Ethics complaint on Schiff
- Thread starter This_person
- Start date
I answered, you refuse to accept the truth.
........that's what the Impeachment process will do. See how that works?
LOL,..........trying to put this on Biden is Lame. The president violated his oath of Office and the Constitution. Covering it up is all so a crime.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Link me to the answer of the words in the constitution Trump violated
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Except for the fact that this call didn’t happen in a vacuum. The texts and testimony thus far indicate trump didn’t want an investigation into corruption, he wanted an announcement of an investigation into Biden and the DNC server.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Please, you make idiotic attacks all the time. You don’t like the fact that I have told you the crime numerous times. Your denial notwithstanding, soliciting help from a foreign government in our election is a crime.
did you notice Sondland says he did tell Ukraine on sept 1 that they were holding the aid until Zelensky made the investigation announcement?
Rommey
Well-Known Member
I'm not putting this on Biden. I asked if you believe Biden when he bragged about getting the prosecutor fired in exchange for aid. Yes or No?
You made a claim that Trump held up funds ("holding up funds until it's done"; "it" being "digging up dirt on a political opponent"). In response to that statement, I asked " Can you point to any action, any statement, or any evidence that Ukraine did anything that caused those funds to be released?"
So let's see if you can stick to a specific point and answer these directly. There's only two questions here.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dail...-with-ukraine-did-donald-trump-commit-a-crime
It’s long been clear that Presidents can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are not actual violations of federal criminal law. In an oft-cited passage from Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses “are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” They involve “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” This, at the moment, is the core of the case against Donald Trump for his interactions with the President of Ukraine—that he abused his power by using taxpayer dollars as a tool to extract information potentially damaging to a political rival.
http://www.condenast.com/privacy-policy/
But, if Trump’s behavior was an abuse of power, was it also a crime? The leading candidate for a relevant criminal statute is a familiar one in the federal courts, called the Hobbs Act. The law, named for the Alabama congressman who sponsored it, was enacted in 1946. It prohibits what’s known as “extortion under color of official right.” But what does that mean in plain English?
Samuel W. Buell, a professor at Duke Law School who is a former federal prosecutor and the author of “Capital Offenses: Business Crime and Punishment in America’s Corporate Age,” said, “The traditional way the Hobbs Act is used is when public officials solicit bribes. The idea is that there is an inherent power relationship between a public official and people who need things from that official. If the public official demands money, that’s seen as extortion, and thus a violation of the Hobbs Act.”
So what does that have to do with Trump and Ukraine? “The idea behind the case would be Trump conditioned the release of military aid to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine coming across with the dirt on the Biden family,” Buell said, adding, “He’s misusing official power to obtain things of value to him. That’s the heart of what the Hobbs Act is supposed to prohibit.” Buell draws an analogy to the Hobbs Act prosecution of Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois. “Lobbyists for a children’s hospital wanted Blagojevich to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates, which meant eight million dollars in revenue to the hospital,” Buell said. “But he put out the word through intermediaries that he would only do it if he got fifty thousand dollars in campaign contributions. That quid quo pro was a violation of the Hobbs Act. With Trump, the quid pro quo is taxpayer money in return for political dirt, but the idea is the same.”
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/jeffrey-toobin
It’s long been clear that Presidents can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are not actual violations of federal criminal law. In an oft-cited passage from Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses “are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” They involve “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” This, at the moment, is the core of the case against Donald Trump for his interactions with the President of Ukraine—that he abused his power by using taxpayer dollars as a tool to extract information potentially damaging to a political rival.
http://www.condenast.com/privacy-policy/
But, if Trump’s behavior was an abuse of power, was it also a crime? The leading candidate for a relevant criminal statute is a familiar one in the federal courts, called the Hobbs Act. The law, named for the Alabama congressman who sponsored it, was enacted in 1946. It prohibits what’s known as “extortion under color of official right.” But what does that mean in plain English?
Samuel W. Buell, a professor at Duke Law School who is a former federal prosecutor and the author of “Capital Offenses: Business Crime and Punishment in America’s Corporate Age,” said, “The traditional way the Hobbs Act is used is when public officials solicit bribes. The idea is that there is an inherent power relationship between a public official and people who need things from that official. If the public official demands money, that’s seen as extortion, and thus a violation of the Hobbs Act.”
So what does that have to do with Trump and Ukraine? “The idea behind the case would be Trump conditioned the release of military aid to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine coming across with the dirt on the Biden family,” Buell said, adding, “He’s misusing official power to obtain things of value to him. That’s the heart of what the Hobbs Act is supposed to prohibit.” Buell draws an analogy to the Hobbs Act prosecution of Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois. “Lobbyists for a children’s hospital wanted Blagojevich to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates, which meant eight million dollars in revenue to the hospital,” Buell said. “But he put out the word through intermediaries that he would only do it if he got fifty thousand dollars in campaign contributions. That quid quo pro was a violation of the Hobbs Act. With Trump, the quid pro quo is taxpayer money in return for political dirt, but the idea is the same.”
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/jeffrey-toobin
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...back-trumps-impeachment-and-removal/23852655/
WASHINGTON — Exactly one year out from the 2020 general election, a majority of all Americans — or close to it — support impeaching President Donald Trump and removing him from office, disapprove of his job performance and back his top Democratic rivals in head-to-head matchups.
49 % of the 414 people interviewed 
Hmmm, his testimony is full of I dont know and I cant remembers, not recall that anywhere from what i read. “ I do not recall any discussions with the White House on withholding U.S. security assistance from Ukraine in return for assistance
with the President's 2020 reelection campaign. I recall that in late Juty 2019, Ambassadors Volker, Taylor, and I exchanged emails in which we all agreed that President Zelensky should have no involvement in 2020 U.S. presidential election politics.“
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/7761...sondland-u-s-ambassador-to-the-european-union
PsyOps
Pixelated
Well, no it's not. Sondland has been on both sides of this issue:
He testified that Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, and Sondland testified that there was no quid pro quo.
Then suddenly a revelation happened and now he says there was a quid pro quo.
He's lying about one or the other. Which is it? In politics, when someone changes their mind like this, it means someone got to him. I want to know which is the truth. While you're convinced the latter is the truth, because your bias has already told you Trump is guilty, I don't go there. I don't know what the truth is, since Sondland has testified to both.
The side of this is, what does this so-called "quid quo pro" look like. It is completely within Trump's authority to demand a country's leader to do something in order that country to receive aid from us. In the phone call transcript, it's clear Trump asked (no demanded) Zelensky to look into the Biden (corruption of firing the lead investigator who was investigating corruption of a company younger Biden worked for) and Crowdstrike things. Trump would have been fully within his authority to withhold money to Ukraine on conditions Zelensky looked into it. The transcription shows no quid pro quo. Trump asked for nothing in return.
So, that leads us back to Sondland, and what happened behind the scenes and what happened outside that phone call. Sondland, having testified to both sides of this quid pro quo thing, needs to be investigated as to what the real truth is, and not just be taken at his word, since his word is all over the place.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Except for the fact that this call didn’t happen in a vacuum. The texts and testimony thus far indicate trump didn’t want an investigation into corruption, he wanted an announcement of an investigation into Biden and the DNC server.
And why shouldn't he. There was some apparently wrong-doing regarding this server and Biden injecting himself into an foreign investigation. If anyone allegedly illegally used foreign aid to get something done with a foreign country, it would be Biden. Trump asking to investigate corruption is a far cry from Biden demanding an investigation, where his son is involved, into corruption be stopped, and threaten to withhold $1 billion in aid.
Biden admitted to doing this. Why isn't that considered a crime, yet you believe what Trump did was a crime?