Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[Maximus1]

Opposite of what? The articles say they will try to toss him in jail

 

[Ridgerunner]

How many statutes existed as Federal crimes when the founders signed the Constitution? Let me help you. ZERO! How could they intend something that didn’t exist? Please don’t try to say how. It would be a train wreck

Train wreck or not, they had the laws of England, which were the laws followed in the U.S. prior to statutory enactments and many of which are followed to this day.

 

[mrad25]

• Quite fake
• You said Russian President, not me.
• It’s right there in the code.

1. Fake only to Democrats.
2. As did you.
3. It’s nowhere in US criminal code, in fact the word extortion can’t even be found in the Articles themselves, so much for that, eh?

 

[drcube]

• Fake only to Democrats.
• As did you.
• It’s nowhere in US criminal code, in fact the word extortion can’t even be found in the Articles themselves, so much for that, eh?

1. Fake to those with a grasp on reality.
2. I was following up your comment. I didn’t know you meant the Ukrainian President. That’s on you.
3. Yes, it is. I pointed out how it is. And the word “extortion” doesn’t need to be the Articles of Impeachment because it is not a criminal proceeding in the judicial branch of the government.

 

[HarryStotle]

And somehow you don’t think that Trump wanting a fake Ukrainian investigation in exchange for releasing money doesn’t qualify as “the extraction of anything of value (an investigation into his political enemies) from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury (withholding money needed to protect his country from Russia)”.

First off, the “person” in question would have to be aware of the threat to them, which they weren’t since there was no assurance that they would get the money in any case.

Second, Obama never provided the actual defensive weaponry that was actually provided by the Trump administration, so there was no expectation by Ukraine of any protection from Russia to begin with.

Third, given that monetary aid from the Obama administration came with all kinds of strings attached from the “point man” Biden, who actually threatened the “withholding of money” from Ukraine for frivolous pretexts, there was no expectation on the part of the Ukrainians that monetary aid didn’t ever come from the US without the “extraction” of something of value.

Fourthly, aid is never given to another country without some expectation or other, and the expectation to “look into” corruption is not an unreasonable request on the part of Trump. Indeed, it is a responsible request.

Fifth, given that under the Obama administration with Joe as the “point man” approximately $7 billion in foreign aid simply evaporated and remains unaccounted for, there is no assurance that mere monetary aid sent to Ukraine would be a positive benefit to the country as a nation.

Sixth, since $7 billion is US aid did virtually “disappear” during the Obama administration, it places the onus on Trump as President to be more responsible for any foreign aid to Ukraine than Obama seemed to be.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Seventh, providing Ukraine dedicated aid would make it more likely that it wouldn’t simply be squandered in the hands of corrupt oligarchs.

The Defense Department’s tranche was set to include sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, counter-artillery radars, electronic warfare detection and secure communications, night vision equipment, and military medical supplies and treatment. The department previously included counter-sniper equipment, Humvees and tactical drones as well.

The State Department funding included $115 million for a broad array of purposes, to buy American-produced weapons through the Foreign Military Financing program, but also to provide advisers and training to boost Ukraine’s NATO interoperability: English language labs, medical equipment and improvised bomb simulators. The funds could also pay for spare parts, sustainment and training for previously purchased U.S. gear.
Source: Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

Eighth, Ukraine – contrary to your assertion – is not under any kind of delusion that the US owes them aid or that they have some kind of entitlement to aid, so it cannot be bribery nor extortion because foreign aid is always subject to conditions, never merely handed over freely and ought never be viewed as “the extraction of anything of value from another person” under any kind of compulsion because there are no “rights” being abrogated. A bribe or extortion presumably takes something they are rightfully owed from the person being bribed or extorted under duress. What was Ukraine losing that was owed to them?

 

[drcube]

First off, the “person” in question would have to be aware of the threat to them, which they weren’t since there was no assurance that they would get the money in any case.

A reasonable person can conclude that the person knew they were under threat.

Second, Obama never provided the actual defensive weaponry that was actually provided by the Trump administration, so there was no expectation by Ukraine of any protection to begin with.

The aid was used to defend Ukraine against Russia in both cases.

Third, given that monetary aid from the Obama administration came with all kinds of strings attached from the “point man” Biden, who actually threatened the “withholding of money” from Ukraine for frivolous pretexts, there was no expectation on the part of the Ukrainians that monetary aid didn’t ever come from the US without the “extraction” of something of value.

Contexts here means clearing the highest levels of Ukrainian government of corrupt officials.

Fourthly, aid is never given to another country without some expectation or other, and the expectation to “look into” corruption is not an unreasonable request on the part of Trump. Indeed, it is a responsible request.

Looking into corruption or firing corrupt prosecutors is not an unreasonable expectation. Expecting the Ukrianian government to open an investigation into Trump’s political opponents and make an announcement to that effect is an unreasonable (and illegal) expectation.

Sixth, since $7 billion is US aid did virtually “disappear” during the Obama administration, it places the onus on Trump as President to be more responsible for any foreign aid to Ukraine than Obama seemed to be.

Has nothing to do with this discussion.

Seventh, providing Ukraine dedicated aid would make it more likely that it wouldn’t simply be squandered in the hands of corrupt oligarchs.

That is a plus. And irrelevant to Trump’s extortion.

Eighth, Ukraine – contrary to your assertion – is not under any kind of delusion that the US owes them aid or that they have some kind of entitlement to aid, so it cannot be bribery nor extortion because foreign aid is always subject to conditions, never merely handed over freely and ought never be viewed as “the extraction of anything of value from another person” under any kind of compulsion because there are no “rights” being abrogated. A bribe or extortion presumably takes something they are rightfully owed from the person being bribed or extorted under duress. What was Ukraine losing that was owed to them?

They are entitled to the aid earmarked for them by Congress and not to be held up by a President seeking an investigation into his political enemies.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The Dems,AS NP et all liars

 

[drcube]

The Dems,AS NP et all liars

All “Dems” or just Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi?

 

[HarryStotle]

Contexts here means clearing the highest levels of Ukrainian government of corrupt officials.

Well, no actually.

There was only ONE allegedly “corrupt” individual in question, Shokin. And he was only thought to be corrupt because he was looking into the company that hired Biden’s son as a member of the board.

There is a lot to be said about the corruption of Burisma and its owners/founders, but nice of you to “embellish” your case by making the target of corruption "the highest levels of…corrupt officials " (plural), as if Joe was actually attempting to get a cohort or gaggle of corrupt officials fired. He wasn’t.

 

[drcube]

Well, no actually.

There was only ONE allegedly “corrupt” individual in question, Shokin. And he was only thought to be corrupt because he was looking into the company that hired Biden’s son as a member of the board.

There is a lot to be said about the corruption of Burisma and its owners/founders, but nice of you to “embellish” your case by making the target of corruption "the highest levels of…corrupt official s " (plural), as if Joe was actually attempting to get a cohort or gaggle of corrupt officials fired. He wasn’t.

Right, people that Shokin was corrupt because he was looking into Burisma. Except he wasn’t. The investigation was dormant.

 

[HarryStotle]

Right, people that Shokin was corrupt because he was looking into Burisma. Except he wasn’t. The investigation was dormant.

That is what the narrative keeps saying, but it is untrue.

…The Daily Beast claimed Solomon’s report was false because “[t]he investigation into Burisma, the energy company, had long been dormant.”

But the Daily Beast, not John Solomon, was guilty of false reporting. Rather than being “dormant,” Shokin’s investigation into Burisma was active at the time Biden claimed to have had Shokin fired.

Just a month before, in February 2016, Shokin’s office had sought and won court-ordered seizures of property owned by Burisma’s founder, some of which had been seized the year before. Even the Washington Post documented that Ukrainian prosecutors sent evidence about Burisma to a U.S.-funded, FBI-assisted law enforcement bureau in December 2015 — the same month Biden addressed Ukraine’s parliament and privately urged Shokin’s firing. And as Solomon has reported, but his critics in the press seem to have ignored, Burisma’s lawyer at a high-powered New York law firm wrote to the Ukrainian prosecutor general about Burisma in May of 2016, several month after Shokin had been replaced. That same lawyer gave an interview in Ukraine detailing his defense strategy, which culminated in a court concluding in September 2016 that “no criminal procedures should be taken” against Burisma’s founder. Reuters and others have reported that the investigation into Burisma was not officially closed until 10 months after Shokin was fired.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Moreover, Shokin himself claimed that he was fired because Vice President Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. ABC News, Bloomberg, and others also reported Shokin’s side of the story, and Shokin repeated similar statements in an affidavit prepared for a European court. Solomon responsibly concluded his piece by emphasizing that Biden “deserves the right to be presumed innocent despite Shokin’s accusations. Yet The Daily Beast and Vox have systematically maligned Solomon (but not other reporters who covered the same stories) for promoting “conspiracy theories.” Why is it Solomon’s factual reporting alone, and not the numerous concurrent hit pieces seeking to discredit him, that is part of a “conspiracy”?
Source: Media Attack on John Solomon Is an Attack on the Free Press | RealClearPolitics!

 

[mrad25]

• Fake to those with a grasp on reality.
• I was following up your comment. I didn’t know you meant the Ukrainian President. That’s on you.
• Yes, it is. I pointed out how it is. And the word “extortion” doesn’t need to be the Articles of Impeachment because it is not a criminal proceeding in the judicial branch of the government.

1. It was all made it, all the investigations of Burisma corruption, maybe in your reality.
2. Sure.
3. Reality is that it’s not. You can’t copy and paste the criminal statute code because it isn’t. If one wants to accuse the President of extortion then you accuse him of such in the Articles, and don’t make lame excuses after the fact why you didn’t use the word at all in the articles. Every President ever impeached was accused of a actual crimes in Articles of impeachment, except Trump.

 

[Horton]

Some think it’s bribery, I think it’s extortion. You are misreading criminal code if you think it’s neither.

> the term “extortion” means an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person;

So your claim now is President Trump threatened Zaensky with injury of another person or kidnapping of any person. WOW, just wow. I know the Dems are really creative with their “descriptions” of things and events they don’t like but this claim is a bit over the top.

Can’t wait to see how you defend this claim.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Representative Jeff Van Drew just switched from Democrat to Republican over the Impeachment hearings.

 

[Jeanne_S]

There may or may not have been other calls.Did you listen in? Are you privy to what may have been discussed?

 

[EmmaSowl]

I recommend balancing establishment news (which has proved itself more interested in click bait than reporting) with self-employed sources who don’t answer to corporations.

YouTube has some great independent reporters/commentators/interviewers who are willing to talk to anyone in the news and about any story suppressed by establishment sources. Here are some calm, rational faves of mine (who are quite different from each other):

Dave Rubin (The Rubin Report)
Tim Pool (Timcast)
Fleccas Talks
Rose of Dawn
Joe Rogan

 

[PaulinVA]

Dave Rubin (The Rubin Report)
Tim Pool (Timcast)
Fleccas Talks
Rose of Dawn
Joe Rogan

Emma, am I right in identifying them as commentators, not first source journalists?

 

[EmmaSowl]

Tim Pool has done on-the-ground reporting in Venezuela and Sweden. He is credited as being the first journalist to use drones and Facebook livestream (when he covered Occupy Wall Street). Before his journalism days, he was an environmental activist. He was a founding member of Vox. But, yes, now he mostly does commentary - drawing on his insights working in corporate media.

Fleccas Talks engages in polite first-hand interviews with the man-on-the-street – mostly at protests.

Rose of Dawn (whom I thought was transgender, but I recently heard was not trans but gay - so I don’t know) investigated and reported on Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv (a Canadian) and broke open Yaniv’s harassment of minorities and young girls. Yaniv is now in legal trouble.

Dave Rubin is a married gay man who used to be with The Young Turks but now has his own interview show.

Joe Rogan is strictly an interview guy - but he interviews anyone on the spectrum: Candice Owens, Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Jack Dorsey, Ben Shapiro, Michael Malice, and just about anyone who loves MMA (mixed martial arts).

If you have any inclination to check out any of these non-corporate sources, I’d suggest starting with the Joe Rogan interview of Jack Dorsey (Twitter guy), Dorsey’s lawyer, and Tim Pool.

If you still feel that these reporters are not worth your time, I would ask: are Brian Stelter, Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer, Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, and Anderson Cooper (today) first-source journalists?