Author Topic: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry  (Read 1988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,042
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39

OK, but there’s another problem with a different exchange.


“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” wrote Taylor.

Nearly five hours later, Sondland responded with a formal-sounding statement that could be seen as attempting to cover for any potential illicit behavior from the White House and ends communication via text.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” wrote Sondland. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”



Sondland said ‘call me’ and that is exactly what Taylor did. There was obviously something in that conversation that bothered Taylor, because he referred to it, in the text. There was a five hour gap in his response to Taylor and a couple news outlets are reporting that in that timeframe, Sondland spoke directly with Trump. Sondland is a bit out of his area, since Ukraine is not part of the EU. Is it an obvious, damning CYA exchange? Not quite, but it’s also not exactly a ‘nothing to see here,’ either.


Two news organizations have now confirmed a New York Times report about a phone call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, apparently giving Sondland talking points on the issue, which was the impetus for the investigation by the House Intelligence Committee.

-snip-

On Tuesday, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reported that during the five hours between texts, Sondland was in phone contact with Trump. The New York Times also reported the conversation last week. Sondland is not a career diplomat but a businessman, the founder and chairman of the Provenance chain of hotels, and a Republican donor who contributed $1 million to the Trump inauguration before his appointment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sondland-phone-call-texts-impeachment-200820883.html

I say this as a journalist myself...I don't trust a damn thing Yahoo News...NBC or even the Wall Street Journal reports on this stuff.

Not a slam on you...they've just so misrepresented every single bit of this that no one knows whats real and what's made up of whole cloth from the MSM.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
I say this as a journalist myself...I don't trust a damn thing Yahoo News...NBC or even the Wall Street Journal reports on this stuff.

Not a slam on you...they've just so misrepresented every single bit of this that no one knows whats real and what's made up of whole cloth from the MSM.


There’s always reasons to doubt politicians and the MSM. Nobody’s an angel in all of this. I tend to believe the WSJ, more. They were the first to dig up the payments to Daniels, were called hacks, but were proven to be correct. You will probably recall that Trump recently attributed making this phone call, at the behest of Rick Perry. That’s probably true. I also doubt this idea to have Ukraine investigate Biden was something that originated with him, either. As the Atlantic reported...

This morning, a former senior White House official told me this “entire thing,” referring to the Ukraine scandal, was “Rudy putting shit in Trump’s head.” A senior House Republican aide bashed Giuliani, telling me he was a “moron.” Both individuals spoke on condition of anonymity in order to be candid.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879/

Trump has a terrible habit of hiring lousy personal attorneys and letting them do questionable work. See Giuliani, Cohen, and Cohn, as examples. There was an interesting story, written by the AP, concerning the intrigue around Rudy and his business associates. Apparently, the former US ambassador was an impediment to their goals. Somehow, they had advanced knowledge, she would be dismissed. In the end, this all may boil down to Trump following bad advice, from yet another lousy personnel decision. The story is worth a read…

Profit, not politics: Trump allies sought Ukraine gas deal

https://apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,541
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
"Nearly five hours later, Sondland responded with a formal-sounding statement that could be seen as attempting to cover for any potential illicit behavior from the White House and ends communication via text...

Two news organizations have now confirmed a New York Times report about a phone call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, apparently giving Sondland talking points on the issue, which was the impetus for the investigation by the House Intelligence Committee."



Good Lord! Yahoo? could be seen as...apparently giving Sondland talking points


weasel words and rank speculation masquerading as news.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Good Lord! Yahoo? could be seen as...apparently giving Sondland talking points


weasel words and rank speculation masquerading as news.


OK so who is reliable? Fox? Trump says they are no longer dependable. OANN? They employ Jack Posobiec. During the 2016 campaign, he launched a subversive attempt to discredit a left organization, by putting phony people in there with ‘Rape Melania’ signs and he got caught at it. They still want to keep him on staff? Everybody has an agenda.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline The Ghost

  • Very Special Agent and
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,819
  • Gender: Male

 Everybody has an agenda.

Except you.  So fair.  So balanced. 

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Except you.  So fair.  So balanced.


Of course I have an agenda – it’s to elect someone who might actually be a conservative, instead of an opportunistic five time party changing political weathervane fraud.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline The Ghost

  • Very Special Agent and
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,819
  • Gender: Male

Of course I have an agenda – it’s to elect someone who might actually be a conservative, instead of an opportunistic five time party changing political weathervane fraud.

That ship sailed.  So how about joining the rest of us in the  reality we are faced with. 

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 42,319
That ship sailed.  So how about joining the rest of us in the  reality we are faced with.

 :thumbsup:
"January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."  --  President Donald J. Trump

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
That ship sailed.  So how about joining the rest of us in the  reality we are faced with.


Probably because the reality is - when he comes right down to it, he has absolutely no idea what he’s doing and the progress and disaster avoidance to date has been a bleeping miracle. This phony savior is going to leave a wake of destruction, as he always has.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 07:51:16 PM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,541
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!

Probably because the reality is - when he comes right down to it, he has absolutely no idea what he’s doing and the progress and disaster avoidance to date has been a bleeping miracle. This phony savior is going to leave a wake of destruction, as he always has.
@edpc
How has he managed to run the country for almost three years, appointing conservative judges, cutting taxes, reducing unemployment, fighting on the border, cutting regulations, improving the economy so wages rise, with little to no help from the RINOs? How can you ignore those things?

I was opposed to him as a candidate, but ending up voting for him and support him when he's right.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
@edpc
How has he managed to run the country for almost three years, appointing conservative judges, cutting taxes, reducing unemployment, fighting on the border, cutting regulations, improving the economy so wages rise, with little to no help from the RINOs? How can you ignore those things?

I was opposed to him as a candidate, but ending up voting for him and support him when he's right.


Who are these RINOS you speak of? In the past, that’s been people like Ryan and McConnell. I’m pretty sure they’re the ones that are responsible for getting the tax legislation through, which kick started the economy. Also, the only reason why there are so many openings for judges is because The Turtle stonewalled the previous administration. There’s your bleeping reality.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online corbe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,295
  • I hate nothing, not even OUR President

Of course I have an agenda – it’s to elect someone who might actually be a conservative, instead of an opportunistic five time party changing political weathervane fraud.


 :thumbsup:
No government in the 6,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don't let this happen to you.

Offline Victoria33

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Gender: Female
  • Prissy my Yorkie
@mystery-ak
@Cyber Liberty
@roamer_1

All arguing about what is required to begin an impeachment inquiry/investigation, are wasting time.  Some may want it started differently, but that doesn't matter as it is happening as set down in the constitution/law.  No House vote is required to begin an impeachment inquiry/investigation.

An impeachment inquiry was begun by the Speaker of the House. It only requires the Speaker of the House to begin such an inquiry, which she did on Sept. 24, 2019:

"An impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the 45th and current president of the United States, was initiated on September 24, 2019, by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.  It began after revelations that President Trump and top administration officials had allegedly pressured leaders of multiple foreign nations, most notably Ukraine, in ways presumably intended to advance Trump's personal and political interests.  Additional allegations of misconduct emerged in the days afterwards."

Three House Committees came together to begin this inquiry/investigation and they are working now.  They are:
Elijah Cummings of the House Oversight Committee; Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee; and Eliot Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

If witnesses do not come forward after invited to testify and/or produce records, it is perfectly legal to issue a subpoena to require their appearance or stated records, and they must do it.  If they do not, they will end up in court and that applies to everyone, even the White House/President.  With the White House/Trump calling this whole procedure unconstitutional/illegal and refusing to produce records, preventing witnesses appearing, there will be court action/orders and the witnesses and records will be sent to the committees.  The Secretary of State is doing the same thing, and eventually witnesses from there plus records will go to the committees via court order.

Once the investigations are completed by the three committees, that evidence/report goes to the entire House and a vote to impeach, or not, will happen.

Note: As I said, no action is required by the House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and it is already ongoing. Taking a vote of the House now to begin the inquiry, would be window dressing, means nothing.

If the House impeaches, which means "indicts", Trump defends himself once the Senate begins the trial.  The House selected members are the prosecutors in the trial, and Trump and his lawyers the defendant, and the Senate is the Jury.  At the end of this trial, if convicted, the Senate removes him from office, or they don't convict him and he remains in office.
I AM SELLING MY BOOK: 
“EMERGENCIES HAPPEN! BE PREPARED NOW!”
IF INTERESTED, WILL SEND YOU TABLE OF CONTENTS, WRITE ME AT:
mards.derrick@aol.com
MY WEBSITE: "THE WRITING OF MARCELLA DERRICK"  https://www.marcelladerrick.com/

Offline Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,030
  • Gender: Male
  • Dont B a tough guy.Dont B a fool.I will call u l8r
This is what the LORD Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.  Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other."

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Note: As I said, no action is required by the House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and it is already ongoing. Taking a vote of the House now to begin the inquiry, would be window dressing, means nothing.


Not always. In the Nixon inquiry, HR 803 provided the authority and funding for the process.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-resolution/803

In October 1998, the House voted on the impeachment inquiry of Clinton, prior to the impeachment vote in December.

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/08/impeachment.advancer/
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
@Victoria33

Quote
Note: As I said, no action is required by the House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and it is already ongoing. Taking a vote of the House now to begin the inquiry, would be window dressing, means nothing.

So far, you are the only person reporting as settled fact that Pelosi can start in Impeachment on a whim, complete with document demands and forced testimony.  Doesn't mean it's not true, just an observation.  The Courts will decide I am sure, because without such an order Trump will continue to tell her to pound sand.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,041
  • Gender: Female
@Victoria33

So far, you are the only person reporting as settled fact that Pelosi can start in Impeachment on a whim, complete with document demands and forced testimony.  Doesn't mean it's not true, just an observation.  The Courts will decide I am sure, because without such an order Trump will continue to tell her to pound sand.

I believe the Constitution (who cares what that says?) says that "the House of Representatives" must start the impeachment process, not the Speaker.  That implies some sort of vote to determine consensus must occur.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
I believe the Constitution (who cares what that says?) says that "the House of Representatives" must start the impeachment process, not the Speaker.  That implies some sort of vote to determine consensus must occur.

What a quaint notion!  Yes, but the Rats and the Nevers want Trump out, so whatever rules we thought applied, don't when a President spells his name T-r-u-m-p.  That will revert to normal when we get a different president, provided he/she's popular with the DeeCee crowd.  Until then, anything goes if it can be seen as anti-Trump.

It's a well know fact that a President named "Trump" is below the law, so we should just accept it and move on to the next loser.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 09:37:46 AM by Cyber Liberty »
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Victoria33

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Gender: Female
  • Prissy my Yorkie
@Victoria33
So far, you are the only person reporting as settled fact that Pelosi can start in Impeachment on a whim, complete with document demands and forced testimony.  Doesn't mean it's not true, just an observation.  The Courts will decide I am sure, because without such an order Trump will continue to tell her to pound sand.
@Cyber Liberty

In the past a vote was taken but was not necessary.  This has been said by Pelosi and others numerous times; I am surprised you have not heard/read this.  Will put sources on here.  Plus, every committee in the House/Senate may issue subpoenas if witnesses refuse to come.

Pelosi kept holding off starting an impeachment inquiry and did it the date in September I put that on here.  A House member can also bring up staring an inquiry and that requires a vote.  Okay, going to find more sources about Speaker starting inquiry.
I AM SELLING MY BOOK: 
“EMERGENCIES HAPPEN! BE PREPARED NOW!”
IF INTERESTED, WILL SEND YOU TABLE OF CONTENTS, WRITE ME AT:
mards.derrick@aol.com
MY WEBSITE: "THE WRITING OF MARCELLA DERRICK"  https://www.marcelladerrick.com/

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Doesn’t seem like it’s constitutionally required, but it should be.


Collins is implicitly conceding that nothing in the Constitution requires the House to authorize impeachment inquiries; a formal article of impeachment is all the founding document mentions. As to the requirements of House rules — well, that’s debatable. Those rules provide a procedure for authorization of impeachment hearings, but it’s entirely unclear that they are required. UNC professor of jurisprudence Michael J. Gerhardt testified before the Judiciary Committee earlier this year that no full House authorization has been acknowledged as mandatory in the past:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/no-clear-requirement-that-house-approve-impeachment-inquiry.html
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 10:12:19 AM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline verga

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,564
  • Gender: Male
@Cyber Liberty I don't think Nancy is going to let the Republicans anywhere near this impeachment crap.

She's opened up her playbook to how she treated the Republicans in the House during the Obamacare proceedings.  She completely shut them out during that as well.  Told them they weren't needed or wanted.

History is repeating itself.
The problem is that this is a juridical proceeding and not legislative. They are bound by different rules. She may think she has the final say, but she is wrong.
She has not even taken a floor vote yet, so this is nothing more than a witch hunt.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
�More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.�-Woody Allen
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken him completely by surprise.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
@Cyber Liberty

In the past a vote was taken but was not necessary.  This has been said by Pelosi and others numerous times; I am surprised you have not heard/read this.  Will put sources on here.  Plus, every committee in the House/Senate may issue subpoenas if witnesses refuse to come.

Pelosi kept holding off starting an impeachment inquiry and did it the date in September I put that on here.  A House member can also bring up staring an inquiry and that requires a vote.  Okay, going to find more sources about Speaker starting inquiry.

Make sure the quote isn't derived from anything Pelosi says.  She lies.  She's trying to deprive the President of any of the normal defenses permitted thieves and murderers.  He's beneath the law, because Trump.

No facing his accuser.  No counsel.  No defense witnesses can be called.  All proceedings to be secret, even from the defendant.  In short, the Bill of Rights do not apply.  This is where things stand today, with much excited support from people who want him gone.

And this is OK, because the ends justify the means.  By Any Means Necessary.

This is the sort of proceeding that will only increase the number of people who will oppose you, because Americans won't stand for unfair play. 
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
The problem is that this is a juridical proceeding and not legislative. They are bound by different rules. She may think she has the final say, but she is wrong.
She has not even taken a floor vote yet, so this is nothing more than a witch hunt.

The ends justify the means.  The President is supposed to check his Constitutional rights at the door.  Because Trump.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,042
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
The problem is that this is a juridical proceeding and not legislative. They are bound by different rules. She may think she has the final say, but she is wrong.

I agree...but the normal rules never seem to apply where the Dems are concerned. 

Quote
She has not even taken a floor vote yet, so this is nothing more than a witch hunt.

My guess is she won't until after the 2020 election...if ever  I honestly don't think this was every about really impeaching the President...it was about muddying him up enough to try and make him unelectable in 2020...that's why when one false scandal gets myth busted...another one magically pops up.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,541
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
I believe the Constitution (who cares what that says?) says that "the House of Representatives" must start the impeachment process, not the Speaker.  That implies some sort of vote to determine consensus must occur.

@Sanguine

That is correct. The entire House must start the impeachment process. One botoxed-to-the-gills apostate doesn't make it legitimate.
Principles matter. Words matter.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf