Why the Senate SHOULD vote to convict

[Pete F.]

Senate Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the republic itself. I'm not naive enough to think they would hold Democratic presidents to the low standard they've applied to Trump, but all future presidents will be able to point to Trump to justify:

a. Soliciting foreign attacks on our elections;

b. Using federal appropriations or other resources to pressure foreign governments to help them win reelection;

c. Implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all;

d. Firing the heads of the government's top law enforcement agencies for allowing investigations of the president;

e. Retaliating against whistleblowers and witnesses who testify before Congress;

f. Investigating investigators who investigate the president;

g. Attempting to retaliate against American companies perceived as insufficiently supportive of the president;

h. Attempting to award the president's own company federal contracts;

i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications;

j. Communicating secretly with foreign leaders, with foreign governments knowing things about White House communications that our own government doesn't know;

k. Abandoning steadfast allies abruptly without prior warning to Congress to cede territory to Russian influence;

l. Destroying or concealing records containing politically damaging information;

m. Employing white nationalists and expressing empathy for white nationalists after an armed rally in which one of them murdered a counter protester and another shot a gun into a crowd;

n. Disseminating Russian disinformation;

o. Covering for the murder of a journalist working for an American news outlet by a foreign government that is a major customer of the president's private business;

p. Violating human rights and international law at our border;

q. Operating a supposed charity that was forced to shut down over its unlawful activities;

r. Lying incessantly to the American people;

s. Relentlessly attacking the free press;

t. Spending 1/4 of days in office visiting his own golf courses and 1/3 of them visiting his private businesses;

u. Violating the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution;

w. Misusing the security clearance process to benefit his children and target perceived enemies;

x. Drawing down on government efforts to combat domestic terrorism in order to appease a segment of his base;

y. Refusing to aggressively investigate and build defenses against interference in our election by Russia, after the country helped him win an election;

z. Engaging in a documented campaign of obstruction of a Special Counsel's investigation.

aa. Lying about a hush money payoff and omitting his debt to his attorney for that payoff from his financial disclosure report (which is a crime if done knowingly and willfully);

bb. Coordinating with his attorney in connection with activities that got the attorney convicted of criminal campaign finance violations;

cc. Interfering in career personnel actions, which are required by law to be conducted free of political influence;

dd. Refusing to fire a repeat Hatch Act offender after receiving a recommendation of termination from the president's own Senate-confirmed appointee based on dozens of violations;

ee. Calling members of Congress names and accusing them of treason for conducting oversight;

ff. Attacking states and private citizens frequently and in terms that demean the presidency (see Johnson impeachment);

gg. Using the presidency to tout his private businesses and effectively encouraging a party, candidates, businesses and others to patronize his business;

hh. Causing the federal government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses and costing the American taxpayers well over $100 million on boondoggle trips to visit his properties;

ii. Hosting foreign leaders at his private businesses;

jj. Calling on the Justice Department to investigate political rivals;

kk. Using the presidency to endorse private businesses and the books of various authors as a reward for supporting the president;

ll. Engaging in nepotism based on a flawed OLC opinion;

mm. Possible misuse of appropriated funds by reallocating them in ways that may be illegal;

nn. Repeatedly criticizing American allies, supporting authoritarian leaders around the world, and undermining NATO; and

oo. Bypassing Congress through the use of "acting" heads of agencies and cabinets.

None of the Republican Senators defending Trump could say with a straight face that they would tolerate a Democratic president doing the same thing. But, given this dangerous precedent, they may have no choice if they ever lose control of the Senate. Is that what they want?

And this is only what Trump did while the remote threat of Congressional oversight existed. If the Senate acquits him, he will know for certain there is nothing that could ever lead to Congress removing him from office. And what he does next will similarly set precedents.

At this point, I would remind these unpatriotic Senators of the line "you have a republic if you can keep it," but a variation on this line may soon be more apt when Trump redoubles his attack on our election: You have a republic, if you can call this a republic.

Walter Michael Shaub Jr. (born February 20, 1971) is an American attorney specializing in government ethics who, from January 9, 2013 to July 19, 2017, was the director of the United States Office of Government Ethics.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications;

.

Someone who voted for Hilary, is going to argue that Trump's use of personal devices for official work, shows that trump is unfit to be POTUS.

I know you recently looked up the Webster definition of bigot. Try looking up the word "irony".

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Someone who voted for Hilary, is going to argue that Trump's use of personal devices for official work, shows that trump is unfit to be POTUS.

I know you recently looked up the Webster definition of bigot. Try looking up the word "irony".

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
"
@AnnieClarkCole
: How can anyone vote for Hillary when she careless with emails that jeopardize our security. She is not to be trusted."
10:55 PM · Sep 30, 2015·Twitter for Android

[Sea Dangles]

🍔🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

🍔🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
"
@gretawire
: PresObama is not busy talking to Congress about Syria..he is playing golf ...go figure"
12:04 AM · Sep 8, 2013·Twitter for Android

[Sea Dangles]

🙈🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

����
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is actually one of your better posts. That big list of crap that you started this thread with is the more typical boring and time wasting mischaracterization that you too often make us wade through.

[Pete F.]

(1) Trump withheld crucial military aid from Ukraine;

(2) Ukraine knew it;

(3) While the aid was being withheld, Trump asked Ukraine for a “favor”—investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens;

(4) The request for investigations morphed into a demand for a public statement;

(5) Ukraine agreed to make the public announcement, was working with U.S. government officials on a script for the announcement, and was scheduled to deliver it in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria;

(6) Ukraine canceled the CNN interview only when Trump released the aid after the scheme was exposed by the whistleblower report.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

(1) Trump withheld crucial military aid from Ukraine;

(2) Ukraine knew it;

(3) While the aid was being withheld, Trump asked Ukraine for a “favor”—investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens;

(4) The request for investigations morphed into a demand for a public statement;

(5) Ukraine agreed to make the public announcement, was working with U.S. government officials on a script for the announcement, and was scheduled to deliver it in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria;

(6) Ukraine canceled the CNN interview only when Trump released the aid after the scheme was exposed by the whistleblower report.

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

Clearly you missed that Trump did not have the authority to freeze those funds. So he broke an existing law to do so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.

Ukraine had met all the required corruption criteria and his administration had certified it to Congress May 23, 2019 prior to Floridaman's call to Zelensky and Colludy's meeting with Yermak in Madrid.

The certification is why Congress was asking why the funds had not been transferred.

Zelensky's administration was not the corrupt actor in this case, it was Trump's that attempted to corruptly bribe Ukraine with Congressional appropriated funds in return for the investigation of his political opponent.

Testimony and documents show that the Zelensky administration knew that the funding was being withheld prior to the second Trump-Zelensky call.

Perhaps he can use the excuse that he did not know what his administration was doing, that would be believable but hardly exculpatory.

[Sea Dangles]

This is simply fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Floridaman would like to have you think so

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This is simply fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During the last few weeks of impeachment hearings, Republicans liked to cite a number — 55 — the number of days they thought the military aid for Ukraine was withheld.

According to their timeline, the clock begins on July 18, a date that a number of witnesses said they first learned of the hold.

But the clock really began a month earlier, on June 18. That’s when the Pentagon publicly announced it would release its portion of the money: $250 million.

Just a few days later, word of a hold on the funding had made it to David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs.

“I first started to hear that there was a problem with it on June 21; that OMB had stopped the aid,” he told House investigators.

According to documents reviewed by Just Security, the Office of Security Assistance at the State Department sent the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a routine congressional notification for its Foreign Military Financing program that same day: June 21. The State Department needed OMB to green light the document, which described the congressionally appropriated funding, including more than $100 million in funding for Ukraine.

Soon after submitting the congressional notification, the State Department was made aware that the White House had concerns about the Ukraine funding, and so State Department officials started inquiring about what exactly was going on. Was it just the State Department’s money that had been frozen or had the Defense Department’s program also been stopped? And, if the money was really being held, why? Emails flew back and forth from State to OMB to the White House chief of staff’s office, as officials tried to clarify what was happening.

Meanwhile, across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, Laura Cooper, who oversees Ukraine policy at the Defense Department (DoD), was also being told that the White House had questions about DoD’s military assistance for Ukraine.

She testified that days after the Pentagon made its June 18 announcement, her office received a set of questions about the funding from the White House. She was told the questions came out of a meeting with the president, so Cooper presumed they were directly from Trump. The questions were: 1) Is U.S. industry providing any of this equipment? 2) What are other countries doing to contribute? 3) Who gave this funding?

Cooper said her office responded to those questions with a set of fact sheets. They explained that the vast majority of companies providing the equipment were American. Her office also told the White House that the United Kingdom, Canada, Lithuania and Poland all contribute training and equipment to Ukraine. As for the third question, it was the trickiest to answer because of its “strange phrasing,” Cooper said. “It was something along the lines of who provided this funding, or where did this funding come from?” So, her office answered: It comes from Congress and it has strong bipartisan support.

After her office responded to the questions, Cooper never heard anything back. She had no inkling at the time that the president wanted to put a hold on the money, but behind the scenes that’s what had happened. And word started getting out.

Army Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, who oversees Ukraine policy on the National Security Council, testified that by July 3, he “was concretely made aware of the fact that there was a hold placed by OMB.”

News of the hold was also making its way to the Ukrainians.

“On July 25, a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance,” Cooper testified. “Because at that time we did not know what the guidance was … I was informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were moving forward but recommended that the Ukraine embassy check in with State.”

Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden that same day.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.

Dang! I thought I had a unique, facetious, twist on the over analyzed conspiracy of Trump's supposed "extortion," or is it "bribery," or is it "quid pro quo," or whatever it is. Didn't know that Trumplicans were also facetiously accusing Zelensky of extortion.

Oh well . . .

So Trump thought that he had the legal authority to hold funds upon assuring that the money would not just be funneled into a cesspool of corruption. He had expressed concerns about that corruption for some time before that. And so others think he didn't have the authority. And that he caved into releasing the money because he got "caught."

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Dang! I thought I had a unique, facetious, twist on the over analyzed conspiracy of Trump's supposed "extortion," or is it "bribery," or is it "quid pro quo," or whatever it is. Didn't know that Trumplicans were also facetiously accusing Zelensky of extortion.

Oh well . . .

So Trump thought that he had the legal authority to hold funds upon assuring that the money would not just be funneled into a cesspool of corruption. He had expressed concerns about that corruption for some time before that. And so others think he didn't have the authority. And that he caved into releasing the money because he got "caught."

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.

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

But the documents and the facts contradict that theory, which interestingly enough is exactly the defense that I said the other day they will present.

"Ukraine is really corrupt and I was worried about it"

Never mind that this administration has signed off on the anti corruption markers required by Congress for the funding, eliminated funding for corruption investigation, looked right past corrupt regimes in other countries (Russia, Turkey, etc) and yet somehow the possibility of corruption in Ukraine involving the 2016 election and his opponent captures Trump's attention.

It is typical Trumplican baloney.

Now we see Pompeo claiming they need to further investigate the already disproven "Crowdstrike server" theory and together with Barr, coming up with all sorts of possibilities for why it is acceptable for this administration to obstruct investigations, withhold evidence and otherwise ignore their constitutional responsibilities while claiming to be victims.

To date this administration has stonewalled all Congressional investigations.
It will end up in court and one can only hope that the court sees Congress as a co-equal branch of government with oversight responsibility.
I am hoping we do not end up with a king and certainly not this mad prince.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But the documents and the facts contradict that theory, which interestingly enough is exactly the defense that I said the other day they will present.

There's a lot of assumptions going on with this stuff. I'm going to assume that Byron York is aware of any documents that you mention. And I trust his version over yours.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.

I'm not even sure you believe this.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not even sure you believe this.

What I "believe" is irrelevant. What in the Byron York article I posted is untrue?

[Pete F.]

Two weeks before Trump released the Ukraine aid, White House lawyers briefed him on whistle-blower’s complaint — a key detail about what Trump knew when he made a critical decision at the heart of impeachment investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Two weeks before Trump released the Ukraine aid, White House lawyers briefed him on whistle-blower’s complaint — a key detail about what Trump knew when he made a critical decision at the heart of impeachment investigation.

There are a lot of "key" details. They don't all coalesce into one indisputable narrative. Your "key" detail here is not proof of anything other than itself. Nor does it contradict (as you claim) what you call the "theory" in the Byron York article. Other than the "theory" (which hasn't been proven to be false) what is untrue in that article? Why is York's "theory" any less plausible than yours? It's certainly less complicated and less in need of all kinds of other "key" details.

[Pete F.]

Somebody ought to get their story straight, otherwise it looks like they’re just making it up again

Mr. Trump said at an Oct. 2 news conference that he lifted the aid after a request from Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Somebody ought to get their story straight, otherwise it looks like they’re just making it up again

Mr. Trump said at an Oct. 2 news conference that he lifted the aid after a request from Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That precisely agrees with the Byron York article that I linked, and so with the York "theory."

[Pete F.]

But you assume the President had no idea of Whistleblower Report until September 9, 2019.

WB letter to Schiff & Burr is dated August 12, 2019.

The Acting DIA testified, when he learned of WB Report, he contacted WH Attorney & DOJ OLC, would have been before 9-9-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

BOOM

[Sea Dangles]

🤡🍔🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But you assume the President had no idea of Whistleblower Report until September 9, 2019.

WB letter to Schiff & Burr is dated August 12, 2019.

The Acting DIA testified, when he learned of WB Report, he contacted WH Attorney & DOJ OLC, would have been before 9-9-19.

How do you know what I assume? Are assumptions that important to you? Conjectures? Innuendoes? Maybes? Could be? Probably? Possibly?

I made no assumption about the whistleblower Report. I posted an article that had factual information and a different possibility than your preferred one. Timelines re WB Report do not prove anything. Nor do they make Byron York's facts, timeline, possibility, untrue.

York's assumption is simpler, more elegant, and doesn't require the convoluted piling on of circumstantial evidences that your assumption requires.

I prefer York's.

[Pete F.]

Keep believing and trying to make it add up.

Trump will clean it all up

[wdmso]

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday suggested that the United States has a “duty” to further probe a conspiracy theory promoted by President Trump alleging that Ukraine was responsible for the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

as CIA director Mike Pompeo claimed that US intelligence agencies believed Russian interference did not affect the results of the 2016 US presidential election.

only issue he made that part up


The CIA never came to that conclusion (did not affect the results) released a statement that clarified Pompeo's remarks.

and Ukraine is not mentioned as someone who also interfered in our elections.. until now