Trump openly admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry

[mark46]

I guess that we just need to wait. You can look back to the articles used for Nixon and for Clinton. There were other articles. As I said obstruction of congress is a separate article. Perjury (lying to Mueller) is another article. There are others. It is up to Nadler.

Obstruction of justice is a form of abusing power. So is extortion. Does that mean all of the AOI should be nothing more than subarticles of abuse of power? I don't think so.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Obstruction of justice certainly will be on there several times.

1. He fired James Comey during the Russia election tempering investigation. The reason was to stop that investigation on himself.
   
2. He hid the full July 25 phone call transcript on a secret classified server and told a White House staffer to release an edited summary, even though it is not classified.
3. He ordered some first-hand witnesses to ignore their subpoenas, knowing they would have testified against him.

 

[mark46]

If the Mueller obstruction charges are included, there would several sub articles under obstruction. Mueller listed 10, of which 6 were considered by others to have very strong support.

Obstruction of justice certainly will be on there several times.

1. He fired James Comey during the Russia election tempering investigation.
2. He hid the full July 25b phone call transcript on a secret classified server and told a White House staffer to release an edited summary, even though it is not classified.
3. He ordered first-hand witnesses to ignore their subpoenas, knowing they would have testified against him.

 

[GodLovesCats]

In that case, there should be a subarticle for each witness who was blocked from testifying by none other than Donald Trump.

 

[SimplyMe]

Obstruction of justice certainly will be on there several times.

1. He fired James Comey during the Russia election tempering investigation. The reason was to stop that investigation on himself.
   
2. He hid the full July 25 phone call transcript on a secret classified server and told a White House staffer to release an edited summary, even though it is not classified.
3. He ordered some first-hand witnesses to ignore their subpoenas, knowing they would have testified against him.

I'd disagree with #2 -- if that is an Article of Impeachment, I expect it to be more of an abuse of power type of article that deals with violating Classification statutes -- improperly classifying documents.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I'd disagree with #2 -- if that is an Article of Impeachment, I expect it to be more of an abuse of power type of article that deals with violating Classification statutes -- improperly classifying documents.

It is obstruction of justice. He did not classify the transcript,but only releasing an edited summary instead of the entire call can't be anything else. He obviously does not want anybody to know about the quid pro quo part of it.

 

[SimplyMe]

It is obstruction of justice. He did not classify the transcript,but only releasing an edited summary instead of the entire call can't be anything else. He obviously does not want anybody to know about the quid pro quo part of it.

There are two reasons I believe it won't be obstruction. First, they haven't, to my knowledge, subpoenaed the full transcript of the call -- so they can't claim Trump refused to turn it over. At most, they have testimony stating the voluntarily released transcript is incomplete. Second, they have other Obstruction of Justice charges where Trump is refusing people in his administration to testify. While the full transcript could be added as one more sub-article, again, I don't recall them asking Trump for it.

Second, the classified information violations is in many ways a more serious violation of law, particularly when he is classifying documents to avoid "scrutiny."

 

[GodLovesCats]

Trump prevented Congress from easily accessing it to see the quid pro quo for themselves. That is a hint: if he does not want to show them now what was said, why should we expect him to obey a subpoena?

 

[mark46]

With regard to #2, my view is that the president has the right to keep secret his conversation with other leaders.

With regard to a document being classified, the president can de-classify anything. I don't know whether he can also classify a document.

I'd disagree with #2 -- if that is an Article of Impeachment, I expect it to be more of an abuse of power type of article that deals with violating Classification statutes -- improperly classifying documents.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Mark, the red flag here is the phone call transcript summary. Donald Trump pretended it was "perfect" by telling a White House staffer to remove the worst text and replace "Burisma" with "the company" to show everyone else. Because he released an incomplete transcript while claiming there was nothing wrong with the call, he made it clear he does not want anyone outside the White House to know about the QPQ.

 

[mark46]

So many folks think that the issue is quid pro quo.

To me, that is pure nonsense. The US has often requested favors. Lots of cooperative actions were assumed by our allies. Fir example, we might tell the Turkish that we will cut of military cooperation if they activate the Russian millili system that they bought. And, no, the specific carrots or sticks shouldn't need to be detailed. That is only necessary when dealing with a group of incompetents.

No, Trump shouldn't have stopped aid to Ukraine. That was illegal. But not meeting with someone who can't do you a favor is something almost every p[resident might have done.
=======
So, what IS the big deal
---------------------------
The big deal is that
1) Trump asked a foreign country to investigate a US citizen.
2) Trump asked for campaign help from a foreign country.

These are clear abuses of power.

Mark, the red flag here is the phone call transcript summary. Donald Trump pretended it was "perfect" by telling a White House staffer to remove the worst text and replace "Burisma" with "the company" to show everyone else. Because he released an incomplete transcript while claiming there was nothing wrong with the call, he made it clear he does not want anyone outside the White House to know about the QPQ.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So many folks think that the issue is quid pro quo.

To me, that is pure nonsense. The US has often requested favors. Lots of cooperative actions were assumed by our allies. Fir example, we might tell the Turkish that we will cut of military cooperation if they activate the Russian millili system that they bought. And, no, the specific carrots or sticks shouldn't need to be detailed. That is only necessary when dealing with a group of incompetents.

Are you deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that Trump did this through his personal lawyer for political benefits, not to actually help Ukraine fight off Russia in a time of war? Do you not understand bribery has been hidden from most people and this fact was proven months ago?

Trump did not want an investigation on Hunter Biden. He just wanted Zelenskyy to publicly announce they will do one. This knowledge is from a first-hand testimony.

 

[mark46]

Underlining something doesn't make it impeachable.

It is not unusual for presidents to having "private" envoys that negotiate with and makes sure that countries understand the consequences of their actions.

Kerry and Carter both performed this role for Democrats; likely Bill Clinton did also.
====
I could see Obama sending Kerry to visit with Erdogan and threaten to cancel a meeting if Turkey signed an agreement to buy Russian missiles. I could also see him to threaten to do all he could to halt the purchase of any military technology from the US. To be totally parallel, I guess I COULD see OPbama threatening to cut off the shipment of any military equipment unless Turkey decided to void the deal with Russia; that action might require consent of the Senate or Congress as a whole. What you seem to NOT understand is that quid pro quo is not a dirty word. If the US sells millines to England for a $1B, there is a quid pro quo" They give us $1B and we give them the missiles.

To focus on the quid pro quo issue is to make it really easy to find such behavior to be NOT impeachable.

What WAS CERTAINLY ILLEGAL was

1) the request to investigate a US citizen,

2) the request information on the Ukraine involvement in the 2016 campaign,

3) the request for the announcement of an investigation Burisma and the ties to Biden, and

4) withholding aid authorized by Congress

Are you deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that Trump did this through his personal lawyer for political benefits, not to actually help Ukraine fight off Russia in a time of war? Do you not understand bribery has been hidden from most people and this fact was proven months ago?

Trump did not want an investigation on Hunter Biden. He just wanted Zelenskyy to publicly announce they will do one. This knowledge is from a first-hand testimony.

 

[mark46]

Giving military aid to another country is NOT bribery. Putting conditions on that aid is NOT bribery. Having a private individual communicate the conditions is NOT bribery.

Are you deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that Trump did this through his personal lawyer for political benefits, not to actually help Ukraine fight off Russia in a time of war? Do you not understand bribery has been hidden from most people and this fact was proven months ago?

Trump did not want an investigation on Hunter Biden. He just wanted Zelenskyy to publicly announce they will do one. This knowledge is from a first-hand testimony.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Giving military aid to another country is NOT bribery. Putting conditions on that aid is NOT bribery. Having a private individual communicate the conditions is NOT bribery.

Offering security aid on the condition of a foreign leader doing a personal favor for him is bribery.

 

[SimplyMe]

With regard to #2, my view is that the president has the right to keep secret his conversation with other leaders.

With regard to a document being classified, the president can de-classify anything. I don't know whether he can also classify a document.

Your idea that a President has the right to keep conversations with foreign leaders "secret" is a straw man, no on is claiming a President doesn't have that right. Where you seem to be confused, keeping something "secret" -- limiting who can see the conversation -- does not require the conversation to be classified. In fact, unless classified information was discussed it is not to be classified.

The government has different protections it puts on information, not simply classifying everything. A prime example, tax returns are not classified, despite the fact they are tightly controlled. It is the same with a President's conversations with foreign governments, they are secured and only available to those that need to see them but are not classified (unless classified information is discussed).

 

[mark46]

You speak as if a check for $391M was send to the president of Ukraine.

Your position is that Trump should be impeached because he bribed a country by putting conditions on their military aid.

BTW, the withholding of the money was illegal and impeachable, but bribery is the wrong charge.

Offering security aid on the condition of a foreign leader doing a personal favor for him is bribery.

 

[mark46]

I'm confused.

I don't think that the public has any right to the content of conversation between the president and foreign leaders.

I believe that the president has the right to restrict the access to any of these calls to everyone, with the only exception being that there must be a record for the future, a tape with no access can meet this need.

Your idea that a President has the right to keep conversations with foreign leaders "secret" is a straw man, no on is claiming a President doesn't have that right. Where you seem to be confused, keeping something "secret" -- limiting who can see the conversation -- does not require the conversation to be classified. In fact, unless classified information was discussed it is not to be classified.

The government has different protections it puts on information, not simply classifying everything. A prime example, tax returns are not classified, despite the fact they are tightly controlled. It is the same with a President's conversations with foreign governments, they are secured and only available to those that need to see them but are not classified (unless classified information is discussed).

 

[Speedwell]

I'm confused.

I don't think that the public has any right to the content of conversation between the president and foreign leaders.

I believe that the president has the right to restrict the access to any of these calls to everyone, with the only exception being that there must be a record for the future, a tape with no access can meet this need.

I think another exception must be to accommodate the oversight role of Congress.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What WAS CERTAINLY ILLEGAL was

1) the request to investigate a US citizen,
2) the request information on the Ukraine involvement in the 2016 campaign,
3) the request for the announcement of an investigation Burisma and the ties to Biden, and
4) withholding aid authorized by Congress

Because all of those acts are illegal, they must be listed as articles of impeachment.