When assessing Trump’s guilt or innocence...

If there is a statutory crime, why does everyone scatter like rabbits when we ask for the Federal Code of the law you folks claim Trump broke

You are attempting argue a counter-factual. Let's stick to the facts before us.

 

I have not answered your question on "Federal Code of the law" because I have not claimed that Trump has violated U.S. law. I remain neutral on the question of if Trump broke the law because I am not an expert on such matters and doubt that you are either. Even legal experts do not agree, thus another reason for a neutral stance. I do however argue that it is unethical for one who has a vested interest in the outcome of an investigation to play any part in said investigation. To do otherwise is to openly invite bias into the investigation. I further argue that if Trump were a democrat that the left and right would both be singing very different tunes. Tribalism makes partisans very predictable.

 

It doesn't take a great deal of expertise, when someone claims some one is a "criminal" or has "broken the law" to ask for the number of the statute they have in mind and then note that they don't have squat.

We don't live in an arbitrary society where one lives in insecurity about what the rules are or how to remain in compliance with them, leaving everyone at the mercy of the "authorities" who can accuse them of wrong-doing and sanction them on a whim.

No they don't. Every legal expert that claims Trump has broken the law goes stupid when asked what law, because that will be followed by a request for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and they don't have any.

In our system that is unavoidable as it is a Political body, Congress, that has sole power of impeachment, but let's go back a step. Mueller picked all Clinton donors and Democrats for his witch hunt. Can you link me to your posts where you made these same points then?

Back to Congress: Congress is an inherently political, which is why the rules of an impeachment previously have had bipartisan agreement rather than the arbitrary Schiff show.

The ongoing kangaroo court inquiry's main complainant "whistleblower" was first anxious to testify until his long-time connections with the people who are pushing the inquiry, as well as his long-time connections with the corrupt inner circle Trump would like Ukraine to investigate became known — at which point he became so scary that you can't name him on Facebook, as if Eric Ciaramella were the Voldemort in the children's books.

Ciaramella's attorney — the one who was bragging that the "#coup" was on in January 2017 — is threatening people with meretricious legal arguments to suppress his name, that everyone knows.

One of the most curious aspects of the "inquiry" has been just who may, and may not, testify — along with the fact that the fabled Adam Schiff is the only decider of who is called to testify.

It seems the Democrats are concerned that their collection of fables will collapse during the cross-examination of the guy that was their star witness a couple of weeks ago. Not only does Schiff not allow witnesses that don't help his narrative shaping, but he prevents the asking of questions, from witnesses he does deign to allow, that are inconvenient for his case. For example, one might ask the whistle blower just how much Schiff and the Ciaramella colluded in producing his complaint.

One also wonders about how leaks of testimony start within minutes, but the full transcripts are released days or weeks later, if at all.

Given the lack of polling support some wonder if the House will ever produce passed articles of impeachment given that the process will then move to the Republican-dominated Senate and Trump will finally be provided some basic due process. Ciaramella will testify under oath and Vindman will be challenged by a former JAG about his violations of the UCMJ. Folks will be questioned about their testimony in Schiff's Star Chamber, specifically, that Ukraine never knew about aid being suspended, and that the president of Ukraine denies any pressure. In the Senate, Schiff can't threaten House Members with ethics complaints for asking inconvenient questions.

Schiff loses all control of his shady investigation of a made-up crime as soon as the House passes articles. Not that they have made any smart moves so far, but to me the smart move is refuse to have the vote and to blame Mitch McConnell and the GOP for not moving forward. I don't see how Schiff risks an impeachment trial without risking the exposure that this is all, yet another failed contrived scam.

 

I don't see you challenging the evidence against Trump. Why? Because it is overwhelming?

The Democrats are just telling the truth, and you can't question what they are saying in the impeachment inquiry.

You are not alone. In the thread entitled "To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question" Trump's fans are avoiding the evidence along with everything else. They find other things to talk about.

 

Evidently, you are unaware that the impeachment inquiry has gone public this week. This bogus accusation is old.

 

As I am not an expert on federal law I lack the expertise to objectively challenge the evidence against Trump. I leave that to those who are experts on federal law. My opinion is that what Trump did is wrong but once again as I am not an expert my opinion has little value. None of this matters anyway when we all know how the Senate will vote as party loyalty trumps loyalty to country.

 

For the specific FEC regulation Trump is accused to have broken, it is 110.20g: https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20-g

Debating whether or not Trump broke an FEC rule and whether or not that is impeachable behavior I find to be an uninteresting question and argument. Law and rule breaking are often conflated with wrongdoing. But laws change all the time. People explicitly rail against specific ones they don't like and vote in people they want to change existing ones, add new ones, or remove ones they don't like.

The arbitrary current status of any given law does not inform us whether the action taken is wrongdoing or not. Instead, it takes a good argument for or against the specific action taken to be convincing, independent of the current status of said law.

When robini123 is making an argument against involvement in an investigation where you have a vested interest in the outcome, it is based on reasoning independent of the status of a given law. If you disagree, please point out the fault in the reasoning instead of requesting citations for a law that is immaterial to the argument.

 

That's ridiculous. What "genius" accused him of an FEC violation?

I already did.

First I asked for links to his objections to the Mueller Witch Hunt team made up of Hillary backers and Clinton Foundation donors.

Secondly, the Impeachment power is given to a Political Entity, Congress, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans who ALL have a vested interest in the outcome. In past impeachments this was mitigated by an agreed on bipartisan approach, rather than the Schiff Style Show Trial.

Obama received the largest FEC fine in US history, $375,000 Nobody suggested impeaching him over it.

Has anyone at the FEC found Trump in violation, or is this more of the Silly Schiff Showtrial impeachment circus in search of a cause?

 

What a ludicrous cop-out.

 

Republicans have to be gnashing their teeth over the abject stupidity of the Republican President.

Trump's order to retreat in Syria betrayed a key ally who suffered 11,000 casualties in quelling the ISIS terrorist threat. Trump's retreat order facilitated the Turkish invasion of Syria and the attempt by the Turkish dictator, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to annihilate the Kurds who he regards as terrorists.

Trump enabled Edogan to kill hundreds of Kurds and causing thousands more to abandon their homes, becoming refugees.

On a day when live, public House impeachment hearings began featuring two key witnesses against Trump, William B. Taylor Jr., acting ambassador to Ukraine, and his boss, George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, provided devastating evidence of abuse of power, on a day when desperate Republicans are trying vainly to defend Trump from his own incriminating statements, guess who Trump invites to the White House.

You got it, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

It is an in your face gesture to Republicans from a Republican President.

How smart is that?

Republicans are in the midst of drafting a bipartisan sanctions bill targeting Turkey for its aggressive action against the Kurds, aggressive action caused by Trump's retreat. Some of the strongest Congressional critics have included some of Trump's closest congressional allies, including Senator Lindsey Graham, who has repeatedly warned Erdoğan about the repercussions of his actions and has drafted his own sweeping sanctions bill targeting the country.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle called for Trump to rescind the White House invitation to Erdoğan entirely. The White House declined to do so.

How smart is that?

Pretty smart if Trump is acting like a Russian puppet whose sole purpose is to create havoc in the capital.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/politics/trump-erdogan-republican-senators/index.html helped with this report.

 

Facing Trump's obvious guilt, the White House is tearing itself apart. The messy skirmish could be on full display this week.

The Post reports, "Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has urged aides not to comply with the inquiry and blocked any cooperation with congressional Democrats. Top political aides at the Office of Management and Budget, which Mulvaney once led, have fallen in line with his defiant stance, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk freely about the behind the scenes developments.

"Mulvaney’s office blames White House counsel Pat Cipollone for not doing more to block other government officials from participating in the impeachment inquiry, as a number of State Department officials, diplomats, and an aide to Vice President Pence, have given sworn testimony to Congress.

"Cipollone, meanwhile, has fumed that Mulvaney has only made matters worse with his Oct. 17 news conference, when he publicly acknowledged a quid pro quo, essentially confirming Democrats’ accusations in front of television cameras and reporters, and Cipollone did not want Mulvaney to hold the news conference."

The Times writes, "Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, on Monday abruptly withdrew his effort to join a lawsuit over impeachment testimony after a sharp collision with his colleague, John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser.

"Mulvaney’s retreat came hours after a lawyer for Mr. Bolton argued in court papers that the acting chief of staff should not be allowed to jump into the existing lawsuit as a plaintiff because his interests are significantly different. The legal schism underscored a broader rift between Mulvaney, who facilitated Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine, and Mr. Bolton, who tried to resist it."

Trump and his Republican defenders are feuding. Current and former state department officials will testify on camera this week, relaying their firsthand accounts claiming Trump withheld military aid to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Trump's own chief of staff confirmed that fact. On Twitter Trump warned his party that they should not “be led into the fools trap of saying it was not perfect, but is not impeachable.” Trump insists the call was "perfect."

Trump refuses to face reality. He incriminated himself as is proven in the transcript provided by the White House. The President cannot face that reality.

 

Which side is Trump on?

"Trump’s mistake in Syria is the unexpected ‘lottery win’ that further strengthened Moscow’s position in the Middle East and undermined America’s prestige as a rational political player and a reliable partner,” raved Mikhail Rostovsky in his article for the Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets.

The Post reports, "Kremlin-funded Russian state television has openly sided with Trump throughout the Ukraine scandal and even during the events that led up to it. For months on end, Dmitry , the host of a Sunday news show called “Vesti Nedeli” (or “The Weekly News”) on state-controlled television station Rossiya-24, encouraged Trump’s push for a Ukrainian investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son, as well as the groundless theory that Ukraine — not Russia — interfered in U.S. presidential elections in 2016."

Which side Trump is on is very difficult to determine in view of the support he is getting from hostile dictatorships.

 

Are Trumpets surrendering again? This is becoming a common practice. Perhaps it is time they admit they are backing a loser.