Gary Johnson said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

And then if these charges are so easily debunked, what value would an investigation really bring Trump.

---

That's one of the funniest things about it. Trump being taken down by his own gullibility and conspiracy theory. A con man thinks everything's a con.

---

It won't. Because seeking an justice for citizens is his duty as President. Much like his intervention in Otto Wombier or A$AP Rocky.

---

*Seeking "justice" =/ pursuing a conspiracy theory in a way that helps him personally and hinders congressionally approved aid to an ally.

---

The president is allowed to pursue investigations you don't see as prudent. He is allowed to "hinder aid" to Ukraine to open investigation, much like Biden threatened aid to Ukraine to fire a prosecutor.

The best part about this is that the extreme lengths they're going to defend one clearly guilty candidate is how they know none of the 12 other candidates have even a snowballs chance in hell and "Remember Obama" is their only hope

Maroon Dawn said:

---

The best part about this is that the extreme lengths they're going to defend one clearly guilty candidate is how they know none of the 12 other candidates have even a snowballs chance in hell and "Remember Obama" is their only hope

---

The libs are in a catch 22. They have to admit Biden actions were possibly illegal to even start the conversation about Trump. But then Trump was right to seek an investigation.

There are a few arguments they could have without being partisan hacks.
1. Trump acted legally, but Joe Biden is such an American institution, Trump targeting him is not illegal, but is an impeachable offense.
2. Biden situation looks icky, so we understand why Trump wants to investigate, Congress should pressure Trump to move this more into the DOJ so it looks less political
3. Biden situation looks criminal, for the same reason Trumps looks criminal. Let's have a congressional investigation to make sure our laws prevent this action in the future. We will need to impeach both if our investigation concludes that using aid money to extort other countries was not the intent of our foreign aid.

But no, they are just playing political power games. So they can go suck an egg.

SIAP

Surprise surprise. Vindman is democratic activist and an Obama lover.

https://www.waynedupree.com/ltc-hickman-alex-vindman/

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/11/02/officer-recalls-how-ltc-vindman-ridiculed-americans-in-front-of-russian-officers/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/revealing-military-official-who-worked-with-top-schiff-witness-alex-vindman-reprimanded-him-for-inappropriate-and-partisan-behavior-in-military/

Quote:

---

1. Trump acted legally, but Joe Biden is such an American institution, Trump targeting him is not illegal, but is an impeachable offense.

---

This will be a very tough row to hoe

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

These are speculative questions not allegations with any evidence. Hunter being on the board was definitely a bad look, not disputing that. But Joe Biden's actions appear above board and in-line with the anti-corruption stance from the EU and internal Ukrainian groups. Shokin had to go, partially because he protected Zlochevsky. Shokin is the ideal PGO you'd want to leave in place if you're interested in orchestrating corruption in Ukraine.

---

Too bad Marie Yovanovitch said Lutshenko was way worse than Shokin.

Releasing her deposition was quite a mistake on Schiff's part.

A) She's not too bright.
B) She's way too much of a bureaucrat that only cared about Foggy Bottom.
C) She pretended that there was no CIA presence in her embassy in Ukraine. And thus she was operating in the darkness of the blind, except for some social media watchers at the embassy and then she complained the time difference was such a problem that she requested that DC do the social media watching for them and give them a readout the next morning.

When DC laughed and said, "Uhmm, no," she was upset.

She also talked to Fiona Hill at NSC often. Not clear why she didn't ask Fiona for the same heads up.

All in all, Yovanovitch's testimony was a damning example of how idiots who stay in the State Department long enough, get promoted beyond their abilities.

---

lol

MetoliusAg said:

---

lol

---

The rigorous analysis Texags has come to expect from Metolius.

It's 11:10 AM on November 5, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is STILL the POTUS.

Constitutional lawyer vs. the #2 trump propagandist at The Federalist

Just another normal day in the Trump era.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Constitutional lawyer vs. the #2 trump propagandist at The Federalist

Just another normal day in the Trump era.

---

Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

An argument can be made that the right to confront your accuser in criminal cases also is retained under Amendment 9.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Constitutional lawyer vs. the #2 trump propagandist at The Federalist

Just another normal day in the Trump era.

---

You claim this is a serious congressional criminal investigation and trial, but want to deny a US citizen his rights he retains in every court in the country.

Totally fair and not a partisan hit job.

At this point, Trump is not being denied anything he would be in a "normal" proceeding.

Now, if he were not allowed to cross examine witnesses at the Senate trial, thats a different story.

personally, I believe the House should give MORE to a president during an impeachment "inquiry" (or whatever they are calling it this week) than "regular" people would get if being investigated.

This isn't a trial.

agsfan said:

---

This isn't a trial.

---

On this, I agree. It's an investigation. Trump team will, and must be allowed, to cross examine EVERY single "witness" that has been called so far in a trial, if there ever is a trial.

BMX Bandit said:

---

At this point, Trump is not being denied anything he would be in a "normal" proceeding.

Now, if he were not allowed to cross examine witnesses at the Senate trial, thats a different story.

---

True, and I'm fine if the Whistleblower never gets revealed. But all of his testimony should be tossed at the trial if he isn't willing to stand by it and be cross examined.

My point: our founders thought it is most fair for you to know who is accusing you of a crime. To keep an impeachment investigation "fair", I think its important for both sides to question and gather evidence even if the constitution doesn't it spell it out.

So I don't think the courts should force them, but the senate Rs and public will unconsciously take that into account.

richardag said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Constitutional lawyer vs. the #2 trump propagandist at The Federalist

Just another normal day in the Trump era.

---

Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

An argument can be made that the right to confront your accuser in criminal cases also is retained under Amendment 9.

---

Trump is not facing a criminal proceeding. The first words of the Sixth Amendment are "In all criminal prosecutions"

Gbr1971 said:

---

richardag said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Constitutional lawyer vs. the #2 trump propagandist at The Federalist

Just another normal day in the Trump era.

---

Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

An argument can be made that the right to confront your accuser in criminal cases also is retained under Amendment 9.

---

Trump is not facing a criminal proceeding. The first words of the Sixth Amendment are "In all criminal prosecutions"

---

He said "An argument can be made"

Yes, an argument can be made, and yes, it could be upheld.

an argument can be made for anything. arguing the 9th amendment is reason Trump gets to cross examine witnesses during impeachment is not an argument that gets you very far and one Trump's team is not going to ever make.

Rand is really going out on a limb that he knows who the whistleblower is.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just saying it's risky.

Also, R's were clamoring for Volker testimony. In that transcript he says that Biden's actions were proper and that outing that prosecutor was US and International policy.

will25u said:

---

---

wow that was awesome

BMX Bandit said:

---

an argument can be made for anything. arguing the 9th amendment is reason Trump gets to cross examine witnesses during impeachment is not an argument that gets you very far and one Trump's team is not going to ever make.

---

The senate trial is the only one where I think it would be constitutionally essential to afford the presidents due process and cross examination rights.

Right now, I think it is just unfair and partisan theater to hide the "whistleblower" as if their testimony is worth **** in the next stage of the process if they stay anonymous.

The dirty truth is, the whistleblower was just a pretense to subpoena Trump allies and bait trump into "obstructing" or "covering it up". That narrative was crushed when he released all the info.

agsfan said:

---

Rand is really going out on a limb that he knows who the whistleblower is.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just saying it's risky.

Also, R's were clamoring for Volker testimony. In that transcript he says that Biden's actions were proper and that outing that prosecutor was US and International policy.

---

There is about a 99% chance that the WB is Eric Ciaramella. IF this is correct, then it has been out in the wild for over a month.

will25u said:

---

---

Reporters are just willfully uninformed

agsfan said:

---

Rand is really going out on a limb that he knows who the whistleblower is.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just saying it's risky.

Also, R's were clamoring for Volker testimony. In that transcript he says that Biden's actions were proper and that outing that prosecutor was US and International policy.

---

Yes and investigating the 2016 election interference hoax and Biden (possibly confirm Volker's opinion) was official US policy.

agsfan said:

---

Rand is really going out on a limb that he knows who the whistleblower is.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just saying it's risky.

Also, R's were clamoring for Volker testimony. In that transcript he says that Biden's actions were proper and that outing that prosecutor was US and International policy.

---

Not to mention, the "WB" is not a true WB. The President is outside the WB statute. It is for the intelligence community to WB on other intelligence community persons.

So essentially the "WB" is a criminal LEAKER.

will25u said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Rand is really going out on a limb that he knows who the whistleblower is.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just saying it's risky.

Also, R's were clamoring for Volker testimony. In that transcript he says that Biden's actions were proper and that outing that prosecutor was US and International policy.

---

Not to mention, the "WB" is not a true WB. The President is outside the WB statute. It is for the intelligence community to WB on other intelligence community persons.

So essentially the "WB" is a criminal LEAKER.

---

He got the info from someone, most likely Vindman

will25u said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Rand is really going out on a limb that he knows who the whistleblower is.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just saying it's risky.

Also, R's were clamoring for Volker testimony. In that transcript he says that Biden's actions were proper and that outing that prosecutor was US and International policy.

---

Not to mention, the "WB" is not a true WB. The President is outside the WB statute. It is for the intelligence community to WB on other intelligence community persons.

So essentially the "WB" is a criminal LEAKER.

---

Gonna take more for me to buy that he is a criminal leaker, because he is a second hand witness. The people who told him this information are the criminal leakers.

He also isn't a WB because the president of the united states isn't under the purview of the DNI or ICIG. Its why there was no "urgent concern" to get this memo to congress. It was a complete misapplication of the law.

Volker testimony says no QPQ...

and it's all been corroborated.
argue all you want about how it started, but he hasn't been proven a liar.
and the President admitted himself that if the whistleblower was accurate, he'd vote for impeachment.

Quote:

---

Gonna take more for me to buy that he is a criminal leaker, because he is a second hand witness. The people who told him this information are the criminal leakers.

He also isn't a WB because the president of the united states isn't under the purview of the DNI or ICIG. Its why there was no "urgent concern" to get this memo to congress. It was a complete misapplication of the law.

---

Agree that Ciaramello is not a leaker, Vindman likely is. But when he didn't alert the authorities to the leak, he committed misprision of a felony.

agsfan said:

---

and it's all been corroborated.
argue all you want about how it started, but he hasn't been proven a liar.
and the President admitted himself that if the whistleblower was accurate, he'd vote for impeachment.

---

The original "WB"? The one with 2nd/3rd hand information?

If you READ his "WB" report, and you READ the transcript, not a whole lot the "WB" says is corroborated in the transcript.

hbtheduce said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

At this point, Trump is not being denied anything he would be in a "normal" proceeding.

Now, if he were not allowed to cross examine witnesses at the Senate trial, thats a different story.

---

True, and I'm fine if the Whistleblower never gets revealed. But all of his testimony should be tossed at the trial if he isn't willing to stand by it and be cross examined.

My point: our founders thought it is most fair for you to know who is accusing you of a crime. To keep an impeachment investigation "fair", I think its important for both sides to question and gather evidence even if the constitution doesn't it spell it out.

So I don't think the courts should force them, but the senate Rs and public will unconsciously take that into account.

---

agsfan said:

---

Rand is really going out on a limb that he knows who the whistleblower is.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just saying it's risky.

Also, R's were clamoring for Volker testimony. In that transcript he says that Biden's actions were proper and that outing that prosecutor was US and International policy.

---

The Volker testimony says no QPQ...