Legal experts summoned by Democrats call Trump actions impeachable

[mogandave]

On 12/5/2019 at 5:56 PM, J Town said:

The three legal scholars were the only ones who used facts. The fourth deflected, bobbed and weaved, and spewed nonsense to provide Fox Viewers the out-of-context sound bites.

including the “expert” that lied and said Nixon sent burglars to the Watergate?

 

  

[Slickrick]

And the Dem circus continues while Pelosi keeps the spin going.

[JHolmesJr]

2 hours ago, J Town said:

On this you warp the narrative. Let's be clear - can you answer these two questions:

 

1. Do you acknowledge Trump called the Ukraine president and ask him to say on television that the Ukraine was performing an investigation into Biden corruption? (Trump already admitted this)

 

2. Do you find it acceptable for a U.S. president to request a foreign nation get involved in an American election?

 

Forget the money, forget the lawyer nonsense on either side, forget the "quid pro quo." These two questions get to the core of unpatriotic behavior. Are you OK with this?

 

Art 2, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution empowers the President to investigate and ask for investigations of corruption in countries the US provide funds to.

 

(Regardless of who thinks its been investigated and debunked...LOL)

[Sujo]

23 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

It's on to the Senate folks.... and Nadler, who schiff has handed things over to, is, I have to be careful here as the admins are pretty sensititive to adjectives so I will remain polite, ????????, is an even less intelligent being that Schiff. Nadler, sensing the fact that this Ukraine gait hoax is over, is making the disastrous mistake of dragging in the now discredited Russia-Gait hoax argument in which he is actually diluted enough to think he can gin up the Ukraine-hoax and try to make it look stronger before he goes to the Senate. This will be a huge gift to the Republicans. Imagine subpeonas for Hunter Biden, Chulupa, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele (the fake Steele Dossier), Bruce ore, Lisa page, Peter Struck, Andrew McCabe, Halper, Etc., Etc., all subject to cross examination... it will be MSM ratings Gold. A real circus side show. The Democrats will get slaughtered at the ballot box, the next vote they are going to get slaughtered if they take this all the way to the Senate. 

Do you want to call anyone with direct evidence to this investigation?

 

Trump, mulvaney, pompeo, perry, giuliano?

 

As an aside, giuliano is back in ukraine trying to drum up dirt again. But the big power boys there dont want to know him.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Art 2, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution empowers the President to investigate and ask for investigations of corruption in countries the US provide funds to.

 

(Regardless of who thinks its been investigated and debunked...LOL)

The constitution does not allow a president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival.

 

No legal scholar denies this fact.

[Tounge Thaied]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

The constitution does not allow a president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival.

 

No legal scholar denies this fact.

What part of any of the conversations with Zelensky confirm a request to investigate a political rival? If you read the phone call transcripts... there is no such a request. If that is what you are claiming, then provide your evidence for this. I will submit now, there is none. If there had been this direct evidence, we would have seen it presented by the dems by now. 

[RideJocky]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The constitution does not allow a president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival.

 

No legal scholar denies this fact.

Where does it specifically say he can’t? 
 

 

[RideJocky]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No legal scholar denies this fact.

You speak for all “legal scholars”? 

[JHolmesJr]

19 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The constitution does not allow a president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival.

 

No legal scholar denies this fact.

 

The matter out of your hands now....Justice Roberts will adjudicate.

The Senate will call witnesses who will prove the Bidens warrant investigation.

The senators will then vote to exonerate President Trump.

 

Being a potential candidate does not provide immunity if you have been involved in shady business.

 

[Sujo]

24 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

You speak for all “legal scholars”? 

Yes, unless you can find one that says otherwise. Even the repub professor called to testify never said it.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

The matter out of your hands now....Justice Roberts will adjudicate.

The Senate will call witnesses who will prove the Bidens warrant investigation.

The senators will then vote to exonerate President Trump.

 

Being a potential candidate does not provide immunity if you have been involved in shady business.

 

Not one person has said biden cannot be investigated.

 

But the president cannot ask a foreign govt to investigate a rival.

[Cryingdick]

9 hours ago, Sujo said:

So why are you posting in a thai forum. Stay away.

 

This is world news I rarely post in Thai specific subforms. Sometimes the pub. It is somewhat my duty to add an American on the ground in America view point by somebody who isn't living in an echo chamber.

[Tounge Thaied]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Not one person has said biden cannot be investigated.

 

But the president cannot ask a foreign govt to investigate a rival.

If you read the transcript, it is not a request to investigate a political rival. It is a request to investigate an actual Quid pro quo. You have to put the request into its proper context. There is no request to investigate a political rival. It is a request to look into the fact that the Bidens are on the take in Ukraine. 

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

If you read the transcript, it is not a request to investigate a political rival. It is a request to investigate an actual Quid pro quo. You have to put the request into its proper context. There is no request to investigate a political rival. It is a request to look into the fact that the Bidens are on the take in Ukraine. 

Biden, who is a political rival. And its not a full transcript

[Tounge Thaied]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Biden, who is a political rival.

That's certainly debatable. But is not the point. The context of the conversation with Zelinsky had nothing to do with any future politics it had everything to do with the Bidens being on the take in the Ukraine. 

[RideJocky]

28 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes, unless you can find one that says otherwise. Even the repub professor called to testify never said it.

 

 

You made the statement, you should either substantiate it or take it back. 

 

None of the professors that testified were republicans. 

 

”Often wrong, never in doubt.” 
 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Art 2, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution empowers the President to investigate and ask for investigations of corruption in countries the US provide funds to.

 

(Regardless of who thinks its been investigated and debunked...LOL)

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

??????????

[Jingthing]

40 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

That's certainly debatable. But is not the point. The context of the conversation with Zelinsky had nothing to do with any future politics it had everything to do with the Bidens being on the take in the Ukraine. 

It's debatable that Biden is a political rival of 45? Come on man!  Smell the reality. 

[RideJocky]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's debatable that Biden is a political rival of 45? Come on man!  Smell the reality. 

In the same way that Bloomberg is his  rival. 

[JHolmesJr]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Not one person has said biden cannot be investigated.

 

But the president cannot ask a foreign govt to investigate a rival.

 

Im going to put myself in the robes of Justice Roberts for a minute.

 

On one hand, Art 2, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution says the President is allowed to investigate and ask for investigations of corruption in countries the US provide funds to. This is incontrovertible, beyond dispute.

 

On the other hand, the Dems are saying it is improper (not criminal or illegal...but improper) for their most hated political rival, the current U.S. president, to ask a foreign government to look into the prima facie corrupt behaviour the former VP during past years.

 

The founders must be spinning in their graves....in their widest dreams, they might never have imagined that a US vice-president of a previous administration could ever be potentially mired in corruption, bribery and extortion...which might lead the the next US president to simultaneously exercise his constitutional duties...as well as fall foul of Congress. 

 

If I were exercising judgement, I would have to look at the Bidens' complete history from all parties under oath, and then determine whether Trump was justified in asking Ukraine to look at him.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341 

 

"History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him."

 

 

 

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Not one person has said biden cannot be investigated.

 

But the president cannot ask a foreign govt to investigate a rival.

But he can sure discuss it with Ukraine's head of state to see if there is cause and stature for the executive branch request a formal criminal investigation under the US-Ukraine Treaty. Who do you think runs the Executive Branch?

 

Thank goodness for John Roberts, last sane man standing.

 

[Credo]

9 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Im going to put myself in the robes of Justice Roberts for a minute.

 

On one hand, Art 2, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution says the President is allowed to investigate and ask for investigations of corruption in countries the US provide funds to. This is incontrovertible, beyond dispute.

 

On the other hand, the Dems are saying it is improper (not criminal or illegal...but improper) for their most hated political rival, the current U.S. president, to ask a foreign government to look into the prima facie corrupt behaviour the former VP during past years.

 

The founders must be spinning in their graves....in their widest dreams, they might never have imagined that a US vice-president of a previous administration could ever be potentially mired in corruption, bribery and extortion...which might lead the the next US president to simultaneously exercise his constitutional duties...as well as fall foul of Congress. 

 

If I were exercising judgement, I would have to look at the Bidens' complete history from all parties under oath, and then determine whether Trump was justified in asking Ukraine to look at him.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341 

 

"History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him."

 

 

 

I think you can take the robe off and do some reading.   He didn't actually call for an investigation, only publicly announce that there was one......reason?   To discredit Biden.   

Second, there is the pesky little problem of Trump withholding funds already appropriated.   

 

[candide]

4 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Im going to put myself in the robes of Justice Roberts for a minute.

 

On one hand, Art 2, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution says the President is allowed to investigate and ask for investigations of corruption in countries the US provide funds to. This is incontrovertible, beyond dispute.

 

On the other hand, the Dems are saying it is improper (not criminal or illegal...but improper) for their most hated political rival, the current U.S. president, to ask a foreign government to look into the prima facie corrupt behaviour the former VP during past years.

 

The founders must be spinning in their graves....in their widest dreams, they might never have imagined that a US vice-president of a previous administration could ever be potentially mired in corruption, bribery and extortion...which might lead the the next US president to simultaneously exercise his constitutional duties...as well as fall foul of Congress. 

 

If I were exercising judgement, I would have to look at the Bidens' complete history from all parties under oath, and then determine whether Trump was justified in asking Ukraine to look at him.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341 

 

"History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him."

 

 

 

Ah! Ah! As often when Trumpers refer to a source, this source does not support their point. Where is it written in art 2 sec3 that a president is allowed to ask a foreign power to discredit a political opponent in the absence of any official investigation? Please cite an extract of the constitution that supports your claim!

 

As for the opinion piece you link, the article discusses the pro and cons and some conditions, so citing a part of the article does not reflect the position if the author.

 

As about Biden, you may twist it as much as you want, the fact is that there is no official investigation.

[candide]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

But he can sure discuss it with Ukraine's head of state to see if there is cause and stature for the executive branch request a formal criminal investigation under the US-Ukraine Treaty. Who do you think runs the Executive Branch?

 

Thank goodness for John Roberts, last sane man standing.

 

Sorry but your imaginary interpretation does not correspond to what he did. He precisely asked to investigate Biden and Crowdstrike according to already debunked conspiracy theories and testimonies under oath confirmed that he was actually requesting a public announcement that would discredit Biden and the Russian hack. He did not 'discuss' anything.to find out wether he should request an investigation or not.

 

[Jingthing]

It's the pattern, baby, the pattern.

Yes we always have partisan politics and these times are arguably as extremely partisan as it gets (as the one anti-impeachment at this time witness mentioned).

But it's more important to look past that sometimes, and these are one of those times.

 

Quote

Democrats are debating a dangerous false choice on impeachment

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/05/democrats-are-debating-dangerous-false-choice-impeachment/

 

[Cryingdick]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's debatable that Biden is a political rival of 45? Come on man!  Smell the reality. 

 

Do I smell a push up contest in the making?

[Sujo]

10 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

 

You made the statement, you should either substantiate it or take it back. 

 

None of the professors that testified were republicans. 

 

”Often wrong, never in doubt.” 
 

 

 

 

They couldnt find an intelligent person who is willing to say he is republican.

 

Heres a link. Do you have similar to say he shouldnt be impeached?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/more-than-500-law-professors-say-trump-committed-impeachable-conduct/2019/12/06/35259c16-183a-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html

[rabas]

5 hours ago, candide said:

Sorry but your imaginary interpretation does not correspond to what he did. He precisely asked to investigate Biden and Crowdstrike according to already debunked conspiracy theories and testimonies under oath confirmed that he was actually requesting a public announcement that would discredit Biden and the Russian hack. He did not 'discuss' anything.to find out wether he should request an investigation or not.

 

Good to see TV lawyers on top of it, not to mention TVIA and TVBI investigators.

 

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

They couldnt find an intelligent person who is willing to say he is republican.

 

Heres a link. Do you have similar to say he shouldnt be impeached?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/more-than-500-law-professors-say-trump-committed-impeachable-conduct/2019/12/06/35259c16-183a-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html

Again, you made the statement, you should be ready to substantiate it. 
 

Clearly you haven’t. Posting links to a few people that agree with you proves nothing. 
 

 

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Again, you made the statement, you should be ready to substantiate it. 
 

Clearly you haven’t. Posting links to a few people that agree with you proves nothing. 
 

 

So you got nothing. Cant you find one legal scholar? That cant be difficult.