House to vote on impeachment

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

guess you never heard of the casting couch

A POTUS asking a foreign leader to provide dirt on an opponent Via his personal lawyer (non elected or appointed ) or you wont get your Aid sure that happens every day in US politics

PS everyone on the planet says its a crime unless your a Trump supporter... then its no big deal

you are mischaracterizing the call as schiff did to suit your agenda...he was looking for evidence of crimes...as the democrats now claim to be doing...they won't find any but Barr and Durham will have a LONG list

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

but as always you lack supporting evidence for your conclusion

be patient

[Pete F.]

Rudy spilled the beans back in May about him and his client and who was receiving benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/u...ine-trump.html

May 9: Giuliani tells The New York Times he will travel to Ukraine "in the coming days" to push for investigations that could help Trump. Giuliani says he hopes to meet with President-elect Zelenskiy to push for inquiries into the origins of the Russia investigation and the Bidens' involvement with Burisma.

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Giuliani tells the Times.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he says. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy — I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump administration who argued that current and former senior White House aides have "absolute immunity" from being questioned by House impeachment investigators.


can you say dictator

LOL


https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrup...olders-wife-2/

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Rudy spilled the beans back in May about him and his client and who was receiving benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/u...ine-trump.html

May 9: Giuliani tells The New York Times he will travel to Ukraine "in the coming days" to push for investigations that could help Trump. Giuliani says he hopes to meet with President-elect Zelenskiy to push for inquiries into the origins of the Russia investigation and the Bidens' involvement with Burisma.

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Giuliani tells the Times.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he says. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy — I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

So Rudy is trying to help Trump do his job to the best of his ability, which in turn, if the investigation turns up sufficient evidence, could be helpful to our government in rooting out corruption, which could go a long way to preventing it in the future.

Good to know that Rudy is being helpful in such a good cause.

[Pete F.]

If they didn’t hold the funding hostage it would have been just sleazy.
But they did
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

LOL


https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrup...olders-wife-2/

Wow 20 letters .. looks like your in the crowd some how they are the same .executive privilege and Absolute immunity are not the same.. but but Obama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

.. but but Obama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How come it's not valid to ask why Trump is obviously being held to a different standard than Obama? Instead of responding with "but Obama", how about either admitting that there is a double standard, or kindly explaining why the specific comparison isn't valid?

"But Obama" is a lazy excuse for small people who know they've been caught in hypocrisy, but won't admit it. That's all it is...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

. looks like your in the crowd some how they are the same .executive privilege and Absolute immunity are not the same.. but but Obama

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't forget absolute privilege and executive immunity

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If they didn’t hold the funding hostage it would have been just sleazy.
But they did
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They didn't.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They didn't.

shhhhh...he's on a roll

[Pete F.]

They did, you can be incompetent and still be guilty
Given the breaking news about govt lawyers John Eisenberg & maybe Michael Ellis allegedly helping cover up Trump's crimes...
it's a good time to remember both of Nixon's AGs and 6 other govt lawyers were convicted of crimes related to cover-ups:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They did, you can be incompetent and still be guilty
Given the breaking news about govt lawyers John Eisenberg & maybe Michael Ellis allegedly helping cover up Trump's crimes...
it's a good time to remember both of Nixon's AGs and 6 other govt lawyers were convicted of crimes related to cover-ups:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I they withheld the aid, what was the trigger that incentivized them to release the aid? Did the investigate Biden?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They did, you can be incompetent and still be guilty
Given the breaking news about govt lawyers John Eisenberg & maybe Michael Ellis allegedly helping cover up Trump's crimes...
it's a good time to remember both of Nixon's AGs and 6 other govt lawyers were convicted of crimes related to cover-ups:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We been having "breaking news" allegations about Trump for four years. Is this the big one?

And no, they didn't.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We been having "breaking news" allegations about Trump for four years. Is this the big one?

And no, they didn't.

breaking news! Rachael Maddow has his tax return!

breaking news! buzzfeed says trump told Cohen to lie under oath!

now, impeach the motherf*cker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I they withheld the aid, what was the trigger that incentivized them to release the aid? Did the investigate Biden?

You could try that after you offered a cop a bribe, wouldn’t work in that case either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could try that after you offered a cop a bribe, wouldn’t work in that case either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No bribe was offered.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I they withheld the aid, what was the trigger that incentivized them to release the aid?

Likely all the people rushing to legal council with what they were witnessing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A prosecutors explanation

Conspiracies are often caught and punished severely before they are completed. And interestingly, to be liable for a conspiracy, one need only have been part of the agreement to commit a crime and committed an overt act (however small) in furtherance of it.
In other words, the question that the law looks to isn’t “What was the outcome?” (though that might be relevant in sentencing), it’s “What was your state of mind/intent?” and “What actions did you undertake that manifest this intent?”
This is the right approach, because otherwise criminals who had the most nefarious goals would get off lightly simply because law enforcement was good at their job, or because someone helped thwart it, or simply because they were too dumb to get away with it!
The question for Trump, therefore, isn’t whether his plan “worked.” It’s what he hoped to achieve (coerce a country for election assistance; generate propaganda about a sham investigation; use money appropriated by Congress as personal leverage)
He also took numerous steps to achieve this goal, beyond the phone call: ordered aid withheld; made it clear to subordinates that he wanted “deliverables”; directed Ukraine to deal with his personal lawyer; had his team draft a statement for Zelensky to deliver.
Minimizing the severity of Trump’s actions is an attempt to 1) narrow the focus to *only* the phone call (ignoring everything before and after); and 2) looking at the results, rather than commission, of the crime(s). Doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could try that after you offered a cop a bribe, wouldn’t work in that case either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m asking a question. if the aid was originally withheld, what made them eventually hand over the aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Likely all the people rushing to legal council with what they were witnessing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“likely”. so you don’t know, but know he should be removed from office for it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m asking a question. if the aid was originally withheld, what made them eventually hand over the aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn’t matter, crime was already committed.
That’s the reason you have people testifying, even though the WH told them not to
They don’t want to be part of the conspiracy.
Two choices
A. Try and convince the electorate that it’s perfectly acceptable to withhold authorized funds for a personal benefit.
B. Show that you objected to the abuse of power or didn’t know about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Doesn’t matter, crime was already committed.
That’s the reason you have people testifying, even though the WH told them not to
They don’t want to be part of the conspiracy.
Two choices
A. Try and convince the electorate that it’s perfectly acceptable to withhold authorized funds for a personal benefit.
B. Show that you objected to the abuse of power or didn’t know about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Doesn’t matter,"

So you don't know either, got it.

"crime was already committed." If threatening to withhold foreign aid unless the recipient does what you want is a crime, explain why Biden didn't commit a crime, for what he bragged about in front of the cameras?

Or was that not the crime you refer to?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A prosecutors explanation

Conspiracies are often caught and punished severely before they are completed. And interestingly, to be liable for a conspiracy, one need only have been part of the agreement to commit a crime and committed an overt act (however small) in furtherance of it.
In other words, the question that the law looks to isn’t “What was the outcome?” (though that might be relevant in sentencing), it’s “What was your state of mind/intent?” and “What actions did you undertake that manifest this intent?”
This is the right approach, because otherwise criminals who had the most nefarious goals would get off lightly simply because law enforcement was good at their job, or because someone helped thwart it, or simply because they were too dumb to get away with it!
The question for Trump, therefore, isn’t whether his plan “worked.” It’s what he hoped to achieve (coerce a country for election assistance; generate propaganda about a sham investigation; use money appropriated by Congress as personal leverage)
He also took numerous steps to achieve this goal, beyond the phone call: ordered aid withheld; made it clear to subordinates that he wanted “deliverables”; directed Ukraine to deal with his personal lawyer; had his team draft a statement for Zelensky to deliver.
Minimizing the severity of Trump’s actions is an attempt to 1) narrow the focus to *only* the phone call (ignoring everything before and after); and 2) looking at the results, rather than commission, of the crime(s). Doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said before re the Mueller report wherein he did not state that there was sufficient evidence to indict for obstruction. Nothing was proven to be obstructed. And the investigation showed that there was no underlying crime. So an intent to commit an illegal act would have to be proved. But if Trump's state of mind was that he knew he didn't commit conspiracy, then it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to show intent to commit a crime.

Same would apply here. If Trump believed that asking Ukraine to investigate (which he had a legal right to do) would help to expose corruption, and no underlying crime was proven to have occurred, (remember as well That Zelensky said he was not pressured and didn't know about the aid being withheld at the time of the call and that Trump said it was for other reasons), then it would be very difficult to prove an intent to commit a criminal act.

[Pete F.]

the "smoking gun" tape ensuring Nixon's impeachment was an order by him to have the CIA impede the FBI investigation into Watergate burglaries. The CIA didn't follow through; the FBI investigation continued. RN's request alone was (rightly) deemed corrupt enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Doesn’t matter,"

So you don't know either, got it.

"crime was already committed." If threatening to withhold foreign aid unless the recipient does what you want is a crime, explain why Biden didn't commit a crime, for what he bragged about in front of the cameras?

Or was that not the crime you refer to?

People ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

People ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

lotta people on the Burisma payroll apparently

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

lotta people on the Burisma payroll apparently

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

People ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

doesn’t come close to answering the question i asked.

do you need me to repeat it? if withholding aid as leverage to get a foreign power to do what you want, is a crime, how can you deny that biden committed the same crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

doesn’t come close to answering the question i asked.

do you need me to repeat it? if withholding aid as leverage to get a foreign power to do what you want, is a crime, how can you deny that biden committed the same crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What benefit did he receive?
Did he receive assistance from a foreign government in our elections
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device