Lets talk quid pro quo

The evidence shows that the "miss of a reporting date" may have been deliberate and part of an illegal conspiracy. The Whistle Blower blew it up, forcing the release of funds prior to Zelenskiy's public announcement of the demanded investigations.

 

I didn't hear the but heard it being disputed as to when the finds had to be dispwasered which they were with no quo.

So now lets get on with the necessary investigations.

 

Yes and in criminal investigations , Starr's investigation into the Jones/Lewinsky matter was a criminal investigation. And Graham says he will move to have his committee use the federal rules of evidence to determine what evidence is admissable. Yes as noted the Democrats said perjury, obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury did not warrant impeachment and removal.

 

There are two DIFFERENT deadlines that apply. You may be referring to the end of the fiscal year deadline regarding appropriations. If an appropriation specifics the fiscal year of funding (and the Ukraine appropriation did), then the money must be spent in that year. The government's fiscal year is not the same as the calendar year; it runs from October 1st of a given year to September 30th of the following year. The funding was specified for FY 2019, meaning that the appropriation would have died on September 30th, in which case, the administration would have had to have returned to Congress and requested a new appropriation for FY 2020...and, of course, explained to Congress why the FY 2019 appropriation had not been made.
Separate from that rule is the "Impoundment Control Act," which requires the administration to notify Congress of any delay in appropriated funding, together with a reason for such a delay. In other words, as soon at the White House determined to withhold funding, they should have notified the Office of Budget and Management, who in turn should have notified Congress of the delay and the reason for it. That was NOT done. People in the process loop (OMB, State and DoD personnel) asked for the basis of the withholding and questioned the legality of such, without cause and without Congressional notification.
Once Congress IS notified, Congress has 45 days to respond. They may approve of the delay. They may disapprove of the delay. Or, they may do nothing. If they do nothing, the funding must proceed as originally called for in the appropriation. Congress did nothing...not because that was one of their three choices, but because they'd never been officially informed of the delay in the first place.
The aid was ordered by Trump to be withheld on July 18th. On July 25th, the Ukrainian government checked on the "status" of the aid and on that same day, Trump spoke with Zelenskiy. On August 12th, two plus weeks after the tel-con, the Whistle Blower filed a complaint regarding that phone call. The WB apparently first sought advice from the staff of the House Intelligence Committee and was referred to their IG. Since the employee was from the CIA, on loan to the National Security Council staff, they went first to the CIA IG. The CIA IG referred them to the National Intelligence IG. That IG did a preliminary investigation and found it to be both "credible and urgent," and informed the Director of National Intelligence, who agreed with the IG. However, the DNI also informed the WH Counsel, who referred him to DoJ, who determined no further investigation was necessary on their part, but did NOT shut-down the WB complaint itself. On September 9th, the House Intelligence Committee forwarded an inquiry to the WH requesting all relevant documentation related to the September 25th tel-con between Trump and Zelenskiy. At that point, the WH became aware that the WB complaint had become known to Congress. On September 12th, they released the aid, followed by the release of the tel-con transcript on September 25th, the same day Trump met with Zelenskiy at the United Nations, in NYC.
I am guessing, but I presume Trump profusely apologized to Zelenskiy in a private pre-public meeting, for the delay, which he probably assured Zelenskiy he knew nothing about and that he hoped that Zelenskiy had not misinterpreted their prior tel-con on July 25th. Zelenskiy, who at that point had both received the aid and not been pressured into a public announcement of the previously demanded investigations, was more than willing to say "fine with me...no pressure...no Ukrainian involvement in U.S. politics...let's continue from here."

 

Yes...because it's a felony to lie in either a deposition or to a Grand Jury (I can't remember which it was). Starr had found nothing in regard to Whitewater and broadened the scope of his investigation to include the Jones civil suit and the Lewinsky affair. I am not sure what Graham's "Judicial Committee" input will be? The trial is mandated by the Constitution and McConnell has recognized it as such. Once the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate, the Senate will then forward their request to Chief Justice John Roberts to preside over the Senate trial. I suppose at that point, Graham could move to impose the federal rules of evidence on the Senate trial, but to whom would that proposal be addressed? The Senate as a whole or Roberts? And, if the Senate passed the Graham proposal, could Roberts strike it down as un-constitutional, since the Constitution mentions no such requirement, as pointed out by Gerhardt in his "The Federal Impeachment Process," page 112.

 

Sonderland for one

Never for personal reasons

The QPQ was part of the extortion attempt...which failed because Trump got CAUGHT. Zelensky was scheduled to go on CNN and "announce an investigation" and cancelled once the scheme fell apart

 

It was both and subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice and the Democrats said that did not rise to the level of impeachment and removal.

Over twenty people went to jail including the owner of Madison Guaranty bank, the Clinton hand picked and best buddy Deputy United States Attorney General, the Clinton hand picked Governor of Arkansas and various other state officials and had he not committed suicide the presidents legal counsel would have also gone to jail. It was Reno who broadened his scope after prima facie evidence of his perjury and obstruction of justice in that federal court was discovered after Linda Tripp went to the Starr office to report it. Starr didn't go looking for it.

Grahams committee will set the rules to be voted on as to how the trial will proceed and if he moves it follows the federal rules of evidence and the Senate passes that that is how it will proceed. Roberts has little to do in the entire process but sit there and listen and recognize people.

 

I know the history you do not need to repeat it nor do I have the time or patient to drive and derive what it is that is your point. Can you try some brevity.

 

You'd prefer a power point presentation with a sharpie? The point is simply that there is a good probability that he broke U.S. law.

 

LOL. I don't get the 'conspiracy' part though. Surely they thought that you were DOING the 'illegal harassment', not just conspiring to commit it!

 

That part was BS, too. On that particular forum somebody accused me of depriving them of their constitutional rights for disagreeing with them. If I'm lying I'm dying...

 

You didn't consider that they were just trolling?

 

Point taken.

Most of what Trumpers post IS trolling

 

A possible reporting delay .........spare me.

 

That would be different than what the dems allege against Trump, in that the objective with Israel was not related to personal advantage of some kind. (At least that we know of) Of course, Quid Pro Quo is common in politics, and virtually every member of congress participates in it for personal gain- every time they take a large donation with the agreement or understanding that benefits will be directed towards the contributor, an illegitimate QPQ takes place. Such exchanges of value aren't exactly defined or written down, because they must evade the legality questions and that would provide proof. And of course the arrangements aren't recorded and open to review by others, as virtually every word of the president is. The accusations against Trump are being brought by people who are repeatedly guilty of the same charge they make.

 

He "presumed"

For corruption reasons.

There was no extortion and it wouldn't have been anyway just normal foreign policy.

 

No...the extortion opposed our foreign policy toward Ukraine. It was a conspiracy aimed at reversing the conclusion reached by our intelligence agencies, the Mueller Report, and the Congressional Committees, that the Russians had interfered in our 2016 election, as well as investigate the Biden's.

 

Incompetence instead of corruption? And, if it can be proven to be corruption, would you change your mind?

 

In exercising the quid pro quo, he broke the law by withholding aid illegally without notifying Congress of the reason for the withholding and asking for Congressional approval...a separation of powers violation, as well as statute law.

 

No...per McConnell's explanation and past procedures, motions on rules will be made to Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts may, if he wishes, poll the Senate on important issues.

 

Trump did a quid quo pro to get a foreign country to "announce" an investigation on his political opponent

we are not talking about normal quid quo pro's

 

his own people admitted that under oath, Dirty Donald wont let anymore of his staff talk under oath, and he won't talk under oath, conciseness of guilt in my book

 

I don't think the congress has the right to control every detail of a presidents powers- and certainly is far more likely to act arbitrarily and for personal reasons. This is something that in the big picture, made no real difference in anything. That tells me the value in pursuing it is the same at the "gotcha" game that has been going on for three years, this just being the latest excuse.

The realistic issue in this is that the situation that includes Hunter Biden's payola, Joe Biden's position and the role of people in the Ukraine in contributing to the dossier- all have a very bad smell to it. A responsible government simply does not ignore that. We do not have the authority to arbitrarily conduct an investigation in another country without invitation- and thus it makes sense for Trump to suggest that the government of that country do so, and it makes sense that we don't send them huge amounts of money under conditions of thriving corruption, which is widely documented in Ukraine history of recent years.

There may or may not have been some breach of protocol, I haven't tried to play judge on the fine points- but as to common sense, I think Trump handled the situation in the best interests of this nation. If the smell attached to this has any validity, it does involve OUR politicians using corrupt moves for financial benefit, and quite likely political chicanery. Funny how the left sees none of that, but wants to use any error in protocol to create another crisis.

You and I are probably breaking laws everyday- because laws and regulations have become so massive and entangled that nobody can grasp them all, let along know how to avoid breaking them. When a law is broken intentionally and for malicious purpose, we have a situation that should be investigated, But when we have people using the complexity of laws and regulation as booby traps, as excuses for malicious prosecution- we should be prosecuting them, because that too is criminal.

 

What if- as evidence seems to point to- that as VP, Biden was involved in a situation which can be described as diverted benefits (money to family instead of self, something many politicians do) in exchange for the connection to the white house? This is the process of trading influence for benefit, and that IS QPQ. That situation was established before Joe became a candidate, but was the VP. One would have to be very naive to think Joe Biden was a threat to Trump's candidacy- and morally bereft to think that becoming a candidate should give you protection against investigation of your corruption by an existing government, of which Trump IS the commander in chief.

"Normal" QPQ? Is one kind OK (Joes, who openly bragged about with holding Ukraine aid as leverage to fire the investigator pursing Burisma and his son's relationship with them? Was that just "Normal"
but to investigate that very event which is openly QPQ and personal is abnormal?

That stretches the double standard even further than ever, and if a person does not see the conflict and situation ethics being applied here- they don't see at all.
They aren't blind, they know this is true- they just lack the character to play fair and have no problem cheating at every turn. It is disgusting; it is un-American. And sadly it's like the theme song of the new democratic party leadership. Harry Truman would be nauseous if he could see them today.

 

Roberts does not make the rules for the procedure just as Rehnquist did not in the Clinton impeachment. If one of the Senators calls for a vote on something Roberts merely manages the procedure for taking the vote. I recall back during the Clinton impeachment constitutional authorities noting the Chief Justice role in an impeachment is about as strong as is the Vice-Presidents in the executive branch in fact even less since the CJ can't even vote to break a tie.

"Rehnquist, who was an official in the Nixon Justice Department before joining the Supreme Court, was scrupulously nonpartisan and low key in running the Clinton trial. After it was over, Rehnquist borrowed a line from Gilbert and Sullivan in describing his role: “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.” In February 1999, Clinton was acquitted in the U.S. Senate."
https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...mp-impeachment-trial/?slreturn=20191101144427

It is mostly a ceremonial position for which the founders selected the CJOTHSCOTUS because leaving the Vice-President in his role of presiding over the Senate would be a conflict of interest in a Presidential impeachment.