The impeachment inquiry

[sprintcyclist]

The Dems have been sore losers since he won.

Find a good candidate, get some policies and get on with winning.

yes

[sprintcyclist]

Raise your hand if you saw this coming?

After days of impeachment fever and breathless hot takes about Trump being taken down by a non-scandal involving a whistle-blower and a call to Ukraine, we are starting to get more information about just who is involved in this. You’d be completely not shocked to learn that the whistle-blower has retained the services of a lawyer who worked for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, not as a disconnected lawyer, but on their political staffs.

And stick around, because it gets even worse.

The anonymous person who filed a formal, uncorroborated complaint against President Donald Trump for allegedly asking a foreign leader to investigate corruption related to Joe Biden now has a legal team that includes a Democratic operative who worked for Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Andrew Bakaj, now a managing partner at the Compass Rose Legal Group, interned for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Clinton in the fall of the same year, according to Bakaj’s LinkedIn page. More recently, Bakaj has worked as an official in the CIA and Pentagon and specializes in whistleblower and security clearances in his legal practice.

You know what I wouldn’t do if I wanted my complaint to be taken seriously and not considered partisan? I wouldn’t go hire a former staffer for Hillary Rodham Clinton who also worked within the agencies in question. That seems like a bit of a conflict, especially when the entire basis of impeachment is presupposed on the condition of the unbiased nature of the whistle-blower.

Oh, but it doesn’t end there. Here’s the really good stuff.

The anonymous U.S. intelligence official accusing President Trump of improperly pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is represented by two lawyers who run a group that offers financial help to fired whistleblowers.

Whistleblower Aid was launched in September 2017 — eight months after Trump’s inauguration — with an advertising blitz that involved mobile billboards being driven close to the White House, Congress, outside the Pentagon, and around the headquarters of the CIA and National Security Agency.

The group’s pledge of support, in addition to free legal representation including rent and mortgage assistance, media coaching, and doctor’s bills and counseling, is controversial among lawyers. Critics say it violates attorney ethics.

Yes, you read that right. This lawyer and his group formed an organization that pays anti-Trump “whistle-blowers” to come forward and lodge complaints. Further, they offer free legal representation and a myriad of other payments, including mortgage assistance for some reason.

Now, I’m no legal expert, but that seems pretty low brow and unethical to me. It seems like the kind of situation that would bring partisan actors out of the woodwork in order to benefit from the situation. Especially when the law will protect their anonymity the entire way.

This lawyer himself is anything but an unbiased observer.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/0 ... le-blower/

This whole thing will kill their duplicitous bid for 2020.

they had no chance anyway

[Nom De Plume]

I think the whole thing is absurd and pointless, but tremendously interesting.
In the end, I doubt republicans will impeach one of their own.

[Redneck]

Why do you lefties always swing towards China

Not sure where you got that observation from?

Swing towards China ?????????????????????????????????????

and why shouldn't Trump be trying to rectify the trade deficit with China in favour of the US

No reason, but I am not sure driving down the economies of the rest of the world as a result is a positive outcome. (Australia in particular from our point of view)

Any action results in a reaction or whatever the saying is !

[Black Orchid]

The US is bound by treaties to protect a quarter of humanity and to bear the costs associated with protecting its allies. It's 'obliged' to go to war to protect 67 countries. The US bears the brunt of 72% of all NATO member defence expenditure.

And here you are crying that they aren't doing their bit to prop up the world economically just because they are trying to get a better deal for themselves? Makes sense to some I guess. Not many mind you, but some!

[Redneck]

The US is bound by treaties to protect a quarter of humanity and to bear the costs associated with protecting its allies. It's 'obliged' to go to war to protect 67 countries. The US bears the brunt of 72% of all NATO member defence expenditure.

And here you are crying that they aren't doing their bit to prop up the world economically just because they are trying to get a better deal for themselves? Makes sense to some I guess. Not many mind you, but some!

Time will tell.....One way or the other !!

[brian ross]

67 countries? I know of 29 NATO members that the US is bound to go to war for if any are attacked but who are the other 38 countries, Black Orchid? The US has shied away from committing itself to defend other nations since it signed the NATO treaty.

[Black Orchid]

[brian ross]

Except, as I have already noted, only NATO obliges the US to actively declare war on an attacker whom attacks any of the members of that treaty, Black Orchid. All the rest have no obligation except to "confer" - just as the A**US treaty does. Indeed the Kiwis were booted out of the A**US Treaty in 1986. So, how does this obligate the US to defend those nations which are not members of NATO?

[Black Orchid]

Rolls your eyes back they are full of dust and grit