Flurry
Member
He said he did about 2 months ago
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
He said he did about 2 months ago
Roberts has been a huge disappointmentIt looks like Chief Roberts might have accidentally identified the whistleblower... oops!
“Chief Justice John Roberts once again rejected a question from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) since it supposedly names the impeachment whistleblower…even though supposedly NOBODY knows the identification of the whistleblower.
He asked: “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.”
Full article here.
Roberts Rejects Rand Paul's Question Again Since it Supposedly Names the Whistleblower
So do people know the whistleblower's identification? If not then let Paul ask his question.legalinsurrection.com
Rosie
Member
Not as crooked as trump? Did a decent job in Ohio.
Downeastnc
Member
At this point I think this is all smoke and mirrors, these on the fence GOP senators are asking these "tough" questions so they cans say they asked hard questions and the answers swayed them to vote no witnesses, IMO if they don't let witnesses be called it will be very bad for the GOP in the long run, 75% of people polled want to hear witnesses, the previous impeachments of presidents both had witnesses....like I said at the start the GOP will do anything to stop Bolton and friends from testifying.....
The GOP is not interested in the truth coming out because they know what that truth is and know how bad it would hurt Trump.
It it were to be 50-50, would it be possible for Roberts to break the tie with a yes for witnesses?
Downeastnc
Member
Yes he could break the tie, but I don't think he has too and could leave it locked up and then the base rule would stand ( no witnesses )
snowlover91
Member
@GaWx you should read this summary below I posted from earlier today. It’s excerpts from Jonathan Turley’s blog. He’s one of the 4 legal scholars the House had testify and gives a good analysis of things. If you’re trying to weigh the evidence presented vs how the legal system works, and not the news media bias where journalists push their agenda and are ignorant of how these things work, it’s a very good read. Basically, in a court of law the evidence presented is based mostly on speculation and third party witnesses which makes an extremely weak case from a legal standpoint.
"Among the worst decisions made by House Democrats is this: They burned through three months of investigating without even attempting to compel the testimony of key witnesses like national security advisor John Bolton. Instead, they based impeachment charges on a record largely based on the inferences of third-party witnesses.
As a result, they’re left with a record that requires a senator to decide every contested fact in the way least favorable to the president in order to establish an impeachable act. However, there are three direct conversations that directly contradict such a conclusion.
For one thing, the language of Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not state a clear quid pro quo. You have to infer that his request for a favor implied a penalty if it wasn’t fulfilled.
And then there’s the testimony about Trump’s phone calls with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Both contain express denials of any quid pro quo. One can reasonably question the veracity of such an assertion during the calls, and that’s why the testimony of first-hand witnesses would have been so important. Yet the House made no real effort to hear from key administration figures, including Bolton, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Trump counsel Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Not only has the House been curiously passive in seeking to force such testimony; it actually withdrew one of the few subpoenas facing a court ruling in the case of Charles Kupperman, Trump’s former deputy national security advisor. Kupperman was willing to testify and simply wanted court review, but the House strangely withdrew its request that he testify.
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam B. Schiff has said that requesting courts to compel testimony would take too long. But courts can sometimes work quickly. In a critical case involving Richard Nixon’s impeachment, it took just three months to go from a ruling by the District Court to a final ruling of the Supreme Court. Nixon lost and then resigned.
Given the momentousness of impeachment, taking time to build a strong case is worth some delays. Moreover, courts have already agreed to decide other cases involving the president, including the challenge over whether Trump can be compelled to turn over tax and financial records. That puts the House in the awkward position of impeaching a president for obstruction before the Supreme Court rules on key issues.
I vehemently disagree with the sweeping privilege and immunity claims made by the Trump White House. However, presidents including Barack Obama have stood behind the shield of executive privilege and have gone to court rather than turn over evidence. Both Nixon and Clinton were able to challenge such questions and receive final decisions from the Supreme Court (which ruled against them).
In racing to meet its artificial deadline of impeaching by Christmas, the House submitted a case guaranteed to fail. Rather than wait a couple months to move forward with a greatly enhanced case, the House prefers to grab what it’s got on the shelf and run with it." Source
Then there is also the added complexity of what is known as the "law of attempts." Here is an elaboration on that below.
"The law of attempts,” a category of crimes where someone is accused of contemplating, but not actually carrying out, an unlawful act. The Trump trial could be the first time the Senate considers charges that amount to allegedly conceiving, but then abandoning, an abuse of power. While it is certainly true that there was a temporary act of “nonfeasance” in withholding the aid to Ukraine, it was ultimately released over two weeks before the deadline under federal law.
The law of attempts has long been debated, and has often favored defendants in securing lesser punishments or outright acquittals. When, in 1879, an Alaska man sent an order for 100 gallons of whiskey from California, he was charged with illegally attempting to “introduce spirituous liquors” into Alaska. A court dismissed the charge, writing, “There are a class of acts which may be fairly said to be done in pursuance of or in combination with an intent to commit a crime, but are not, in a legal sense, a part of it, and therefore do not, with such intent, constitute an indictable attempt.”
That helps explain why such attempted crimes are generally punished less severely. The California Penal Code Section 664 stipulates, for example, that most attempted offenses are punishable, at most, at a level half that for a completed offense. Of course, the Senate cannot “half-remove” a president. But one of the more knotty problems facing the Senate is whether a president can be saved by what Leff called the “luck” of an alleged plan that never actually played out.
If so, the whistleblower complaint could strangely prove the luckiest break Trump ever got from the House. If Trump’s critics are right, it was the complaint that stopped an attempt from becoming a completed abuse of office.
Not everyone sees a foiled attempt as a reason to acquit. This perspective came up in the House impeachment hearing when Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman declared, “If the president of the United States attempts to abuse his office, that is a complete impeachable offense.” (I also testified at the hearing.)
Another witness, University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt, attempted to explain it this way: “Imagine a bank robbery. The police come and the person’s in the middle of a bank robbery. The person then drops the money and says, ‘I am going to leave without the money.’ Everybody understands that’s robbery.”
The analogy highlights the problem of what some courts call “abandonment” cases. Even if the intent of a robbery is proved, Trump never took the loot. Police do not arrest people parked in front of a bank and charge them as bank robbers based on their contemplated or thought crime.
All impeachment trials present a mixed question of both the guilt and the gravity of an alleged offense. Senators often disagree with the House about whether an act is impeachable or, if guilt is proven, whether the gravity of the act warrants removal.
Withholding the aid in the hopes of an investigation into a political opponent would be improper if proved. But the aid, in the end, was not withheld. The Senate might now have to decide whether an attempted abuse constitutes a removal offense for an American president." Source
Finally, regarding the Bolton leak from the NYT...
"The leak falls short of answering key questions that would likely have to be pursued in testimony. For example, Trump allegedly told Bolton that he wanted to “continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens,” the New York Times reported.
That still leaves the question of intent. Trump has never denied asking for the investigations, but insisted that they were meant to deal with his concerns over ongoing corruption in Ukraine. Moreover, the first of the two investigations could not be a basis for impeachment. Trump asked for assistance in investigating allegations into the 2016 election — matters that were currently being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham. It is the Biden investigation that raises legitimate questions, but it comes down again to a question of intent. Finally, the leak refers to the freeze on the funds but does not indicate that Trump was prepared to hold the aid past the deadline at the end of September. (It was released on September 11th.).
"Among the worst decisions made by House Democrats is this: They burned through three months of investigating without even attempting to compel the testimony of key witnesses like national security advisor John Bolton. Instead, they based impeachment charges on a record largely based on the inferences of third-party witnesses.
As a result, they’re left with a record that requires a senator to decide every contested fact in the way least favorable to the president in order to establish an impeachable act. However, there are three direct conversations that directly contradict such a conclusion.
For one thing, the language of Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not state a clear quid pro quo. You have to infer that his request for a favor implied a penalty if it wasn’t fulfilled.
And then there’s the testimony about Trump’s phone calls with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Both contain express denials of any quid pro quo. One can reasonably question the veracity of such an assertion during the calls, and that’s why the testimony of first-hand witnesses would have been so important. Yet the House made no real effort to hear from key administration figures, including Bolton, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Trump counsel Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Not only has the House been curiously passive in seeking to force such testimony; it actually withdrew one of the few subpoenas facing a court ruling in the case of Charles Kupperman, Trump’s former deputy national security advisor. Kupperman was willing to testify and simply wanted court review, but the House strangely withdrew its request that he testify.
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam B. Schiff has said that requesting courts to compel testimony would take too long. But courts can sometimes work quickly. In a critical case involving Richard Nixon’s impeachment, it took just three months to go from a ruling by the District Court to a final ruling of the Supreme Court. Nixon lost and then resigned.
Given the momentousness of impeachment, taking time to build a strong case is worth some delays. Moreover, courts have already agreed to decide other cases involving the president, including the challenge over whether Trump can be compelled to turn over tax and financial records. That puts the House in the awkward position of impeaching a president for obstruction before the Supreme Court rules on key issues.
I vehemently disagree with the sweeping privilege and immunity claims made by the Trump White House. However, presidents including Barack Obama have stood behind the shield of executive privilege and have gone to court rather than turn over evidence. Both Nixon and Clinton were able to challenge such questions and receive final decisions from the Supreme Court (which ruled against them).
In racing to meet its artificial deadline of impeaching by Christmas, the House submitted a case guaranteed to fail. Rather than wait a couple months to move forward with a greatly enhanced case, the House prefers to grab what it’s got on the shelf and run with it." Source
Then there is also the added complexity of what is known as the "law of attempts." Here is an elaboration on that below.
"The law of attempts,” a category of crimes where someone is accused of contemplating, but not actually carrying out, an unlawful act. The Trump trial could be the first time the Senate considers charges that amount to allegedly conceiving, but then abandoning, an abuse of power. While it is certainly true that there was a temporary act of “nonfeasance” in withholding the aid to Ukraine, it was ultimately released over two weeks before the deadline under federal law.
The law of attempts has long been debated, and has often favored defendants in securing lesser punishments or outright acquittals. When, in 1879, an Alaska man sent an order for 100 gallons of whiskey from California, he was charged with illegally attempting to “introduce spirituous liquors” into Alaska. A court dismissed the charge, writing, “There are a class of acts which may be fairly said to be done in pursuance of or in combination with an intent to commit a crime, but are not, in a legal sense, a part of it, and therefore do not, with such intent, constitute an indictable attempt.”
That helps explain why such attempted crimes are generally punished less severely. The California Penal Code Section 664 stipulates, for example, that most attempted offenses are punishable, at most, at a level half that for a completed offense. Of course, the Senate cannot “half-remove” a president. But one of the more knotty problems facing the Senate is whether a president can be saved by what Leff called the “luck” of an alleged plan that never actually played out.
If so, the whistleblower complaint could strangely prove the luckiest break Trump ever got from the House. If Trump’s critics are right, it was the complaint that stopped an attempt from becoming a completed abuse of office.
Not everyone sees a foiled attempt as a reason to acquit. This perspective came up in the House impeachment hearing when Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman declared, “If the president of the United States attempts to abuse his office, that is a complete impeachable offense.” (I also testified at the hearing.)
Another witness, University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt, attempted to explain it this way: “Imagine a bank robbery. The police come and the person’s in the middle of a bank robbery. The person then drops the money and says, ‘I am going to leave without the money.’ Everybody understands that’s robbery.”
The analogy highlights the problem of what some courts call “abandonment” cases. Even if the intent of a robbery is proved, Trump never took the loot. Police do not arrest people parked in front of a bank and charge them as bank robbers based on their contemplated or thought crime.
All impeachment trials present a mixed question of both the guilt and the gravity of an alleged offense. Senators often disagree with the House about whether an act is impeachable or, if guilt is proven, whether the gravity of the act warrants removal.
Withholding the aid in the hopes of an investigation into a political opponent would be improper if proved. But the aid, in the end, was not withheld. The Senate might now have to decide whether an attempted abuse constitutes a removal offense for an American president." Source
Finally, regarding the Bolton leak from the NYT...
"The leak falls short of answering key questions that would likely have to be pursued in testimony. For example, Trump allegedly told Bolton that he wanted to “continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens,” the New York Times reported.
That still leaves the question of intent. Trump has never denied asking for the investigations, but insisted that they were meant to deal with his concerns over ongoing corruption in Ukraine. Moreover, the first of the two investigations could not be a basis for impeachment. Trump asked for assistance in investigating allegations into the 2016 election — matters that were currently being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham. It is the Biden investigation that raises legitimate questions, but it comes down again to a question of intent. Finally, the leak refers to the freeze on the funds but does not indicate that Trump was prepared to hold the aid past the deadline at the end of September. (It was released on September 11th.).
Downeastnc
Member
Snow all the more reason to have them witnesses huh.....also those analogies are not really what happened, the ask is illegal and it doesn't matter if its on hold 1 min or 1 year....its like saying if you meet up with a hitman to plot killing someone and then change your mind but it turns out that hitman was a undercover cop you not going to get in trouble cause you cancel the hit....and lets be real the only reason Trump released it when he did is he got caught.
Trump abused the power of his office, its impeachable, the GOP is preventing the witnesses that can directly speak to Trump's intent.....because they know that Trump's intent was unethical and illegal.....but don't worry it looks like the GOP senators are going to cave and not have a spine and let this end without even hearing those witnesses to get to the truth even though 75% of the people want witnesses.....
Trump abused the power of his office, its impeachable, the GOP is preventing the witnesses that can directly speak to Trump's intent.....because they know that Trump's intent was unethical and illegal.....but don't worry it looks like the GOP senators are going to cave and not have a spine and let this end without even hearing those witnesses to get to the truth even though 75% of the people want witnesses.....
snowlover91
Member
Sorry man but Turbin is a legal scholar, his knowledge of the law and process is far above yours and mine and he makes it crystal clear why there is incredible difficulty in cases of abandonment and also that the evidence is extremely weak.
My view on the witnesses is that the House should have done their job and called them, gotten subpoenas, etc to present a strong case. Instead they rushed the process and had very little evidence and the little they did have is all hearsay and speculation which won’t convict someone in a court of law, let alone when discussing the serious task of impeachment. Since the House failed to do their job it’s an extremely weak case, and politically motivated, that the House brought and needs to end. If they want to get Bolton and others let them open another inquiry and build a solid case first, if there’s even anything there.
I love how everyone is blaming the lack of witnesses on the Senate when the issue is with the House. They RUSHED this politically motivated impeachment through and didn’t do a thorough job. Turley and other legal scholars absolutely dismantle the sloppy and lazy job the House did. You won’t hear that on CNN or other news outlets but it’s the reality of the situation. The one person they had that could have been a key witness they WITHDREW their request for him to testify and their two star witnesses both said no quid pro quo and everything else they said was “speculation” and assumptions.
Again, from a legal standpoint free of political bias or feelings, various legal scholars are saying the evidence presented favors an acquittal of Trump because you have to have very strong first hand witnesses and other evidence to convict and there is NONE. There is no quid pro quo and no abuse of power (a broad and vague term btw, read up on the legal issues with that one).
I get it, you and many others hate Trump and want him removed. You’re bitter that the GOP won’t remove him. But remember this too, in America you are INNOCENT until proven guilty which is fundamental in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, the House failed to provide any evidence that would hold in a court of law therefore Trump should be presumed innocent and acquitted on that basis. The House acted as the prosecution and failed miserably, time to close this thing out.
NCSNOW
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2016
- Messages
- 9,546
- Reaction score
- 18,993
Latest Gallup Poll shows Americans are through the roof Optimistic on Economy,Race Relations, National Security, Economy,Peace and Prosperity . Almost every category there is to list.
15 to 35% bump in all categories from 3 years ago.
15 to 35% bump in all categories from 3 years ago.
snowlover91
Member
Must be thanks to Obama, we know Trump can’t have anything to do with those positive feelings.
This thread is a sad dumpster fire of people some how explaining their support for a vile wannabe fascist who is unfit to wash my car (no offense to anyone who washes cars). His defense in his impeachment trial is "if the president thinks it's good for the country, anything he does in support of that is legal and fine." I mean, that's a joke, everyone can see that, right? I guess some people choose to ignore, but I don't see how anyone couldn't see just what a joke that defense is.
Downeastnc
Member
If they had gone the subpoena route it would be tied up in the courts until Nov 2020, there is also the McGahn case which is setting the precedent so there is no need for 10 duplicate cases on the books trying to get sorted out.
Trump's team defense is a horrible precedent to be set and trust me when it comes back around when the Dems are in charge and you and others cry out about it I will remind you that its the GOP's fault that the twisted logic they are using was set by the GOP. The right thing to do in every case is get to the truth, I don't care what the House did or did not do, if there is information that could shed light on the facts of this case and the Senate chooses to not explore that then they are doing a disservice to the Constitution and the people of this country....Party does NOT come first, anyone advocating for no witnesses is saying they don't care what the truth is....they are saying it does not matter if the president acted illegally and unethically, this will all come back to bite the GOP squarely in the ass....
snowlover91
Member
Lol there’s 0 evidence from Bolton’s manuscript and statements he’s said that would indicate he has anything on Trump. This entire process is politically motivated and part of the campaign started 3 years ago to oust Trump. First it was Russia and when that failed then Ukraine. I have no doubt the democrats will try one more time right before the election out of desperation. The House has a key witness who could testify btw but they withdrew their request. Turley noted how incredibly strange that was. The House did a incredibly poor job, legal scholars have made that strikingly clear, and there’s probably a reason they were so sloppy too (as in no real case/evidence, just hate for trump and to appease their base by saying they impeached him).
Regarding getting the truth, I see 0 reason for additional witnesses to drag this out. The Ukrainian president said no pressure, Sondland and the other star witness said no quid pro quo, and the alleged crime never even occurred. Bolton’s manuscript leak didn’t tell us anything new or warrant concern. I simply don’t see anything worthy of dragging this out any longer and there is nothing to suggest Trump acted illegally. Trump should be acquitted tomorrow and rightfully so based on the lazy, sloppy case presented by the democrats. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.
Read some of the other stuff I posted today regarding Trumps defense team, specifically what Dershowitz said. His statement was ripped out of context and he later clarified the context and thrust of his argument. It’s worth reading up on because all the main news outlets missed the point of his argument completely and mischaracterized it.
Downeastnc
Member
Come on man Sondland said he presumed based on all the evidence that Trump wanted QPQ, I mean obviously Trump when asked directly is going to say no QPQ, Taylor, Volker, Hill etc all paint a very clear picture of what was going on, Trump's people buried the call illegally on a secure server, the lead WH consul was telling people to not discuss the July call, Trump has prevented any information and documents from being accessed, these are actions innocent people DO NOT DO.....there is a lot of willful ignorance by the Trump faithful concerning the MOUNTAIN of evidence the House has.
Bolton's manuscript absolutely does tell us something new, it is a first hand account that Trump said that he was withholding aid to get them to go after the Biden's.....one of the premises of the GOP's entire defense is no first hand accounts.....Bolton provides that....thus the desperate need to prevent him and others from testifying.
Dershowitz was not taken out of context that was literally their argument....as long as the president thinks he is acting in the countries best interest he can do anything unethical etc.....its disgusting. The problem is the country has become so tribalized that party comes first, whether you or other Trump supports will admit it or not if this was Obama in the exact same positions as Trump, using the exact same arguments you would be demanding he be removed, demanding that witnesses be allowed etc.....that is the problem with the entire nation now.
The House tried to get Bolton but he threatened to sue and hold everything up.
Downeastnc
Member
Looks like unless something unexpected happens the GOP will prevent any witnesses from being called, looks like Romney and Collins will vote for witnesses , Alexander in a crazy statement says the House proved their case and he thinks Trump is probably guilty but its not impeachable and so votes no for witnesses so that is odd, so really that leave Murkowski who is a question mark but even if she votes for witnesses that leave it at 50-50, they would need another Rep to vote with them and there does not appear to be anyone else....Roberts would probably abstain from casting the tie breaker meaning no witnesses, but if I had to guess Murkowski votes no making it 51-49 to prevent putting Roberts in that position. Hopefully this a rope a dope and the GOP finds enough to get witnesses but its pretty doubtful.
Trump and his supporters will treat this as a victory but it is going to fire the Dem base up and hurt Trump bigly with independents and moderates. Then I suspect the House will call Bolton and Parnas to open sessions and when all the details come out and show just how far down the corruption rabbit hole Trump and friends are its going to make them all look very bad.....
In the end this will be treated as a big win for Trump and party politics and the Trumpers will be glad they stuck it to the libtards, the losers will be the rule of law and Constitution as Trump continues to successfully destroy the separation of power....the GOP will rue the day they set this precedent.
Trump and his supporters will treat this as a victory but it is going to fire the Dem base up and hurt Trump bigly with independents and moderates. Then I suspect the House will call Bolton and Parnas to open sessions and when all the details come out and show just how far down the corruption rabbit hole Trump and friends are its going to make them all look very bad.....
In the end this will be treated as a big win for Trump and party politics and the Trumpers will be glad they stuck it to the libtards, the losers will be the rule of law and Constitution as Trump continues to successfully destroy the separation of power....the GOP will rue the day they set this precedent.
Last edited:
snowlover91
Member
Johnson and Sondland both directly said there was no QPQ; it doesn't matter what they "speculated" and "assumed" because those things don't hold up in a court of law. Zelensky said no pressure and Taylor, Volker and Hill also painted a picture full of speculation, assumptions, etc with no concrete evidence. Trump exercising his constitutional right to prevent documents from being accessed also does not mean he is guilty either. These are not PROOFS of guilt, they are assumptions you are making because you think he is guilty. In a court of law you need actual proof. Let's look at what some of the witnesses said.
Yovanovich
“Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?” Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah asked during her hearing.
“No,” Yovanovitch said.
“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?”
“No.”
How about Volker and Morrison?
“In no way, shape or form in either readouts from the United States or Ukraine did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo, is that correct?” Republican counsel Stephen Castor asked Volker.
“That’s correct,” Volker said. “I was never involved in anything that I would consider to be bribery at all…or extortion.”
Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California also posed the same question to Volker and Morrison, who were testifying together.
“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?” asked Nunes.
“No,” said Morrison.
“No,” said Volker.
What about Sondland?
Sondland, however, who had changed his testimony several times since the start of the impeachment process, offered no hard evidence to prove his claim and admitted during his testimony that his conclusion was based entirely on presumptions. Sondland was also asked during the hearing whether anyone told Sondland that the military aid was contingent on any political investigations.
“Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct?” Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio asked the ambassador.
“That’s correct,” Sondland said.
Sondland further conceded that Trump explicitly told the ambassador that he wanted “no quid pro quo.” Source
Regarding Bolton's manuscript, it actually doesn't tell us anything new. The "bombshell" was quoted by the NYT that Trump wanted to "continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.” From a legal perspective here is how that holds up "That still leaves the question of intent. Trump has never denied asking for the investigations, but insisted that they were meant to deal with his concerns over ongoing corruption in Ukraine. Moreover, the first of the two investigations could not be a basis for impeachment.Trump asked for assistance in investigating allegations into the 2016 election — matters that were currently being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham. It is the Biden investigation that raises legitimate questions, but it comes down again to a question of intent. Finally, the leak refers to the freeze on the funds but does not indicate that Trump was prepared to hold the aid past the deadline at the end of September. (It was released on September 11th.)
Regarding Dershowitz, no his argument was ripped out of context, here's a succinct summary that demonstrates the context of his argument and why it's nothing like what the mainstream news depicted it as. He also later clarified this exact concept was what he intended to convey.
"What these breathless accounts of Dershowitz’s words have in common is just how wrong they are. Let’s look at the quote in question. He says, “If the president does something that he thinks will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” The context here matters a lot, and in fairness Dershowitz could have been a bit clearer. In fact, he did clarify his remarks in the evening session of senators’ questions.
Prior to this selection of his statements, Dershowitz laid out three types of motives the president could have had for his actions. First, one purely and solely concerned with the national interest, second one in which his motive also includes his electoral interests, and third one in which personal gain is his only motivation. In the quote in question, he was talking directly about that second possibility, which he would later describe as “mixed motives.”
This is extremely important because Dershowitz is predicating his argument that the president may act in the interest of his own electoral chances but only if he believes those actions to be in the broader national interest. Dershowitz is not saying that the president could kill a political rival and it wouldn’t be impeachable if he thought that killing was in the national interest. First of all, murder is a crime, and there is no crime alleged in the impeachment, which lies at the heart of Dershowitz’s broader constitutional argument.
What Dershowitz is saying is that when a president is faced with a lawful policy choice that may benefit him politically, he is not barred from making that choice on the basis that it could help him. Politicians do this all the time." Source
snowlover91
Member
Regardless of what he threatened they should have pursued it if they wanted to do a thorough investigation and truly believed Trump was guilty. The fact they didn't and that they dropped Kupperman when he would have been a key witness is strange to say the least.
- Status