Yep, the goods exist...we just can't see them

Annie Deighnaugh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-acknowledges-24-emails-reveal-trumps-thinking-on-ukraine/2020/02/01/7deea84c-450e-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html


Hours after the Senate voted against seeking new evidence in the impeachment case against President Trump, the administration acknowledged the existence of two dozen emails that could reveal the president’s thinking about withholding military aid to Ukraine.

In a midnight court filing, the Justice Department explained why it shouldn’t have to unredact copies of more than 100 emails written by officials at the Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department about the hold on funds to Ukraine.

Heather Walsh, an OMB lawyer, wrote that of the 111 redacted emails in the lawsuit, 24 are protected by “presidential privilege.”

“Specifically, the documents in this category are emails that reflect communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President’s immediate advisors regarding Presidential ­decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine,” Walsh wrote.....

“Every single Republican Senator voted to endorse the White House coverup of these potentially important truth-revealing emails,” Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement Saturday. (GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah voted with Democrats to subpoena Bolton but against admitting new documents.) “Make no mistake, the full truth will eventually come out and Republicans will have to answer for why they were so determined to enable the president to hide it.”

SaveComment86Like1
Comments (86)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Would seem to suggest that pence is also in on this as well. What does he know and when did he know it???

Most corrupt administration *ever*.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Repub senators say "let the voters decide" (not us, we're scared). Voters would make a much better decision if those same senators would have allowed firsthand evidence to be exposed to the voters. So the gop is saying "you guys go vote based upon only what we want you to know, don't be concerned about the suppressed information".

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

vgkg (Va Z-7)

"The gop is saying "you guys go vote based upon only what we want you to know".


LOL. Give me a break.


"We need to pass the Bill to find out what's in the Bill."


^ Ring a bell?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

What hold? You can say it a million more times and it won't make it true. Have another phony impeachment. No one is listening to the crats.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

^ Ring a bell?

An old bell which has nothing to do with this OP, nice try though, I grant your request, take a break please, it's freely given.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

ROTF!

Fake impeachment.

What's next in the dems' dirty bag of tricks this week?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

"An old bell which has nothing to do with this OP..."

Translation: Good for me, but not for thee.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

An old bell which has nothing to do with this OP

Some people can't see the forest through the trees.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

We've noticed. ^^^

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

What the article tells us is there are 87 emails that are not covered by executive privilege at all that should be presented to the public...and hopefully with FOIA, they will.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Nope, you & lurker opined about the past, not the present, that defines opineing.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Correct Annie, in the long run the repubs in the senate have done themselves a monumental disservice by blocking new evidence. If they had let it all out now then time may have buffered it over the coming months. But now it will dribble out and be a constant reminder that trump and his enablers have covered up the facts which will come back to bite them all.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Evidence of what? Trump doing his job? Better impeach him.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Terrible comebacks from the trumpsters, sad :-(

Pathetic accusations against the President of the USA.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

What evidence?....now you're getting it. Progress!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
leona_2008

The trump government is saying forget about checks and balances. Put all your faith in trump. he has only told 16,000+ lies. Look your kids in the eyes and tell them trump will ensure they have safe drinking water.

As far as I'm concerned, the window has slammed shut on the possibility that Pence could be out of the loop.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Pathetic accusations against the President of the USA.

Talking about the repub senate dereliction of duty, the accusations are being covered up., for now.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Is it his job to keep himself in office an additional 4 years at the cost of national security?

If the people want him out of office they can vote him out. Because the Republicans are too spineless to stand up to Trump and do the work of protecting the US. They have shown how much they care about the nation by not calling for more transparency with this debacle. Covering for Trump all they way. They are all partners in crime now.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

I have no idea of what you are talking about.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Senators saying “let the voters decide” is the same as saying. Let Trump rig the vote again. We won.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

lurker111

1 hour ago

Evidence of what? Trump doing his job? Better impeach him.

———

He is impeached.

If my supervisors thought they had evidence of me *not* doing my job, and I had evidence that showed me doing my job, I would be a fool not to show them that evidence.

If the evidence I held reinforced my supervisors’ opinion of me, I might be inclined to try to hide it.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Who are the Presidents supervisors? How would you feel if you did your job and someone said it was a crime, punished you for it, and had no evidence of anything? Trump's impeachment was an unconstitutional attack on the USA.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

"What evidence?"

Right!

They don't know but they know it exists--just like Schiff's "ample evidence of collusion" and everything else they lie about.

Sugar plum fairies and Trump gotchas dance in their heads--but only in their dreams!

This is what dems do 24-7--try to destroy our President and cancel our votes.

Keep it up 2020 looks better each time dems prove this.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

“Who are the Presidents supervisors?”

Ask your grade 7 social studies teacher.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

I heard someone say that you had to "want" to see the evidence...

"You have to "WANT" to see it."

Oh my!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

“Who are the Presidents supervisors?”

Ask your grade 7 social studies teacher.

No thanks. That explains a lot. :^)

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

"You have to "WANT" to see it."

The gop senators did not want to see it, hear it, nor speak of it....like the rest of us they'll just have to wait for the book(s) and more to filter out over time.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

lurker do you honestly think the President has no one overseeing him/her? That no one has the authority to hold him/her accountable?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

The gop senators did not want to see it, hear it, nor speak of it

Of course not. They have better thing to do than to worry about some delusional conspiracy theory.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

lurker do you honestly think the President has no one overseeing
him? That no one has the authority to hold him/her accountable?

I've never heard of a position called "Supervisor of the President". Have you?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jonnygun(zone 7)

It is called an election. Unless, of course, there is an actual crime...

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Senators saying “let the voters decide” is the same as saying. Let Trump rig the vote again. We won.

And there you have it. Trump didn't rig the vote. Hillary lost. Get over it.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

An election is no good if the gerrymandering has been overt, if the voting machines are hacked, And if there are defective and lack of machines in black voting districts. Both McConnell and Trump have refused to support voting security. If the GOP loses You can be sure they will cry foul.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Whatever they need to believe.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Hope is eternal;)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

“I've never heard of a position called "Supervisor of the President". Have you?”

Oh are we quibbling about the word usage? Then I must point out that I never made a claim that there is a position called “supervisor of the president.”

Again I must refer you to grade seven social studies or to this handy link which outlines the functions of the United States Congress: https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-legislative-branch/

You might also find it interesting to do some study on the concept of “checks and balances.”

The President does not have unlimited power, and the Congress exists to hold the President in check. The Constitution outlines this balance of power, and the Supreme Court is intended to interpret what that means in practical application. Many Presidents, Trump included, have attempted with varying success to sway that balance more in favour of the executive branch, but nevertheless we still have a Congress and it still holds sway over the President.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

“There isn't anything there about a presidential supervisor.

Every United States congressperson is elected by the citizens of the United States to represent them.

Part of the job of representing them includes providing a check to the powers of the President and investigating him/her and potentially impeaching him/her if he/she is suspected of having abused his/her power. That’s the part about “impeachment” in the link I posted.

You seem to be fixating on the word “supervisors” from my analogy to the check that the rest of us who are not the president experience. In real life, many if not most people experience a check on their powers at work in the form of a supervisor. The President experiences a check on his/her power at work in the form of the Congress.

Like all analogies, it isn’t perfect but the example remains useful. The people who are charged with checking the President's power say he abused it. He says he didn’t and has proof but won’t show the proof because reasons.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

The evidence of trump's extortion is plain to see for anyone who wants too, including gop senators...

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven....

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did...."

--Lamar Alexander




9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

What Crimes?

"President Donald Trump tried to use a foreign government to influence the 2020 election. In doing so, he committed the highest crime: he attempted to deprive the people of the United States of their right to a free and fair election. He has clearly committed numerous impeachable offenses, but this specific offense–attempting to deprive the people of their right to a free and fair election–left the House of Representatives with no real choice but to use their constitutional power of last resort to consider his removal. . . .

TRUMP’S FIVE CRIMES CONNECTED TO UKRAINE:

I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)

II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)

III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)

IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)

V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)

[. . .]

Public reporting and the impeachment inquiry being conducted in the United States House of Representatives have produced thousands of pages of witness testimony and documentary evidence showing that President Trump, directly and by and through his associates, pressured the government of Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden, his political rival, and withheld duly appropriated security assistance and high-level diplomatic meetings until Ukraine did so.

This evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Donald Trump committed crimes like bribery and misappropriation of funds. These are crimes for which most Americans would be prosecuted and for which they could go to prison."

https://www.citizensforethics.org/criminal-abuse-of-power-trumps-crimes-ukraine/ -----------------------------

Kate

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jonnygun(zone 7)

And the proof of all that is the hope and dreams of Dems. Fully support by the impassioned imaginations of people that heard something someone said that heard something from someone that heard something.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

And the proof of all that is the hope and dreams of Dems. Fully support by the impassioned imaginations of people that heard something someone said that heard something from someone that heard something.

Funny, the RW complains that there is no first hand knowledge and then refuses to hear the first hand knowledge.

10 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

“Some people say”

“All the best people are saying”

“they even say”

“they tell me”

All these phrases are regularly heard from Trump, and we are all expected to believe them at face value because the President said it.

Why is that different from believing someone who is testifying under oath?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jonnygun(zone 7)

Please, a billion dollars later and all they got was nothing. I watched as much of the house hearings as I could stomach and I only learned a new appreciation for commercials. It was not my contentions that the House Dems were trying to prove, it was theirs. Despite all the hate and anger they presented absolute garbage.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Just think for a mere $450,000 you could have been invited to a Super Bowl party at Trump International put on by the taxpayers at a cost of 3M and profited Trump.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jonnygun(zone 7)

"Why is that different from believing someone who is testifying under oath?"


Hearsay evidence is inadmissable in court as well...

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

“Hearsay evidence is inadmissable in court as well...”

Then let’s hear it from the people who are reported to have said it!

They can say, under oath, “yes I said that and I meant what was understood” or “yes I said that but I meant this” or “what I actually said was___” Or “no I didn’t say that at all” or “on the advice of counsel I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”

We're right back to where we started. If someone with the authority to check my power says I abused my power, and I believe I possess evidence and witnesses that can display that I did not abuse my power, I’m going to spread that evidence far and wide. And because Trump is saying he has the evidence and the witnesses but refuses to share them, I don’t believe he is telling the truth. Either he doesn’t have them, or they don’t say what he says they say.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

Everyone here should know trump well enough by now that he would have let loose any and all exonerating evidence last year. His best bet was that "perfect" phone call and his only card to play. Hardly perfect, but perfectly incriminating esp when tied to everything else said by his own people like mulvaney and sothland ("yes PQP, we do it all the time", etc etc etc....)

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jonnygun(zone 7)

The 5th amendment and executive privilege are real things Lindsey and the reason why the House was supposed to fill the "prosecutorial" role. Instead, we got an abobomitable mix of Groundhog's day and Days of our Lives.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

You seem to be fixating on the word “supervisors” from my analogy to the check that the rest of us who are not the president experience. In real life, many if not most people experience a check on their powers at work in the form of a supervisor. The President experiences a check on his/her power at work in the form of the Congress.

Like all analogies, it isn’t perfect but the example remains useful.

With all due respect, lindsey, your example is decidedly not useful.

Again I must refer you to grade seven social studies

Please provide the grade seven social studies you refer us to. Thanks.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Kathy

Just think for a mere $450,000 you could have been invited to a Super Bowl party at Trump International put on by the taxpayers at a cost of 3M and profited Trump.

False.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Hearsay evidence is inadmissable in court as well...

Then they should have let Bolton testify, ya can't be found not guilty when you refuse to let the evidence out.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

He says he didn’t and has proof but won’t show the proof because reasons.

This is America. The burden of proof is on the house. Love it or leave it.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

"Won't show the proof"

schiff says he has evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. He's withholding the evidence that can prove his case. Why is he withholding the evidence? Why do you believe anything the crats say?

Bolton doesn't have any proof of anything. He said she said.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

The burden of proof was on the House, until Trump made a claim. He claimed that he has PROOF that he did nothing wrong. He refuses to produce that PROOF so I refuse to believe that he has it.

He’s certainly not required to mount a defense. He doesn’t—despite declaring that he has the best one.

Whether he should be declared “not guilty” based on the evidence presented is for the Senators to decide. I know that I’ve seen enough to convince me.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

No crime has been committed by Trump. You have no evidence of anything. We have a confession from joe, and a lot of evidence from Ukraine.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

"Why do you believe anything the crats say?" queries Lurker.

Because they are telling the truth--they have evidence of his impeachable behavior--and Trump has made 15,413 [false or misleading statements] during 1,055 days in office.

https://www.salon.com/2019/12/16/trump-surpasses-15000-false-and-misleading-claims-in-office-after-lying-more-than-ever-in-2019/

-------------

By the way, since that source is about 6 weeks old, Trump may well have reached a total of 16,000 lies since it was published.

---------------

"Trump’s total [of lies, misleading statements] increased substantially in 2019, because he has frequently pushed the same lies. He has made 80 false claims asserting that his phone call with the Ukrainian president was “perfect,” even though it set off panic inside the administration and led to the House Judiciary Committee approving articles of impeachment against him. He has made more than 60 false claims alleging that the whistleblower complaint that triggered the impeachment inquiry was inaccurate, but it was found to be credible by multiple top Trump appointees in the intelligence community and later corroborated by a procession of witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee.

Trump has also lied dozens of times about former Vice President Joe Biden, claiming that his Democratic rival forced out a Ukrainian prosecutor for investigating his son, and that Hunter Biden landed a $1.5 billion payday in China after flying in on Air Force Two with his father.

. . . [H]is most consistent lies have been about the economy. Roughly one in every five claims from the president judged as false or misleading by The Post was about the economy or jobs. He has told his most frequent lie — that the U.S. economy is currently the best in history — more than 240 times despite higher growth under multiple presidents who did not wage trade wars hurting America’s own farmers and manufacturers.

He has told his second most frequent lie — that his promised border wall is being erected — more than 230 times. However, nearly all of the administration’s construction at the border has involved replacing existing fencing which had already been on the border for years.

Trump has told his third most frequent lie that he passed the biggest tax cut in history — more than 180 times. President Ronald Reagan’s was roughly three times bigger.

[. . .]

“If you fact-check Trump — or just watch Trump — you know that he lies about basically every subject,” [CNN Fact Checker] Dale explained. “What’s unique about the Ukraine story is that he’s lying about basically every individual component of the story . . . Everything he’s saying about his dealings with Ukraine, about the Bidens’ dealings with Ukraine, about the whistleblower, about [House Intelligence Chairman Adam] Schiff, about the impeachment process — it’s all wrong, all the time.”

https://www.salon.com/2019/12/16/trump-surpasses-15000-false-and-misleading-claims-in-office-after-lying-more-than-ever-in-2019/

-----------------------------

Lots of evidence to prove Trump is a serial liar.

And the Dems. have lots of evidence that he committed impeachable actions.

Kate

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Because they are telling the truth--they have evidence of his impeachable behavior--and Trump has made 15,413 [false or misleading statements] during 1,055 days in office.

Telling the truth? lol. Keep telling yourself that. It will never make it true.

"The evidence is probably out there"

Best laugh of the day. Evidence of what?

impeachable behavior

lol

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Anyone care to discuss the "evidence"? I haven't seen anything.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
soupgirl53

Take heart. Senator Manchin has proposed a resolution calling for a Senate censure of Trump. It is not as good as removing Trump for office but it would send a message loud and clear that Trump's behavior was bad and another tough vote for the GOP senators who have already said they believe Trump is guilty as charged but his behavior was not impeachment. It will be interesting to see what McConnell does. I can see him letting this happen in order to give some cover to GOP Senators running for reelection this year.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Not acceptable. We need to see the house held accountable for their attempted coup.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
soupgirl53

There is no way the House is going to be held accountable for an attempted coup. The House has the sole power of impeachment under the Constitution and it exercised that power.

Censuring Trump makes a lot of sense if the GOP wants to survive the Trump presidency. It would be an admission that Trump behaved badly and give the GOP some cover as more proof of Trump's guilt, which they declined to consider, comes out. With the censure, the GOP can claim they at least did something to punish Trump for his bad behavior.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

The house acted in bad faith and with ill intent. Funny how the left went for the most extreme punishment and will be happy to accept anything that will agree that Trump did something wrong. No, these were manufactured charges and part of pelosi's political warfare against America. Her words.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Not acceptable. We need to see the house held accountable for their attempted coup.

Hardly a coup, not violent and the GOP would still have held power thru Pence.

coup | kuː |

noun (plural coups | kuːz | )

1 (also coup d'état) a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government: he was overthrown in an army coup.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
soupgirl53

Newsflash: We do not have a coup problem in the United States.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

"Bolton doesn't have any proof of anything. He said she said."

Which one is "she" Bolton or trump?

I'd trust Bolton under oath over a trump tweet any day. Call them both as witnesses....oh that's right, the scared repub senators cherish their heads and avoided a pikeing. True Profiles in Cowardness.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

I really don't care what anyone wants to believe. This is America. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no proof of anything. You're depending on mind reading.

Not at all like joe. We have a confession and hard evidence. You don't have to "want" to see it. He brags about it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Why would the crats support someone who confessed to the crimes that Trump is accused of?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

soupgirl53

There is no way the House is going to be held accountable for an attempted coup.

Because House above the law.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

This is America. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks to the repub senate that's not going to happen now. Thanks repub senate (so say the trumpsters with glee)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Schiff has had the evidence for years. He must be a Trump supporter. Good luck with that.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Wants to Grow

I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)

II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)

III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)

IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)

V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)

Hi Kate, Those first 4 accusations are serious and impeachable charges. Why were they not submitted as articles of impeachment instead of that bogus 5th accusation?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Probably because there was no proof

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

They realized they were talking about joe.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

You have the proof in hand...trump's own letter, his own words where he not only said his phone call was perfect where it specifically asks for a favor and does *not* mention corruption, but does tell Pres Z to talk to his consigliere who provides documentation that he is the president's *personal* lawyer and operating in that capacity...not as an official envoy. Then he turns around and asks china to do the same. Then you have mulvaney saying yes we did it, we do it all the time. You have the gao saying he violated the impoundment act and you had people from the budget and the state dept saying how can we hold up the money legally? You have sondland and his supporting texts saying there was a QPQ and specifying what it was. And you have Lt col verifying what was said on that phone call, and you have bolton calling it a drug deal and releasing information that he was directly involved in conversations with the president and his QPQ. And you had trump removing not only Amb Y as she was known to be a corruption fighter and would never go along with the rudy plan, but he also removed a budget director and replaced his with a sycophant who wouldn't mind breaking the law by holding up the payments. Now you even have him saying the dems can't prove their case as he has the materials and they don't!!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Re schiff and the case for russian collusion, he did lay it out in an interview and there's been nothing that's come to light to discredit any of it. I repeat from an earlier post of mine:

  • Offer: The Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton *in writing* and sent it to [Donald Trump] Jr.
  • Acceptance: Don Jr.’s response was *in writing*, not only accepting the offer but amplifiying the conditions under which their offer would be most helpful. “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
  • Furtherance of the conspiracy: Actually held a meeting in trump tower to discuss it.
  • Obstruction: trump crafted a cover story for what was discussed at the meeting saying it was about adoption
  • Consciousness of guilt: *All* of them lied about this and tried to minimize, deny or cover it up.

The evidence is there plain as day.


Not to mention the over 140 contacts with russians during the campaign and the ongoing fealty that trump continues to pay to putin to this day. And rudy's cuddling up with frik and frak over ukraine.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

"Probably because there was no proof"

Bad guess, paprik.

According to my source, they have "thousands of pages of witness testimony and documentary evidence showing that President Trump, directly and by and through his associates, pressured the government of Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden, his political rival, and withheld duly appropriated security assistance and high-level diplomatic meetings until Ukraine did so. "

https://www.citizensforethics.org/criminal-abuse-of-power-trumps-crimes-ukraine/

------------------------

As to Wants to Grow's question: "Those first 4 accusations are serious and impeachable charges. Why were they not submitted as articles of impeachment instead of that bogus 5th accusation?"

First of all, I'm not a lawyer, so treat my comments accordingly.

Secondly, my source claims those are NOT impeachable offenses ("constitutional high crimes . . ."). They are ORDINARY crimes for which a president presumably could not be prosecuted until he left office (that is somewhat debatable, if I understand things correctly) and became "an ordinary citizen."

-----------------------

"It is also appropriately of great interest to Americans whether, quite apart from constitutional high crimes, the President committed ordinary crimes for which ordinary Americans could be prosecuted and punished. . . . Any other person could be facing the real likelihood of substantial time in federal prison. Instead, because Donald Trump holds the office of President, he faces potential impeachment rather than potential indictment."

----------------------

As to the last part of Wants to Grow's question, -- "Why were [the first 4 accusations] not submitted as articles of impeachment instead of that bogus 5th accusation?"--here is what my source said:

----------------------

"The Constitution provides that a President 'shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Impeachment does not require proof of a crime. . . . But the fact that a President’s conduct likely broke criminal laws is hardly irrelevant–our criminal laws are an articulation of our country’s values, and the Constitution’s use of the words “bribery” and “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was intended to require an abuse of power as serious as a criminal offense. "

----------------

I do not agree that "Abuse of Power" is a "bogus" accusation. It is what the whole thing adds up to:

"President Donald Trump tried to use a foreign government to influence the 2020 election. In doing so, he committed the highest crime: he attempted to deprive the people of the United States of their right to a free and fair election."

------------------------

The Constitution doesn't make a list of specific impeachable "crimes." Yes, it does list bribery and treason as two specific types of crimes for which official in "high positions" (presidents, justices, etc.) can be impeached, but they can't be "ordinary" crimes. They must be the equivalent of the more general category: "or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Note the "or other" : rephrased, that might well say "removed on conviction of High Crimes and Misdemeanors like treason or bribery."

The catch we are all facing now is how to define "high crimes" --other than the fact that they are not "ordinary crimes" that would send you and me to jail.

That is as far as I can take you with your question.

Kate


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Seems to me extortion is the flipside of bribery which is explicitly listed as an impeachable offense in the Constitution.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

''

ubro(2a)

Hearsay evidence is inadmissable in court as well...

Then they should have let Bolton testify, ya can't be found not guilty when you refuse to let the evidence out. ''

He already testified. "They were very warm and cordial calls"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/29/trump_tweets_video_of_bolton_praising_warm_and_cordial_ukraine_call_game_over.html

Did he lie to the US electorate?


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Kate, I don't get why you keep saying "high crimes" can't be "ordinary crimes". Murder is an ordinary crime that you and me can be convicted of and I would think would be grounds for impeachment.

It's only DoJ policy...with a tenuous basis besides...that a president can't be indicted until out of office. It's not in the Constitution.

And there is no requirement that a president commit a crime at all in order to be removed from office. The US federal code wasn't even created until decades after the Constitution was written.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

“Did he lie to the US electorate?”

Do you think he’s going to go to that interview and completely trash the man who is his commander in chief, with whom he needs to work toward a common goal? It would be completely contrary to every bit of his training and probably his personality too.

A conversation can be warm and cordial overall and still contain problematic themes so there is no lie there.

Under oath, asked specific questions about exact phrases, he might relate different aspects of the call that are still accurate but not necessarily appropriate for a conversation with TV journaltainment. (Yes I made up a word)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

He already testified. "They were very warm and cordial calls"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/29/trump_tweets_video_of_bolton_praising_warm_and_cordial_ukraine_call_game_over.html

Did he lie to the US electorate?

Trump lies to the US electorate daily, why should it be such a hard concept to grasp that others may do so as well?

That was not a testimony and FYI if you are going to go by what they say in an interview Trump confessed and Mulvaney confessed, as did Rudi.

Funny how those that spout law and order when it comes to illegal immigrants fully abandon the 'law' ship the minute Trump is involved.

Bolton also has said Trump did pressure Ukraine for his own political gain, as well as giving personal favours to both China and Turkey. So by your own standards those should be considered truthful?

How about you just ask him under oath where is harder to lie?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Wants to Grow

The Constitution doesn't make a list of specific impeachable "crimes." Yes, it does list bribery and treason as two specific types of crimes for which official in "high positions" (presidents, justices, etc.) can be impeached, but they can't be "ordinary" crimes. They must be the equivalent of the more general category: "or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Note the "or other" : rephrased, that might well say "removed on conviction of High Crimes and Misdemeanors like treason or bribery."

Hi Kate, I really like what you wrote here and completely agree with you. You capture the essence of the impeachment clauses when you say, "removed on conviction of High Crimes and Misdemeanors like treason or bribery."

Many of Trump's opponents want to lessen the value of Misdemeanors, in the Constitution, as being a minor wrong doing, or a non-indictable offence. However that is projecting a view not shared by the Framers. Misdemeanors were intended by the Framers to be a serious charge, like treason or bribery.

Kate, I don't get why you keep saying "high crimes" can't be "ordinary crimes". Murder is an ordinary crime that you and me can be convicted of and I would think would be grounds for impeachment.

Hi Annie, You and I are completely in agreement about this. Serious high crimes are grounds for impeachment.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"There is no way the House is going to be held accountable for an attempted coup. The House has the sole power of impeachment under the Constitution and it exercised that power."

Laying the foundation for impeachment before an election cannot go without an investigation and explanation to the American people. House members, staff, and members of the IC who participated in planning and the execution of this half baked scheme deserve an opportunity to fully explain themselves...under oath.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Wants to Grow and Annie--thank you for your responses.

Please note that in my previous post, I was not expressing my viewpoint, but rather summarizing the viewpoint in my source--someone who has more legal knowledge than I do.

I'm just speculating here, but perhaps the difference between an "ordinary" murder (for which you and I would go to jail) and a "high crime" involving murder is that the ordinary version would be committed by the private person for his/her own personal reasons, whereas the "high crime" version would involve endangering the rights of the people of the United States.

I'm not completely happy with that distinction--I think we really do need a legal analyst here! Ha!

I agree that the Constitution doesn't demand that an actual "crime" be committed before a president can be impeached. The problem is that those who drafted the Constitution weren't exactly clear what they meant. (Kinda like that "well-armed Militia" controversy in the 2nd Amendment.) So we are left trying to make sense of what they wrote.

I did read one source that claimed the "high" in "high crimes" doesn't refer to a particular type of crime, but to the official rank of the accused: i.e., officials in high positions (such as a president!) vs lower level officials and the rest of the ordinary citizens. In which case, that would lead me to believe that a president could be charged with an "ordinary" murder since "high crime" does not refer to what kind of crime.

Now you understand why I said earlier that my previous post is as far as I can take you on this matter. If legal experts and justices cannot agree on what is an impeachable action, I'm sure I can't provide any ultimate answer either. : )

Kate


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

adopted, Pelosi can't be accused of rushing half-baked into the impeachment inquiry. Despite the strong and continual urgings of her Democrats, she resisted--for a number of months--the idea of even beginning an official inquiry.

I'm sure, in the meantime, some of her frustrated people were scurrying around trying to gather as much information as they could lay their hands on. But I hardly see why that invalidates the formal impeachment inquiry which would have to review any info. submitted to the formal inquiry and decide for themselves if it was valid and relevant.

Kate

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Laying the foundation for impeachment before an election cannot go without an investigation...

Great...another ridiculous investigation. You going to support investigating the gop for discussing impeaching hillary before she was elected?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/03/no-honeymoon-for-hillary-congressional-republicans-openly-discussing-impeachment/

Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.

Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.

And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation. He favors further congressional investigation into that matter.

And the kicker? All of these things trump has done only worse, plus so much more. Yet the same people who are calling his impeachment a hoax were the same who were ready to lock her up for nothing. Hypocrisy, thy name is gop.

1 Like Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Planting Ideas See How Just 1 Ingredient Can Jump-Start a Dazzling Fall Garden
Give tired, end-of-season borders a boost with one of these high-impact plants that cross over from summer to fall
Full Story
Landscape Design Good Fences, Good Neighbors — and Good Views
See-through vertical fencing connects a yard with its surroundings while keeping children and pets safely inside
Full Story
Home Tech Home Tech: Speakers Matter (and Can Look Good, Too)
See why high style and high fidelity needn't be mutually exclusive
Full Story