Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by flgator2, Oct 31, 2019.
Remember "Mad Magazine" ? I thought this might be Alfred E. Neuman...."What , Me Worry?"
Rationally, threatening to withhold military aid appropriated by Congress to a country facing an existential military threat in turn for what is in effect opposition research on a political opponent should be more than enough to warrant removal from office. The terms "high crimes and misdemeanors" is intentionally undefined in the Constitution implicitly delegating to Congress the determination of the type of behavior indicating unfitness for office and subsequent removal. Trump will not be removed from office simply because 2/3 of the Senate will not vote to remove him although there is a good chance that a majority will do so. And while he may still draw the equivalent of an inside straight and win reelection I wouldn't bet it on it. The same sycophantic supporters of Trump who are predicting his reelection next year also predicted that the party that kowtows to the Donald would retain their majority in the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms.
There's mountains of evidence of crimes committed. Covered here many times.
Over one thousand former federal prosecutors signed a public letter indicating as much wrt the Mueller report. What he did here with the Ukraine is also criminal. His personal lawyer (Cohen) is in prison for the same crimes which Trump is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. Only unindicted because they can't indict the President.
To suggest Trump has committed no crime flies in the face of the facts. You can't just wish it so.
You might be correct on all 3 assertions. Abuse of power is not a crime (I might be wrong). And, at this moment, he has a better than even chance of remaining in office but that is getting less certain and it is possible he could be re-elected - lord knows I have been surprised and disappointed at my fellow Americans often enough on election night.
But withholding military aid to a besieged ally for personal gain would seem to be treason according to a dictionary definition (the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery) not sure of the legal definition. Then, of course, there is the cover up. Its always the coverup that gets them.
But the thing is and it is an important thing - impeachment doesn't require a crime.
You do know that is a heavily edited transcipt you read, don't you?
And yet it is still evidence of guilt. Makes one wonder how bad the unedited version is.
Extortion is not a crime?
I'm not a lawyer and don't know the proper whistle blower procedure but I would be willing to bet the whistle blower procedure does not include consulting with Adam Schiff's office before you write the whistle blower complaint.
Who cares? Its irrelevant.
Why not, the left is willing to call Bill Barr a liar.
Actually, the WPA does allow for whistleblowers to seek out assistance from congress. It's likely that the whistleblower went to Schiff because he is head of the house Intel committee (and the whistleblower a CIA agent). However, Schiff didn't meet with him personally. One of the committee aides advised the whistleblower to file the report with the IG.
I shoulda bet you
What year did Barr win a Purple Heart?
Is it possible that the whistleblower was bothered by what he knew but didn't know what to do so he contacted the office of a congressman who is head of a committee that deals with that sort of thing and that office gave him advice about how to go about the process?
edit: Mutz already addressed this more completely
Schiff is also an experienced federal prosecutor and investigator in cases of possible espionage. FWIW, the lead Republican on that committee is an experienced dairy farmer.
Oh so they should have never questioned General Flynn....How about Olie North?
Just a hunch, but neither are any of the other Trump apologists still raging at this legitimate investigation.
You would have been A-OK if you had stopped there.