What "errors"? There's already been overwhelming confirmation of the whistleblower's information. Regarding the repeated narrative of Shokin's baseless claim that he had been investigating Burisma & Biden during Poroshenko's tenure: "The wild conspiracy theory on which Trump based his assertion – that Joe Biden had Shokin removed to stop him investigating wrongdoing in his son’s gas company – has already been widely debunked. Put simply, the chronology doesn’t work – the investigation into Burisma, where Hunter worked, was dormant by the time Shokin was pushed out. It would also represent a major historical anomaly. During Shokin’s 13 months in office, not one major figure was convicted. No oligarch. No politician. No ranking bureaucrat. It would appear unlikely he was in the middle of breaking the habit with the Bidens. Lack of aggression was a description many would use for Shokin’s approach to the job in his third spell. Two of the people interviewed for this article described the former chief prosecutor as “lazy”, and uninterested in real investigations. Others noted a penchant for bonding with oligarchs over vodka in the bathhouse. Investigations into Burisma, which only ever covered the period from before Hunter Biden’s involvement in the company, were finally settled in 2016. Neither Shokin nor Poroshenko wanted to investigate [Burisma owner Mykola] Zlochevsky,” says Sakvarelidze. "They simply began a criminal case, arrested a few assets, and began negotiating with the corruptioneer for a bribe." For activists, Shokin’s prosecutorship is remembered for its failure to secure convictions for crimes of the previous regime. These include the killing of more than 100 protesters during the Euromaidan revolution. "Shokin impeded those fighting for justice,” said Vitaly Tytych, a lawyer representing the families of the victims. “It is wrong to call what he did investigations. Because if there is one thing Shokin never did it is investigate." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...r-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html Only as long as the quid pro quo serves the needs of the nation & the existing foreign policy...not the needs of the President in his re-election bid. To investigate corruption, yes. Not to investigate a political rival by leveraging taxpayer funded aid to a foreign nation. So I'm glad you're agreeing with Mulvaney that there was a quid pro quo...whether Zelensky was aware of it or not doesn't matter (but how could he not know?). Why?
I see you've borrowed that 'spaghetti' line from Congressman Jim Jordan. What do you think I've been doing? Why don't YOU stick to facts & people relevant to the impeachment inquiry, rather than tossing 'spaghetti' into the arena as a stalling & distraction tactic? Everything I've posted is relevant to Trump's impeachability & corruption. I mean, I don't understand why ONLY the Ukraine affair is under inquiry for impeachment when the House could gather dozens more impeachable offenses from Trump's tenure as President. Even despite Trump's efforts at blocking investigations & his other dirty tactics, there's still overwhelming incriminating evidence that has been introduced. The proof has already been seen with 10+ indictments of people in Trump's orbit. The evidence just keeps piling up...and there's much more on the way. "On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, and reported those articles to the House of Representatives." Hmm...sound familiar? Too bad Trump, the wannabe dictator, won't resign but needs to stay in office to protect his ass. "Abuses of power by the Democrats"? What abuse are you referring to exactly? I'm seeing the opposite: Trump abusing his powers, and the GOP Congressmen, AG Barr, and State Dept. officials helping him continue his crime spree unabated. Apparently you're trying to use the SCOTUS doctrine as an excuse for Trump's abuse of power & widespread criminal behavior. So just admit it. You know Trump's guilty (because you haven't presented any factual rebuttals)...but you don't care as long as a Repub. sits in the Oval Office, no matter how corrupt he may be. But you're wrong about executive privilege. There are specified limitations on it: "The Supreme Court has recognized the president’s constitutionally based privilege to protect the confidentiality of documents or other information that reflects presidential decision-making and deliberations. This presidential executive privilege, however, is qualified. Congress and other appropriate investigative entities may overcome the privilege by a sufficient showing of need and the inability to obtain the information elsewhere. Moreover, neither the Constitution nor the courts have provided a special exemption protecting the confidentiality of national security or foreign affairs. (a) The constitutionally based presidential communications privilege is presumptively valid when asserted. (b) There is no requirement that the president must have seen or even been aware of the documents over which he or she claims privilege. (c) The communication(s) in question must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power” that requires direct presidential decision-making. The privilege is limited to the core constitutional powers of the president, such as the power to appoint and remove executive officials, the commander-in-chief power, the sole authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and the pardon power. The privilege does not cover matters handled within the broader executive branch beyond the Executive Office of the President. Thus, it does not cover decision-making regarding the implementation of laws that delegate policymaking authority to the heads of departments and agencies, or which allow presidential delegations of authority. (d) The subject communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by the president or a close White House adviser. The adviser must be in “operational proximity” to the president, which effectively limits coverage of the privilege to the administrative boundaries of the Executive Office of the President and the White House. (e) The privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and is unavailable elsewhere to an appropriate investigatory authority. The president may not prevent such a showing of need by granting absolute immunity to witnesses who would otherwise provide the information necessary to show that “important” evidence exists. We also read: Release of Attorney-Client, Work-Product, or Deliberative Process Material to Congress Does Not Waive Applicable Privileges in Other Forums Private parties and agencies often assert that yielding to committee demands for material arguably covered by the attorney- client, work-product, or deliberative process privileges will waive those privileges in other forums. Applicable case law, however, is to the contrary. When a congressional committee compels the production of a privileged communication through a properly issued subpoena, it does not prevent the assertion of the privilege elsewhere, as long as it is shown that the compulsion was in fact resisted. https://www.pogo.org/report/2019/05/the-limits-of-executive-privilege/
There's no confusion here. I'm simply pointing out Trump's guilt as substantiated by the evidence to date, and that his guilt could haunt him after leaving office. I know there's no official power to exonerate or to indict by the special counsel/FBI. Mueller was simply asked if he could exonerate Trump based on the evidence in the investigation, and he said no. And also asked if Trump could be charged if he were not in office, and he said yes. It's pretty clear that Mueller is telling us, as an unofficial matter for the record, that Trump is guilty of what he's been accused of. A bank robber is still guilty even if he gets away with it. That's Trump. Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Rick Gates worked for Trump. Georage Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Richard Pinedo, Konstantin Kilimnik, and Sam Patten didn't work for Trump, but helped Trump with illegal campaign finance, making deals with Russian oligarchs, meddling with the election, obtaining dirt on Hillary, and connections to Russian intermediaries & intelligence. All were involved in activities that illegally benefited Trump, as outlined in the Mueller report.
LOL, easy to corroborate assumptions after the dem clown show narrative came out. None knew anything at the time and still no evidence.
Sorry he has not been charged with a crime even after a two year investigation. Pelosi has just announced they are going forward with impeachment yet they have no crime of which he is guilty. If was perfectly clear Mueller could produce no criminal charge and punted it to the AG and the AG the DAG and OLC agreed there was no charge of obstruction of justice. You can wish all youvwant but you can't change the facts. Nothing directly tied to Trump most it being their own personal legal problems.
Oh like Biden was mentioned by Trump 8 times. That money was disscussed. That investigations were demanded. Let's hear his testimony.
Yours is a fairly 'textbook' example of the classic flaw in logic known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc". You were probably made at least aware of these kinds of errors when you were in college, but you may have forgotten them.... Well. We've had the 'Schiff Show', and Act III in this melodrama yesterday featured the unbiased ( ) testimony from four Democrat-selected legal 'experts'. Three were dyed-in-the-wool Democrat supporters with well-known histories, and one was an apologist for this liberal Democrat raping of the American presidency moving out of 'arousal phase' too quickly! The predictably partisan Democrat crowd, thus, will feel empowered to say, "Yup! Three-fourths of the legal experts say to impeach the Cheeto-in-Chief, and only one of 'em said, 'wait a while'. SO, let's DO it!" Hey, if even poorly-educated people can do 4th-grade arithmetic, most of the time, why not use it to prove a point! . And many of us on the Right probably agree. Let's DO it. Bring it! Let the Democrat mob howling for his head impeach President Cheeto, and then move it all along to the one venue that MATTERS -- the SENATE....
I've been using it far longer than he and most appropriate for your tactic. Guilt by association, that's what you got? Ukraine is the only thing the Democrats have and it is a big nothing. Yes I know it well, it started with a crime and other crimes were involved, what's your point? Did you have the same remorse with Clinton who actually did commit felonies? Heck just look at the thread I created on Schiff obtaining phone records of Nunes a fellow member of Congress, Guiliani the personal lawyer of the person he is investigating and a journalist. Did you miss Prof. Turley yesterday stating in public to their faces they are engaged in an abuse of power? So some big conspiracy, well you better add Mueller to that list. I'm using settled law and reject your claim about Trump abuse of power and criminal behavior so I have nothing to admit. And assigning motives to me and then arguing could make yourself look foolish. And Congress can take that to court but as Prof. Turley pointed out they are saying that if the person being impeached goes to court then THAT is obstruction of Congress so the imperial Congress that has no bounds. Is that what you want?
The only protection he has is against the prosecution moving forward until he is out of office. There were NO CHARGES BROUGHT I don't know why you have such difficulty with that fact. And you are conflating Trump testifying in an impeachment, Clinton did not, and Clinton being called before a federal grand jury investigating possible felonies. But see Presidents can be investigated and charges brought. None were brought against Trump so Trump has nothing to skate. And Mueller was clear he had no further indictments or charges and closed his office.
Also, Trump had no problems with corruption in Ukraine in 2017 or 2018. He didn't make any attempt to hold up the aid in those years. He was not even remotely interested until Biden decided to run for President. But that's logic and reason, which no longer have a place in the GOP thinking. They're all Trump's people now.
We have the transcript of the call and it is nothing, none of the players added anything to it nor could any testify to a quid pro quo or bribe or extortion.
NOTE: Zelensky's claims only refers to a single July 25 phone call with Trump...not to the efforts by Trump (before or after the call) to pressure him for the investigations. With that said... (1) Military aid was brought up by Zelensky...and immediately after, Trump asked for the 'favor'. Re-read the transcript. (2) Whether Zelensky felt/didn't feel pressured, or whether he was/wasn't aware of a quid pro quo is irrelevant. Trump's intentions & actions are what's under scrutiny. A bank robber who attempts to steal money is still guilty of the crime even if everyone in the bank was unaware of his intentions. For Trump, it was about a quid pro quo (bribery/extortion) from day one. Here is what Zelensky said when asked about quid pro quo: "Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing...I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying." (3) It doesn't matter when exactly Zelensky became aware of the quid pro quo on the part of Trump. How could he not become aware of it at some point? He's not stupid. He needed the aid ASAP, and he knows what Trump is asking for. In fact, Zelensky may have been aware of Trump's request as early as APRIL.[2] (4) Why would Zelensky openly admit to any pressure or quid pro quo if he knew how important it is for Trump (who is still President) to dispel the quid pro quo/pressure allegations? Why would he alienate Zelensky? And, because Trump may very well remain in office after impeachment, he wouldn't risk burning any bridges with Trump and jeopardize future support from the U.S. Another thing, would Zelensky want to look weak in front of his people by admitting to being pressured? Zelensky was just looking out for his country and himself. (5) The allegations of wrongdoing against Trump extend beyond the contents of one particular phone call in July. For example, Gordon Sondland testified before Congress that Trump directed a months-long campaign of lobbying and persuading Ukrainian authorities to investigate the Bidens, as well as discredited claims that Ukraine (rather than Russia) was responsible for efforts to intervene in the 2016 election. In his December 2019 interview, Zelensky did not address those wider allegations about Trump’s Ukraine policy — he spoke only about one particular phone call.[7] (6) In a joint news conference with Trump on Sept. 25 in New York, a reporter asked Zelenskyy, “Have you felt any pressure from President Trump to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden?” Zelenskky replied, “Nobody pushed me.” Trump immediately added, “In other words, no pressure,” and thanked Zelenskyy for his answer. Zelenskyy had also stressed, “I don’t want to be involved” in “democratic, open elections” in the United States.[1] With Trump standing next to him, was Zelensky just on guard or had Trump coached him? The second time in Nov, Zelensky had the same answer. “It’s not the first question about Mr. Trump, and I have no new answers,” Zelenskyy told NBC News at the event.[1] (7) Former Deputy Foreign Minister, Olena Zerkal's account (that the Ukraine was aware of the aid freeze as early as July) also acknowledges that the Zelensky administration tried to prevent the Trump administration's pressure campaign from surfacing to avoid getting sucked into domestic U.S. politics.[5] (1) Taylor, not Zelensky, learned of the aid suspension from the Politico article, and also from, as he described it, 'desperate' calls from the Ukraine. Zelensky learned of the suspension prior to the August 28 Politico article,[5] but the article may have served as additional confirmation for Zelensky of the aid suspension, and hence, the reason for the frantic calls to Taylor. (2) Ukrainian President discussed pressure for Biden probe two months before the July call with Trump: The three people’s recollections differ on whether Zelenskiy specifically cited that first [April] call with Trump as the source of his unease. But their accounts all show the Ukrainian president-elect was wary of Trump’s push for an investigation into the former vice president and his son Hunter’s business dealings. [Newly elected] Zelenskiy gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kyiv for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation’s energy needs. Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate the insistence from Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani for a probe and how to avoid becoming entangled in the American elections, according to three people familiar with the details of the meeting.[2] Taylor wasn't on the call, but had key information to share in terms of his contacts (calls, texts, in person) with Sondland, his position as acting Amb. to Ukraine, and communications he had with top Ukrainian officials. Taylor... * Testified that a member of his staff told him of a previously unknown phone call involving President Donald Trump — one that points to further personal involvement by the president in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. This call took place on July 26, the day after Trump’s now-infamous [JULY 25] phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Taylor’s staff member told him that Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland had called Trump on the phone from a restaurant; the staffer was present for that call. During the call, the staffer heard Trump ask Sondland about “the investigations,” and Sondland replied that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.[3] * Expressed concern in texts with Sondland over the President's intent regarding Ukraine aid: He described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo. * Testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." * Said, "...there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy Kurt Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I subsequently learned, Mr. Giuliani." * Said, "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election." * Said, "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself." * Said, "...the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani." * Testified that Trump asked Sondland on a July 26 call if Ukraine would investigate the Bidens and a conspiracy related to the 2016 election (corroborating Holme's identical testimony). And to repost the following for you: AUG. 12: The complaint A whistleblower files a formal complaint addressed to Congress that details concerns over the July 25 phone call and the hold placed on the military aid. The complaint is withheld from Congress until Sept. 25. AUG. 28: The article Politico publishes details that the military aid to Ukraine is on hold, setting off a scramble among diplomats in Ukraine and the United States. AUG. 29 AND AFTER: Ukraine's desperation William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, testified that he did not know the aid had been withheld until after the Politico article appeared, when he started receiving "desperate" calls from Ukrainian officials. "The minister of defense came to me," he said. "I would use the word 'desperate,' to try to figure out why the assistance was held." Taylor said the minister thought if he spoke to Congress, or the White House, he could find out the reason and reassure them of whatever was necessary to get the aid. If the money wasn't provided by Sept. 30, it would be lost. SEPT. 9: The investigations begin Three House committees launch a wide-ranging investigation into the allegations that Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and possibly others, tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to help the president's reelection campaign by digging up dirt on a political rival. SEPT. 11: The aid is released [4] Perhaps not at the time of the call. It was during the call when the request for a 'favor' was first made (if not earlier in April), and the dialogue seemed cordial...so, Zelensky, unaware yet that aid had been frozen would likely not have felt pressured at THAT time, but only later (perhaps hours) after learning that aid was deliberately held up.[5] Zelensky had then waited at least a month for the aid after the call.[6] Ukraine was informed that aid was deliberately suspended prior to the Aug. 28 Politico article:[5][6] According to former Deputy Foreign Minister, Olena Zerkal, the Ukraine was aware of the aid freeze as early as July. Zerkal said she couldn’t remember the exact date of the letter, but it was before Politico broke the news of the holdup on Aug. 28 Zerkal’s account is the first acknowledgment from a Ukrainian official that the government knew Trump was withholding security assistance as early as JULY, supporting a similar revelation from Pentagon official Laura Cooper's public testimony last month. * It could undercut a key defense from Trump allies that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could not have felt pressured to carry out investigations into Trump's political rivals because he was not aware of the frozen aid. * Zerkal's account also acknowledges that the Zelensky administration tried to prevent the Trump administration's pressure campaign from surfacing to avoid getting sucked into domestic U.S. politics. Cooper said in her testimony that the Ukrainian embassy had asked about the aid on July 25, hours after Trump's phone call with Zelensky."[5] [1] https://www.justsecurity.org/66850/why-does-ukraines-zelenskyy-say-he-felt-no-pressure-from-trump/ [2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/volod...-for-biden-probe-2-months-before-july-call-ap https://apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8 [3] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...46/impeachment-hearing-bill-taylor-trump-call [4] http://www.startribune.com/timeline-the-curious-release-of-military-aid-to-ukraine/564891462/ [5] https://www.axios.com/ukraine-aid-freeze-july-7bdcc6a5-7a56-46b5-8a45-016d1eb3b4ea.html [6] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ine-unaware-aid-holdup-month-after-trump-call [7] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zelensky-trump-nothing-wrong/
It wasn't 'leaked' because there was no leaker. It was a whistleblower who's goal it was (along with those who provided the info) to expose wrongdoing, and who went through the proper channels to submit a complaint. These people are afforded (at least on paper) special protections. Go review the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (amended by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012). Note that we now also have an IRS whistleblower. This is getting even more interesting!
You would do best to focus on specific arguments/facts/evidence rather than sweep everything under the rug. If you truly care about exposing corruption, then take no position or side other than to seek out the facts and accept the conclusions to where those facts lead. Well, you're always free to show me information that contradicts Swalwell's statement.
Regarding Mueller: (A) Mueller revealed why he didn't charge Trump with a crime — and it wasn't because of a lack of evidence: * The former special counsel Robert Mueller went into detail Wednesday about why he didn't make a decision on whether to charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice. * Mueller pointed to three factors that he said impeded prosecutors from making a decision on the obstruction case. * The first is a 1973 decision by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. For that reason, Mueller said, charging Trump with a federal crime "is unconstitutional." * He also said it would be "unfair" to even suggest Trump had committed a crime, because it would deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. * And he said filing a sealed indictment was not an option because of the 1973 DOJ policy, and because there was a risk that it could leak. * "Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," Mueller said. * But the former special counsel emphasized that if prosecutors had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, they would have said so. He also implied that it is up to Congress to potentially pursue impeachment proceedings against Trump.[1] (B) It was not a total vindication: Mueller’s exact words in the report: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” The summary by Barr notes Mueller did not “draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” setting out evidence for both sides and leaving the question unanswered. Barr wrote in the summary that ultimately he decided as AG that the evidence developed by Muller was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed obstruction of justice. To prove a crime, Mueller must generally meet a standard of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Barr's summary did not clear the president of improper behavior regarding Russia but did not establish that “he was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” Mueller said in a passage from the report quoted by Barr.[2] (C) Mueller and his team filed charges against 34 defendants (and 3 companies), which included seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial: Six former associates and advisors of President Trump were among those charged. The case of Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates was transferred from the special counsel’s office to federal prosecutors in Washington. While no more indictments will come from the special counsel, investigations of Trump, his campaign and his businesses continue in Congress, and federal and state jurisdictions in New York, Virginia and Washington, D.C.[3] (D) Why Mueller's office accepted the OLC's recommendations: "Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations ... this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," prosecutors said.[4] Regarding AG Barr (aka "Cover-up General Barr"): * To some Democrats, any involvement by Barr is illegitimate, and resisted Democratic calls to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation: Barr was appointed by Trump as the Mueller investigation was ongoing, to replace an attorney general who angered Trump by recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Barr promised not to interfere in the Mueller investigation, but the Attorney General is supposed to be the person deciding what happens to the final report anyway. Democrats and other Trump critics are likely to reject Barr’s conclusions as biased at best and corrupt at worst.[5] * Attorney General William Barr admitted he didn't look at the underlying evidence before concluding Trump didn't obstruct justice in the Russia probe[6] * Mueller wrote to Barr that his “summary letter ... did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the special counsel’s “work and conclusions.” * Barr stated in a letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Jerry Nadler that the press had “mischaracterize[ed]” his March 24 letter as a “summary of the Special Counsel’s investigation and report.” He added: My March 24 letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel’s investigation or report. As my letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the public provided, pending release of the report, a summary of its “principal conclusions”—that is, its bottom line. The Special Counsel’s report is nearly 400 pages long … and sets forth the Special Counsel’s findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions. Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion."[7] * But Barr's letter did concede to Mueller's conclusion that, "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Regarding DAG Rod Rosenstein: * Whether Mueller intended for Barr and Rosenstein to make that decision — and whether it was appropriate for them to do so — is one of the biggest unanswered questions from Barr’s letter. And since House Democrats have already declared it will be a focus of their continued inquiries into the Mueller report, it’s a question that’s not going to go away.[5] * We don’t know why Mueller punted on obstruction — or if he intended for Barr to make a decision instead. There are three main theories of why Mueller punted — some of which imply that Mueller didn’t expect Barr to clear Trump’s name, or at least to do it so quickly.[5] (See link for details of each.) (1) Theory: Mueller thought the obstruction case was simply too close to call. (2) Theory: Mueller wanted Barr to make the decision. (3) Theory: Mueller was trying to leave it up to Congress. * If Barr and Rosenstein had decided the evidence was sufficient, it would have created a huge constitutional issue — because there’s no legal consensus on whether you can charge a sitting president with a federal crime. (Barr has made it clear that he doesn’t think it’s legal to do so.) But by deciding that the evidence wasn’t sufficient anyway, that issue has been avoided.[5] There's no requirement for an official assessment or verdict of 'guilt' for a crime prior to a House vote on impeachment...only a House Judiciary Committee investigation that satisfies the allegation(s) made against the accused. And this, we have. Pelosi is now moving ahead with the House impeachment vote because, from the investigations, Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. Conversely, not all criminal conduct is impeachable: in 1974, the Judiciary Committee rejected an article of impeachment against President Nixon alleging that he committed tax fraud, primarily because that "related to the President's private conduct, not to an abuse of his authority as President."[8] The evidence thus far substantiates that Trump has committed not just one, but all three of the violations (and more that have yet to be presented before the inquiry or investigated). (1) So why did Trump decline to be interviewed by Mueller if nothing could be tied to him? If Trump agreed to be questioned (as were the dozens in his orbit that were charged & indicted) by Mueller's team he would certainly have ended up in front of a grand jury. Trump knows better not to agree to an interview, let alone to testify. (Recently, even Trump's lawyers have refused to participate in the impeachment inquiry...no doubt because they know they'd have to lie under oath, as there's absolutely no effective means of defending Trump.) (2) Mueller explained why he didn’t subpoena Trump for an interview: Subpoenaing Trump and fighting his likely inevitable challenge to a subpoena would’ve taken way too long. (Note: Schiff said the same thing today on Dec. 10 in front of the press...that waiting to subpoena more witnesses would take much too long.) “At the outset, after we took over the investigation and began it and pursued it, quite honestly, one of the things we anticipated wanting to accomplish was getting the interview of the president. We negotiated with him for a little over a year,” Mueller said. “Finally, we were almost toward the end of our investigation and we’d had little success in pushing to get the interview of the president,” he continued. “We decided that we did not want to exercise the subpoena powers because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation.”[9] (3) Don Trump, Jr. was the only American participant in the Trump Tower meeting NOT to talk with investigators in the Russia probe. The Trump Tower meeting was a key focus of Mueller’s investigation (and Don Jr. could've been a key witness). Mueller's report states that Don Jr. “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” Why do you think that would be? "You have all of the elements of conspiracy in the Trump Tower meeting,” Schiff told NBC. “You have, literally in writing, the Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described as the Russian government's effort to help Donald Trump. And you have the Trump campaign, in writing, accepting the offer."[10] (4) The end of Mueller's investigation doesn't mean that people like the president, his son Donald Trump, Jr. and son-in-law Jared Kushner are not in the crosshairs of ongoing investigations at the state or federal level, the prosecutors warn. "Mueller didn’t [interview Don Jr. & Jared Kushner],” said NBC News legal analyst Glenn Kirschner, a longtime federal prosecutor who worked with Mueller at the Department of Justice. “And why didn’t he do that? It wasn’t an oversight. He's the most thorough investigator I’ve ever met. That was a tactical measure.” Kirschner said that Mueller likely did not subpoena those individuals, who met with a Kremlin-connected attorney during the 2016 election at Trump Tower, because they remain targets of ongoing investigations.[11] Aside from not being interviewed, let alone formally charged...common sense would tell us that Trump, the central figure (and 'individual 1'), who is entangled with 34 indicted individuals, would bear responsibility for some or most of the allegations. Of these, 7 were associates & advisors of Trump (including his campaign chairman). Do you honestly believe Trump was completely unaware of their illegal activities, nor directing their operations? And just take a look at Trump's Presidential abuses of power, his (and his family's) criminal history, his character, his moral bankruptcy, his narcissism, his avarice, his attacks/insults/smear campaigns, his persistent lying, the sexual assault allegations, the hush money, defrauding/cheating customers, and so on. Do you think this is the kind of person who would have no personal involvement with the level of corruption he surrounds himself (and benefits) by? Just do the math. Besides, we have Michael Cohen's testimony on Trump's past business & political activities (including hush money/campaign finance violations), and also the manner in which he directs his associates/employees by using 'coded' language. Cohen said, "Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress," Cohen said. "That's not how he operates. In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there's no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing," Cohen added. "In his way, he was telling me to lie." Trump, who was named in the charges as 'individual 1' by Cohen & Mueller, is considered by some to be an unindicted co-conspirator & central figure in this case and could face charges when he’s out of office. Trump has (of course) denied any campaign finance violation. Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his work on the Trump Tower Moscow project during the campaign and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation.[12] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-obstruction-2019-5 [2] https://apnews.com/efe98b720cbc447b9f26c1e334da44e6 [3] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/interactive_mueller-indictments-russia-cohen-manafort/ [4] https://www.businessinsider.com/why...o-conclude-whether-trump-obstructed-justice-3 [5] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...mueller-trump-obstruction-justice-exoneration [6] https://www.businessinsider.com/att...ller-investigation-underlying-evidence-2019-5 [7] https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-barr-and-mueller-report [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States [9] https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20726376/mueller-testimony-trump-interview-maloney [10] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...y-wasn-t-donald-trump-jr-interviewed-n1032541 [11] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...estigation-doesn-t-mean-trump-s-clear-n986621 [12] https://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/
The following link shows the entirety of the whistleblower complaint. The items highlighted in the transcript indicate portions that have been confirmed (to date), either in White House call logs, depositions, public statements, media reports, or other means. As you can see, the bulk of the whistleblower's information has been confirmed...and no doubt there will be more as additional evidence is uncovered. Not bad for having only 2nd and 3rd hand information, eh? (Recall how the GOP bitched and whined about the whistleblower having only 2nd/3rd hand 'hearsay' information? And then the call transcript, witnesses, and other corroborating evidence began to roll in, vindicating the whistleblower.) https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/7761...laint-has-largely-been-corroborated-heres-how
Well...we wouldn't have such a circus if the guilty party didn't have its rabid base of enablers & fake loyalists who are only looking out for their own self-interest. (Nixon wasn't as lucky.) What more can one expect from reptilians? But don't worry about it. It's all just theater for the 'masses of asses' & 'useless eaters' anyway...and the manufactured complexities & distractions of politics, law, and economics keeps things at a snails pace to prolong our enslavement as long as possible. Presidents & politicians come and go and are soon forgotten until the next season & episode. The real players are not the elected, but the un-elected...not the politicians, but their owners...not the billionaires, but the trillionairs...not the TV personalities, but the hidden...but only if we, the people, keep allowing it. We, the MANY, own them, the FEW...but have yet to embrace & exercise this power. For now, it's fun to 'debate' this staged melodrama as though it mattered. It's fun to watch grown men & women dressed in business suits, sporting perfect hair (or wigs), acting solemn & serious, walking in marble halls, speaking the political lingo, following the political game rules, bickering over monopoly money, carrying briefcases filled with scripts for their role, and believing they are the only thing that stands between us and global apocalypse. What fun would it be if we couldn't make it all so convincing?
I watched all of the testimony. The dems have nothing but hearsay and assumptions. None of the witnesses witnessed anything.
I'd say the phrase is more apropos to the way the GOP is handling the impeachment. I've never seen such rabid anger & attacks on their Dem colleagues. This can only be explained by some kind of deep fear within the GOP mob mentality. Perhaps they feel if Trump is removed they may not be re-elected to Congress, lose their $million corporate donors, and lose their Trump-cash cow who will bribe & reward them for their 'loyalty'. Sure, just like John Gotti. How could Gotti possibly be involved with the crimes of his 'associates', lawyers, and 'errand boys', right? Some weren't even under his employment, right! OK...Gotti may have benefitted from their crimes, but he must be innocent because they can't legally pin anything on him, right? You're projecting the same logic with Trump's crimes. He's gotta be innocent because they haven't (not can't) legally pinned anything on him! Nevermind that he (1) blatantly lies, (2) hides behind secrecy, cover-ups, and stonewalling tactics, (3) refuses to be questioned, (4) refuses to testify to Congress, , (5) is allowed to block subpoenas, and (6) is a sitting President who has, on his side, corrupt allies (like AG Barr), DOJ protections as a sitting President, and possible statute of limitations (hence one of Trump's reasons to stall/prolong this process). Other points to keep in mind: * Michael Cohen has already implicated Trump (who Cohen called a 'racist con man' & as 'individual 1') in at least 11 felonies. * Cohen said he acted at the direction of Trump. * 34 people directly & indirectly linked to Trump, and who's illegal activities have directly benefitted Trump, have already been indicted. * Trump has persistently refused to comply with legal requests for internal documents & tax returns. * Trump always refuses to be formally questioned by investigators (let alone testify in front of Congress). * According to legal experts, perhaps the only reason Trump has not been charged with a crime is the fact he is president. The US Constitution does not say a sitting president cannot be indicted, but it would go against Justice Department policy (and prolong the process with subpoenas). Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent and Yale Law School lecturer, told INSIDER, "The short answer is that right now it is [Department of Justice] policy not to indict a sitting president."[1] * As Jennifer Taub, a professor at Vermont Law School wrote in a recent op-ed for CNN, "Whether indicted as a direct violator of the Federal Election Campaign Act, aiding and abetting it, or conspiring to violate it, Trump could face a prison sentence ... Even if not indicted now, Trump has a big gamble ahead. He can hope he wins in 2020. But if he does not, a criminal trial most likely awaits him on the other side."[1] So how many of John Gotti's men had to be indicted and sent to jail before Gotti's time was up? Trump is a mafia Don sitting in the Oval Office, while he and his crime family continue to enrich themselves. It's not rocket science, dude. Ukraine is what's on the table right now. I'm a bit puzzled as to why the Dems are being so conservative & passive and not addressing the dozens of other crimes by Trump. Perhaps because it would extend the impeachment process to an unimaginable period? Still, the Ukraine affair does by itself point to numerous serious crimes/violations of the oath of office, involves election meddling by & conspiracy/collusion with a foreign powers (Putin & Zelensky), and will potentially implicate many other individuals. One certainly cannot call the Ukraine affair a 'big nothing'. (1) Rachel Maddow provided an indepth explanation of an underlying story about Ukraine, Russia, and Trump that many don't know: During Trump's campaign period in July 2015, he confided to [Maria] Butina (accused Russian agent & NRA infiltrator) that he wouldn't support sanctions on Russia and that he and Putin get along so well. After becoming President, Trump appointed Rex Tillerson, then CEO of ExxonMobil, as Sec. of State who had earlier negotiated a record-breaking $0.5 trillion oil deal between ExxonMobil & Putin's state-run oil company in Russia to have Exxon come in and help Russia drill for some hard-to-access oil & gas. It was this oil deal that got shut down when Obama imposed sanctions on Russia after they invaded the Ukraine. Trump had never met Tillerson before, yet he hand-picked him to be Sec. of State. Reportedly, Trump looked into lifting US sanctions on Russia only days after his inauguration...but both parties of Congress repeatedly blocked Trump from lifting sanctions.[2] (2) Similarly, Pelosi learned, "It was never about Ukraine...All roads lead to Putin." Here is what she recently stated when a reporter asked her when her Ahah! moment occured, and is also the moment she realized the true urgency of impeaching the President: The Ukraine was the vehicle of the President's action, asking the President of another country to make an announcement that he was investigating the President's political opponent and withholding military assistance that was voted by the Congress of United States, that unless or until the President did so... But this isn't about Ukraine. It's about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding that military assistance? Russia...it's about Russia. Russia invading Eastern Ukraine. So sometimes people say, "well, I don't know about Ukraine, I don't know much about Ukraine." Well, our adversary in this is Russia. All roads lead to Putin. Understand that. And so THAT was the Ahah! moment.[3] (3) The Ukrainian Prosecutor Behind the Dossier Targeting Hunter Biden When the Ukrainian prosecutor Kostiantyn H. Kulyk compiled a seven-page dossier in English that accused the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. of corruption, he helped set off a political firestorm that has led to the impeachment investigation of President Trump. But even as he was reopening a corruption case related to Hunter Biden’s service on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian gas company, Mr. Kulyk himself was under a cloud of suspicion. He has been indicted three times on corruption charges and accused of bringing politically motivated criminal cases against his opponents. In a Ukrainian security clearance form, Mr. Kulyk admitted having ties to a warlord in eastern Ukraine accused of working for the Russian intelligence services. Yet none of this — including the case related to the Bidens — has seemed to harm the career of Mr. Kulyk, who remains a department head in the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office under a new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.[4] (4) Video clips (near end of video) remind us of when Trump openly asked/welcomed both Russia and Norway to provide any dirt it may have on Hillary or other political opponents.[5] My point? Simply that Trump has committed the very same (and many more) violations as Nixon, who opted to resign. Why should Trump be immune to the same crimes? And why do you keep bringing up Clinton? Pointing to Clinton in order to defend Trump's abuse of power & criminal activities is not a defense. Why can't you simply focus on the fact/evidence/argument being discussed? So it's a terrible thing for Schiff to want to obtain & investigate the phone records of individuals who have been implicated and named by witnesses...yet it's OK for Trump to refuse to comply to subpoenas, tamper with/intimidate witnesses, refuse to hand over financial records & internal documents, ask/bribe/extort foreign nations to investigate political rivals, use a non-govt. official to do your dirty errands under the radar of Congress, use the President's office to enrich oneself & one's family, steal from charities, persistently lie, fire/attempt to fire investigators (our watchdogs), appoint his biggest donors to govt. seats, promise to drain the swamp but instead fill it up with more, and who knows what else will turn up next? And you think we should just ignore Giuliani & Nunes' involvement in this Ukraine affair, even though Giuliani is a key witness, and Nunes' connection to Giuliani & Parnas might provide additional useful material? If there's no wrongdoing, then why are the key players (including Trump) noncompliant to subpoenas? All the moaning about how they're being abused/victimized by Schiff is just typical phony crocodile tears to distract from the lack of a defense. Criminals are adept at being phonies, and will fight back with insults, distractions & theatrics rather than produce substantive counter-evidence as defense. We saw the same theatrics by Kavanaugh and his defenders, we see it with Trump, and we see it with Trump's defenders. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why...th-crimes-in-the-mueller-russia-probe-2018-12 [2] (video summary) https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...xon-russia-in-trump-cabinet-pick-827731523790 (full transcript) http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2019-12-05 [3] (Pelosi video) [4] https://newsfilter.io/articles/the-...hunter-biden-f0007401788e99f81c2dc3b7e27c168b [5] (video)
No. Turley said impeachment was not wrong because Trump acted properly or because Congress had no legitimate reason to investigate, but rather because it was being 'rushed'. He believes Trump can legitimately be impeached, but that it needs to be done by the book (ie, it would be an 'abuse of power' to not allow the courts to rule on the subpoenas that Trump is blocking, but instead skip the courts & impeach Trump on obstruction). Turley also said that, "if you're going to accuse a president of bribery then you need to make it stick because you're trying to remove a duly elected president from office." (I believe Turley is exaggerating here to make a point...and personally disagree that it could be called an 'abuse of power' in Trump's case. Rather, it's a necessity in some cases...particularly when the accused fights the entire justice process as a means to hide his guilt, and to prolong the process. Schiff made it clearly known that Trump is leaving Congress no other choice.) Here are some responses to Prof. Jonathan Turley's statements: (1) Just today on Dec. 10, Adam Schiff signaled that Trump's actions gave Congress no choice, and stated the following in front of the press: "Some would argue, 'Why don't you just wait? Why don't you just wait until you get these witnesses the White House refuses to produce?' It has taken us eight months to get a lower court ruling that Don McGahn has no absolute right to defy Congress. Eight months for one court decision! If it takes us another eight months to get a second court or maybe a Supreme Court decision, people need to understand that is NOT the end of the process. It comes back to us and we ask questions because he no longer has absolute immunity, and then he claims something else...that his answers are 'privileged' and we have to go back to court for another 8 or 16 months. The argument, 'Why don't you just wait?' amounts to this: Why don't you just him cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time? That is what that argument amounts to." (2) Jeffrey Rosen, law professor at George Washington Univ., stated: "I think [Turley's] making the strong Republican case that if it's not a technical crime then you can't impeach, and his colleagues on the other side said it doesn't have to be a technical crime. The framers left it up to the House to decide in its sole discretion." (3) Rep. Karen Bass responded as well: "Well, actually I was kind of surprised by the professor. I thought that they would've had a much stronger witness, because part of what he was saying as well is that he wasn't saying that the president shouldn't be impeached, he just said we don't have enough information and we need to wait. Now what is ironic about that, and I know you know this very well, it's the president that's stopping us from having any of the information. So what about obstruction of Congress? I mean, that's something that we're gonna have to look at. You remember when Amb. Sondland from the EU testified a couple of weeks ago, he was testifying from his memory. Now he is STILL an ambassador, but the State Dept. won't allow him to look at any of his notes. So you have a President who doesn't even want FORMER employees to testify before Congress. That's why we had to take the whole McGahn situation to the courts. And then, you know, we have John Bolton. Well, if he wants to come forward he could come forward. For whatever reason he's teasing all of us with tweets. Maybe it's because he's trying to drive up the amount of money he's gonna make for his book. But I feel a tremendous sense of urgency because the difference, the fundamental difference for me, is that the Mueller report was about the 2016 election. What happened with Ukraine is that it's about the 2020 election, and we need to do everything we can to stop the President from intervening in the next election." (4) Rep. Madeleine Dean responded as well: "It's interesting that the Republican party and the President have said you're moving too fast, you don't have enough evidence. What is the VERY reason we don't have COMPLETE evidence? An EXTRAORDINARY obstruction by this administration, historic as we know. No other President subject to impeachment has EVER blocked EVERY subpoena...EVERY subpoena...every subpoenaed document we have NONE. In fact, the only document we have, which was sent over by the President, is the record of the July 25th call with President Zelensky. It is a DAMNING condemnation of this President seeking foreign interference in our election, and it's a continuation of a pattern of behavior. The Trump campaign had more than 100 contacts with Russia. The President openly asked for Russia to interfere, asked for China to interfere, and then privately in that phone call asked for Ukraine to interfere, and all to the benefit of whom? Putin's Russia. That's what the American people need to know." (5) And when asked how many articles she thinks are realistic here, such as abuse of power, obstruction of justice regarding the Mueller report, and if a bribery standard has been met, Rep. Dean replied: "I certainly believe bribery has been met. Now this President tried to bribe, extort, coerce a foreign leader in a fragile democracy under attack by Russia. Let's make no mistake about this. By withholding aid that we, Congress, Republican and Democrat, has authorized to help this fledgling democracy. I'm not going to speculate on the articles of impeachment. I feel that my duty on the Judiciary Committee is not to engage in any speculation, instead to engage in study and make sure that the facts supported by the Constitution are what guide our articles of impeachment." Really? Mueller abusing his office? I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here: Trump seems to be playing all his defenders. They're even talking like him and not making sense. So how exactly did Mueller abuse his office? He handed off making the final decision to the AG and DAG. He complied with a request to be questioned. Would Trump have done that? Plus, he took an exceedingly long time with a meticulous & methodical investigation, compiled 400 pages, endured an attempted sacking by Trump (another of Trump's crimes), decided not to subpoena Trump (because Trump would fight back & prolong the investigation), and even complied (without obligation) with the OLC's recommendation. Would Trump have done that if he were the Special Counsel? You say you're using 'settled law', yet you don't honor the 'rule of law'. In your mind, as long as the President is a Republican, he can do no wrong, and is indeed above the law, right? Would you be talking this way if the President in question was Bill Clinton? Interesting that the GOP are so fixated on Hillary's emails, but never put up a fuss about Trump's serious abuses of power, firing of investigators, accepting campaign money from foreign nations, foreign election interference, conflicts of interest (appointing family members to high security govt. positions), and using the office to enrich himself & his family. Again, you're misunderstanding Turley's statement. He's simply saying that if Congress decides to impeach Trump on grounds of obstruction for blocking subpoenas without allowing the courts to make a ruling on those subpoenas, then that is Congressional 'abuse of power'. In other words, he would like to see Congress let the courts enforce the subpoenas, rather than Congress skipping that step and impeaching Trump for obstruction. He believes Trump IS guilty, but wants everything done by the book to ensure 'it sticks'. Otherwise the Dems may end up (in his view) on the losing side. (Of course Turley didn't mention that doing so would extend the impeachment process well beyond the 2020 election...which would benefit Trump.) One may be inclined to agree with Turley if the President in question was someone else. But we're talking about Trump here. One would be hard-pressed to think that Trump has been unfairly treated in any way. Even if the courts intervened and ruled that Trump & his cronies had to testify, would they agree? Not likely. Trump is a career criminal and con man who continued his crime spree in the Oval Office. Rep. Jamie Raskin recently said on MSNBC, "It is a tough task, obviously. Not like with Bill Clinton, where he was accused of one thing and one lie about it. We have a president here in Donald Trump, who is a ONE-MAN CRIME WAVE, and there are dozens of potential offenses and hundreds or thousands of lies that have been told."[1] A few other points to consider: * House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler signaled in his opening statement that in addition to obstruction of Congress, obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation will also likely be considered for an article of impeachment against Trump. * By noncompliance to all subpoenas, Trump is committing two violations: obstruction of Congress, and obstruction of separation of powers. * One of the reasons the House wishes to hurry the impeachment process is to curtail inevitable Russian interference in the upcoming 2020 election. Another reason may involve possible statute of limitations on some of Trump's violations. * A personal opinion of mine: I find it odd that, in the Constitution's articles, the Legislative branch doesn't have greater powers than the Executive branch. Afterall, the President is one person, while Congress has hundreds of members, and represents a greater mix of viewpoints, backgrounds, ethnicities, and genders. Would it not have been wiser for the so-called 'founding fathers' to grant Congress the most power? In truth, there's no need for a President, or even the Judicial branch. We've seen the chronic problems that arise with President after President, and also that created by the Supreme Court (which has betrayed the people multiple times). Congress is sufficient to carry out all our needs. (Keep in mind, I'm not a supporter of a monetary system or a govt/ruling body...but if we are to keep this retarded, corporate hierarchical, slave owner-created sham system going, it can be done a lot better.) [1] https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/18/dem-rep-raskin-donald-trump-is-a-one-man-crime-wave/
My earlier post above (re. why Mueller did not subpoena Trump, etc.) has already addressed this. But I do want to make a couple points clear: (1) What you keep failing to grasp is that it's not because Trump has been vindicated, but because of DOJ rules, that Mueller said he never came to a determination about whether the president should be charged. Rep. Ted Lieu: "I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Mueller: "That is correct." (2) I'm not a Bill Clinton (or any President) supporter. But Clinton's crime was not an abuse of office, an abuse of power, a Constitutional violation, or one that put national security at risk. As Rep. Jerrold Nadler said about Bill Clinton back in 1998/1999: "We're lowering the standard of impeachment. What the president has done is not a great and dangerous offense to the safety of the republic. In the words of George Mason, it is not an impeachable offense under the meaning of the Constitution." And we should mention that Lindsey Graham argued to convict Clinton in his Senate trial...and stated, "High crimes doesn't even have to be a crime. It's just when you start using your office and you're acting in a way that hurts people." And now Graham, one of Trump's staunchest (and most vocal) supporters, refuses to apply the same standards to Trump who has committed dozens of crimes of a much more serious nature.
What can be rather frightening is the way in which these people cannot be reasoned with. It's like talking to a zombie. No amount of facts, logic, reason, or open-minded inquiry can penetrate their programming...not even an appeal to look seriously at Trump's mental fitness & character as a person, rather than his party affiliation. It's both funny & sad that even a Trump supporter is a better choice than Trump himself in the Oval Office.
Did you forget how the GOP & Trump defenders were wailing about how the whistleblower's information was just 2nd/3rd-person 'hearsay'? Then the EDITED transcript was released by the WH which confirmed the general premise of the whistleblower's complaint. Then the witnesses (the braver ones & those with nothing to hide) came forward which confirmed the bulk of the whistleblower's complaint. Then more subpoenas for more witnesses & internal documents/other records were sought, and even an invitation by Nadler for Trump and/or his lawyers to participate in committee hearings...but ALL requests were rejected by the White House.
Even Vindman said the one change was of no consequence and none of tbr witnesses testified to an impeachable offense. Why do you think there is no quid pro quo, bribery or extortion impeachment clause. And the complainers complaint is still full of holes and he still needs to testify.
