Bob in Mich

Maybe they should call him as a Senate witness. I am being truthful, I don't know what the guy's role was or what he might say. Let's find out. Call him. Did the WH defense lawyers talk about Atkinson's position?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As mentioned, there is a lot to respond to right now. I won't go point by point but generally speaking, I disagree. lol Briefly, you and I may agree on what happened with Trump and Ukraine. I am unsure but even if so, many others are not on that same page. You don't think everyone agrees on the events at this point, do you? Bolton...I don't know why he is willing to testify to the Senate but claimed he would fight the House's subpoena. Maybe closer now to the book release? Maybe he felt he would get better protection from the Repub Senate versus the House Dems? I don't know. I think you are aware though that the House asking for a ruling on 'absolute immunity' would likely take several months. Then, the uncooperative witness would likely have declared executive privilege and the court process would have began again. I can't recall exactly but I saw some commentator say there was actually a third level of privilege that would then be taken to the courts. I mentioned earlier that the Dems have been accused of going too fast and at the same time accused of dragging it out until election time. Anyway, an unwilling witness can delay for likely more than a year. Bolton is willing to testify to the Senate. That is a key difference now with respect to Bolton versus the situation the House had. Israel-Palestine....I have no problem using 'accomplishments' involving foreigners. Crow away about foreign policy decisions. Just don't use the power of the office to try to pressure foreign leaders to attack and smear US political candidates.

I appreciate responses to my questions and comments. I appreciate the discussion. The fact is though I can't really keep up with replying to everyone especially if that reply takes a long time. If I miss a key question or comment, feel free to bring it up again.

What beyond getting a cushy job because of the name Biden, do you think happened? The firing of the prosecutor that Joe Biden urged was aligned with our national policy then, right? The quid pro quo was not, as in Trump's case, done in direct opposition with policy. The firing may have helped Burisma and Hunter, that is a point of contention, but if JoeB was following national policy, it doesn't seem illegal to me. If you were in your mid forties and out of work and had questionable judgement, would you take a job that paid $83k monthly even if it made your Dad look bad? Lots of folks would and Hunter is apparently one. Aside from taking the job and it looking bad, what do you think Hunter will tell us if he testifies?

For a discussion. For a distraction. Oh, and I apparently crave insults.

Unlike others here, I don't claim to know everything. I don't know Atkinson or his role

You would have to describe the hiding you are referring to. Generally speaking, I didn't have a problem with the 'process' in the House. Repubs were going to jump up and down and scream bloody murder about process, whatever it was. As an example, they have screamed that the Dems were trying to drag it out to hurt Trump's campaign while at the same time screaming that they have rushed through the process. They were going to complain about the process. Many people, believing the House phase was the trial, agreed with the Repubs that the WH wasn't getting a fair shot. Truth was, the House actions were not the trial phase. It was closer to a determination as to whether or not to press charges.

Not being a hypocrite. I said I couldn't think of a case and you pointed out where it apparently happened. OK. I never paid attention to that issue back then. I guess I had a life then. I seem to recall the Republicans jumping up and down about a lot of things that seemed to, after investigation, turn out to be not much. Again, I didn't pay very close attention then though so maybe I was wrong to think this a small issue. So, Congressional Dems wanted to hide the truth? OK, lets accept that for discussion purposes. Do you think that hiding truth back then was appropriate? If not, then do you think the hiding is appropriate now? Is your position consistent ?

The answer is, I want to know the truth. What other investigations have you seen where people lobbied to not learn the truth? Aside from not wanting to hear grisly details of violent attacks or accidents, I can't think where folks want to turn away from available case facts. I suppose there are various legal issues with concealing facts from juries, but that is not what we have here. In this case we have Bolton, a key player, that has information and claims to be willing to tell us all what he knows. I want all of us to agree on what actually happened and whether or not that behavior is now legal going forward. Right now, without any further evidence or witnesses, can we agree on what happened? I don't think we can at this point. And, can we now determine whether that behavior is legal going forward? Well, once we know the actual truth, we maybe can but certainly we can't at this time. I see Trump as trying to tilt the 2020 election playing field by soliciting help from foreign countries. He continues to fall into this. Told by George Stephanopoulos that the FBI says he shouldn't accept election aid from foreign countries, he claims the FBI is wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Ukraine scheme worked out for Trump, he would replay the scheme with other countries and with future opponents. Who in the Republican Congress can control Trump's actions if and when he starts to get out of line or when he goes too far with his tweets? Which Republicans consistently stand up to Trump? I will tell you.....I can't think of any. Sure, on various issues some have voiced occasional squeaky protestations but by and large, the Repubs in Congress have been bullied and clearly fear crossing Trump. So, how do you think, if not by using impeachment inquiry, could the Dems keep Trump from repeating this scheme with future countries/candidates? Nearly everyone blames House Dems for this impeachment saga. I would suggest that if Congressional Republicans showed any ability to stand up to Trump's shady inclinations, there would be no impeachment happening right now.

He was the Repub nominee. Just asking but did it ever strike you as odd that so many formerly 'deemed reasonable folks' become a-holes once they speak against Trump? In fact immediately upon talking against Trump the transformation seems to take place. Odd to me

Lonny, again, you seem like a nice guy and if you ever get out this way, look me up and we can get a bite and a few beers. Sounds like an enjoyable evening. I just disagree with your political views by the maximum possible amount. lol

I think it is primarily about Trump's attempt to illegally impact the election. He keeps doing this same type of thing. Certainly post Mueller he has to be aware that soliciting foreign interference is illegal. That type of interference cannot continue to occur. As far as the moral superiority with respect to the Senators, well, if the shoe fits.... They should search for the truth and THEN decide whether or not it is impeachable. It appears to me that many Repub senators simply want to cover for Trump.

Look, I appreciate the reasoned reply without the constant jabs. Sort of refreshing. Thanks. BTW, I am signing out soon...Sabres game. Yes, let the truth come out. Call relevant witnesses and find out the truth. I am near certain that in the end, regardless of what comes out, the Senate will not convict. At the very least if there is wrongdoing proven though, let's at least agree on what was wrong and how to prevent future wrongdoing. I think a believable position for the President's actions can be fashioned and it has been, just as you stated. I just think people should be concerned as to how closely that position is to the actual truth. I maintain that Republican Senators are looking for a way to acquit without hearing any more evidence. The precedent thing is just another excuse imo and really should be secondary to discovering what happened. They have a witness that knows things that has volunteered to testify to the Senate. They loved Dershowitz' testimony because they now can claim they believe his take, after all he is a constitutional expert, eh? Is he even speaking his own truth? The guy has no problem coloring his opinions in order to stay in the limelight in my opinion, so I don't know. I do know that his take is just one take and I have heard several other experts that disagree with Alan's take.

Shouldn't he go to the Justice Department and ask them to open an investigation? That would mean though that they may never undertake it and then they would never announce an investigation into the Bidens. And, the phone transcript, as incomplete as it is, was released by the White House.

By the time he released the funds, Trump was aware the scheme was outed. His plan was discovered. In brief, he was caught. You know that, I assume. That is why I claimed the plan seems to be to simply exhaust. A guy with a gun, a note, and a running get away car goes to the bank. He gives the teller a robber's note, steals money, and runs for the door. The guard stops him before he can leave. Is that a crime? Who was harmed? The bank kept its money, right? No harm, no foul or something else? Since Trump proclaimed, according to Sondlund (after he was caught) that he wanted nothing, no Quid Pro Quo. He THEN released the money before the deadline. Many have said, that proves no wrongdoing. Horseshit. Acting properly after getting caught attempting to act improperly, does not cut it..

How about the democrats? Biden? How about the voters? I am not in favor of schemes attempting to misinform the voters so that their decisions become more poorly informed. Who screams about fake news again? Recall the request was to simply announce investigations....perform actual investigations, not so much.

Good points. You are right that I keep calling the scheme extortion when it apparently does not meet some legal criteria. I apologize. I guess that is why they refer to the scheme as abuse of power instead. As far as the truth issue, you are not as correct. I am talking about discovering the actual events as opposed to a finding a defensible position. The Trump supporters here and in the Senate don't want to know the Ukrainian truth because, imo, the more they learn the harder it becomes to simply ignore the facts and to vote to acquit. If they cared about the truth, they would want to learn what happened and then decide whether or not the scheme was impeachable. Instead they back slap Dershowitz because he seemingly gave them a lifeboat - a position that allows them to close their eyes and ears to any more information.

yes, I have integrity. I have consistency of position. I have been in favor of impeaching both Clinton and now Trump.

I don't have the energy to reply to repeated crap. You know the story. You know the timeline. Why repeat such horseshit points? It seems it is simply an attempt to exhaust anyone trying to get at the truth. Ask yourself, in fact don't reply, just ask yourself when truth no longer mattered to you. Ask yourself when lies were OK with you because they were difficult to disprove by others.

Did you not read my previous response? The Ukrainians became aware at some point in time. That is key. The point I was making, and I am pretty sure you recognize this already, it is irrelevant that on July 25th they did not know as long as they eventually did know. The WH keeps repeating that on July 25th the Ukrainians were unaware of the alleged scheme. That is immaterial. As things played out, they discovered they were being pressured to announce investigations into Burisma and the Bidens.

Yeah, I watched the Cortes video. Sorta smelly but horseshit is that way I guess. Don't feel you need to point me to videos like that going forward.

Oh no! Sure that is a reasonable reply but you can't dismiss the board lamprey (DR) that easily. lol Put him on ignore and don't reply to his taunts and in about 2-3 years he may forget about harassing you. Until then after most every post of yours DR will most likely follow you around claiming you are not a serious person, that you don't think for yourself, that you support dishonest media and pedophilia, that you yourself are dishonest, and that you are most likely an asshat too. lol Best of luck escaping DR's tentacles. You are going to need it. The fool has about 10 sworn enemies here in PPP and he breaks into the same insult stream with anyone that recognizes and calls him on his BS. Some here find his lunacy sort of charming though I have to admit, I don't see it.

There is no reason Zelensky needed to realize the extortion plan on July 25th (though I think he did) for there to be an extortion plan. That is why it is immaterial. It makes no difference if it takes days or weeks for the realization to occur to Zelensky

A Repub Senator criticizing Romney for breaking Repub ranks and supporting the call for witnesses? That is things crumbling for the left? How did you get there from this criticism?