Conservative lawyers call for quick impeachment

evoeth

Man trying to figure things out
Mar 5, 2014
1,660
2,069
✟130,922.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Conservative lawyers pen joint letter

New Statement from Checks and Balances on President Trump's Abuse of Office - Checks and Balances

Statement from co-founders and additional members of Checks & Balances:

In the past several weeks, it has become clear to any observer of current events that the president is abusing the office of the presidency for personal political objectives. Although new facts are being revealed on a daily basis, the following are undisputed, to date:

1) In a July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine – a summary of which has been released by the White House – the president requested “a favor” in the context of a discussion of Ukrainian security matters. Specifically, immediately after President Zelensky thanked the president “in the area of defense” and indicated a readiness to buy additional armaments consistent with a U.S. defense proposal, President Trump asked for “a favor.” The favor was to investigate a baseless theory relating to the 2016 investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. The U.S. president further requested that the Ukrainian president coordinate the requested investigation with both his personal attorney and the Attorney General of the United States, presenting both a blurring of lines between personal legal representation and official U.S. government business, and, the appearance of inappropriate politicization of the Office of the Attorney General. He then requested, additionally, that the Ukrainian government look into allegations relating to his Democratic presidential opponent, Joe Biden, saying “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.”

2) Between July and September 2019, the Acting Ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, the (former) State Department Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and the Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, exchanged a series of telephone calls and text messages revealing that U.S. diplomats were involved in negotiating an exchange involving a White House meeting and foreign aid on one hand, and a Ukrainian investigation into a meritless allegation involving former Vice President Joe Biden, on the other hand. The text messages reveal that U.S. diplomats were seeking from President Zelensky an assurance that “he will help [the] investigation” while concurrently negotiating a “visit to Washington” and “security assistance.” These circumstances led career Ambassador Taylor to communicate that in his judgment it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” These facts are derived from text messages provided to the House of Representatives in connection with the deposition of former Special Envoy Volker and have been released publicly.

3) On October 3, 2019, the president stood in front of U.S. press cameras outside the White House and said, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.” The president’s statement was broadcast widely.

A president takes the following oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.​

We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” These acts, based on what has been revealed to date, are a legitimate basis for an expeditious impeachment investigation, vote in the House of Representatives and potential trial in the Senate.

Additional evidence that was detailed in the Special Counsel’s Report, related matters of foreign emoluments, and persistent obstructive activities should also inform these proceedings. In addition, given that some of the critical facts under consideration by the Congress have been facilitated by a complaint presented to the Inspector General of the U.S. Intelligence Community, any efforts by U.S. government personnel to inappropriately pressure, intimidate or expose the whistleblower or future whistleblowers who follow the procedures provided by law are contrary to the norms of a society that adheres to the rule of law.

As we said in an April 2019 statement, “free and fair elections, without foreign interference, are at the heart of a healthy democracy.” The Special Counsel’s report revealed, among other things, that the Trump 2016 campaign was open to and enthusiastic about receiving Russian government-facilitated assistance to gain an advantage in the previous election. The report was not only an exposition, it was a warning. The present circumstances are materially worse: we have not just a political candidate open to receiving foreign assistance to better his chances at winning an election, but a current president openly and privately calling on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections. These activities, which are factually undisputed, undermine the integrity of our elections, endanger global U.S. security and defense partnerships, and threaten our democracy.

  • Jonathan H. Adler
  • Donald B. Ayer
  • George T. Conway III
  • Carrie F. Cordero
  • Charles Fried
  • Stuart M. Gerson
  • Peter D. Keisler
  • Orin S. Kerr
  • Marisa C. Maleck
  • Trevor Potter
  • Alan Charles Raul
  • Jonathan C. Rose
  • Paul Rosenzweig
  • Andrew Sagor
  • Jaime D. Sneider
  • J.W. Verret
 

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What a joke! Calling that collection of people "Conservative" lawyers!

If it is necessary to do that in order to try to make their statement appear more credible, it means that it isn't.

What makes them not "Conservative"?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

evoeth

Man trying to figure things out
Mar 5, 2014
1,660
2,069
✟130,922.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What a joke! Calling that collection of people "Conservative" lawyers!

If it is necessary to do that in order to try to make their statement appear more credible, it means that it isn't.

In their own words.
Mission Statement - Checks and Balances

Mission Statement
We are a group of attorneys who would traditionally be considered conservative or libertarian. We believe in the rule of law, the power of truth, the independence of the criminal justice system, the imperative of individual rights, and the necessity of civil discourse. We believe these principles apply regardless of the party or persons in power. We believe in “a government of laws, not of men.”

We believe in the Constitution. We believe in free speech, a free press, separation of powers, and limited government. We have faith in the resiliency of the American experiment. We seek to provide a voice and a network for like-minded attorneys to discuss these ideas, and we hope that they will join with us to stand up for these principles.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Site Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Of course they want to hurry up. Everyday, it seems, Trump or one of his soldiers piles something else on the impeachment evidence freight car.
 
Upvote 0

GreatLakes4Ever

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2019
3,445
4,882
38
Midwest
✟265,331.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Engaged
We’ll know how the Senate will vote based on how quickly McConnell moves the impeachment hearing along. If they are going to remove Trump it will happen quickly and get Pence out campaigning. If it is to not get rid of Trump then McConnell will drag it out until right before the first ballots can be cast in early voting to put an exclamation point for Trump on how hateful the Left is.
 
Upvote 0

Cimorene

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 7, 2016
6,262
6,018
Toronto
✟246,655.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
What makes them not "Conservative"?

They are willing to do what is best for their country instead of being sycophantic to Donald Trump. To him, that brands them as traitors.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,609
3,098
✟217,110.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Conservative lawyers pen joint letter

New Statement from Checks and Balances on President Trump's Abuse of Office - Checks and Balances

Statement from co-founders and additional members of Checks & Balances:

In the past several weeks, it has become clear to any observer of current events that the president is abusing the office of the presidency for personal political objectives.​

Really? It's become clear he did what he did for personal political objectives? Just a load of hogwash. There's nothing that could be said to be clear about such at all.

The writers of this can't consider there's more reasons than one to go a certain direction? How about getting to the bottom of what happened in 2016 which has nothing to do with 2020?

Or that's the sole responsibility of the DOJ? Really? And what of Presidents or leaders of any kind that would demand the request come from the actual leader himself?

So a leader like Trump the President doesn't even have a place in investigating how are foreign entities may have worked in cahoots with Americans to compromise the electoral process of the United States?

Point: Wanting to ensure the electoral process is safe is just as sound a reason for Trump to do what he did as it could be he did it for personal reasons.

Seeing these writers DON'T KNOW the heart and motives of a man regardless of their claims that they do the President rightly deserves the benefit of the doubt. They can't just make declarations certain things are facts.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,609
3,098
✟217,110.00
Faith
Non-Denom
They are willing to do what is best for their country instead of being sycophantic to Donald Trump. To him, that brands them as traitors.

Id say if these writers were "true conservatives" they would know and appreciate that the country has been through the ringer the last few years hearing of Russia! Russia! and it all turned out to be dud.

What's clearly obvious is the Dems were desperate in trying to push every button and pull ever lever to cover up their great failure and putting the country through this again with 13 months to an election where THE PEOPLE would decide but rather they drum up some quick one line quote which can be rightly interpreted different ways these so called conservatives should have backed off and said enough is enough.

Good grief even with Nixon there were places where physical buildings were broken into to bring it to the level of HIGH CRIMES....but one very vague one line statement by Trump which is so subject to interpretation and the nation is made to be traumatized by something that's insisted needs to now take place? Remove him from office? Making a mountain out of a mole hill and an extreme overplay to take out a duly elected President of the country. Shame!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

Cimorene

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 7, 2016
6,262
6,018
Toronto
✟246,655.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Id say if these writers were "true conservatives" they would know and appreciate that the country has been through the ringer the last few years hearing of Russia! Russia! and it all turned out to be dud.

What's clearly obvious is the Dems were desperate in trying to push every button and pull ever lever to cover up their great failure and putting the country through this again with 13 months to an election where THE PEOPLE would decide but rather they drum up some quick one line quote which can be rightly interpreted different ways these so called conservatives should have backed off and said enough is enough.

Good grief even with Nixon there were places where physical buildings were broken into to bring it to the level of HIGH CRIMES....but one very vague one line statement by Trump which is so subject to interpretation and the nation is made to be traumatized by something that's insisted needs to now take place? Remove him from office? Making a mountain out of a mole hill and an extreme overplay to take out a duly elected President of the country. Shame!

The fact that you think that it all turned out to be a dud demonstrates how absolutely imperative it is for conservatives who care about facts and respect our country to do precisely as they did. Trump's peddling of misinformation is hugely damaging and pathetic. All the shame belongs to Trump and his enablers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,316
36,634
Los Angeles Area
✟830,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,725
9,445
the Great Basin
✟330,409.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Really? It's become clear he did what he did for personal political objectives? Just a load of hogwash. There's nothing that could be said to be clear about such at all.

Yes, it is pretty clearly demonstrated that Trump did it for personal reasons.

The writers of this can't consider there's more reasons than one to go a certain direction? How about getting to the bottom of what happened in 2016 which has nothing to do with 2020?

Except we already have an investigation into the 2106 election, the one where Durham was appointed as special prosecutor.

Additionally, if it was really about the 2016 election, and nothing to do with 2020, why did he keep bringing up that the Bidens needed to be investigated -- neither (from any evidence I've seen) was a primary force in the 2016 election. The facts he wants the Bidens investigated are from 2014 and had nothing to do with any US election.

Or that's the sole responsibility of the DOJ? Really? And what of Presidents or leaders of any kind that would demand the request come from the actual leader himself?

Exactly, it is the responsibility of the DoJ, which was never called in on this investigation nor asked to open any type of investigation. Additionally, we have a treaty that allows for help for law enforcement, it does not require the President to do anything -- if the DoJ needed help there was already a procedure in place to get the help needed from Ukraine.

Instead, we have Trump talking to Ukraine, asking a "favor" that they investigate the Bidens. While Trump claims he'll have Barr call, he neglects to tell Barr. Instead, he also asks that his personal lawyer get the help he needs to investigate -- and Trump did talk to Giuliani about the investigation, which was done outside of, and without the support of, any US investigative agencies.

So a leader like Trump the President doesn't even have a place in investigating how are foreign entities may have worked in cahoots with Americans to compromise the electoral process of the United States?

No, he doesn't; that is the job of the DoJ and FBI -- again, we have treaties with pretty much all western nations, including Ukraine, to allow for cooperation with investigations. The FBI, possibly with the CIA, are the agencies that should be investigating any foreign interference in US elections.

It is also worth asking: both the Mueller Report and, this week, a Senate Report clearly outline the major effort by Russia to influence the US elections. When Trump has stated he doesn't believe Russia tried to influence the election, stating he believes a foreign leader over his own intelligence agencies, why should we believe he suddenly really cares about foreign interference in elections?

Point: Wanting to ensure the electoral process is safe is just as sound a reason for Trump to do what he did as it could be he did it for personal reasons.

Except for all the things noted above: why were the Bidens specifically listed, why does he not care at all about the known major interference by Russia in our elections if he is so concerned about electoral processes, why was no investigators from the US government brought into the investigation, why was the lone investigator Trumps personal attorney?

No, the preponderance of evidence clearly points to this being done for personal reasons.

Seeing these writers DON'T KNOW the heart and motives of a man regardless of their claims that they do the President rightly deserves the benefit of the doubt. They can't just make declarations certain things are facts.

Yes, we don't know the heart of Trump. The motives seem to be clearly in evidence based on the facts we know about this case. It is about like a bank robber, having been caught outside a bank in dark clothes and mask, with lockpicking, safecracking and alarm defeating tools in his possession -- but obviously we can't know his heart or motives. Maybe he's just there to deposit some cash (the exact amount that is missing from the bank's safe)?
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,725
9,445
the Great Basin
✟330,409.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
While the whistle blower has ties to one of the Demo candidates.

Let's try that again -- the whistleblower once worked with one of the candidates. Of course, we also know the whistleblower once, and still, works with Pres. Trump. Because of this, I guess we must know his statement is biased toward Trump?
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,333
24,257
Baltimore
✟559,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
What a joke! Calling that collection of people "Conservative" lawyers!

If it is necessary to do that in order to try to make their statement appear more credible, it means that it isn't.

Yeah, Paul Rosenzweig and his liberal pals at the Heritage Foundation.

Marisa Maleck and those socialists at the Federalist Society.

Jonathan Adler's work was the underpinning for one of the challenges to Obamacare:
Jonathan H. Adler - Wikipedia

Donald Ayer was Deputy AG under GHWB:
Donald B. Ayer - Wikipedia

Carrie Cordero is general counsel at the Center for New American Security and a former advisor to John Kasich:
Carrie Cordero

Charles Fried was Solicitor General under Reagan:
Charles Fried - Wikipedia

Stuart Gerson was Assistant AG and debate coach for GHWB:
Stuart M. Gerson - Wikipedia

Peter Keisler was a co-founder of the Federalist Society and Assistant AG under GWB:
Peter Keisler - Wikipedia

Trevor Potter was Deputy General Counsel to GHWB's 1988 campaign and General Counsel to McCain's campaigns in 2000 and 2008:
Trevor Potter - Wikipedia

Alan Raul worked in the White House Counsel's office under Reagan and then the OMB:
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/archives/textual/smof/raul.pdf

Jonathan Rose was special assistant to Nixon and Assistant AG under Reagan:
Jonathan C. Rose

Jaime Snieder was Deputy Associate Director of White House Communications under GWB:
Jaime Sneider
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/2005stafflistb.html

JW Verret was chief economist for the House Financial Services Committee during a Republican majority:
J. W. Verret

If ^^^THAT^^^ doesn't meet your standard for "conservative", then I suspect your standards are a little ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

evoeth

Man trying to figure things out
Mar 5, 2014
1,660
2,069
✟130,922.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Jonathan Adler's work was the underpinning for one of the challenges to Obamacare:
Jonathan H. Adler - Wikipedia

Donald Ayer was Deputy AG under GHWB:
Donald B. Ayer - Wikipedia

Carrie Cordero is general counsel at the Center for New American Security and a former advisor to John Kasich:
Carrie Cordero

Charles Fried was Solicitor General under Reagan:
Charles Fried - Wikipedia

Stuart Gerson was Assistant AG and debate coach for GHWB:
Stuart M. Gerson - Wikipedia

Peter Keisler was a co-founder of the Federalist Society and Assistant AG under GWB:
Peter Keisler - Wikipedia

Trevor Potter was Deputy General Counsel to GHWB's 1988 campaign and General Counsel to McCain's campaigns in 2000 and 2008:
Trevor Potter - Wikipedia

Alan Raul worked in the White House Counsel's office under Reagan and then the OMB:
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/archives/textual/smof/raul.pdf

Jonathan Rose was special assistant to Nixon and Assistant AG under Reagan:
Jonathan C. Rose

Jaime Snieder was Deputy Associate Director of White House Communications under GWB:
Jaime Sneider
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/2005stafflistb.html

JW Verret was chief economist for the House Financial Services Committee during a Republican majority:
J. W. Verret

If ^^^THAT^^^ doesn't meet your standard for "conservative", then I suspect your standards are a little ridiculous.


He's just using the same definitions Trump uses
Anyone who supports Trump: good, the best, conservative, maga

Anyone who is opposed to Trump: enemy of the people, fake, librul, traitor, impeach,​
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,609
3,098
✟217,110.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Yes, it is pretty clearly demonstrated that Trump did it for personal reasons.

Again a charge with no REAL proof to back that up. You even admitted later on in your post, "Yes, we don't know the heart of Trump." So it seems you've admitted what I've said to be true any yet you say it's clear he did what he did for a nefarious reason. In order to claim that to be true you'd have to KNOW without question his intent which would mean knowing what he meant. There can indeed be two reasons or various reasons for doing something not just one that it seems you insist upon.

Except we already have an investigation into the 2106 election, the one where Durham was appointed as special prosecutor.

Is that evidence he isn't basically speaking of the same thing....cooperate with our people? Why shouldn't it be considered mere bias to consider that it's not.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,609
3,098
✟217,110.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The fact that you think that it all turned out to be a dud demonstrates how absolutely imperative it is for conservatives who care about facts and respect our country to do precisely as they did.

When I say the Russia thing turned out to be a dud doesn't mean to say that I believe Russia or other countries in the world don't seek to influence a U.S. election. It's meant to say what Muller said that he concluded there was no evidence to press charges against the President. And when I suggest these other individuals aren't true conservatives it with the understanding that they're enabling potentially the exact opposite of what they are to make a mountain out of a mole hill and truly destroy conservatism. So why would they do that?

Trump's peddling of misinformation is hugely damaging and pathetic. All the shame belongs to Trump and his enablers.

Not that any President is perfect but the question is is that REALLY what the President is doing? Spreading misinformation on the key issues....many would sincerely believe not.
 
Upvote 0

Cimorene

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 7, 2016
6,262
6,018
Toronto
✟246,655.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Jonathan Adler's work was the underpinning for one of the challenges to Obamacare:
Jonathan H. Adler - Wikipedia

Donald Ayer was Deputy AG under GHWB:
Donald B. Ayer - Wikipedia

Carrie Cordero is general counsel at the Center for New American Security and a former advisor to John Kasich:
Carrie Cordero

Charles Fried was Solicitor General under Reagan:
Charles Fried - Wikipedia

Stuart Gerson was Assistant AG and debate coach for GHWB:
Stuart M. Gerson - Wikipedia

Peter Keisler was a co-founder of the Federalist Society and Assistant AG under GWB:
Peter Keisler - Wikipedia

Trevor Potter was Deputy General Counsel to GHWB's 1988 campaign and General Counsel to McCain's campaigns in 2000 and 2008:
Trevor Potter - Wikipedia

Alan Raul worked in the White House Counsel's office under Reagan and then the OMB:
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/archives/textual/smof/raul.pdf

Jonathan Rose was special assistant to Nixon and Assistant AG under Reagan:
Jonathan C. Rose

Jaime Snieder was Deputy Associate Director of White House Communications under GWB:
Jaime Sneider
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/2005stafflistb.html

JW Verret was chief economist for the House Financial Services Committee during a Republican majority:
J. W. Verret

If ^^^THAT^^^ doesn't meet your standard for "conservative", then I suspect your standards are a little ridiculous.

This is legit a terrific post but I mean I think for a lot of Trump supporters the only standard for deciding that somebody is a conservative is if he / she has unwavering devotion & sycophancy to Donald Trump. That's it. Not that Trump is ever ever ever going be loyal to anybody else in return except maybe Ivanka but to his base anybody not willing to give relentless loyalty to him nevertheless is quite obv just a flaming radical liberal. Lol.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,725
9,445
the Great Basin
✟330,409.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again a charge with no REAL proof to back that up. You even admitted later on in your post, "Yes, we don't know the heart of Trump." So it seems you've admitted what I've said to be true any yet you say it's clear he did what he did for a nefarious reason. In order to claim that to be true you'd have to KNOW without question his intent which would mean knowing what he meant. There can indeed be two reasons or various reasons for doing something not just one that it seems you insist upon.


If you rob a bank, do I know your heart? For all I know, you did it because your family is starving. Or it could be that you did it because you just want the money, to be rich. Or, even that you are upset at the bank and this is your revenge. But I don't need to know your heart to know that you broke the law by robbing the bank.

Same with Trump. I can evaluate the evidence -- he asked for an investigation against the Bidens. Despite claiming he'd have Barr called, he never told Barr to call nor did he have Barr open any type of new investigation. Instead, he sent his personal lawyer to Ukraine to work with their investigators to find evidence -- and it appears, at least before this became public knowledge -- that Trump and Giuliani had no plan to turn any of the information over the US government. Giuliani admitted in interviews that his work in Ukraine was as a "private citizen."

Not sure how you spin that as something other than a personal investigation -- despite your claim we do have evidence. Of course, that is why you investigate, to find out the "heart" -- or the motive, in this case. But, to this point, no evidence supports that Trump did as part of any US investigation, or to bring the Bidens to justice. The fact that Trump is obstructing makes it look worse.

Is that evidence he isn't basically speaking of the same thing....cooperate with our people? Why shouldn't it be considered mere bias to consider that it's not.

Nope, because Barr isn't running the investigation into the 2016 election, again, that is Durham. And if Durham needs help from Ukraine he can call them himself, as part of the treaty -- and as an independent prosecutor he should be. It would be inappropriate for Trump to insert himself into an investigation headed by an independent prosecutor.
 
Upvote 0