Gary Johnson said:

---

My basis is we would have heard about it by now, loudly proclaimed by Trump or at least a strategic leak. And that officials who would know, aka Lindsey Graham, have publicly called for one.

You have no basis to claim that there is.

---

Yes. The basis is that Joe Biden used foreign aid to pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that had a lingering investigation into Burisma, the company who paid Hunter Biden 50k/month.

You can claim its debunked, but you have the exchange of money and possible official actions by a government employee. You know, the things you need for actual bribery. Its possible Biden is innocent, but that is plenty to "open an investigation"

****, Obama open an investigation based on "salacious and unverified' rumors paid for by the DNC. Opening the investigation wasn't the illegal part.

Quote:

---

An investigation into possible corruption by the former VP who is running for President is in the national interest.

---

It's not in the national interest if it's an obvious hack fringe theory that contradicts known facts. Then it's just a PR stunt. Shokin was corrupt and protecting Burisma, if anything Biden's actions endangered Zlochevsky.

"I think there should be an investigation" very different claim than "there is an investigation".

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

An investigation into possible corruption by the former VP who is running for President is in the national interest.

---

It's not in the national interest if it's an obvious hack fringe theory that contradicts known facts. Then it's just a PR stunt. Shokin was corrupt and protecting Burisma, if anything Biden's actions endangered Zlochevsky.

---

Shokin signed an affidavit claiming he was fired for his burisma work. Maybe he is lying. But once again it's evidence worth investigating.

Even if he was an ally of Burisma, the fact Bidens were on both sides of the relationship is the reason it's considered unethical at the very least. Biden did this to himself.

Gary Johnson said:

---

"I think there should be an investigation" very different claim than "there is an investigation".

---

Trump directing Ukraine to talk with Barr suggests an investigation is open.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Deats: I would very glad to see the WB and the ICIG publicly testify. It would greatly strengthen the case for impeachment and removal and it would increase public support for removing Trump from office.

However, the existing federal whistleblower law protects a WB's identity if a WB wishes to remain anonymous. There are sound reasons for this.

The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' legal concept is a 4A issue in criminal court cases. If you wish to explain why you think the WB complaint filed with the ICIG has any relevance to the HoR impeachment investigation, please do.

---

You have one major problem, he's not a whistleblower. His 2nd hand leaking doesn't fall under the whistleblower act or purview. Feel free to prove it wrong.

will25u said:

---

---

Hmm!

RGLAG85 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Deats: I would very glad to see the WB and the ICIG publicly testify. It would greatly strengthen the case for impeachment and removal and it would increase public support for removing Trump from office.

However, the existing federal whistleblower law protects a WB's identity if a WB wishes to remain anonymous. There are sound reasons for this.

The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' legal concept is a 4A issue in criminal court cases. If you wish to explain why you think the WB complaint filed with the ICIG has any relevance to the HoR impeachment investigation, please do.

---

You have one major problem, he's not a whistleblower. His 2nd hand leaking doesn't fall under the whistleblower act or purview. Feel free to prove it wrong.

---

ICIG.

Damn this is easy.

hbtheduce said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

"I think there should be an investigation" very different claim than "there is an investigation".

---

Trump directing Ukraine to talk with Barr suggests an investigation is open.

---

For purposes of the 2016 election investigation nothing to do with either Biden.

With respect to the Biden's, Trump has denied pressuring Barr to investigate them and AG spokesperson denied it . Which means he probably did at some point.

MetoliusAg said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Deats: I would very glad to see the WB and the ICIG publicly testify. It would greatly strengthen the case for impeachment and removal and it would increase public support for removing Trump from office.

However, the existing federal whistleblower law protects a WB's identity if a WB wishes to remain anonymous. There are sound reasons for this.

The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' legal concept is a 4A issue in criminal court cases. If you wish to explain why you think the WB complaint filed with the ICIG has any relevance to the HoR impeachment investigation, please do.

---

You have one major problem, he's not a whistleblower. His 2nd hand leaking doesn't fall under the whistleblower act or purview. Feel free to prove it wrong.

---

ICIG.

Damn this is easy.

---

Which pertains to the intelligence community and protecting whistleblowing within the intelligence community. The Executive branch isn't part of the intelligence community nor is the legislative or judicial branch.

That was easy!

People within Trump's own team urged him to drop the Ukraine nonsense

Quote:

---

In the past, many of his advisers tried to redirect Trump. They urged the President to accept the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies

President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was "completely debunked"

---

Quote:

---

Few people, even those closest to him in the White House, grasped exactly what the President of the United States seemed to believe: that Ukraine, a nation consumed over the past five years by a crippling armed conflict with Russia, had found a way to conspire against him during the 2016 election.

Meanwhile, Giuliani has drawn on a network of sources, including a former prosecutor in Kiev, a wanted fugitive in Vienna and a pair of Russian-speaking businessmen in Miami in pursuit of Trump's theories.

---

Tarantino movie

https://time.com/5691641/trump-conspiracy-fears/

Gary Johnson said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

"I think there should be an investigation" very different claim than "there is an investigation".

---

Trump directing Ukraine to talk with Barr suggests an investigation is open.

---

For purposes of the 2016 election investigation nothing to do with either Biden.

With respect to the Biden's, Trump has denied pressuring Barr to investigate them and AG spokesperson denied it . Which means he probably did at some point.

---

"That Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

Gary Johnson said:

---

People within Trump's own team urged him to drop the Ukraine nonsense

Quote:

---

In the past, many of his advisers tried to redirect Trump. They urged the President to accept the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies

President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was "completely debunked"

---

Quote:

---

Few people, even those closest to him in the White House, grasped exactly what the President of the United States seemed to believe: that Ukraine, a nation consumed over the past five years by a crippling armed conflict with Russia, had found a way to conspire against him during the 2016 election.

Meanwhile, Giuliani has drawn on a network of sources, including a former prosecutor in Kiev, a wanted fugitive in Vienna and a pair of Russian-speaking businessmen in Miami in pursuit of Trump's theories.

---

Tarantino movie

https://time.com/5691641/trump-conspiracy-fears/

---

You're quoting Time?

It's 8:30 AM on November 6, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is STILL the POTUS and............




Jeffrey Eptstein STILL didn't kill himself.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Geezus. After reading Sondland's revisions to his earlier testimony, it's clear his attny Robert Luskin and/or Sondland's GOP & Dem friends in Oregon had a frank talk w/Sondland about how cold it gets sitting in a federal prison cell for several months.

---

You clearly struggle with reading comprehension...

POTUS clearly stated, as attested to by Sondland, that there was NO QPQ...

That is on the record...

Sorry it sucks for your argument, but it is in black and white...

FireAg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Geezus. After reading Sondland's revisions to his earlier testimony, it's clear his attny Robert Luskin and/or Sondland's GOP & Dem friends in Oregon had a frank talk w/Sondland about how cold it gets sitting in a federal prison cell for several months.

---

You clearly struggle with reading comprehension...

POTUS clearly stated, as attested to by Sondland, that there was NO QPQ...

That is on the record...

Sorry it sucks for your argument, but it is in black and white...

---

Sondland changed his story.

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

nmag34 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Geezus. After reading Sondland's revisions to his earlier testimony, it's clear his attny Robert Luskin and/or Sondland's GOP & Dem friends in Oregon had a frank talk w/Sondland about how cold it gets sitting in a federal prison cell for several months.

---

You clearly struggle with reading comprehension...

POTUS clearly stated, as attested to by Sondland, that there was NO QPQ...

That is on the record...

Sorry it sucks for your argument, but it is in black and white...

---

Sondland changed his story.

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

---

FireAg said:

---

But he did not change his assertion that POTUS said what he said...

He modified what his assumptions were later, but those are Sondland's assumptions, not the words of POTUS...

Try to keep up...

---

Saying "no quid pro quo" negates the fact that all of his subordinates assumed the president meant a quid pro quo based on all of his other statements?

That's an absurd defense.

Trump can use contradictory language, but his intent has been substantiated by his subordinates.

nmag34 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But he did not change his assertion that POTUS said what he said...

He modified what his assumptions were later, but those are Sondland's assumptions, not the words of POTUS...

Try to keep up...

---

Saying "no quid pro quo" negates the fact that all of his subordinates assumed the president meant a quid pro quo based on all of his other statements?

That's an absurd defense.

Trump can use contradictory language, but his intent has been substantiated by his subordinates.

---

Intent? Are we the thought police now?

nmag34 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But he did not change his assertion that POTUS said what he said...

He modified what his assumptions were later, but those are Sondland's assumptions, not the words of POTUS...

Try to keep up...

---

Saying "no quid pro quo" negates the fact that all of his subordinates assumed the president meant a quid pro quo based on all of his other statements?

That's an absurd defense.

Trump can use contradictory language, but his intent has been substantiated by his subordinates.

---

It absolutely does not negate a damn thing...

Assumptions are not proof of crimes or wrong-doing...

Give me facts...

"You have long hair and wear hemp-fiber clothing...I assume you smoke weed so you are under arrest and going to jail for weed..."

Thank GOD our judicial system doesn't actually work on 'assumption of guilt'...

FireAg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Geezus. After reading Sondland's revisions to his earlier testimony, it's clear his attny Robert Luskin and/or Sondland's GOP & Dem friends in Oregon had a frank talk w/Sondland about how cold it gets sitting in a federal prison cell for several months.

---

You clearly struggle with reading comprehension...

POTUS clearly stated, as attested to by Sondland, that there was NO QPQ...

That is on the record...

Sorry it sucks for your argument, but it is in black and white...

---

Now go read Sondland's 4 pages of subsequent corrections to his perjured testimony.

Sorry it sucks for your argument.

MetoliusAg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Geezus. After reading Sondland's revisions to his earlier testimony, it's clear his attny Robert Luskin and/or Sondland's GOP & Dem friends in Oregon had a frank talk w/Sondland about how cold it gets sitting in a federal prison cell for several months.

---

You clearly struggle with reading comprehension...

POTUS clearly stated, as attested to by Sondland, that there was NO QPQ...

That is on the record...

Sorry it sucks for your argument, but it is in black and white...

---

Now go read Sondland's 4 pages of subsequent corrections to his perjured testimony.

Sorry it sucks for your argument.

---

I have...still doesn't modify his assertion about what POTUS actually said...

Seriously, are you this dense in real life or only on this message board...

nmag34 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But he did not change his assertion that POTUS said what he said...

He modified what his assumptions were later, but those are Sondland's assumptions, not the words of POTUS...

Try to keep up...

---

Saying "no quid pro quo" negates the fact that all of his subordinates assumed the president meant a quid pro quo based on all of his other statements?

That's an absurd defense.

Trump can use contradictory language, but his intent has been substantiated by his subordinates.

---

Surely you jest.

Trump supporters: "But don't you understand? Trump said it wasn't a quid pro quo!!!!"

It's like John Gotti and Ted Bundy. John Gotti said he didn't order any killings. Ted Bundy said he didn't kill anyone.

Trump supporters who work in law enforcement: "Welp, that's it. Checkmate. Drop the charges and turn em both loose."

FireAg said:

---

nmag34 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But he did not change his assertion that POTUS said what he said...

He modified what his assumptions were later, but those are Sondland's assumptions, not the words of POTUS...

Try to keep up...

---

Saying "no quid pro quo" negates the fact that all of his subordinates assumed the president meant a quid pro quo based on all of his other statements?

That's an absurd defense.

Trump can use contradictory language, but his intent has been substantiated by his subordinates.

---

It absolutely does not negate a damn thing...

Assumptions are not proof of crimes or wrong-doing...

Give me facts...

"You have long hair and wear hemp-fiber clothing...I assume you smoke weed so you are under arrest and going to jail for weed..."

Thank GOD our judicial system doesn't actually work on 'assumption of guilt'...

---

Fact. Trump was holding up aid to Ukraine.
Fact. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.
Fact. All of Trump's ambassadors thought he wanted a quid pro quo based on the facts above in spite of the fact that he said "no quid pro quo".

Contradictory language isn't a sufficient alibi. His actions clearly indicated his intent.

ETA another log to the pile--the fact that the U.S ambassador to the Ukraine was not supportive of the first two facts and was subsequently removed from her post by Trump.

FireAg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Geezus. After reading Sondland's revisions to his earlier testimony, it's clear his attny Robert Luskin and/or Sondland's GOP & Dem friends in Oregon had a frank talk w/Sondland about how cold it gets sitting in a federal prison cell for several months.

---

You clearly struggle with reading comprehension...

POTUS clearly stated, as attested to by Sondland, that there was NO QPQ...

That is on the record...

Sorry it sucks for your argument, but it is in black and white...

---

Now go read Sondland's 4 pages of subsequent corrections to his perjured testimony.

Sorry it sucks for your argument.

---

I have...still doesn't modify his assertion about what POTUS actually said...

Seriously, are you this dense in real life or only on this message board...

---

My gawd, the irony.

That's a foolproof prosecution method. He said X so it was X. He said Y so he really meant X.

Guilty either way, right?

Deats:

Any progress yet on your explanation of why you think there's a 4A "poisoned fruit" issue which materially applies to the ongoing HoR impeachment inquiry into the WB complaint that was vetted by the ICIG ?

So assuming all your facts are correct, what is the high crime or misdemeanor?

You are getting so excited about this "evidence ". Have you really learned nothing from your past?

BQ78 said:

---

That's a foolproof prosecution method. He said X so it was X. He said Y so he really meant X.

Guilty either way, right?

So assuming all your facts are correct, what is the high crime or misdemeanor?

---

OR... he said X, but his actions are contradictory to X. He said X, but all of his actions support Y. Everyone else thinks he wants Y. He's happy when we do things that support Y. He fired that girl that didn't support Y.

I think he meant Y.

Alleged crimes: Title 18 U.S. Code 872: Extortion by officers or employees of the United States., Title 2 U.S. Code 192, Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers, Title 18 U.S. Code 610.Coercion of political activity, Title 18 U.S. Code 600.Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.

MetoliusAg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Geezus. After reading Sondland's revisions to his earlier testimony, it's clear his attny Robert Luskin and/or Sondland's GOP & Dem friends in Oregon had a frank talk w/Sondland about how cold it gets sitting in a federal prison cell for several months.

---

You clearly struggle with reading comprehension...

POTUS clearly stated, as attested to by Sondland, that there was NO QPQ...

That is on the record...

Sorry it sucks for your argument, but it is in black and white...

---

Now go read Sondland's 4 pages of subsequent corrections to his perjured testimony.

Sorry it sucks for your argument.

---

Actually it sucks for yours.

This new information has changed probability of a Senate conviction from 0.0% to 0.0%.

Quote:

---

Contradictory language isn't a sufficient alibi. His actions clearly indicated his intent.

---

That's the problem with Trump, though. What he says and then what he does are not always the same. The aid and then some was provided to Ukraine within the designated time frame.

Zelensky got what he wanted, recall of an ambassador* that he was leery of and didn't trust, a joint presser with Trump during the UNGA meeting. The Javelins and other aid.

What did Trump get, other than a massive headache? Nothing.

*What stood out to me from Yovanovitch's testimony was her repeated assertion that she had no idea of what was going on prior to her recall other than a vague warning to "watch her back" from a Ukrainian Minister. And that was after Zelensky had won in a landslide and Trump had made a congratulatory call. Notably, she was not provided a read out of that call whether that was because of a request from Zelensky or not, we do not know. She was aware that Lutsenko had been telling bad stories about her yet did nothing to push back against it. Rudy wasn't the only one Lutsenko was talking to either. Zelensky was also hearing the same things about Yovanovitch. Whether it was true or not, is kind of beside the point. The perception was out there and her effectiveness going forward had been damaged. End of story. A life long diplomat should have understood that, like Volker did when he submitted his resignation to Pompeo. His effectiveness was going to be affected by his involvement in this Ukrainian embroglio and he resigned because he believed he could no longer be of service to Pompeo vis a vis Ukraine.

Do our resident concerned moderates actually think there is a snowball's chance in hell the Senate will remove Trump?