Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, it would mean that the Whistleblower broke the law by not disclosing it....so it would matter to him I imagine. Also, it would hit at the credibility of the entire process.
I imagine if asked about it, he'd lie, but that could be risky if anyone else knows about it.
If the WB broke the law, that is a separate investigation and a separate proceeding. The WB is not on trial here. Neither is Schiff, Hunter Biden, or anyone other than Trump.
If I'm in front of the judge for a hit and run, it makes no difference if they guy who saw me do it was parked in a "no parking" zone. That's a separate issue.
As to the credibility of the process, that train has left the station. Mulvaney admitted this indeed happened. Trump admitted it happened. Others were in on the phone call, were involved in illegally blocking the Congressionally authorized security aid to Ukraine, ... there are phone records of Giuliani repeatedly calling the OMB, ...
Yeah....I'm almost certain they don't. Given the public opinion is only something like 48%, it would be political suicide for the 35 "vulnerable" Democrats in the House to support a doomed from the start impeachment attempt. They can walk back support for the inquiry, but they couldn't walk back support for the actual articles.
I think it's likely they'll stall things till after the holidays with the hope public opinion will change and if nothing happens, they'll just drop it altogether. Having a vote that fails would be disastrous for the Democrats, having a vote that succeeds would be disastrous for the 35 of them likely to lose their seats over it.
Probably the best thing to do is to try to make it go away as quietly as possible and deal with the backlash from the fringe left. There aren't enough of them to matter anyway.
There is no initial wrong in the absence of proof of the mens rea, and the mens rea can't be proven (in this case) without proving there was nothing to investigate. You have the burden of proof; Trump doesn't.
I don't have any burden. I'm an independent voter uninvolved in the process.
However, I see plenty of circumstantial evidence of Trump's intent to leverage aid for personal gain. The use of his personal attorney rather than regular channels, the understanding by all involved that there was a quid pro quo even if Trump didn't say it outright, the fact that no "anti-corruption" steps were taken until Biden announced his candidacy, the still-unexplained withholding of (and release of) the aid, and Mulvaney's admissions are just some of the proofs.
To me perhaps the best proof of all, however, is the fact that Trump is hiding all of the evidence that would either prove or disprove the underlying allegations. After all, if it were exculpatory you know damn well that Trump would be shoving it in Schiff's face and making him look like a fool while blowing up the entire impeachment inquiry. The fact that he is not doing so should tell any thinking person that the documents and high-level testimony are damning-at-best.
Moreover, the Executive Summary released today lays out what appears to be an ironclad case of obstruction of justice by virtue of Trump's aforesaid refusal to disclose any evidence. That offense alone is impeachable and in many ways worse than the alleged underlying act because the refusal to comply with the House - the body vested with the sole power of impeachment -is a true subversion of one of the core tenets of the Constitution. After all, if one branch of the government can simply thumbs its nose at another, then our entire political system will be undermined.
Of course, ultimately, the Republicans will decide whether partisanship will rule the day, but I honestly do not see how any objective, rational person can conclude that Trump withheld aid to further formal US policy or that he hasn't obstructed the impeachment inquiry.
The Judiciary Comm. comes up with the Articles of Impeachment. Your group have nothing to do with the potential articles.
If anything Mulvaney, Pence, Pompeo, Bolton need to testify what Trump was doing was legal.
Rudy needs to testify that Trump never ordered him to go to Ukraine with the 3 amigos.
The 3 amigos need to testify that Trump never told them to talk to Rudy. That Rudy did not know what Trump wanted.
They are the ones who need to testify.
Forgot one.
All those people in Trumps Admin. need to be willing to cover for Trump and maybe go to jail.
If the WB broke the law, that is a separate investigation and a separate proceeding. The WB is not on trial here. Neither is Schiff, Hunter Biden, or anyone other than Trump.
If I'm in front of the judge for a hit and run, it makes no difference if they guy who saw me do it was parked in a "no parking" zone. That's a separate issue.
As to the credibility of the process, that train has left the station. Mulvaney admitted this indeed happened. Trump admitted it happened. Others were in on the phone call, were involved in illegally blocking the Congressionally authorized security aid to Ukraine, phone records of Giuliani repeatedly calling the OMB, ...
You need better material here, Bobby.
If he broke the law, it undercuts what little credibility the situation has to begin with. Obviously it would be a separate process, but just those facts being out there would scuttle the impeachment process.
While those people are not "on trial", they are all key to the weak case against the president and that means the claims and validity of accusations need to be checked.
I'm sure you know all of this, you are just trying to put on a brave face despite the impending collapse.
The Bidens have absolutely nothing to do with Trump's actions, unless Trump wants to share the evidence he used to make a decision to ask Zelensky to announce (not necessarily take action on) an investigation into the Bidens.
Trump is the one who is about to go on trial. Geting Schiff and the Bidens to testify would amount to a sideshow. Ain't gonna happen.
What evidence? Hearsay?
Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you been messin around...
They have the votes. The Problem is Trump's legal challenges are collapsing under the law.
Those people who ignored subpoenas will have to be deposed.
I think going ahead with what they have is good enough.
Documents and recordings from Parnas have yet to be evaluated.
Those who ignored subpoenas need to testify. Apparently, this will take the Supreme Court weighing on the matter.
There is no reason to rush through and not do a thorough job. Republicans have stated clearly that their Senators will not vote to convict, so what's the rush?
The 300-page report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee makes the case that Trump misused the power of his office and, in the course of their investigation, obstructed Congress by stonewalling the proceedings. Based on two months of investigation, the report contains evidence and testimony from current and former U.S. officials.
“The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection," said Chairman Adam Schiff in the report's preface.
In doing so, "the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security,” the report said. https://news.yahoo.com/house-report-...100255628.html
Yawn, Senate is not going to convict him. 2020 election will decide his fate.
Documents and recordings from Parnas have yet to be evaluated.
Those who ignored subpoenas need to testify. Apparently, this will take the Supreme Court weighing on the matter.
There is no reason to rush through and not to a thorough job. Republicans have stated clearly that their Senators will not vote to convict, so what's the rush?
I saw today that they have 7 days to get the SCOTUS to accept the case or they must comply with the subpoenas.
If he broke the law, it undercuts what little credibility the situation has to begin with. Obviously it would be a separate process, but just those facts being out there would scuttle the impeachment process.
While those people are not "on trial", they are all key to the weak case against the president and that means the claims and validity of accusations need to be checked.
I'm sure you know all of this, you are just trying to put on a brave face despite the impending collapse.
Again the propriety of Trump leveraging strategic aid to force a foreign country to investigate Trump's political rival does not hinge on whether the foreign country ultimately reports back to Trump that they did or did not find anything.
Moreover, the fact that Trump only wanted an announcement of an investigation and didn't care about an investigation itself (as Sondland testified) destroys any plausible claim that Trump wanted to know if Biden had done anything wrong or, frankly, that he wanted anything other than dirt with which he could smear Biden. That fact further undermines your argument that Biden's guilt/innocence is of any import.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
