What evidence is there that he bribed Ukraine? Is your evidence something along the lines of (taking off on your previous bank robber analogy) he wanted to rob a bank but didn't, so he is guilty of robbery?

Nope, go look at the time line.

What fishy stuff. I've asked a few times and you constantly say well Hunter got a job he wasn't qualified for. What exactly is the "fishy" stuff bc w/o someone explaining to me what it is I think accusing them of fishy stuff is very scummy?

The timeline can lead to various speculations . . . including yours. But they are still speculations.

No, any reasonable person would recognize that when the Trump admin. saw other people now knew about the holdup and they then unfroze the $ w/in a day or 2 it was bc they got caught. I don't believe they ever gave any explanation for releasing the $.

but not reasonable to assume
that Hunter getting a job in Ukraine is related to his father being the executive branch’s point person on issues related to that ukraine, at the time Hunter got the job.

It seems your standard for what’s reasonable suspicion, depends on politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be reasonable to recognize various scenarios. But they are still speculations. And yes, they gave explanations for releasing the money. There are various explanations given by others as well. There is even this neutral explanation by Byron York:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...swer-is-simple

But the main crux is not the temporary hold, which was not illegal, but the notion that it was for political gain. That can only be speculation since only Trump could actually know that. And ultimately, it is all irrelevant. The aid was given. Zelensky said there was no pressure.

And, in any event, as Dershowitz pointed out, whether what Trump did was "right" or "wrong" it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Impeachment should require a higher standard or else it creates the danger of creating the Executive branch a stepchild of Congress.

That is not illegal or corrupt (or nepotism) like how you have been trying to spin it. That is the child of a connected person benefiting from their parent. Happens all the time. The Bush girl got a tv gig bc of her father. C. Clinton got a good job bc of her parents. Nothing "corrupt' there - just benefiting from their parents.

So you have nothing and tar the name of 2 people based on nothing.

If anything,this portrayal of Hunter Biden is flattering compared to what is known about him. But some folks ( libs) choose to ignore the character he has displayed. This guy is pure scum and has done more tarring of the Biden name than the media or right could EVER hope for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS, please look up the definition of nepotism and stop embarrassing yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since Dershowitz is easier, I'll do him first.

Short and sweet is, The idea that only violations of criminal law are impeachable is logically, legally, morally, constitutionally, historically and factually absurd.

Common-law crimes are no harder to define with precision than crimes written down in a statute.
Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.” If someone is accused of burglary in a state where the crime isn’t defined by statute, no defense lawyer would respond by announcing that burglary is vague or made up.

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.”

Once again, the argument that Dersh is making undercuts the defense. He is saying any kind of quid pro quo, even if there is a personal benefit is not impeachable, let alone a crime. Then what was there to investigate w Biden??? He has the same defense!

You cite "speculation" to prove your explanation of the money being withheld illegally, Byron York is not a witness of any type.

Laura Cooper is, along with others and plenty of documentary evidence exists.

On the same day in Washington, officials representing national security agencies in a meeting of the “Ukraine Deputies Small Group,” convened by the NSC express “unanimous support” for lifting the hold on security aid to Ukraine. Laura Cooper relays the Defense Department’s sense of urgency about the legal requirement to spend the money by Sept. 30. A readout sent by John Rood, head of policy at the Defense Department, to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and reported by Just Security’s Kate Brannen, makes clear that the hold occurred at the direction of President Trump:

OMB noted that the President’s direction via the Chief of Staff in early July was to suspend security assistance to Ukraine including by blocking the $115 [Foreign Military Financing] congressional notification and by halting execution of the $250M FY19 USAI programs.

Aug. 3, 2019 — OMB political appointee Michael Duffey signs a letter informing Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan and U.S. Agency for International Development Deputy Administrator Bonnie Glick of “a `reapportionment’ of over a dozen different funding categories, including Ukrainian military aid, and ordering an `accounting’ of the unobligated balances in each account,” according to the Washington Post. The letter served as a warning to the agencies that the administration planned to review and could potentially cancel” all $391 million of military aid to Ukraine.

“Without being provided explanation or justification about why the administration was delaying the aid, some career officials at the Office of Management and Budget became worried they didn’t have the legal authority to hold up the funds,” which had been appropriated by Congress, the Wall Street Journal reported. “While career civil servants put an initial hold on the aid,” Duffey “was given the authority for continuing to keep the aid on hold after the career staff began raising their concerns to political officials at OMB.”

Aug. 6, 2019 — Duffey emails acting Pentagon Comptroller Elaine McCusker that he plans to extend the hold. McCusker raises the question of whether the extension would affect the Defense Department’s ability to spent the money before Sept. 30, as legally required by Congress.

8/9
The same day, acting Pentagon Comptroller Elaine McCusker emails senior OMB officials, including Sandy and Duffey, to warn that it may not be possible to spend the money before the end of the fiscal year unless the hold is lifted by Aug. 12. That element was blacked out when the administration released that email in December 2019 in response to a FOIA request.

Aug. 17, 2019 — Sondland asks Volker in a text whether the U.S. side still wants Zelenskyy “to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma [cq]?” This may indicate Zelenskyy has balked. Volker responds, “That’s the clear message so far…I’m hoping we can put something out there that causes him to respond with that.”

Less than 10 days later, Politico publishes an exclusive with the headline, “Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia.”

Aug. 21, 2019 — DoD’s McCusker emails her DOD colleagues that members of the House Appropriations Committee had been in Ukraine earlier that month and sent the Pentagon a request for information regarding the funding.

Aug. 22, 2019 — The Trump administration abandons its effort to slash foreign assistance programs, but the military assistance to Ukraine remains suspended until it is finally released on Sept. 11. If the funding hadn’t been released before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it would have been canceled, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Aug. 26, 2019 – The Inspector General forwards the intelligence community whistleblower complaint to Acting DNI Maguire.

On the same day, Duffey emails McCusker that the funding hold is being extended again, Just Security‘s Kate Brannen reported. That prompts McCusker to ask, “What is the status of the impoundment paperwork?” She adds in the rest of the exchange, “It is now necessary — legal teams were discussing last week.” McCusker’s side of the exchange was redacted in emails the administration released in December 2019. McCusker later that day tells Duffey that the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) also had begun asking questions about the aid.

Aug. 27, 2019 — Defense Secretary Esper’s chief of staff, shares with McCusker an email he received the day before from L3 Harris Technology, a defense contractor that was slated to provide some of the allotted equipment to Ukraine, saying the company had heard of a hold on the aid and asking what was happening, according to reporting by Just Security‘s Kate Brannen. McCusker responds, “This situation is really unworkable made particularly difficult because OMB lawyers continue to consistently mischaracterize the process — and the information we have provided.”

McCusker also gives Duffey a heads-up that the Pentagon is preparing a letter from the deputy defense secretary to Russell Vought, the acting director of OMB, that says, “We have repeatedly advised OMB officials that pauses beyond Aug. 19, 2019 jeopardize the Department’s ability to obligate USAI funding prudently and fully, consistent with the Impoundment Control Act.” The letter goes on to say that, since the latest hold had expired and had not been extended, the Pentagon is proceeding with obligating the money and that any further delay would require “a special message [to Congress] proposing rescission or deferral of funding.”

But later that day, Duffey extends the hold again.

Aug. 28, 2019 – Then-U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton becomes the first high-level Trump administration official to visit Kyiv since President Zelenskyy’s inauguration. Bolton says the two discussed a possible meeting between the two presidents during a trip Trump planned at the time to Poland.

The same day, Politico breaks the news that President Trump was delaying the distribution of $250 million of fiscal 2019 security assistance that Ukraine needs to fight its war with Russia on its eastern flank, by asking his administration to review how it was being spent. The hold on the aid package at the same time as Trump and Giuliani were agitating publicly for Ukraine to investigate Biden raises the specter that the U.S. president was using congressionally appropriated taxpayer dollars as leverage to coerce a foreign government to investigate his potential rival in the 2020 election. It later emerges that a separate military aid package of $141.5 million in Foreign Military Financing also was included in the suspension, for a total of almost $400 million.

As the Trump administration prepares talking points for its response to the story, McCusker emails Duffey to say that she disagrees with the final point that says, “No action has been taken by OMB that would preclude the obligation of these funds before the end of the fiscal year.” The emails that the administration released in December 2019 in response to a FOIA request redacted McCusker’s note.

Aug. 30, 2019 — After Esper and Pompeo meet with President Trump, Duffey emails McCusker, “Clear direction from POTUS to hold.” He adds that he would send new paperwork extending the hold. But in the meantime, Esper tells Chewning that no decision emerged from the meeting.

Late August: The Acting Director of National Intelligence and Inspector General of the Intelligence Community make a written criminal referral to the Justice Department after the Inspector General conducts an inquiry into the whistleblower’s complaint, according to Acting DNI Maguire’s congressional testimony and the New York Times. (See Aug. 14 entry for verbal criminal referral.)

September 2019 – The Wall Street Journal reports on Sept. 24, “Ukrainian officials earlier this month expressed concern to U.S. senators that the aid had been held up as a penalty for resisting that pressure.”

Sept. 1, 2019 — Vice President Mike Pence, standing in for President Trump at a World War II commemoration in Warsaw, meets with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, who raises the question of the hold on military assistance. Sondland and Morrison also attended the meeting. Afterwards, Sondland has a brief side conversation with Zelenskyy aide Yermak and tells him that the aid likely would not be released until Ukraine publicly announced the investigations.

The same day, U.S. Senators Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, and Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, visit Kyiv and meet with Zelenskyy, accompanied by Taylor. Zelenskyy’s “first question to the senators was about the withheld security assistance,” Taylor later tells the impeachment inquiry. “Both senators stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine’ s most important strategic asset and that President Zelenskyy should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics,” Taylor says.

The same day in Washington, the Trump administration again extends the hold on Ukraine assistance.

Sept. 9, 2019 – Three U.S. House committees launch probe into Trump and Giuliani pressure campaign

The House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight and Reform committees announce a joint investigation of Trump and Giuliani’s alleged efforts to strongarm Ukraine into pursuing two investigations for the president’s political gain, including by threatening to withhold $250 million in security assistance. The joint press release says public records show the efforts have continued “for nearly two years” and were conducted “under the guise of anti-corruption activity.”

Sept. 9, 2019 — Duffey adds OMB and Pentagon lawyers to a response to McCusker that contradicts months of email exchanges, saying OMB had, in fact, “authoriz[ed] DoD to proceed with all processes necessary to obligate funds” for Ukraine security aid and laying all responsibility for any delay onto DoD. McCusker replies, “You can’t be serious. I am speechless.”

Sept. 11, 2019 – Trump releases the hold on U.S. security assistance to Ukraine

Sorry Pete, I just can't get myself to trod through another one of your long tickey tack tangled web revelations. I tried scanning, and kept running into possibilities and concerns about possibilities and interpretations. A piling on preponderance of speculation and interpretable circumstance doesn't, sheerly because of the large number of words, make it a convincing argument to remove a President over a no harm dispute about why money was withheld and then not withheld and which led to a relation with Ukraine being cemented by agreeable dispositions on both sides.

ding...ding...ding....:buds:

Paul pointed out recently that he'd lapped up and digested every bit of evidence and testimony that schiff chose to cherry pick and offer to fit the narrative and then completely ignored what the trump team offered in response and then declared himself fully informed and of great judgment and probably a better person with an open mind for having done so....so...that's kind of where we're at

And your rebuttal is based on lies.
There is enough evidence that I cited.
Yes, it is a long and tangled web that Floridaman wove, but making it hard to discern the truth does not make him innocent.

The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

When are you going to smarten up and recognize that when you think I am wrong, you usually are the one who is wrong.


nep·o·tism

/ˈnepəˌtizəm/


the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

Pls. point that out to me where I said anything about the Trump team otherwise be a good snarky little boy and say you're sorry.

Thanks for making my point,son.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like this defense

“I ate him because I’m a murdering cannibal, but, in all fairness, it was also lunchtime.” - Jeffrey Dahmer

OK . . . now you're not merely demonstrating the irredeemable bias you regularly demonstrate re anything about Trump, but you're beginning to sound delusional . . . if not actually crazy.

BTW . . . The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

You're just missing some facts, Dahmer was hungry so he ate might be missing some also.

As deputy foreign minister of Ukraine, it was Olena Zerkal’s job to read incoming diplomatic cables from embassies around the world. One from Washington caught her eye back in July, she recalled: It said the Trump administration had frozen military aid for Ukraine.

Laura K. Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense, said in Congressional testimony that Ukrainian diplomats knew about the aid freeze at least by July 25, when they began to question United States officials about it.

But did they "discover" that the freeze was specified for interference with the next election?

The delay was not illegal. It is documented that Trump had for some time been concerned about corruption continuing in Ukraine. A new President had just been elected in Ukraine. Getting assurances from him that he would do what he ran on, get rid of corruption, was a valid reason, given that it was the President's duty to ensure that the money was to be spent as Congress directed and not spent on continuing corruption before the money was given.

BTW, the money was delivered on time. And Zelensky said there was no pressure.

That the rest of the evidence will show how mealy-mouthed that claim is, is the danger for the Trumplican party.

A couple of days ago it was that there was no quid prop quo.
Now Floridaman's Alan Dershowitz says "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

That assertion amounts to that even if all of the allegations are true — that Floridaman was, in fact, seeking election advantage when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponents — it would still be appropriate.

Now I'm not saying that it is not normal for presidents to make foreign policy decisions with politics in mind, but what Trump did far exceeded that. He used his power to highjack a national security issue for the purpose of benefiting personally, while clearly harming U.S. interests.

But what if Floridaman sincerely, if misguidedly, believed that killing his opponents was vital for the public interest?

Yeah, but you're speculating--that there was a hijacking rather than a legitimate delay and that it was for some avoidable and nefarious personal benefit.

And there is this unavoidable fact: the money was not hijacked, it was delivered. And Zelensky said their was no pressure. And there was no quo.

How long before the talking points wear out? Do you have a suit? Fly to DC and join the party.

I don't know how long the talking point about influencing an election will last. But it sounds so convincing that it will probably keep resurfacing even if it temporarily takes a rest.

At least we can agree Trump is desperately trying to influence an election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Question: If Floridaman’s actions do not merit impeachment and removal then what actions do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dershowitz just said the president can do anything to get re-elected if they think it’s in the public’s interest. This is full on crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have stated very clearly, several times, that Trump has no power to keep anything he says or does from influencing an election. No politician does. It is inevitably in the nature of political action or speech that its consequence will influence an election. There is no desperation required for that to happen. It is a basic consequence, intended or not, that it will do so.

So claiming an illicit abuse of power because of a politician's speech or action is ridiculous. It is not an abuse of power. It is a use and projection of power. Otherwise, all politicians are "abusing power" every time they say or do anything political in carrying out there prescribed duties. I agree with Dershowitz that it can only be an illicit abuse if it is done specifically and solely for personal financial gain.

I agree with that view. I doubt if you do. But if you do, then we agree.

Bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

ummmm...have you see the democrap line up????? I don't think any influence is necessary :hihi:

come in, there’s more impressive talent there than the Yankees had in Murderers Row!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Breathe in
.
.
.
Breathe out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Puppies will help
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what are you saying? that if a first term president has an idea that will
benefit all of us, he can’t enact it if
it will also help him at the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bizarre legal strategy, we now admit he did the dirty dead, but he can do anything he likes in order to get elected if he thinks it’s in the public interest. Can you imagine how bad that could get if expanded into other areas of what he perceives is not in the public interest.

He can seek help from a foreign power to influence our elections, illegally hold back military aid putting our national security at risk and when caught obstruct congress from doing its job, all because what is important is getting re-elected because he perceives it’s in the public interest.

Crazy wacky legal argument is what your left with when you really can’t defend the charges.

Did you mean dirty deed?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:hihi::hihi: dun dirt "cheep"