Late-day bombshells erupt as Trump impeachment inquiry gets underway - onr word -- Imploding!!

[imported_tajmahal]

Some people seem to be unaware that one of definitions of "High Crimes" is the use of public office for personal gain. For example, to use official diplomatic channels to benefit your re-election campaign. That is corruption, and it is against the law.

How about if you use public office to investigate corruption and illegal use of the Intelligence community against a political campaign in 2016? Which is what President Trump, Attorney General Barr, U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department are engaged in right now.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Some people seem to be unaware that one of definitions of "High Crimes" is the use of public office for personal gain. For example, to use official diplomatic channels to benefit your re-election campaign. That is corruption, and it is against the law.

As the NYT article mentions (and the report), the Ukrainians were unaware that Trump had even withheld military aid. If you are going to make a threat to withhold aid under the conditions they investigate a political opponent, they, uh, have to be aware of it.

 

[Vic]

How about if you use public office to investigate corruption and illegal use of the Intelligence community against a political campaign in 2016? Which is what President Trump, Attorney General Barr, U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department are engaged in right now.

Hey! so let me tell you about this beautiful oceanfront property in Arizona! and you seem like just the kind of person who'd be interested..

 

[Starbuck1975]

Remember when the AG sitting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac for a few minutes was viewed by conservatives as some grand corruption?

In the spirit of accountability and transparency, where was the demand for the transcript of their encounter? It was an inappropriate encounter given the circumstances, and anyone who says otherwise is carrying water.

Now you have the AG actively pressuring our allies to use their intelligence services to attack US intelligence in order to further the president’s political needs. What a difference having an R after their name seems to have.

Except in this case, the groundwork is being laid for impeachment and there is nothing Trump or Barr can do to stop it...because there is a transcript.

 

[JEDIYoda]

How about if you use public office to investigate corruption and illegal use of the Intelligence community against a political campaign in 2016? Which is what President Trump, Attorney General Barr, U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department are engaged in right now.

All your responses have been a deflection from the subject...….which is the article!
Every response you have made has ben right out of the Republican play book.....WHAT IF`S DO NOT COUNT!!! NEITHER DOES WELL SOMEBODY ELSE IS GUILTY OF SUCH AND SUCH. That article speakds for itself and Barr is mention only once as a passing thought --
At 5:11 p.m. ET, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General William Barr also sought foreign assistance in building a case to discredit the Mueller report, by contacting British intelligence officials and personally traveling to Italy last week to meet with officials.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

As the NYT article mentions (and the report), the Ukrainians were unaware that Trump had even withheld military aid. If you are going to make a threat to withhold aid under the conditions they investigate a political opponent, they, uh, have to be aware of it.

Yep, the Democrats are swinging for the fences and the Republicans haven't even pitched the ball yet.

DOJ watchdog Horowitz has been in contact with US attorney responsible for filing charges

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who has finished the report on his investigation into abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has been talking with U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is handling any criminal referrals from the investigation.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Vic]

As the NYT article mentions (and the report), the Ukrainians were unaware that Trump had even withheld military aid. If you are going to make a threat to withhold aid under the conditions they investigate a political opponent, they, uh, have to be aware of it.

Why did Trump withhold aid then? It's not relevant that the Ukrainians were unaware of it. What is relevant is why Trump did it.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Why did Trump withhold aid then? It's not relevant that the Ukrainians were unaware of it. What is relevant is why Trump did it.

Withholding funding for achieving American foreign policy objectives. Every American president has done it. President has power of the purse, (even though Congress appropriated the money) and is in his constitutional right to do so. If it can be proved he did it for personal gain, then that is illegal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Withholding funding for achieving American foreign policy objectives. Every American president has done it. President has power of the purse, (even though Congress appropriated the money) and is in his constitutional right to do so. If it can be proved he did it for personal gain, then that is illegal.

I don't think you have to prove anything because what is proof to one person is a lie to another. All that will be required is conviction at a trial and removal from office. Then I can quietly cry in my beer forever about how Trump was actually innocent, or not.

 

[DaaQ]

Withholding funding for achieving American foreign policy objectives. Every American president has done it. President has power of the purse, (even though Congress appropriated the money) and is in his constitutional right to do so. If it can be proved he did it for personal gain, then that is illegal.

Where in the Constitution does it state the President has "the power of the purse" ???

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

I don't think you have to prove anything because what is proof to one person is a lie to another. All that will be required is conviction at a trial and removal from office. Then I can quietly cry in my beer forever about how Trump was actually innocent, or not.

Election is only 13 months away. Rule of law does matter.

 

[Vic]

Withholding funding for achieving American foreign policy objectives. Every American president has done it. President has power of the purse, (even though Congress appropriated the money) and is in his constitutional right to do so. If it can be proved he did it for personal gain, then that is illegal.

Which foreign policy objectives? Be specific.

 

[Moonbeam]

Election is only 13 months away. Rule of law does matter.

Republicans don't believe in the rule of law because they live by the rule of power. They are fully deserving of having impeachment shoved up their ass. Never compromise, never admit guilt, never say you are sorry or apologize for anything so welcome to the machine. It's called Come Up Pence. It's your turn.

 

[tweaker2]

Looks like Trump is trying to cover all bases as far as how many laws he wants/needs to violate, how many ethical and moral standards he wants/needs to violate, how many golf trips and how many lies a president can tell during their tenure.

And to top it all off, there's another record his supporters are looking to break: How much malfeasance, deception and outright defiance of the Rule of Law their Scofflaw-in-Chief is committing of which they are willing to put up with in order to keep their cult leader "getting even" with those heathen commie socialist-yet-fascist Democrats that "tortured them" for eight whole years with that black Kenyan Muslim no-birth-cert baby killer leading the way.

Fun while it lasted, eh?

 

[Moonbeam]

Withholding funding for achieving American foreign policy objectives. Every American president has done it. President has power of the purse, (even though Congress appropriated the money) and is in his constitutional right to do so. If it can be proved he did it for personal gain, then that is illegal.

Definition of power of the purse | Dictionary.com

Power of the purse definition at Dictionary.com, a free online dictionary with pronunciation, synonyms and translation. Look it up now!

www.dictionary.com

Sorry, but the power to appropriate is the power of the purse. Trump is constitutionally directed to see that the money is spent according to the wishes of congress. You don't get to make up how our government is supposed to work.

 

[dawp]

Definition of power of the purse | Dictionary.com

Power of the purse definition at Dictionary.com, a free online dictionary with pronunciation, synonyms and translation. Look it up now!

www.dictionary.com

Sorry, but the power to appropriate is the power of the purse. Trump is constitutionally directed to see that the money is spent according to the wishes of congress. You don't get to make up how our government is supposed to work.

goodnight, captain.

 

[whm1974]

Definition of power of the purse | Dictionary.com

Power of the purse definition at Dictionary.com, a free online dictionary with pronunciation, synonyms and translation. Look it up now!

www.dictionary.com

Sorry, but the power to appropriate is the power of the purse. Trump is constitutionally directed to see that the money is spent according to the wishes of congress. You don't get to make up how our government is supposed to work.

So @CaptainGoodnight didn't pay attention during Civics class. Shame on him.

 

[Moonbeam]

So @CaptainGoodnight didn't pay attention during Civics class. Shame on him.

I don't know about shameful, but certainly not in accord with what purse strings traditionally means. In fact I am rather convinced that we would make fewer mistakes in what we imagine is truth were we less worried about shame. I think it is our effort to not experience the shame we really do feel by being so convinced about what we call our truth. But that leaves me wondering what I should do with that because I'm pretty sure I'm right.

 

[Victorian Gray]

How about if you use public office to investigate corruption and illegal use of the Intelligence community against a political campaign in 2016? Which is what President Trump, Attorney General Barr, U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department are engaged in right now.

The above is brought to you by the Ministry of Culture and Public Enlightenment.

 

[Fenixgoon]

How about if you use public office to investigate corruption and illegal use of the Intelligence community against a political campaign in 2016? Which is what President Trump, Attorney General Barr, U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department are engaged in right now.

you've gotta be kidding me...

 

[fskimospy]

In the spirit of accountability and transparency, where was the demand for the transcript of their encounter? It was an inappropriate encounter given the circumstances, and anyone who says otherwise is carrying water.

Except in this case, the groundwork is being laid for impeachment and there is nothing Trump or Barr can do to stop it...because there is a transcript.

Why on earth would there be a transcript of that encounter? The AG does not have stenographers following them around recording their conversations with people. So in short nobody demanded it because it didn’t exist. As for the conversation it was clearly inadvisable, but it clearly had no effect as the DOJ torpedoed her candidacy shortly thereafter.

What I Also know is they conservatives were apoplectic over that and are perfectly fine with the current AG doing far, far worse. This is because as I said at the time they never really cared about Clinton’s tarmac meeting anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

Write a letter to AG Barr and ask, he's investigating it along with U.S. Attorney Durham.

Barr stated that spying did occur. Now he's beating the bushes to find evidence to support the assertion, something he didn't have when he said it. Funny how that works. It's all distraction from Trump soliciting campaign dirt from Ukraine, which is illegal.

 

[thilanliyan]

but her emails...

I think it's spelled "buttery males".

 

[Greenman]

You are confusing 2 different things!
#1 -- The Meuller report is finished, Done!
#2 -- It is wrong for a government official to ask a foreign country to investigate or dig up dirt on a political opponent@@!!
You probably did not know mthat so be it...

The Mueller report being finished has nothing to do with investigating the reasons why it was done to begin with. It was instigated by the very popular and widely reported belief that Trump was colluding with Russia. No evidence of that collusion was found. Looking at how that was handled is perfectly acceptable.
Your second point is being investigated right now. The question will end up centering around plausible deniability. The fact that everyone "knows" Trump is guilty is meaningless, everyone "knew" he was working with Russia, until he wasn't.

 

[fskimospy]

The Mueller report being finished has nothing to do with investigating the reasons why it was done to begin with. It was instigated by the very popular and widely reported belief that Trump was colluding with Russia. No evidence of that collusion was found.

Why do you keep saying that when it's so obviously false? Did you read the Mueller report? There is EXTENSIVE evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That is different than there being sufficient evidence to charge a criminal conspiracy. For example it is irrefutable that Trump Jr. was attempting to collude with the Russian government to get dirt on Trump's opponent. (sound familiar?) Mueller just determined that Trump Jr. may have been too stupid to know that collusion with the Russians was a crime.

Seriously, I'm amazed how effective Republicans mindlessly repeating 'no collusion' has been at convincing other Republicans its true considering there are literally several hundred pages in the Mueller report discussing that collusion. It even involved his kids!

Looking at how that was handled is perfectly acceptable.

I'm old enough to remember when the AG involving herself in a political case by speaking to Bill Clinton was considered evidence of corruption. Now we have the AG flying around to all our allies attempting to get them to assist him in undermining US law enforcement in order to exculpate Russia from it's hacking crimes and that's perfectly acceptable.

Your second point is being investigated right now. The question will end up centering around plausible deniability. The fact that everyone "knows" Trump is guilty is meaningless, everyone "knew" he was working with Russia, until he wasn't.

Trump literally already released a document where he states in no uncertain terms that he would like a favor from the Ukranians - the investigation of Biden. It's about as obvious a document as you are ever likely to see. If you've decided even that level of evidence is insufficient you may want to examine if you're engaging in motivated reasoning.