Impeaching Donald Trump

[JoeKitchen]

The Republicans may want to brush up their understanding of what "hearsay" is.
 

Time to compare with the height of the pile of legislation on Moscow Mitch's desk...

Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

I think it is pretty clear Bart.  None of the witnesses called, with the exception of Sondland, spoke about any direct conbversations with Trump.  They were either recounting what they heard from someone, or conjecture.  Those individuals will not be allowed to testify. 

Second, there might be a pile of legislation on McConnells desks, just like with Pelosi, but unlike with Pelosi, the Republicans actually passed bills in the last few years.  Pelosi has not even though they campaigned that they could work with the other side to get stuff done.  They have nothing to campaign on whereas the republicans do, such as tax cuts. 

[Alan Klein]

Bravo and thank you.

Slobo, The three lawyers did take a position and said the president was guilty and deserved to be impeached.  See my post #1846.

[Alan Klein]

Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell.  there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment.  There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.
Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture.  I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time.  We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so.  If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate.  Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.

No one cares about McConnell.  He isn't running for President and is not involved in the charges regarding the Ukraine.  Bidens is.  On both scores.

The whistleblower can be compelled because the Constitution supersedes laws by Congress.  The whistleblower has nexus to the impeachment charges.  It was his report that created the charges in the first place.  Therefore, the senate will have the right to set aside any congressional legislation that "protects" him and call him to testify.  So the Republicans will show that this guy is a political operative or at least favors Democrats; not good for proving guilt the president did anything wrong.   

Bolton could gum up the works for Trump.  That part is true. 

[Alan Klein]

Which is the whole point you keep missing, only an announcement of an investigation was requested (and the text for the announcement was provided), and the announcement was planned to be broadcast on CNN. on Fareed Zakaria's "Global Public Square". The sole purpose was to create doubt about Biden's credibility as a political opponent.

The president didn't want Ukraine to renege on the investigation so wanted them to publicly announce they were going to do an investigation of their corruption.  To suppose your logic, it's just too much to impeach a president for something so inconclusive.  This isn't a parking ticket you;re talking about.  You want to reverse the election of a US president something that has never happened, and tell 65 million Americans their votes don;t count. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The president didn't want Ukraine to renege on the investigation so wanted them to publicly announce they were going to do an investigation of their corruption.

Wrong again. The word corruption was not mentioned, only an announcement of an investigation was used as a bribe.

And by the way, the Congressionally approved aid is apparently still not fully released (something like 14% is still withheld) to a country at war with Russia. WHY?

[Alan Klein]

Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

I think it is pretty clear Bart.  None of the witnesses called, with the exception of Sondland, spoke about any direct conbversations with Trump.  They were either recounting what they heard from someone, or conjecture.  Those individuals will not be allowed to testify. 

Second, there might be a pile of legislation on McConnells desks, just like with Pelosi, but unlike with Pelosi, the Republicans actually passed bills in the last few years.  Pelosi has not even though they campaigned that they could work with the other side to get stuff done.  They have nothing to campaign on whereas the republicans do, such as tax cuts. 

+1 hearsay.  Of course, if the Dems can get someone who actual heard the president say that he wanted to investigate Biden to destroy him politically, then there could be a severe price to pay.  But I don't think there is more than the transcripts already show which is Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in their country including what the Bidens may have done. 

Frankly, I think the Republicans are making a mistake and should play up the Biden's corruption.  That would justify an investigation by the president just like the Democrats investigated the Trump campaign because there appeared to be some collusion with the Russians.  The Dems did it for political reasons.  But likewise, because there is a nexus to some violation of the law, they can justify what happened.  So similarly Trump could justify it regarding the Bidens.  If Trump isn;t above the law, neither is VP Biden. 

[Alan Klein]

Wrong again. The word corruption was not mentioned, only an announcement of an investigation was used as a bribe.

And by the way, the Congressionally approved aid is apparently still not fully released (something like 14% is still withheld) to a country at war with Russia. WHY?

Investigate corruption.  Of course.  That's what Obama called for and that's what Trump called for.  You're playing word games.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

+1 hearsay.  Of course, if the Dems can get someone who actual heard the president say that he wanted to investigate Biden to destroy him politically, then there could be a severe price to pay.  But I don't think there is more than the transcripts already show which is Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in their country including what the Bidens may have done.

There was a whole group of people listening in on the call, all first hand witnesses.

[Alan Klein]

There was a whole group of people listening in on the call.

I said that. If the Dems can get someone to say that he asked the Ukrainians to investigate to destroy Biden, then he's in trouble.  But the transcript is out and it doesn;t say that.  So I don;t think that even people listening to what he said will come up with something different.  After all, the transcript says what he said.  People testifying can only say what they thought the president said which could be refuted by the transcript.  The Democrats are arguing they have the transcript that the whistleblower has no importance.  Well, they can't go back now and say the transcript isn;t valid.  They can't have it both ways.  UNless someone can be found to testify that off the record and not in the transcript, Trump said something condemning, there isn't anything more than the transcript.  It's what the Democrats are relying on to impeach.  Their interpretation. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I said that. If the Dems can get someone to say that he asked the Ukrainians to investigate to destroy Biden, then he's in trouble.  But the transcript is out and it doesn;t say that.  So I don;t think that even people listening to what he said will come up with something different.  After all, the transcript says what he said.

And that's why it was attempted to hide it on a different server. The people who heard the actual call were upset by what they had witnessed.

The document that Trump released when he was caught, is not the full transcript.

[Alan Klein]

And that's why it was attempted to hide it on a different server. The people who heard the actual call were upset by what they had witnessed.

The document that Trump released when he was caught, is not the full transcript.

So if the transcript doesn;t have condemning evidence, what are the democrats impeaching on?  Are they just guessing he did wrong.  You impeach a president on what you think?  Sounds very political to me.  Not very legal. 

[Alan Klein]

The Dems are rushing to judgment without evidence.

[JoeKitchen]

And that's why it was attempted to hide it on a different server. The people who heard the actual call were upset by what they had witnessed.

The document that Trump released when he was caught, is not the full transcript.

We've gone over this before, several times.  It has been reported, even by the New York Times on more then one occasion before this whole impeachment thing started, that it became common practice in the Trump administration of putting information on secure servers due to the high number of leaks in the beginning of his presidency. 

If this was the only item kept in this server you might have a point.  But it was not. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

We've gone over this before, several times.  It has been reported, even by the New York Times on more then one occasion before this whole impeachment thing started, that it became common practice in the Trump administration of putting information on secure servers due to the high number of leaks in the beginning of his presidency. 

If this was the only item kept in this server you might have a point.  But it was not.

It was the only one that didn't routinely warrant such restricted access. Other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there.

[Alan Klein]

No wonder the Democrats want to impeach.  They have to mess him up somehow for the election.  Employment up substantially, unemployment down,  The Dow is up 300+ points today because of it. 

"The government reported Friday that payrolls increased by 266,000, easily besting the 187,000 estimate economists polled by Dow Jones had forecast. The unemployment rate ticked back down to 3.5%, matching an earlier 2019 level that at the time was the lowest since 1969."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/heres-where-the-jobs-are-for-november-2019-in-one-chart.html

[JoeKitchen]

It was the only one that didn't routinely warrant such restricted access. Other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there.

Are you sure about this?  What credible information/reporting is out there that suggests no other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there? 

I have not seen any that I can recall. 

[faberryman]

Are you sure about this?  What credible information/reporting is out there that suggests no other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there? I have not seen any that I can recall.

I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.

[Alan Klein]

I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.

Who would cooperate with politicians of the opposite party who are trying to crucify you?   

[faberryman]

Who would cooperate with politicians of the opposite party who are trying to crucify you?

Legal obligation. Court recently ruled their is no "absolute immunity" for Executive Branch employees from testifying pursuant to Congressional subpoenas. Legislative branch has duty of oversight. Hence Don McGahn has to testify. There is no stay during the appeal. Second ground of impeachment is going to be obstruction of Congress. Nixon eventually had to give up the tapes.

[JoeKitchen]

I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.

Which is his right and anyone else for that matter. 

Anyone and everyone has the right to refuse a congressional subpoena.  Now, of course, congress can then take that person to court and the court can force that person to testify, and if he refuses afterwards, he will be guilty of obstruction.  But, until the refusal is challenged in the courts and the courts says that person must testify, there is nothing illegal about not testifying. 

This is where the Dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot, btw. 

Schiff has not yet challenged any refusal in the courts, so Trump can not be guilty of obstruction.  However, it seems that the Dems are going to charge him with obstruction anyway for this act.  Politically this will be fine until Biden is called to testify by the Senate and challenges the subpoena.  Then the Republicans can claim Biden is obstructing justice under the same logic the Dems are using for Trump. 

The Dems then have three choices.  First, they can say Biden is not obstructing, just practicing his right to challenge the subpoena.  But by doing so, it will negate their case that Trump is guilty of obstruction.  Second, they could save face and agree that Biden is guilty (although unlikely).  If they do, this will then create a plausible reason for the request for the investigation.  Or third, they can skirt the issue and give non-answers, such as "we think Biden should perhaps testify to clear things ups," not commenting on his guilt or innocents.  This though will leave the Republican talking point of his guilt of obstruction the only talking point out there.  With a little more time, this too will be massaged to create a plausible reason for the requested investigation.   

Like I said before, impeachment is a loosing play.  Censure would split the Republican party and created an electoral mess for them.  Impeachment though is splitting the Dems and will create a mess for those in purple districts.