Why aren't Crooked Donald's lawyers contesting the facts?

There were crimes under the Confederacy while the Constitution was written, your argument is specious.

 

Tell us exactly what those crimes were in the loosely held alliance.p,common for everyone in the alliance.
Remind us too that theses crimes held no sway after the constitution was written and impeachment was outlined. Where is the link mr expert.

 

Crimes in the constitution against the people were, treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Because the president is immune from prosecution, I don’t know what your point is.....and neither do you.

 

An interesting read.

Alan Dershowitz’s Strange Constitutional Arguments on Impoundment and Foreign Policy
https://www.lawfareblog.com/alan-de...onal-arguments-impoundment-and-foreign-policy

 

There were crimes in place we were not a lawless country if anyone is without a point it is you.

 

Give us the highlights.

 

According Dershowitz, he’d make the same argument for Clinton if she tried to bribe Ukraine...sure.

 

Because his concern was about announcing the investigation not conducting it. It was never announced. I have no idea why he did what he did. It got him impeached and gained him nothing that I can see. I think he just isn't very good at politics. Fortunately, he is good at management.

 

Not crimes against any federal government. Sounds like smoke screen. Trump is a traitor imo, and he should be tried for treason. He’s suppose to be supporting our nation, not Putin and the kkk and his money laundering interest in his hotels.....

 

Seriously? You can't take 5 minutes to read something?

 

Huh? There are facts? Who knew.

 

The question is............what was said before Baby Donald lost his temper? That Yovanovitch was getting in the way of his extortion scheme?

‘Take her out’ — Trump reportedly caught on tape ordering the removal of Ukraine ambassador
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/tru...talking-about-ousting-ukraine-ambassador.html

Parnas made a reference to the dinner during his Maddow interview so he knows what was said ahead of time.

 

'Dershowitz writes that “[t]he Constitution allocates to the president the sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.” Yet I’m not sure what this first sentence is supposed to mean. If Dershowitz means that the president can appoint his own secretaries of state and defense without Senate consent; or that he can appoint ambassadors without Senate consent; or that he can ratify the results of negotiations on security, trade, or with respect to international agencies by means of executive agreements in every instance; or that he can field armies or naval forces to make rules for their operations without the consent of Congress; or that he can fund intelligence operations without the support of Congress—then it is nonsense. And if it doesn’t imply any of these things, then Dershowitz’s comment is vacuous. The president's powers over foreign policy are shared, so whatever "sole" authority he does have cannot be in the realm of foreign affairs."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/alan-de...onal-arguments-impoundment-and-foreign-policy

Trumpette's will say he can fire Yovanovitch if he wants. True, he has that power. But for what reason was she fired? Answer...........because she got in the way of Don and Slimy Rudy's scheme.

 

It doesn’t matter the overwhelming evidence against Trump. The Senate bootlickers don’t want to hear about it, they’ve already declared their intent to acquit despite their Oath. And by doing that they have forever elevated the office of President to a Monarchy. It was already headed in that direction long before but they have accelerated that transformation.

 

“Get rid of her!” a voice that appears to be Trump’s reportedly said on the recording. “Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it.”

Parnas reportedly told Trump on the recording that “the biggest problem there, I think where we need to start is we gotta get rid of the ambassador. She’s still left over from the Clinton administration.”

“She’s basically walking around telling everybody ‘Wait, he’s gonna get impeached, just wait,” Parnas reportedly added.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckr...-and-fruman-to-take-her-out-about-yovanovitch
.............................................................................
Do ya think Baby Donald took the time to find out if what Parnas, who was trying to get Marie gone, was saying was true?

 

So you are concluding that only requiring an announcement ( even if we take that allegation as 100% true) therefore means that he does not care about the actual investigation? Are you sure that is the ONLY viable interpretation for requiring an announcement?

The company that I work for, when we have a customer on credit hold, that typically means that we will not ship them additional product until they pay their past due invoices. In truth, we only require them to SAY they are sending the check. Why do we do this? We take them at their word, and announcing that the check is in the mail sort of obligates them to do so. While they could absolutely STILL not send the check, it happens almost never. Does this mean that we do not actually care about the check and instead only care about the declaration of sending the check? Of course not. What we care about is that announcing that the check is in the mail puts more pressure on them to do so.

In this situation with Ukraine, we are also talking about a full fledged investigation. How long does a governmental investigation take? 2 years? 1 year? 9 months at minimum? If we are going to say that he was delaying aid, do you REALLY think that they could delay congressionally approved aid for whatever length that a full fledged investigation takes? Of course not. It would be entirely impractical to wait until a full investigation takes place. Asking for an announcement is a declaration of their intentions. Once an announcement is made, either Ukranian citizens, and/or U.S. government officials can go back later and say "what happened to that investigation that you said you were conducting". It ultimately puts pressure on them to follow through on their announcement, without having to wait the inordinate length of time that conducting a full fledged investigation would take. Waiting for 9 months or even 2 years for the investigation to be completed, was NEVER a realistic option.

One can have their suspicion that the call for an announcement means that they didnt really care about the investigation, but one cannot credibly claim that is the ONLY viable reason. The alternative that I just suggested is ABSOLUTELY a realistic possibility which is really all that needs to be established to create reasonable doubt. In truth, I think that my explanation is even MORE likely, but it is not the defense's responsibility to achieve even a preponderance of the evidence. It is the prosecutions burden to prove beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no way to legitimately say that your original interpretation is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, even if you personally were to think that it is perhaps the most likely explanation, which I personally do not believe it is even the most likely.

Saying that "it got him impeached" means absolutely nothing. That was a foregone conclusion. Impeachment had been planned for 3 years prior. If not this, it would have been something else. After the Mueller Report imploded, they were going to find something......ANYTHING. As Maxine Waters was fond of saying IMPEACH 45! That well known chant preceded the Ukranian call by almost 3 years, and not a week has went by over the last 4 years where the MSM has not discussed impeachment at length.

 

The House did not “find him guilty” they
Referred Impeachment to the Senate... just as a grand jury would refer an indictment.

That in no way precludes further evidence being presented

 

Thank you for CONFIRMING that criminal IMPOTUS supporters lack any connection with FACTUALLY DOCUMENTED reality.

 

Stop DENYING factual reality which has proven that your criminal IMPOTUS has committed impeachable offenses!

 

Denial of reality does not alter it!

 

Still DENYING the EVIDENCE of your own eyes and ears?

Sad!

 

There WAS NO INVESTIGATION which means that there was ZERO JUSTIFICATION for your criminal IMPOTUS to DEMAND that Ukraine announce that they were doing one!

Everything FALLS APART as soon as you examine any aspect in DETAIL.

But that does not stop the DENIALISM of criminal IMPOTUS supporters who can't FACE REALITY!

 

The CRIMES of your criminal IMPOTUS are FACTUALLY DOCUMENTED already.

 

Thank you for establishing that you are just pulling crap out of your nether regions!

https://www.citizensforethics.org/criminal-abuse-of-power-trumps-crimes-ukraine/

 

It’s easy to say, now show it. What federal crimes were there in a constitution-less country.