WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 2)

Why do you think he's relevant?

 

Is the GAO report an example that qualifies as specific evidence?

 

Was it included in the evidence at the time of the creation of the Impeachment articles? You see what the Left is doing? Inventing crimes and then trying to find evidence for them after the fact. No legal system can call itself Just that does something like that. I guess it is a thing, however, of the political Left. Stalin would be proud of them . . . or . . . Putin.

 

Th Impoundment Contol Act is mentioned on Page 83 of the House Judiciary Committee Report.

 

Let me do you one better: Was President's Bush or Clinton charged with the Impoundment Control Act?(Both administrations were found in violation.) Neither Speaker Tip O'Neill nor Speaker Pelosi deligned to do so, so there's precedence against such a charge.

Whether the Squad likes it or not, he's President and we're not impeaching and removing him. If you want Trump gone, you've gotta outdo him in the 2020 elections.

 

'The Squad?'

 

You know, the freshmen reps with no political history who encouraged this mess and got the lameduck speaker(Pelosi) to engage this mess. But hey, I'm not directly responsible for or in any way involved with their terrible decision making so it's not at my expense.

 

So you think the Senators should close their eyes and ears to anything which is not explicitly contained within the House Report?

 

I am sure there would be more reasons but just off the top of my head:
1. To explain the inaccuracies in his complaint.

2. He has knowledge as to the validity and accuracy of the statement by President Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. There is reason to believe her testimony might be untruthful or inaccurate.
Yovanovitch Emailed With Dem Staffer After Whistleblower Complaint, Contradicting Under-Oath Testimony
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/0...complaint-contradicting-under-oath-testimony/

3. It would be crucial to discover his intent as to why he filed a whistleblower report. Was his intent to report waste, fraud or abuse or was it for political reasons? This is just one example or a reason to question his intent.
Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump
https://www.realclearinvestigations...ing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html

4. Did Adam Schiff lie when he said that he had no contact with the whistleblower? If so why did he lie and what was his intent as he could be complicit in abuse of the whistleblower act and program.
Factcheck: Adam Schiff wrong on whistleblower contact
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...chiff-wrong-whistleblower-contact/4180342002/

5. What were his ties to the previous administration and the Democratic party?
PHOTO: Alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella shakes hands with Barack Obama in Oval Office
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-hands-with-barack-obama-in-oval-office-photo

6. What did he know about Burisma and Joe Biden?
Laura Ingraham shows emails tying alleged Ukraine whistleblower to Obama White House meeting on Burisma
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...lower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma

 

You might want to debate that with Janet Reno and 40 years of precedent.

 

You mean that they should charge after every new thing that a gang of political thugs generate when said thugs are on record for having planned to impeach Trump before he was sworn into office? Hmmm . . . now let me see . . . nope; I still think that the blatantly politically partisan political Left should have done a proper job of impeachment in the first place with viable charges and hard evidence BEFORE rushing forward with the impeachment.

 

There is zero precedent to the notion of absolute immunity.

 

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/testimonial.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...9/11/04/2019-05-20-test-immun-fmr-whc-2_1.pdf

I back up my posts...Sorry.. As a lawyer i am sure you have heard the phrase " ignorance of the law is no excuse".

 

I am, but I suppose I should have been more clear. There is zero JUDICIAL precedent to the notion of absolute immunity.

Executive Branches have tried to claim the existence of absolute immunity. Every Court which has been asked to review that assertion has rejected it as trash.

 

And yet the standard has been used for FORTY YEARS.

If it was as clear as you suggest ( with no evidence outside of you repeating it over and over again) Pelosi and the House would have taken this to the courts and it would have been resolved. Instead we have the Christmas Present Impeachment that you were bragging about for almost a month... Do you forget that already?

 

*******n. THEY DID.

Their lawsuit is what resulted in the DECEMBER 2019 RULING BY JUDGE JACKSON.

 

A real lawyer would have known that. Keep that always in the forefront of your thoughts when dealing in these "discussions".

I think the Whistleblower has a lot of explaining to do and he should be investigated along with Adam Schiff and others who are determined to take out the current Administration. It is a coordinated coup attempt. At what point does this become treason?

 

I agree that his intent needs to be scrutinized. Just because a person claims whistleblower status doesn't mean they automatically qualify. There is a set of standards for qualification for one to acquire whistleblower status.

 

Whatever his motivation, the administration's release of the July 25th tel-con confirms the basis of his complaint. And, both the Trump appointed IG for Intelligence and the Trump appointed DNI confirmed that the report was credible and urgent and testified to such. IMO, it's a diversion and threat to possible future whistle blowers.

 

I'm just going to point out that the entire point of the investigation which is first conducted by the ICIG is to determine whether a particular whistleblower complaint has merit is not merely the result of political motivation.

Trump's appointed ICIG determined that the whistleblower complaint was "credible" and "urgent." That's the only reason that we even know about his complaint.

 

More information has come out which could change things and needs further scrutiny.

 

See below:

Exactly. Thank you.

 

None of the articles or points referenced above have any direct bearing on the content of the whistleblower complaint or the fact that the vast majority of that complaint has been independently corroborrated and verified.

 

Assumptions and Presumptions do not verify anything. Cold hard facts do.. Something we are still waiting to hear from Bug Eyed Schiff.

 

So you agree that we should scrutinize the whistleblower and his status as such. Cool.