Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of the still developing Ukraine story. The testimony yesterday and release of the information on the complaint still lacks the critical nexus needed for a public corruption crime. If you establish the basis for such a crime, then the use of the separate server becomes a serious problem as covering up a crime. But you still need a crime. Otherwise, Trump can argue that he had been the victim of leaks about diplomatic calls and they took the step to better control access to such information. So, if you want impeachment, find the quid.
Here is the column:
The transcript of the call from President Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is enough to make Edwin Edwards blush. The infamous Louisiana governor once bragged, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or live boy.”
Even after the July appearance of Robert Mueller before Congress to discuss his findings as the special counsel, Trump apparently felt no qualms about calling Zelensky the following day to press him about investigating his main political opponent, Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden. It is breathtaking to read Trump trying to convince Zelensky to do him a “favor” by going after the Bidens and suggesting meetings with Attorney General William Barr and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Yet for those hoping to find a dead promise or a live Russian in the transcript, they will be disappointed again. The transcript lacks a critical element needed for impeachment, which is evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump never connects the investigation with the roughly $400 million in military aid. While he discusses the aid, he never suggests he will not send it. That does not mean a case for impeachment or criminal prosecution cannot be made. Unlike the prior impeachable offenses suggested by Democrats, this allegation of self-dealing could be both an impeachable offense and a federal crime, though neither would be easy to prove.
Past suggested impeachable offenses either have been facially ridiculous, like the comments Trump made about Charlottesville or his criticism of national anthem protest kneelers, or legally flawed, like the Russia intervention or obstruction theories. The closest viable claims are his payments to alleged former mistresses that are in the criminal plea agreement of his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
This is different. If a quid pro quo was proven, it would be self-dealing and an abuse of public office, and that can be a crime. Just ask disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He was convicted after calling other political figures to leverage the appointment of a new United States senator, to replace the newly elected President Obama, for his own political gain. While some of us were highly critical of that prosecution, because politicians routinely use such decisions to their own benefit, Blagojevich was found guilty and his conviction was later upheld.
Yet such cases have a mixed record. Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell was convicted of using his office to benefit a businessman who gave him and his wife various gifts. I was also critical of that prosecution, and it was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Then there was the prosecution of Senator Robert Menendez, who helped a wealthy doctor and donor with various government problems. The doctor in turn spent lavishly on Menendez, who actually pressured officials in cases benefiting the doctor, and helped him secure visas, yet Menendez was acquitted.
So what would Congress need to establish a strong case in light of this transcript? Some have argued that it does not matter if Trump never raised the military funding as leverage with Zelensky, but it does matter. There is nothing illegal in a president complaining about the lack of an investigation into corruption, even by a political opponent. The transcript does not show Trump demanding a political charge but an investigation.
The transcript has material that will help Trump, who has maintained that he held back the aid to try to get other countries to pony up in support of Ukraine. In the call, Trump tells Zelensky, “We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing, and they should be helping you more than they are.” He speaks at length about the need for those countries to contribute, and Zelensky agrees.
Trump further asks for access to a computer server and references Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity company related to the Russia hacking investigation. Former FBI director James Comey referenced Crowdstrike as one of the critical elements in the investigation, and that investigation is being reviewed by United States Attorney John Durham. A computer server and other information connected to the Russia hacking evidence would likely assist Durham in his investigation. The references to Barr in the transcript could be defended on that basis.
The quid may still be out there, but it will not be found in this transcript. The most obvious place to look is with witnesses who may have heard Trump make the linkage. The most intriguing of those possibilities would be former national security adviser John Bolton, who Trump recently fired and then maligned. Bolton reportedly was irate over the freezing of Ukrainian military aid, and he could have the knowledge and motivation to supply information. It also is reasonable for Congress to say that, with a half billion dollars on the table, it is hardly necessary to state the connection. Yet presidents often have such leverage over countries.
The references to Barr can be defended, but they are still a matter of legitimate concern for Congress. Trump repeatedly says he will have Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky, and Zelensky says a new prosecutor is set to look into the matter. Yet the problem for potential prosecution is that nothing came from those referrals. The Ukrainians never contacted Barr, and Barr never had anything to do with the Biden controversy. Barr was also unaware of the call and of Trump making references to him.
Trump is a recidivist in the law of attempt. He often proposes ridiculous actions, like firing a special counsel, but what follows is nothing. Advisers like Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have become masters of listening to his tirades and then going about their business. The chances that Barr would work with Ukrainians to hunt down the Bidens is about as likely as Trump suggesting he would be a shoo in for the Nobel Peace Prize “for a lot of things” if the system was not rigged against him.
As shown by McDonnell and Menendez, these types of cases are difficult to prove, even when actions are taken. This would be an attempt to perform an act that is itself a controversial basis for a criminal charge. Zelensky says the Ukrainians were already looking at all such matters, and Barr was never told, let alone enlisted, to help out. It would be like the McDonnell case in which the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the governor took “official acts” in calling Virginia officials on behalf of the business except, in this instance, the calls to Barr never took place.
Absent a clear quid pro quo, a Senate impeachment trial could be a grotesque scene. The Trump team would certainly point out that the Obama administration directly used a secret court to investigate his political opponents on claims that were based in part on opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign. The trial would highlight the dubious money given to Hunter Biden by Chinese and Ukrainian interests while his father negotiated financial and political agreements.
While many in the media have chosen to focus on the narrow question of whether Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its corruption prosecutor to protect his son, there is a more important question of whether the family profiteered during his term in the White House. Few people believe the Chinese and Ukrainians searched the world for a financial or energy genius and came up with Hunter Biden. He happened to be the son of the vice president, who reminded the Ukrainians that he would decide whether they received over a billion dollars in loans and support. Hunter Biden has contradicted his father denying he had no knowledge of and never spoke to him about the Ukraine dealings. That would be a painful Senate trial, culminated by Menendez voting as one of the jurors.
Despite efforts of critics to downplay the underlying allegations, the Biden affair would be relevant to the merits of such a trial. If Trump simply picked up the phone and asked a foreign leader to investigate Elizabeth Warren without any outstanding allegations of corruption, it would be impossible to defend. The problem here is that the Biden contracts do appear to involve corruption, precisely the type that Biden lambasted when he bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.
If one agrees that the windfall contracts secured by Hunter Biden were obvious influence peddling, then Trump pushing for an investigation into that possible crime becomes more defensible. It does not, however, make it right. Trump clearly tripped another wire for possible impeachment, immediately after the special counsel made his final report on prior controversies. Congress is justified in investigating, and the transcript is not the entirety of the evidence that might show the intent or act or corruption. All this is why House Democrats still need to find the quid.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He also served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial and testified as a constitutional expert in the Clinton impeachment hearings. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
All you wannbe lawyers out there, take the Exam:
“Even after the July appearance of Robert Mueller before Congress to discuss his findings as the special counsel, Trump apparently felt no qualms about calling Zelensky the following day to press him about 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒏𝒕, 𝑱𝒐𝒆 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒏 𝑯𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏. 𝑰𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒎𝒑 𝒕𝒓𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒁𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒌𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒐 𝒉𝒊𝒎 𝒂 “𝒇𝒂𝒗𝒐𝒓” 𝒃𝒚 𝒈𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒖𝒈𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒎𝒆𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑾𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒎 𝑩𝒂𝒓𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒍𝒂𝒘𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝑹𝒖𝒅𝒚 𝑮𝒊𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒊.”
******************************
The President:: 𝙄 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙤 𝙪𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙖 𝙡𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙐𝙠𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙖 𝙡𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩. 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. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. 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.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so.. 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒚 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒌𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑴𝒓. 𝑮𝒊𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒊 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒉𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒎𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑴𝒓. 𝑮𝒊𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒊 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒍 𝒕𝒐 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒎𝒆𝒆𝒕 𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆. 𝑰 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒚 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒖𝒔. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. . 𝑴𝒓. 𝑮𝒊𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒊 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒉𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒍𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒎𝒂𝒏. 𝑯𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒚𝒐𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝑵𝒆𝒘 𝒀𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝑪𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝒂 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒎𝒂𝒚𝒐𝒓, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑰 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒉𝒊𝒎 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒚𝒐𝒖. 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒂𝒔𝒌 𝒉𝒊𝒎 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍. 𝑹𝒖𝒅𝒚 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒎𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕’𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒖𝒚. 𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒌 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒊𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒅𝒐𝒓 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒎𝒂𝒏, 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒃𝒂𝒅 𝒏𝒆𝒘𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒔𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒅 𝒏𝒆𝒘𝒔 𝒔𝒐 𝑰 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒍𝒆𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆’𝒔 𝒂 𝒍𝒐𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏’𝒔 𝒔𝒐𝒏, 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂 𝒍𝒐𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒐 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒐 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕. 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏 𝒘𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒍𝒐𝒐𝒌 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒊𝒕… 𝑰𝒕 𝒔𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒆.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.
Legal Exam:
Compare and contrast the two statements then answer the following questions:
1. Trump asked Zelensky to do him a “favor” by investigating:
A. CrowdStrike
B. His main political opponent, Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden
C. The breakup of the Osmond Brothers in conjunction with the meaning of the lyrics to Moody Blues song “Knights in White Satin.”
2. Who first mentioned meeting with Mayor Giuliani, the POTUS’ lawyer:
A. Donald Trump
B. President Zelensky
C. A large rabbit trying to make out with some chick named Alice (per Adam Schiff)
3. In the transcript what was offered in exchange for Ukraine’s help in investigating possible corruption of Biden’s son?
A. An all expenses paid trip to Mar-a-lago
B. Dancing Lessons with Sean Spicer
C. Nada, zip or zilch!
4. President Zelensky said that in the Ukraine, Trump had which of the following?
A. Cowering lackeys determined to do anything he wants
B. Friends
C. A 1000 boxes of free “I’m With Her” t-shirts
Extra Credit Essay:
Explain what the Hell Adam Schiff was doing in his free verse conversation recapitulation of the Trump-Zelensky phone call. (LSD intoxication will not be accepted as an answer)!
I’ll post the correct answers later.
Excellent Mespo, but does it matter to Turley? Turley has shown the worst side of himself in his discussion of the conversation that took place. It sounds like he heard Schiff and didn’t read the real transcript of the telephone call.
Turley: “Trump apparently felt no qualms about calling Zelensky the following day to press him about investigating his main political opponent, Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden.”
I read to there until I got sickened by the lawyer I respected above almost all others but now I realize there is no such thing as objectivity even among the best, so they cannot be trusted either if they have strong opinions on the subject.
That picture of justice being blind should be removed and replaced by a man pointing a gun at another figure and telling him to sign his name at the end of a document.
I hope you are not a practicing lawyer, or a law professor, or associated with the Law in any way!
Your setup, and your test, are both asinine Political babble, it doesn’t matter what Trump was up to, or what Trump actually did, what is important is that the President, NO PRESIDENT, can discuss any matter with a foreign leader, or representative of a foreign Government, without the Advice and Consent of the Senate, Provided 2/3 of the States as they are assembled in the Senate as Equals Concur, and that Advice and Consent is By and With, which means Before and During, Not After!
And since I know you are too arrogant to understand, that means that the President must consult the Senate to determine if such meetings are in their interest, to determine the parameters of such meetings, and what constitutes and agreement with regard to such meetings, then the President has the power to be involved in negotiations and discussions with foreign Governments based on parameters established by the Senate by Majority Consent. There is nothing that the President can keep secret from the Senate related to any foreign interactions, negotiations, or even casual conversations!
So, if the President does not follow the Constitution and get the Senate’s Advice and Consent Before he contacts any foreign nation for any reason, then that is a justification for immediate termination by impeachment and removal, and just in case you don’t know, that’s called termination for insubordination!
Let that stand for my extra credit essay!
fpr – if mespo does not give this an F, I will. No extra credit
Coming from you, That’s an A+, thanks!
You guys need to go back and actually read the Constitution, instead of trying to interpret it to your own advantage and satisfaction!
You guys both amuse and disgust me in equal measure.
Your idea of our Government is a dawg that just don’t hunt, and “We The People” need to return it with our sincere regards!
fpr – let me give you a piece if pragmatic advice. The US Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is today. And that changes with every day.
Put that on your bathroom mirror until you have it memorized. It is the God’s truth.
The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is, it is what the States as a Union say it is! That includes the Supreme Courts role in the Government established by the by the Constitution.
The States in their Collective Capacity wrote the Constitution for themselves, and they are the only ones that can interpret, or change, the Constitution! And just in case you don’t know what that means, then just read Article 5 of the Constitution, if you can comprehend what is written there!
Keep your advice to yourself, or give it so someone who thinks your advice has merit!
Oh, federalist: they’re just repeating what they heard Hannity, et al saying, and Hannity, et al, are repeating “talking points” put out by Trump, his campaign, and/or his administration. They really don’t personally know about this and they believe whatever they hear on Fox.
Paul:
More like an “DNR” grade for Did Not Resuscitate.
“NO PRESIDENT, can discuss any matter with a foreign leader, or representative of a foreign Government, without the Advice and Consent of the Senate…”
Wrong.
Read what you wrote and then analyze your stupidity.
I don’t need to analyze anything I said, but feel to do so yourself, if you are not afraid of being identified as a total imbecile! You might want to review Article 2 of the Constitution before you proceed to making a total fool out of yourself.
And you dimwits told me you could read!
fpr – I think this is what your are referring to.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
However, the problem is that he is not engaging in a treaty and some treaties can be signed off by the President himself. This is why you have to go from theory to pragmatics. Do you see anything in there about phone calls or discussions?
What is your definition of a Treaty, obviously you have a very narrowly defined opinion of what constitutes a treaty! Sorry, but any discussion or negotiations with a foreign nation which involves both nations, or the governments of both nations, is a treaty! And the President has no Authority to negotiate with a foreign nation, or foreign government, on his own behalf, or based upon his own Policies!
So sure, if an official from a foreign government wants to call the President and shoot the breeze, there is nothing to prevent the President from entertaining that conversation, the Foreign Official can even suggest some initial interest that they, or their country, may be interested In discussing with our Government, but the President in no way has the authority to speak to the interest or position of the US Government on those topics, without first consulting the Senate and receiving their Advice and Consent!
The President in no way shape or form determines policy, Foreign or Domestic, the States as they are assembled in the House Control all Domestic Policy, and the States as they are assembled in the Senate as Equals have the authority of Concurrence on all Domestic Policy, and they have complete control over all Foreign Policy, and all Appointments to the Executive Departments which implement all Policy, Foreign and Domestic!
A Republic is Distributed Power and Collective Decision Making, and the States as the Union are the Supreme Legislative and Governing Authority over all Policy, and the implementation of all Policy, and all those empowered to implement their Policies!
Like I’ve said before, there is no such thing as 3 Coequal Branches of Government consisting of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches, in a Confederated (compound) Republic, which the United States is, the Legislative Authority Necessarily Predominates, and the Senate, where the States are assembled as Equals, with Equal Suffrage, is the Predominant Government Authority!
If you don’t understand that, then take your benefit of education and review the Constitution without your bias and your interpretations!
Hey fpr — How about the Advice and Consent of the Senate on Obama’s Iran Deal? Hmm. I don’t think Obama bothered with THAT either. Nope. Obama just chose to call it “a deal” not “a treaty” so he could do it “his” way. That allowed Trump to come in and do away with Obama’s “Iran deal.”
What are your thoughts about former Secy of State John Kerry continuing to meet with Iranian and other officials to discuss US foreign policy as related to the Obama Iran deal DURING Trump’s administration? And intentionally attempting to undermine Trump’s current Secy of State and current US policy!
The Logan Act —> Federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments…(John Kerry anyone???)
My opinion? It’s outrageous what Kerry and other Obama tools have done/are doing. It’s outrageous that Barack Obama continues to travel around the world meeting with foreign leaders. But not a peep from the sycophantic media tools. Anyone surprised? Of course not.
What, you can’t read, I said that no President has the authority to act without first receiving the Advice and Consent of the Senate, what part of “No President” don’t you understand.
Please take your Partisanship and stick it in what ever place gives you pleasure, I have no tolerance for Partisan bickering!
fpr – here is my understanding of a treaty
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treaty#targetText=A%20treaty%20is%20an%20agreement,relationship%20governed%20by%20International%20Law.
As you will see, nothing you are talking about is included in there.
I won’t even entertain your ignorance! Read Federalist #64 by Jay, he has a very eloquent elucidation on the subject of Treaties, which by the way is a part of Madison’s coverage of the Senate which is contained in Federalist #’s 62-66.
Do yourself a favor, and use your brain for more than a Party-favor!
fpr – for f**k sake get up to date. A lot has happened since the Federalist Papers.
Hey fpr — what’s your opinion on what President Barack Obama did when he was caught on a hot mic telling Medvedev, “I’ll have more flexibility after my election” –to which Medvedev replied, “I understand. I will transmit your message to Vladimir” ?? Hmmm. Where’s the Advice and Consent of the Senate on THAT conversation, huh?
President Obama changes nothing, he had no Authority to make any comments of that nature to anyone which concerned our Government, and if being called into the Senate to be reminded of that Fact isn’t enough, then the States as the Union have the right and Authority to reprimand, Impeach, remove from office, or any other action they determined to be appropriate for those transgressions, or insubordination to the Authority of the Union, as the States are Assembled in the Senate!
Party doesn’t matter, neither does who the Person is!
Oh, but party and person DOES matter. I don’t recall Obama being hammered in the press (Hannity and Rush aside) or in the Congress for that hot mic moment. Do you?
FPR:
“NO PRESIDENT, can discuss any matter with a foreign leader, or representative of a foreign Government, without the Advice and Consent of the Senate, Provided 2/3 of the States as they are assembled in the Senate as Equals Concur, and that Advice and Consent is By and With, which means Before and During, Not After!”
*****************************
No court has ever held for this foolhardy interpretation but assuming you find one drunk enough to do so, how you square Article II, Sec. 3: “… he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers” ? Maybe he has to rent out some space in the Senate chamber to meet the foreign dignitaries while the Senate is in session. Or perhaps he just receives them in the WH and then sits there in utter silence. Is that your considered thought?
Oh yes, I invite not to read my commentary since obviously it’s well beneath our standards.
mespo – how long do you think he has been hiding under that rock? Even Jim Acosta could not handle this.
Paul:
He obviously is the rock — as in head — as in first — as in right into the swamp.
The courts don’t have jurisdiction to decide what the interpretation of the Constitution is, they aren’t the Supreme Authority in our Country, The Union is, that’s why the Supreme Court is only for dispute resolution between the States, and between a State(s) and the Union.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only for that purpose, not to decide, or interpret, how the States use their Constitution if the States aren’t having any problem with what they are doing, and no party has Legal Standing to bring any action in the Supreme Court against the Union except for the States Themselves! That’s a benefit, and privilege, of being a Member State in the Union, just in case you didn’t know!
It’s not that no person is above the Law, it’s that no person, State, Party, Department of Government or those who are empowered to direct those departments of Government, are above the Union, the United States, in Congress Assembled, The Union which makes our Country the United States of America.
By the way, the States as a Union wrote the Constitution, and all the Laws by which our Country is Governed!
You guys and your juvenile and rudimentary capacity for thought, amazes and amuses me! You guys couldn’t put together a logical argument if you life depended on it!
mespo,
Explanation for extra credit: Schiff Happens
Extra, extra credit for the apropos pun!
mespo-tentate: Thank you!
I would also like to thank all my fans in the Borscht Belt for giving me confidence to beet out the competition.
Trump solicited a favor from a foreign government to help support his campaign: reopen a closed investigation of a political rival. Merely soliciting this favor is enough. None of the rest of this matters at all. There’s prima facie proof of violation of 11 CFR § 110.20 – Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
Natacha:
“Trump solicited a favor from a foreign government” — True
“to help support his campaign” — Unproven Nor Even Implied
Seems the OLC agrees the “favor” was nothing of value to the campaign:
“A Justice Department official told reporters that the DOJ spoke to “knowledgeable people in the White House” but their determination that there was no criminal violation was primarily based off a memorandum of the call, released by the White House. Questions regarding the Trump Administration’s hold-up of military aid was not a factor in their investigation at all, the official explained, saying they see that as more of a foreign policy issue.
Further explaining the DOJ’s handling of the referral, the official said the criminal division concluded that the information they had gathered did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing “of value” was clearly promised or exchange as a result of the call.
The official said there was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors, that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation. The Assistant AG for the Criminal Division made the “final call” to conclude the matter, and said Attorney General William Barr was “not involved in the analysis by the criminal division.” There was no consideration for the AG to formally recuse himself from the matter, the official said, and no consideration of the appointment of a special counsel.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-doj-clears-president-violating-campaign-finance-law/story?id=65849857
Seems, natacha, a little knowledge for you is a dangerous thing.
if you disagree with “prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors,” please state your superior credentials or experience. Idiot savant doesn’t count!
Check that mespo.
I think you meant to say “career prosecutors under AG Barr.”
The value so obvious it is ridiculous to have to state it is the desire to destroy Trumps perceived strongest opponent in the 2020 election.
Surely you’ve heard of him.
Turley: Trump apparently felt no qualms about calling Zelensky the following day to press him about investigating his main political opponent, Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden.
This statement is partisan spin. Trump discussed the investigation into the 2016 election not the 2020 election. There was no request to investigate the Bidens. Rather he encouraged Zalensky to cooperate with Barr’s investigation of the 2016 election; asking a foreign country to cooperate with an investigation is entirely appropriate. Apples and oranges unless perhaps one views the transcript from a biased starting point. At the same time, this nothingburger has placed Biden’s infamous “bribery” video in the spotlight which probably kills his candidacy.
olesmithy: I saw that on Hannity the other evening: the so-called “boomerang” theory.
The Biden CFR video only kills his candidacy if idiocy prevails, a hoped for outcome on your part I am guessing. If one bribed a foreign government to protect his corrupt son – the wished for story here in Trumpville – one does not typically brag about it at conference of heady international affairs experts who know where the Ukraine is on a map. Of course that is why the actual story – corroborated by WSJ, Bloomberg, the WaPo, and the article below – is that Biden was bragging about removing a corrupt official who the West viewed as jamming reform in the Ukraine.
“The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine’s scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country’s political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.
Ukraine’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to fire Viktor Shokin, ridding the beleaguered prosecutor’s office of a figure who is accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and stymying moves to root out graft.
“This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general’s office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office . . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust,” said Jan Tombinski, the EU’s envoy to Ukraine.
“There is still a lack of tangible results of investigations into serious cases . . . as well as investigations of high-level officials within the prosecutor general’s office,” he added.
Mr Tombinski said the EU was also concerned about the resignation or dismissal of several “reform-oriented” prosecutors and reports that Mr Shokin’s office was investigating a “highly-respected” anti-corruption group – an obvious reference to Kiev’s Anti-Corruption Action Centre, which had fiercely criticised Mr Shokin.
In what appeared to be his last act before dismissal, Mr Shokin sacked his deputy, Davit Sakvarelidze, who had repeatedly called for his boss to be fired.
Mr Sakvarelidze, a Georgian who was also chief prosecutor in the Odessa region, said his dismissal by Mr Shokin was part of “a cleansing of people who are prepared every day to fight corruption and the old guard without compromise”.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190
” If one bribed a foreign government to protect his corrupt son – the wished for story here in Trumpville – one does not typically brag about it at conference of heady international affairs experts who know where the Ukraine is on a map.”
True, except if it is a person like Joe Biden.
Another Dim fools errand to prove they are indeed fools.
Query: When does an entire political party become a crime syndicate?
Political Parties are definitely Crime Syndicates, Domestic Factions, or any other definition of Criminal organization you want to use, when they are intended to influence and control how our Government is assembled and how our Government functions, by Gaining Political Advantage.
The current embodiment of all our Governments represents an elaborate Con Game, and you, and everyone else as naive and ignorant as you, is a Mark in that Con Game, a willing participant in your own demise and disenfranchisement!
But I wouldn’t expect that you would understand how a Con Game works, it needs the involvement of the person or persons being Conned to work effectively!
well the Clintons had a lot of people convinced of that already, way back when Bill was using Arkansas state troopers to procure women for him.
silly Republicans. they should have charged the Monica Lewinsky acts as an “abuse of power” instead of trying to get him on perjury.
Wasn’t it a blatant abuse of power to have a White house intern get on her knees and do the deed, ya know, even if she consents? Some people say so– now.
https://nypost.com/2018/10/15/why-hillary-clinton-can-never-admit-the-truth-about-bill/
or maybe that one was missing a quid too eh?
Answer: When they turn themselves over to a mobbed-up, money laundering huckster for whom crime is second nature.
Enigma, are you repeating the well known facts about Joseph P. Kennedy and how he dominated the Democratic party?
Joseph P. Kennedy. A great American. Though, he was one of the richest in his time, having great success in many legit business, but also, a stock market manipulator and insider trader, and yes a bootlegger, who was “mobbed up” with the Italian mafia according to Michael Franzese. Who also claimed the ties endured, and Kennedy coordinated with organized crime to help elect JFK.
Perhaps he exaggerates or perhaps not. Nonetheless, Joseph P Kennedy was a great man and his son a very good president. Sometimes bad men are good for the whole. With very few exceptions, it’s not the saints who have lead nations and helped them flourish.
If you are interested in mafia connections to legit business, as it would seem you are since you have claimed it on Trump many times, no need to speculate on the topic as you have been doing for years with Donald. Well not much to prove your suspicions on Donald, but plenty to prove it on Joe Kennedy.
Perhaps you may like to check out who Michael Franzese is and what he had to say about that topic. not hard to find.
Joe Kennedy was not the President. Every reference to who and what Trump is generates not a denial but a deflection. Nobody in the Hearing of the Acting DNI actually defended the President. They (and you) know exactly who he is.
Re: Joseph Kennedy
https://mafia.wikia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kennedy
Anti-Semitism
According to Harvey Klemmer, who served as one of Kennedy’s embassy aides, Kennedy habitually referred to Jews as “kikes or sheenies”. Kennedy allegedly told Klemmer that “[some] individual Jews are all right, Harvey, but as a race they stink. They spoil everything they touch.” When Klemmer returned from a trip to Germany and reported the pattern of vandalism and assaults on Jews by Nazis, Kennedy responded, “Well, they brought it on themselves.”
On June 13, 1938, Kennedy met with Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador to the United Kingdom, in London, who claimed upon his return to Berlin that Kennedy had told him that “it was not so much the fact that we want to get rid of the Jews that was so harmful to us, but rather the loud clamor with which we accompanied this purpose. [Kennedy] himself fully understood our Jewish policy.” Kennedy’s main concern with such violent acts against German Jews as Kristallnacht was that they generated bad publicity in the West for the Nazi regime, a concern that he communicated in a letter to Charles Lindbergh.
Kennedy had a close friendship with Viscountess Astor and their correspondence is replete with anti-Semitic statements.
By August 1940, Kennedy worried that a third term for President Roosevelt would mean war. As Leamer reports, “Joe believed that Roosevelt, Churchill, the Jews, and their allies would manipulate America into approaching Armageddon.” Nevertheless, Kennedy supported Roosevelt’s third term in return for Roosevelt’s promise to support Joseph Kennedy Jr. in a run for Governor of Massachusetts in 1942.[48] However, even during the darkest months of World War II, Kennedy remained “more wary of” prominent American Jews, such as Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, than he was of Hitler.
But Hillary isn’t President. Im going to have to pull a Peter Shill / Nutchacha / Nona1 and call you out for your “whataboutisms” factorial
😜
JH Kunstler has a great take on this!
”
A Dumpster Fire on a Garbage Barge
UkraineGate, son of RussiaGate, raises an interesting question: is our Central Intelligence Agency really this crude that they would loan out a CIA officer to the White House’s National Security Council (NSC) and use him as a weapon to shiv the occupant of the oval office? Or was The New York Times’s unmasking of the “whistleblower” just another ruse by the Deep State Disinfo Division?
Let’s face it, there were not so many CIA spooks working in that White House office, so it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out who it was. A leading candidate is veteran CIA officer Michael Barry, an assassination expert, as it happens, who was loaned out during Mike Pompeo’s brief stint as CIA chief. Barry acted as the NSC’s chief intelligence officer. Barry or otherwise, I predict the whistleblower’s identity will be known for sure in pretty short order.
So much material in this tale doesn’t add up that it looks like the results of a math test in a Baltimore middle school. For one thing, the now public whistleblower complaint makes it clear that the whistleblower’s information is second-hand. The Intel Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) explicitly prohibits complaints based on second-hand news: See for yourself in the ICWPA Form 401:
“In order to find an urgent concern credible, the IGIC [Intel Community Inspector General] must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IGIC cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she has witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”
Did Director of National Intelligence Joseph McGuire know that when he testified that the whistleblower’s complaint was “credible” and made in “good faith.” Did ICIG Michael Horowitz know that when he sent the whistleblower complaint to Admiral McGuire? Did House Intel Committee Chair Adam Schiff know that when he led a grandstanding exercise in his committee on Thursday?
Others have pointed out that the whistleblower’s complaint was composed as a legal brief, leading to the inference that it was constructed by lawyers and perhaps a team of lawyers. The whistleblower’s lawyer is Andrew Bakaj, a former CIA employee who got his start interning for Senator Chuck Schumer and then Hillary Clinton. The Washingtonian said Bakaj “actually wrote the CIA’s internal rules on whistleblowing.” Is that so? Did he write Form 401 then? His client’s complaint states: “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.” In other words, second-hand information. Dismissed.
Everyone and his uncle remembers the infamous threat issued to Mr. Trump by Senator Schumer during the transition period in January, 2017: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Perhaps Senator Schumer should have kept his pie-hole shut on that. He made it official that the Intel Community would act as an adversary and antagonist to the President, and that appears to be exactly what has happened. One suspects that this rogue agency has captured The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio, and several TV cable news networks as well. And now they are metamorphosing into an enemy of the people.
The moment approaches when Mr. Trump will have to carry out a severe housecleaning of the CIA and perhaps many other agencies under the executive branch of the government. Their ongoing campaign to undo the 2016 election is igniting a civil war. Clearly a part of the whistleblower gambit was an attempt to discredit Attorney General William Barr and set up a device that would force him to recuse himself from any further inquiry into shenanigans carried out in and around Ukraine since 2014, when the CIA and the Obama State Department overthrew the government of Viktor Yanukovych. Mr. Barr is a sturdy fellow. He may have seven ways from Sunday for countering their seditious monkeyshines. Wait for it.
In the meantime, is there any question that UkraineGate has put the schnitz on Joe Biden’s political career. The notorious video of Mr. Biden bragging on his shakedown of then-president Poroshenko has been seen by everybody over age five in the USA. Hillary must be lovin’ it as she makes the rounds on her latest listening tour. Listen to this, Hillary, lost in your wicked daydreams of riding to the Democratic Party’s rescue for yet another shot at the White House: your reputation will never survive the blizzard of indictments coming down on your partisans. And one of these bills might have your name on it.”
I can not link this because the WordPressfilter will not let me, but you can find it pretty easily.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Others have pointed out that the whistleblower’s complaint was composed as a legal brief, leading to the inference that it was constructed by lawyers and perhaps a team of lawyers. The whistleblower’s lawyer is Andrew Bakaj, a former CIA employee who got his start interning for Senator Chuck Schumer and then Hillary Clinton.
>>>> the coup was executed by a current CIA official, acting against the sitting POTUS, advised and assisted and prepared by a lawyer who was a former CIA official, and the subject matter involves a foreign company with not only the former VP’s son on the board but also Cofer Black, a modestly famous CIA bigwig.
some folks could might start to think the CIA is pulling a coup on Trump! Remember what Schumer warned Trump!
If the CIA isn’t doing this, then maybe they should clean up their own rogue agents’ mess with a wet mop. Just a thought.
The only provable “coup” we have here is Trump stealing the 2016 election with the help of–guess what?–a foreign government. His campaign provided data to Russian hackers about key districts that could sway the election with a false social media campaign. Read the Mueller Report. Trump knew he couldn’t win in 2016 without cheating, just like he knows he can’t win in 2020 without cheating, so he is cheating again.
Read the Mueller Report.
LOL! Let’s try just basic commonsense. What is the likelihood Democrats have chosen this Ukraine event as the evidence they finally needed to get serious on impeachment when the Mueller Report (as you say) clearly gave them everything they needed?
BTW, I’ve read it twice and nothing of what you just wrote is anywhere in there. Of course you have the option to pull from the report the evidence that proves anyone not in an asylum should consider anything you write sane.
Olly, the Mueller report contains evidence of multiple acts of collusion with the Russians interference in the 2016 election and attempts at covering up that evidence and 10 documented acts of obstruction of justice by the President. Maybe you should read it again.
Here’s the letter signed by over 1000 attorneys stating that Trump should be prosecuted for Obstruction if not a sitting president.
“We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice…..”
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1
Beautiful! With such compelling evidence, the House should be voting on articles of impeachment any day now. Then we get on to the trial in the Senate where no stone will go unturned. As a matter of fact, even if the House doesn’t vote to impeach, we still have reports coming out where stones have been turned.
Squeak I missed that. play it again:
“the now public whistleblower complaint makes it clear that the whistleblower’s information is second-hand. The Intel Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) explicitly prohibits complaints based on second-hand news: See for yourself in the ICWPA Form 401:
“In order to find an urgent concern credible, the IGIC [Intel Community Inspector General] must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IGIC cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she has witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”
Did Director of National Intelligence Joseph McGuire know that when he testified that the whistleblower’s complaint was “credible” and made in “good faith.” Did ICIG Michael Horowitz know that when he sent the whistleblower complaint to Admiral McGuire? Did House Intel Committee Chair Adam Schiff know that when he led a grandstanding exercise in his committee on Thursday?”
IN OTHER WORDS, THE SQUEALER IS ACTUALLY NOT A LAWFUL WHISTLE-BLOWER, JUST A SABOTEUR WORKING WITH A TEAM OF COUP PLOTTERS.
MAKE SUITABLE ARRESTS — CRUSH THE COUP
Page 2:
3. I know about the information I am disclosing here and:
☐ I have direct and personal knowledge
☐ I heard about it from others.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/Hotline/Urgent%20Concern%20Disclosure%20Form.pdf
Your source stumbled on his error:
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1177580473566093312
Guess this is what he relaxes with while otherwise doing peer reviewed Climate research.
It’s nice you can get your amateur science and right wing politics all at one stop!
But, everything the whistleblower said was true AND he didn’t have the transcript of the call, so what’s your point? Is this in the talking points memo put out by the White House?
Kunstler’s information is dated. The urgent concern Form 401 was changed to simply stating that the information is firsthand or not and not that it was rerquired. At the time the whistleblower filed his complaint this change was in effect and so to be classified as an urgent concern did not require firsthand knowledge.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/
If the transcript was sooooo troubling why did Pencil Neck Shifty Schift have to change to transcript to make it worse when he read it. He said (when called on it) that it was a parody, but it was a replay of Harry Reid using the protection of the floor of Congress to shield himself from legal action. I don’t think he is free of legal action in the Ukraine though and the Ukrainians should sue.
The Liberals are entirely disconnected from Americans as if any of us non-lawyers have the time or self-loathing to become fluent in the irrelevant minutiae of Crowd Strike, who was doing whom, CIA, FBI, FIFA Courts and an self-righteous, pompous insular group of well paid government employees.
Today at work yet another student asked me if I can mentor them for medical school because they feel utterly lost as to next steps. University faculty and advisors are as lost as them because state universities arent known for students personal interest. Our family plumber told me yesterday that he is livid anyone thinks Hunter Biden made it on his own merits while working Americans like him are just happy just to make ends meet for their family. A tenured faculty member colleague is burnt out because, though wildly educated from an Ivy as a biochemist and published in reputable peer review publications, he knows the university is a cesspool of toxic PC that determines one’s future. He couldn’t be more disengaged even if he is a brilliant scientist. Meanwhile I routinely have to dodge students while walking on both the graduate and undergraduate campuses, with them glued to their smartphones unaware of 3 feet around them, even if the university counseling department tell me us they have never seen such anxiety, depression and emotional detachment in their careers as counselors in university settings.
Impeachment, collusion, obstruction, election, servers, Russians…these are affairs that matter to the elite who are detested by average Americans looking for answers to their largely self-induced pathologies
This isn’t going to end well for Democrats and doubtful any Americans will care.
Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to add your comments to this crazy world of impeachment. These pols and their followers are bent on bringing this country down in many different ways. I’m with you. We in the rest of the country care about our neighbors, respect open and free dialogue, abhor violence, and above all respect our electoral system whether or not our candidate wins.
Well said, Estovir!
Because of the way impeachment and removal from office works, in a Constitutional sense, Trump can’t argue anything in his defense, and neither can anyone else on his behalf, because impeachment and the trial for removal are not based upon any legal standard, and there is no standard of proof, and there is no defense possible that can mitigate whatever the States as Union are setting to establish the basis for the votes to reach Majority Consensus to impeach and then to remove.
Anyone who thinks there needs to be a legal threshold reached before Congress can impeach is on Legal Psychedelic Drugs, because there is nothing legal, or about the law, when it comes to the Impeachment process, and there is nothing a person can do to fight or block their impeachment or removal even by appealing to the Supreme Court. By the way, History and legal precedent won’t help you either, none of that matters, Congress can make up their process as they go along, to suit their satisfaction, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, Not The Parties or their faux leaders, not the impeached persons legal team, not contrived separation of powers, and not the Supreme Court, in fact no person has any legal standing to file a case in the Supreme Court for their impeachment, nor any processes related to their impeachment, Congress is free to do whatever they want, including gathering any information they want from any source, as long as the States Do it Together as the “Union”, a word whose meaning has been lost on a Majority of Americans!
So, let’s talk about quid pro quo, since everyone thinks it’s so important. What is quid pro quo? Basically it’s offering something of value in return for something of value! And don’t let the quid part fool you, it doesn’t need to be of monetary value or significance! So, that makes everything about our Politics, and our current embodiment of our Political System a series of quid pro quo and the conflicts of interest which are created by quid pro quo! That’s everything from assembly to function of every Governing institution we have in operation today, and all the decisions made in, and by, those Governing institutions and the pseudo leaders making those decisions!
Campaigns of declared candidates, the supporters of a declared candidates, the party affiliations of declared candidates and of the elected public officials, campaign contributions, whether made directly to a candidate or a candidates campaign, or on a candidates behalf by third party eg. PAC’s, and once elected all lobbying is quid pro quo and conflicts of interest are created related to that quid pro quo.
What the candidates and elected officials are saying is that if you support them, then they will act by their vote on issues in your interest, for your support to get them elected, that’s quid pro quo.
How is this related to the impeachment process? The House can’t impeach without considering how it will effect their re-election prospects which affect control of the House, and further whether it is against a person of a different Party than themselves, the same is true of the Senate, and how you know this is true is the Processes of Impeachment and Removal are only considered based upon how the votes in the House and Senate will result based upon Party Affiliation and being able to hold the Party line vote! For those of you that are slow on the uptake, that’s conflict of interest related to quid pro quo related to Party Affiliation!
Anytime you say, this will be decided on a party line vote, or, we need the votes of the Republicans for this or that, or, we can’t remove a person because we can’t get a majority in a republican led Senate, then you are talking about obstruction and corruption due to conflicts of interest related to Party Affiliation based upon quid pro quo!
What this means is that Our Legislative processes are not working and do not reflect a majority Consensus because they are decided by Party Affiliation, Party fealty, and Party ideology, not the merits of the arguments for or against, or guilt or innocence. This is the reason Party Governing systems don’t work and why republican Government is the only solution!
By the way, Our Government is only a RINO today, Republican government In Name Only. Our Government satisfies none of the principles of republican Government, and it isn’t a democracy either!
We must make a radical shift away from Parties back to the People through their States! The Constitution assembled the States into a Union, Not The People through partisan ideology and Party Affiliation! And the States are the People of each State in their Collective Capacity, Making republican Government a Grassroots Government Of, By, and For the People. A Republic is distributed Power and Collective Decision Making, Not the consolidated Power and Individual Leadership and Decision Making we have in place today.
Wake the “F”-up people, we don’t need political parties, or their conflicts of interest related to quid pro quo, to assemble and Control our Government, and make decisions for Us, and if We don’t stand up and remove the Parties NOW, We will loose our Government and probably our society right along with it.
We are currently in a state of anarchy, and chaos is the rule of law, are you willing to sit there in the stands watching this clown show waiting for the other shoe to drop, like it’s just another reality show, well worth the price of admission!
What We have isn’t Government at all, what needs to happen before we realize We Have No Functioning Government, and No Established Government Authority, basically that we are definitely in a state of Anarchy!
Am I the only one who feels that the constant impeachment threats on President Trump stem from the fact that the libs have zero confidence in winning in 2020? It would seem to me, if they really felt confident on a win in 2020 they would just wait the last year and take the presidency back on election day.
BINGO! With Biden going down they’ll be stuck with Elizabeth Warren, whom half of the Dem party won’t even support. The Rep will be highly motivated to get out and vote against her.
The only thing I can’t figure out is why Nancy didn’t wait 24 hours. What was to be gained? If she waited and it came out as it did, then she does nothing. If it was damaging, then she could unleash the hounds. I’ve heard one hypothesis that it is really all about the potential server.
At the time Pelosi scheduled the announcement of the Impeachment inquiry. Trump wasn’t giving up the phone transcript, he wasn’t giving up the whistleblower complaint, he still isn’t allowing anyone to testify before Congress including people that never worked for the administration. he’s fighting legal subpoenas including to third parties regarding his finances, and he lies daily. I’d say he obstructed himself right into this situation and finally, someone said enough.
Not so. Enigma, your imagination is working overtime.
Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry on 9/24.
Trump released the memo of the Ukrainian phone call on 9/25.
Do the math.
Enigma already has.
Trump had already indicated a desire to release the transcript before the Pelosi announcement.
You’re welcome to point out any inaccuicies.
I already pointed out one.
No. They aren’t “stuck” with Liz. They threw Joe under the bus.
They have annointed Liz.
They are the bosses now. What do these have in common, that they do not have in common with Joe (& Hunter) Biden:
hillary
pelosi
members of “the squad”
liz warren
Yes it should be obvious were the Democratic party leadership is headed.
Or, it could be, he is a lying sack of shit who only has his interest at heart.
You just described every politician that has run for office. So, I ask again, why all the threats of impeachment if you have a slam dunk winner to run against a president you think is so bad in 2020 ?
Jim: the problem with your statement is that most Americans: 1. did not vote for Trump; 2. Have consistently, by historic margins and for an historic period of time, disapproved of him, and 3. want him gone. Most Americans, that is, the majority, are not: “libs”, “Dems” or “the left”. They are American patriots. I know that it is a Fox News talking point to call people opposed to Trump by these names, which implies that those who support him are the majority. That is simply not true. There are plenty of Republican voters as well as those who identify as conservative who strongly disapprove of Trump.
And the reason why Congress can’t wait any more is because this latest scandal is simply a bridge too far. We cannot let stand a POTUS who solicits political assistance for his campaign from a foreign government by unlawfully withholding military aid appropriated in a bipartisan manner by Congress, whose administration takes steps to hide the evidence in a password controlled server dedicated to the most-sensitive national security data, and whose politically-motivated DOJ tries to bury the matter under false claims of Presidential privilege. There is no privilege for breaking the law. Congress is charged with the responsibility of holding a rogue President accountable.
Jim…….you’re right.
Turley must be touched by the Giuliani fairy. Why isn’t the “quid” the $400Mil to the Ukraine, and the “pro quo” the investigation by the Ukraine of the Biden’s?
“Turley must be touched by the Giuliani fairy. Why isn’t the “quid” the $400Mil to the Ukraine, and the “pro quo” the investigation by the Ukraine of the Biden’s?”
**********************
Read the OLC opinion saying nothing of value was solicited in the call and be enlightened — if you can.
Fascinating that you’re siding with the guys suspected of bribery rather than the guys trying to see if it happened.
Typical TDS symptom however.
Fascinating that you’re siding with the guys suspected of bribery rather than the guys trying to see if it happened.
Mark, don’t you know that candidates running for president have a get out of jail free?
The notion that we impeach Trump in response to a Biden family scandal is facially ridiculous too, but the professor feels the need to play “Let’s Pretend”/
Exactly right. Joe Digenova has a great analysis of this. Plus, he pokes fun at Nutty Napolitano. What fun! You get to see Shep Smith playing Outraged Queen. Ooops, I mean Outraged Drama Queen. Plus. he goes into “things of value.”
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6089513062001/#sp=show-clips
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Stay skanky, it’s what we expect.
Napolitano is off the beaten path again. He’s underqualified for his opinion.
DiGenova has superior credentials to support his opinion.
That’s not a difficult call.
Tucker, well done
Kurtz, I sometimes hear Napolitano but I have never been fully impressed and though it is said he wanted to be put on the US Supreme Court th doesn’t sound like he has the qualifications or disposition. He was a Superior Court Judge in N.J. but if I am correct that is not such a high position. His discussions on the law might make him a good libertarian but I don’t think a good SC Judge.
Allan:
He’s a state court judge with delusions of grandeur. His closest affiliation with a federal court or federal law is ducking into the library at the federal courthouse to grab some punch during the annual Christmas Party.
Sounds like some other, more fruitful avenues to explore, may be subverting the 4th Amendment, violations of FISA, the federal Privacy Act and federal “color of law” statutes (ex: Title 18 US Code 245). The Executive Branch needs a Judicial Branch warrant to legally “search” for dirt. What rights does Biden have under the U.S. Constitution? Trump swore an Oath of Office not to violate those rights.
Love reading the mental contortions of the NeverTrumpers; they show what happens to otherwise (presumably) intelligent people when they let their passions overrule their brains.
Kimberley Strassel of the WSJ made a prescient comment: “The Trump years have been rough on Democrats’ sensibilities, and their thinking has become increasingly addled as a result.”
About sums it up.
This whole impeachment charade is hilarious. Let’s talk about the relevant facts: separate servers (BUT NOT IN TRUMP’s BASEMENT ); threatening to withhold billions of dollars (LIKE JOE BIDEN); asking a foreign national to investigate corruption by a political family (BUT NOT PAYING A FOREIGN NATIONAL FOR FAKE SMEAR NEWS). The liberals/Democrats are projection artists. For the last 2 years, they have FALSELY accused others of doing what is their unethical MO like ie colluding with a foreign government to steal/poison our election – abusing power by spying on your political enemies and then illegally leaking. Every false claim made by the smear agent Dems is EXACTLY what they have done for the last few years. Let’s stop the equivocation. Anyone with a brain, can see it.
I’m afraid your site has been hijacked by the Media Matters crowd. Keep on presenting your calm assessments of the current mania overtaking our country.
Apparently 60% of the country works for Media Matters. How else would true Americans not be unanimous in support of Dear Leader?
What about the argument that Trump violated campaign contribution laws by soliciting a contribution (any “thing of value” to his campaign under the broad statutory definition of contribution) from a foreign individual or government? An illegal solicitation does not require a quid pro quo. That analysis is being trumpeted by some Democrats. If there is a flaw in it, please let your readers know.
What you referenced is not a transcript, it is a memo describing the recollection of those who took notes during the call. And it has been edited by political appointees. It is only once part of the larger picture. This scandal is only a week old, more will come out.
JT’s failure to connect the dots Trump painted on the floor for the Ukrainian president is staggering. Trump’s meaning was crystal clear and included a threat and a request.
Absolutely. Certainly the Ukraine President understood this. See page 3 of the whistleblower’s complaint about the Ukraine President’s website stating in essence that Trump said that the Ukraine image will be improved if it gets on their corruption investigation [of the Bidens]
that has held back cooperation between the Ukraine and the U.S.
JT keeps calling for the Quid Pro Quo when other constitutional scholars have made it abundantly clear, it is not necessary., merely the solicitation is enough. How he teaches in a legitimate university is a wonder in itself. He is so engrossed by Trump he has lost all perspective.
This is why all those that view Turley as a liberal are dead wrong. Turley has been “troubled.” “concerned,” “disturbed” and more about Trump’s behavior. But he has never seen anything illegal. Trump this time apparently didn’t tie specifically tie $400 million in military aid. You think the Ukrainian President forgot about the money he was expecting that Trump delayed the week before?
Ukrainians are coming out of the woodwork claiming they couldn’t even get a conversation unless they agreed to discuss the Biden’s. The administration did everything they could to scrub the record of the call, involving several people. Turley is now and always has been a Trump apologist. Bending but not breaking, always ready to let us know there’s no there, there. Practicing up for Fox News I guess (although even they are planning to go into a post-Trump mode. (For those paying attention to Trump tweets, I used a hyphen in the last sentence and not an apostrophe, because I know the difference).
enigmainblackcom
Well said. Notice how JT never mentions the problems caused by the oligarchs in places where he is financially rewarded for his wisdom e.g. Buenos Airies.
He seems to be a protector of the 1% in our country as well as others.
Show off, there are some heads exploding.
Not sure what your infatuation with Comrade Trump is, but it is simply the “solicitation” of a foreign entity in order to establish a crime. Clearly, Trump has done that.
Again, I implore you, take off your Donald Trump underwear for a moment look at the facts. He in fact, made that solicitation to the president of the Ukraine, and then he and the AG hid the evidence. Crimes o’plenty!
That isn’t what happened, and anyone is free to look and see for themselves. This is getting really old, so much worse than the birthers, and they were obnoxious as hell.
The main body of birthers folded their tents and went home when Obama’s long-form certificate was released.