Are there any other alternatives to establishing "factually" that Trump sought a personal political gain of election beyond a confession by Trump? This is the statement which Sondland and Taylor wanted Zelesnky to issue: Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future. You can find that in Kurt Volker text message dated [8/13/19, 10:26:44 AM].
That part that you quoted? It's a lie. This is what Sondland actually said and is actually in the transcript: Where in that does he mention the Biden's? Right...no where.
Yeah, a confession from someone else that heard Trump say something to that effect is one way. We all know Trump can't keep his big mouth shut. Yep. We already know that Trump wanted Burisma investigated and the election interference in 2016. This was known even before these texts were selectively revealed. Nothing new about that.
In fact, the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the USG. The AG/DOJ/FBI act under the Presidents authority.
I am well aware of that. Which is why all presidents since Nixon - until Trump - have let the AG/DOJ/FBI operate independently. They might have set broad policy but they didn’t interfere with the operation of the DOJ so as to avoid any appearance of using it for political purposes. Again - can you identify any president who called for the criminal investigation of a political opponent? Actually of any American citizen?
Any president who is aware of official crimes should call for an investigation. It is part of the job. Any Presidents who allow inherently dangerous secret police/spy agencies to act independently are derelict in their duty to the American people. The thinking Left used to know that. "When the FBI could not find significant "subversive" influence, the bureau abandoned all pretense that its intelligence was directed only at organizations under the control or influence of a foreign power or dedicated to "violence." The Socialist Workers party (SWP) was placed under heavy surveillance even through the bureau conceded it was "home grown tomatoes" and in active opposition to the Communist party. The bureau took aim at the SWP because it espoused the "revolutionary principles of Marx, Lenin, and Engles (sic) as interpreted by Leon Trotsky" by "running candidates for public office." The surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr., as we have seen, was ostensibly to prevent "the rise of a 'messiah' who could unify and electrify the . . . black . . . movement," although King's criticism of the bureau may well have been the real reason." The Lawless State, The crimes of the U.S. Inteligence Agencies, by Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, Christine Marwick, Penguin Books, 1976. http://thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/Lawless_State.html
Would you like to hear from individuals who are most likely to have heard that type of statement? Like Giuliani, or Bolton, or Mulvaney? Does it seem appropriate that Trump has ordered those people to keep their mouth shut? You wanted evidence that Trump cared about specific cases instead of generic corruption. Do those two investigations (and the third investigation that Trump mentions, a la an investigation into the firing of the former Prosecutor by Joe Biden) benefit Trump in a personally political manner? Have you heard of Trump seeking out corruption against an individual who was his political ally?
"appropriate" is not relevant. If I say the "N" word that is inappropriate, but not illegal. And I don't care who it comes from. The butterfly effect is irrelevant to intent. And has any political ally or news org given him reasonable reason to like the NYTimes did with Biden? Funny how that is never mentioned in all those timelines huh? Btw, a number of people around Trump that came under investigation was promptly dumped by Trump and he did not stand in the way of their investigations. But of course instead of noting that the left wing often put forth "when/is Trump going to pardon them!?!?!" narrative. Funny how he hasn't even come close to actually doing that.
Do you think their testimony is relevant to the consideration of whether Trump ever espoused the intent that we discussed earlier? I notice that you did not answer whether any of those requested investigations would benefit Trump politically (unless butterfly effect or the NY Times reference was supposed to be your response). Also...how does Trump come close to pardoning him? There were multiple reports that he was considering and that representatives of the Trump legal team dangled pardons...how do you get any closer without issuing the pardon?
That group is whining that Australians can't survive on a mere Cash to them of $40 x 30 per day or $1200 per month. Well what about bundling up in groups? Easy peasy. A shame a nation has gone socialist.
you mean Trump’s major donor and appointee who Trump barely knew got caught in a lie and changed his testimony to avoid a perjury charge. Now you can supply a defense that says he got suckered and is a fool but then again Trump appointed him.
It is an all or nothing proposition. He can't pick and choose which questions to reply to. The difference with the open forum is that Schiff won't be able to cut off witnesses in a public venue.
Except for the reality that Biden is actually under investigation by the DOJ right now. And Giuliani has already uncovered the money laundering trail. The Dems are in a pickle because they can't tell their base that Biden is a guilty as sin to sway the primary voting towards Bloomberg or whomever. Hillary is now completely toast after the new Robach revelation about Bill. Hillary can't claim plausible deniability on another episode that is so obviously disgusting and reeks of yet another mysterious death.
Crowdstrike is the entity that I would love to know more about. After all, it was Crowdstrike who was given complete and total access to the DNC server. Not to mention the FBI data access banks prior to Admiral Rogers shutdown.
If Schiff and his minions aren't going to allow Republicans to question the whistleblower, it will be all the proof any intelligent person needs to determine that the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been acting in concert with Democrats from the beginning, and was, apparently, in communication with Schiff's office long before he made the complaint. The Democratic party will die after this. They're being so monumentally stupid that they fail to see the very possible ramifications of their actions...
Why do you want to hear from the Whistleblower? Do you have any interest in his testimony above and beyond trying to prove wrongdoing by him or someone not named Donald Trump?
You have zero proof that Trump actually broke any laws and yet you continue to spew out what ever the party line is at the moment. Schiff is a show boater and a ring leader. Your so called whistle blower is just another sick democrat who was jilted by the administration after leaking information to the media. You would actually be funny if you weren't such a sad case.