To IMPEACH ????

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48

Trump��s personal attorneys remain largely on the sidelines as the president contends with impeachment inquiry


As the House begins discussing specific articles of impeachment, President Trump is relying almost exclusively on White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his in-house team of attorneys, according to two people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
The White House lawyers are not sharing with Trump's outside counsel some internal government records central to the inquiry into the pressure the administration put on Ukraine, citing the need to protect executive privilege, the people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...l_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1


Who pays for Trump's attorneys??
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63

Trump��s personal attorneys remain largely on the sidelines as the president contends with impeachment inquiry

As the House begins discussing specific articles of impeachment, President Trump is relying almost exclusively on White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his in-house team of attorneys, according to two people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
The White House lawyers are not sharing with Trump's outside counsel some internal government records central to the inquiry into the pressure the administration put on Ukraine, citing the need to protect executive privilege, the people said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...l_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1
Who pays for Trump's attorneys??
Same people who pay for any POTUS’s attorneys.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.

Trump��s personal attorneys remain largely on the sidelines as the president contends with impeachment inquiry


As the House begins discussing specific articles of impeachment, President Trump is relying almost exclusively on White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his in-house team of attorneys, according to two people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
The White House lawyers are not sharing with Trump's outside counsel some internal government records central to the inquiry into the pressure the administration put on Ukraine, citing the need to protect executive privilege, the people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...l_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1


Who pays for Trump's attorneys??


These are likely the same attorneys who have been on the Gov't tit ever since the start of their career.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,845
2,729
113
New Brunswick
Before the official release of the redacted confidential report


Still not sure if I understand right.


The report was released to the public on the 26th.


But.

Aug. 12 — A whistleblower files a complaint, addressed to chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees, that says: “In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”



Then: Aug. 26Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, writes to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to say that he has reviewed the whistleblower’s complaint and has deemed it an “‘urgent concern’ that ‘appears credible.'” Atkinson informs Maguire that, under the law, he has seven days to forward the complaint to the committee chairmen “together with any comments the Director considers appropriate.”


Sept. 9 — Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, notifies the House intelligence committee that he received a whistleblower’s complaint relating to an “urgent concern” on Aug. 12. He says he found the information credible, and sent “my determination of a credible urgent concern” along with a copy of the complaint to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who had seven days to forward the complaint to Congress. But, contrary to “past practice,” Maguire did not forward the complaint to Congress, believing “the allegations do not meet the definition of an ‘urgent concern’ under the [whistleblower] statute,” Atkinson writes. The inspector general says he will keep the committee apprised of his attempts to resolve the issue.
Three House committees announce investigations into whether Trump and Giuliani tried to pressure Ukraine into conducting “politically-motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity.”



Sept. 13 — Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, issues “a subpoena to the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph Maguire to compel the production of a whistleblower complaint that the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s (IC IG) determined to be credible and a matter of ‘urgent concern,’ as well as the IC IG’s determination and all records pertaining to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) involvement in this matter, including any and all correspondence with other Executive Branch actors such as the White House.”



Sept. 18 — The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reports that the whistleblower complaint involves Trump’s “communications with a foreign leader,” including “a ‘promise’ that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint.”


So in all of this, if we're talking 'leak' as in when the committee's were first aware, it was at the earliest August. If we're talking leak as in got out to the public, then it's the 18th.


This is using your own link.


So Pelosi announces on the 24th that they're going through with the impeachment inquiry.


Which is after all this happened.


Pelosi had no choice at this point but to go forward with it.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
To be clear: nobody cares or will read the 300 page report.

They either already want him impeached or not impeached.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Still not sure if I understand right.
The report was released to the public on the 26th.
But.
Aug. 12 — A whistleblower files a complaint, addressed to chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees, that says: “In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”
Then: Aug. 26Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, writes to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to say that he has reviewed the whistleblower’s complaint and has deemed it an “‘urgent concern’ that ‘appears credible.'” Atkinson informs Maguire that, under the law, he has seven days to forward the complaint to the committee chairmen “together with any comments the Director considers appropriate.”
Sept. 9 — Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, notifies the House intelligence committee that he received a whistleblower’s complaint relating to an “urgent concern” on Aug. 12. He says he found the information credible, and sent “my determination of a credible urgent concern” along with a copy of the complaint to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who had seven days to forward the complaint to Congress. But, contrary to “past practice,” Maguire did not forward the complaint to Congress, believing “the allegations do not meet the definition of an ‘urgent concern’ under the [whistleblower] statute,” Atkinson writes. The inspector general says he will keep the committee apprised of his attempts to resolve the issue.
Three House committees announce investigations into whether Trump and Giuliani tried to pressure Ukraine into conducting “politically-motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity.”
Sept. 13 — Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, issues “a subpoena to the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph Maguire to compel the production of a whistleblower complaint that the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s (IC IG) determined to be credible and a matter of ‘urgent concern,’ as well as the IC IG’s determination and all records pertaining to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) involvement in this matter, including any and all correspondence with other Executive Branch actors such as the White House.”
Sept. 18 — The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reports that the whistleblower complaint involves Trump’s “communications with a foreign leader,” including “a ‘promise’ that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint.”
So in all of this, if we're talking 'leak' as in when the committee's were first aware, it was at the earliest August. If we're talking leak as in got out to the public, then it's the 18th.
This is using your own link.
So Pelosi announces on the 24th that they're going through with the impeachment inquiry.
Which is after all this happened.
Pelosi had no choice at this point but to go forward with it.

I know what's in the link the official release was Sept. 26 press leaks were earlier
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,845
2,729
113
New Brunswick
I know what's in the link the official release was Sept. 26 press leaks were earlier


Your original question to me was this:


[/quote]So tell me what changed before the whistle blower leak, since the official impeachment call by Pelosi was before the whistle blower leaked?[/quote]


So...


What changed is that Pelosi and the committee's had information that Trump may have committed impeachable offenses, which she at that point had no choice but to call for an inquiry into, because if she hadn't, then people would have lost their minds thanks to the press leaks that had gotten out.


And what was released on the 26th was a redacted version of the call, that has nothing to do with anything other than showing the public why the impeachment inquiry was happening.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Rachel Maddow SUED! Forced to DEFEND Russia FAKE NEWS in COURT!!!

Dec 4, 2019
Dr. Steve Turley

The facts will out...
;)
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Because you aren't one of them
Or gay
That's for sure!
Haha, "You' r gay"...
;)
Can I use that term in my "Curius Cdn is actually a secret agent and russian propagandist" posts?

LOL, This is what I got when I googled "russian spy monkey" .



Ah, Yorgie here is actually a row bot...
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Your original question to me was this:
So tell me what changed before the whistle blower leak, since the official impeachment call by Pelosi was before the whistle blower leaked?
So...
What changed is that Pelosi and the committee's had information that Trump may have committed impeachable offenses, which she at that point had no choice but to call for an inquiry into, because if she hadn't, then people would have lost their minds thanks to the press leaks that had gotten out.
And what was released on the 26th was a redacted version of the call, that has nothing to do with anything other than showing the public why the impeachment inquiry was happening.

That's when an Impeachment inquiry should have been called, on the official release, not when the Dems. leaked to the MSM on a highly confidential document
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,845
2,729
113
New Brunswick
So tell me what changed before the whistle blower leak, since the official impeachment call by Pelosi was before the whistle blower leaked?


...


Pelosi called for the inquiry after it came to the attention of the committees, in August and early Sept.


That's when an Impeachment inquiry should have been called, on the official release, not when the Dems. leaked to the MSM on a highly confidential document


Proof the dems leaked anything?


There was enough in the original report to warrant an inquiry. THAT'S what changed.


The report got out - regardless of WHO put it out - it got out before an official call for impeachment was made. BEFORE, not after. Again, Pelosi had no choice to call for one by then. If she didn't, the public would have questioned why not and it would have been a political disaster for the Dems, despite calling one is also a political issue. But as the committee's were involved, she had no choice.