When assessing Trump’s guilt or innocence...

The consistent, relentless consensus of the majority of Americans is that Trump stinks. Poll after poll after poll confirms it, but that should have no bearing upon how he is treated by Congress regarding his current scandal.

Knowledge is good.

A full, public exposition of the extent of his perfidy by expert witnesses, including all those he is now trying to gag, with whatever defenses can be contrived, will produce an educated electorate that will issue its verdict in 2020.

 

Not exactly. In my experience, many to most Democrats I have encountered and who actively participate are objective. Most Republicans are not objective today. Pre-Trump there used to be much more objective ones. Most self-declared Independents are just not sincere. Which obviously erodes their objectivity.

I don't mean you personally, though.

I mean within human parameters of objectivity. We all sway a bit. But one can tell who is actually trying to be objective, and who doesn't really give a damn.

 

When talking to Democrats these days. What iscthe point in giving a damn?

 

I was responding to @Daniel Light's comment that no Democrat would have survived a Stormy Daniels incident. I was pointing out that Clinton survived far worse. You disagree?

 

? Huh? Obama's appointee was in charge of the DOJ. There were never going to be charges.

 

about the same as Trump when it comes to sex scandals, only difference is Clinton stayed with his first wife

and of course Trump was never asked about his affairs under oath

 

I'm surprised you guys have not been trying to engineer a lawsuit to do just that.

 

The Times reports, "John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, knows about “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine pressure campaign that House impeachment investigators have not yet been informed about, his lawyer told lawmakers on Friday.

"The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, made that tantalizing point in a letter to the chief House lawyer in response to House committee chairmen who have sought Mr. Bolton’s testimony in their impeachment proceedings, arguing that his client would be willing to talk but only if a court rules that he should ignore White House objections."

Bolton did not show up for a deposition scheduled on Thursday because, his lawyer said, he wants a judge to determine whether he should testify in defiance of the White House.

What is Bolton trying to say here? Bolton strongly opposed Trump's attempt to use extortion in a request for foreign interference in our Presidential election to benefit the President politically, and he referred to Trump's personal lawyer, Giuliani, as a “hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,”, describing exactly what is happening now. The whole mess is blowing up in Trump's face.

Bolton was fired on September 10, about the time the hand grenade was going off in the Oval Office. Schiff was informed of the whistleblower's complaint on September 11.

Despite not showing up this week, does Bolton want to testify? Testifying would certainly help his book sales.

Or, despite their differences, does the outspoken conservative want to come to Trump's aid? Is he trying to drag this out with court fight?

One thing is true. If it is the latter, the Democrats are not biting although they would to have Bolton testify. They have had their fill of Trump's delaying tactics. They will welcome Bolton if he comes in voluntarily, but they are through with the subpoena business. In the meantime they will trot out their own witnesses.

They will be unimpeded by Trump. Stupidly, Trump will not allow his witnesses to appear in the impeachment inquiry which will go public next week.

The Democrats are delighted with Trump's incriminating recalcitrance.

 

Of course they're adversarial. But previously there was some trust between the two parties. Not so much now a days.

 

He was impeached.

 

Are you implying the Ukrainians also did not know the White House controlled the funds? I did not say in my example the mayor would withhold the funds, simply that he controls it. It was an attempt to implicitly set up a conflict of interest for the party being asked the favor due to potential repercussions if they do not comply. But otherwise, yes, I agree it's not a perfect analogy. If the mayor chose to apply pressure, the police would know.

Could have, but didn't. What makes you think Zelensky would come forward if he did feel pressured? Trump may very well be in office for 5 1/2 more years (at least from the perspective of this summer). There is no advantage to making an enemy of him. Only drawbacks.

Given your comments, it seems you are mostly objecting based on the idea the pressure is applied in one scenario, but not in the other. Say you take funding totally out of the equation - no QPQ or repercussions in either situation. Do you find it acceptable for an incumbent to ask for an investigation of the opposing candidate in an upcoming election?

 

Could sure, but we don't know either way. Unless you can prove one or the other it is only ethical to assume innocence. That is how our system is supposed to work.

Would you consider the NYTimes as being credible? Because they're the ones that first reported about Biden and Ukraine on May 1st.

Understandable.

 

Oh, my bad, I thought you were talking about charging Obama with a crime today. I say if Obama broke the law then the DOJ should charge him with a crime. If Obama during his presidency broke a law then he should have been impeached. But I also understand that whether Obama broke a law all depends upon who you ask just like today where whether Trump has broken any laws all depends upon who you ask. Ask me and I will say that I do not know as I am not a legal expert and even they cannot agree.

 

You would have a point if they thought that Trump would withhold it. Why would they think such? Congress had approved the funding and Trump had signed the bill for it.

Based on Zelensky having run on an anti-corruption campaign pretty sure that wouldn't stop him. Especially since the whole world is quite aware of how much Dems despise Trump and have been hollering for his impeachment almost the same the day he was inaugurated.

I see no problem with it. If it was based on credible information. And since it was the NYTimes, a news media that is supposed to be credible, that first reported on the Biden's and Ukraine long before the phone call and there was video evidence of Biden admitting that he got the investigator canned, then that would be enough to start an investigation. Being the challenger does not absolve one from being investigated.

 

I think this question is itself problematic. It is not (and should not) be the duty of the enforcement agencies or their leaders to specifically target individuals for investigation. Your previous quote is more on target:

Without question, I think it is certainly well within Trump's duties to root out corruption. Create an entire department specifically designed for the purpose if he so wishes. But the marching orders need to be something like root out corruption. Not to specifically target individuals. If those investigations require Trump's approval, I don't see a problem. If they lead to charges against Biden, or Clinton, or any of his political adversaries - again, I don't see a problem.

I think what robini123 was getting at is that if investigations are instead predicated on who to go after instead of the what to look for, then it belies there may be bias behind them.

 

"That is how our system is supposed to work." Yes, in the judiciary but the impeachment processes is not done in the judiciary thus they are not bound by the same rules.

"Would you consider the NYTimes as being credible?" To a large degree yet my trust is not absolute as I am sure they get it wrong sometimes. As for what you claim the Times reported about the Biden's, my position is that if there is credible evidence to justify an investigation then I am all for it. With that said Trump should have nothing to do with it as he has a vested interest in the outcome of the investigation.

 

Wanted to circle back and address the OP. I can't make any assumptions for individual Democrats, but I would say that if situations were reversed, then I cannot see the large swath of Democrats in congress behaving any differently than the GOP members are now.

If you put a D in front of Trump's name and say he's got the Democratic base behind him every bit as much as he has the Republican base right now, then people like Pelosi, Schumer and other Democratic leaders - I can't imagine them going against him in any meaningful capacity. Back in 2015 and 2016 you had people like Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham deriding Trump. Where are they now? Right beneath his boots, licking them to a mirror shine.

Individual registered Democrats, I would not expect too much deviation from the polls we have now if you flipped the D's and R's.

 

Ironically I never once heard this argument until Trump became President. Before then most people, not all certainly, believed that "innocent until proven guilty" was the standard of how our entire government was supposed to work.

In any case, what makes you think that the Judiciary are the only ones bound to that? Do you know why the Judiciary is bound to that?

The problem with Trump "having nothing to do with it" is that as President that is an impossibility. He's the President. No matter what part of the Executive Branch started such an investigation we would still be in the same situation that we are in right now because Trump would have had to sign off on such an investigation as it involved a former vice president and candidate.

 

There is a strong case against Fake Don without Bolton, but Bolton showing a little leg may be more than just a tease. There is no suggestion that he conspired in the Trump/Giuliani/Parnas/Fruman con game. (Or as Bolton called it, their Ukraine "drug deal.")

THE FOUR HORSES' ARSES OF THE APOCALYPSE
​

The one aspect of Fake Don's scam that I'd like to see exposed is the precise actions taken to withhold nearly $400 million in military aid that had been allocated to Ukraine, and the names of all involved. Who ordered it? Who carried out the order? Like other pertinent information, Fake Don will try desperately to keep that hidden, but it needs to be revealed. There were those within the Trump regime mystified by its being withheld, and the Pentagon was putting pressure for it's release. (It had to be released before the end of September or the authorization would expire.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-unsolved-mystery-of-frozen-ukraine-aid/ar-BBWtMAk

 

Mick Mulvaney and the OMB. Keep something in mind. Mulvaney's other hat is, he is the director of the OMB.

 

Who directed Mulvaney to withhold the funds? Why was it kept secret from Congress that funds it had allocated were being withheld? What was the pretext for withholding the aid if any were offered? (Payment to Ukraine had already been cleared as far as "corruption" was concerned, so that excuse fails.)

I'm sure the Trump regime must be as eager to share these details, as well as all other aspects of the sordid episode.

 

Are you referring to the NDAA signed Aug 23? Or the DOD announcement from Jul 18? I am having trouble locating the bill associated with the DOD announcement, perhaps you can point me in the right direction? I would like to better understand the timeline.

While looking up this information, I also noticed there was a similar announcement Jul 20, 2018 by the DOD. I would be curious what the timeline was between that announcement and the release of funds if the information is available to compare the two.

I haven't really heard of him before this whole WB report, so I cannot speak to what would motivate him or if he is the kind of person to honor his campaign pledges. Given that Trump being in office is certain, and Trump losing office is not certain, I don't see any benefit of going against his wishes. It seems like a needless risk.

I suppose that is one we cannot reconcile then. I do see a very big problem in initiating an investigation if you can trace potential bias in its foundation. It will always carry with it a question of credibility, much like you see now in the impeachment process, irrespective of the evidence.

I definitely agree, being a challenger does not absolve one from investigation. But given the conflict of interest here, I feel any investigation would need to come about without Trump specifically requesting it.

Is there a specific statute in place that protects former VPs and presidential candidates? I am not aware of such a thing, but perhaps you can point it out to me?

 

we did not have too, Trump actually did things worth being impeached over - Trump should know by now he will always get caught, but he is so stupid that he doesn't even care.. or at least he thinks his supporters are that stupid

 

...then won the vote in the senate, and became one of the Democratic Party's senior statesmen and beloved party leader.

 

Well let's go back to square one: Do you think Obama committed an impeachable offense by creating the DACA program?