Impeaching Donald Trump

[Alan Klein]

Didn't he say that ISIS had been defeated? Then why stay?

We're staying in the Netherlands too.  Maybe Trump will steal your windmills.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

 

[James Clark]

Don’t be absurd.  I have it on good authority that they cause cancer.

[Rob C]

Didn't he say that ISIS had been defeated? Then why stay?

The compass owns 360 degrees; why should a head of state be denied as many alternatives to reality and/or truth? As they say, it's always just a matter of degree.

;-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well this is an inconvenient truth:  https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/08/sotu-meadows-full.cnn  Lengthy interview with Congressman Mark Meadows, one of the President's chief advocates in the house.  Dana Bash gets to the point with the following:

    BASH: You were in the majority in the House. You're on the committee that oversees this.
    Why didn't you investigate if it was so wrong then?

    MEADOWS: Well, one, I didn't -- I didn't know about it at the particular time.
    And when -- when you look at things, as things come up, you would...

    BASH: But it was public information.

    MEADOWS: What was public information?

    BASH: That Hunter Biden was on the board of this company.

    MEADOWS: Well, I -- I don't know about you. I'm -- I don't know that any of your viewers go and look through Burisma's notice that Hunter Biden was there.
    I think all of us can admit that we didn’t know that Hunter Biden was getting $50,000-plus a month from a corrupt Ukrainian company.

This is from a Congressman who was on the relevant committee that could do oversight and yet did not.  He flails with the lame excuse that this was not public information despite the fact that Hunter Biden's position was covered early on by a lot of mainstream and political media before they became "fake news."  This whole charade is too laughable and historians in the future will be scratching their heads in wonderment.

[Alan Klein]

Well this is an inconvenient truth:  https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/08/sotu-meadows-full.cnn  Lengthy interview with Congressman Mark Meadows, one of the President's chief advocates in the house.  Dana Bash gets to the point with the following:

    BASH: You were in the majority in the House. You're on the committee that oversees this.
    Why didn't you investigate if it was so wrong then?

    MEADOWS: Well, one, I didn't -- I didn't know about it at the particular time.
    And when -- when you look at things, as things come up, you would...

    BASH: But it was public information.

    MEADOWS: What was public information?

    BASH: That Hunter Biden was on the board of this company.

    MEADOWS: Well, I -- I don't know about you. I'm -- I don't know that any of your viewers go and look through Burisma's notice that Hunter Biden was there.
    I think all of us can admit that we didn’t know that Hunter Biden was getting $50,000-plus a month from a corrupt Ukrainian company.

This is from a Congressman who was on the relevant committee that could do oversight and yet did not.  He flails with the lame excuse that this was not public information despite the fact that Hunter Biden's position was covered early on by a lot of mainstream and political media before they became "fake news."  This whole charade is too laughable and historians in the future will be scratching their heads in wonderment.

The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress.  Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply.  Who's negotiating with Xi?  With Kim? With NATO leaders?  With Iran? With the Ukrainian president?   For example it is the president who has the power to impose trade sanctions on Iran and tariffs on China and European countries, not Congress.  What Congress should be doing is passing the USMCA trade bill with Canada and Mexico. The fact is Congress is out to lunch most of the time.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress.  Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply.  Who's negotiating with Xi?  With Kim? With NATO leaders?  With Iran? With the Ukrainian president?

Let me guess; Rudy Giuliani?

[Alan Klein]

Let me guess; Rudy Giuliani?

?

[Robert Roaldi]

The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress.  Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply.  Who's negotiating with Xi?  With Kim? With NATO leaders?  With Iran? With the Ukrainian president?   For example it is the president who has the power to impose trade sanctions on Iran and tariffs on China and European countries, not Congress.  What Congress should be doing is passing the USMCA trade bill with Canada and Mexico. The fact is Congress is out to lunch most of the time.

I'm not at all sure what your response has to do with what Alan G. wrote. You behave a lot like politicians do, just keep re-stating memorized talking points regardless of the current topic.

But let me see if I can summarize. Congress is out to lunch. All of the normal media is fake. Foreigners are all ignorant and have no right to voice an opinion. I can't remember if you ever said anything about the Senate. So, Trump is the only person who knows what's going on, is he?

You don't actually believe in democracy, do you?

I'm not sure if you ever responded to the idea that if Trump really thought that the Bidens had done something wrong, then why hadn't he acted by asking one of the many security/investigative departments at his disposal to look into things? They, at least, have to obey his orders. Trying to either ask or coerce a foreign power to do this on his behalf is so fraught with peril that it is a particularly dumb way to go about it, seems to me.

And as an aside, did Trump show any interest in Biden before Biden started his Presidential bid? If he really thought that Biden was crooked, he had at least two years or so to get someone to look into it. Did he?

[Alan Klein]

I'm not at all sure what your response has to do with what Alan G. wrote. You behave a lot like politicians do, just keep re-stating memorized talking points regardless of the current topic.

But let me see if I can summarize. Congress is out to lunch. All of the normal media is fake. Foreigners are all ignorant and have no right to voice an opinion. I can't remember if you ever said anything about the Senate. So, Trump is the only person who knows what's going on, is he?

You don't actually believe in democracy, do you?

I'm not sure if you ever responded to the idea that if Trump really thought that the Bidens had done something wrong, then why hadn't he acted by asking one of the many security/investigative departments at his disposal to look into things? They, at least, have to obey his orders. Trying to either ask or coerce a foreign power to do this on his behalf is so fraught with peril that it is a particularly dumb way to go about it, seems to me.

And as an aside, did Trump show any interest in Biden before Biden started his Presidential bid? If he really thought that Biden was crooked, he had at least two years or so to get someone to look into it. Did he?

Robert, You;re all over the place.  I did respond to Alan G's comment.  The congressman doesn't have the authority to do what the President did.  In any case, what Congress does or doesn;t do has nothing to do with the president.  He's his own man and has his own responsibilities and authorities. 

Additionally, in July 2019, he asked the new president of Ukraine who was looking for foreign aid from us to investigate Ukrainian corruption in general and included Biden as well.  Zelensky was just inaugurated on May 20,  2019.   He campaigned on getting the corruption cleaned up in Ukraine having beat the incumbent Poroshenko.  Trump wanted him to clean up the corruption just as President Obama had demanded from the previous Ukrainian president. 

If it was Eric Trump who was getting paid $50K a month from a corrupt corporation and VP TRump got the prosecutor investigating his son;s company fired by threatening to withhold foreign aid, which is what VP Biden did, you would be demanding an investigation of the VP and his kid for corruption.   But since Biden is your guy, you act like he's innocent like the driven snow.  Meanwhile, you see nothing wrong with Democrats playing politics by investigating the president for three years looking for crimes.  It seems only potential Republican crimes should be investigated.  But Democrats should get a pass for their potential corrupt activities. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I'm not sure if you ever responded to the idea that if Trump really thought that the Bidens had done something wrong, then why hadn't he acted by asking one of the many security/investigative departments at his disposal to look into things?...

Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234

[Alan Klein]

Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234

In any case, since the "corruption" was done in the Ukraine by a Ukrainian corporation and Ukrainian officials and business people, it would need Ukrainian cooperation and investigators to investigate.  The FBI can't investigate on their own in foreign nations. 

[Alan Klein]

Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234

PS  I just read Chris's post.  I believe it does not apply in the Trump situation.  WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact.  They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters, an illegal act.  They were not investigating anything that was a crime committed by the Democrats.  They were only seeking political information about the Democrats.

In the Trump case, there is an apparent corrupt act possibly committed by Biden and his son.  As such, asking a foreign government to investigate is perfectly legal even though there are associate political advantages to Republicans.  Biden can't hide from investigations because he's running for political office.  He's not above the law any more than the President can claim he's above the law if Congress is investigating apparent crimes on his part. 

[Rob C]

Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234

Slobodan, I think that you and I really should try harder to get a life outwith this room...

:-)

[Peter McLennan]

If Trump is fully justified in his demands by Ukraine for an investigation, why did he keep it secret?  Why didn't he ask for a public investigation?

And why does he forbid release of any (subpoenaed) documentation about what did happen?

[Chris Kern]

WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact.  They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters, an illegal act.

You are conflating the Watergate burglary with the accusation of misuse of federal investigative agencies in the citation from one of the Nixon articles of impeachment that I posted earlier.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan, I think that you and I really should try harder to get a life outwith this room...

It is a windy world out there, my friend

[Alan Klein]

If Trump is fully justified in his demands by Ukraine for an investigation, why did he keep it secret?  Why didn't he ask for a public investigation?

And why does he forbid release of any (subpoenaed) documentation about what did happen?

He didn't keep it secret?  He released the transcript when asked for it calling it "perfect" once his private conversation with Ukraine's president was made public by the whistleblower.  Before that, why would the president announce that he called for an investigation?  These are usually kept confidential.  Was the investigation of Trump campaign by the FBI kept secret for many months?   Why didn't Obama release to the public that Trump was being investigated?   Additionally, private conversations between the president and foreign leaders are not usually made public.  The president would never be able to make any deals if foreign leaders knew their private conversations with the president would become public.  That's not how things work.  Remember how everyone made a big deal about Trump's private conversation with Putin? 

[Alan Klein]

You are conflating the Watergate burglary with the accusation of misuse of federal investigative agencies in the citation from one of the Nixon articles of impeachment that I posted earlier.

I'm not sure what you mean or what the law requires.  Maybe you can expand on it?   Certainly, if an American politician is suspected of committing a crime, the FBI can investigate.  Numerous politicians have gone to jail.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact.  They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters...

It wasn’t “forces of the government” that did the burglary, but people related to Nixon’s re-election campaign.