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

The DOJ and OLC said it didn't.

 

It showed the complain was full or fallacious statements and the IG did not investigate the facts, only that yes the preson works there and is in a position to have obtained the information and that those sources could be credible. It was then turned over to the DOJ which found the facts lacking and no violations of the law not even FEC violations and the OLC agreed.

 

Schiff is now claiming to know what Putin was thinking and making assertions of fact on that. Today is supposed to be about Article TWO, they are now repeating yesterday. That seems to show how weak they think is there case for Article Two.

 

What fallacious statements are you referencing? I thought the complaint tracked the released tel-con trans script reasonably well. And, yes, I am aware that the DoJ said they didn't believe there were any campaign finance violations, but I am not aware that they've said there were no other violations. If you have a link to that, I'd like to look at it. For instance, we know that the GAO and OMB disagree on whether or not the President violated the Impoundment Control Act. Did DoJ offer ANY opinion on that? I'm not aware of any.

 

DOJ should have recused anyway. The trump appointed ICIG said it was.

 

False and the ICIG only refers based on certain process criteria, DOJ and OLC make legal determinations but it's all moot we all have seen the phone call and nothing impeachable it in.

 

That's inaccurate.

Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

 

Oh like they discuss aid, like Trump mentioned Biden 8 times like there was any extortion or bribery in it. The GAO did not make the Impoundment Act complaint until LONG after the time to do so when Congress would have acted on it which is the purpose of that law. It was a moot point by the time they did so because the aid have been sent and before the end of the fiscal year. The DOJ said the complaint ITSELF did not even qualify for whistleblower status.

 

No it's correct there are no impeachable acts in the phone call.

 

That appears to be largely inaccurate. The Chief Justice can issue rulings then and there.

 

That's inaccurate.

Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

 

It is moot because everything in the WB report was corroborated by witnesses

 

So, being briefed by the intelligence agencies wasn't convincing?

 

Do you have any links that substantiate your claims? The released transcript of the call shows they discussed aid. Trump did mention Biden, I believe twice, not eight times. No, the President did NOT mention either bribery or extortion...but then bribers and/or extortionists seldom do. Senator Chris Van Holland asked the GAO for a ruling and they furnished it at his request, since the GAO works for Congress. The law is very clear. If a President INTENDS to withhold appropriated funding, he FIRST informs Congress, reporting to them his PROPOSAL to withhold funding, whether he intends it to be permanent or temporary, the approximate time (if temporary) the cause of the withholding, etc. Read the law. It's all there. Congress, not the President, then has 45 days in which to reply. If they agree, they notify the President. If they disagree or do nothing, then the funding must proceed. However, the clock doesn't start running until he informs them. He didn't. The fact that he ended his hold does not detract from the fact that he deliberately broke the law by failing to inform Congress of his intention to withhold the funds. He broke the law. If you have a DoJ opinion on that, I'd be happy to look at it. Likewise on the DoJ ruling. I'm aware that DoJ opined that the complaint was not in regard to a campaign finance violation, but not to its rejection of the right of the WB to make the complaint. Please provide a link to the DoJ opinion.

 

In the House investigation the repubs were allowed to call whomever they wanted. The right keeps pushing this false narrative that they had no input. Its ridiculously laughable

 

The SC can fast track it AFTER is goes thru the federal court system.

Anyone who is honest knows that

 

BS. Then you can easily explain why the White House defense is "we did it, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment" ?

 

Since you reference the "founding fathers", maybe you should understand what Mason said at the constitutional convention:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...at-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/

Mason is literally talking about what Trump did....

 

I didn't missed anything. You missed my previous remarks in the thread.

 

And he probably still does. The question is will he after all the information is out, including the new information about his ties to the Obama administration and his knowledge of Burisma situation. Are you saying that nobody can lose whistleblower status? Once awarded it can never change?

 

Yes...summarize them or address my contention that the 17 witnesses supported the WB complaint.

 

What do any of those things have to do with his WB status?

 

Go back and read or forget it. I already summarized my reasons.

 

Read post 459.

 

Your argument has no basis in the law. None. Here's what a federal judge recently stated with respect to the absurdity of the claim:

"Thus—to be crystal clear—what is at issue in this case is solely whether senior level presidential aides, such as McGahn, are legally required to respond to a subpoena that a committee of Congress has issued, by appearing before the committee for testimony despite any presidential directive prohibiting such a response," Jackson wrote. "McGahn 'must appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where appropriate.' " (Hint--I've been telling you guys this repeatedly. You don't get to assert "immunity" or blanket "executive privilege". Show up and assert the objection to a question, not the obligation to appear).

There are other juicy quotes from that order. Would you like to see them?