The Impeachment Inquiry

Post by **Obi-Wan Nihilo** » Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:48 pm

This is very simple.

The president is the Chief Executive of the country.

The president is the head of the Executive Branch of the government.

Foreign policy is the purview of the Executive Branch.

As the Chief Executive of the country and the head of the Executive Branch, the president decides what is and isn't the foreign policy of the US.

The various appointees and unelected employees of the State Department and other arms of the Executive Branch serve at the president's whim. They do not have the authority to set foreign policy. These people can be fired at any time.

To date, there has been no evidence presented of Trump's wrongdoing, nor has anyone testified that they witnessed Trump's wrongdoing. All three witnesses, such as they are, have clearly stated that they have no knowledge of any crimes the president may or may not have committed.

Meanwhile, we know that BHO all but gift wrapped Crimea for Putin, and that Biden has bragged about using his influence for personal gain.

Adam Schiff and his party look like fools. Pelosi should have held firm and refused to go down the impeachment road. At this point, she's either going to have to refuse to hold a vote, or risk losing her majority in the House.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:30 am

The legal definitions of "bribery" at the Federal level may be found here at the online version of the U. S. Code. Nothing Trump did on the call with Zelensky--any of them--qualifies as "bribery" according to the U. S. Code.

Do any of you know why the talking point suddenly changed from "quid pro quo" to "bribery"? The answer is very simple: Democrat pollsters held some focus group testing and found that the phrase "bribery" resonated more negatively with people than "quid pro quo". That is why the talking point changed. It isn't "bribery", it's just the new talking point.

I don't deny that Democrats probably threw up their hands and said "fine, we'll have open door inquiry sessions". It still doesn't matter--the Senate is never going to remove Trump from office, so even if he does wind up being impeached that is only a slap on the wrist.

Incidentally, Democrats are more upset over one diplomat to Ukraine being fired than they were over the four who got killed because the Obama Administration wouldn't get its shit together and increase security at the consulate in Benghazi. At least Trump doesn't sit by and let diplomats die.

Post by **TheFallen** » Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:08 am

I see this topic is - inevitably, I suspect - spreading across multiple threads.

Brinn, your words are appreciated.

Zee, there's not much disconnect between your position and mine. Here's some clarification on that statement relating to your last post in this thread.

Zarathustra wrote:
The Fallen wrote:Do I personally believe Trump is guilty of using his presidential powers to leverage personal political gain? Yes I absolutely do, but doubt it's sufficiently provable.
But there are two possibilities here. "Using his presidential powers" could have been limited merely to asking a foreign leader to do him a favor, OR he could have "bribed/extorted" by withholding the aid. The former would be rather innocuous, right?

Agreed - I've already stated that if Trump merely and solely requested a self-interested favour from Zelensky without applying any positive or negative pressure, then this would not provide any grounds for impeachment. The key word in my quote directly above was "leverage".

Zarathustra wrote:The latter might be more serious, but it's not literally bribery/extortion as others are saying. These have legal definitions, and withholding aid doesn't fit either.

It might - or it may well not. However, it is the first time that the Dems have managed to come up with any grounds that might just be faintly justifiable - and that was my point.

Zarathustra wrote:We use our aid as a carrot/stick all the damn time. This is one of our tools to get countries to do what we want.

Absolutely - but on this occasion you're missing the point. The carrot and stick is undoubtedly legitimately useable to coerce other nation states to do things that are to the benefit to the US, BUT not merely to the personal benefit of members of the incumbent administration.

Zarathustra wrote:
The Fallen wrote:Do I personally believe that this sort of leveraged quid pro quo-ing goes on all the time under all administrations? Yes I do. That doesn't make it right of course, but I'd bet it's the norm.
Why exactly is it wrong? I honestly think people view this as wrong only when Trump does it, and because they don't like Trump. As I've noted elsewhere, Biden thought so little of the moral implications, he openly bragged about a similar act on camera! And no one in the media batted an eye. Are we *sure* it's wrong? Or did we just suddenly decide that it was by groupthink?

No, I am not sure it is wrong, speaking in general. I am also sure it's the norm - as I've previously said.

And you are of course right to point out Dem/left-leaning media double standards and hypocrisy. If it is wrong today for Trump, it was of course every bit as wrong for Biden back then. And actually that fact may not play well for Dems - see below.

Zarathustra wrote:People keep focusing on the "personal political gain" angle, but what if Biden actually did something wrong? After all, Trump can only benefit from this if Biden actually did something wrong. Let's set aside any ambiguity here. Imagine that Biden sold top secret national security info to the Russians. That's wrong, without a doubt. Now, imagine that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate it. Are we still going to be appalled that he might benefit from this politically?

This is actually a key point - and the weakest plank in the Dems' latest argument.

If it is defined as "wrong" for a POTUS or a VPOTUS to leverage his privileged position with another nation state for personal benefit, then FIRSTLY, there's enough evidence to suggest that Biden did this first (and not least from Biden himself). That then would I believe provide Trump with an adequate defence if needed... he could simply maintain that in asking for (or even looking to coerce) Ukraine's help in digging into Biden, he was simply seeking to investigate a previous "egregious misuse of power and position" by the prior administration. And it's already a matter of record that US taxpayers' dollars went missing in the whole Burisma affair (even if solely and unilaterally stolen by the Burisma CEO) so this would seem to further legitimise and justify any investigation request, even if that request was accompanied by pressure. The fact that, should any evidence of Biden's potential misdeeds be uncovered by Ukraine, this would help Trump politically right now, could easily be claimed to be an unintended benefit.

(Again for the record, I personally am of the firm opinion that Trump only made the leveraged request of Zelensky at least primarily because he wanted damaging dirt on Biden - but that doesn't stop the above-mentioned defence being viably useable if needed. Opinions, interpretations and beliefs aren't proof.)

To me, Dem tactics in this whole affair are obvious. This is absolutely NOT about impeaching Trump - as Hashi quite rightly points out, if the Dem-controlled HoR wanted to vote for impeachment, it could have done so and could still do so at any time... it needs no grounds or evidence. So the very obvious question is then begged - why haven't they done so? What's holding the Dems back from pushing this forward towards a conclusion?

The answer is brutally simple. To actually impeach Trump would be counter-productive for the Dems - because he would be very swiftly effectively exonerated by the Pub-controlled Senate not deciding to remove him from office. And the Dems know this.

So, read my lips... the Dems do NOT want Trump impeached. They do NOT want this reaching its inevitable exonerating conclusion.

Can you even imagine how the Senate's inevitable throwing out of the impeachment charge would be made to play by Trump and his supporters - especially coming so soon after the Mueller Report non-event?

Nope, this is all about the Dems electioneering for 2020 and slinging mud. This is all about talking at the electorate - getting maximum exposure from a largely favourable media for the impeachment enquiry and thus hoping to influence swing voters. And again in my very firm view, Dems' time would be far FAR better spent making themselves more electable, rather than solely, obsessively and endlessly swinging at the Trump punchbag.... completely regardless of whether there is justification to do so or not.

(By the way, given the extreme and still increasing polarisation within US politics, one wonders if there even exists a significant number of undecided swing voters any more).

Post by **Gaius Octavius** » Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:33 pm

Bill Maher warned liberals to tone down their BS because the country is heading towards civil war.

Post by **Rawedge Rim** » Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:43 pm

ur-Nanothnir wrote:Bill Maher warned liberals to tone down their BS because the country is heading towards civil war.

Not even close to such an event.

Post by **Skyweir** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:55 am

How can you assume that Trump et al applied no pressure?

He is holding aid as pressure. None of this is BAU ... blackmailing a foreign state to dig up dirt on a personal political opponent is not BAU.

Z you suggest thar the Bidens May have done something wrong? Ok so something that would concern the POTUS re America? Or something that simply concerns Trump personally?

Further, what if they havent done anything wrong?

It seems to if you are on the right the assumption is Trump must then have a National interest in discovering what the Bidens have done? Assuming there is something to discover at all.

If you are on the left there is the opposite assumption.

Both scenarios cant be correct. Both assumptions arise purely from political bias and what we each respectively want to believe.

Hopefully the inquiry will get to the facts.
....
Hashi use of the term quid pro quo was how the media and I think Trump too described the conversation to counter accusations of wrong doing ... a word as loosely descriptive as the term ... collusion.

Nevertheless, like collusion ... quid pro quo is not an impeachable offence. So naturally Pelosi will have to at some point apply the relevant actions to AN impeachable offence.

In this case it looks like the Committee are narrowing down on bribery as the impeachable offence.

The fact imv remains that the withholding aid to pressure Ukraine into complying with Trumps or Giulianis plan to get them to produce dirt on the Bidens is established.

The witness statements we are now hearing simply support that fact. Holmes as an eye witness is the one that to date is the one that has provided the greatest substantiation.

Ivanovich merely paints the context within which Giuliani has operated. She offers nothing directly relevant to the call in question. But tmm... its about more than that one phone call.

Particularly given Giuliani has been masterminding this tactic for some time now, it would seem.

Post by **Skyweir** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:38 am

ur-Nanothnir wrote:Bill Maher warned liberals to tone down their BS because the country is heading towards civil war.

Its a shame that the impeachment, the 2020 election re Trump is so very divisive and so emotive. But should there be civil unrest because of Trump supporters rising up against the government... note that Trump is still POTUS and head of the government... it would be essentially a futility ... unless Trump supporters imagine Trump declaring Marshall law and using the US military against American civilians. I cant see that happening, nor would I hope such a thing would ever happen.

This is more likely what would happen imv.

Post by **Gaius Octavius** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:44 am

The thing is, military is mostly made of conservatives most of which support Trump. Impeachment and removal could be seen as a coup by malevolent political actors.

It is naive to think the military would side w/ govt no matter what

Post by **Skyweir** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:00 am

I would argue it was significant to their duty.

I think to assume the military are all Trumpers is not a particularly likely position to posit.

I believe the military will defend US democracy. PEOPLE talk big when theyre talking from their sofas on social media ... but if the threat of prison was levelled, I doubt such follow through re their misguided convictions.

Would you go to prison for Trump ... we are seeing a significant number of people who worked closely with Trump now distancing themselves from him for that very reason.

People tend to fantasy ... but when push comes to shove, they scarper at the first stumbling block.

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:44 am

Yeah, I don't really see a military coup in the offing if he does get impeached, unlikely as I still consider that to be.

Not impossible I suppose, but really even less likely than impeachment I suspect.

--A

Post by **Skyweir** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:24 am

Its odd to me that such actions are being rumbled ... its like blackmail .. its an arguably empty threat ... but a threat nevertheless.

Post by **Gaius Octavius** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:04 pm

If you compare events leading up to the first civil war, you will see many similarities to today.

Post by **TheFallen** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:36 pm

Skyweir wrote:How can you assume that Trump et al applied no pressure?

He is holding aid as pressure. None of this is BAU ... blackmailing a foreign state to dig up dirt on a personal political opponent is not BAU.

Sky, there is a blatant and partisan assumption or value judgement in what you assert here. Regardless of what you (and also I, as it happens) suspect,...

...where is it sufficiently proven that Trump's overarching motive was merely to get dirt on a political rival?

Check out what George Kent, deputy assistant secretary at the State Department and a witness called to support impeachment, said last week:

George Kent last week at the Impeachment Enquiry wrote:"To summarize, we thought that Mykola Zlochevsky had stolen money," Kent said of the oligarch head of Burisma. "We thought a prosecutor had taken a bribe to shut the case, those were our main concerns."

"Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted?" asked Steve Castor, Republicans' counsel on the House Intelligence Committee.

"I think since U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor's office find out who the corrupt prosecutor was and who took the bribe, and how much was paid, and that's what I told the deputy prosecutor general on February 3, 2015," Kent replied.

When asked if he thought individuals or organizations responsible for the bribes should be prosecuted, Kent replied, "I agree that the Ukrainian law authorities should uphold the rule of law and hold people accountable for breaking Ukrainian law."

The fact US taxpayer dollars were wasted surely provides a viable defence for the US admin pressurising the Ukrainian government to dig further into what happened in the Burisma affair.

Kent actually makes a point of emphasising that he"would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor's office find out who the corrupt prosecutor was and who took the bribe, and how much was paid". He's effectively saying that it would be a good and fitting thing for an investigation at least of some sort into Burisma to be restarted by the Ukrainian government..

So, this surely provides adequate justification for the US admin to look to twist Zelensky's arm in the US's national interests... to find out what happened to those wasted US taxpayers' dollars, how they got misappropriated (which they clearly did) and why the previous investigation was dropped.

And if that renewed digging into the Burisma affair involves looking into Biden's actions, that again would obviously be justifiable. Please note that I am NOT saying that Biden did anything wrong necessarily - but both he and his son Hunter had roles to play in this, so it would be very understandable, when renewing the investigation into the Burisma affair, if their roles were dug into.

Now bear in mind I am playing Devil's Advocate here and have my own opinions on the primary motivations behind Trump making the phonecall he did - BUT I'm focussing in on what's sufficiently provable (or not) and what viable defences there may be.

And I'd say there's an adequately credible defence that pressurising Zelensky into looking into Burisma again (and thus also the Bidens' role as an ancillary part of that) was indeed in US national interests - the wasting of US taxpayer dollars as attested to by George Kent makes this so.

Post by **Skyweir** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:18 am

Good point and highly salient quote.

A few things also to consider. Ivanovich had an established reputation for her effective anti corruption role. She successfully cracked down on numerous corruption rings in the Ukraine.

If that in fact IS accurate ... why remove such an effective asset?

I agree certainly worthy of investigation ... odd that the assumption that US tax dollars were stolen?

Mykola seems definitely shifty ... but at what point did he steal US funds intended as aid to the Ukrainian government? Genuinely curious as he served in the Ukraine government from 2010 to 2014.

At the end of 2014, Zlochevsky fled Ukraine amid allegations of unlawful self enrichment and legalization of funds (Article 368-2, Criminal Code of Ukraine) during his tenure in public office.[13] At the end of 2016 the Central Criminal Court in London released $23 million that were blocked on accounts of Zlochevsky.[13][14] The Serious Fraud Office stated that the funds were released due to inadequate evidence.

Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after investigations into his Burisma Holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.

On April 18, 2018, recordings of conversations between President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and Zlochevsky were released which implicated him in graft.

On June 15, 2018, after the Solomyansky District Court in Kyiv had annulled the ruling of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) to close a criminal proceeding against him in 2017, Zlochevsky was accused of having illegally issued, while he was Ecology Minister in 2010-2012, oil and gas licenses to the companies that belonged to him.

As of 2019, Zlochevsky is reported to live in Monaco.

Investigating misuse of the power of Mykolas office for personal gain ... definitely worth doing. But Id love to know how this misuse resulted in stolen US funds.

And then how that is of such compelling interest to Trump personally and Giuliani _

Then theres this view

Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation.However, Hunter Biden was not under investigation,[4] Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation.

However, Hunter Biden was not under investigation, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing done by him in Ukraine and there is no evidence of wrongdoing done by him in Ukraine.

On May 19, Trump claimed the former Ukrainian prosecutor was after Joe Bidens son and that was why the former vice president demanded he be fired. There is no evidence of this.

The lack of evidence is concerning.

Lutsenko said ..."I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of US presidential elections," Lutsenko said. "Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws _ at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing."

Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine ... hGmBA3g.99

Post by **Gaius Octavius** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:15 am

Skyweir wrote:
ur-Nanothnir wrote:Bill Maher warned liberals to tone down their BS because the country is heading towards civil war.
Its a shame that the impeachment, the 2020 election re Trump is so very divisive and so emotive. But should there be civil unrest because of Trump supporters rising up against the government... note that Trump is still POTUS and head of the government... it would be essentially a futility ... unless Trump supporters imagine Trump declaring Marshall law and using the US military against American civilians. I cant see that happening, nor would I hope such a thing would ever happen.

This is more likely what would happen imv.

You probably did not intend it, but this image shows a disturbing lack of regard for democratic process and people who value freedom. First, you are painting all Trump supporters as backwards rednecks (attitude not unlike racist caricatures). Second, do you honestly believe that people don't hold the right to revolt against tyranny? How the fuck do you think the US was founded, then?

Your attitude "watch them scamper like leaves in the wind" is such an obnoxiously imperialistic one.

Have you ever stopped to think about how the views of the people you denigrate on a daily basis here? Like Bill Maher said, this isn't coming from a position of stupidity but rather a position of hatred. In other words, a genuine hatred of the other political side. The political gulf is so wide that there can't be a bridge made in order to find common ground anymore. If you believe that your beloved country is being subverted and usurped by tyrannical politicians and being sold to the lowest common denominator, how else should you think? In these people's minds, fighting tyrants is the ultimate devotion and act of patriotism. Even if it means death.

Of course, that's what separates us Americans from the rest of the world. You guys don't believe freedom is worth dying for. You piss and shit on basic ideas of freedom and pretend you have the moral high ground.

Post by **Skyweir** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:20 am

First what proof of tyranny????

Second I didnt design the meme it simply demonstrates the likely outcome of average joe citizens rising up against the regime government

... noting of which Republicans administer. Do you honestly believe the Republican machine would sit back and facilitate a threat of civil disorder particularly where that disorder amounts to extreme violence?

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:28 am

TheFallen wrote: ...where is it sufficiently proven that Trump's overarching motive was merely to get dirt on a political rival?

It's not possible to prove intent. And with the burden of proof on the prosecution...

--A

Post by **Skyweir** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:02 am

It is possible and must be proven for every offence.

In criminal law there are two fundamental elements that MUST be proven .... the guilty ACT and the guilty MIND.

There are many methods available to establish a guilty mind. What a person says, what a person does, all go to establishing mens rea.

For every criminal ever convicted a guilty mind HAD to be proven.

This is Constitutional Law and arguably Administrative Law, and US Admin Law, so unsure what the standard of proof is or what is required there.

Post by **Gaius Octavius** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:56 am

If the threshold is "beyond a reasonable doubt" (I am unsure about this stuff) then that will be a pretty high hurdle to go over in order to prove Trump intended anything illegal.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:31 pm

Skyweir wrote:In criminal law there are two fundamental elements that MUST be proven .... the guilty ACT and the guilty MIND.

An impeachment inquiry--not to mention an actual impeachment in the House--is not a matter of criminal law. The House of Representatives doesn't have to prove anything. If they want to impeach they will; if they don't want to then they won't.

Ultimately, they will impeach, even though that will put them into the beginning of next year's campaign season and then the Senate will vote not to remove him from office. What then?

Oh...by the way...no one is going to revolt or engage in civil war here. We are still a long way from that.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

The Impeachment Inquiry