youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:48 am
seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:34 am
youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:12 am
wahoomurf wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:30 pm
Just wait until McCarthy and Jordan/Hastert attack the West Point Grad,combat vet (The 101st Vietnam),30+ year diplomat,hawk on Russia, political party agnostic and a guy who came out of retirement to take over,(for the second time) as the U.S.Ambasador to Ukraine who spent time today,answering questions.
He's obviously a traitorous low-life.
Go get him boys!
I certainly hope not. I think they will avoid it and simply summarize it as "there is no quo", so therefore it is just a understanding of his time as Ambassador.
The President used his office and his authority under the Constitution to attempt to buy "deliverable" dirt
on a political opponent by threatening to withhold properly appropriated tax dollars, and that's OK with you. He did it with a vulnerable ally. He did it to a country at war with the Russians. And you don't care. 'Nuff said. I am genuinely astonished that anyone can feel this way.
Did you intentionally leave out the very important fact that the inquiry into investigation was primarily pre-election shenanigans. the Biden issue is secondary or even tertiary.
And people have asked why did the administration wait until Biden jumps in...well, Ukraine still had a corrupt president in place until April of 2019.
Serious question, if you took this to trial, would you get a conviction?
Respectfully, I think most of your points and your questions are irrelevant. I don't mean that as snark; I mean it literally.
On July 25, 2019, the President woke up and used his power under the Constitution to manage the foreign relations of the United States. He joined a prearranged call with the President of a nation-state (1) that is a US ally; (2) that is involved in a war with Russia, in which its casualties are in the many thousands and its land losses are substantial; and (3) to which the Congress, in this highly polarized era, had authorized several hundred million dollars in aid pursuant to its legislative powers under the Constitution.
We now know in the background and in the days leading up to this call, emissaries of the President had deviated from stated US policy to stop or withhold or slow walk Ukraine's receipt of the aid dollars, on a direction from the acting Chief of Staff and the head of the OMB, at the direction of the President. ACOS/OMB Chief Mulvaney would not and could not do this alone. We now know that career diplomats were either sidelined or ignored when they were prompted to ask about this reversal or change. We now know that the aid dollars were to be withheld pending a promise -- in a public box -- from the head of government of the recipient nation that he would investigate an alleged theory the President and Mr. Giuliani had about the American 2016 election (an effort to show that the opposition political party, not the President's party or the Russians) actually engaged foreign interference in the election), and investigate Burisma, the company on which the former VP's son was a board member for a time. In your language, the quid is there; the quo is plainly identified. And both are aimed at inducing the foreign government -- vulnerable and at war with what most of us believe is an ardent foe of this country and its system of government and way of life -- to provide material assistance to the President's primary domestic agenda item: his reelection and the weakening of a potential political opponent, who was then leading in the pre-primary polls.
The national security consequences of treating an ally and aid-recipient I will leave to the Charge D'Affaires of the American mission to Ukraine. He thinks the effort, even if not carried out to its intended purpose of prompting the "investigations" and placing Ukraine's President in a "public box," were catastrophic to East European strategy and weakened the reputation of this country across Europe, to say nothing of in Ukraine.
On a count of conspiracy to commit extortion or bribery, or some misuse of public funds, I think there is a pretty good case for a conviction. But that question is, as you must know, not relevant to the constitutional issue of whether these are impeachable offenses. Smarter folks than me and, respectfully, you, think the use of the office and powers for these purposes are in fact exactly why the Founders included the Impeachment Clauses in the Constitution. I won't gainsay Alexander Hamilton here, and neither should you. These actions are impeachable. I think the House has no choice but to impeach, and the specific articles will be pretty easy to draw up, and support through the evidence in the form of testimony and documents. This is particularly true if the Executive Branch complies with lawful subpoenas and provides contemporaneous materials relating to the events described above.
It is of some moment, to me anyway, that the Administration's arguments are about the investigative process and about whether the scheme to place the Ukraine President in the box and deliver the deliverables actually succeeded. NJBill and ggait have already canvassed the totally fraudulent silliness of the first set of arguments. The second is irrelevant -- the President appears to have very plainly engaged in a conspiracy to extort favors and actions aimed at his domestic political continuity and success in exchange for, by withholding, and/or by threatening to withhold monies publicly appropriated and directed by a coordinate, co-equal branch of government.
In the end, as you also know, the issue is less "can I get a conviction in a court," than it is will 66 Senators have the courage to say that this is not the manner in which this most powerful and influential of offices can be used, and that this sort of shenanigans besmirches the reputation of the American people and belittles our system of government.
