Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

What crime was committed? It's a very simple question.

aginlakeway said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No investigations/No aid withheld

---

The Sideshow Bob defense?

---

Neither happened. Are you claiming they did?

---

Did Trump try to use military aid as leverege to investigate Biden? Yes or no.

---

What law would that have violated?

---

Campaign Finance but that ignores several key aspects:

1. Statue claims it has to be "of value" an investigation, or a treaty have no monetary value.
2. Conversations covered by treaty with Ukraine on criminal investigations.
3. President has broad foreign policy powers that make his actions legal.

4stringAg said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

---

Yes, using witholding military aid as a tactic to get foreign governments to investigate political rivals is extreme abuse of office. They certainly attempted to make it happen. Get Trump out of there and install Pence.

---

Zero evidence of that

---

Minus the weeks of testimony stating otherwise, of course none.

---

I've read the transcript and listened to Zelinsky's statements. Some Obama holdover's "feelings" about the call are of no interest to me

---

Ah, so what your saying is you just dismiss evidence that doesnt confirm your priors.

---

What evidence? Hearsay? 3rd and 4th hand accounts vs a first hand transcript and first hand Zelensky claiming he wasn't pressured and didn't know the aid was held up?

All we are hearing is what Schiff leaks to the media and not any "cross examination" from these witnesses.

---

Agreed. All first hand evidence shows that the House Democrats are abusing their power in order to illegally remove a duly elected president.

Pelosi, Schiff, the Fab Four, and most other Democrats in the House should be removed for ethics violations.

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

Well since you're a big bad lawyer, could you point to the spot in the constitution that requires a formal vote to start an impeachment?

BuddysBud said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

---

Yes, using witholding military aid as a tactic to get foreign governments to investigate political rivals is extreme abuse of office. They certainly attempted to make it happen. Get Trump out of there and install Pence.

---

Zero evidence of that

---

Minus the weeks of testimony stating otherwise, of course none.

---

I've read the transcript and listened to Zelinsky's statements. Some Obama holdover's "feelings" about the call are of no interest to me

---

Ah, so what your saying is you just dismiss evidence that doesnt confirm your priors.

---

What evidence? Hearsay? 3rd and 4th hand accounts vs a first hand transcript and first hand Zelensky claiming he wasn't pressured and didn't know the aid was held up?

All we are hearing is what Schiff leaks to the media and not any "cross examination" from these witnesses.

---

Agreed. All first hand evidence shows that the House Democrats are abusing their power in order to illegally remove a duly elected president.

Pelosi, Schiff, the Fab Four, and most other Democrats in the House should be removed for ethics violations.

---

No they aren't abusing their power. I do think republicans should start suing dems to follow house rules.

Just push the truth: these proceedings are the actions of sad, desperate, power hungry politicians.

agsfan said:

---

Well since you're a big bad lawyer, could you point to the spot in the constitution that requires a formal vote to start an impeachment?

---

Please point to the constitution where the legislature has the powers of the judicial branch.

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

hbtheduce said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Well since you're a big bad lawyer, could you point to the spot in the constitution that requires a formal vote to start an impeachment?

---

Please point to the constitution where the legislature has the powers of the judicial branch.

---

In the case of impeachment Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Would we give money to NATO if they didn't follow the treaty?

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

I didn't see any statement that made foreign aid contingent upon any investigation. If you want to be factual you could say there was perhaps an implication. But I suspect an implication you have to squint at or read between the lines to catch isn't the smoking gun you need.

The judge in the case last week on grand jury materials addresses whether or not a house vote is required. HJC = House Judiciary Committee

-the manner in which the House has chosen to conduct impeachment inquiries encompasses more than past Presidents and no sound legal or constitutional reason has been presented to distinguish the House's exercise of impeachment authority for a President from the exercise of such authority more generally.

-Indisputably, the House has initiated impeachment inquiries of federal judges without a House resolution "authorizing" the inquiry.

-Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry. In the case of President Johnson, a resolution "authorizing" HJC "to inquire into the official conduct of Andrew Johnson" was passed after HJC "was already considering the subject."

-In the case of President Nixon, HJC started its investigation well before the House passed a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry. See 3 Deschler Ch. 14, 15 (Parliamentarian's Note) (noting that even before "the adoption of" the Nixon impeachment-inquiry resolution, "House Resolution 803," HJC "had been conducting an investigation into the charges of impeachment against President Nixon," such as by "hiring special counsel for the impeachment inquiry").

-In the case of President Clinton, the D.C. Circuit authorized the disclosure of grand jury materials to Congress July 7, 1998, see HJC App., Ex. Q, Order, In re Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Assoc., Div. No. 94-1 (D.C. Cir. Spec. Div. July 7, 1998) (per curiam), ECF No. 1-18, even though no impeachment resolution had yet been adopted and was not adopted by the House until four months later

-While close scrutiny of the historical record undercuts that justification for the "House resolution" test proposed by Representative Collins, the more significant flaw with this proposal is as follows: while this test may address political legitimacy concerns, which are best resolved in the political arena, no governing law requires this testnot the Constitution, not House Rules, and not Rule 6(e), and so imposing this test would be an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority both to "determine the rules of its proceedings" under the Rulemaking Clause, U.S. CONST., Art. I, 5, cl. 2, and to exercise "the sole power of Impeachment" under the Impeachment Clause, id. 2, cl. 5. This Court "has no authority to impose," by judicial order, a particular structure on House proceedings.

Malibu said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Well since you're a big bad lawyer, could you point to the spot in the constitution that requires a formal vote to start an impeachment?

---

Please point to the constitution where the legislature has the powers of the judicial branch.

---

In the case of impeachment Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

---

And we are back to the start. Is congress in perpetual impeachment proceedings? Or does the constitution suggest there is some barrier for that process to start?

Edit: and I don't think they were right in the Clinton proceedings. I would much rather the judicial branch wait for an official impeachment inquiry be voted on before releasing GJ materials.

Liberal armchair lawyers are funny.

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

Yes, its just me. No other person who was involved with the Ukraine aid withholding thought anything was untoward. Just me.

Well you and Schiff

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

hbtheduce said:

---

Malibu said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Well since you're a big bad lawyer, could you point to the spot in the constitution that requires a formal vote to start an impeachment?

---

Please point to the constitution where the legislature has the powers of the judicial branch.

---

In the case of impeachment Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

---

And we are back to the start. Is congress in perpetual impeachment proceedings? Or does the constitution suggest there is some barrier for that process to start?

---

The fact is they don't want to hold a vote because some people will have to go on record as being for/against peach mint. They don't want the consequences of doing so next election cycle. They will keep this charade going as long as possible without actually doing anything. And not a single lib will admit that.

This whole impeachment B.S. is tiresome.
Once the transcript was released, it was obvious that nothing sinister happened. The Dems trying to make up crap from thin air is just stupid. They would be better off trying to do their jobs for the good of the country instead of obvious power grabs.

It looks like they are either intentionally trying to lose big in 2020, or they are so guilty of illegal activities that they are running scared.

cevans_40 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Malibu said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Well since you're a big bad lawyer, could you point to the spot in the constitution that requires a formal vote to start an impeachment?

---

Please point to the constitution where the legislature has the powers of the judicial branch.

---

In the case of impeachment Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

---

And we are back to the start. Is congress in perpetual impeachment proceedings? Or does the constitution suggest there is some barrier for that process to start?

---

The fact is they don't want to hold a vote because some people will have to go on record as being for/against peach mint. They don't want the consequences of doing so next election cycle. They will keep this charade going as long as possible without actually doing anything. And not a single lib will admit that.

---

Liberal here. I admit that.

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

My argument is what you say Trump did never occured

Quote:

---

So the military aid was withheld or not as part of a quid pro quo?

---

If Bribery is an impeachable offense, so is Attempted Bribery.

Malibu said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

What testimony? Those are Schiffs liars. The trump haters.

---

This has to be the dumbest line of Trump defense I have read. Yes, all just Trump haters part of the deep state conspiracy.

---

Actually, reread your statements, they're dumber!

You'd much rather have the judicial branch hold up the legislative branch based on a law that doesn't exist?
I thought you were big on separation of powers.

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Ok. So the crime committee was an attempted quid pro quo? And there was no payment withheld and no investigation launched.

That's sounds impeachment worthy. I'm sure this will work out well for the Democrats.

k2aggie07 said:

---

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

---

Dont be daft. Aid was delayed. The contention is it was delayed for political purposes, and Trump folded on that tactic.

k2aggie07 said:

---

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

---

We only gave them the aid because they opened an investigation into Crowdstrike. Oh wait....

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

Zelensky had no clue money was held up at time of call. Worse quid pro quo ever

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

Yes, its just me. No other person who was involved with the Ukraine aid withholding thought anything was untoward. Just me.

---

No. Its not just you. You are going to believe whatever you want.

Just know that the actual people involved and the transcript of their call say otherwise.

agsfan said:

---

You'd much rather have the judicial branch hold up the legislative branch based on a law that doesn't exist?
I thought you were big on separation of powers.

---

The judicial branch is there to make sure congress follows its own rules. They are the ones who made the law making GJ disclosures illegal. They could have easily added a 6(f) saying congressional committees. They didn't.

It's a check and balance. Congress can pass a new law tomorrow if they wanted.

Edit: "you'd let the judicial branch strike down laws that were not constitutional? What about separation of powers?"

k2aggie07 said:

---

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

---

It wasn't held back by Mulvaney on Trump's order while Trump, Giuliani, Sondland, and Volker pushed Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and Trump's DNC server conspiracy theory? That's what you're going with?

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So the military aid was withheld or not as part of a quid pro quo?

---

If Bribery is an impeachable offense, so is Attempted Bribery.

---

Then every President from here on out will be impeached because foreign policy is nothing more than a giant game of quid pro quo for political benefit.

k2aggie07 said:

---

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

---

This keeps getting glossed over as irrelevant. Seems relevant

Presidents withhold aid all the time, and everything they do is political. See for example Bush, Reagan, Obama all withholding aid from allies like Israel for specific reasons.

You need to establish that the aid was delayed for the intent of receiving a response.

You then need to establish what the desired response was. Then that the request was communicated. Then that the request was illegal.

I don't see where any of the links in that chain have been demonstrated. Much of the facts of the case actually contradict the necessary information there.