Impeachment does NOT require a crime

Nope...it's in the report supporting the articles of impeachment, part of Article I: Abuse of Power, subparagraph C. Key Findings of Fact, page 83.

 

There is no impeachment article for withholding aid, get over it. There are only two articles.

 

No. Grand Jury hearings are allowed to and in fact must be secret. Only the witness, the prosecutor, the steno, and the jury are allowed inside the jury room. A witness is free to go outside the jury room to consult with an attorney any time and as much as he needs. Nobody else can but a witness can freely discuss his testimony with anyone. He can also challenge a subpoena. A witness can refuse to testify under the 5th amendment. The witness has full due process rights and is usually not even a defendant.

 

Man! Speaking of repetitive bloviating.....

 

Appealing House overreach to the SCOTUS, over concerns the House is violated separation of powers, is not impeachable, and the dems know this.

The first article boils down to we assume your motivations to "look into" Biden forcing Shokin to be fired was for political gain, to try and prevent Biden from winning the Democratic Party primary election. You cannot impeach and remove a president just because you are presuming to know his inner most thoughts and motivations, sans any evidence to support you presumptions.

 

The witnesses were not competent to determine that. They stuck to what "they witnessed." Had they commented one way or the other...that truly would have been irrelevant testimony. There were one or two that did testify to the discussions that took place within the administration regarding the legality of the withholding, but they were not qualified to make such a judgement. The only government opinions I am aware of are the OMB and GAO conflicting opinions. As to Trump's claims...I'd be happy for him to repeat them under oath. Your reference is to Sondland's testimony regarding what Trump told him on the telephone. The only way to corroborate his testimony would be to question Trump himself or other participants in that phone call. And, if Trump only wanted Zelenskiy to do what was "right," why was the aid withheld in the first place? What was it that Trump knew Zelenskiy was doing that was NOT right and worthy of withholding the aid? But regardless of that...ANY funding withholding has to be reported to Congress BEFORE the funding is withheld. Read the Impoundment Control Act.

 

And, may a Grand Jury witness ignore a subpoena by citing a 5th amendment or executive privilege right?

 

It's part of the abuse of power charge. Read the report.

 

The sound on your Youtube is extremely bad. The content is possibly worse

Try this

 

No, it impeachment is always constitutional. Its in the damn document and debated at length in the federalist papers.

Oh please. the evidence is pretty damn clear that it is Trump's CONDUCT that has brought down this impeachment. This nonsense about it being merely a partisan ploy is idiotic, stupid, ignorant, reality defying, lame, trumpian defense.

When the president can tell both houses - **** you I am not going to honor these legally issued subpoenas and I order everyone in my adminstration to not cooperate", you don't have a democratic republic, you have a dictatorship.

But then again, maybe that is exactly what trumpians want. Screw everyone that doesn't look, think and act like us. Yet another Putini....Trumpian win.

 

No. You have separation of powers. Executive Privilege stared with Washington.

 

That "the witnesses were not competent to determine that [illegality]" flies in the face of the House's claims that they have a mountain of evidence gathered from their witnesses that "proves" Trump's guilt. Secondly, the conflicting GAO and OMB opinions is a clear reflection of the ambiguity of the Impoundment Control Act, especially as it relates to foreign aid. It is unclear and undetermined whether Trump violated the Act or not which absolutely puts its impeachability under serious prima facie questioning. For instance it is permissible for the president to put a temporary freeze on spending while he is considering informing or asking congress for a deferral or a rescinding.

I appreciate your stating that you (and presumably the House) would welcome Trump's testimony to corroborate Sandland's testimony under oath. That validates my assertion that any Trump supporting testimony will always be questioned and assumed by the House to be wrong or perjurious. They would not believe Trump any more than they believe Sandland, which is why this Sandland testimony, as opposed to most of the rest of his testimony, has not been mentioned and covered up in the House's case.

The Ukraine aid was withheld like all foreign aid was put in hold until the president could review all foreign aid for its applicability. Ukraine was under a stronger freeze because of its egregious past corruption (despite Trump sending significant and effective aid in 2017 and 201 and the significant losing track of accounting for earlier foreign aid. Trump was aware that Zelensky had promised to get rid of corruption as best he could and had confidence that Zelensky would follow through, but there was a bit of trust but verify or a bit of motivation thrown in. Zelensky keeping his campaign promise is what Trump meant by doing the right thing. There was no quid pro quo that even came up on the phone call -- military aid on hold wasn't mentioned. Zelensky confirmed that he felt no pressure and felt there was no quid pro quo of aid for investigations. In keeping with my assertion, the House's reaction is that Zelensky is lying. Neither was the 2020 election ever mentioned nor was the fact that Biden is a maybe political opponent.

 

A witness cannot ignore a grand jury subpoena but can challenge it for whatever reason he chooses. The issuing judge will determine if the challenge is acceptable or not. Of course this does not apply to congressional subpoenas. However, congress can challenge in front of a judge a rejected or ignored subpoena; such a subpoena gets more latitude that a grand jury subpoena.

 

Included in Article I...............

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

 

Not even Team Turd is disputing the facts presented by the Dem managers. How sad for you.

 

How awesome it would be as a defendant in a trial to block witness testimony and documentation proving your guilt. Jail cells across the country would be empty.

 

If you would read it you would discover that the Constiitution puts a high bar and strong limitations on impeaching a president. If the impeachment does not meet the Constitution's criteria, it is unconstitutional.

When the president can refuse or ignore congressional subpoenas is when you have a constitutional republic with the linchpin of the separation of powers firmly intact. When the president is beholden to congress you have an autocratic oligarchy and no constitutional republic.

 

You keep making this bizarre argument that the separation of powers are protected when the head of the executive branch makes unfounded, unprecedented claims to possess powers he does not have. It's very odd.

 

He clearly doesn't have a clue about checks and balances.

Trumpers want a dictator - let there be NO doubt about it. This is the greatest threat the nation has ever seen because trumpers have betrayed their country as well as the rest of us.

 

If this was meant to refute my post, I do not get it. First, the discussion was about grand juries, not criminal trials. Secondly it was comparing congressional subpoenas, not criminal trials. Anyone can challenge a grand jury subpoena, but those challenges are harder to win. Anyone, and especially the executive branch, can challenge congressional subpoenas, and those challenges have a much lower bar. The executive branch can just refuse or ignore congressional subpoenas under the separation of powers, and congress has the onus to take it to court for resolution.

 

The president, for the executive branch, absolutely has the power to reject or ignore congressional subpoenas. His rejection might get overruled by a court but that does not mean he cannot reject or ignore the subpoena in the first place.

 

Witnesses testify as to what they saw and heard in regard to the accusations, not as to guilt or innocence. It was a stupid question without merit. Perhaps, it was playing to the Trump base? IMO, the GAO opinion on the ICA is correct. It was put in place to protect the Congressional "power of the purse." President's do not get a second "veto" power. He signed the law. If he wanted some sort of blanket review of all foreign aid, it was/is beyond his powers without securing the permission of Congress.

If the call with Zelenskiy was "perfect," why was the hold on aid not discussed, but instead confirmed within hours, with DoD by the OMB?

Why is there no DoJ opinion on the ICA?

 

That is right out of a fairy tale.

As we type, Chelsea Manning is in about month 6 of prison for remaining silent before a grand jury.

 

He has the ability to temporarily delay the execution of subpoenas but not the legitimate power to ignore them.

 

And, there are three such cases now pending before the Supreme Court regarding Trump's tax records. If impeachment fails, House Democrats may turn to the Courts as a last resort. The argument at present is the urgency of the subpoenas in face of the blanket rejection of Congressional oversight by the President (i.e. the October 8th letter) relative to the coming 2020 election. I doubt the Court will give the Executive Branch such blanket immunity and stay with previous rulings that executive privilege is limited to specific questions.