Key findings of FACTS
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
KEY FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on witness testimony and evidence collected during the impeachment inquiry, the Intelligence Committee has found that:
I. Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.
II. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump—directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
III. As part of this scheme, President Trump, acting in his official capacity and using his position of public trust, personally and directly requested from the President of Ukraine that the government of Ukraine publicly announce investigations into (1) the President’s political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden, and (2) a baseless theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. These investigations were intended to harm a potential political opponent of President Trump and benefit the President’s domestic political standing.
IV. President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anticorruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.
V. President Trump used the power of the Office of the President and exercised his authority over the Executive Branch, including his control of the instruments of the federal government, to apply increasing pressure on the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government to announce the politically-motivated investigations desired by President Trump. Specifically, to advance and promote his scheme, the President withheld official acts of value to Ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by Ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests:
A. President Trump—acting through agents within and outside the U.S. government—conditioned a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine desperately sought to demonstrate continued United States support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, on Ukraine publicly announcing the investigations that President Trump believed would aid his reelection campaign.
B. To increase leverage over the President of Ukraine, President Trump, acting through his agents and subordinates, conditioned release of the vital military assistance he had suspended to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine’s public announcement of the investigations that President Trump sought.
C. President Trump’s closest subordinates and advisors within the Executive Branch, including Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Energy J. Richard Perry, and other senior White House and Executive Branch officials had knowledge of, in some cases facilitated and furthered the President’s scheme, and withheld information about the scheme from the Congress and the American public.
VI. In directing and orchestrating this scheme to advance his personal political interests, President Trump did not implement, promote, or advance U.S. anti-corruption policies. In fact, the President sought to pressure and induce the government of Ukraine to announce politically-motivated investigations lacking legitimate predication that the U.S. government otherwise discourages and opposes as a matter of policy in that country and around the world. In so doing, the President undermined U.S. policy supporting anticorruption reform and the rule of law in Ukraine, and undermined U.S. national security.
VII. By withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged in an ongoing military conflict illegally instigated by Russia, President Trump compromised national security to advance his personal political interests.
VIII. Faced with the revelation of his actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly persisted in urging foreign governments, including Ukraine and China, to investigate his political opponent. This continued solicitation of foreign interference in a U.S. election presents a clear and present danger that the President will continue to use the power of his office for his personal political gain.
IX. Using the power of the Office of the President, and exercising his authority over the Executive Branch, President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry by:
A. refusing to produce to the impeachment inquiry’s investigating Committees information and records in the possession of the White House, in defiance of a lawful subpoena; B. directing Executive Branch agencies to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of all documents and records from the investigating Committees; C. directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees, including in defiance of lawful subpoenas for testimony; and
D. intimidating, threatening, and tampering with prospective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry in an effort to prevent, delay, or influence the testimony of those witnesses.
In so doing, and despite the fact that the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment,” the President sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own misconduct, and the right to deny any and all information to the Congress in the conduct of its constitutional responsibilities.
Tags
Who is online
178 visitors
Reading through all of that just now, it sounds a little repetitive. Nonetheless it is crystal clear that Trump is guilty of all this, and more, and should be removed from office.
Trump's affection for conspiracies and for conservative media caught up with him. His "ideas" about Ukraine come entirely from right wing talk shows and "investigations" such as by the discredited John Solomon. Trump is paying the logical price for being a conspiracy nut.
I am shocked....absolutely shocked, I tell you.....to hear that you feel that way.
Astonished. Gobsmacked. Astounded.
I mean really....who saw this coming?
I think if Trump sneezed without saying Gesundheit, John's post would say the exact same thing.
It is clear that Trump did X or Y, but it is not clear that any of it is a crime, or otherwise justifies removal from office via the impeachment process.
The true facts:
READ: Republican Report On The Impeachment Inquiry
House Republicans have released their report on the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
The release of the report from Republicans on the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees comes after more than a dozen witnesses testified both behind closed doors and in public hearings over nearly two months. The panel's Democratic majority has not yet released its own report on the inquiry.
Republicans have argued that the entire impeachment inquiry, overseen by Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, was unfair and did not provide Trump or his legal team the opportunity to respond to allegations. Trump himself has labeled the inquiry a sham.
Democrats say the inquiry was held to determine if Trump had sought a political favor from the newly elected Ukrainian president — an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter — in exchange for a White House visit and the release of defense aid. The president has denied that any such link was made.
The Republican report reiterates the claim that Ukrainian officials tried to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. U.S. intelligence agencies have previously dismissed that claim — instead noting that it was Russia that interfered in the process.
Read the minority report below.
2019 12 02 Report of Evidence in the Democrats Impeachment Inquiry in the House of Representatives
Why don't you tell us all about your impressions of the GOP report Xx?
What do you think is the most important point they made?
It was a point by point rebuttal of each and every democrat lie in their illegitimate impeachment process.
So since you insist that the GOP report goes point by point, all the whining about them being 'overwhelmed' with the impeachment documentation is BS. Thanks for clearing that up.
Seven outright falsehoods in the GOP report
Wow - can you imagine just how lengthy Biden's criminal record is gonna be, eh?
In other news, President Elizabeth Warren has graciously decided to pardon Donald Trump of his crimes against this great nation. She will not, however, be giving pardons to anyone else convicted of crimes committed in an effort to conceal the disgraced former President's criminal activity. Vice President Buttigieg is in full support of President Warren's decision, and feels it will help to heal the divisive wounds inflicted by Republican partisan wrong-doing.
[deleted]
When you got nothing, post a stupid ass meme.
Whereas when you have nothing you post a stupid ass emoji.
Are you complaining about copywrite infringement or something?
That's copyright.
I don't see me posting any stupid ass emojis on this post. You must have confused me with Jack or It Is Me or KD.
Just ..... cough (reference your own highlighted part) …... Comments ?
Wow, you're acquiescing to the fact that the above list reflects Trump's 'criminal record'. I never thought I'd see the day.
BTW, that list is just from the recent investigation.
I. Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
False: The President, inappropriately asked the president of the Ukraine to look into what the previous Ukrainian government was doing with democrat operatives during the 2016 election. Inappropriate, but neither an impeachable offense or an attempt at interference in the 2020 election.
II. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump—directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
False: The President asked president Zelensky as a favor, then a member of the Intelligence community filed a WB complaint after notifying Adam Schiff and or his staff and thereafter the President released the aid (before the deadline) and no announcement of an investigation was ever made.
III. As part of this scheme, President Trump, acting in his official capacity and using his position of public trust, personally and directly requested from the President of Ukraine that the government of Ukraine publicly announce investigations into (1) the President’s political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden, and (2) a baseless theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. These investigations were intended to harm a potential political opponent of President Trump and benefit the President’s domestic political standing.
False: Nobody ever claimed that the Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. It is quite possible that both the Ukraine and Russia as well as others tried to interfere in the US election. BTW let the American people see the intelligence reports on foreign interference!
IV. President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anticorruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.
True: President Trump did delay the aid, but he also eventually released the aid before the deadline.
V. President Trump used the power of the Office of the President and exercised his authority over the Executive Branch, including his control of the instruments of the federal government, to apply increasing pressure on the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government to announce the politically-motivated investigations desired by President Trump. Specifically, to advance and promote his scheme, the President withheld official acts of value to Ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by Ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests:
False: According to the president of the Ukraine - There was no pressure!
None of the above constitutes a crime or anything worthy of impeachment. Today we shall hear from law professors and legal experts who will debate (yet again) what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. Three hard left progressive legal experts vs the renowned Jonathan Turley (all by himself)........I wonder how many will tune in?
Why was Devin Nunes exchanging phone calls with Lev Parnas?
Why did Giuliani call the Office of Management and Budget?
Trump supporters will never find sufficient evidence or a grave enough offense in all this to remove Trump from office. It is a riff on the "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue..." routine. They are shutting themselves off to reality.
A Ukrainian white collar criminal named Dmytro Firtash , wanted for extradition to the United States to face bribery charges, offered Parnas and Fruman to Rudy Giuliani (to dig up dirt on Biden and the Democrats) in exchange for assurances that the Trump administration would "help" him avoid extradition to Chicago.
Giuliani was acting on the premises growing out of right wing conspiracy theories dating back to mid 2016. These conspiracy theories wanted to throw the onus of the 2016 election interference off of Russia (and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort) and onto Ukraine. In essence , although perhaps semi-unwittingly, doing Putin's bidding.
Trump became convinced that if he could get dirt on Biden and the Democrats it would help him get re-elected in 2020. Under the tutelage of Giuliani and right wing media, Trump became convinced he should pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of Biden and the DNC that he could use every day during the campaign. The main instrument of that pressure was the 400 million dollars of military aid to Ukraine, which was presented to Ukraine as being contingent upon a public announcement by the president of Ukraine , on American television, that the investigations were underway.
-
Being a longtime conspiracy nut Trump was susceptible to the right wing bamboozling that Ukraine had hacked the DNC. As president he had the ability to extort co-operation out of Ukraine , and indeed the plot would have succeeded had the whistle blower not come forward.
Proof please.
CNN is being sued. Nunes was not in Vienna as was falsely reported!
Why did Giuliani call the Office of Management and Budget?
Did he?
Trump supporters will never find sufficient evidence or a grave enough offense in all this to remove Trump from office.
The fact is that he is without a doubt the most investigated President in history and the haters on the left can't seem to find a crime!
Trump became convinced that if he could get dirt on Biden and the Democrats it would help him get re-elected in 2020.
That's a left wing narrative, John. Trump had just endured a three year ordeal of multiple federal investigations based on nothing. He wanted to know about what democrats did in the Ukraine. Things like the "black ledger" and the "Steele Dossier." I really understand how he must have felt.
Question: Would launching impeachment, without having any real chance of removing the President, constitute a form of interference in the 2020 election?
Being a longtime conspiracy nut Trump was susceptible
John, you need to start dealing with substance rather than the smearing. People are reading these seeds and articles.
Yes, yes it would..........in a sane world. Great point Vic.
Speaking of, here is McCabe's indictment?
Trump smears The Americab Presidency...
You'll have to wait until the 9th. I'm as curious as you are.
No gaslighting ,please, Vic.
You really should not conflate the US Congress exercising its Constitutionsl oversight responsibilities with Trump illegally inducing a foreign government to illegally interfere in our American elections. 😱...
The House Intelligence committee has records of phone calls between Nunes and Parnas.
They also have records of phone calls between Giuliani and the OMB.
-
The two owners of Fusion GPS have publicly stated that the Steele dossier had nothing to do with Ukraine.
I hate to say it Vic, but all your comments seem to be the product of right wing disinformation.
Proof please.
The House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released its report on its central findings in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, and buried within it were details on phone calls between Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California and several key figures implicated in the inquiry.
Source
Witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt. But I'll bet you really have him THIS time. This has been going on for three years plus. And nothing. They can exercise their duty for oversight but result, after result, after result isn't even being considered in the 300 page (who the fuck needs 300 pages to provide a supposed slam dunk) "release"? But you got him this time amirite? Still a big nope. He isn't going to be removed but hold on to whatever helps you sleep at night. Dems, if the House recommends a Senate trial, will use the "yeah but we impeached him in the House" bullshit in their run up to the election. It is old and tired now, and will be old and tired next year. More people are sick or apathetic to this whole shit show than you may want to admit. Everyone, both sides, will poo poo it by the time the dems get shut down with the rhetoric.
Deal with it.
In other words you dont want to face reality.
Your reality?
No thank you.
What reality are YOU typing about? The reality is, he is going to be in office for another 13 months...........and maybe longer. And this isn't, no matter how you slice it, a contest where the runner up takes over the duties. Deal with it.
The "Lefty" way......
…. Go after anyone, for anything, at any time, when "THE" agenda is interrupted !
"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
--Lavrentiy Beria--
Exactly !
That's all this is.
Even Shiffty Schiff isn't sure yet. His own words in his "Press?" confereence !
Wish granted!!!
The truth is not smearing.
I supplied the proof on another seed, they refuse to accept it.
The reality that Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to investigate his election rival.
Your comments are virtually content free. This is all the right can do these days. Try to bamboozle.
Why you would quote an executed Russian sexual predator who shared multiple negative personality traits with Donald Trump?
They're in the same fantasy football league. Nunes wants Parnas to give up Todd Gurley because he's a Rams fan, but Parnas wants to be a bitch and keeps asking for too much in trade.
This is actually a mistake. Giuliani, being a good Italian, loves him some cannoli and he keeps getting the phone number for his favorite Italian restaurant mixed up with the OMB. They keep telling him he's got the wrong number, but you know how stubborn old guys can be when they get hungry.
Do you need me to type it slower? JK. The reference stands. What would you call this fiasco?
Collusion - nope
conspiracy - nope
obstruction - nope
quid pro quo - nope
Bribery - nope
abuse of power - nope
back to collusion, this time with Ukraine - nope
Wasted time circle jerk because Trump - Most definitely.
See a pattern here? Sure you do. To review, ""Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
Hope that helps.
I hate to say it but all of your comments are unverified. We are to believe the owners of Fusion GPS? Let's see some documentation.
I would like to know how and why Adam Schiff gets to spy on reporters and congressmen?
Well, without a good answer you tried to be humorous. I guess thats better than nothing.
It's sort of sarcasm to hint at my feeling that there is a lot of hysteria over facts that might not actually be significant of something we should worry about. In other words, I'm being silly because I think the drama is silly.
Read it and concede it...
Too bad Jim, that trump, Rudy and Mulvaney already admitted to these on live TV.
The Mueller report documented DOZENS of crimes. Get real Vic.
I presume that you'll be back after the 9th to correct that mistaken statement.
Trump and you could find the answer to those questions in the Senate Intel report. I find it hilarious that you and your fellow travelers are more interested in the SOURCE of information than you are in the information itself.
I thought that after the testimony in the Intel Committee, the RW consensus was that feelings are irrelevant.
No.
You truncated John's statement in order to pretend that your reply is pointed. Sad.
Instead of ADDRESSING the substance in John's statement, you had to pretend it doesn't exist.
Oh and unlike you, at least John isn't fabricating quotations to try to support his claims Vic.
List them for us, please!
Why don't you READ it???!!!!!
What Mr. Frost said.
Oh and you could also read the DOZENS of INDICTMENTS too. They are readily available online.
In other words you can't list a single crime that senile Robert Mueller and the vicious progressive lawyer, who actually did the investigating Andrew Weissmann supposedly buried in their report? Obviously they never charged the President with any crime, but you claim that they would salt it away somewhere in that report?
Okay let's here it - WHAT WAS THE CRIME?
That's right, you can't come up with a crime either. Let Mr Frost try and do it! LMAO!
Oh and you could also read the DOZENS of INDICTMENTS too.
Involving the President?
Involving Russian conspiracy with the President?
You can come up with something better than that. I'm disappointed.
The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said.
I'll let the Mueller report speak for me. I know that you're desperate to deny it's content but I accept it's findings.
That breaks my heart Vic. /s
"If we had proof that the president committed no crimes, we would have said so."
--- Robert Mueller.
Mueller is a conservative republican, he just isn't a partisan hack. I can list several crimes that the Mueller report listed, but again, not my fucking job to read to you. You can read it or, stop claiming that trump is innocent of everything because without reading the report, you don't know shit.
Sorry, that's no good. He can thank McGahn for telling him that wasn't a good idea. I know progressives may hate it but thoughts can't be crimes.
Most likely written by Andrew Weissmann. In other words they also lacked proof that he did or they would have been right out front with it. They conducted an investigation for 3 years and couldn't find one. They waited for a democrat controlled House to hand in a report with "what the President was thinking" so the democrats could do just what they're doing now - impeaching based on nothing. BTW don't bother telling about those who were prosecuted for unrelated process crimes. If they weren't connected to Trump, nobody would have charged any of them.
Mueller is a conservative republican, he just isn't a partisan hack. I can list several crimes that the Mueller report listed, but again, not my fucking job to read to you. You can read it or, stop claiming that trump is innocent of everything because without reading the report, you don't know shit.
As the rest of us have already seen - Mueller is a very senile old man and was only a figurehead. Even with the devious Weissmann and all the other progressives who actually ran the fraudulent investigation - THEY JUST COULDN'T FIND CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!
What a ridiculous statement. Are you positing the McGahn read Trump's mind? The Mueller report cites McGahn's testimony about Trump's attempt to get him to falsify a document, in short, to commit a crime.
I don't give a fuck if Jesus wrote it, Mueller said it. Without reading the fucking report, you want to claim trump committed no crimes and tell us which words came from which people and who spoke those words? You argument is so paper thin we can see through it.
No, they didn't lack proof, it's customary for the DOJ to NOT prosecute presidents. Also, saying that, "had we found proof of the presidents innocence, we would have said so", is saying he committed CRIMES. Jesus.
1) Not true.
2) The investigation was started because trump fired Comey, that was what lit the fuse.
3) Mueller is a republican, that was appointed by a republican that was appointed by Trump. Dems had NOTHING to do with it. The investigation from top to bottom was controlled by REPUBLICANS. Deal with it. Enough with the blaming the dems.
None of that is true of course, but if you must tell yourself that to feed your view of the Mueller investigation as a whole, feel free. The rest of us will stick to the facts.
Maybe you should be watching the three Constitutional scholars spell it out for you.
The three radical leftists? Ya, I watched! It was pathetic.
Shall we simply have them decide the 2020 election?
If that's the case, trump would lose since he only had one radical rightist Nutter on the panel willing to lie for him.
Professor Jonathan Turley is a liberal democrat who voted for Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. Only someone who is totally fucking biased would fail be to see that Turley never defended Trump. He warned those leftist animals that they were not handling impeachment in a responsible manner. It was about the process!!!
Nope, what you posted is nothing but a fake news right wing hoax.
Because a conservative republican which Turley is not would be calling for Bush and Cheney to be put on trial for war crimes. Turley clearly and obviously to all that are rational a liberal.
If I thought it was going to be an honest legal debate, I would watch. However, I heard the first few minutes on the radio this morning and I can already see it's just a kind of kangaroo court.
I got to hear Turley's testimony, which I thought was an excellent nod to history and a wise admonition to caution. Clearly, though, his call for objectivity will go ignored by the Democrats on that committee.
Making up 'evidence' again I see. There is NOTHING in evidence to support your proclamation so I won't bother to ask you for proof.
If you actually cared about FACTS, you could have and would have read the SENATE Intel Committee's report on their Russia investigation. They investigated the 'Ukraine' allegations and found NOTHING.
It was an abuse of power and impeachable.
"I want you to do us a favor THOUGH". That imposes a restriction.
That happened on August 12th.
On Hannity, Nunes stated that as Chairman he was contacted all of the time and helped direct people to the proper person to address their issue. Goose, gander.
That didn't happen until Sept. 11th, AFTER the ICIG reported to the Intel Committees that Trump's DOJ had ordered the DNI to withhold the WB complaint.
During that time, evidence proves that the 'Three Amigos' kicked up their pressure campaign to force Zelensky to announce investigations and Sondland informed the Ukrainians that military aid and the WH meeting were being withheld until the announcement happened. Zelensky made arrangements with CNN to make that announcement while he was at the UN and only canceled that interview AFTER the aid was released.
BTFW, attempted bribery is a crime.
Actually, Trump has done just that multiple times.
The bi-partisan SENATE Intel report is readily available.
If it was all good, why did Trump deny it?
Ya, the guy with his nuts in a vice said what he had to say to get what his country desperately needed.
Actually, they do.
Jonathan Turley (all by himself):
Nothing but the call transcript
It was an abuse of power and impeachable.
It was an inappropriate request but NOT an impeachable offense.
"I want you to do us a favor THOUGH". That imposes a restriction.
Can't progressives ever deviate from the script. So many on CNN, MSNBC and in the House have emphasized the word "though" like trained seals. There was an implied restriction. It was a subtle quid pro quo, but that does not rise to the level of impeachment.
That happened on August 12th.
On Hannity, Nunes stated that as Chairman he was contacted all of the time and helped direct people to the proper person to address their issue. Goose, gander.
Contacting and coordinating are two different things.
BTFW, attempted bribery is a crime.
And this is not attempted bribery. Turley destroyed that notion in all of 10 minutes.
"The Supreme Court further clarified the law by setting standards for federal bribery statutes in United States v. Sun Diamond Growers , 526 U.S. 398, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576 (1999). This case grew out of the prosecution of Mike Espy, secretary of agriculture in the Clinton administration, for allegedly accepting bribes. After Espy was acquitted of all charges, the Independent Counsel charged Sun Diamond Growers, a trade association for a large agricultural cooperative, with violating a federal gratuities law that prohibits giving gifts to public officials in exchange for favorable government actions."
If it was all good, why did Trump deny it?
I didn't, nor did I say it was all good.
"After weeks of hearings, Democrats are discovering a simple truth about impeachment. You do not need a crime , but you need clarity, to remove a sitting president."
We better hope not for the good of this nation.
Nope, the call summary does NOT say a word about the 'Ukrainian government' doing ANYTHING with a 'Democratic operative'.
It's gaslighting to try to manufacture statements by Vindman and it's gaslighting to try to manufacture statements by Trump or Zelensky.
Yes, I know that you think that this is just about Trump being a bad boy who should at most have to go to bed without desert.
Save your partisan bullshit for someone who cares.
Well look here, an rare recognition of the FACTS.
The word THOUGH is what made it a quid pro quo Vic. Did you notice that the GOP Congressmen didn't included that word when they quoted that line?
A 'quid pro quo', subtle or not, is a CRIME. PERIOD full stop. You know it's true, you came on NT and admitted it.
Good of you to acknowledge that. Now apply that the WB contact with Schiff's office.
Turley did nothing of the kind and he was rebutted with his own words.
The hearing today was about bribery in the Constitution, NOT a Federal statute. Do try to keep up.
Oh and BTW, United States v. Sun Diamond Growers was a case about GIVING a bribe, not SOLICITING a bribe.
Yes I know Vic. Perhaps eventually you'll actually come to the understanding that what Trump did wasn't just 'wrong' but corrupt.
What anyone 'hopes' is irrelevant. The founders made it clear that impeachment is NOT a judicial act, it's a political act. Those who are impeached merely loose their job and are precluded from holding any office again. The line of succession will seamlessly fill the void.
Projecting again?
Yes, I know that you think that this is just about Trump being a bad boy who should at most have to go to bed without desert.
Oh no, he should get the electric chair! Should I add the (Sar) for our progressives who need a tag to recognize sarcasm?
Save your partisan bullshit for someone who cares.
Projecting yet again.
Well look here, an rare recognition of the FACTS.
Same argument Iv'e always made - You need to listen.
A 'quid pro quo', subtle or not, is a CRIME. PERIOD full stop. You know it's true, you came on NT and admitted it.
No it isn't and no I didn't. Your having another bad day.
Good of you to acknowledge that. Now apply that the WB contact with Schiff's office.
Oh do tell - how did all of that take place?
Turley did nothing of the kind and he was rebutted with his own words.
He won the day. Did you think the 3 progressive ideologues did well? Do you think anybody watching didn't know how biased they were? How do you think using the President's young son went over with the general public?
The hearing today was about bribery in the Constitution
Something that liberal icon Pamela Karlan really struggled with.
Yes I know Vic. Perhaps eventually you'll actually come to the understanding that what Trump did wasn't just 'wrong' but corrupt.
I think what the House democrats are doing is corrupt - they are trying to influence the 2020 elections by smearing this President by an abuse of power. As Professor Jonathon Turley correctly warned them.
The founders made it clear that impeachment is NOT a judicial act, it's a political act.
Nope. The founders rejected most of what the three liberal stooges claimed were impeachable offenses yesterday so that it would not become a political act. You shouldn't try and impeach presidents you don't like. The standard is being lowered and we will end up with a Parliamentary form of government. What do you care, long as you smear Donald Trump.
PS.
I loved Karlan's fake apology only after being confronted by a House member and the immediate response from the First Lady:
"A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it." ......Melania Trump
Of course progressives have no shame or decency!
Why no Vic, no I am not. The fact that you found it necessary to truncate my comment proves my point. You keep making shit up and I will keep calling you out for it.
Nope, that's your MO.
That's isn't an arguement, it's merely a statement of fact. Just because you do so rarely, doesn't mean you extra credit when you do.
Really? How about this:
That was you right Vic? If the hearings yesterday brought anything to the table it is that a quid pro quo is bribery and the Constitution cites bribery as an impeachable offense.
Thanks for proving my point about your issue with projection.
Gee Vic, you didn't seem to have a hard time jumping to conclusions about Nunes' contacts, why the issue with taking the leap for Schiff's?
BIAS. BIAS, BIAS! Give it a break. Whining about bias from one side while ignoring the bias from the other is obtuse. Turley was tapped by the GOP specifically for his bias. It backfired on them because Turley's own words undercut his opening statements.
Here is a small part of what Turley said in Clinton's Impeachment hearing:
Since the professor apologized, I think it was a refreshing example of taking responsibility for a mistake.
You have no historical context for your proclamation and don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about Vic.
From the second paragraph of Federalist 65 written by Hamilton:
The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
The capitalization of POLITICAL is in the original document...
That is only ONE example of the evidence that your comment is utter bullshit.
The standard was lowered in 1998.
I'm not smearing Trump Vic. I'm posting FACTS about his conduct. You admit that Trump's actions were a quid pro quo, i.e. bribery. The founders specifically cited bribery as a cause for impeachment. Your inability to connect those dots is on you.
You assume it was fake, I don't.
BTW, fuck Melania Trump.
Of course, that sweeping generality is merely your BIAS opinion.
But lying about a blowjob was, right Vic?
Nobody cared what he lied about. It was the fact that he lied to a grand jury. That is a felony.
perjury
[ˈpərj(ə)rē]
NOUN
law
the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.
"he claimed two witnesses at his trial had committed perjury"
synonyms:
lying under oath · violation of an oath · giving false evidence/testimony · bearing false witness/testimony · forswearing oneself · making false statements · willful falsehood · mendacity · mendaciousness
It was perjury - one count of impeachment. That being said, the impeachment of Bill Clinton like the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was a politically driven, partisan exercise. The lesson from the Clinton impeachment is that the nation rejected it as just that - a partisan exercise. The only legitimate impeachment was the one that never took place - the one that Richard Nixon faced. It was bipartisan. Nixon would have been impeached & convicted and he knew it and he resigned before any of it could happen.
Even Pelosi knows how important bipartisan support is. In 2009 she forced the House to pass a totally partisan measure known as "Obamacare.' Democrats in the House paid the price with their political careers and Pelosi paid too when they lost control of the House. She is doing the same thing again with impeachment. She already told us that it should never go forward without bipartisan support, yet she felt so much pressure (her Speakership is on the line) from the left wing of the party that she is repeating the same mistake.
Ah, those radicals on the left!
They do it every time!
Vic, Clinton was also impeached for obstructing justice. Democrats don’t like to talk about that because it makes their false narrative about Clinton being impeached for a blow job even more dishonest.
The obstruction charge was clearly defined. In fairness to Clinton, one can easily see what is wrong with these special counsel investigations - they take on a life of their own. The purpose of the investigation was "Whitewater" and it morphed into any kind of wrongdoing, thus we ended up with the president's sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Democrats are operating under the same idea only worse. They want to impeach this President with anything or nothing at all.
Which Mueller pointed out 10 instances of. If even ONE of those 10 is confirmed, trump should be impeached, by your own standards.
That’s for sure.
ALL Witness Testimonies to date:
Bribery ...… " NO !"
Extortion ….. " NO !"
Quid-Pro-Quo ....... Yes, NO, Maybe, I don't know ?
Impeachable Offense ……. " Got Me !"
Do you "Feel" ..... " YES, I "Feel" !"
Nadler just noted in his "Opening Statement, in this new "Lynching" part of the hearings...… "If" President Trump committed offenses, we must Impeach.
"IF" ?
He doesn't know Yet ?
Professor Feldman is now giving us a "College type" history lesson "Lecture" on …….. Boring Shit about Impeachment, High Crimes and misdemeanors, and abuse of powers of the "Past framers (Could have meant) Thinking" !
He's just parotting what Schiff put out as "Fact" in a report.
Professor Karlan…..Just Another "College Type" history lesson, but with MORE " Emotion " this time.
According to her....the "Founding Fathers" are now......OFFENDED !
She "FEELS" the mostest of all so far !
She even said the words …. BUTT OUT !
BOOOOORING !
Professor Gerhardt is now speaking.
" Pete" is "Repeating what "Re" and Peat" already said...…………….in the same "Bar"
…… 
More "yes, I think so" shit today.
She, actually all of them, stated that not answering a subpoena is grounds for impeachment. I hope one of the Republicans ask them, especially Karlan, who seems to be very emotional and based on opinion, why they did not write an article on the need to impeach Obama for Holder ignoring a Congressional subpoena.
Also, the counsel for the dems did not dare question Turley. He probably knew his argument would be shredded.
Would mess up the "Lefts" agenda at this time.
You could also hear their emotion when they brought up the Mueller report. They are pissed that Mueller did not deliver what they thought he would and now they think they would be taken seriously by claiming obstruction in that report, even though even Mueller, who really does not know what was in his report, said he did not have the proof, just speculation.
Try, Try and Try Again !
Turley has been speaking for less than 5 minutes and has already destroyed the democrat and activist professor's talking points.
That's for sure. he's even had to explain to them actual "Forefathers" reasonings, for and against. The other (3) three, are just their for a bit of "Fame" in their lives.
I like how he compared and contrasted originalist ideas to today's laws, with facts, especially with bribery.
The other three based their arguments on "I feel".
The other "Professors", wouldn't look at him when he was speaking...and still aren't.
"The other three based their arguments on "I feel" ."
Well.....when ones base is the "Pacifier and Safety Pin" crowd....what else would the "Left" on the committee look for.
It wouldn't be actual "Fact"....for sure !
Did you notice that Professor Feldman looks like "Newt Scamander" in "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" ?
This Committee hearing is like that "4 out of 5 dentists agree" commercial (which we NEVER seem get to hear from that 5th dentist for some reason) !
This time we have a "3 out of 4 academics agree" thing....but we actually get to hear from that fourth academic for a change....and that 4th academic makes the other 3 look like "Partisan" morons !
Makes me wonder about those commercials that push that "4 out of 5" stuff. Are those 4 actually telling me the truth ?
Turley's argument so far is that congress doesn't have enough "fact" witnesses, aka all those who have refused to testify. He didn't actually say he thought Trump was innocent, in fact he stated that if all the statements provided by witnesses so far are found true, then Trump should be impeached. He just felt that without the key witnesses, those who would have directly spoken with Trump and been given specific orders by the President, it was his opinion that they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt the President committed bribery and thus confirm an impeachable offense.
So his disagreement with the other 3 is purely on a technicality. He agreed that if all the witnesses who testified so far were found accurate, then Trump should be impeached. Turley just disagreed that they could reach a reasonable conclusion without looking hyper-partisan without going the extra mile of fighting the defied subpoenas in court, get the fact witnesses testimony, and then make the decision on impeachment. So his only real complaint is a process one, he's not refuting the facts found so far or disagreeing with his colleagues conclusions IF the facts they are basing their conclusions on are found to be accurate when confirmed by the key administration officials who have so far refused to testify.
If you had paid any attention at all ..he said this was "Thin" at best....and not worthy of an impeachment !
He also said this "Thin (Non-serious)" standard would be very problematic and worrisome for the next President of these United States, to be able do his/her job effectively.
He said it was "thin" only because they didn't have the testimony of the key players, just those around them. He didn't say that it was "thin" if the facts are spelled out and it's proved that Trump did in fact withhold hundreds of millions in congressionally approved military funding from an ally on the condition that they announce an investigation into a political rival. In fact he was clear it was just the opposite, that if everything the previous witnesses testified to were found accurate, then it would be bribery and it would be impeachable. Turley just wasn't there yet with the evidence and felt things were moving too fast and that the defied subpoenas should be fought in court before congress comes to any conclusions on impeachment.
NOT !
"Nixon and Clinton developed over many months of investigation and a wide array of witness testimony and grand jury proceedings. In the current matter, much remains unknown in terms of key witnesses and underlying documents. There is no explanation why the matter must be completed by December. After two years of endless talk of impeachable and criminal acts, little movement occurred toward an impeachment. "
"The Ukrainian matter is largely built around a handful of witnesses and a schedule that reportedly set the matter for a vote within weeks of the underlying presidential act. Such a wafer-thin record only magnifies the problems already present in a narrowly constructed impeachment. "
" If the House wants to make a serious effort at impeachment, it should focus on building the record to raise these allegations to the level of impeachable offenses and leave to the Senate the question of whether members will themselves rise to the momen t that follows."
"Thus, we are being asked to offer a sincere analysis on the grounds for impeachment while being left in the dark . My testimony is based on the public statements regarding the Ukrainian matter, which contain references to four alleged crimes and, most recently, a possible compromise proposal for censure."
" If the House does not have the evidence to support a claim of a criminal act, it should either develop such evidence or abandon the claim . As noted below, abandoning such claims would still leave abuse of power a s a viable ground for impeachment. It just must be proven ."
So clearly, in his own words, Turley takes the stance that congress simply hasn't provided enough conclusive evidence proving the bribery without getting the testimony of "key witnesses". He does not in any way make the claim that congress doesn't have the power to impeach or subpoena witnesses, he merely states his opinion that on an evidentiary level the accusations have not been "proven" yet. His three colleagues disagree with his opinion and feel there is ample evidence that Trump did in fact withhold nearly $400 million in military assistance from a foreign ally on the condition that they publicly announce an investigation into Trumps leading political rival. The other three experts disagree with Turley's opinion that there is not yet enough evidence of this act as every testimony so far has made it very clear that is what occurred. Hearing from the whistleblower wouldn't add anything, though the "key witnesses" would be welcomed by Democrats as they already requested they come testify.
And Actually BROKE an ….on the books....."LAW" !
Trump is being impeached by "Liberals" on "Feelings" of others ….. alone !
I keep seeing this, but I don't buy it. I don't see anything Trump did or anything he wanted Ukraine to do as "interfering" in the election. The election will proceed as it was intended. Names will be placed on ballots; money will be raised; speeches will be made; people will go to the polls; votes will be cast; the votes will be counted; and the proper people will win offices under the law. There's no "interference."
If Biden did something wrong and it comes out, that's just kind of too bad for him. That's not Trump's fault, Ukraine's fault, or anybody else's fault. Releasing that information enhances the election by making voters more informed. Trump could have just as easily made the accusation himself, or asked CNN or Fox or Breitbart, Buzzfeed, or even Alex Jones to investigate the matter. It would still merely be either information or the lack of it.
It doesn't interfere with anything. If, on the other hand, it turns out Biden didn't do anything wrong, then Trump has egg on his face, Biden is fine and - again - the election will proceed as intended.
Your comment is bizarre.
Most of them are in an alternate reality Bizzaro world kind of way.
At least I had something to say. Thanks for dropping by with your label machine.
No candidate can request assistance from a foreign government in their election campaign.
You have never come to grips with that reality. It is WHY Trump is being impeached and you just keep howling at the moon.
Trump may have had the right to ask the FBI or the Senate to investigate Biden, although even that is questionable. He does not have the right to have a foreign government do so. It is abuse of power.
A synonym for interference is involvement and there is no cogent argument to deny that Trump asked Zelensky to get 'involved' with announcing an investigation into the Bidens.
Interjecting FALSE information doesn't 'enhance the election'. There is NO information to release, there's just innuendo and conspiracy theories that have been debunked ad nauseam. As Sen Burr promised in 2017, the Senate Intel Committee investigated the allegation that Ukrainian government interfered on Clinton's behalf and found NOTHING.
Reincarnating debunked bullshit is gaslighting.
So you'd argue that anything and everything that Trump has been whining about Ukraine interfering on behalf of Clinton is moot because the election proceeded as intended?
Oh and all of Trump's whining about the a Russia investigation is irrelevant too because Trump is fine right?
Then there's the impeachment inquiry. The election is proceeding as intended. Primaries are scheduled to be held, at least in those states where the GOP hasn't shut them down. After all, when the Senate acquits, Trump will be fine right?
Oh how fascinating. Now that you have declared and proved this for all time, it excuses you from having to consider anyone else’s viewpoint. Convenient.
Even though,
doesn’t actually say anything about the election. All the things I said about elections remain true. No interference. Nothing about the election in 2020 has been altered. What you want to do is control what people say. That’s not the election.
Are you suggesting we haven’t seen exactly that in every election that there ever was?
Don’t misunderstand - I think it would be wonderful if everything that was ever said about candidates was 100% factual, supported by clear evidence, and something we could all agree on. But then there is real life.
I truly don’t concern myself with most of the conspiracy theories these people spread around, no matter what party they play for. My eyes are open wide enough to see that most of what they claim about each other is bullshit. Furthermore, as they accuse each other, they are also probably up to something very similar themselves.
Well it looks like what's convenient for you is to truncate my comments in order to pretend your reply is relevant. Sad.
Riiiiiight, Trump didn't ask Zelensky to specifically announce an investigation into Joe Biden because of the election.
Try to make Trump recognize that. Good luck...
You know that how?
Bullshit Tacos!.
What in my comment lead you to that unfounded posit?
We're NOT talking about 'everything that was ever said', we're talking about what Trump was trying to get the President of another country to say about an American citizen who is a candidate. FOCUS.
Oh ya Tacos!, I almost forgot that you're one of the elite that is unscathed by the machinations of the political rife raff. It's too bad that you don't take the information that you see with your wide open eyes to encourage your fellow travelers to cut out the gaslighting. There are a plethora of people right here that could benefit from your clear view of the facts.
Alas, I won't hold my breath.
Hmm...dramatic, but not a denial. I’ll take that as a concession.
Being motivated by the election is not the same thing as interfering in the election. And anyway, even if the election was motivating Trump, I don’t think it was his sole - or even primary - motivation. I think he’s still trying to defend himself against accusations of meddling in the 2016 election and wants to show how dirty he thinks everyone in the Obama administration was.
There is a difference between a posit and a question. The first is a statement, assuming facts, and is foundational to an argument. The other seeks information and is followed by a question mark. The thing you quoted and called a posit was actually a question.
Also, if it were unfounded, there wouldn’t be something that would lead me to it, so asking what led me to it wouldn’t make much sense.
Anyway, what led me to the question was the simple fact of you treating the present facts as if they were unique and therefore worthy of the extreme response of removing a president from office. I simply asked you to confirm or deny your perception of the facts relative to the long history of politics in this country. I made no posit.
Why yes Tacos!, I concede that is your opinion of me. It's isn't worth my time to try to keep up with your strawman arguments.
Motivation is intent.
To my knowledge, no other POTUS has ever withheld military aid to an ally for a personal political benefit. If you've got another example of that. please post it.
To my knowledge, no other POTUS has ever placed a political appointee in charge of signing off on Congressionally authorized military funding in order to cover up the potential illegality of his actions. If you've got another example of that. please post it.
To my knowledge, no other POTUS has ever sent private citizens and Ambassadors to run a secret parallel foreign policy that is the antithesis of the Treaties and years of prior states craft with that nation. If you've got another example of that. please post it.
To my knowledge, no other POTUS has ever claimed blanket executive immunity for himself and every person who has worked for him and every piece of paper they ever touched. If you've got another example of that. please post it.
To my knowledge, no other POTUS has ever publicly admitted multiple violations of the law and gotten away with it. If you've got another example of that. please post it.
I could list many more but that's a good start. Your examples will help us conclude if they are unique...
Much of the stuff you present as arguments for uniqueness are opinion and supposition, but even if we assume them as true, they are still not unique.
Other presidents have had individuals working for them (like a Rudy Giuliani) who didn't hold the standard positions in government or answer to the Senate. They do all sorts of jobs you might normally expect an official diplomat to do.
Henry Kissinger is one example. As National Security Advisor, he negotiated with China and the Soviet Union (not technically his job) while the State Department was kept in the dark. He was also working in Vietnam even before he was NSA.
There have been even less official people doing important foreign affairs work. FDR had Harry Hopkins, who was Secretary of Commerce but is said to have been the president's closest foreign policy advisor. That guy was always abroad negotiating with somebody. Truman used him, too.
Before that, Woodrow Wilson had Edward House, who held no cabinet position but was the president's closest advisor and took part in extensive foreign negotiations including the Treaty of Versailles after WWI.
Now, I think you can still make the argument that the specific situation of Ukraine and Biden is unique. That's fine. (impeachable is a different conversation) But the presence of Giuliani and what he does really isn't unprecedented.
A lot of the other things you say here are your own opinions, assumptions and accusations instead of facts. Some are overly vague (like "political appointee" or "personal political benefit" or "antithesis of the treaties and years of prior states craft"). Those could be anything.
Some of your presumptions are just flat out wrong, e.g. " claimed blanket executive immunity for himself and every person who has worked for him and every piece of paper they ever touched." Considering all the people Trump had testify during the Russia investigations and the million or so pieces of paper the White House submitted, "blanket immunity" claims and "every piece of paper" are just not true.
I don't know what this one is supposed to mean:
I mean, constitutionally, the president holds the primary responsibility and authority when it comes to foreign policy. And whatever policy he pursues, he's not obligated to do it the same way it has been done in the past unless there is a law defining it. That should be obvious enough by the simple fact that we have been at war with countries we now call "friend."
Take the claim that Trump withheld aid. He didn't. That's a simple fact. We could split hairs and maybe claim he delayed it, but relative to what? Ukraine received the allocated aid within the required time frame. It's not a crime to slow-walk the aid as long as it gets there. This is not even unique to the Trump administration. For better or worse, it's actually consistent with previous practice.
NO SHOWER OF GOLD—THE SLOW FLOW OF FOREIGN AID FUNDS IN THE TRUMP ERA
So we don't really have grounds to assume something nefarious in the fact that aid to Ukraine was slow in flowing because it's not unique. All aid has been slow under the Trump administration.
Foreign aid is generally appropriated in a lump sum, and generally with a final deadline. Within that, and notwithstanding any specific requirements in the legislation, the president can usually distribute it as he sees fit. Fundamentally, Congress is actually delegating authority to the president. Very often that delegation comes in the form of saying the president can do something "as he sees fit," "as necessary" or similarly open-ended language. Once delegated, it's improper to impeach him for exercising that authority.
WTF is your cricket supposed to mean? You know people have lives, right? Not all of us live on NT like you.
Yet you go on to blather a crap load of irrelevant nonsense, none of which addressees the points I cited.
Consensus.
I didn't cite Giuliani's 'presence' Taco's. I cited the parallel foreign policy that Trump sent him, Volker and Sondland to do in Ukraine. THAT is what's unprecedented.
This seed isn't about the Russian investigation Tacos!
Trump's counsel and his OLC has indeed claimed a blanket executive immunity for refusing to honor subpoenas.
Take special note of the footnotes that cite Trump's OLC rulings. One states:
By 'the Executive' they mean the ENTIRE Executive branch.
It took a SECOND act of Congress for Ukraine to receive the allocated aid because Trump 'delayed' it beyond the time DOD needed to contract it. Get educated.
Actually, since it DID take an act of Congress for ALL of the allocated aid to go to Ukraine, Trump violated the Impoundment Act. Look it up.
Secondly, ANY official act committed for a corrupt intent is an Impeachable offense.
That's bullshit. Trump HIDE that he was holding the aid and he and his minions conspired to do so. Cite another administration that did so.
Where's the news article from back in June about Trump's intention to slow the flow of Ukrainian aid?
We're not talking about what's unique WITHIN the Trump regime.
Again, utter bullshit. READ the Impoundment Act.
You were in chat when I posted it.
[Removed]
Actually, it was used AFTER a cogent argument. If you've got a cogent rebuttal, make one.
[deleted]
He wanted the Ukraine to announce that they were investigating the Biden's because it would put the Bidens in a negative light, therefor helping trump look better. It was all about optics.
Same thing in 2016 with wikileaks, they release just enough information to keep Clinton in a negative light right up to election day. The day after the election? No more wikileak dumps about Clinton.
That is patently ridiculous. Someone being under investigation doesn't make someone else look better.
Who knew Democrats had such a low opinion of their Chosen One that they put it in emails? Sorry if the truth hurt your Abuela.
All you're talking about is speech and information. Even if you think it's all bullshit, so what? Election campaigns are well known hurricanes of shit storms attacking us from all sides. No one has ever before said that the bullshit politicians peddle was somehow "interfering" with the election.
True, but we don't attempt to extort other countries to get that dirt into the public eye. Also, trump withheld funding for the Ukraine, yes? That's taxpayer dollars and it's ILLEGAL to use taxpayer dollars to aid a campaign. It had nothing to do with corruption in the Ukraine, there are other countries that are corrupt as well and trump didn't withhold ANY of their funding.
No matter how you spin this, it's bad.
My grandmother died in 1991, if I were you I would shut your fucking mouth about her.
1. Unilaterally declaring Joe Biden an political opponent of President Trump violates the charter of the Democratic Party. Biden is competing with Democrats to become a candidate for President; Biden is not yet a candidate. The Democratic Congressional Caucus is attempting to rig the 2020 primaries to make nomination of Joe Biden a forgone conclusion just as they did rig the 2016 primaries favoring Hillary Clinton.
2. Unilaterally declaring that someone claiming to be a political opponent of the President is exempt from investigation of past official acts (for any reason) undermines the rule of law. Political opposition to a sitting President does not forestall accountability for past official actions. Political candidates are not above the law just because they are political opponents.
3. Unilaterally declaring baseless that possible collusion between the 2016 Democratic Presidential campaign and Ukrainian interests occurred is not supported by evidence. Unilaterally declaring baseless that Joe Biden, acting in an official capacity, pressured the Ukrainian government for political purposes is not supported by evidence. If such evidence exists, then that evidence should be presented to the public.
4. Unilaterally declaring Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States has not been supported by evidence. The Democratic House enacted use of tax payer money to provide Ukraine tactical military weapons; representing a major shift in US foreign policy. Providing the Ukrainian government tactical military weapons exacerbated political divisions within Ukraine and deliberately increases tensions between the United States and Russia. Democrats have not explained why escalating a regional war in Ukraine serves the security interests of the United States.
5. President Volodymyr Zelensky, of the Ukrainian government, is engaged in a political campaign to directly influence US foreign policy. Zelensky is using threats against the security of the United States to pressure the President of the United States for political favors. Zelensky is knowingly and deliberately attempting to increase tensions between the United States and Russia for his personal political gain. The evidence from the House Intelligence Committee investigations show that Ukraine has engaged in a concerted effort to manipulate the US government and is now meddling in the 2020 election.
6. The Democratic Congressional Caucus is using investigations for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to their advantage. Democrats are doing, on live television, what they are accusing the President of attempting to do.
Somehow you managed to make an even more bizarre argument than Tacos did. I didnt think that possible at the time.
The evidence that the Democratic Congressional Caucus (and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is abusing investigative authority for the purpose of meddling in the 2020 election is incontrovertible.
The evidence that has been presented clearly shows that the Ukrainian government has been politically manipulating the diplomatic and intelligence bureaucracy of the US government. Ukraine is meddling. The bureaucracy has been complicit partners with the Ukrainian government in that meddling.
How and why did Ukraine become a vital security partner of the United States? How does the relationship between Ukraine and the United States benefit the United States?
Havin a tough time keeping up, are ya?
Every single person running for president is an election rival of President Trump. They are all running for president. Biden is not running to be president of the Democratic Party, he's running for the office of president of the United States. The same is true for all the other Democratic and republican candidates such as William Weld and Joe Walsh. All of them are running for the same office and they are all election rivals of one another.
Joe Biden is not running for President yet. Joe Biden is running to be the Democratic candidate for President. The general election does not begin until the primaries have been completed and the candidates for President have been nominated.
Political marketing hype doesn't alter the facts; unless one chooses to believe in alternative facts. The facts are that Joe Biden is not a candidate for President and is not running a campaign to win the general election. Biden is running to win the Democratic nomination and (apparently) depending upon the Democratic establishment to rig the primaries in his favor.
The Democratic Congressional Caucus is running political cover for Biden and, apparently, have already nominated Biden.
BTW, winning the nomination really does mean that Joe Biden would become the President of the Democratic Party. The President is the leader of their political party.
start the video at 1:00
The delusion in your comment is galactic. I won't bother challenging it point by point since I expect that you'll follow your usual practice of bailing.
Since phone records are apparently fair game, let's see the phone records of Schiff, Schiff's staff and "the whistleblower" too.
Now some Faux 'news' talking head is claiming that someone else was using Nunes' phone.
Could be !
These Days of Liberal TDS....anything can be made to seem "Possible". I truly "FEEL IT".
I nominate Monica Lewinsky.
The "Dress" didn't lie !
How does that explain the calls he received from the other parties?
Who is going to sign those subpoena's Sean? It is your posit that the GOP Senate will join the GOP House's circus side show?
The reporting so far indicates that the Senate will run through the trial as expeditiously as possible. Deposing irrelevant witnesses and playing the partisan bullshit game the House GOP has been playing probably won't be on their schedule.
I think we all know how Republicans would be reacting if this were an impeachment of a Democrat President.
Republican heads would have been exploding with demands for Obama's immediate impeachment and removal and anyone with an ounce of honesty left knows it regardless of how partisan they are. And just because Obama refused to let any of the key witnesses testify, that would not have been good enough for House Republicans to just "drop it" and "go back to doing their job". Presidential oversight is one of their primary jobs as defined in the constitution.
We all know their heads would be exploding.
I can only shake my head (in disgust) at them for getting upset about investigations (that are actually justified) when all they did was spend years investigating Hillary. Which was actually them going after a political rival back then.
I am just sick of all of them. trump is a pathetic joke around the world and his supporters just dig in their heels and embrace his ignorance.
They are not even worth responding to anymore.
Well, it seems the liberal/democrat strategy to take over is coming more into the light.
Libs whined and cried that because Hillary won the popular vote and Trump won the EC, which made him the duly elected President, or in easier words, the winner. Because of that, they want to get rid of the EC.
ICE is doing their job by rounding up and deporting illegals, or in other words, enforcing the laws. Libs/democrats don't like it so now they want to get rid of ICE.
Now, we hear James Clyburn of South Carolina said the if Pelosi fails to impeach the President, then we should get rid of the impeachment all together.
The lib/democrat strategy...if we don't get our way, we just get rid of it.
And Pelosi had the gall yesterday to hold a presser and claim she was all about defending the Constitution.
And being a devout Catholic. Worse Catholic in history.
You've already posted this once Xx.
Don't flood my seed with the same link.
All that and I still can't find any "facts". What I did find were leftist / democrat talking points.