Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the prospect of a Senate impeachment trial for President Donald Trump. While Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she is “heartbroken” and “prayerful” over the prospect of impeaching Trump. Whether those are crocodile or heartfelt tears, Pelosi may have to worry more about another possibility: this could be the trial that Donald Trump has long wanted, including the prospect of calling Joe Biden as his first witness.
Here is the column:
In the movie “Lord of War,” arms dealer Simeon Weisz tells his competitor and the film’s central character, Yuri Orlov: “The problem with gun-runners going to war is that there is no shortage of ammunition.”
The problem with politicians going into impeachments is that there is no shortage of scandals. And that danger may soon be realized, as momentum builds to impeach President Donald Trump.
The only way for Democrats to remove Trump from office would be to hold a trial that highlights the controversial business dealings of Hunter Biden, son of their potential presidential nominee, Joe Biden. The result could be a mutually assured destruction that only a lord of political war (and, possibly, Biden rival Elizabeth Warren) would love.
On one side of that trial is a deeply disturbing allegation involving Trump’s withholding of roughly $400 million in military aid — a national security concern. Using such powers to pressure another nation to investigate a political opponent can be a crime as well as an impeachable offense. Thus far, the evidence against Trump is damaging but not decisive on a quid pro quo. At the same time, the point of a defense is mitigating conduct that would be otherwise criminal.
The assumption by many Trump critics is that the greatest risk in an impeachment trial is that he is likely to be acquitted and the trial would galvanize Republican voters. Yet, that may be the least of the dangers if one thinks of the likely – indeed, the only – viable defense.
Trump will argue that he asked for Ukraine’s investigation of a corrupt relationship that was used to secure U.S. aid during the previous administration. The strength of that defense will depend greatly on the merits of the underlying corruption allegation.
If Hunter Biden’s business contracts were entirely appropriate, Trump’s actions would be difficult to justify. Seeking an investigation of, say, Pete Buttigieg by Malta clearly would be abusive, since there is no credible claim of a criminal act. But Trump will argue that Hunter Biden’s profiteering was ignored by the Obama administration and, largely, by the media.
In Washington, this pattern is all too familiar. I have written for years in criticism of Democratic and Republican politicians whose spouses or children received enormous salaries or contracts from companies with interests in legislation. Even newspapers like the New York Times have described Hunter Biden’s deals as conflicts of interest.
Biden has insisted that he never, ever discussed his son’s foreign dealings. According to Biden, even on the long flight to China on Air Force II, Hunter never mentioned that he was going to be put on an advisory board for a Chinese investment management company or his ten percent minority interest. Yet, according to the New Yorker, Hunter Biden arranged for his father to shake hands with Jonathan Li, who one of the key partners with the company. The problem is that Hunter Biden has said he did tell his father about the Ukrainian deal. Strangely, the Washington Post has insisted that Biden did not lie when he categorically denied ever speaking to his son about any foreign business, because, after being told about the Ukrainian deal, Biden curtly left it to his son and “that’s not much of a discussion.”
So here is a simple defense narrative:
In April 2014, Hunter Biden is curiously put on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings, despite a glaring lack of relevant experience. According to the New York Times , that was just weeks after Joe Biden was asked to oversee U.S.-Ukraine relations and aid. Burisma is owned by oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, accused of systemic corruption and a close associate of Ukraine’s prior pro-Russian president.
In 2016, Biden forced the firing of Ukraine’s chief prosecutor and later bragged how he made clear to the Ukrainians that he, not President Obama, would determine if the country received $1 billion in aid. Biden then claimed — falsely, according to his son — that he never spoke to his son about his dealings in Ukraine.
The problem for Democrats? They cannot presume a criminal intent in Trump’s calls while rejecting any such presumption in Biden’s dealings. They point out that the Ukrainians found no violations under their laws — a curious spin for a country with notoriously lax anti-corruption enforcement. But the question is how these deals are viewed in the United States.
Few people seriously believe Hunter Biden stood out in Ukraine, China or elsewhere for his transnational business acumen. Yet, while Democrats pursue every Trump deal in foreign countries (and even foreign guests in Trump hotels), there is a striking lack of interest in money that went to a member of the Biden family while Joe Biden handed out billions in U.S. trade and aid.
An impeachment trial also is likely to feature another investigation. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, a widely respected figure, is close to releasing his report on the origins of the Trump-Russian investigation. His report is expected to be comprehensive and damning in its findings, including documenting highly questionable representations and decisions by federal officials during the Obama administration.
It is likely to rekindle objections that Hillary Clinton’s campaign sought evidence against Trump from Russian and other foreign sources. That information was then used by the Obama administration to target Trump campaign associates. Ultimately, not only were targets like Carter Page never charged but special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence the Trump campaign knowingly worked with the Russians.
In other words, Horowitz’s report could blur any bright line separating the conduct of Trump and his critics.
Ironically, a Senate trial might give Trump what he has long demanded: A hearing of his allegations against Democrats, from the matters in the Horowitz report to the Biden controversy. Impeached presidents are, historically, allowed fairly wide leeway to call witnesses — so Trump could turn any Senate trial into a showcase of countervailing Democratic scandals. Trump could even call Joe and Hunter Biden. It just might be the trial that Trump wants: leaving him in office, damaging the Democratic nominee, and (while not improving his own image) making others look just as bad.
The one positive aspect in such a trial would be to give Americans a true glimpse into the subterranean level of corruption and self-dealing that runs just beneath the surface in Washington. Yet, that is why public corruption cases are notoriously difficult to prove: All politicians engage in some degree of self-dealing or using their offices for political advantage. History is replete with allegations of presidents engineering foreign or domestic “October surprises” to win elections.
Of the three most famous public corruption cases in recent decades, two failed. Gov. Robert McDonnell (R-Va.) was found guilty but his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, and the case against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) ended in a hung jury and mistrial — even though both men delivered on the favors alleged in their quid pro quo arrangements.
To complete the sordid optics, Menendez actually would vote as a juror in any Senate trial of Trump, who is accused of suggesting a quid pro quo as opposed to the completed acts in return for lavish gifts charged against Menendez.
Frankly, both sides deserve this ignoble moment.
As the “Lord of War” character Yuri Orlov said, “There are only two tragedies in life. One is not getting what you want, the other is getting it.” Both Democrats and Republicans could soon get the trial they want and deserve.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified during the Clinton impeachment and served as the last lead defense counsel in an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.
Enigma likes to mix libel with Fruit Loops. He feels it makes the Fruit Loops tastier.
Do you want a trial against your twice discredited worst enemy who is prosecuting it before a lock jury in your favor and the accusing witness is in as much potential trouble as you are?
Let me answer for every lawyer: Yes you do! Today — tomorrow at the latest,
Mark,
Is there anything in this “impeachment” process that would prevent the release of the Durham and Horrowitz reports?
Olly:
Nope it’s all hands on dek time and everything is fair game if Roberts says it is. And even if he doesn’t Trump gets to vouch the record for the SCOTUS appeal if he loses. It’s win-win-win-lose-still win.
mespo, you seem confused about who will be “prosecuting” the impeachment and who the witnesses will be. BIden won’t be there.
NOw ask yourself this question – if Trump wants to testify, would you call him if he was your client?
No Biden’s minions and Trump enemies — The Pelosi Squad — will prosecute. That’s his worst enemy — not senile Joe. Biden will stammer as complainant and the Senate is the jury. Ukraine will stop by to testify the whole notion is crazy. Care to bet on the outcome?
mespo, you wish it was the squad, none of which have a law degree or any power on the floor.
Unlike you I don’t make rash wild ass hope/predictions. nor do I bet on anything. My work is risky enough.
Public opinion will probably be where it counts, both before and after and the Senate will follow.
I doubt any Ukrainian government officials testify.
By the way, the new U president would agree with anything the stupid gringo said. You get that, right?
Dumb “victim” for not agreeing with Maoist narrative!
“mespo, you wish it was the squad, none of which have a law degree or any power on the floor.”
******************
Rashida Talib, Esq., Western Michigan University Cooley Law School (2004) Not exactly Yale but it qualifies. Do I have to check your every statement for accuracy or can I just assume its from the hip?.
I guess so mespo, but do you expect her to be a floor manager?
Don’t.
Anon1:
I wouldn’t pick her but I wouldn’t impeach either (and the Dems won’t ever vote). AOC is a better choice even degree-less – she can twitch her nose, rant about socialism and serve a mean Bloody Mary. A radical trifecta!
Nope and don’t have to. He who asserts must prove. I’m guessing directed verdict but usually the judge lets the jury bail him out.
Mespo: “He who asserts must prove.”
Yes, the only thing the Dems will prove is that they are corrupt and incompetent.
I’d stipulate that to save them proving it.
BTW forgot to mention the claimed aggrieved victim says it never knew of any withheld foreign aid and never felt threatened by the conversation at any time. Plus it took Trump up on his offer to investigate Biden. This is getting good — for Trump not the Dims.
Yeah mespo, big surprise.
“Tell this stupid Mfer whatever he wants and GTF out of here!”
Peter Hill lives though half the woman he was 48 hrs ago
🤪
JT: “The one positive aspect in such a trial would be to give Americans a true glimpse into the subterranean level of corruption and self-dealing that runs just beneath the surface in Washington.”
Yes, let’s have each side try to make the case that the other is corrupt in a fair forum. This is what we need. The defense calls: Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Josef Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan Halper, Charles Tawil, George Papadapolous, Carter Page, etc
You forgot Lady McClinton!
Enigma, are you accusing Obama of treason when Obama said to Medved that he would have more flexibility after the election?
i”m sure not. that’s the kind of mild insight into politics any leader might say to another. it was probably true and ok for obama in context, and if trump said it true too
but these guys always make a mountain out of an anthill. if it’s not theirs, that is
Hmmm. This is interesting! And signed by Clinton!
https://kunstler.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Letter-of-Transmittal.jpg
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here is the rest of Kunstler’s article, which the wordpress filter will not let me link:
Civil War On:
Someone in Impeachmentville is not paying attention. Of course, diverting the rubes is exactly the point of the latest CIA operation to negate the 2016 election. Has nobody noticed that there is treaty between Ukraine and the USA, signed at Kiev in 1998 and ratified by the US Senate in 2000. It’s an agreement on “Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.” Here, read the cover letter for yourself: [see above]
What part of the following do Nancy Pelosi and the news media not understand?
The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state… ([etc].
How does this not permit Mr. Trump asking the president of Ukraine for “assistance” in criminal matters arising out of “collusion with Russia,” as specified within the scope of Robert Mueller’s special prosecutor activities? For instance, the matter of CrowdStrike. The cybersecurity firm was co-founded by Russian ex-pat Dmitri Alperovitch, who also happens to be a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, an anti-Russian think tank funded by Ukrainian billionaire, Viktor Pinchuk, who donated at least $25 million to the Clinton Foundation before the 2016 election. Crowdstrike was the company that “examined” the supposedly hacked DNC servers, while somebody in the Obama administration prevented the FBI from ever seeing them. Does this sound a little like part of the origin story of RussiaGate? Is that not exactly the potential criminal matter that the current attorney general, Mr. Barr, is officially investigating?
Perhaps, under the year 2000 treaty, Mr. Trump was within his rights to ask the new President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, for assistance on that. And also, the question of former vice-president Joe Biden’s levering US aid to Ukraine in his demand to fire the prosecutor investigating the company, Burisma Holdings, that just happened to hire his son, Hunter, to a $64,000-a-month seat on the board of directors, not long after the younger Mr. Biden was kicked out of the US Navy reserve for cocaine use — what a sterling fellow!
The foregoing ought to be self-evident. Speaking of failures to pay attention, Director of National Security (DNI) Joseph McGuire testified in Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intel Committee last Thursday that the “Whistleblower” and his or her allies in the Intelligence Community who fomented the latest crisis “acted in good faith.” Admiral McGuire omitted to mention that the IC’s Whistleblower complaint rules were surreptitiously changed sometime around August 2019 to allow second-hand hearsay in Urgent Matter” complaints, where formerly it had been prohibited. The change was only posted on an IC website on Sept 24. Did Admiral McGuire not get the memo on that? Was he out of the loop? After all, he is merely in charge of the entirety of US Intelligence operations. Who kept him in the dark?
Now there is yet another new “bombshell” out of the CBS 60-Minutes show (reported by Scott Pelley) alleging that the “Whistleblower” had been placed under federal protection due to “threats” made against him or her. We’re to infer that the “Whistleblower” is in a safe space— perhaps hiding out in the CIA’s Diversity and Inclusion offices, with some teddy bears, crayons, and chips ahoy to keep the heebie-jeebies away. Only, one of the “Whistleblower’s” own lawyers, Mark S. Zaid released a letter today saying that the 60-Minutes report was “not accurate and misinterpreted the contents of our [earlier] letter.” Mr. Zaid added in a tweet that CBS was “literally making stuff up.”
Well, let CBS and the “Whistleblower’s” pro bono lawyers slug that one out in some safe space. More to the point, how long do you suppose the charade of protecting the “Whistleblower’s” identity will go on? If impeachment moves to a trial in the senate, Mr. Trump will enjoy the right of being faced by his accuser. But I don’t think we will have to wait that long. Rep. Schiff (D-CA) has already declared that this person will be called into a closed session of his committee. The chance is about zero that his or her identify will remain unknown. By and by, the “whistleblower’s” confederates in the CIA will also become known and the perfidy of this latest CIA operation in the ongoing coup will be understood.
UkraineGate is the equivalent of Fort Sumter in Civil War 2.0. Charges have been flying and tempers flaring for three years now, much as they did between 1858 and 1861. Once again, what seems to be at stake is the integrity of the Union. As in the previous enactment, one side is dangerously deluded, and that is liable to lead to its destruction.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
If the Dems keep it simple. the Senate trial could remove him. This avalanche of “reports” of all the smelly Trump-like things he said and did amount to nothing. But these facts ARE different.
The issue is the money. Only the money. Not the phone call or Giuliani or any of the other stupid decisions he made. No, the money is the ONLY issue.
Did Trump actually USE taxpayer money that had been congressionally-approved for a purpose that was NOT its intended use? That was impeachable issue in Iran-Contra, and it’s the issue here. Reagan was protected because of the deep, sincere loyalty of his staff. Do we even need to mention that Trump does not have that? You’d be certifiable to think so.
The money is the ONLY issue. If those dots stop floating long enough to be connected at a Senate trial, Trump is toast. But we’ve got a long, LONG way to go first.
Last night CSPAN had an interview with a Presidential candidate from Ohio whose last name is Ryan. He is the most impressive candidate I have seen and heard. I forget his last name but I am looking it up on google. The regular media has ignored him. If the Dems go for Warren or Biden (Joe not Hunter) then I will vote for Trump and if he quits then Pence.
Tim Ryan, from Youngstown, Ohio
Also try Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota who wins every congressional district in her state, rural and urban, and including Michelle Bachman’s old district.
“The statistical analysis website fivethirtyeight.com has rated Klobuchar as the top (male or female) candidate “who’s getting more home-state support than their party”, which “shows she is successfully appealing to voters outside her base.”[54]
Klobuchar’s political positions have generally been in line with modern American liberalism. She is pro-choice on abortion, supports LGBT rights and Obamacare, and was critical of the Iraq War.
According to GovTrack, Klobuchar passed more legislation than any other senator by the end of the 114th Congress in late 2016.[29] According to Congress.gov, as of December 16, 2018, she had sponsored or co-sponsored 111 pieces of legislation that became law.[57] During the 115th Congress she voted in line with President Trump’s position on legislation 31.1% of the time.[58]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Klobuchar
Oddsshark has her as a 12,000 to 1 longshot to win the presidency in 2020. Amy is all but done, I don’t see her hanging around much longer in the race for the nomination.
Betting sites set odds to draw equal bets on each side, and so are essentially a poll of bettors, not a wise analysis.
That being said, of course Amy’s a long shot, but if Biden stumbles the center will need a candidate and she’ll get a look.
For smart voters, she will kick Trump’s ass up and down the road and it would not be close.
not familiar with him but if the media’s ignoring him, then he’s probably not too bad. they like to focus on certain favored candidates.
Ryan’s an old line blue collar democrat, though not very old. I thought he did well in the 2nd debate but was gone for the 3rd.
He practices and promotes Mindfulness as well. Wrote a book called: ‘A Mindful Nation.’
He challenged Pelosi for Speaker not too long ago. But alas, Pelosi wasn’t ready to step aside.
The only trial for impeachment that is presided over by the Chief Justice is that of the President of the United States. Why? Because the President of the Senate, the person who presides over all other Impeachment trials, is otherwise engaged fulfilling the duties of the President who is absent, an absence which is created by the Vote For Impeachment in the House and the President being remanded over to the Senate for the trial for removal!
Impeachment removes, temporarily, any person from their duties while the States as the Union determine if it’s in their interest for that person to return to their duties, or be removed from office.
I’ll let you geniuses chew on that for a minute! Impeachment is an act of protection for our Governing System and the People which are served by the Government, not a partisan tool to use against your political adversaries, and it’s not dependent upon a partisan Consensus, and Removal is not by partisan consensus either! Both impeachment and removal are by a Majority Consensus of the States as the Union, the States by proportion in the House and the States as Equals in the Senate.
If you don’t understand that impeachment is not a partisan, or lengthly, Process, then we are truly in trouble in America! Impeachment needs to happen immediately upon any indication of a problem, the extent of the abhorrent behavior, the preparation of the Case for removal, and the trial for removal, can take as long as necessary, but the person in question must be remove, albeit temporarily, from their position while the Process is executed.
It’s not much protection if the person who’s behavior is under consideration is allowed to continue to behave in a manner which has initiated investigation!
We have a real problem with conditional statements in this country, the reason for Impeachment doesn’t need to be fully investigated or proved before the vote for impeachment, that’s what the trial in the Senate is for, to present evidence to support the impeachment finding and to recommend removal from office as the proper and necessary punishment!
The partisan approach to impeachment, or Governing in General, is too dependent upon conflicts of interest related to Party Affiliation to function properly, or reach a Majority Consensus! Furthermore partisan assembly and governing is not a form of republican Government, a direct violation of Article. IV. Section. 4. of the United States Constitution!
Maybe it’s time for us to consider why partisan Government is not a form of republican Government!?
fpr – McConnell doesn’t even need to bring the impeachment to the floor of the Senate.
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that if the House goes ahead and impeaches President Donald Trump, the Senate “has no choice” but to conduct a trial to determine whether the president is removed from office.
The Kentucky Republican told NPR on Friday that “if the House were to act, the Senate immediately goes into a trial.”
McConnell had not previously indicated whether the Senate would act on any articles of impeachment, though the Constitution anticipates that it would. It’s commonly assumed that the GOP-held chamber would acquit Trump just as Democrats held together in 1999 to deny the GOP House from winning a conviction of President Bill Clinton…”
https://fortune.com/2019/09/27/mcconnell-senate-impeachment-trial/
I was not in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, but in the end he lost license to practice law and a lot of other things that were heinous (admitted by Democrats today) were brought to light.
Anon1 – he doesn’t have do, he may though.
Paul, what’s wrong with you? McConnell said the Senate “has no choice”.
They have to have a trial. They don’t have to vote.
McConnell leads a caucus, not the Senate! The person of Authority in the Senate, and by extension the entire Legislature, is the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States.
You can read the Constitution all day and you won’t find partisan Assembly and Control of any Government institution, but what you will find is Assembly by State, and Apportionment of Suffrage by State, and the States as the Union, and the Assembly of the States in Congress as the Supreme Legislative and Government Authority! Definitely not Parties!
I know you can’t read, and you have no ability to comprehend, but partisan Assembly and Governing is the total opposite of Assembly by the principles of republican Government, and a republican form of Government, where the people in their collective capacity are assembled, and the people in their collective capacity have Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus.
“The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”, Federalist #’s 9 & 10, by Hamilton and Madison Respectively.
The Union of the States is the protection against the partisan Assembly and Control that we call American Democracy!
Just go back to school a learn to read before you make your next ignorant partisan comment!
fpr – there is an old saying in teaching. You can lead a student to knowledge, you can’t make them think. You fall in that category.
I see you are talking about yourself, you definitely didn’t drink at the well of knowledge, and you have no capacity for thought either.
If you don’t know the difference between partisan and collective, especially with the definition provided for you, then you prove my point!
You are ignorant, which in most cases is reversible, but I see you have crossed the line into stupidity, which there is no cure for!
Please Stop Teaching Immediately! We cannot afford to subject young impressionable minds to your ignorance and stupidity!
fpr – too late. I have infected hundreds of thousands of young minds. Sadly, you are working in a closed system. There is no way I can help you.
I’ve never asked for your help, obviously you have nothing to offer. And I feel sorry for all those kids you tainted with your ignorance and stupidity, it’s not too late to charge you with criminal negligence and child abuse!
Where do you live again, I need to contact the proper authorities!?
fpr – doxxing is against the Civility Rules and you would be probably banned for life. I would sue you for everything you owned if you doxxed me, so you might look at it from that stand point. I take this as a threat. Read this https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/
Fine report me to the proper authority, if they want to ban me for life from this blog, so be it!
first you have all this gobbledygook from fpr then it hurls the lame insults
reads like a a machine translation from a language that doesn’t use articles
You need to check yourself, before you start talking about anyone’s else’s behavior! Do you want me to count up the insults you arrogant self appointed geniuses have hurled at me, without the benefit of any corroborating, or supporting references from the Constitution.
And don’t even try to tell me about Supreme Court decisions or Congressional Statutes, they are neither part of the Constitution, note do they amend the Constitution!
So, tell us all where is the Constitutional suppler your your insane, and ignorant, views and opinions!
I took the liberty of looking up the word partisan for you in the dictionary:
partisan noun (1)
par·ti·san | \ ˈpär-tə-zən
How to pronounce partisan (audio)
, -sən
How to pronounce partisan (audio)
, -ˌzan, chiefly British ˌpär-tə-ˈzan\
variants: or less commonly partizan
Definition of partisan (Entry 1 of 3)
1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person
especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance, political partisans who see only one side of the problem.
This is exactly what Madison discusses in Federalist #10, where his solution to partisan politics are the principles of republican Government!
I’ll let you read it for yourself, make sure you get someone to help you with the more difficult bits!
While the Trump Impeachment Trial is carried on in the Senate, there will be a crowd oiutside singing this song:
(music)
Biden! Last name Biden!
What kind of creep is last name Biden?
Joe Biden, Hunter Biden others that are dead.
Steal, take and be a fake… as long as your’e a BIDEN!
The dog… kids… like….
To bite!
Yeah, except all the evidence is that Joe Biden led the West’s attempts to rid the Ukraine of corruption.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/30/lord-of-war-a-senate-trial-could-be-exactly-what-trump-needs/comment-page-1/#comment-1886562
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/30/lord-of-war-a-senate-trial-could-be-exactly-what-trump-needs/comment-page-1/#comment-1886566
Anon thinks providing one with a library card is evidence.
if you understood turley’s article, then you understand that “all the evidence” in your opinion may not be “all the evidence” once the defense presents its case
i have often been surprised by the matters raised by the other side in court, in spite of being reasonably competent and well prepared. and yet. See, that’s the way it often works in both low level disputes, and also matters involving equity. The discovery is not always thorough, because of money and time constraints, and when seeking equitable remedies, you can’t wait around anyhow, may have to run into court before you know the lay of the land, and try and get it done with what’s at hand
So, how does that relate to a huge thing like impeachment?
like equity, the remedy is atypical, and like equity, the remedy often dictates a wider scope of evidence than would be allowed if the matter was strictly about monetary damages.
SO I think if it proceeds, yes, we all may be surprised at what Trump may dredge up in his defense. Time will tell!
Despite what Turley says Trump did nothing even remotely wrong unless the President of the US is supposed to keep entirely silent with foreign leaders which is just not so. The most prominent example of a statement that is an attempt at a quid pro quo with our enemies is President Obama to Medved: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” No one seemed to mind greatly about that statement demonstrating a false attempt to make a story out of thin air.
Some news on the Swamp concerning John Solomon and the letter he touted as a 2nd Declaration of Independence:
“…..material that has been surfacing from The Hill’s ‘opinion’ reporter John Solomon and then echoed by Giuliani seems to originate with one of Ukraine’s richest and most powerful oligarchs who is a former business partner of Paul Manafort and had to flee Ukraine after the overthrow of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. He is in Austria, fighting extradition to the United States to face bribery charges.
His name is Dimtry Firtash.
Viktor Shokin is the ‘fired prosecutor’ at the center of all these stories. As part of Firtash’s effort to avoid extradition from Austria to the United States, he asked Shokin to swear out the affidavit in which Shokin accuses Biden of getting him fired to protect his son Hunter. (There is no evidence any of this happened. There was no investigation of Hunter Biden or the company on whose board he sat at the time Shokin was fired.)
So to review, former Manafort business partner Firtash asks Shokin to swear out an affidavit in which he accuses Biden. The affidavit quickly gets into the hands of Giuliani and Solomon. And who just recently went to work for Firtash’s legal team? None other than diGenova and Toensing, as reported just this week by the Kyiv Post and other publications.
So the duo who we now learned has been working on behalf of the President with Rudy Giuliani to extort the Ukrainian government just signed on to represent the oligarch behind the affidavit in which the disgraced prosecutor says Joe Biden got him fired. And yes, the oligarch who got booted from Ukraine in 2014 is a former business partner of Paul Manafort.”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/full-picture-coming-into-view-2
“Viktor Shokin is the ‘fired prosecutor’ at the center of ***all*** these stories. ”
Not so.
“There is no evidence any of this happened. ”
The transcript places Shokin on record.
“There was no investigation of Hunter Biden or the company on whose board he sat at the time Shokin was fired.”
Shokin provided evidence and others did as well. It seems one of the others was the representatives of Burisma.
“The affidavit quickly gets into the hands of Giuliani and Solomon.”
How do they know the time line? This article demonstrates that the intention of thie piece is a hit job, not truth.
“So the duo who we now learned has been working on behalf of the President ”
So far Solomon has repeated only what he believes is true and has provided the written evidence that makes him believe whatever he does. The fact that it favors the President in this case does not mean he is working on behalf of the President.
This article is riddled with flaws much like the statements provided by the one that posted it. Solomon provided sworn transcripts. The article provided opinion full of spin with inaccuracies
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/30/lord-of-war-a-senate-trial-could-be-exactly-what-trump-needs/comment-page-1/#comment-1886566
Another library card from Anon.
” Yet, while Democrats pursue every Trump deal in foreign countries (and even foreign guests in Trump hotels), there is a striking lack of interest in money that went to a member of the Biden family while Joe Biden handed out billions in U.S. trade and aid.”
DUH!!! This is because the Main Stream Media is really nothing but the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. You can no more take anything they report as true, then you could put faith into anything Joseph Goebbels said during World War II. That is because the TRUTH is not their object. Promoting a pro-Democratic Party/PowersThatBe agenda is the object. That is why you saw the lousy reporting on Trayvon Martin, and RussiaGate, and this bunch of nothing. And, why you see a lack of reporting on Hillary’s Foundation, or Hunter Biden, or numerous Obama administration screwups.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Joe’s defense will be the facts and he’ll do fine:
From a speech by the Obama Administration’s Ukrainian Ambassador in Odessa in 2015 encouraging reform and an end to endemic corruption. Note, Zlochevsky is the owner of the gas company that hired Hunter Biden.
“….For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had
seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s
office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.
Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a
result the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to
Cyprus.
The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those
responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be
summarily terminated.
Even as we support the work of the new Anti-Corruption Commission, and the recruitment of the work of the new Anti-Corruption Commission, we have urged Prosecutor General Shokin to empower Deputy Prosecutor
Sakvarelidze and Kasko to implement reforms and bring to justice those who have violated the law,
regardless of rank or status. We are prepared to partner with reformers within the PGO in the fight
for anticorruption….”
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Remarks-by-US-Ambassador-Geoffrey-Pyatt-at-the-Odesa-Financial-Forum-on-September-24-2015-ukraine.pdf
Joe Biden was the Obama Administration’s point man on the Ukraineand rightly bragged about it to the CFR.
good spinning anon. this line you’re taking sounds good. run with it. don’t worry about the facts that are obviously troubling.
wait, just so you can avoid them, let me draw your attention to how turley sees it:
” If Hunter Biden’s business contracts were entirely appropriate, Trump’s actions would be difficult to justify. … Trump will argue that Hunter Biden’s profiteering was ignored by the Obama administration and, largely, by the media.
In Washington, this pattern is all too familiar. I have written for years in criticism of Democratic and Republican politicians whose spouses or children received enormous salaries or contracts from companies with interests in legislation. Even newspapers like the New York Times have described Hunter Biden’s deals as conflicts of interest.
Biden has insisted that he never, ever discussed his son’s foreign dealings. According to Biden, even on the long flight to China on Air Force II, Hunter never mentioned that he was going to be put on an advisory board for a Chinese investment management company or his ten percent minority interest. Yet, according to the New Yorker, Hunter Biden arranged for his father to shake hands with Jonathan Li, who one of the key partners with the company. The problem is that Hunter Biden has said he did tell his father about the Ukrainian deal.”
If a company wants to pay the son of a VP or P to get that name on their letterhead and reports and the VP or P is not involved, there’s nothing illegal about it, though maybe we could pass a law to make it so. There is no credible allegation that Joe Biden got a penny or helped in anyway, and plenty of evidence – see my post above, and there are many other articles confirming the same facts – that he fought for stricter enforcement of Ukrainian anti-corruption efforts as the on the ground rep of our government and the entire West.
Do you have similar thoughts about the grifter Trump family?
Enigma, we are continuously waiting for you to enlighten us with precisely the financial crime you think Trump committed along with details and $ amounts.
I am not sure that Pelosi is stupid enough to impeach and then go on recess for two weeks. Things are getting very testy in the House and Trump and the Republicans raised $15 million from small donors since Nancy prematurely announced impeachment. I thought she had better sense, but maybe all that Botox kicked it.
What is wrong with JT?
Our campaign laws make it illegal to seek the aid of a foreign government in a US election. The QPQ which he wrongly says does not exist is icing on the cake.
As to the politics, he’s no expert, and let’s see what happens. As a legal scholar one would hope he doesn’t think politics should be determinative.
Our campaign laws make it illegal to seek the aid of a foreign government in a US election.
That’s great to know where you stand prior to the release of the Horrowitz and Durham reports.
Trump has been accused of not doing anything to protect U.S. elections from foreign interference. Should the president not take the opportunity with Zelensky and ask him to investigate alleged corruption between U.S. entities and Ukrainians that directly interfered with our 2016 election? Should he not ask Zelensky about the apparent quid pro quo from the Obama administration’s point man, Biden, to determine it was not rooted in furthering corruption as opposed to ending it? Biden, of all people should welcome the release of evidence by the Ukrainian government demonstrating the threat of withholding $1 billion in aid served a legitimate anti-corruption purpose. And Democrats looking to nominate a presidential candidate should want to know they aren’t supporting corruption. Right?
No Olly. S his own past National Security Advisor said yesterday, there’s no there there and he told him that.
Here, chew on this for awhile
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/30/lord-of-war-a-senate-trial-could-be-exactly-what-trump-needs/comment-page-1/#comment-1886562
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/30/lord-of-war-a-senate-trial-could-be-exactly-what-trump-needs/comment-page-1/#comment-1886566
Well Mr. Gambini, I don’t believe you understand how this process works.
you keep on miss-stating the defense allegation., the defense’s allegation is that he was seeking to investigate corruption.
in our system of due process, BOTH SIDES get to make allegations, and try to prove.
we don’t just take the “whistleblower’s” word for it. Trump gets his say. You don’t like that, clearly
see this is how it goes in a lot of political corruption cases actually. The cases themselves are corruption ….. they are pursued by a prosecutor with a political angle to pursue. So there is one allegation of corruption picked out of a morass ,a swamp of corruption, and such one prosecutors TRY To make stick.
In China, the Boss, Xi Jinpeng, has incarcerated tens of thousands of Communist officials for corruption.
1.3 million corrupt officials jailed!
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2133251/xi-jinpings-anti-graft-drive-has-caught-so-many
Including one Bo Xilai, who was probably less corrupt than most by far. You can look up his case if you like. Probably Bo Xilai was actually just a coming rival.
The great thing about our system is both the accuser and the defense get their say. In China, not so much.
Trump will have his day in the Court of the Senate if the Dems take it all the way.
Sure Kurtz, because if there is one thing we know about Trump, it is how offended he is by corruption, especially by those who keep beating his ass by double digits in polling.
He’s a regular Eliot Ness.
“Biden rival Elizabeth Warren) would love.”
Should Warren love the impeachment and thus the scandal of Joe’s behavior knocking Joe Biden out of the race?
I don’t think Joe Biden is able to finish the primaries without the scandal demonstrating his ineptness. Therefore, Warren would is a beneficiary either way. Adding scandal to the Obama administration where Joe Biden is the lead schlimazel in the longer run I believe is injurious to Democratic desires based on outrage of its voters leaving them to stay at home.
The best outcome that they take each other out opening the way for someone from let’s say Montana. Governor Bullock
Turley’s argument is no better than Stephen Miller’s, Lindsey Graham’s. or Kevin McCarthy’s. There is no defense for this traitor. I’m just hoping they don’t take their eye off Trump’s finances which he desperately wants noone to see.
Oh, so you have left the 1940s and are now reliving the 1950s with the Rosenburgs, and Philby, and all the commies in position of power. Oh my. I can’t wait until you move into the 1960s and start wearing tie-dye and start slamming Nixon and the Vietnam War.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You oppose my use of the word “treason?” Perhaps you have a better word for encouraging Russians to meddle in our elections?
“a better word for encouraging Russians”
Hubris
As in Barack Hussein Obama
Two better words. Russian Dossier.
Out of curiousity, how long can you go on pretending to see no evil in Trump and always deflecting to someone else?
As long as you can go on pretending that it is only Republicans that can play dirty.
That is, indefinitely.
The difference then is that I can acknowledge dirty behavior wherever it is. I don’t have to pretend total ignorance and blindness. I could critice almost all the Democrat candidates for example (except those so far behind I haven’t cared to investigate) of course, all of them would be better than someone selling us out to other nations.
enigma – as long as people still think unicorns and rainbows come out of Hillary’s butt. 🙂
Paul – You know people don’t have to actually believe that for others to keep believing and repeating it. Kinda like Crowdstrike.
enigma – I accidentally got watching some “reaction” videos to the comedian Bill Burr. Do you know who he is? I had never heard of him before the Dave Chappell Special. People were saying that if you like Dave you would like Bill. I am interested in your take on him.
Paul – I’m not familiar with him but I’ll check him out.
enigma – what intrigued me was his audiences were heavily black, however he is a white as I am and I am nearly translucent. And all the reaction videos were by blacks who really enjoyed his comedy.
I watched “Inside the Crosshairs” which was an interesting take on snipers. I’ll look for some live audience material.
enigma – look for the reaction videos.
Watched, “Black friends, clothes, and Harlem,” he was very funny, I’ll probably track down more clips.
enigma – he married that girl in Harlem. 😉
So Hillary is guilty of treason?
Ivan – according to the Democrats, yes, Hillary is guilty of treason.
Unicorns and rainbows from Hillary’s arse?
Eeeuuuuwwww
HW – you do know that Chelsea was conceived from the Holy Spirit. The is why she does not look like Bill.
“You oppose my use of the word “treason?” Perhaps you have a better word for encouraging Russians to meddle in our elections?”
**********************
The Russians are not our enemy which is required for treason under our and English common law which is why lawyers should use legal terms not zealots who couldn’t possible know what they mean. Look up “seditionist” it might be revelatory for you.
So the Russians are our friends? Those of us not getting millions over market value in real estate deals might not agree. That they’ve bought off Trump and the NRA is clear. What’s your excuse?