House to vote on impeachment

[Pete F.]

Well since her 2nd and 3rd points are incorrect
I’ll say she’s full of ..it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well since her 2nd and 3rd points are incorrect
I’ll say she’s full of ..it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2nd point may be a stretch, and 3rd is in dispute. First point is OK and I like the rest of the video. I didn't expect you to approve.

BTW, your five "Trump is" points that we are supposed to keep in mind are full of ..it.

[ReelinRod]

And again, it's obvious that the whistleleaker wasn't motivated by an overarching concern for the nation, he was concerned that his involvement and coordination with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa would be exposed by any investigation into the in Ukraine interference in our 2016 election, which is directly attributable to Chalupa's actions.

It is obvious that the whistleleaker was given a readout of the call by Vindman. After Vindman admitted he gave multiple people copies of the readout, Rep. Jordan asked him who he gave copies to; Schiff immediately shut down questioning and ordered Vindman not to answer, claiming the identity of the whistleleaker was at risk.

Vindman was the genesis of all this and his stated motivation, that he was, "deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the President to subvert U.S. foreign policy" is either a ruse or an act of insubordination.

Doesn't this dumb clerk understand that the President is the sole authority to establish and implement US foreign policy? Whatever Vindman's subjective characterization is of the President's performance during the call, Vindman's opinion of it is of zero consequence or importance.

Vindman's actions, by sharing the "troubles" he had with the call, was and is the real subversion of US foreign policy. That he shared the classified readout of the call with other (yet unnamed) subversives, should be treated as the criminal offense it is, under both civilian law and the UCMJ.


.

[ReelinRod]

To top it all off, nothing the President did was a crime. The US and Ukraine have a treaty to cooperate to investigate crime and Ukraine is compelled to assist when asked . . .

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-docu.../document-text

"The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be self-executing and will not require new legislation.

Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, which may be civil or administrative in nature.

Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute an offense under the laws of the Requested State."

The following website, -- https://www.globallegalinsights.com/...ations/ukraine -- explains the legal action of the treaty, especially as it relates to corruption investigations.


That site does not allow copy and paste, a screenshot of pertinent passage follows:

Ukraine is required to assist upon request . . . The President of the United States made that request to the President of Ukraine.

It's ironic that Ukraine's "Anti-Corruption Bureau" was established with he assistance of Quid Pro Joe Biden.

And just for fun, let's assume the House does vote out articles and it goes to the Senate . . . Perhaps Quid Pro Joe will be called to testify for the defense, as to his perceived need for Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Bureau and what he believed its powers to be and the requirements for cooperation demanded by the above mentioned treaty.



Just for fun, Quid Pro Joe could be asked if he believes the actions of Burisma, as it relates to his son, would be of interest to Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Bureau as he contemplated it. Now that would be worth watching!


.