The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[billsfan89]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

There is no rational argument to support the assertion that President Trump violated campaign finance laws.

 

None. At all. It's not even close.

 

If there was an argument that wouldn't get you laughed out of court the Dems would be coming with it full force.

 

There's a reason why no one outside of fringe partisan Twitter trolls are even suggesting such a thing.

 

Do you really think that Trump did not violate the following law by going outside of the Justice Department to seek an investigation from a foreign power into a political rival for his own political benefit?

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Edited December 10, 2019 by billsfan89

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

Bill knew the evidence was stacked against him and continued to lie about it, even when the jig was totally up.

 

nobody would have cared if he admitted it and went on his way, but the continual lying, even under oath, left no choice

 

 

Bellichick?

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

Do you really think that Trump did not violate the following law by going outside of the Justice Department to seek an investigation from a foreign power into a political rival for his own political benefit?

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

 

I think that investigating ostensible corruption by a former vice president who is running for President is a benefit to everyone.

[John Adams]

28 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

There is no rational argument to support the assertion that President Trump violated campaign finance laws.

 

None. At all. It's not even close.

 

It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

 

It was close. Trump asked for a favor of a foreign national for sure. And it was in connection with an election. And he's done it a couple of times now. But he's right at the line. 

 

Don't be so naive as to think Trump is as clean as the wind-driven snow. 

 

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I think that investigating ostensible corruption by a former vice president who is running for President is a benefit to everyone.

 

And his first call should be to the president of a foreign country to perform this investigation? As a favor? And withhold aid to that country. And send his personal lawyer to dig up dirt on this person? 

 

It's not a great picture. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by John Adams

[Foxx]

28 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Yes that would literally be obstruction of justice. 

no, it would not. the president can fire anyone in the executive.

[Deranged Rhino]

39 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Simple question, if your boss tells you to commit a crime, you decide to not listen to your boss did your boss commit a crime? Before you take any negative comments about your great leader as I support impeaching him over that. I think that this type of obstruction charge would be as equally flimsy a charge as the Clinton impeachment. Both committed crimes  but neither crimes were sever enough to warrant removal. 

"President Donald Trump reportedly ordered last June that special counsel Robert Mueller be fired, and White House counsel Don McGahn threatened to quit rather than ask the Justice Department to do that."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-ordered-mueller-firing-white-house-counsel-threatened-to-quit

 

You're acting as if Vol 2 of the Mueller report (Weissman report) is proven. 

 

It's not. By any definition. 

 

You're BADLY misinformed on this topic. 

 

25 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Yes that would literally be obstruction of justice. 

 

Incorrect. 

 

But it's moot as it did not happen and Mueller was not interferred with in anyway PER MUELLER. You're pushing a fantasy that never happened as if it were fact. Why is that? Could it be because you've spent the past three years reading the Daily Beast (proven liars) and MSNBC rather than thinking for yourself? 

 

19 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Do you really think that Trump did not violate the following law by going outside of the Justice Department to seek an investigation from a foreign power into a political rival for his own political benefit?

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

 

There's ZERO proof that was his intent. There's MOUNTAINS of evidence to suggest it had nothing to do with 2020 and everything to do with the campaign promises he ran on, gave rallies about, for the past four years. 

 

The only way you can make the case you're trying to make (while ignoring, mind you, that 44 did exactly what you're accusing Trump of doing -- only there's evidence to support it unlike with Trump/Biden/Ukraine) is that if you believe simply by running for president, one is automatically immune from investigation into past wrongdoings. 

 

If you believe that, and you must to make the argument you're attempting, then why was it fine to investigate Trump for three years about a "crime" that was completely invented by the FBI and CIA for the purposes of political persecution? 

 

... exactly.

[Rob's House]

4 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

 

It was close. Trump asked for a favor of a foreign national for sure. And it was in connection with an election. And he's done it a couple of times now. But he's right at the line. 

 

Don't be so naive as to think Trump is as clean as the wind-driven snow. 

 

 

And his first call should be to the president of a foreign country to perform this investigation?

 

It's more than a stretch to say providing information would be considered a "thing of value" within the meaning of the statute.

 

It's an even bigger stretch to say it was in connection with an election. Just because that information may have an effect on public perception of a candidate, and thus have an indirect effect on an election, does not render that information given "in connection with an election."

 

Both ends of that equation so attenuated that such an interpretation would render the statute unconstitutionally vague.

 

Again, if there was a reasonable argument to be made on this the Dems would be all over it.

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

 

It was close. Trump asked for a favor of a foreign national for sure. And it was in connection with an election. And he's done it a couple of times now. But he's right at the line. 

 

Don't be so naive as to think Trump is as clean as the wind-driven snow. 

 

 

And his first call should be to the president of a foreign country to perform this investigation? As a favor? And withhold aid to that country. And send his personal lawyer to dig up dirt on this person? 

 

It's not a great picture. 

Trump asked for help in finding out about Ukraine's actions in the 2016 elections and the dnc server and CrowdStrike. It wasn't until 500 words later that the subject of the Biden's came up and that was actually brought up by Zelensky. This was in the 2nd call between Trump and Zelinsky.  

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Trump ordered to have Mueller fired, it was Don McGahn not listening to him that saved his ass. Attempting a crime is still a crime.What world do you people live in? 

 

Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?

Mueller: I think that generally is true.

Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?

Mueller: Where do you have that quote?

Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.

Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.

 

I love how Democrats consistently "know" what Trump is thinking, but still fall into every single one of his traps.

[Deranged Rhino]

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Oops.  

 

 

 

And... you know... there's this. Which kind of obliterates every element of the narrative. 

[B-Man]

Some moderate Dems now pushing censure instead of impeachment

Not quite at the “fiasco” stage here, but getting closer.

 

There’s not going to be a censure vote and all of these guys know it, and Pelosi knows they know it, so imagine how irritated she’ll be to find them running to the media anyway to undermine today’s big impeachment news.

 

I don’t see the strategic value to them in whispering about it either. Presumably all of them will sigh and vote to impeach anyway when Pelosi demands that they do so. If the idea in talking up censure is to pander to Republican voters back home about how reluctant they are to do this, that pandering is going to be wiped out once they grit their teeth and end up doing it anyway.

 

Like, do these guys think pro-Trump swing voters will go easy on them next fall if they vote to impeach but make a big show of how their hearts aren’t really in it?

 

Because every last one of them would be ruthlessly primaried by the left if that happened. It’s as much of a suicide mission as Susan Collins voting to remove Trump would be.

 

Or are they trying to signal to Pelosi that while they might not have the votes to block impeachment, they intend to vote against it — which would be a humiliating vote of no confidence in Schiff’s case and in Pelosi herself at a moment when she wants the caucus unified?

 

At least I think she wants it unified. Given how tepid support for impeachment is and has been for weeks, maybe Pelosi’s made a very hard calculation here to free some of the moderates to protect themselves by voting no. She did that on the ObamaCare vote 10 years ago, you may recall — no sense demanding that vulnerable Dems vote yes on unpopular legislation that already has the 218 votes it needs to pass.

 

But ObamaCare and impeachment were two different animals. ObamaCare was policy; impeachment is a moral rebuke of the left’s least favorite politician. Any defections on impeachment necessarily weakens that moral case, especially after the initial vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry set a baseline of 231 Dems in favor. If Pelosi has told these centrists to go ahead and vote their conscience then she really has come to see impeachment as a pure political liability.

 

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/12/10

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Simple question, if your boss tells you to commit a crime, you decide to not listen to your boss did your boss commit a crime? Before you take any negative comments about your great leader as I support impeaching him over that. I think that this type of obstruction charge would be as equally flimsy a charge as the Clinton impeachment. Both committed crimes  but neither crimes were sever enough to warrant removal. 

"President Donald Trump reportedly ordered last June that special counsel Robert Mueller be fired, and White House counsel Don McGahn threatened to quit rather than ask the Justice Department to do that."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-ordered-mueller-firing-white-house-counsel-threatened-to-quit

 

That's not illegal.  

 

Stupid and childish, but not illegal.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

In reality. You should join us.

 

Warning, you will suffer withdrawals from weening yourself off the narrative pushed on you by proven liars and manipulators. But you can do it. I have faith in you.

This Is  like watching a boxing match between Muhammad Ali (DR) and some fat kid from Depew (not DR) who won a contest to go 3 with the champ. I kinda respect the fat kid for the effort but at the same time I’m screaming “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEONE THROW IN THE TOWEL!”. 

[John Adams]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Trump asked for help in finding out about Ukraine's actions in the 2016 elections and the dnc server and CrowdStrike. It wasn't until 500 words later that the subject of the Biden's came up and that was actually brought up by Zelensky. This was in the 2nd call between Trump and Zelinsky.  

 

Cool story bro!

 

But not correct. Trump brought up Biden. 

 

Care to admit you were wrong? 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by John Adams

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

Bill knew the evidence was stacked against him and continued to lie about it, even when the jig was totally up.

 

nobody would have cared if he admitted it and went on his way, but the continual lying, even under oath, left no choice

 

 

Dumbest smart guy in America at the time. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And... you know... there's this. Which kind of obliterates every element of the narrative. 

 

But any evidence Ukraine presents in Trump's defense is proof of Trump's guilt, as the very nature of the power imbalance between the POTUS and the Ukrainian PM mean that the PM was coerced/extorted into defending Trump.  Therefore, Trump should be impeached for abuse of power for this.

 

 

[John Adams]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

 

It's more than a stretch to say providing information would be considered a "thing of value" within the meaning of the statute.

 

No.

 

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

It's an even bigger stretch to say it was in connection with an election. Just because that information may have an effect on public perception of a candidate, and thus have an indirect effect on an election, does not render that information given "in connection with an election."

 

Perhaps, and this is his only out. 

 

But his obsession with Joe Biden, his lead opponent in the election, and his desire to go to the president of another country (not his own significant resources) for help, as well as his withholding of approved aid in what was a quid pro quo among other aspects of this, don't paint a pretty picture. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Doesn't make it illegal or in anyway an abuse of power.

 

Which is the point. 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

No.

 

 

Perhaps, and this is his only out. 

 

But his obsession with Joe Biden, his lead opponent in the election, and his desire to go to the president of another country (not his own significant resources) for help, as well as his withholding of approved aid in what was a quid pro quo among other aspects of this, don't paint a pretty picture. 

 

 

I think what amuses me most about this theory of the crime is how it presupposes Biden wins the Democratic primary.

 

Really...was Trump trying to aid Warren or Sanders against Biden?  Is that the accusation?  How does that amount to soliciting illegal campaign contributions?