And bullshit too. You can obfuscate this to a fare-thee-well. I did what the President said to, I READ THE TRANSCRIPT and there it was, in black and white. "but first, I want you to do us a favor" I don't see how you can get any more obvious than that about it You pubs are getting to to point where you're ****** downright ridiculous about it. Why don''t you just say "The President is a KING, he can do ANYTHING and is ABOVE THE LAW COMPLETELY" and not just the law really but ANY standards of good taste or competence or anything else . I mean fer crissake even the SAUDS can remove a king if he's done as much as this ******* has. But you just go right on. After 2020 there won't BE a Republican Party any more.
Yeah...they are employees of the U.S. government, salary or no salary. IMO, the Constitution's provisions for Senate "advise and consent" powers expresses the intent that all important Presidential advisers be confirmed by the Senate. That would mean that the President doesn't constitutionally have the luxury of ignoring Senate confirmed Cabinet officers, while establishing an unconfirmed "kitchen cabinet" of friends and relatives. But, they can explain what they are doing when they testify.
I thought you guys were preventing the OBM folks from testifying? But no, there are multiple witnesses (You can listen to Bill Taylor talk about it Wednesday), including the transcript, which reference the hold on military aid.
Show me the probably cause, and Hunter Biden's employment by Burisma is NOT, in and of itself, such a cause, It was perfectly legal and aboveboard and no one has brought forth any evidence showing otherwise.
Showing that this was not Biden trying to achieve something for himself. USA (not Biden, but the Obama administration including all relevant departments), EU and IMF all wanted the prosecutor gone. Biden used leverage to achieve something that had broad domestic and international support. Can you say the same about Trump's attempt at extortion? No. He wanted that for himself for domestic political reasons. Nothing else.
So wait.... Sometimes, quid-pro-quo is NOT an impeachable offense? You cannot demonstrate Trump sought QQP from the Ukrainians. You aren't alone.
Although, the former Ukrainian prosecutor (Yuriy Lutsenko), who replaced the one Biden (and the U.S., the EU, the IMF, et al) wanted fired, has made contradictory statements, he did give Bloomberg News an interview in which he stated that they'd already conducted an investigation into Biden's son and the energy company upon whose board he served and found nothing that violated Ukrainian law. There are essentially two factions in Ukrainian politics...the pro-Western faction, that favors EU and NATO membership, and the pro-Russian faction, that supports Putin's actions and wants closer ties with Russia. Biden, Obama, the EU, the IMF, et al supports the pro-Western faction. Trump, Giuliani, Manafort, et al support the pro-Russian faction. Evidently, the GOP is willing to follow the President down the Rabbit Hole, for domestic political reasons.
I don't care how often you say it. My point stands. What the senate decides to allow in its fraudulent 'trial' is up the Senate. We know what they are going to do anyway. The indictment reaches them with the evidence that the House Managers choose to bring consistent with commitments it made to keep the Whistleblower's ID secret. While they cannot predict the specific rulings or Senate overrides of those rulings, there are plenty of lawyers both among the membership and the staff of the House , who can read the deposed transcripts already on record, as well as testimony of witnesses to come, and they will be plenty familiar with hearsay rules and exceptions. All that is law school 101. They will know if they have a solid credible case or not without that testimony. my position is under no circumstance should Dems undermine a commitment to confidentiality of an informant when this fraudulent jury will sabotage the prosecution's case in a thousand ways during trial, move the goalposts even if the informant is supplied, and then nullify the entire process. All the Schiff does is ruin this mans life, and the credibility of his committee and the House, just to accomplish absolutely nothing.
I want US, the U.S. to investigate with assurance of our own DOJ and concurrently and with cooperation with Ukraine as treaty mandates.
I presume that's why Barr is flying around Europe. I have no problem with that, although they may say..."we've already investigated." Remember, the treaty was signed PRIOR to the Orange Revolution, when Ukraine had only recently declared independence from the USSR. The split between pro-Western Ukrainians and pro-Russian Ukrainians came later. At the time of the treaty, BOTH sides were courting Ukraine, both as one of the largest independent countries in Europe and as the home of much of the USSR's nuclear weapons, including development. Part of the deals, also involving aid from both sides was to get the new Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapon capability and return its weapons to the USSR. Around the same time, we began paying the Russians the funds to pay their own nuclear scientists to remain in Russia and not hire themselves out to other nations wanting to join the "nuclear weapon club."
It's not an indictment it is an impeachment. I don't know of any case where it has been decided that the Senate can call any witness that were not presented in the articles of impeachment or who's testimony was not included as supporting evidence but their is the principles the rules of the proceedings are up to each body. And we know who is the complainer, they have no guaranty of anonymity and if there was a deal made between him and Schiffs office before he filed his complaint THAT needs to be investigate because Schiff said there had been no contact.
In fact, it is a very, very rare event that a QPQ is an impeachable offense. Here, it is an impeachable offense because Trump sought a personal political benefit from a foreign government.
Precedent says it's okay.... "In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule.[1] This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts.[1] The use of precedent provides predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law. The Latin term stare decisis is the doctrine of legal precedent.[2]" https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts. Lets compare Trumps situation to Bidens to see if they are similar..... Who were they talking to? Biden-Ukraine Trump-Ukraine What were they doing? Biden- Using Congressial approved funds to leverage Ukraine for potential political benefit without congressial consent Trump- Using Congressial approved funds to leverage Ukraine for potential political benefit without congressial consent So Bidens punishment or lack thereof sets a precedent. With that being said Trump should receive the same punishment Biden received when Biden used congressial approved funds to leverage the Ukrainian government( also keep in mind Biden strong armed the Ukrainians for a loan to keep their government and military solvent roughly one year after Ukraine was invaded at Crimea).
If course QPQ is not always impeachable. There are two problems with what Trump did 1. He asked a foreign government to hurt a political opponent. That is illegal. Against campaign finance laws. 2. He used the threat of withholding aid destined for that government as leverage to put pressure on them to accede to his request. That is horrifying. The QPQ in this case highlights just how far Trump was willing to go in order to get a foreign government to hurt his political opponent. You guys seem to think that if Biden threatening to hold up funding was OK, then it was OK for Trump to ACTUALLY hold up funding. The difference is the reason. Biden did it to advance national interests that were universally agreed, within the country and the western world, to be correct. Trump did it to hurt a domestic political opponent.
"USA (not Biden, but the Obama administration including all relevant departments)" ^^ it wasn't any of the entities you mentioned call though. Here let me school you up on Federal loan guarantees...... " "Before an agency can issue any loans or loan guarantees, Congress must first authorize and allocate funding for the program. In most cases Congress starts by determining how much money the program will be authorized to guarantee or loan and then appropriates a certain percentage of that amount to cover the program’s expected cost to the government. That cost estimate — assessed by both the agency administering the program and the president’s Office of Management and Budget — takes into account expected repayments, defaults, recoveries, and any interest or fees collected over the life of the loan, adjusted to current dollars." https://thinkprogress.org/major-ana...-but-a-low-and-predicatable-cost-9f263b21d94/" Show where Congress approved of Bidens action
The WB report has been corroborated by other people within the administration. Presumably, Republicans would be able to call witnesses to the tel-con and related meetings and events, who could challenge the Democrats "quid pro quo" conclusions. The original WB is irrelevant and he did nothing wrong...per the Intelligence IG and the Director of National Intelligence, both of whom were Trump appointees.
Ah. You bought the spin. He asked a foreign government to help investigate the potentially corrupt actions of an elected official of the US government taken with respect to that government. How is this inappropriate? How is this illegal? How is this impeachable? That's the allegation, of course. Prove it true - cite the source and quote the text to that effect.
Except, Biden was carrying out national policy and Trump was carrying out personal policy. Secondly, Biden threatened to withhold funding, but never did. Trump actually withheld funding for a number of weeks, until the WB's story threatened to expose the quid pro quo. You are arguing a "false equivalency."
He was never relevant to begin with, but: What did he know, when did he know and how does he knows what he know? The inquiring minds want to know
