Here is my question to Senate Repubs

[Crepitus]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

We just had two weeks of public congressional testimony on that, did you sleep through it all?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It should also be noted that when Mike Pompeo was heading up one of the Benghazi Inquiries, he demanded tens of thousands of documents from the State Department, and then castigated Hillary Clinton's State Department for not producing the documents fast enough, and threatened to charge the Obama Administration with Obstruction of Congress, because they took too long.

Pompeo's State Department has refused to turn over a single document and has tried to block staff from testifying.

No doubt the hypocrisy of Repubs is just stunning. There are no shortage of examples from Pompeo, Graham, Gowdy, Jordan, etc.
There's going to be a ruling on the McGahn case on Monday. I don't see how the court can rule he will not be compelled to testify unless the decision is left to Trump appointees. Once the ruling is made it gives the obstruction charge even more substantive legal backing. It is not disputable that Trump has obstructed a fully authorized impeachment inquiry...........just as Nixon did. It only takes one count of the articles of impeachment to pass to remove the prez. I don't see how the Repubs can vote against the charge of obstruction without twisting themselves in knots.

The Democrats will never see 67 Senate votes on this matter.

I tend to agree. My question is what mechanism will Repubs use for not voting for the article regarding obstruction? Whether they feel the extortion of Ukraine merits impeachment or not Don is guilty of obstruction........it's a black and white distinction.

Because no one of sound mind will vote to impeach a president who simply refused to cooperate with an obvious scam, nor for "crimes" which arise from such refusal.

 

[Dragonlady]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

All you have to do is to read the Trump's "transcript" of the call. The "ask" is the crime. The other crimes were committed by staffers like Sondland, Morrison and Volker who tried to implement the extortion at the President's behest.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It should also be noted that when Mike Pompeo was heading up one of the Benghazi Inquiries, he demanded tens of thousands of documents from the State Department, and then castigated Hillary Clinton's State Department for not producing the documents fast enough, and threatened to charge the Obama Administration with Obstruction of Congress, because they took too long.

Pompeo's State Department has refused to turn over a single document and has tried to block staff from testifying.

No doubt the hypocrisy of Repubs is just stunning. There are no shortage of examples from Pompeo, Graham, Gowdy, Jordan, etc.
There's going to be a ruling on the McGahn case on Monday. I don't see how the court can rule he will not be compelled to testify unless the decision is left to Trump appointees. Once the ruling is made it gives the obstruction charge even more substantive legal backing. It is not disputable that Trump has obstructed a fully authorized impeachment inquiry...........just as Nixon did. It only takes one count of the articles of impeachment to pass to remove the prez. I don't see how the Repubs can vote against the charge of obstruction without twisting themselves in knots.

The Democrats will never see 67 Senate votes on this matter.

If Republicans don't vote to impeach this corrupt President, I fully expect the people to destroy the GOP in 2020. I'm seeing Democrats mobilizing a registration effort of amazing proportions. While Republicans are show net losses in voter registration. I saw numbers for one state - 12,000+ Democrats have registered versus -2 Republicans.

Democrats are mobilized to end the voter suppression we've been seeing since 2010 when Republicans took so many state houses and gerrymandered the House to the point where the candidates were picking the voters, not the other way around. Courts have overturned the gerrymandering in many states, and that work continues.

The results of the mid-terms didn't happen in a vaccuum. Democrats lost the last election because of voter turn out. They won't make that mistake again.

I expect the opposite.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

We just had two weeks of public congressional testimony on that, did you sleep through it all?

No, I watched some of it before it got too boring. The testimonies all had to do with presumptions, not fact. The facts were that Trump instructed Sondland of no quid pro quo's. That's the only order he gave to Sondland in this matter. The rest he made assumptions on, and also testified that's what others did as well.

 

[berg80]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

No problem. Soliciting foreign assistance in a US election is a crime.

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democrats are sweating.

For good reason.

They'll be bleeding from eyes and ears come October.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

All you have to do is to read the Trump's "transcript" of the call. The "ask" is the crime. The other crimes were committed by staffers like Sondland, Morrison and Volker who tried to implement the extortion at the President's behest.

So please show me the law against a President asking a leader of another country to look into possible wrongdoings of our representatives.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

All you have to do is to read the Trump's "transcript" of the call. The "ask" is the crime. The other crimes were committed by staffers like Sondland, Morrison and Volker who tried to implement the extortion at the President's behest.

So please show me the law against a President asking a leader of another country to look into possible wrongdoings of our representatives.

The Democrats seem to believe that mere political candidacy protects them from criminal investigation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

No problem. Soliciting foreign assistance in a US election is a crime.

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

Great, and when the Democrats can demonstrate they have mind reading skills, and the ability to predict the future, you can use that.

But until such time, the commies "selected" the reason Trump withheld aid, in spite of him stating other reasons. Furthermore, unless we can see that crystal ball of theirs, then nobody knows who Trump's opponent will be. That is of course unless they are going to fix their primaries like last time. But then they would have to admit that in public.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

All you have to do is to read the Trump's "transcript" of the call. The "ask" is the crime. The other crimes were committed by staffers like Sondland, Morrison and Volker who tried to implement the extortion at the President's behest.

So please show me the law against a President asking a leader of another country to look into possible wrongdoings of our representatives.

The Democrats seem to believe that mere political candidacy protects them from criminal investigation.

The hypocrisy is amazing. They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them. Because when they used quid pro quo's, and openly admitted to it, it was for the benefit of our country. Trump did not use any quid pro quo's, and they are trying to impeach him for something they can't prove.

Sondland testified that Trump directed no quid pro quo's.
Ukraine got all of their US aid. Trump got nothing.
Now the charge is "attempted" quid pro quo's.
President Zelensky openly stated he felt zero pressure from President Trump or his team.
The commies are saying that drug head Hunter, getting a job for 80K a month is not reason for suspicion.

 

[berg80]

I have a simple litmus test for how seriously one really feels about this impeachment inquiry and how much you are just being a blind partisan. If everything was the same except the President being investigated was a Democrat and it was a Republican controlled House doing the impeachment inquiry would you still support it and if you are on the right would you still oppose it? For the record I feel this impeachment attempt is a total sham and is being doen simply because the Democrats did not get what they wanted with the Mueller investigation and if this was a Democrat President and Republican controlled House doing this I would feel the same way. Impeachment is a drastic and serious matter and should not used in a light hearted and trivial manner the way it is being used here I will remind the left this will not end when Trump leaves office one day the precedent that has been set by the Democrats with this attempted impeachment will be used against a Democrat President.

But............Trump broke the law when he solicited Ukraine's help in influencing a US election.

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

 

[MAGAman]

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Policy difference isn't a crime.

Investigating corrupt Democrats isn't a crime.

MAGA isn't a crime.

 

[MAGAman]

But............Trump broke the law when he solicited Ukraine's help in influencing a US election.

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

Nope.

Investigating corruption isn't a crime.

Keep dreaming.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I have a simple litmus test for how seriously one really feels about this impeachment inquiry and how much you are just being a blind partisan. If everything was the same except the President being investigated was a Democrat and it was a Republican controlled House doing the impeachment inquiry would you still support it and if you are on the right would you still oppose it? For the record I feel this impeachment attempt is a total sham and is being doen simply because the Democrats did not get what they wanted with the Mueller investigation and if this was a Democrat President and Republican controlled House doing this I would feel the same way. Impeachment is a drastic and serious matter and should not used in a light hearted and trivial manner the way it is being used here I will remind the left this will not end when Trump leaves office one day the precedent that has been set by the Democrats with this attempted impeachment will be used against a Democrat President.

But............Trump broke the law when he solicited Ukraine's help in influencing a US election.

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

But, he didn't.

 

[BluesLegend]

The butthurt of rank and file liberals has begun.

 

[berg80]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

 

[berg80]

It should also be noted that when Mike Pompeo was heading up one of the Benghazi Inquiries, he demanded tens of thousands of documents from the State Department, and then castigated Hillary Clinton's State Department for not producing the documents fast enough, and threatened to charge the Obama Administration with Obstruction of Congress, because they took too long.

Pompeo's State Department has refused to turn over a single document and has tried to block staff from testifying.

No doubt the hypocrisy of Repubs is just stunning. There are no shortage of examples from Pompeo, Graham, Gowdy, Jordan, etc.
There's going to be a ruling on the McGahn case on Monday. I don't see how the court can rule he will not be compelled to testify unless the decision is left to Trump appointees. Once the ruling is made it gives the obstruction charge even more substantive legal backing. It is not disputable that Trump has obstructed a fully authorized impeachment inquiry...........just as Nixon did. It only takes one count of the articles of impeachment to pass to remove the prez. I don't see how the Repubs can vote against the charge of obstruction without twisting themselves in knots.

The Democrats will never see 67 Senate votes on this matter.

I tend to agree. My question is what mechanism will Repubs use for not voting for the article regarding obstruction? Whether they feel the extortion of Ukraine merits impeachment or not Don is guilty of obstruction........it's a black and white distinction.

Because no one of sound mind will vote to impeach a president who simply refused to cooperate with an obvious scam, nor for "crimes" which arise from such refusal.

But that is the point. Alleging the inquiry is a scam is the expression of an opinion, not a legal argument. It's designed as a public relations campaign, but has no standing in law. Congress' right to conduct an impeachment inquiry is unassailable.

 

[berg80]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.