by using a system for highly sensitive documents.

But the statement did not explain whether anyone else in the White House was part of the decision to put the the Ukraine transcript in the more restrictive system. Nor did it delve into an accusation in the complaint that other phone call transcripts were handled in a similar fashion.

The suggestion that officials sought to conceal the content of the phone call -- during which Trump suggested to his Ukrainian counterpart that he order an investigation into Joe Biden and his son -- has led to accusations of a cover-up. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son.

The transcript of the Ukraine phone call -- which the White House released publicly on Wednesday -- did not contain information like intelligence secrets or military plans that might ordinarily merit moving it to a highly classified system.

Officials familiar with the matter say Trump and others at the White House sought to restrict access to phone calls with foreign leaders after embarrassing leaks early in the administration.

The White House's statement on Friday indicates an effort to paint the practice as sanctioned by lawyers and overseen by the National Security Council, rather than a politically motivated attempt to keep Trump's conversations from becoming public.

Trump himself lashed out against the whistleblower on Thursday for revealing information about his phone call to relevant authorities.

"I want to know who's the person, who's the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that's close to a spy," Trump said during a private event in New York. "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now."

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump writes the GOP impeachment playbook: Scorched earth. But will it work?"

Spoiler

President Trump on Thursday excoriated an unidentified whistleblower and the White House aides who informed their complaint as “almost a spy” and likened their work to treason — part of a scorched-earth strategy he is directing for the Republican Party at the outset of an impeachment showdown.

Trump has acted impulsively and indignantly as he wages an all-out political war to defend himself from allegations that he abused his power to solicit foreign interference in his 2020 reelection bid.

And in a testament to how completely he controls the Republican Party, many GOP officeholders and conservative media figures have followed Trump’s cues by joining his attempts either to attack the anonymous whistleblower, discredit the explosive accounts in their complaint, or malign the media for covering it.

The coming weeks will test whether Trump’s familiar blame-the-accuser-and-counterattack playbook — while floating dark conspiracies to divert attention — will be successful in the face of mounting evidence that he asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on potential 2020 Democratic opponent Joe Biden.

Trump’s own appointed intelligence chief testified Thursday to the whistleblower’s credibility, and some of the allegations in the complaint were confirmed by the rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the White House released Wednesday.

Long indifferent to the norms that restrained his predecessors, Trump shattered another one Thursday by alluding to violence and possible death for the whistleblower’s sources in an apparent warning to witnesses inside the government who might be asked to testify against him.

Addressing employees of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations during a closed-door meeting in New York, Trump said, “I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy.”

“You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now,” Trump said, according to an audio recording published by the Los Angeles Times. An attendee confirmed the comments to The Washington Post.

Trump has been setting the tone for his party, driving news coverage as ever with a blizzard of provocative comments and dashing any hopes Republican leaders may have had for a more measured impeachment strategy.

“I took a long walk around the [House] floor tonight, talking to dozens of members, and I haven’t seen this level of intensity of support for the president since the 2016 campaign,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Trump loyalist, said late Thursday. “We’re with him and ready to go.”

Trump’s advisers said they envision a “split screen” strategy in the coming weeks. The president is considering stepping up his fall schedule of campaign rallies at arenas across the country to galvanize his supporters outside of Washington and portray House Democrats as liberal insiders who are focused on impeachment instead of governing.

Current and former White House officials summed up the mood inside the president’s inner circle as battle-scarred but determined, taking some solace that the president has survived past battles — from the special counsel Russia investigation to the federal probe of hush-money payments — that had been considered political death knells.

“This has been a presidency defined by fights and battles and fending off attacks and attacking back, so in a sense this is the next phase,” said a former senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment. “There’s been a bunker mentality. That has come to be the normal state of affairs.”

Trump has informally discussed with aides whether to establish a war room inside or outside his understaffed White House to manage the impeachment inquiry, as President Bill Clinton had in the late 1990s. Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s controversial former campaign manager, has been mentioned as a possible hire, but no decisions have been made.

“I have had no conversation with anyone at the White House regarding this,” Lewandowski said. “If the president asks me to push back on the fake impeachment narrative, I will do that in any way I can.”

Trump is single-handedly shaping his party’s emerging impeachment response strategy, reflecting the calculation among Republicans on Capitol Hill that his political base is required to carry the party through the 2020 elections, even if some lawmakers privately disapprove of his conduct.

“He remains the leader of the party, period, and the party is even more with him than ever,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

During his questioning of acting director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire at Thursday’s House Intelligence Committee hearing, ranking Republican Devin Nunes (Calif.) badgered Democrats over what he termed an “information warfare operation against the president.”

“Once again, the Democrats, their media mouthpieces and a cabal of leakers are ginning up a fake story with no regard to the monumental damage they’re causing to our public institutions and to trust in government — and without acknowledging all the false stories they propagated in the past,” Nunes said.

Yet the hearing exposed some cracks in Trump’s support. Rep. Michael R. Turner, a rank-and-file Republican from Ohio, said, “I want to say to the president: This is not okay. That conversation is not okay. And I think it’s disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript.”

Still, most GOP lawmakers unwilling to parrot the president’s lines Thursday simply strove to stay silent. In the halls of the Capitol, “haven’t read the report” was a common refrain. That was the answer to reporters’ questions about the whistleblower complaint from at least five Republican senators: Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Rob Portman (Ohio), Tim Scott (S.C.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.).

“If you do want to talk about ethanol, I am happy to talk about ethanol,” Ernst offered.

When Sen. Ted Cruz was asked whether he was ready to be on the “front lines” to defend Trump, the Texas Republican deflected the question and said flatly that he was working for “the people of Texas.”

After making critical comments of Trump’s conduct with Zelensky earlier in the week, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told reporters Thursday, “Nothing to add.”

After a splashy warning Wednesday about Republicans “rushing to circle the wagons” around Trump, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) rendered himself mute Thursday. He navigated the Senate halls with a phone pressed to his ear, always talking and making himself unable to field any questions.

If the Democrat-controlled House votes to impeach Trump, Senate Republicans will have to decide whether to form a bulwark protecting Trump or to convict him, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in the upper chamber.

“Republicans will be judged by history on whether they were judicial and operating on behalf of the United States or just rubber-stamping Trump’s behavior,” historian Douglas Brinkley said. “It puts Republicans in the Senate in a moral conundrum.”

Trump’s intraparty foes are actively working to take advantage of this juncture. GOP strategist Stuart Stevens, who supports former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld’s long-shot primary challenge to Trump, said he and other Trump critics want to “elevate this issue” among Republicans, despite appearing futile at times.

“Do you want to drop down into the sewer to defend Donald Trump?” Stevens said of fellow Republicans. “Nobody gets out of that sewer smelling the same as when they dropped into it. He’d do nothing for these people, cares nothing for them. It’s all transactional. Why are they putting their political lives on the line for someone they wouldn’t have had dinner with three or four years ago?”

White House advisers said they have high confidence that Senate Republicans will have the president’s back. They cited the political bond Trump has built with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as they have installed scores of conservatives in the federal judiciary.

When asked about Romney’s latest expression of alarm, one White House official mocked him as the “junior senator from Utah.” But the group of lawmakers West Wing aides see as most susceptible to turning on Trump are retiring Republicans in the House and Senate, because they may not fear the president’s wrath as much as their colleagues standing for reelection.

A key element of Trump’s strategy has been to try to shine an uncomfortable light on Biden by making unsubstantiated claims of corruption about the former vice president and his son Hunter. Nearly every set of public remarks Trump has made this week has been heavy on Biden references and insinuations.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump ally, said it was smart for Republicans to “focus on Biden and make the Democrats look ridiculous.”

A legislative pursuit is also in the works: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told reporters this week that he has “some real legitimate questions” about the Bidens’ connections to Ukraine and is exploring a formal investigation.

“Listen, I want to get to the truth,” Johnson said. “I’m not interested in show trials.”

 

[Ticklish]

So help me, if Ernst actually votes to impeach and remove Trump from office, I promise not to say anything bad about her for 6 months. And I promise that will be a struggle for me!

[fraurosena]

This will be must see tv when it airs.

Sparks -- and profanities--  will fly when Rudy testifies. He will be antagonistic and accusatory.

Bill Barr will feign a lack of understanding of the meaning of even basic English words and obfuscate and prevaricate his answers or even downright refuse to answer.

Both will claim protecting executive privilege.

Giuliani, Barr likely to be called to testify in impeachment inquiry, House intel Dem says

Quote

Attorney General William Barr and the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani are likely to be called to testify in the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and Ukraine, according to a House Democrat who sits on the committee.

Rep. Mike Quigley told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Friday that he has "several questions" for Giuliani including whether the President's personal lawyer has a security clearance.

"Rudy may be the best source of information, because he doesn't know what he shouldn't say," Quigley said, adding that he thinks Barr is "part of that list" of officials the committee will call to testify.

Asked if the committee would enforce subpoenas or hold the two men in contempt should the White House attempt to block their testimony, Quigley said, "I think the committee will take whatever actions are necessary."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who launched the formal inquiry this week, told CNN on Friday that the intelligence committee will decide who to call as witnesses, also adding that she believes Barr "has gone rogue."

Illinois Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, another committee member, told reporters on Capitol Hill Friday that it "makes sense" for the committee to invite Barr or Giuliani to testify since "both are obviously central figures."

"I'm going to probably defer to the chairman on this on who he thinks should come before the committee," he added.

According to a White House-released transcript, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July phone call to look into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, though there is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden. Trump asked Zelensky to work with Giuliani and Barr, even suggesting four times during the call that Barr will call Zelensky.

The call was also part of a whistleblower complaint submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General that was publicly released Thursday in which the whistleblower alleged that Trump abused his official powers "to solicit interference" from Ukraine in the upcoming 2020 election, and the White House took steps to cover it up.

The whistleblower has tentatively agreed to meet with congressional lawmakers, according to correspondence obtained by CNN.

Best news in this article: the whistleblower has tentatively agreed to meet with congressional lawmakers.

[fraurosena]

The Dems are turning up the heat.

 

[TuringMachine]

How much evidence is needed for Trump supporters to finally admit Trump is capable of wrongdoing?

[GreyhoundFan]

2 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

How much evidence is needed for Trump supporters to finally admit Trump is capable of wrongdoing?

I think Jesus himself could appear and testify against the mango manboy and the BTs would still believe the MM.

[fraurosena]

Buckle up. Interesting times ahead.

 

[TuringMachine]

16 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I think Jesus himself could appear and testify against the mango manboy and the BTs would still believe the MM.

I'm not sure if I should react to this with laugh or cry

[Ozlsn]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

He remains the leader of the party, period, and the party is even more with him than ever,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

I sincerely hope that statement is tied around his neck and used as a metaphorical noose. Talk about make it obvious that your only concern is staying in power.

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus! He really is a mango moron and just proved it again.

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

More about NRA-Russia in this thread.

ETA here you can download the whole Senate report.

Edited September 27, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump campaign launches anti-impeachment blitz on Facebook, targeting four minority congresswomen"

Spoiler

President Trump’s reelection campaign responded to the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry in Congress by launching a massive Facebook ad blitz, spending as much as $1.4 million on thousands of ads designed to reach voters in every state.

The online battery included misleading messages about the “socialist squad,” Trump’s epithet for the four congresswomen of color whom he previously directed to “go back” to their home countries, even though they are all American citizens.

Some of the ads falsely accused the freshman lawmakers of making “pro-terrorist remarks,” which they have not done, and pressed supporters to join Trump’s “official impeachment defense fund,” which he has also promoted in fundraising appeals sent by email and text message. The “squad” refers to Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), none of whom was mentioned by name.

In total, the Trump campaign and its backers spent between $346,700 and $1,430,182 on more than 2,000 ads for its Facebook page from Monday to midday Friday, according to data analyzed by Laura Edelson, a researcher at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering. She obtained the data through Facebook’s public ad archive, which reports all of its data in ranges, not precise figures. Those ads had been viewed between 13.3 million and 25.3 million times, the NYU analysis found.

On Tuesday and Wednesday alone, the campaign shelled out about $500,000 on Facebook ads, according to figures tallied by ACRONYM, a digital outfit focused on progressive causes. On Wednesday alone, it spent about $350,000, an amount it typically spends in a week.

The online offensive offered a window into Trump’s bare-knuckle approach to the coming impeachment battles, as he took the showdown to his favored terrain: the Internet. Already, campaign officials say they have filled their coffers with contributions: Eric Trump, the president’s second son and the executive vice president of the Trump Organization, said on Thursday that the campaign had raised $8.5 million in the previous 24 hours.

The Facebook ads, which traffic in claims found to be false by The Washington Post Fact Checker, also provided a new test for the technology giant after it reaffirmed this week it would exempt speech by politicians from fact checking. That exemption, company executives said, also applies to ads, though sponsored posts are required to meet community standards that proscribe threats as well as “content aimed at deliberately deceiving people to gain an unfair advantage or deprive another of money, property, or legal right.”

On Friday, Facebook said none of the ads violated its policies, including those that prohibit dehumanizing speech, though the company did not detail its reasoning. A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

As Trump flooded social media with impeachment-related advertising, would-be challengers competing for the Democratic nomination moved gingerly on the platforms. While it appeared that every single one of the hundreds of ads placed by Trump’s campaign since Tuesday used the word “impeachment,” not a single ad placed by Joe Biden, the former vice president, used the word. Biden said this week he would favor impeachment proceedings if the White House tried to thwart congressional oversight activities.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala D. Harris of California, both of whom had previously called for the president’s impeachment, each ran ads on the topic but far fewer than the general fundraising appeals they released that made no mention of the president.

In ads targeting mainly women, Warren asked users to sign a petition calling for impeachment proceedings to begin. Harris asked users, mainly in California, to sign a card thanking Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.), the speaker of the House, “for showing the leadership the White House lacks by beginning an impeachment inquiry.”

Biden, who became the subject of a July conversation between Trump and the president of Ukraine, placed new ads condemning the president for soliciting help from a foreign leader to smear him. But Biden stopped short of mentioning impeachment.

In addition to the individual candidates, the national party committees also produced dueling advertising on the topic, with the Democratic National Committee asking users to donate to show their support for an impeachment inquiry and the Republican National Committee asking users to “stand against impeachment.” The GOP’s ads appeared to target in particular a swath of states in the Midwest, as well as New York, Pennsylvania and Maine.

The RNC said Friday it would join the Trump campaign in spending a total of $10 million across television and digital platforms assailing Democrats for beginning an impeachment inquiry. The campaign will spend $8 million, while the party will kick in another $2 million.

For months, Facebook spending on impeachment has been dominated by Tom Steyer, the investor turned impeachment activist, and his super PAC, Need to Impeach. Warren has been next in line, spending about $34,000 on the issue between Aug. 31 and Sept. 21, according to data compiled by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic communications agency.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"US official: Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine has resigned"

Spoiler

WASHINGTON — Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO caught in the middle of a whistleblower complaint over the President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, resigned Friday from his post as special envoy to the Eastern European nation, according to a U.S. official.

The official said Volker told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday of his decision to leave the job, following disclosures that he had connected Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani with Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family over allegedly corrupt business dealings.

Giuliani has said he was in frequent contact with Volker about his efforts. The State Department had no immediate comment on his resignation and has said only that Volker put Giuliani in touch with an aide to Ukraine’s president.

Pompeo said Thursday that as far as he knew, all State Department employees had acted appropriately in dealing with Ukraine.

Volker was brought into the Trump administration by former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to serve as envoy for Ukraine. He worked in a volunteer capacity and had retained his job as head of the John McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University. Arizona State’s student newspaper was the first to report his resignation.

 

[Audrey2]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump campaign launches anti-impeachment blitz on Facebook, targeting four minority congresswomen"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Trump’s reelection campaign responded to the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry in Congress by launching a massive Facebook ad blitz, spending as much as $1.4 million on thousands of ads designed to reach voters in every state.

The online battery included misleading messages about the “socialist squad,” Trump’s epithet for the four congresswomen of color whom he previously directed to “go back” to their home countries, even though they are all American citizens.

Some of the ads falsely accused the freshman lawmakers of making “pro-terrorist remarks,” which they have not done, and pressed supporters to join Trump’s “official impeachment defense fund,” which he has also promoted in fundraising appeals sent by email and text message. The “squad” refers to Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), none of whom was mentioned by name.

In total, the Trump campaign and its backers spent between $346,700 and $1,430,182 on more than 2,000 ads for its Facebook page from Monday to midday Friday, according to data analyzed by Laura Edelson, a researcher at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering. She obtained the data through Facebook’s public ad archive, which reports all of its data in ranges, not precise figures. Those ads had been viewed between 13.3 million and 25.3 million times, the NYU analysis found.

On Tuesday and Wednesday alone, the campaign shelled out about $500,000 on Facebook ads, according to figures tallied by ACRONYM, a digital outfit focused on progressive causes. On Wednesday alone, it spent about $350,000, an amount it typically spends in a week.

The online offensive offered a window into Trump’s bare-knuckle approach to the coming impeachment battles, as he took the showdown to his favored terrain: the Internet. Already, campaign officials say they have filled their coffers with contributions: Eric Trump, the president’s second son and the executive vice president of the Trump Organization, said on Thursday that the campaign had raised $8.5 million in the previous 24 hours.

The Facebook ads, which traffic in claims found to be false by The Washington Post Fact Checker, also provided a new test for the technology giant after it reaffirmed this week it would exempt speech by politicians from fact checking. That exemption, company executives said, also applies to ads, though sponsored posts are required to meet community standards that proscribe threats as well as “content aimed at deliberately deceiving people to gain an unfair advantage or deprive another of money, property, or legal right.”

On Friday, Facebook said none of the ads violated its policies, including those that prohibit dehumanizing speech, though the company did not detail its reasoning. A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

As Trump flooded social media with impeachment-related advertising, would-be challengers competing for the Democratic nomination moved gingerly on the platforms. While it appeared that every single one of the hundreds of ads placed by Trump’s campaign since Tuesday used the word “impeachment,” not a single ad placed by Joe Biden, the former vice president, used the word. Biden said this week he would favor impeachment proceedings if the White House tried to thwart congressional oversight activities.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala D. Harris of California, both of whom had previously called for the president’s impeachment, each ran ads on the topic but far fewer than the general fundraising appeals they released that made no mention of the president.

In ads targeting mainly women, Warren asked users to sign a petition calling for impeachment proceedings to begin. Harris asked users, mainly in California, to sign a card thanking Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.), the speaker of the House, “for showing the leadership the White House lacks by beginning an impeachment inquiry.”

Biden, who became the subject of a July conversation between Trump and the president of Ukraine, placed new ads condemning the president for soliciting help from a foreign leader to smear him. But Biden stopped short of mentioning impeachment.

In addition to the individual candidates, the national party committees also produced dueling advertising on the topic, with the Democratic National Committee asking users to donate to show their support for an impeachment inquiry and the Republican National Committee asking users to “stand against impeachment.” The GOP’s ads appeared to target in particular a swath of states in the Midwest, as well as New York, Pennsylvania and Maine.

The RNC said Friday it would join the Trump campaign in spending a total of $10 million across television and digital platforms assailing Democrats for beginning an impeachment inquiry. The campaign will spend $8 million, while the party will kick in another $2 million.

For months, Facebook spending on impeachment has been dominated by Tom Steyer, the investor turned impeachment activist, and his super PAC, Need to Impeach. Warren has been next in line, spending about $34,000 on the issue between Aug. 31 and Sept. 21, according to data compiled by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic communications agency.

 

I rarely give a bad reputation, but the Trump campaign's targeting of these four congresswomen infuriates me. Please know that it isn't directed at you. I tried to downgrade my feelings to disgust, but they were stronger than that.

13 hours ago, fraurosena said:

This is all fine and dandy, but those Senators need to find their balls and admit they'd also vote to remove Trump from office publicly.

Since we have the Reality Television President, part of me hopes these senators would keep their vote very close to the chest, then blindside Trump with their votes to impeach. His head would explode, and no one would get to them before the vote and get them to change their vote.

[Ozlsn]

13 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

I rarely give a bad reputation, but the Trump campaign's targeting of these four congresswomen infuriates me

It's so Trump though isn't it. Targeting women, especially younger women, because he thinks he can win. I think he thinks he's punching down but I suspect that both individually and collectively they are more than a match for him.

 

[fraurosena]

Who leaked this info? There were only a few people in the room and Trump was the only American. Unless he’s actively trying to get impeached himself, it’s fair to say the Russians did. Has their useful idiot lost his usefulness?

 

[fraurosena]

Trump knew of the complaint the very day it was filed. The DOJ knew long before the complaint was officially given to them by Maguire. They had the chance to prepare a strategy... and all they did was attempt to quash it. When the news of the complaint became known to Congress and the public, all they could think of was release the transcript in the hope it would exonerate, and try and discredit the whistleblower. Who, by the way, is even more of a hero: he filed his complaint twice. Once with the CIA, and when that didn’t work he went to the ICIG.

Coats and Gordon must be subpoenaed now. What did they know, why did they resign? Why didn’t they themselves inform Congress?

 

Oh Rufus! I wake up to find there was a Friday night news dump from hell for Trump. I’m beginning to think he won’t last until November, if this keeps up.

 

[fraurosena]

But wait, there’s more!

This may be explosive for some, but it’s actually the law for the Senate to hold an impeachment trial once the House has voted to impeach. McConnell is only saying he will abide by the law.

Completely unsurprising.

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

I thought I followed the tRump's administration shit show closely enough, but I completely missed what role my country supposedly played, keeping in mind the at the time of tRump's electoral campaign and election we had a centre-left government that wasn't very sympathetic to the moron in chief.

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

I thought I followed the tRump's administration shit show closely enough, but I completely missed what role my country supposedly played, keeping in mind the at the time of tRump's electoral campaign and election we had a centre-left government that wasn't very sympathetic to the moron in chief.

I really hope someone is recording anything he says and will leak it to the public if Barr does anything illegal. 

It is insane how much info is coming out now. I feel like it might just be a matter of time until someone leaks transcripts from his meetings with Putin and Russian officials. That someone might be Putin. 

[fraurosena]

Ruh-roh! 
Can it really be true? Has Trump lost MoscowMitch’s support?

If true, Trump will be out by November. The rate at which information about his nefarious treachery is coming out, he won’t last much longer. The question is who he will take down with him.

Please Rufus, let it be Pence and all the other cronies in the administration! 

 

[FundamentallyShocked]

16 hours ago, TuringMachine said:

How much evidence is needed for Trump supporters to finally admit Trump is capable of wrongdoing?

I live with a trump-er. I do not believe that what has come out this week is sufficient. Until FoxNews turns on him, nothing will sway his base. Sigh.