The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump
Comments
-
@reformed posted:
Exactly, House managers, White House Team, Reports, etc. Those are documents and witnesses which is why I can say 100% that it is a bold lie to say there are no witnesses or documents in this trial.
Not to mention the replaying of witness testimony from the House inquiry.
Also not to mention the transcript.
Again, the current concern about the absence of witnesses and documents concerns the absence of witnesses and documents that the President specifically and completely barred from the House impeachment inquiry's review, and hence, if they are to factor into this impeachment/trial process, would have to appear in the Senate's trial. That means the current witnesses and documents issue has NOTHING to do with House managers (who are advocates, not witnesses) the President's counsel (who are advocates, not witnesses), reports filed with the House inquiry, video clips of House inquiry witnesses, or the Trump-Zelenskyy call read out (a document which itself says it's not a "transcript"). The current concern has ONLY to do with witnesses who were NOT allowed to appear before the House inquiry (John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, for example) and documents the White House refused to turn over to the House.
In THAT sense - in the sense of the claim about witnesses and documents that is actually the subject of concern here - it is clearly NOT "a bold lie" to say there are no witnesses and documents in this trial. Were there witnesses and documents in the House inquiry? Yes. Did John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney testify before the House inquiry? No. Did the State and Defense Departments or the OMB release all relevant cables and emails to the House inquiry? No. Should those people testify in the Senate trial? Should those documents be released to the Senate trial? Yes... but only if you want to know the whole truth of what happened. My best guess is that you and your fellow Trumpsters, as well as most every GOP senator doesn't want to know WHOLE truth; you're satisfied with the partial truth you know now. Am I correct?
-
And the House should have waited to get their testimony on record through the courts. But they apparently did not think it important enough to do so.
But as we have always had, the transcript trumps any opinion. We know what did or did not happen on the call.
-
Here we go again. The rich and the well-connected are getting away with crimes or civil standards, in broad daylight. It happened with Britt Kavanaugh to get on the U. S. Supreme Court. Trump is positioning himself to walk on the U. S. Constitution as he has desecrated the U. S. Presidency. If Trump is not impeached and remains in place, the U. S. Constitution would have no more value than a cheap roll of toilet paper in an unkept roadside restroom. And down the commode, in tandem, should go the Second Amendment. The constitution, when draft, didn't include the entire population to begin.
The chief Justice John Roberts and the cowardly Republican Senators will be part and parcel of America's belittlement, shame, and ill relevancy among the nations of the world. America is never too far from her dark, racist, and bloody past. Oh, how true is the saying of Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men..."
CD Users, raise your voices for truth and decency. Don't let Trump slime these forums as he has done over the eyes of American millions and their so-called leaders. White is still white, and black is still black. Presidential decency, America lacks. Let's be bigger than the times we live. "Must we keep silent"? CM
-
@reformed posted:
And the House should have waited to get their testimony on record through the courts. But they apparently did not think it important enough to do so.
The House first subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn nine months ago, in April 2019. That matter is STILL in the courts. Had the House waited for the conclusion of litigation with regard to all four of its requested witnesses and each executive branch department's cables, emails, and records, God could have only speculated as to how long they would have waited (and we both KNOW the White House would have demanded that each witness and each document request be handled separately and at every court level) The problem is when the issue is a president's alleged intention to cheat in the upcoming election, the House has neither the administrative nor moral luxury to wait to press its case until after the election in which the president intends to cheat.
But as we have always had, the transcript trumps any opinion. We know what did or did not happen on the call.
Here we agree. Thanks to the call read out (again, as the document itself explains in a footnote on its very first page...
"CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear."
... we DO know what happened on the Trump-Zelenskyy call.
p.s. What happened to your allegation that it is a "bold lie to say there are no witnesses or documents in this trial"?
-
Based on what crime? What impeachable offense?
-
Cheat an upcoming election? That may be alleged but it is just fantasy. Anyone who is honest can see that is not happening. This is still you stupid liberals crying over 2016 and knowing your current pool can't beat him either.
-
@reformed posted:
Cheat an upcoming election? That may be alleged but it is just fantasy. Anyone who is honest can see that is not happening. This is still you stupid liberals crying over 2016 and knowing your current pool can't beat him either.
The adolescence of your vocabulary of objection never matures. I admire your rhetorical consistency.
Your post doesn't deal with the substance of my previous post, which was that taking the matter through the courts would very likely take months, perhaps years.
The president has openly and on White House grounds solicited Ukraine's and China's investigations into one of his chief political rivals. That's the solicitation of foreign interference in American elections, which is wrong and which reports the president's intention to cheat in the next election.
I'm crestfallen to say so, but you might be right about the electoral chances of our "current pool."
-
So, the fact that there are signs of corruption with the Biden's are you telling me it should go unchecked because he happens to be a political opponent? Is that what you are saying? Because he is a political opponent he gets a pass on corruption?
-
@reformed posted:
So, the fact that there are signs of corruption with the Biden's are you telling me it should go unchecked because he happens to be a political opponent? Is that what you are saying? Because he is a political opponent he gets a pass on corruption?
- IF there were/are signs of corruption with the Bidens (though two Ukrainian investigations found no Biden wrongdoing in the matter) or any other U.S. citizen, the president should take the matter to the FBI - first choice - or some other authorized investigatory arm of the Department of Justice. The president should NOT send his personal attorney to lead the U.S.' "check" of purported corruption.
- IF there were signs of corruption with the Bidens, the president should have sought MORE THAN MERELY AN ANNOUNCEMENT of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens. You have yet to address directly what I think is a central question in this matter: If Mr Trump was serious about possible corruption in the Bidens' actions, why did he only press for an announcement of an investigation? Why didn't he insist on an investigation itself?
- More broadly, what was AT MINIMUM an appearance of a conflict of interest for the president to seek a foreign country's investigation of his potential opponent in the November election should have kept him away from taking any action on the matter himself (in law they call it recusal). It doesn't matter that he's the president. The fact that Biden was a potential rival and the fact that Mr Trump didn't take ANY action on the matter until AFTER Biden entered the race should have compelled him to recuse based solely on how he had to have known it would look for him to be asking for a probe on a potential opponent only after that opponent entered the race. He should have turned the matter over to the FBI. He didn't do that because those Ukraine efforts were never about justice or corruption. They were about trashing Biden on the sly, with foreign help solicited by non-state actors such as Giliani and Parnas.
- I've asked you several questions in various posts on this matter that you have yet to address, my assumption is because you don't like the answers. But I will offer one of those questions here: Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in April 2014 and left at the end of his term in April 2019. If Mr Trump was SO concerned about the corruption of Biden's actions, why didn't he say or do anything about it in 2017 or 2018? Why did he wait til April 2019, at the end of Biden's five year board term and after Hunter's dad, Joe, entered the presidential race, to express concern about that "corruption"? And why in July 2017 and May 2018 did Mr Trump's own Department of Defense certify Ukraine's compliance with the corruption fighting expectations tied to their receipt of defense aid?
No one - including the president himself - should get a pass on corruption. But Mr Trump's actions were not about corruption.
-
Acquittal will happen Wednesday.
-
@reformed posted:
Acquittal will happen Wednesday.
I agree.
Do you have any idea when your answers to the questions I posed to you in previous post will happen? Namely...
- If Mr Trump was serious about possible corruption in the Bidens' actions, why did he only press for an announcement of an investigation? Why didn't he insist on an investigation itself?
- If Mr Trump was SO concerned about the corruption of Biden's actions, why didn't he say or do anything about it in 2017 or 2018, since Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in April 2014 and left in April 2019? Why did he wait til April 2019, at the end of Biden's five year board term and after Hunter's dad, Joe, entered the presidential race, to express concern about that "corruption"? And why in July 2017 and May 2018 did Mr Trump's own Department of Defense certify Ukraine's compliance with the corruption fighting expectations tied to their receipt of defense aid?
-
The president has openly and on White House grounds solicited Ukraine's and China's investigations into one of his chief political rivals. That's the solicitation of foreign interference in American elections, which is wrong and which reports the president's intention to cheat in the next election.
Hmn .... since the matters to be investigated happened in other countries, where else should a government solicit investigations fpr clearing up some corruption and possibly worse?
"Solicitation of foreign interference in American election" ??? It's "solicitation" of foreign countries conducting their investigations in clearing up corruption and possible crimes, even if it involved USA citizens or members of former USA regime.
I suppose you would suggest that corruption / possible crimes should go without investigations as long as the suspect is running as candidate in election?
As for interference in American elections and where such most likely come from, have a look at what Dr. Robert Epstein, actually a Hillary Clinton supporter, told Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) only a few days ago, namely that Google and social media would be able to actually manipulate votes with certain of their tools of which they have exclusively use. Without proper regulation, no one can really counteract Google and other social media "influencers" and most likely not even know that they have overturned the actual election outcome. This warning of technological election meddling by Dr. Epstein to Senator Cruz came during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on “Google and Censorship through Search Engines” on Tuesday.
As for 2006 presidential election, Dr. Epstein stated that Google and social media had been so utterly confident of Hillary Clinton’s win that they just did not use their power to throw the election her way. Dr. Epstein also predicted, it will be different in 2020. Interference and even meddling with US elections happens not via Russia, but is entirely domestic and homemade ...
-
- Where is the evidence that he only pressed for an announcement? The transcript shows something different.
- Zelensky was a new president. New issues would be raised then. The old government apparently was already corrupt so you are going to ask them to investigate their own corruption? We saw how well that worked with the Obama admin didn't we?
-
@reformed posted:
Where is the evidence that he only pressed for an announcement? The transcript shows something different.
- In his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee on November 20, 2019, Gordon Sondland testified under oath about what he "had heard from Mr. Giuliani." Ambassador Sondland said "He (Zelenskyy) had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it." Mr Sondland also testified that he "never heard... anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing [he] heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced."
- Ambassador Bill Taylor testified under oath that Sondland told him that President Trump wanted Zelensky "to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma, and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election," and that "everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance."
- In television interviews, former Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who was and remains willing to testify under oath, and who made a great amount of documents, text messages, and recordings available to the House investigation, said that his agenda as given to him by Mr Giuliani, was to get Zelenskyy to announce the investigations, and that it was always and ONLY about the announcement of an investigation, not an investigation itself.
- The issue here is the pressure campaign in which Mr Trump authorized Mr Giuliani to engage to secure President Zelenskyy's cooperation. Surely you wouldn't expect Mr Trump, during a phone call to which he knew NSC and other staffers were listening, to say to Zelenskyy, "Mr President, you don't actually have to DO an investigation; just announce one." Even Mr Trump, who has precious little concern when it comes to the words that come out of his mouth, would not have made THAT mistake.
Zelensky was a new president. New issues would be raised then. The old government apparently was already corrupt so you are going to ask them to investigate their own corruption? We saw how well that worked with the Obama admin didn't we?
But Mr Trump has told us the Biden issue was not about corruption in the Ukrainian government; it was about corruption in the Bidens themselves.
- In November 2019, Mr Trump said, "Joe Biden is corrupt."
- In the July 25 call read out - a document which on its first page says it is NOT a "transcript" - Mr Trump couched his concern in terms of the Bidens themselves, NOT in terms of the Ukrainian government: "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me." So what did Mr Trump ask President Zelenskyy to "look into"? Ukrainian government corruption? No. Joe Biden's role in the end of a "prosecution."
- Of the announcement he says Giuliani tasked him to seek from the Ukrainian government, Lev Parnas told CNN that it "wasn't supposed to be a corruption announcement. It had to be about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and Burisma.”
- Mr Trump's ONLY Ukraine concerns were the debunked Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, Hunter's Biden's place on the Burisma board, and the action(s) Joe Biden took related to a Ukrainian prosecutor. The president has made clear his belief that Hunter Biden received his board placement and his monthly salary corruptly thanks to his father's role as the American vice-president. Mr Trump has NEVER said there was anything corrupt about the Ukrainian government's handling of the Biden matters. EVEN IF Mr Trump was concerned about Ukrainian government's handling of the Biden matters - and there is NO evidence that he was - he must have believed Hunter Biden's seat on the Burisma board was corrupt also in 2017 and 2018, yet he said and did nothing in those years. He held up no foreign assistance and authorized none of his personal attorneys to seek the Ukrainian president's cooperation on an investigation in the Bidens. He did THOSE things only after Joe Biden announced his presidential candidacy. Why did Mr Trump not say or do anything about the Bidens' alleged corruption until AFTER Joe Biden entered the race?
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Hmn .... since the matters to be investigated happened in other countries, where else should a government solicit investigations fpr clearing up some corruption and possibly worse?
"Solicitation of foreign interference in American election" ??? It's "solicitation" of foreign countries conducting their investigations in clearing up corruption and possible crimes, even if it involved USA citizens or members of former USA regime.
I suppose you would suggest that corruption / possible crimes should go without investigations as long as the suspect is running as candidate in election?
The issue is intent. There is NO evidence that the president's intent in pressuring Ukraine or inviting China to conduct an investigation of the Bidens was to encourage those countries to clean up their domestic corruption. If Mr Trump had a concern for corruption in other governments, surely he would have made that clear in other public policy pronouncements, but he hasn't. His intent in pressuring Ukraine and inviting China to conduct investigations was solely to achieve political advantage. THAT made his requests solicitations of foreign interference in our elections. THAT made his actions corrupt.
Wolfgang, I ask you the question I posed to @reformed: If Mr Trump was so concerned about the "corruption" of Hunter Biden's seat on the Burisma board, why didn't he say or do anything about it in 2017 or 2018? Why was it only after Joe Biden entered the presidential race in April 2019 that Mr Trump said or did ANYTHING about the Biden "corruption"? And if it was Mr Trump's official government position that Ukraine should investigate its own corruption, why did he enlist his private attorney, Mr Giuliani, to lead the pressure campaign campaign, the private attorney who in a formal letter to the Ukrainian president made clear that he was acting NOT as a representative of the American government, but in his capacity as Mr Trump's private attorney?
As for interference in American elections and where such most likely come from, have a look at what Dr. Robert Epstein, actually a Hillary Clinton supporter, told Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) only a few days ago, namely that Google and social media would be able to actually manipulate votes with certain of their tools of which they have exclusively use. Without proper regulation, no one can really counteract Google and other social media "influencers" and most likely not even know that they have overturned the actual election outcome. This warning of technological election meddling by Dr. Epstein to Senator Cruz came during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on “Google and Censorship through Search Engines” on Tuesday.
You claim that Dr Epstein made his remarks "only a few days ago," but the fisheaters.com post to which you provided a link was created on July 19, 2019, six-plus months ago.
My general rule is that any "news" story that gets a lot attention from fringe partisan websites on either end of the political spectrum require additional scrutiny. When I reviewed Mr Epstein's testimony, such scrutiny bore fruit.
- He spoke of the potential electoral consequences of social media manipulation - Facebook, Google, etc. That's EXACTLY what the Russians did in 2016. To my review of his testimony, Dr Epstein did not deny Russian interference.
- He said it would have made a partisan electoral difference had Mark Zuckerberg sent out a "Go vote" message only to Democrats. Perhaps. But then he said Zuckerberg didn't do that! I agree there are serious issues related to social media companies' involvement in political campaigns. Russia proved the need for review of that involvement by its manipulation of false accounts, etc, in 2016. But it's rich to say "if something that didn't happen had happened, that would have been bad!" Yes, and if 5,000 people had been killed last week by invading Martians, THAT would have been bad too!
- Dr Epstein's star claim - that 2.6 million 2016 election votes were swayed due to search results manipulation - was based on his own 2017 paper on the voting habits of just 21 undecided voters (out of 95 total voters)! As THIS ARTICLE points out, Dr Epstein's is a minority view in the professional community.
As for 2006 presidential election, Dr. Epstein stated that Google and social media had been so utterly confident of Hillary Clinton’s win that they just did not use their power to throw the election her way. Dr. Epstein also predicted, it will be different in 2020. Interference and even meddling with US elections happens not via Russia, but is entirely domestic and homemade ...
I agree social media companies have significant issues to engage related to their presence in elections. Russian manipulation of those companies' services in 2016 is exhibit A in support of my view. Your claim that "meddling with US elections happens not via Russia, but is entirely domestic and homemade," however, is blatantly and inarguably false.
-
He spoke of the potential electoral consequences of social media manipulation - Facebook, Google, etc. That's EXACTLY what the Russians did in 2016. To my review of his testimony, Dr Epstein did not deny Russian interference.
Ha ha ha ... the Russians controlledd the technical means behind Google, Facebook, etc to which Dr. Epstein made reference? I don't think so ...
Dr. Epstein did mention why yGoogle, Facebook, etc did NOT interfere in the US presidential elections outcome ... => because they saw no need to meddle the election for Hillary, since they all were convinced that she would have a landslide win and did not need any help. 😉
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Ha ha ha ... the Russians controlledd the technical means behind Google, Facebook, etc to which Dr. Epstein made reference? I don't think so ...
With all due respect, Wolfgang, it really doesn't matter whether you think so. As the Mueller report showed in painful detail, the fact is the Russians leveraged social media platforms to interfere in the 2016 election in support of Mr Trump's candidacy. The Russians didn't need to "[control] the technical means" behind Facebook. They used the services available to everyone to create and then leverage fake accounts. And that's not true because I happen to "think so." It's true because it's a fact.
Dr. Epstein did mention why yGoogle, Facebook, etc did NOT interfere in the US presidential elections outcome ... => because they saw no need to meddle the election for Hillary, since they all were convinced that she would have a landslide win and did not need any help.
Please quote for me from the video to help me understand how Dr Epstein knew Google WOULD HAVE INTERFERED in the election had they thought Clinton might have lost. I heard him talk about the company's confidence in her election chances, and I understand how Trumpsters seized on his words to distract from the truth of what happened in Russia's interference in the election, but I didn't hear Dr Epstein say how he knew they would have interfered had they thought she might lose.
And again, what he the doctor feared could have happened... didn't happen. That matters.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
Actually, did the report not show they did it for both campaigns, not just Trump but did heavily favor Trump?
-
@reformed posted:
Actually, did the report not show they did it for both campaigns, not just Trump but did heavily favor Trump?
I suppose the Russians might have taken a few scattered actions in favor of Secretary Clinton, but I've never heard or read this interpretation of the report, one that is difficult to square with a critical conclusion found in the report's executive summary of its part I, on the Russian intervention:
"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
But I am open to correction! Please quote from the report if you find support for the possibility you raise.
-
What is really going on in the USA?
President Trump declared on Tuesday, January 28, 2020, at the White House in a sort of "supoorting manner" to the Israel Chief Netanahu (who had just been indicted in Israel for corruption charges: “As everyone knows I have done a lot for Israel; moving the United States embassy to Jerusalem [al-Quds], recognizing the Golan Heights, and frankly perhaps most importantly, getting out of the terrible Iran nuclear deal.” Is it the job of the USA president to do a lot for Israel or to od a lot for the USA?
What happened to Trump? Did he not say that he wanted to get America out of war? Did he not say that he would normalize relations with Russia and withdraw American forces from the countries that George W. Bush and Obama had invaded with USA troops or with terrorist hypocritically called something else? What happened to the USA? President Trump seems to have thought for naught protection from the powerful USrael Lobby. The most active people in Trump’s impeachment are Jewish (!) members of the Democrat majority in the house and most of the contrived and false witness testimony against Trump was from Jews (!).
This declaration of Mr. Trump at the White House and his admittance whom he is indeed serving must be a huge disappointment and quite an embarassment to those Americans who are not in favor of constant wars and constant USA hegemonic endeavors under the direction of a foreign regime .... which is neither Russia, nor China nor Iran.
-
Here we go again, Wolfgang, blaming the Jews. You said:
The most active people in Trump’s impeachment are Jewish (!) members of the Democrat majority in the house and most of the contrived and false witness testimony against Trump was from Jews (!).
You blamed Germany's troubles on the Jews and now, you're blaming the Jews for Trump's impeachment. And someone called me "racist. Is there anything you don't blame the Jews for? Leave Israel and the Jews alone! What is it with you and the Jews? Stop it! CM
PS. I think you have a love-hate relationship with the Jews. CM
-
Pelosi can say Trump has been "impeached forever" all she wants (I should remind her so has Clinton) but what she needs to understand, and more important, is he has been ACQUITTED FOREVER!
-
@reformed posted:
Pelosi can say Trump has been "impeached forever" all she wants (I should remind her so has Clinton) but what she needs to understand, and more important, is he has been ACQUITTED FOREVER!
Correct. Mr. Trump has been acquitted forever. Now the only question for historians, future presidents, and every American citizen is whether it's worse to be impeached forever for having lied about a sexual affair - something people do every day in this country, sadly - or to be impeached forever for having abused your power by holding up vital foreign aid to an ally at war with one of our adversaries so as to solicit that ally's investigations into your domestic political rival, and for refusing the release of a SINGLE document or the testimony of EVEN ONE of the people in your White House who had first-hand information about your conduct - things only presidents of the United States can do.
-
Documents of first hand knowledge WERE released so this is a liberal partisan LIE.
-
@reformed posted:
Documents of first hand knowledge WERE released so this is a liberal partisan LIE.
No, my claim is not a "LIE," because the claim of my previous post was very clearly about the articles of impeachment:
"Now the only question for historians, future presidents, and every American citizen is whether it's worse to be impeached forever for having lied about a sexual affair - something people do every day in this country, sadly - or to be impeached forever for having abused your power by holding up vital foreign aid to an ally at war with one of our adversaries so as to solicit that ally's investigations into your domestic political rival, and for refusing the release of a SINGLE document or the testimony of EVEN ONE of the people in your White House who had first-hand information about your conduct - things only presidents of the United States can do."
The president was impeached for not complying with SUBPOENAED document requests. He was NOT impeached for releasing or not releasing the read out on the July 25 call, a document that was never subpoenaed but I presume is at least one of the "documents of first hand knowledge" to which you're referring.
But as always, I am open to correction! Prove your claim that I "LIED." Please identify the SPECIFIC document SUBPOENAS with which the White House complied. If my claim is a LIE, you will be able to name at least one. If you can't name at least one document subpoena the White House fulfilled, then perhaps your claim is a conservative partisan... well, you know.
-
Not complying? How exactly did he not comply? He claimed executive privilege. That is different than not complying. You also moved the goalpost. You didn't say in your original post anything about subpoenas.
And as far as aid being withheld, that's a non-starter argument. Ukraine was not the only country that had their aid paused, and it got started back again, without any announcement. It's not reality to say it was tied to the investigation.
-
@reformed posted:
Not complying? How exactly did he not comply? He claimed executive privilege. That is different than not complying. You also moved the goalpost. You didn't say in your original post anything about subpoenas.
The House subpoenaed John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and others. They did not appear. To my knowledge and contrary to your claim, the president did NOT officially invoke a claim of executive privilege to stop White House people from testifying at the House impeachment inquiry. Instead, he directed them not to appear, and in court his attorneys made the remarkable claim of "absolute immunity," the absurd contention that Congress has no absolutely no investigatory authority when it comes to the White House. [As always, I am open to correction. I'll welcome the links you provide that prove your claim that president did officially claim the privilege to stop his people from testifying at the impeachment inquiry.] Even had he asserted the privilege, my understanding is that it must be asserted on a question-by-question basis. There is no such thing as blanket privilege that can keep a witness from appearing when subpoenaed.
I did not move the goal post at all. I simply pointed out to you, via a quotation from an earlier post, that my subject was and remains the actions for which the president was impeached. He was impeached for not complying with a single subpoena for documents or witnesses. Your reference to "documents of first-hand information" that had been released, therefore, was always irrelevant because none of those released documents had been subpoenaed, and therefore were not a subject of the second impeachment article.
You're correct that I didn't use the word "subpoena" in my original post, but, with all due respect, I didn't think I needed to given how well informed on these matters you have claimed to be. I assumed, it seems incorrectly, that you knew the second impeachment article concerned subpoenaed witnesses and documents.
And as far as aid being withheld, that's a non-starter argument. Ukraine was not the only country that had their aid paused, and it got started back again, without any announcement. It's not reality to say it was tied to the investigation.
How many of those other countries had their aid "paused" as Mr Trump asked them to launch investigation(s) of his domestic political rivals? Please be specific.
Yes, the aid was re-started... AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT! Only after the whistleblower account became known and Congress announced its intention to investigate did the aid resume, LONG after many in the president's inner circle pleaded with him to resume it.
And your argument that there was no announcement, so therefore the claim is a "non-starter" is without merit. If a would-be bank robber runs from the teller window after brandishing a gun and demanding money, but BEFORE receiving any money, do you claim that person is not guilty of a crime because he or she didn't actually get any money? It's the intent, not just the result, that matters here. Mr Trump INTENDED to pressure Ukrkaine into announcing investigations into his political rival. (New reporting today suggests Mr Giuliani even raised Biden investigations to President Zelenskyy's predecesor, but was rebuffed.) That fact has not been contradicted because it can't be contradicted. It's simply true.
-
You mean after he got caught for something he is not guilty of? Remember Bill, innocent until proven guilty, and, remember Bill, he was acquitted of all charges. You should be careful of what you say about this matter going forward.
-
What is this about? More witch hunting on the way?
You would think that the Democrats would have learned their lesson.
They tried to destroy Trump with the Mueller investigation, and failed. They tried to impeach and remove Trump from office, but failed yesterday.
You would think that they would learn from their mistakes and at least take a day before launching a new investigation. But Pelosi and the Democrats aren't waiting for anything.
Pelosi has given her party the green light to not only open up new investigations into the President -- you know, the same investigations they said just a couple of months ago that they 'didn't have time' to go into -- but also to authorize new articles of impeachment as well.
Just think of it. After suffering a stunning defeat in the Senate, the Democrats' first order of business is to announce that they are going to do it all over again!
Now, I need to give the Republicans some credit. Senators Chuck Grassley (IA) and Ron Johnson (WI) have now formally requested Hunter Biden's travel information from the Secret Service. They are launching an investigation into the Bidens' corruption.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
What is this about? More witch hunting on the way?
The content you included in your post after that introduction appears to have been written by someone other than you, Wolfgang. If that's true, could you identify the source and a provide a link to the original material?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)