Embassy Official Confirms Trump Asked About Ukraine Investigation

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by The Mello Guy, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. BigSteve

    BigSteve Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2019
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Absolutely.

    And it will be the fault of the Democrats.

    They were attacking Trump before he even took the oath of office. They spent over two years and $25 million dollars investigating some Russian "collusion" idea which fell flat on its face. So, since that didn't work, they're now trying to say he was attempting to enlist the help of a foreign government in order to beat a political rival. That very idea is stupid on its face, seeing as Joe Biden is the Minnesota Vikings of American politics. He'll never win the big game. Nobody has to beat Biden. Biden's so bat-**** crazy and senile that he beats himself.

    But, back to the point, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Republicans hand the Democrats a victory by removing Trump from office. The ramifications of that would be political suicide, and they're going to be far more interested in their own political longevity than they are in removing from office someone who, at best, will only be in Washington another five years...
     
  2. Dutch

    Dutch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    46,383
    Likes Received:
    15,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did now you KNOW Trump colluded with russkies?
     
  3. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know the Trump campaign did, as was documented extensively in the Mueller report. I didn't read all of Volume 1, but enough to make that clear as glass...
     
    bx4 likes this.
  4. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We only have four cases...Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and, now, Donald Trump. Johnson, I believe, escaped removal by impeachment by a single Senate vote, on issues involving post-Civil War Reconstruction. Nixon resigned before he was impeached and received a "blanket pardon" for ALL crimes he may have committed while in office. The pardon came prior to indictments, which probably would have come without the pardon. Clinton was impeached, on a party-line vote, in the House, but failed to be convicted by the Senate. I believe he lost his license to practice law and settled a law suit, but was otherwise not effected.
    There are three "legal opinions" (none official court opinions) regarding indictment of sitting presidents. One, written around the time of Nixon's resignation, supported the garment that the President could not be indicted prior to removal from office. But, Nixon resigned, making the point moot. What was established, in the courts, during the Watergate investigations, was the principle that "no one is above the law," established in regard to whether or not a subpoena could force the President to turn over the WH tapes. The Court ruled against Nixon. A pro-presidential indictment opinion was written during the Clinton impeachment period, by a constitutional scholar, a professor at the University of Illinois. Ken Starr had requested the opinion. But, the opinion went no where after removal in the Senate failed. The third modern opinion was written shortly after the Clinton impeachment, by a DoJ attorney, who was subsequently appointed to the Federal Court, by Clinton. That is still the basis of the DoJ policy today. However, the opinion seems to me to be based primarily on the idea that the President is just too busy with the nation's business to be bothered by indictments. I consider that a weak argument. And, IMO, the Constitution doesn't seem to specify one way or the other. Removal from office, via impeachment, is a political act. In that sense, a president may be removed from office on the basis of treason, bribery and/or high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason and bribery are defines. High crimes and misdemeanors was the Madison suggested substitute for "maladministration," which was proposed initially, but which Madison found too vague. However, it is an old phrase from English common law, referring to basically crimes by high-ranking government officials against the state itself...or, IOW, the "sovereignty of the people." Since the legislative branch (Parliament or Congress) is the branch representing that sovereignty, it may be (as Gerald Ford once said) "anything the House (by a simple majority) and the Senate (a a two-thirds majority) says it is.
    Soooo...removal from office, IMO, may or may not be a crime and is separate from the decision of whether or not to indict. IMO, the President could be indicted for a criminal act alone via the criminal justice system, either before or after removal via impeachment.
    But...it's debatable.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
  5. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just read Holmes' opening statement... pretty interesting. One more set of questions for Sondland to answer to... I'm telling you now that there is no way they can do Sondland in public on just the AM next Wednesday.... He's going to need the entire day at least.. bad scheduling there...

    Also, this should be a case where Schiff will add a second (or more) 45 minute round to keep himself and Goldman on topic.

    This is the big one guys... Sondlands nuts on are the block... saddle up!!

    (Is that a mixed metaphor??)
     
    bx4 likes this.
  6. Dutch

    Dutch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    46,383
    Likes Received:
    15,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Surprisingly, the word "campaign" was more often than not absent in Liberals' accusations. Trump did it.
     
  7. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some admittedly got lazy on that, but Trump runs the campaign and is the candidate, thus is generally responsible for what happens in the campaign...
     
  8. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nonsense. Trump's own DoJ initiated the Mueller investigation, which picked up on the counter-intelligence investigation they were conducting under the Obama administration. Mueller was appointed by Trump appointed DoJ officials. His investigation included the additional element of possible obstruction of justice caused by Trump's firing of Comey.
    If DoJ has sufficient probable cause to launch an investigation into Biden and his son, that's fine with me. However, since Biden was carrying out U.S. policy (and generally the policy of the EU, the World Bank and the IMF), and never actually suspended aid, it's doubtful there is any crime to prosecute. I doubt nepotism, in the Ukraine, is a crime. The real target of Giuliani & his gang was to secure evidence from the new Ukrainian President disproving the conclusion of the Trump administration itself...namely that it was the Ukrainians, not the Russians, who hacked the DNC and Clinton e-mails.
    If the Republicans want to run on that platform in 2020...let 'em run.
     
  9. BigSteve

    BigSteve Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2019
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    And Trump didn't withhold aid from Ukraine. They got their aid within the agreed to parameters...
     
  10. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most of what you wrote was regarding actual removal from office. I was asking if any president sitting or not has been charged with a crime. I asked it in that way to remove the theory that a sitting president can't be indicted from the equation. To my knowledge even former presidents who might've done criminal acts werent even pursued post presidency. One could say former presidents havent been charged because none of them ever did criminal acts (most probably didn't but not all) and/or the amount of divisiveness to the nation criminal pursuits of former presidents heavily influences the decision
     
  11. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sondland is the wildcard in this i think we're all on baited breath for his testimony
     
    Egoboy likes this.
  12. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
    The Mello Guy likes this.
  13. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump released the suspended aid a few days following the Whisleblower's complaint was made known to the White House. Follow the timeline.
     
    WalterSobchak likes this.
  14. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What's also going to be interesting is that this is likely to be the first (and only?) witness the majority is going to have to treat as hostile... So Schiff and Goldman cannot lob softballs up there...

    Think about all the things they have to cover

    - July 10th Drug Deal meeting
    - July 26th Ukraine restaurant call with Trump
    - Sept 1 Call with Taylor
    - Sept 7 Call with Morrison/Trump
    - Sept 8 Call with Trump/Text with Taylor

    That's 3/4 of a day right there...

    Hell, I can't keep track of all this, and I know more than most on this... I need somebody to put together all the times Sondland was mentioned in somebody's deposition...
     
    TurnerAshby likes this.
  15. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Even beyond that if what's been said about him has any validity (that he bought his way to that position and being frank I've not look into enough to know what's what) then I'd say odds are he'll be more likely to say something coo coo than career bureaucrats well versed in hearings.
     
  16. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He's a billionaire hotelier, from Portland, who contributed a $1 million to the Trump Inaugural Committee, presumably for the privilege of being addressed as "Mr. Ambassador" for the rest of his life. I suspect he would have rather spent his time researching the expansion possibilities of his hotel chain into Europe instead of playing "bagman" for the President. I also suspect Trump couldn't find a careerist to do the job and figured anyone who gave his Inaugural Committee a million bucks could be counted upon to carry out his orders, legal or not. As Donald Junior tweeted, the professional State Department people, now testifying, are exactly the type of people his father was elected to fire.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
    ronv and TurnerAshby like this.
  17. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don Jr may be right but before you can change the game it'd probably help to read the rulebook. If all that's true about Sondland there's a high chance of slip ups and we can disagree about criminality of this particular situation until were blue in the face but one of the biggest things to make or political endeavors is optics and public sentiment. So outta everyone so far he'd be my guess on who's gonna mess up under scrutiny
     
  18. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If 'coo coo' is telling us everything Trump told him regarding Ukraine, it's certainly possible...

    Here's a thought, how can you claim executive privilege here, since discussing Ukraine is not in Sondland's portfolio?? I'm sure that will come up next week...

    But then again, Trump 'hardly knows the gentleman' so I don't know who to believe here... (Hint - Not Trump)
     
  19. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Mess-up?" Ah...you mean fall into the famous "perjury trap" by lying under oath? Or, do you mean, he'll mess up by telling the truth? And, no, I don't think Don Junior is right about much of anything. He's a chip off the old block...an idiot.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
  20. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    lol to your last paragraph and the bit about executive privilege idk one of us would have to do the leg work on if it would apply in this instance but generally its a pretty all encompassing term right? Id be shocked if he didn't try and claim it regardless
     
  21. TurnerAshby

    TurnerAshby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,592
    Likes Received:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mess up can mean a great number of things from fake crying to acting hostile all the way to iran contra type stuff. Again this is all about grabbing the public's attention
     
  22. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No...it's specific. Certainly, executive privilege exists, but there is no "blanket coverage." And, it cannot be used to cover up a crime...Nixon tried that. Normally, however, I think it might apply here. Sondland was confirmed by Congress, so he's a recognized "Presidential Adviser," as Ambassador to the European Community. But I doubt his advise to the President would be limited to the EU - i.e. the President may seek his advice on anything. Advice on a quid pro quo regarding a swap for Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, in return for investigations toward Presidential personal gain might be questionable, but that would be Congress' call, not Sondland's. Sondland was simply "following orders," and would not, I think, be expected to be capable of determining whether or not those orders were constitutionally legal or not. And, since his oath is to the Constitution, not to the President, if he KNOWINGLY followed illegal orders, then he would be guilty. Again..."intentions" come into play. Trump's intentions also play a role...but I suspect he has a higher bar to get over...and the RICO laws would come into play...manipulating subordinates to commit illegal acts.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
  23. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apologize for using Wiki, but here's a logical definition

    Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch

    I think that's shot to hell when you have Sondlands phone call overheard in public.... and combine that with the fact that 2 witnesses have testified Sondland told them other things Trump was saying should end the rest of it...

    But I have no doubt Trump and his lawyers will try and squeeze every last microbe of cover-up out of the cover-up tube....
     
    TurnerAshby likes this.
  24. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good point. I would think, the lack of effort to make the call confidential, could play a big role in regard to whether or not it was covered by executive privilege. I think it may come down to a "high crime and misdemeanor" in the sense that it makes no sense to Presidential governance for the President to begin a covert investigation challenging the conclusions of his own administration. It would seem that the goal of this back-channel Giuliani investigation was to clear Russia of charges by the Trump administration of Russian interference. While not rising to the level of treason, I would think it may rise to a crime against the state...i.e. the sovereignty of the people, as represented by Congress.
     
    Egoboy likes this.
  25. BigSteve

    BigSteve Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2019
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Two questions I have:

    Did Ukraine know the aid had been withheld? No, they did not.

    Did Ukraine receive the aid before the agreed to date? Yes, they did.

    I would be far more alarmed if Trump held back the agreed aid after the agreed on date, but that didn't happen. Also, because Zelensky didn't know about the alleged withholding of aid, it's impossible for there to be a quid pro quo...
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019

Share This Page