...And another Reasoned Case Against Impeachment

[essentialsaltes]

I care.

Well, when you have him under oath, you can ask him about that. But for the purpose of answering "one of the central questions of the inquiry", Mulvaney is someone with direct knowledge of it. He is exactly the kind of person Turley was talking about, but Turley was incorrect in stating that none of these fact witnesses had been subpoenaed. They have been.

 

[civilwarbuff]

How many times has Jonathan Turley been a guest on FoxNews? He's been pretty much a regular over the last couple of years. He's also a friend and loyalist of AG Barr.

Have you read Turleys statement yet?....it is only 53 pgs. So far he does not affirm Trumps innocence only criticizes the thinness of the dems 'evidence'.
I am on pg 23 now....

 

[civilwarbuff]

but Turley was incorrect in stating that none of these fact witnesses had been subpoenaed.

But that is not what he said; go back and read it.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Of course they object, but they haven't sued, because there's no way a suit would be resolved before the 2020 election. As came up in the testimony yesterday, Congress subpoenaed documents in 2011 related to the the Fast and Furious Case. AG Eric Holder declined to produce them. Congress sued in 2012. The district court declined to throw it out in 2013. They were still filing documents in 2015. Ultimately, the case was resolved, in MAY OF THIS YEAR. 7 years.



There, there's the question he can answer. The OMB halted the funds, he's the boss of the OMB. There was either a legitimate reason to halt the funds or an illegitimate one. He knows what the reason was.



Nobody cares. The question above is one Mulvaney can answer.

He is a "key witness who would have direct knowledge" in Turley's phrase. Dems have subpoenaed him, but Trump has blocked his testimony.

Mulvaney never admitted to a quid pro quo. If you disagree please show me where he admitted to such....

Still waiting......

 

[iluvatar5150]

I understand. It's a big joke. Nothing to hesitate doing. That's what we do in politics now--ridicule children (unless it's Greta Thunberg, then no).

But when Obama was in the White House, no one dare say anything about his children, even if it was not a slam. Oh no. They were off-limits, you see, and as any decent person should know without being told.

Oh? Do you want to go tit-for-tat, listing all of the times that somebody either attacked the presidents' minor children or used them as fodder for attacking their father? Because I can find plenty of examples of Republicans doing just that.

Fox's Andrea Tantaros On Plan B: "Is The Obama Daughter, Malia, Going To Go On Birth Control?"

Glenn Beck smears Obama's 11-year-old daughter

Echoing Beck, Rush Limbaugh mocks Malia Obama

GOP staffer to resign after slamming Obama girls

And here's a great one where Hannity also complains about taxpayers covering presidential vacation expenses:
Sean Hannity Bashes Obama's Daughters For Going On Vacation

Those were just the first examples that popped up on Google. If I wanted to put some effort into it, I could absolutely bury you in hypocrisy.

We are on the edge of destroying our system of government, and people seem oblivious to the harm that is being done.

Lol, you're the one carrying water for a president who lines his pockets with his presidency, appoints corrupt and grossly unqualified people to senior positions, runs roughshod over longstanding foreign alliances, caters to the whims of foreign autocrats, built his campaign on a racist conspiracy theory, and apparently can't help himself when it comes to breaking the law - who was nominated by a party intent on disenfranchising minorities while ignoring true threats to our elections and a tranche of voters who want to consolidate power in the executive now more than ever.

If anybody is threatening to destroy our system of government, it's your side.

 

[Hank77]

We judge the messenger by the message they carry. Her message is hate so yes, she should be disregarded in such a case of this magnitude.

I agree that she despises Trump, that became obvious and so I did a little research to verify it.
But she does know the Constitution and Constitutional law and what she said about that agreed with two others on the panel and with other Constitutional scholars definitions of the law.

 

[Hank77]

And he connected the 2 how exactly? Sondland's own testimony indicated that the Ukrainian's were not aware that aid was being withheld or they were expected to start an investigation until Sondland told them on/about Sept 9.

No they became aware when they read about it either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1. There was more than one witness that testified to this.

 

[Hank77]

Then the House should take it up with the courts...they haven't except in 1 instance IIRC.

Why? There isn't anywhere in the Constitution that says the Judicial branch should have anything to do with impeachment. ALL the authority for impeachment is given to the Legislative branch.
If anyone fails to comply with Congressional subpoenas they are in Contempt of Congress and potentially Obstruction of Justice.

 

[Hank77]

The House Democrats could not find three law professors who have not been on the record as Trump haters? It was like watching an MSNBC cable news program.

It didn't appear to me that the other two were Trump haters. In fact, the younger of the two had written in the spring that he didn't believe that they should impeach, it was only later after the phone transcripts that he began to change his mind.

Couldn't Republicans find another professor that wasn't well known by Fox viewers, a frequent guest who has been giving his views on Fox for months? You don't think that shows bias considering the divisive climate in the media and the voters.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Sept 1 is the correct date.

No they became aware when they read about it either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1. There was more than one witness that testified to this.

OK, so use your time line....how does a quid pro quo exist if the other party does not know about it? I mean this supposedly started back in late July and here it is Sept and the Ukraine does not seem to know about it until Sondland tells them.
"I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland writes, noting that he now recalls a Sept. 1 meeting in which he told that to an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

"Both transcripts released today show there is even less evidence for this illegitimate impeachment sham than previously thought," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement, referring to the impeachment inquiry. "Ambassador Sondland squarely states that he 'did not know, (and still does not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.' He also said he 'presumed' there was a link to the aid — but cannot identify any solid source for that assumption.

"By contrast, Volker's testimony confirms there could not have been a quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know about the military aid hold at the time. No amount of salacious media-biased headlines, which are clearly designed to influence the narrative, change the fact that the President has done nothing wrong."

Ambassador Acknowledges He Said Aid For Ukraine Depended On Public Support For Probes

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Ambassador Sondland squarely states that he 'did not know, (and still does not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.'

Mick Mulvaney can tell us.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Mick Mulvaney can tell us.

Evidence of that? or is it your opinion?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Evidence of that? or is it your opinion?

That's who the Ukranians were told to talk to regarding the hold-up, which they knew about in early August.

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

 

[essentialsaltes]

Evidence of that? or is it your opinion?

Trump's Office of Management and Budget put the hold on the aid. Mulvaney is the head of OMB.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

And Sondlands testimony refutes that assertion as noted above.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Tunley statement pg 27-28
Moreover, discussing visits to the White House is hardly the stuff of bribery under any of these common law sources. Ambassador Sondland testified that the President expressly denied there was a quid pro quo and that he was never told of such preconditions. However, he also testified that he came to believe there was a quid pro quo, not for military aid,but rather forthe visit to the White House: “Was there a ‘quid pro quo? With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”Such visits are routinely used as bargaining chips and not “gratuitously exercised.” As for the military aid, the withholding of the aid is difficult to fit into any common law definition of a bribe, particularly when it was ultimately provided without the satisfaction of the alleged pre-conditions.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And Sondlands testimony refutes that assertion as noted above.

It refutes nothing. Sep 1 was when Sondland laid out for them the quid pro quo:

"I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland writes, noting that he now recalls a Sept. 1 meeting in which he told that to an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

My link points out other avenues by which the Ukranians were made aware of the hold-up and how they were directed to speak to Mulvaney about it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

My link points out other avenues by which the Ukranians were made aware of the hold-up and how they were directed to speak to Mulvaney about it.

As far as they knew is was simply delayed and not withheld until Sondland told them otherwise and the expectation of the investigation even though no one had told him to do so. He even admitted he made a mistake telling them this during his testimony.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And Sondlands testimony refutes that assertion as noted above.

Sondland is omniscient about what Ukrainians knew?

“Was there a ‘quid pro quo? With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

Glad we can agree that Sondland said there was a quid pro quo.

 

[iluvatar5150]

As far as they knew is was simply delayed and not withheld until Sondland told them otherwise

You don't know what they knew or didn't know. Trump certainly seemed to imply a quid pro quo on his July 25 phone call.