• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Democrats release first transcripts from impeachment probe

Found that bombshell, yet?

You don't consider an American president using the power of his office and our tax money to bribe another country into digging up dirt on a US political opponent to even be wrong.

That says more about you than this entire investigation says about Trump.

Thanks for dropping the mask.
 
Obama is a ****ing traitor. He sold out to Russia before he became president.

Another claim without evidence which does not address my quote.
 
You don't consider an American president using the power of his office and our tax money to bribe another country into digging up dirt on a US political opponent to even be wrong.

That says more about you than this entire investigation says about Trump.

Thanks for dropping the mask.

There was no bribe. :lamo

Congress literally allocated the funding.
 
Something proving he broke the law. Do you have that, yet?

What would you consider proof? i.e. What would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to you?
 
What would you consider proof? i.e. What would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to you?

Something. So far, you have nothing. Go get something and get back with us.
 
House Democrats release first transcripts from impeachment probe | TheHill



"House Democrats on Monday released the first set of transcripts from their closed-door depositions as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

The interview transcripts with former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and top State Department official Michael McKinley offer the first look at what witnesses told investigators about Trump’s contacts with Ukraine. The release marks a new phase for the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into whether the president pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

“As we move towards this new public phase of the impeachment inquiry, the American public will begin to see for themselves the evidence that the committees have collected. With each new interview, we learn more about the President’s attempt to manipulate the levers of power to his personal political benefit," the chairs of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees wrote in a joint statement.

“The transcripts of interviews with Ambassadors Yovanovitch and McKinley demonstrate clearly how President Trump approved the removal of a highly respected and effective diplomat based on public falsehoods and smears against Ambassador Yovanovitch’s character and her work in support of long-held U.S. foreign policy anticorruption goals," they added."




Oh man... This does not look good at all for Trump. The Republicans can't attract the process anymore. They are going to have to answer to stone cold facts

He will not be impeached no matter what the house does.

It's nothing but a distraction to wear down voters because the imbeciles that the democrats have running do not stand a chance................... and they know it.
 
So, how do we know ALL the facts have been released? Are we supposed to just take Schiff's word for it?

There are members of the Trump Party on all three House investigating committees. They have had the ability to ask questions throughout the process.

Think about this: Trump has had numerous opportunities to have people from his staff, from federal agencies, to testify to House committees. He has attempted to block almost every one of them. They could have brought Trump's facts forward but Trump was and is vehemently opposed to them doing so. Trump could have released all the notes to the Mueller Report. He fought it all the way until the WH had no choice. Trump could have released the complete and full unredacted memo from all his related to phone calls to the President of Ukraine. He has not done so. Trump has not released ALL the facts nor has he allowed them to be discovered.
 
There are members of the Trump Party on all three House investigating committees. They have had the ability to ask questions throughout the process.

Think about this: Trump has had numerous opportunities to have people from his staff, from federal agencies, to testify to House committees. He has attempted to block almost every one of them. They could have brought Trump's facts forward but Trump was and is vehemently opposed to them doing so. Trump could have released all the notes to the Mueller Report. He fought it all the way until the WH had no choice. Trump could have released the complete and full unredacted memo from all his related to phone calls to the President of Ukraine. He has not done so. Trump has not released ALL the facts nor has he allowed them to be discovered.

The Republicans are under a gag order imposed by Schiff.
 
What would you consider an incriminating fact, outside of a direct admission from the president?

These Trump republicans are way more dedicated to him than OJ supporters were during his trial.

They won't budge.
 
You don't consider an American president using the power of his office and our tax money to bribe another country into digging up dirt on a US political opponent to even be wrong.

That says more about you than this entire investigation says about Trump.

Thanks for dropping the mask.

Biden strong arming the Ukraine was OK though...............right?

Democrats investigating Trump was OK though................right?

What a crock of ****. And the sorry part is that you don't even realize it.
 
Investigating TRUMP during a election was OK with Democrats.

Investigating Biden during a election is impeachable.

The party of hypocrites and sore losers.

Trump was not investigated during the election

Obama did not strong arm people to start an investigation of Trump Campaign associates like Manafort with long history of suspicious activities to Russia

No information about the existence of the FBI investigation came BEFORE the election

Biden did not publicly ask Ukraine to find Trump' dirty laundry




The party of clueless
 
Investigating TRUMP during a election was OK with Democrats.

Investigating Biden during a election is impeachable.

The party of hypocrites and sore losers.

that's not even a good deflection. try harder.
 
Trump was not investigated during the election

Obama did not strong arm people to start an investigation of Trump Campaign associates like Manafort with long history of suspicious activities to Russia

No information about the existence of the FBI investigation came BEFORE the election

Biden did not publicly ask Ukraine to find Trump' dirty laundry




The party of clueless

Where you been? :lamo

Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) - Wikipedia
 
Biden strong arming the Ukraine was OK though...............right?

Democrats investigating Trump was OK though................right?

What a crock of ****. And the sorry part is that you don't even realize it.

It was not Biden's decision to strong arm Ukraine at the time. It was Obama's decision and it fit with the policies of other nations and organizations at the time

Nothing about the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign was revealed before the election. On the other hand, the FBI Director at the time felt it was proper to reveal the reopening of the Clinton's email investigations. One more piece of evidence that the FBI was quite independent from the "democrats"
 
MR. J0RDAN: Thank you, Mr. Cha'i rman. J ust f or the
record, on 0ctober 2nd,2019, the Speaker of the House, Nancy
Pelos'i , said that she would treat the President with
fai rness. Faj rness requi res certain things. Just a few
mi nutes that
this is
If
ago, the chairman of the Intel Committee
an offi ci aI impeachment i nqui ry.
it's an official impeachment inquiry, we
sa"id
should be
following precedent. Every recent impeachment has permitted
mi nori ty subpoenas. The ri ght of the mi nori ty to i ssue
subpoenas subject to the same rules as the majority has beenthe standard bi part'i san practi ce 'in all recent resoluti ons
authorizing presidential impeachment inqui ries. That is not
the case today, has not been the case since this, quote,
"offi ci al impeachment i nqui ry" began.
Democrats' failure to provide ranking members with equal
subpoena power shows thi s i s a parti san i nvesti gati on.
Second, Democrats have threatened witnesses who request
agency counsel to be present for the'ir transcribed jnterview
and/or deposition. State Department lawyers have a right to
protect executive branch j nterests, 'includi ng nat'iona1
security interests. Democrats have threatened to withhold
salaries of State Department officials who ask for the
presence of State Department lawyers in depositions.
I've been in countless number of depositions and/or
transcri bed i ntervj ews, thi s i s only the second one I 'Ve ever
seen where agency counsel was not permitted to be in the room
when a wltness was deposed or asked questions, the first waslast Thursday. The first witness as a part of this, quote,
"of f ic'ial impeachment inqui ry. " I
And, finally, fairness requires due process. The
President and minority should have the right to see all
evidence, both favorable and unfavorable. The President and
minority should have the ability to present evidence bearing
on the credibility of testifying witnesses. The President
and the minority shoutd have the abllity to raise objectionsrelati ng to exam'inati on of wi tnesses, and the admi ss'ibi f ity
of testimony and evidence. And the President and the
minority should have the ability to respond to all evidence
and testimony presented.
With that, I would fike to yield to my colleague from
the Forei gn Af f ai rs Comm'ittee, Mr. Zeldi n, f or a f ew i tems to
put on the record as wel1.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D003.pdf

(continued)
 
There was no bribe. :lamo

Congress literally allocated the funding.

See what I mean folks. These Trump supporters are no better than OJ supporters.
 
(continued)

MR. ZELDIN: Yesterday, Ranking Member McCaul sent a
letter to Chairman Engel consistent with what Mr. Jordan was
just referencing on the record, calling on the chair to honor
the bipartisan Rodino Hyde precedence that governed both the
Ni xon and C1 i nton impeachment i nqui res, wh'i ch guaranteed the
Presi dent's counsel the ri ght to parti ci pate i n these
proceedi ngs, and allowed the mi nori ty to exerci se coequal
subpoena authori ty.
Mov'ing on. The question js, what specific provision of
House rules gives the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence the jurisdjction and authority to convene an
j nvesti gati ve i nqui ry of a State Department di plomat
regarding the conduct of U.5. foreign policy toward Ukraine?
That is clearly the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs
Commi ttee, and to date, the House has not voted to g'ive the
Intel Commjttee any additional authority to conduct an
impeachment inquiry outside of its jurisdictional 1ane, which
concerns i ntell i gence- related acti v'i ti es.

can you please point us to anything in the House rules
that gives you this authoritY?
THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to move forward with the
deposi ti on rather than address the mi scharacteri zati ons of
both impeachment history and inquiries and process. I would
now recognize Mr. Goldman.
MR. MEADOWS: Mr . Chai rman, poi nt of order. Poi nt of
order.
THE CHAIRMAN: My colleague, we're not going to allow
MR. MEADOWS: Wel1, you can't not a1low -- I'm here to
te11 you, Mr. Schjff --
THE CHAIRMAN: We're not going to allow any dilatory
MR. MEADOWS: -- you know the House rules allows for
point of order in any
THE CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.
MR. MEADOWS: The point of order is the rules of the
House are very c1ear. The gentleman raised a valid point
that there are no rules that would give the authority of you
to actually depose this witness. And so, under what
authority I would say you're out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your opinion, but the House
depos'ition rules say otherwise. So, l'4r. Goldman, yotl are
recogn i zed .
MR. ZELDIN: Point of order, though, we are asking what
that rule is that gives you the authority to conduct today's
deposition.
MR. MEAD0WS: Rule 1l. doesn't outline anything.
THE CHAIRMAN: We won't a11ow any further di latory
mot'ions. Mr . Gotdman, you' re recogni zed.
MR. ZELDIN: We're asking a simple question.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many talking potato heads will mention this exchange.

Schiffty running this hearing without any established authority.

Oh well...par for the course, I guess.
 
Trump was not investigated during the election

Obama did not strong arm people to start an investigation of Trump Campaign associates like Manafort with long history of suspicious activities to Russia

No information about the existence of the FBI investigation came BEFORE the election

Biden did not publicly ask Ukraine to find Trump' dirty laundry




The party of clueless

Trump was investigated during the election.

Please do your research before you spout off next time.

The dossier was paid for prior to the election and the corrupt DOJ used it to lie to the FISA judges,
 
It's not a deflection. It is the truth and you can't handle the truth.

Trump supporters talking about the truth is about as much as i can handle today. my cough is still bit touchy, and i don't want to set it off with too much laughing.
 
Before you engage with me, read again what I wrote and point the part I said that is contradicted by your link.

So, you lied in the opening of your post?
 
It was not Biden's decision to strong arm Ukraine at the time. It was Obama's decision and it fit with the policies of other nations and organizations at the time

Nothing about the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign was revealed before the election. On the other hand, the FBI Director at the time felt it was proper to reveal the reopening of the Clinton's email investigations. One more piece of evidence that the FBI was quite independent from the "democrats"

BS!

Biden's son was being investigated by the same Ukraine officials that Biden wanted removed.
 
Back
Top Bottom