Inquiries and Impeachment of Trump

[Jaxson66]

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.

Jaxson realizes the trial isn’t a court of law it’s a court of public opinion, and my opinion, the fat lying bastard did that shit!





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.

The defendants lawyers should make those documents available.
Is Bolton’s comment about the perfect call being a drug deal relevant?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 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

I said long ago here that Mueller was irrelevant and the biggest threat to Trump were the three stooges, Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman. Everyone thought it was an absurd conspiracy theory. It may turn out I was closer to the truth than you thought.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I said long ago here that Mueller was irrelevant and the biggest threat to Trump were the three stooges, Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman. Everyone thought it was an absurd conspiracy theory. It may turn out I was closer to the truth than you thought.

Just piggy-backing.

I said long ago on here that Don McGahn is the biggest threat to the POTUS. Where as Parnas and Fruman are bungling hoods in equal company with weaselly Giuliani and the prez.

I'm sure he's relevant to the Obstruction of Congress article.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Just piggy-backing.

I said long ago on here that Don McGahn is the biggest threat to the POTUS. Where as Parnas and Fruman are bungling hoods in equal company with weaselly Giuliani and the prez.

I'm sure he's relevant to the Obstruction of Congress article.

Nobody is relevant to the Obstruction of Congress charge because it is completely baseless. Claiming Executive Privilege is not obstruction. Obstruction would be defying a Supreme Court decision. Did Obama obstruct Congress but was just lucky to get away with it?




https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eat-democrats/


The impeachment articles are a vindication for Trump



After three years in which Democrats accused President Trump of a host of criminal acts — from bribery and extortion to campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and even treason — they have finally introduced articles of impeachment that allege none of those things. Not only have they dropped the charge of bribery, the words that gripped Washington — “quid pro quo” — don’t even appear in the document.



This is a major retreat by Democrats, who have effectively admitted the president did not commit any statutory crimes. Indeed, if these articles are approved, this will be the first presidential impeachment in history in which no statutory crimes are even alleged. In that alone, Trump can claim vindication.

Instead, Democrats settled on two noncriminal allegations: obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. Both charges are farcical.
Take obstruction. Democrats claim Trump engaged in “unprecedented” defiance of congressional subpoenas and “sought to arrogate to himself” the right to withhold documents and witnesses “as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives.” Please. If anyone is “arrogating” “unilateral” power to themselves, it is House Democrats.

Democrats seem not to understand that the legislative and the executive are equal branches of government. They do not get the last word when a president invokes executive privilege. When a dispute arises between the two branches, the president has a right to appeal to the third equal branch of government — the judiciary. Trump did that, as is his constitutional right. If he appealed to the courts and lost but still refused to cooperate, then Congress would have every right to charge him with obstruction of Congress.
But Democrats refused to wait for judicial review. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) actually said, “We cannot be at the mercy of the courts.” Excuse me? And Democrats are accusing Trump of being “a threat to the Constitution”? Democrats are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing. As Professor Jonathan Turley told Democrats on the Judiciary Committee “We have three branches, not two. … If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.”

Democrats are also completely wrong when they declare Trump’s invocation of executive privilege “unprecedented.” In 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to provide documents and witnesses related to the botched gun-running operation “Fast and Furious.” Holder refused to fully comply. When the committee threatened to hold him in contempt, President Barack Obama stepped in and invoked executive privilege. The administration argued that “compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the Constitution.”


Guess what? The same Democrats now seeking to impeach Trump for obstruction of Congress backed Obama’s obstruction of Congress. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote, “The White House assertion is backed by decades of precedent that has recognized the need for the president and his senior advisers to receive candid advice and information from their top aides.” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said the effort to hold Holder in contempt for refusing to comply was “politically-motivated.” Pelosi called it — wait for it — worse than a “witch hunt.” By the plain language of the Democrats’ articles of impeachment, Obama committed an impeachable offense. And yet today, Holder — the man at the center of Obama’s obstruction scheme — has the chutzpah to write that Attorney General William P. Barr is “unfit to lead the Justice Department.” What a disgrace.

As for abuse of power, this will be the first presidential impeachment in history in which no violations of the law are even alleged. The justification for impeaching Trump without a statutory crime is that impeachment is a political, not legal, proceeding. Fair enough. Democrats held weeks of hearings to convince the American people that Trump’s alleged abuse of power rises to the level of impeachment and removal. Instead, their slipshod inquiry convinced Americans of the opposite.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

The defendants lawyers should make those documents available.


Only if the courts say he must


Is Bolton’s comment about the perfect call being a drug deal relevant?


Democrats can certainly make the case that it is but is that evidence of anything since we all know it wasn't an actual drug deal but would require further explanation from Bolton and that testimony may not be given if Trump claims EP unless the SC rules that Bolton must testify.

My understanding of the comment is that Bolton thought Guiliani having anything to do with Ukraine was a wrong decision but certainly not an illegal decision. Would that satisfy you as to an explanation of "drug deal"? Would it further the evidence that what Trump said was illegal? If it was illegal and broke an actual law, why wasn't that illegal act spelled out in the articles with statutory language explaining the illegal act? Just this week Nadler said there was ample evidence ( shades of Schiff saying he had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump conspired with Russia ) that Trump committed extortion and yet extortion is not presented in the articles to my knowledge and neither was bribery, two actual illegal acts spelled out in the Constitution that would compel impeachment.

[oeb11]

HF - your debate arguments are correct and well founded.

None of which gives a moment pause for consideration to the Fascist DPST's.
Their Impeachment is purely political - and planned since Nov 2016.

Trump lawfully occupies the Oval office - that is the real basis of the sham,Impeachment Articles.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Nobody is relevant to the Obstruction of Congress charge because it is completely baseless.

Obstruction of Congress, Impeachment and Constitutional Conflict

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruct...ional-conflict

Among the most important outstanding issues as impeachment moves to the Senate is whether senators will attempt to obtain the testimony of senior executive branch officials who have, to date, declined to testify. Shortly before the New Year, a New York Times story based on newly reported emails and communications suggested that the officials who know the most about the withheld aid to Ukraine—former National Security Adviser John Bolton; Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney; Office of Management and Budget officials Robert Blair, Michael Duffey and Russell Vought; and White House lawyers—are the same officials who, at President Trump’s direction, have refused to testify in the House impeachment investigation. And a report on unredacted emails involving Duffey and Blair by Kate Brannen at Just Security further illustrates the central role of these men in the events underlying the impeachment charges.

Just sayin'.

[oeb11]

Keep sayin' - right up through acquittal!

[rexdutchman]

4 more

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Nobody is relevant to the Obstruction of Congress charge because it is completely baseless. Claiming Executive Privilege is not obstruction. Obstruction would be defying a Supreme Court decision. Did Obama obstruct Congress but was just lucky to get away with it?




https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eat-democrats/


The impeachment articles are a vindication for Trump



After three years in which Democrats accused President Trump of a host of criminal acts — from bribery and extortion to campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and even treason — they have finally introduced articles of impeachment that allege none of those things. Not only have they dropped the charge of bribery, the words that gripped Washington — “quid pro quo” — don’t even appear in the document.



This is a major retreat by Democrats, who have effectively admitted the president did not commit any statutory crimes. Indeed, if these articles are approved, this will be the first presidential impeachment in history in which no statutory crimes are even alleged. In that alone, Trump can claim vindication.

Instead, Democrats settled on two noncriminal allegations: obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. Both charges are farcical.
Take obstruction. Democrats claim Trump engaged in “unprecedented” defiance of congressional subpoenas and “sought to arrogate to himself” the right to withhold documents and witnesses “as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives.” Please. If anyone is “arrogating” “unilateral” power to themselves, it is House Democrats.

Democrats seem not to understand that the legislative and the executive are equal branches of government. They do not get the last word when a president invokes executive privilege. When a dispute arises between the two branches, the president has a right to appeal to the third equal branch of government — the judiciary. Trump did that, as is his constitutional right. If he appealed to the courts and lost but still refused to cooperate, then Congress would have every right to charge him with obstruction of Congress.
But Democrats refused to wait for judicial review. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) actually said, “We cannot be at the mercy of the courts.” Excuse me? And Democrats are accusing Trump of being “a threat to the Constitution”? Democrats are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing. As Professor Jonathan Turley told Democrats on the Judiciary Committee “We have three branches, not two. … If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.”

Democrats are also completely wrong when they declare Trump’s invocation of executive privilege “unprecedented.” In 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to provide documents and witnesses related to the botched gun-running operation “Fast and Furious.” Holder refused to fully comply. When the committee threatened to hold him in contempt, President Barack Obama stepped in and invoked executive privilege. The administration argued that “compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the Constitution.”


Guess what? The same Democrats now seeking to impeach Trump for obstruction of Congress backed Obama’s obstruction of Congress. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote, “The White House assertion is backed by decades of precedent that has recognized the need for the president and his senior advisers to receive candid advice and information from their top aides.” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said the effort to hold Holder in contempt for refusing to comply was “politically-motivated.” Pelosi called it — wait for it — worse than a “witch hunt.” By the plain language of the Democrats’ articles of impeachment, Obama committed an impeachable offense. And yet today, Holder — the man at the center of Obama’s obstruction scheme — has the chutzpah to write that Attorney General William P. Barr is “unfit to lead the Justice Department.” What a disgrace.

As for abuse of power, this will be the first presidential impeachment in history in which no violations of the law are even alleged. The justification for impeaching Trump without a statutory crime is that impeachment is a political, not legal, proceeding. Fair enough. Democrats held weeks of hearings to convince the American people that Trump’s alleged abuse of power rises to the level of impeachment and removal. Instead, their slipshod inquiry convinced Americans of the opposite.

Once again you post an opinion piece that’s 35 days old ignoring the fact that more information has been exposed about the shakedown of Ukraine. The fact that Parnas has implicated Pence, Rudy, Mulvaney, Bolton, Perry and Sekelow of knowingly participating in the shakedown. Then there’s that pesky fact the GAO has determined there was indeed a violation of the law withholding funds for Ukraine.

Pesky facts that weren’t available 35 days ago. But it does fit the Cult narrative.

[Jaxson66]

Trump can’t stop John Bolton from testifying
Once they’re out of office, officials who want to talk are shielded by the First Amendment.

As President Trump’s impeachment trial begins, the question of who, if anyone, will testify remains unresolved — with much of the speculation swirling around John Bolton, the former national security adviser.

Democrats hope that Bolton, who left the White House on poor terms in September, will prove a devastating witness, should enough Republicans join Democrats to issue a subpoena for his testimony. He apparently referred to the plan to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in search of dirt on former vice president Joe Biden, as a “drug deal” he wanted nothing to do with, and was reportedly one of three senior officials — along with Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — who met with President Trump to express their concerns about the withholding of military aid for Ukraine.
That may be why Trump said Friday that he’d assert executive privilege if Bolton were called to testify. “I think you have to for the sake of the office,” he told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham. Taking him at his word, Trump is suggesting that he will instruct Bolton not to answer certain lines of inquiry because doing so would set a precedent that could impede the ability of future presidents to keep communications with top aides confidential.

Bolton has given mixed signals about his willingness to testify. But if he wants to tell all, and the Senate wants to hear it, Trump almost certainly can’t stop him. Executive privilege is a shield that presidents have wielded to attempt to protect the executive branch from efforts by Congress, prosecutors or private litigants to force its employees (including former employees) to testify or provide documents. But we — a legal scholar and former executive branch lawyer who have studied and worked on these issues — are unaware of any instance in which an administration has asserted executive privilege to block the testimony of a former executive branch employee who wanted to talk.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...on-testifying/

[oeb11]

Desperation in the DPST party ranks!!
LOL!
Denial and projection are not going to work for the Fascist DPST's!

[Jaxson66]

Trump’s defense will be led by a ‘lunatic,’ ‘wacko’ and ‘off his rocker’ Ken Starr, according to Trump himself

President Trump on Friday chose the people who will be defending him at his impeachment trial. And one of them is “a lunatic” who was “a disaster” during the last impeachment of a president, according to Trump himself.

Trump has apparently pulled a 180 on Kenneth Starr since the late 1990s. Back then Starr was investigating Bill Clinton and writing the “Starr Report,” which was used as the basis for impeachment. Trump at the time derided the impeachment — and Starr right along with it.

Asked by Matt Lauer, “Do you think the president should be impeached?” Trump responded with harsh words not for the impeachment process but for Starr personally.

“I think Ken Starr’s a lunatic,” Trump said. “I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster.”

Trump added in the same interview: ”I really think that Ken Starr was terrible.”

[oeb11]

Ancient history.

Fascist DPST's do not ralize "Times Change"!

As do people.


Bloomberg - per this view of the world - would still be a Republican.

and does j666 wish he still was - so there would be no "moderates" to compete with the marxist DPST radicals for the nomination. ???
Not to mention - Bloomberg is Jewish - and the "squad" and radicals are all violently racist Anti-semitic!
It is a qualifier to be a "Progressive" DPST!

[eccieuser9500]

Dershowitz doesn't want to be known as the president's lawyer. Just a defender of the Constitution. He will argue abuse of power is not impeachable. Looks like the strategy will be yes, he did it, but it's not impeachable. I say . . .

What Do Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and Now Donald Trump Have in Common?

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...p-impeachment/

Dershowitz has also come under fire in recent years for his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, the lawyer helped Epstein secure a lenient plea deal, serving only 13 months in county jail and shutting down an FBI probe into the Epstein’s dealings. As recently as a week after the shocking 2018 Miami Herald report that shone a light on the extent of Epstein’s crimes, Dershowitz volunteered that he was “still technically” the pedophile’s lawyer.