Ukraine

[TheDeamon]

He'd present proof by letting those first-hand witnesses testify that everyone's hearsay and suppositions are full of it. It may be politically advantageous for Trump and the Republicans but it demonstrates a certain hypocrisy when it comes to their pious complaints about partisan maneuverings.

Which goes back to the Democrats screwing the pooch when they went straight to impeachment on this. Which has been Trump's complaint all along.

If they want to be tyrants, let them be tyrants exercising what little actual power they have in the House. They can bring it before the Senate, where Trump will put the petty tyrants to bed.

The Democrats made it highly political, so political it shall be until the Senate has its chance to hear the case.

[LetterRip]

If the President decides he wants to wait until it goes before the Senate to demonstrate that such evidence, that is likely to be within his political authority to do so, if the Democrats chose not to wait for the courts.

No it likely is not within his authority to do so.  The Supreme Court already ruled when Nixon withheld his tapes, that a President can't withold information from an impeachment inquiry - it violates the Constitution - the US House of Representatives is explicitly empowered to investigate and impeach a President - there is no 'executive privilege' and especially not one for criminal acts.

Last I checked, the Senate is a part of Congress. So he isn't denying it to Congress, he's simply denying the House access to (Executive Privileged) protected information while the House of Representatives goes about pursuing an unjust and political prosecution.

The House is explicilty Constitutionally empowered to have access - if they have supeonaed them - then the President is obligated to turn them over to the House.  Similarly the officials are obligated to testify. The House could enforce its supeonas with the Capital Police - have the witnesses who refuse to testify arrested and thrown into jail for contempt of Congress, and do a raid on the White House to take the supeonaed evidence and records.

Now legally they are within their power to do so, but politically it is potentially risky.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/13/house-could-take-subpoena-enforcement-into-its-own-hands-will-it-work/

[Seriati]

The problem is that it's being taken as a given that there's a double standard and so no criticism of Trump is valid unless accompanied by ritually burning Clinton in effigy.

It's not been taken as a given.  It's been repeatedly asked - what is the consistent standard you are applying?   And when it's been articulated, the immediate question has been if that is true and you are being consistent how do you explain Trump's treatment compared to the opposite treatment of people on your side (and I've yet to see a situation where this isn't true).  There's never been any remotely reasonable or even plausible response to that.  Ergo, the conclusion that there is not in fact any consistent explanation.

Hard to understand, for example, how investigating interference in the 2016 election is interference in the 2020 election.  Hard to understand, how investigating Biden's conduct while Vice President and/or his son's conduct is any different than investigating Trump's conduct, or the dozens of investigations into every thing Trump at every level by prosecutors that have been absolutely clear they are investigating people not crimes.  Heck, hard to understand how that's not the case, where we've had Impeachment of Trump TM for "Fill in the Blank" reasons.

If there really is a principled theory behind this, then it's inexplicable that the House conducted their hearings in such a lopsided manner.  The process as conducted was deliberate in its avoidance of any apperence of fairness and in it's avoidance of even having witnesses related to the defense.   If they wanted the truth, rather than a narrative, they would have invited the White House to participate without the preconditions, that doesn't limit them from holding the White House to account for a lack of candor but it does ensure that we get cross examinations and fully vet the defense.  Wouldn't any legitimate enquiry want to review the defenses?  There would not have been a deliberate process of selective leaks that do nothing to advance the true and are designed solely to influence the electorate (hello 2020 election interference, I mean really you have actual on the record quotes from Dem politicians that Trump has to be impeached to stop him from being elected).  You have both Nadler and Schiff openly prejudging the situation and espectially Schiff openly and repeatedly lying and mischaracterizing statements and facts.  What part of justice does that serve?

If this is an exercise of duty, the House issues the subpoenas for the witnesses that actually have the facts and fights for them in court.  There's literally no way the courts would not have taken the matter seriously and promptly dealt with them.  There's two reasons that I can see that the didn't, one they expected they would lose as foreign policy in particular is one of the Executives strongest grants of authority and there is no actual evidence to present in court that would justify invading it, and two they had no interest in getting to the truth, this is 100% about the 2020 election and therefore has to occur before it (if it was legit, Trump could be impeached after the election if he won).  Instead, they got hearsay on the record and called it good enough, can't tie any of the conduct to their claims, and have zero evidence tying any of it to Trump as the source.

Meanwhile, Schiff is the literal poster child for abuse of power and puts a total lie to the argument that Trump must be impeached because NO ONE is about the law.  There is no law that is going to touch Schiff.  Would it not be added as an article of impeachment if Trump subpoenad phone records of his political opponents, published them, used hearsay and false statements to indict them?  Of course, but for the Dems?  You want us to believe they are patriots.  Consistency?  Where?

No. Trump was abusing his authority over congressional mandated spending to attack his political rival.

Care to provide the citation to the law that says so?  Direct evidence says that the delay was not unheard of with respect to aid, or outside the window of other aid delays.  In fact, there are multiple duties imposed on the President that require he delays aid in some circumstances and allows it in others. 

And again, there's no consistency here.  I flagged it when Obama delayed Congressionally mandated and unpopoular ObamaCare  provisions until after the election, even though there was absolutely no authority to do so, and I didn't see you raising your hand that it was an impeachable event.  That's almost literally the same thing. 

Face it, the Executive branches hard deadline was the end of September and they met it.  All the diplomats that testified confirmed that prior aid provided by Trump was more useful than the aid provided by Obama, and Obama's timing was actually during the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.  How do you explain that one? 

Congress is exercising the most significant check on Presidential tyranny.

It's kind of true.  Congress is misusing, abusing and demeaning it's most significant check on execute Tyranny, in pursuit of 2020 election benefits for the Democrats.  But I know, it's only wrong when it's the Republicans.

[Fenring]

The House is explicilty Constitutionally empowered to have access - if they have supeonaed them - then the President is obligated to turn them over to the House.  Similarly the officials are obligated to testify.

In a way I wish that the House (and Senate) really were taken seriously by people, including the President, but also including the various CEO's, politicians and VIP's who basically laugh in their face during investigations. I've seen too many cases of people lying to their faces, where they knew it, and just sighed on moved on, to think that it's taken seriously that the Congress has teeth. Impeachment is maybe a bit different from other Congressional hearings or investigations, but should we really believe that people will be prone to take them more seriously in this instance than they've been taken before?

[Pete at Home]

The most significant check that Congress has to prevent Presidential powers is to repeal all the special powers that Congress has given to the president.

[NobleHunter]

Care to provide the citation to the law that says so?  Direct evidence says that the delay was not unheard of with respect to aid, or outside the window of other aid delays.  In fact, there are multiple duties imposed on the President that require he delays aid in some circumstances and allows it in others.

And what were those duties in regard to the Ukraine aid?

The most significant check that Congress has to prevent Presidential powers is to repeal all the special powers that Congress has given to the president.

That's just crazy talk. Are you some kind of communist?

[TheDeamon]

If the President decides he wants to wait until it goes before the Senate to demonstrate that such evidence, that is likely to be within his political authority to do so, if the Democrats chose not to wait for the courts.

No it likely is not within his authority to do so.  The Supreme Court already ruled when Nixon withheld his tapes, that a President can't withold information from an impeachment inquiry - it violates the Constitution - the US House of Representatives is explicitly empowered to investigate and impeach a President - there is no 'executive privilege' and especially not one for criminal acts.

Last I checked, the Senate is a part of Congress. So he isn't denying it to Congress, he's simply denying the House access to (Executive Privileged) protected information while the House of Representatives goes about pursuing an unjust and political prosecution.

The House is explicilty Constitutionally empowered to have access - if they have supeonaed them - then the President is obligated to turn them over to the House.  Similarly the officials are obligated to testify. The House could enforce its supeonas with the Capital Police - have the witnesses who refuse to testify arrested and thrown into jail for contempt of Congress, and do a raid on the White House to take the supeonaed evidence and records.

Now legally they are within their power to do so, but politically it is potentially risky.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/13/house-could-take-subpoena-enforcement-into-its-own-hands-will-it-work/

Actually, no. Seratil already covered this one.

If an executive privilege claim is made, it then falls under Judicial Review, and a Judge, not a House Committee, then determines which documents Congress gets to see. Congressional subpeona power is not a blank check for Congress to see anything the Executive Branch generates.

Almost like there is a constitutional check on the power of one Branch of Government being able to lord over the over branch without getting the third Branch to agree with what they're doing.

So again, if Congress doesn't want to wait for the Third Branch of Government to act on it, then it is NOT a legal proceeding, but instead a political act. And political problems should be resolved by political means, not judicial. So if the Democrats in the House don't want to wait on the Supreme Court, then Congress can wait for the trial in the Senate.

[Seriati]

If the President decides he wants to wait until it goes before the Senate to demonstrate that such evidence, that is likely to be within his political authority to do so, if the Democrats chose not to wait for the courts.

No it likely is not within his authority to do so.  The Supreme Court already ruled when Nixon withheld his tapes, that a President can't withold information from an impeachment inquiry - it violates the Constitution - the US House of Representatives is explicitly empowered to investigate and impeach a President - there is no 'executive privilege' and especially not one for criminal acts.

I think you've misread this case, and are seriously misreporting what it holds and settles.

Specifically, the Supreme Court rule that the President is entitled to Executive Privilege but that it is not absolute.  Ergo its false to claim the SC found no 'executive privilege,' and the Supreme Court expressly held out that the case before it was not with respect to an area where the President's constitutional authority was at its strongest (which is the opposite of what would be the case in foreign policy matters where the Constitution expressly provides the President with maximum authority) and the District Court (not Congress's) Constitutional authority was at it's greatest.

The opinion, to my knowledge, did not rule on Impeachment at all, it rule on a criminal case to which the President was not a party.

Contrary to your claim the SC did not order that the tapes be turned over to Congress, instead they expressly ordered they be turned over to the District court judge for an "in camera" review - that means they would not be recorded or shared with the Prosecutor, only  with the judge who would be responsible for separating, neutrally, the parts of the tape that were entitled to protection from those that were not.  The SC expressly stated that the DC had the ability and the discretion to take on that task - not something that is factually true with respect to Congress.

It's without question, by the way, that if your interprtaion is correct Schiff would have subpeoned the records.  It'd be an open and shut case.  However, it's not correct, this is in fact not settled at all and literally a matter of first impression.  The question would more correctly be phrased as, does Congress have the power to compel the President to provide internal documents explaining decisions of the President in matters that the Constitution given to the exclusive control of the President solely because they label their inquiry "an impeachment" inquiry rather than an "oversight inquiry"?

Don't know how that would turn out, but given that virtually every factor mentioned in the Nixon case is flipped on its head in favor of the President, I'm guessing the House DNC didn't like the odds.

The House is explicilty Constitutionally empowered to have access - if they have supeonaed them - then the President is obligated to turn them over to the House.

Explicit has a specific meaning.  This statement you made is false.  There is no explicit power of the House or Congress as a whole to issue a subpeona.  That's solely a judicial creation.  Further there is no judge made description of that power that is as far reaching as you describe. 

Please though feel free to substantiate this 'explicit Constitutional power.'

Similarly the officials are obligated to testify.

You have a slightly better case on this, as some officials are sometimes required to testify.  However, the executive privilege is the President's alone to waive or not waive.  The House expressly stated that they would not honor it, not allow counsel to be present or interfere and were operating under a power to compel.

None of those statements is based in the truth, their real powers or consistent with law.

The House could enforce its supeonas with the Capital Police - have the witnesses who refuse to testify arrested and thrown into jail for contempt of Congress, and do a raid on the White House to take the supeonaed evidence and records.

Having the Capital Police act in such a manner is untried, and would almost certainly be overturned as unConstitutional by the Courts.  A raid on the White House would be completely illegal, much the same way the DOJ can't barge in and seize Schiff's records legally.  In fact, such a raid would be a literal coop most likely punishable as treason.  The President - by himself - is a co equal branch of government to Congress under the Constitution.

Now legally they are within their power to do so, but politically it is potentially risky.

What you suggest is illegal.  Don't let the Post trick you.  Politically it would be suicide and criminal.

[TheDeamon]

I do have to say, you have to admire the Democrats for placing "Contempt of Congress" as one of the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" warranting impeachment, even before the SCotUS has made any findings as to the actual legality of the requests the House was making.

Of course, it is also fascinating that evidently exercising long recognized legal rights and seeking redress in the courts now qualifies you for obstruction of justice charges.

I guess in this brave new world, the 5th Amendment will become a double edged sword, you need not fear being compelled to self-incriminate in regards to a given crime, but be advised that taking the 5th means you're now facing obstruction charges. Because hey, your lawful refusal to cooperate is interfering in a "lawful" investigation.

[Pete at Home]

If a DNC Congress sets the precedent of making contempt of Congress impeachable, that will bite them in the ass within our lifetimes.

[TheDeamon]

If a DNC Congress sets the precedent of making contempt of Congress impeachable, that will bite them in the ass within our lifetimes.

The Senate is going to kill it, probably with prejudice, in every sense of the word. We already know the Republicans are inclined to kill the process as it is, so the odds of their getting a 2/3rds majority to successfully impeach Trump is about zero. The only question is how many Democratic Senators vote to impeach anyway. That said, the House simply passing that resolution will certainly open a door they really don't want to open.

Unless of course the Republicans really hammer home to voters exactly what the Democrats did with this between now and November and it causes the Democrats in Congress to be removed from office in significant numbers, even many of the ones in "safe" districts. But I think the ones in "Safe  districts" are probably safe enough, it won't matter to them, so it'll likely be "typical seat turnover" that gets experienced and nothing that sends a clear signal.

But I am inclined to say any Congressperson who votes in support of that Contempt of Congress charge in particular(prior to both SCotUS involvement and Trump Admin non-compliance with SCotUS findings) needs to be removed from office post-haste, they obviously have no clue how our Constitutional Government is supposed to work.

[yossarian22c]

If a DNC Congress sets the precedent of making contempt of Congress impeachable, that will bite them in the ass within our lifetimes.

I wish they had waited on at least one federal judge ruling that someone had to testify/documents had to be turned over before going forward with the obstruction of congress charge. Even if they didn't wait the 6 months it may take it to get up to the supreme court. Or see if they could get a ruling from the SC withing 1-2 months.

[Seriati]

Of course, it is also fascinating that evidently exercising long recognized legal rights and seeking redress in the courts now qualifies you for obstruction of justice charges.

Its' the logical extension of what is clearly laid out in the Mueller report.  Take a close look again, Mueller pretty much said that not agreeing with prosecutors in public was an independent crime of obstruction of justice, even if the prosecutors had no active investigation because it could obstruct a future obligation.

The report also implied heavily that the team that drafted it believed that consulting with legal counsel (as you are entitled to do) is obstruction of justice even though they know they can't charge it, and it was crystal clear that they ignored it deliberately when they seized Cohen's files (Mueller literally said he included privileged information in the report and just put in a footnote that it may not be admissable - wow, what respect for a fundamental civil liberty).  That position is completely consistent with Congress's apparent position that Trump can hold nothing back, no matter how central to the Executive branch authority and irrelevant to the Legislative.  For example, they seem to feel entitled to testimony - without executive or counsel privilege held back - from the White House counsel.  Hard to see any way that is legit.

Note, they don't believe these rules apply to themselves.  Schiff won't go under oath, isn't going to reveal his files or his communications even where there's a plausible case that he engaged in a conspiracy against the President.  Whistle blower is in their view entitled to more protection than the President, even though the WB didn't follow the law providing for such protection and they can't find the law that the President violated.

I guess in this brave new world, the 5th Amendment will become a double edged sword, you need not fear being compelled to self-incriminate in regards to a given crime, but be advised that taking the 5th means you're now facing obstruction charges. Because hey, your lawful refusal to cooperate is interfering in a "lawful" investigation.

That's absolutely true by the way.  Taking the Fifth, if they are consistent, is now absolutely Obstruction of Justice.

On the hand, I think a President taking the fifth could certainly be evidence supporting impeachment.  Of course, I thought the same when Lerner took the fifth and refused to provide government records.  Taking the fifth is a personal right against compelled testimony, not an immunity for consequence where you have an independent legal obligation to provide something.  Gets messy in some circumstances but the courts are certainly able to weigh rights.

[TheDrake]

If there really is a principled theory behind this, then it's inexplicable that the House conducted their hearings in such a lopsided manner.  The process as conducted was deliberate in its avoidance of any apperence of fairness and in it's avoidance of even having witnesses related to the defense.

Did you see what kind of circus the Republicans wanted to make this into? Their denied witnesses:

The Whistleblower. Entirely irrelevant to what Trump did or didn't do.
Hunter Biden. Again, not relevant. Political.
Alexandra Chalupa. Not relevant to Trump's abuse of power.
Fusion GPS oppo research.

The list goes on.

Impeachment hearings are not an excuse to start trotting out every weird conspiracy fantasy the Republicans have. The hearings have a focus - what did Trump do, when did he do it, and why did he do it.

[Seriati]

If there really is a principled theory behind this, then it's inexplicable that the House conducted their hearings in such a lopsided manner.  The process as conducted was deliberate in its avoidance of any apperence of fairness and in it's avoidance of even having witnesses related to the defense.

Did you see what kind of circus the Republicans wanted to make this into?

So it was better to have a lopsided and unfair circus as the Democrats wanted?  Honestly, trying to defend this is ridiculous.  Every part of the American system relies on allowing the defense to construct it's case as it sees fit.  There is absolutely no harm to getting additional information that the other side deems relevant.  Would it have changed any votes in the House?  Maybe, particularly if it substantiated Trump's defense.

The ONLY reason that you're confused on this is in reality the single reason that controlled it, the single reason that is the gross abuse of power by Congress.  This would be a "circus" instead of finding out more information that my or may not be relevant because the intend audience of the "impeachment" was the 2020 voters and not anyone in the House seeking to find out what happened or build a case.

100% of the "circus" reasoning is tied to the improper goal of using impeachment as a way to build a narrative on the 2020 election.

Their denied witnesses:

The Whistleblower. Entirely irrelevant to what Trump did or didn't do.

Completely relevant to whether whether Schiff and the DNC engaged in a conspiracy to undermine a President's authority on foreign relations, which would be unConstitutional and illegal.  Completely relevant, especially given how inaccurate the claims were and how one sided those mistakes were (if only we had seen say 400 or so pages documenting the exact same type of one sided errors in connection with another investigation/impeachment predicate into Trump from which we could draw an inference....).

Honestly, this one is a no brainer. This person appears to have been a spy operating against the President that lied and colluded with the DNC.  They should be called to account to testify as to that relationship and their own claims.  The WB law does not apply to this person based on its terms, doesn't gauranty anonimity and does not protect at all from improper motives.  Even given the protections we provide to the WBs and the importance there of, this situation was not right. 

Effectively, if this is to be the law, you'd be hard pressed to declare anyone a spy, yet the FBI had no problem doing that to Carter Page based on a random rumor passed on by a low level member of the Trump campaign. 

What is the real principle here?

Hunter Biden. Again, not relevant. Political.

I sort of agree with this one.  Hunter should be investigated by the DOJ, no reason for him to testigy about it.

Alexandra Chalupa. Not relevant to Trump's abuse of power.

Take off the partisan blinders.  Ukranian interference in the 2016 election is fact.  It was no where near the Russian interference level.  That it was requested by members of the DNC and their affiliates seems at least as likely as not, that there was direct coordination with the Obama DOJ is a fact as well.

Chalupa's connection is 100% relevant to the defense that Trump was - as he literally said in his conversation with the Ukraine, as well as  in each conversation that was entered into the US, interested in showing that there was in fact DNC involvement in 2016 election interference.  Again, there's literally no reasonable excuse for not allowing her to be called.  She could always deny that involvement on the stand.

Especially against the IG's report as the back drop there's no longer room to claim that in targetting Trump his opponents have not engaged in highly inappropriate and illegal activities.

Fusion GPS oppo research.

Literally goes to the Ukraine 2016 interference.

The list goes on.

Yes it does, and that is exactly what this process wanted to hide.  The list of relevant witnesses to illegal 2016 election interference goes on and on, as do the witnesses that can establish the President's legitimate interest in those investigations.

Impeachment hearings are not an excuse to start trotting out every weird conspiracy fantasy the Republicans have. The hearings have a focus - what did Trump do, when did he do it, and why did he do it.

Apparently impeachment hearings are an excuse to pretend that every weird conspiracy fantasy the Democrats have has teeth to it, even if they can't find any evidence of it, cause you know a majority vote means it really really happened  (please ignore our completely open pursuit of own conflict of interest and that we're voting for this soley to try and interfere with 2020)

[NobleHunter]

Every part of the American system relies on allowing the defense to construct it's case as it sees fit.

How often does the defense present its case to a Grand Jury?

[TheDrake]

Completely relevant to whether whether Schiff and the DNC engaged in a conspiracy to undermine a President's authority on foreign relations, which would be unConstitutional and illegal. 

That's an entirely separate issue. That's an investigation you can have later, just like the Mueller investigation origins got investigated. Schiff isn't on trial here.

Ukranian interference in the 2016 election is fact.  It was no where near the Russian interference level.  That it was requested by members of the DNC and their affiliates seems at least as likely as not, that there was direct coordination with the Obama DOJ is a fact as well.

Not the part of the call that matters. Trump could have ranted about Crowdstrike nonsense all day and we wouldn't be here. That is also separable.

[Seriati]

Every part of the American system relies on allowing the defense to construct it's case as it sees fit.

How often does the defense present its case to a Grand Jury?

Show me a "public grand jury."  Doesn't exist for a reason.

If you can find a public event of this nature that doesn't allow for a defense, you're either talking about a Kangaroo court or a mob murdering someone, or a DNC controlled House that has zero interest in getting to the truth.

Or to put it another way, there is NO parallel to a grand jury.  it's a self serving media/DNC lie told to put a blatantly unfair process in the cloak of a familiar word.

[Seriati]

Completely relevant to whether whether Schiff and the DNC engaged in a conspiracy to undermine a President's authority on foreign relations, which would be unConstitutional and illegal. 

That's an entirely separate issue. That's an investigation you can have later, just like the Mueller investigation origins got investigated. Schiff isn't on trial here.

No.

I do not agree that it's legitimate to disrupt the executive branch with false allegations on the argument that he false allegations must be "handled first" and then we can see why they were created.  Again, this is not part of American justice.

Ukranian interference in the 2016 election is fact.  It was no where near the Russian interference level.  That it was requested by members of the DNC and their affiliates seems at least as likely as not, that there was direct coordination with the Obama DOJ is a fact as well.

Not the part of the call that matters. Trump could have ranted about Crowdstrike nonsense all day and we wouldn't be here. That is also separable.

You're mis-remembering the actual call and testimony on what Trump said.  There is no evidence other than Schiff's own lies that ties this to anything but 2016 Ukrainian election interference, and there is documented evidence that occurred and that it was anti-Trump.

Again, you have no consistent principal to explain why interference against Trump is okay and can't be investigated, but there should be an absolute and irrebutable assumption that legitimate investigations must be re-construed as solely about benefiting Trump in 2020.  Which again, given that multiple DNC members have announced about the need to impeach Trump to interfere in the 2020 election is morally indefensible.

[TheDrake]

Show me where a defendant in our court system gets to argue that they never should have been investigated in the first place.

You're mis-remembering the actual call and testimony on what Trump said.  There is no evidence other than Schiff's own lies that ties this to anything but 2016 Ukrainian election interference, and there is documented evidence that occurred and that it was anti-Trump.

Good god, man. He mentioned Biden by name. Biden was never suspected of interfering in an election, he was supposedly corrupt and removed a prosecutor.

[NobleHunter]

Show me a "public grand jury."  Doesn't exist for a reason.

If you can find a public event of this nature that doesn't allow for a defense, you're either talking about a Kangaroo court or a mob murdering someone, or a DNC controlled House that has zero interest in getting to the truth.

Or to put it another way, there is NO parallel to a grand jury.  it's a self serving media/DNC lie told to put a blatantly unfair process in the cloak of a familiar word.

So not every part of the system then.

It doesn't appear the GOP is interested in getting to the truth either, or they would allow the most relevant witnesses to testify. They certainly had no interest when trying to use Benghazi to take down Clinton.

Are you just upset that the DNC escalated the House fault-finding circus to impeachment first?

[Seriati]

Show me where a defendant in our court system gets to argue that they never should have been investigated in the first place.

They do it all the time.  We have entire doctrines, like "fruit of the poisonous tree," "miranda rights," and disqualification of evidence from improperly granted warrants.  These have repeatedly overturned convictions.  We also literally have convictions overturned for prosecutorial misconduct, including specifically for investigations based on inproper motives.

You're mis-remembering the actual call and testimony on what Trump said.  There is no evidence other than Schiff's own lies that ties this to anything but 2016 Ukrainian election interference, and there is documented evidence that occurred and that it was anti-Trump.

Good god, man. He mentioned Biden by name. Biden was never suspected of interfering in an election, he was supposedly corrupt and removed a prosecutor.

So what, I was responding there about Chalupa, and specifically that investigating DNC 2016 election interference is totally legitimate.

Did you misread what you were responding to?

Show me a "public grand jury."  Doesn't exist for a reason.

If you can find a public event of this nature that doesn't allow for a defense, you're either talking about a Kangaroo court or a mob murdering someone, or a DNC controlled House that has zero interest in getting to the truth.

Or to put it another way, there is NO parallel to a grand jury.  it's a self serving media/DNC lie told to put a blatantly unfair process in the cloak of a familiar word.

So not every part of the system then.

What the heck does that even mean? If you're pretending this is the same as a grand jury when you ignore that it's illegal to discuss grand jury proceedings whereas this was intentionally public and leaky, you are literally ignoring the reason that grand juries are allowed to operate in a one sided manner.  Despite how it may seem, Grand Juries are there to protect the rights of the accused, not the Prosecutor and that is the exact opposite of what this process was for.

It doesn't appear the GOP is interested in getting to the truth either, or they would allow the most relevant witnesses to testify.

Who did the "GOP" prevent from testifying.  They had no say in who was permitted to be called.

Or are you going to pretend that Trump protecting the executive branch is what this is about?  Is your assertion really that Trump has to obey Congress notwithstanding the Constitution, but that Congress is free to do whatever it wants notwithstanding the Constitution.  That the President has the exclusive authority to conduct foreign relations, but that Congress can simple say the words "impeachment investigation" without a basis and magically gain access to everything on earth in search of an offense even though they have no other authority to get that?

Can you quote the part of the Constitution that supports that?

They certainly had no interest when trying to use Benghazi to take down Clinton.

What makes you say that?  I think the most likely thing they believed is that the truth about Benghazi was in fact damning and they wanted to expose it.

Are you just upset that the DNC escalated the House fault-finding circus to impeachment first?

I'm upset that apparently people think abuse of power by their team is completely okay no matter how egregious.  I pointed out to you guys real time when Obama expanded the executive authority and you didn't care.  People on this site literally said, he had to act because Congress wouldn't.  Congress has blatantly ignored the Constitution in this inquiry and you don't care.  Leftist activist judges have expressly created the concept of the living constitution so that they can defend ignoring the actual Constitution, and you don't care.

I don't see any basis for any of it other than team.  This investigation is 100% the same, it's an open and cynical attempt to interfere with the 2020 election through an abuse of power, based on the projection of claiming the other guy is interfering in 2020 by an abuse of power (even though not a single part of it makes sense or can be established by facts).

[NobleHunter]

Where does the Constitution say that the President may keep secrets from Congress?

Where does the Constitution define what basis is necessary for impeachment?

As usual, the conservative reverence for a literal reading of the Constitution means "what I already agree with."

Since Trump has the exclusive authority to issue pardons could he set up a cash-for-pardons scheme and claim privilege over the negotiations on the size of the bribe?

[TheDeamon]

If there really is a principled theory behind this, then it's inexplicable that the House conducted their hearings in such a lopsided manner.  The process as conducted was deliberate in its avoidance of any apperence of fairness and in it's avoidance of even having witnesses related to the defense.

Did you see what kind of circus the Republicans wanted to make this into? Their denied witnesses:

The Whistleblower. Entirely irrelevant to what Trump did or didn't do.
Hunter Biden. Again, not relevant. Political.
...

The list goes on.

Impeachment hearings are not an excuse to start trotting out every weird conspiracy fantasy the Republicans have. The hearings have a focus - what did Trump do, when did he do it, and why did he do it.

I'm curious as to how Hunter Biden is NOT relevant to an impeachment investigation involving Trump seeking to get the Ukrainians to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's possible involvement in protecting his son.

Establishing there was no reasonable grounds for investigating Hunter, by getting him to testify under oath, would in turn help prove the case that it was about 2020. By ignoring Hunter entirely, the Democrats are obviously doing a significant bit of hand-waving by declaring no need to even talk to him, never mind even do a basic investigation of their own.

And getting the whistle-blower to testify does have potential relevance, that you cannot see that also points to partisan hand-waving.

[D.W.]

On the other hand, if they fumble, and Papa Biden puts his foot in it, I'll be quite pleased.  So maybe it's a way to hurt his chances, without letting Trump think it worked... or something.  Just go away Biden!

[TheDeamon]

Ukranian interference in the 2016 election is fact.  It was no where near the Russian interference level.  That it was requested by members of the DNC and their affiliates seems at least as likely as not, that there was direct coordination with the Obama DOJ is a fact as well.

Not the part of the call that matters. Trump could have ranted about Crowdstrike nonsense all day and we wouldn't be here. That is also separable.

It isn't separable for Trump. If you think otherwise, you're deluded. You're claiming to know the mind of Donald Trump, that the whole purpose of withholding those funds was to investigate the Bidens for 2020, while Trump is off still fuming over 2020, and talking to Ukraine about investigating Crowdstirke, which would only be relevant to 2016, yet someone it magically is not relevant to those being held back?

Talk about doublethink. He attempted to extort Ukraine into investigating Crowdstrike's activities in 2016 wholly for the purpose of what again? How does that benefit him in 2020? How does that relate to the Bidens?

If he's withholding funds in part because of Crowdstrike and documented Ukrainian interference in 2016(and possibly other reasons as well), than he cannot be wholly withholding funds to benefit his 2020 campaign against Joe Biden.

And when the Democratic case stands on the Bidens and 2020 being the only reason, that presents a rather fatal flaw in their case. That they refused to even touch it in their investigation says they know it to be one as well, which is why they didn't touch it.

[TheDrake]

If only somebody could testify as to why the funds were withheld. You don't need to interview any of those people to answer that question. Crowdstrike can be fully smoke and mirrors, and if Trump genuinely believed it (he does) the argument works the same way.

[TheDeamon]

Only only leadership in the House hadn't jumped the gun because the orange man is bad.

[Pete at Home]

“Where does the Constitution say that the President may keep secrets from Congress? “


Commander in chief and other presidential roles implies an ability to keep secrets. A secret is no secret unless it’s kept from Congress.