... you have already convicted Trump of an impeachable offense. ...
Gathering information on evidence of wrong doing is not convicting. There is no conviction until the senate votes.
But I'm glad you think the actions listed are bad.
He has lost over a billion dollars since becoming President. Don't sound like he is making a profit to me.
Evidence for this claim is ...? His tax returns?
You can lose money in one business and make a profit in another. The fact that he profits from using his golf resorts and having the taxpayers pay for it and his staff etc. is still counter to the emoluments clause no matter how much he loses in other businesses (he, after all, is a known business failure with many bankruptcies to his name)
No charges of obstruction was presented.
The report listed several instances of obstruction, but said that DOJ policy to not charge a sitting president prevented him from making charges so they were left for congress to deal with.
quote:
Mueller Said He Would Have Exonerated Trump On Obstruction If The Evidence Supported It, But He Couldn’t
WASHINGTON Special counsel Robert Mueller wrote in his final report that his office would have exonerated President Donald Trump if the evidence had supported it, but based on the information they had, they could not do that.
Mueller ultimately declined to make a prosecutorial judgment about whether Trump had committed any obstruction offenses, choosing instead to submit his evidence and legal analysis on the issue to Attorney General Bill Barr. Mueller repeatedly found substantial evidence that Trump had committed potentially obstructive acts and that often his intent was to stymie the investigation into himself and his campaign. Barr, after consulting with senior Justice Department officials, concluded that the evidence did not support finding that Trump had committed a crime, however.
Undercutting Trump’s claim that Mueller, in addition to Barr, had cleared him of wrongdoing on obstruction, Mueller wrote that if his office had confidence that Trump did not commit obstruction, we would so state. But based on the facts and the law, he wrote, we were unable to reach that judgment.
The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred, Mueller wrote. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
The obstruction section of the report, when read as a whole, depicts an administration in which Trump’s impulsive responses to the events unfolding around him routinely put him at odds with his senior aides and White House lawyers. It describes several instances where top officials simply ignored directives from the president or those close to him in order to avoid taking action that they believed was ill-advised or, more seriously, could undermine his own administration.
Former White House counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out Trump’s order to contact the Justice Department about Trump’s concerns that Mueller had a conflict of interest because McGahn and other advisers thought it was silly. When Trump decided to fire former FBI director James Comey, one White House aide wrote in her notes, ‘[i]s this the beginning of the end? in reference to his presidency.
The report shows that White House officials were aware early on that however they responded to the Russia investigation could raise questions about attempts to obstruct justice. After then—attorney general Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation in March 2017 because of his role in Trump’s campaign, the White House counsel’s office tried to limit communication between the White House and Sessions, with one note from the office reading, Serious concerns about obstruction.
Mueller wrote that historical guidance from the Justice Department against indicting a sitting president in part guided his decision not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment about whether Trump committed obstruction. The Office of Legal Counsel had previously issued an opinion that the indictment of a sitting president would impermissibly undermine the functions of the executive branch, and Mueller said he recognized that independently as well.
And we know that Barr lied about the report.
The executive and the congress are co-equal branches of government.
If the congress wants to make Trump comply all they have to do is take him to court and let the court decide. They haven't because they are afraid the court will support Trumps decision.
Actually it is in the courts
quote:
The Justice Department Argued Congress Can’t Force Senior Trump Advisers To Testify And That There’s Nothing Courts Can Do About It
The legal fight involves the Mueller report and tests an immunity argument that the Trump administration is making to block potential witnesses from testifying in the impeachment inquiry.
The case involves a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee to former White House counsel Don McGahn. It predates House Democrats’ formal announcement of an impeachment inquiry into Trump, but represents the first test in court since Trump took office of an argument the administration is pushing to stymie the impeachment inquiry: that current and former senior White House officials have absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas.
Over nearly four hours of arguments, US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson repeatedly expressed skepticism as Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the courts lacked authority to intervene in a fight over congressional demands for information. Like the immunity argument, the role of the courts also bears on Democrats’ impeachment inquiry there’s already one lawsuit filed by a potential impeachment witness asking a judge to decide if he has to comply with a subpoena or go with the White House’s claim of immunity.
So what does checks and balances mean? Jackson asked. How can the legislature actually exercise oversight with respect to the executive unless it has some ability to enforce its inquiries, its commandments with respect to ‘give me information’?
The Justice Department has previously acknowledged that the significance of the McGahn case extends beyond the Mueller probe. In a lawsuit brought earlier this month by Charles Kupperman, the former acting national security adviser in the Trump administration subpoenaed to testify in the impeachment inquiry, the Justice Department told a judge earlier this week that the case raises a number of issues that may overlap with the issues presented in the McGahn fight.
A ruling from a single district court judge isn’t binding on any other judge in the DC federal court, but judges do pay attention to what their colleagues do when presented with similar issues. Whoever loses at this stage of the McGahn case is expected to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. From there, the losing side could petition the Supreme Court to get involved.
So I strongly urge you (and other readers) to read this article in full, it could be very pivotal to the whole issue of balance of power.
And they are still working on other witnesses. Funny how there are so many people that are convicted of illegal behavior, plus so many willing to testify under oath if there is no there there. Funny how the Administration is scrambling to cover up information if there is no wrongdoing.
Veto votes are not treason, that is just the president disagreeing with congress. Trump has been tougher on Russia than any previous president. Especially the one that stated, you can tell putin that after the election I can be more flexable.
You're not reading -- that ">" means "greater than" -- the bipartisan votes for imposing sanctions on Russia exceeded the number needed to overturn a veto, and that means that he has to comply. He didn't.
Nuclear power plants are a long way from giving information on nuclear bomb making. Saudi Arabia could have nuclear bomb making information as simple as making a deal with North Korea, they have the money to buy anything they want.
Again, you are not getting it: the congress had voted to withhold the information, again bipartisan greater than veto proof, and he did it anyway.
This means he violated the constitution balance of power, again, and the rest of your excuse is irrelevant.
The closest I have seen to that is him telling Russia if they had Hillary's email's he would like to have them.
Then you are not looking. He asked both Ukraine and China to help him. It was on tv.
As far as asking a foreign government to investigate a US citizen's dealings in their country is not asking to help him in his election.
Except that the only citizen in question is linked directly to a candidate, and the information requested could be used against that candidate. It wasn't John Doe from Puxatauny NJ selling illegal cigarettes.
Get your head out of the sand. What RINO republican paid anything for the dossier?
Really?
quote:
Trump—Russia dossier
Research funded by conservative website
In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on several Republican presidential candidates, including Trump.[1] The Free Beacon and Singer were "part of the conservative never-Trump movement".[31] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016,[32] The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.[2][33]
In October 2017, the Free Beacon issued a statement:
All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.[34]
Although the source of the Steele dossier's funding had already been reported correctly over a year before,[2][33][35] and the Free Beacon had issued a statement to this effect in October 2017,[34] a February 2, 2018, story by the Associated Press (AP) contributed to confusion about its funding by stating that the dossier "was initially funded" by the Washington Free Beacon, so the AP posted a correction the next day: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it."[36]
Free Beacon started the process. Hillary's lawyer just paid to continue the investigations.
No prosecutor can acquit a suspect of anything as that is not their job. ...
Right. I should have said that Mueller could not exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice, because there was evidence of it and that he could not indict Trump on it because of DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, so he was leaving it for Congress to pursue.
... A prosecutors job is to gather the evidence and then state he has enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution or that does not have enough evidence to proceed. He did not have enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution.
No -- he was prevented from proceeding to indict/prosecute by DOJ policy regarding a sitting president.
Remember Barr just became AG and it was his firm belief that they could not prosecute a sitting president. Mueller had to comply with his new boss on this.
So I ask you now is there any statement in green that is soliciting military aid from Trump?
quote:
Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
Zelenskyy asks for the aid, and Trump responds
quote:
I would like you to do us a favor though ... I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.
Those ellipses (...) we now know omitted some information. Further, before saying anything about approving the foreign aid:
quote:
... I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
"It's very important that you do it ..." with still no mention of allowing the aid to proceed. The implication is clear: do this and we can talk about the aid. You have to be willingly blind not to see it.
On the other hand Biden said fire the prosecutor or you will not get the billion dollars. At the same time his Son Hunter sat on the board of a company the prosecutor was investigating and had been ordered to wind up the investigation.
Biden
plus bipartisan congress plus US allies wanted the prosecutor fired because they were not investigating the rampant corruption.
Biden's actions is declared OK but Trumps requests for an investigation into things that took place involving US citizens in Ukraine is not OK.
Biden
plus bipartisan congress plus US allies wanted the prosecutor fired because they were not investigating the rampant corruption. This did not involve US political campaigns, this did not involve asking them to investigate US citizens. Trumps request involving a single US citizen that is tied to a Dem candidate does involve US political campaigning, and Trump singled out Biden for investigation and that is what is not okay. See the distinction?
Let's look at the "corruption" involved ... Hunter Biden on the board of a company. What do we see that is similar or worse? Try the whole Trump family ... like Ivanka getting Chinese patents and exemption from Chinese tariffs?
I don't see any place in the transcript where Giuliani said anything.
Are you playing dumb? He was mentioned in the transcript as a contact, and he has since confirmed that he discussed the arms aid conditional on help with the "favor" ... on tv. Keep trying, the evidence keeps mounting.
So you would impeach the president on what someone else said.
If by impeach you mean gather incriminating evidence sufficient to include in articles of impeachment to present in a senate hearing then yes. Clinton was impeached, then it went to the senate where he was not convicted.
Impeachment is like a grand jury hearing, gathering information, it is not a trial.
BTW I just saw Sen Manchin D WV say there had been no evidence presented so for to support impeachment. So he is presently a NO vote in the Senate.
He's a DINO and one of the worst DINOs in congress. He has voted with republicans more than democrats. What he says is worthless.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added
I have my bag of popcorn and am now sitting back and watching our system of justice do its thing. I am not necessarily out to "get Trump" as so many accuse the political Left of doing. (I consider myself a political moderate) I am interested in uncovering the raw truth--truth unedited, unobstructed, and non-partisan.
™ Version 4.2
(1)