Wednesday, November 13, 2019
MORE FROM THE DONALD J. TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARING
1) Trump didn’t stop aid to Ukraine until Biden announced his run. Then Trump used aid as leverage,
2) Trump had to finally deliver the aid because the whistleblower complaint became known and forced him to, and
3) Trump never mentioned corruption to Zelensky, only mentioned 2016 + Bidens
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
If hypocrisy were worth something, every single damn Republscumbag in DC would be rich beyond belief. It's sickening to see them jump around, showing their asses, while exposing their idiocy to the world.
BlueBull, The Goopers have nothing to counter what was revealed to today: Their president is a crook.
Ms.Shaw, can you tell exactly what crime did Trump commit? Not your personal opinion but what actual crime?
To Anon @9:09 PM:
A variety of felony criminal statutes plainly implicate Trump’s behavior, and come with lengthy prison sentences — the types of sentences doled out for high crimes, to say nothing of misdemeanors. Many of them are straightforward. Altogether, if the impeachment inquiry is limited simply to Trump’s pressure on Ukraine, the charges could amount to more than 10 years in prison.
18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” It’s not hard to grasp:
“Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
The only question is the definition of extortion. The law describes it as “the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person.” Was the Ukrainian president, or any other person, put in “fear of injury” by Trump’s move? As Trump’s envoys made clear in their testimony yesterday, Ukraine’s cooperation in the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden was driven by the promise of a White House visit for President Zelensky and the threat of withholding military aid.
That's one. See Below
Cont.
AG William Barr’s Department of Justice has declined to press charges against Trump, though the House of Representatives is pushing forward with its impeachment inquiry. In the meantime, Trump has said that he will refuse to cooperate with lawful subpoenas — itself a prima facie violation of 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,” punishable by a year in prison.
Coercing his deputies into joining in the conspiracy would also runs afoul of the law. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Bill Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, reiterated in a text message to Trump official Gordon Sondland, strongly suggesting he was pursuing the strategy against his own wishes.
If Taylor felt coerced into helping with “a political campaign,” that implicates 18 U.S. Code § 610, which covers that crime rather clearly under the title: “Coercion of political activity.”
The law reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government … to engage in … any political activity.”
Continued below
Trump should be impeached for the violation of 18 U.S. Code § 607, “Place of solicitation,” and 52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.” Essentially, it’s illegal to solicit contributions to your presidential campaign from the Oval Office and illegal to solicit from foreign nationals no matter where you do it from:
“It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President … to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person.”
Thing of value: Getting a foreign leader to investigate Trump's political rival. Before Biden was clearly the front-runner, Trump did not ask for that "thing of value" from Ukraine, it was only after Biden became the clear Democratic leader. Also, in Trump's own edited transcript, Trump never mentions corruption in Ukraine, only Joe Biden.
I hope that answers your question.
Charlie Pierce explains it for you, Anon @9:o9 PM:
Make no mistake. If the hearings on Tuesday were a criminal trial, the jury wouldn’t have been out long enough to order lunch. The President* of the United States ran a cheap-assed, third-rate shakedown of the new president of an embattled ally for the purpose of enlisting the new president of the embattled ally in the ratfcking of the 2020 election. Both of those are crimes. Putting them together is a third crime.
The Republican defense was aimed at defending Fox News talking points, or giving your drunk uncle arguments to raise over the cranberry salad in a couple of weeks, or defending the right of the president* to make policy based on whatever conspiracy theory most recently got snagged on the stalagmites of his mind. It certainly wasn’t based on defending the president*’s actions as regards the transaction he tried to force on poor Volodymyr Zelensky. Because, as was obvious from every second of the minority’s participation in Tuesday’s hearings, there simply is no defense for what the president* did.
George Kent and Bill Taylor were exemplary witnesses. (Taylor, in particular, could develop a lucrative side gig consulting for law firms as to how prepare people to testify.) They never strayed beyond their obvious mandates, which was to tell the story of the shakedown from the point of view of career diplomats who suddenly found themselves submarined by a cabal led by the president*’s half-mad personal lawyer. And Taylor dropped the morning’s only real bombshell: an account from his staff about how some of them had overheard the president* refer to “the investigations” in a phone call to Ambassador Gordon Sondland on the day after the now-infamous July 25 shakedown phone call. And Kent was firm in his testimony that neither Joe Biden nor his son, Hunter, had done anything untoward as regards the removal of a corrupt state prosecutor. But the real show was the Republicans, who had nothing, but who delivered it with a kind of frantic verve that occasionally brushed up against semi-coherence.
Pierce: "As George Kent said at one point on Wednesday:
As I mentioned in my testimony, you can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people.
A truth universal, that.
All of this filibustering was aimed at the 33 percent of the American public that recent history has shown will believe anything."
That would be Anonymous @9:09 PM, 11/13/19 and the 30 percenters who continue to support Trump even though he shot and killed our democratic norms in the middle of 5th Avenue.
No sane person could watch the testimony yesterday and walk away wondering what crimes were committed. Not to mention the FACT that there doesn't even have to be a crime for impeachment to occur. High crimes and misdemeanors Anonymous LOOK EM UP...
Excellent review of the crimes, Shaw. Crimes make impeachment much more likely to occur, but we all know that there is no constitutional requirement that a crime even be committed. A president could be impeached and removed from office simply for lying to the American people if Congress wanted to, something Donald has done THOUSANDS of times.
It is also clear from these first public testimonies, that Trump jeopardised the security of the United States and, indeed, went against years of foreign policy around security concerning former Soviet countries in order to attempt to gain some kind of dirt on his political opponents. It is an unforgivable act. Shocking. Republicans attempts to dress this action up as normal is also beyond belief. The whole thing seriously begs the question - on what other phone calls and in what other conversations has Trump tried to leverage gains for himself? Shouldn't other transcripts that were shafted off to the 'security' vault also now be checked in order to see that everything was above board. One dreads to think what deals Trump may have struck with Erdogan or Saudi Arabia, for example? One aspect of Trump's behaviour is always the same - it's about gaining the most possible for himself and acting in his own interests above all others and above the interests of the United States and its people.
An excellent point, Michael.
Michael K This is from the Atlantic: "There is hardly a pretense anymore regarding what the party, and the right-wing media complex, are doing. They are driven by a single, all-consuming commitment: Defend Donald Trump at all costs. That is the end they seek, and they will pursue virtually any means necessary to achieve it. This from the party that once said it stood for objective truth, for honor and integrity, and against moral relativism."
Shaw... from the Atlantic... "Defend Donald Trump at all costs"
Because what else have they got? They threw their lot in with him in 2016, somehow not expecting what they now have. They either have to defend him, or be primaried and lose their jobs.
Their only hope, which many GOP'ers see on the wall is life in the minority for a generation. Sure, they'll be able to win their gerrymandered district, and the 175K salary, but so what? They'll be looking at a 50 seat disadvantage.
To Anon, Skud or any of the others, I've got a couple of questions.
Is it wrong for a president to ask a foreign government to involve themselves in our elections by smearing a political rival?
If not, does that mean ANY president, Dem or GOP, can do that?
If it is wrong, is it an impeachable offense?
You see, you guys, and the GOP, will not answer straight up questions like those.
Just like yesterday when Trump said he never had the phone call from Sondland when he was in the Ukraine and was asked about Giuliani. That's when he said it never happened, that he had no idea. And of course today, witnesses come forward and say it did happen.
The GOP is supporting a liar. Pure and simple and a liar who damaged US allies for his own political gain. And you guys are okay with it.
Simply incredible.
Now now Rev, you're getting a bit carried away here. It really isn't nearly as bad as you try to make it.
Rev, in answer to your question, Yes it is wrong to use a foreign government to smear a political rival. Is it wrong for a high ranking official to protect his family member from being prosecuted. Is it acceptable to hold a hearing and not allow the other side to present their case and see all documents and interview all witnesses. When did hearsay become an acceptable form of proof in a court.
Is it wrong to demand personal financial information from a person and demand withholding college application and transcripts because they were private material.
I am not an attorney so I cannot answer if this is an impeachable offense and since this is a show hearing not a trial it is a long way from being decided.
As to your statement that the GOP is supporting a liar goes both ways. Remember you can keep your doctor, if you like your healthcare you can keep it, I didn't call ISIS an JV Team, I am a native American, I was fired because I was pregnant, I never had sexual relations with That women, This is nothing more than a right wing conspiracy.
Post a Comment