Inquiries and Impeachment of Trump

[oeb11]

If the House committees had a valid case for Impeachment - why did they refuse any Trump or Republican witnesses in their slanted, biased travesty of Impeachment hearings - the reason is they had to match the pre-determined outcome - which was determined the day after the Nov 2016 elections.

hh is hypocritical - as are all the Fascist DPST's!

[Jaxson66]

Parnas used access to Trump’s world to help push shadow Ukraine effort, new documents show

Documents and text messages released by House Democrats on Wednesday evening show how Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, used the extensive entree he had to President Trump’s world to help put in motion Giuliani’s shadow Ukraine campaign.

Hundreds of pages of photos, messages and calendar entries show Parnas enlisting a top official at the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action to assist in promoting media coverage he helped arrange and attending functions with Republican congressmen and Trump family members. A calendar entry released as part of the cache shows Parnas had a scheduled breakfast with Trump in New York on Sept. 26 — after the public revelation of a whistleblower complaint about a call the president had with his Ukrainian counterpart.

The new materials made public by the House Intelligence Committee follow an initial trove released Tuesday night that showed Parnas directly involved with efforts to get the Ukrainian president to announce investigations related to former vice president Joe Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...754_story.html

[HoeHummer]

Originally Posted by oeb11

If the House committees had a valid case for Impeachment - why did they refuse any Trump or Republican witnesses in their slanted, biased travesty of Impeachment hearings - the reason is they had to match the pre-determined outcome - which was determined the day after the Nov 2016 elections.

hh is hypocritical - as are all the Fascist DPST's!

Why didn’t Trump allow his people to testify?

Why is he still blocking access?

Names-callings and scatology, oebsy. You need Rexsy to come in a save your ass with a giggly ball.

[Jaxson66]

White House hold on Ukraine aid violated federal law, congressional watchdog says

The White House violated federal law in its hold on security aid to Ukraine last year, according to a decision by a congressional watchdog released on Thursday and reviewed by The Washington Post.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, found the Trump administration violated a law that governs how the White House disburses money approved by Congress.

The GAO decision comes as the Senate prepares for the impeachment trial of President Trump, a process set to begin Thursday.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the decision states. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...96b_story.html

But, but, but Handjob Hannity said it wasn’t a crime to withhold funds

[oeb11]

Do the Fascist DPST's on parade really believe any of these "crimes" they have manufactured will make a difference in a Senate Trial??
If so, please send you deposit of $1million for a bridge in brooklyn i have for sale.

Poor Fascist DPST's - are about to get a rude awakening.

Then nazi Pelosi can start on her 2021 Impeachment!

[eccieuser9500]

Booker is the first left-handed Senator to sign the bullshit oath of impartiality.

[oeb11]

For Once - 9500 has it correct!!!
Any Fascist DPST Senator signing an oath of impartiality is like asking Schiff, Nadler, and nazi Pelosi to take an oath to speak the truthat all times!!
Or, asking 9500 to vote Trump in 2020!
No fascist DPST Senator is impartial - they already have their guilty votes sealed.

[eccieuser9500]

Goldie locks has no ass, but the thin frame and long hair made me pay attention as she was signing.

I request unanimous consent.

Without objection . . .

[Jaxson66]

The trial of Donald John Trump (aka fat lying bastard) officially began January 16, 2020

He should have taken the easy way out and resigned for the good of the country and taken his pardon from Pence. Too late now.

Let’s get it on!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

White House hold on Ukraine aid violated federal law, congressional watchdog says

The White House violated federal law in its hold on security aid to Ukraine last year, according to a decision by a congressional watchdog released on Thursday and reviewed by The Washington Post.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, found the Trump administration violated a law that governs how the White House disburses money approved by Congress.

The GAO decision comes as the Senate prepares for the impeachment trial of President Trump, a process set to begin Thursday.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the decision states. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...96b_story.html

But, but, but Handjob Hannity said it wasn’t a crime to withhold funds

The GAO says he broke the law and the OMB says he didn't along with Hannity and lots of other legal scholars. You choose to believe the former. Color me not surprised and I guess you think saying something is illegal is the same as proving something is illegal, it isn't. In order to submit the GAO's opinion as fact, a court of law would have to make that finding but just like the House Democrats couldn't wait for a court ruling on Trump using EP, they can't wait for a court ruling on whether Trump broke this law or didn't but the Democrats don't care that there is no court ruling, it's all about what you can convince the Jaxsons of the world of.



Republican Senators aren't the Jaxson's of the world and may or may not arrive at the same conclusion, saying something is illegal and proving it in a court of law or an impeachment trial who I'll remind everybody is not a court of law but a purely political process, are two different things. I wonder if the fact that the money was released before the stated dead line in the Congressional bill, would be a mitigating factor in a decision of a court? I wonder if a President has ever done something one government agency thought was illegal and upon reflection and council reversed his decision making the action null and void? Quite sure an argument can be made that releasing the money before a stated time line expires would make that ruling null and void but then I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet.

[oeb11]

Thoughtful as always, UC!

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

The trial of Donald John Trump (aka fat lying bastard) officially began January 16, 2020

He should have taken the easy way out and resigned for the good of the country and taken his pardon from Pence. Too late now.

Let’s get it on!

Marvin Gaye - youTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6QZn9xiuOE
Let's get it On!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The GAO says he broke the law and the OMB says he didn't along with Hannity and lots of other legal scholars. You choose to believe the former. Color me not surprised and I guess you think saying something is illegal is the same as proving something is illegal, it isn't. In order to submit the GAO's opinion as fact, a court of law would have to make that finding but just like the House Democrats couldn't wait for a court ruling on Trump using EP, they can't wait for a court ruling on whether Trump broke this law or didn't but the Democrats don't care that there is no court ruling, it's all about what you can convince the Jaxsons of the world of.



Republican Senators aren't the Jaxson's of the world and may or may not arrive at the same conclusion, saying something is illegal and proving it in a court of law or an impeachment trial who I'll remind everybody is not a court of law but a purely political process, are two different things. I wonder if the fact that the money was released before the stated dead line in the Congressional bill, would be a mitigating factor in a decision of a court? I wonder if a President has ever done something one government agency thought was illegal and upon reflection and council reversed his decision making the action null and void? Quite sure an argument can be made that releasing the money before a stated time line expires would make that ruling null and void but then I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet.

Just one correction. Sean Hannity, whom I assume you are talking about, is far from a "legal scholar". College dropout. Very right leaning. Hardly an unbiased source.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Parnas used access to Trump’s world to help push shadow Ukraine effort, new documents show.

You mean the "shadow Ukraine effort" extensively covered by all those Ambassador's and such at the impeachment inquiry? Nothing new there. The question is, was that illegal for a President to ask any American citizen, especially a lawyer that represents the President, to make inquires for him? History is full of Presidents enlisting persons not in existing government channels to help him.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...ree-precedents

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back...ry?id=47753517


Back-channel communications are nothing new for White House

Several previous administrations have used back channels.



You really should do a little research before you post Jaxson but then that isn't your thing, being informed is it?



Documents and text messages released by House Democrats on Wednesday evening show how Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, used the extensive entree he had to President Trump’s world to help put in motion Giuliani’s shadow Ukraine campaign.

Hundreds of pages of photos, messages and calendar entries show Parnas enlisting a top official at the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action to assist in promoting media coverage he helped arrange and attending functions with Republican congressmen and Trump family members.


Surely that's illegal, right?



A calendar entry released as part of the cache shows Parnas had a scheduled breakfast with Trump in New York on Sept. 26 — after the public revelation of a whistleblower complaint about a call the president had with his Ukrainian counterpart.


Surely that's illegal, right?


The new materials made public by the House Intelligence Committee follow an initial trove released Tuesday night that showed Parnas directly involved with efforts to get the Ukrainian president to announce investigations related to former vice president Joe Biden.


But we already knew that is what Trump wanted and whether Parnas or Guiliani or your mother was involved doesn't amount to crap much less new information that proves what we all already know and don't believe was either illegal or amounts to an impeachable offense.

Not a chance in hell 20 Republican Senators see this new "revelation" as a smoking gun. Many Presidents have enlisted people they trust to investigate and make deals in their name. Every President since Adams has been accused of abusing his power by the opposing party and you can't accuse a President of obstructing Congress for exercising his powers given to him under the Constitution that in essence says if there is a disagreement between the Congress and the President, the Supreme Court will decide who is correct or who isn't not the Congress or the President.


If the Congress subpoena's documents and administrative persons ( which they did against Obama and he refused ) and the President says no, it is the legal duty of the Congress to take the President to court not say he broke the law in refusing.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Not a chance in hell 20 Republican Senators see this new "revelation" as a smoking gun. Many Presidents have enlisted people they trust to investigate and make deals in their name. Every President since Adams has been accused of abusing his power by the opposing party and you can't accuse a President of obstructing Congress for exercising his powers given to him under the Constitution that in essence says if there is a disagreement between the Congress and the President, the Supreme Court will decide who is correct or who isn't not the Congress or the President.


If the Congress subpoena's documents and administrative persons ( which they did against Obama and he refused ) and the President says no, it is the legal duty of the Congress to take the President to court not say he broke the law in refusing.

Like I previously posted, if the trial of the fat lying bastard was being held in a court of law I suppose the judge would agree with you. But, the trial of the fat lying bastard squatting in the Oval Office is a trial of public opinion and it appears anything could happen with a threshold of 51 votes.

I don’t believe the Senate will remove the fat lying bastard and I’ve never claimed they would. Get your facts straight before you include me in your posts.