The request to investigate is wrong when the request is made; it does not magically become wrong only after the request is executed. It's wrong irrespective of whether it was tied to aid; that's a separate issue that makes it even worse - but again here, it's wrong to have ordered it and does not become virtuous when he's caught and releases it.

I had mentioned the impoundment act, which allows delays only for certain specific reasons, which must be documented. This is still under investigation, but preliminary reports indicate the letter of the law may have been broken.

Why is a request to investigate potential corruption wrong?

Trump is not the OMB. If the OMB violates the impound act, they should have been taken to court. They weren’t.

So you finally accept that word crimes really are actual crimes? And, do you see that it was inevitable that president Trump would get impeached for word crimes, because he is a criminal?

You are a very confused person, nose4. By no means stupid or even ignorant, but confused. That, or something much worse. You've been a driver of this thread through an astonishing 251 pages, but you've done it by exhibiting the agility - and the morals - of a weasel.

What exactly would obstruction look like to you? What would count as such?

Executives exercising executive privilege is a matter of course, not an impeachable offence. — NOS4A2

As far as I know, none of the three you mentioned gave a direct order for witness to ignore subpoena into an investigation of the president's own behaviour.

Why is a request to investigate potential corruption wrong? — NOS4A2

The mere "potential" that there is wrongdoing is not probable cause to investigate. Furthermore, the evidence points toward this being politically motivated, not a virtuous act to uncover corruption. We could review the available facts, if you like.

Trump is not the OMB. If the OMB violates the impound act, they should have been taken to court. They weren’t.

The evidence points toward this being directed by Trump.

At minimum, a preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that Trump engaged in wrongdoing. Do you deny that? If so, then we should definitely review the evidence. It seems to me that arguing for Trump's innocence depends on assuming the biggest conspiracy since O.J. Simpson was framed for murdering Nicole. ;=)

There is hard evidence that proves Russian interference with the 2016 election. That is corruption of the most serious kind. Trump and the Republican party has done nothing to insure it does not happen again...

Dereliction of duty bordering on treason.

There is hard evidence that proves Russian interference with the 2016 election. That is corruption of the most serious kind. Trump and the Republican party has done nothing to insure it does not happen again... — creativesoul

Trump welcomes interference, if it's in support of him. Did you read about Putin's recent press conference, and Trump proudly tweeting a positive quote of Putin's?

So you finally accept that word crimes really are actual crimes? And, do you see that it was inevitable that president Trump would get impeached for word crimes, because he is a criminal?

No. This was my argument.

“It was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes, so they reduced themselves to scouring his statements for transgressions of speech, and then lying about them to make them seem worse than they are.”

By “word crimes” I meant transgressions of speech. No, he is not being impeached for any crime.

The mere "potential" that there is wrongdoing is not probable cause to investigate. Furthermore, the evidence points toward this being politically motivated, not a virtuous act to uncover corruption. We could review the available facts, if you like.

I’m glad you say this because this statement accurately describes crossfire hurricane and the Mueller investigation. Except Trump did not ask Zelensky to investigate anything, only to speak with the Attorney General and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom are doing investigations.

As for it being politically motivated, I would love to see those facts.

The evidence points toward this being directed by Trump.

At minimum, a preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that Trump engaged in wrongdoing. Do you deny that? If so, then we should definitely review the evidence. It seems to me that arguing for Trump's innocence depends on assuming the biggest conspiracy since O.J. Simpson was framed for murdering Nicole. ;=)

Trump never told them to break any laws. In fact it appears they were trying to do everything by the book, as emails suggest, and not engaging in any efforts to break the law.

“ People familiar with the Office of Management and Budget’s handling of the holdup in aid acknowledged the internal discussions going on during August, but characterized the conversations as calm, routine and focused on the legal question of how to comply with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which requires the executive branch to spend congressionally appropriated funds unless Congress agrees they can be rescinded.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-review-turns-up-emails-showing-extensive-effort-to-justify-trumps-decision-to-block-ukraine-military-aid/2019/11/24/2121cf98-0d57-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html

No, zero evidence supports the hypothesis that trump corruptly sought dirt on his political opponent to influence the 2020 election. But I’m open to hearing it.

Just to make clear: everything Trump has said about the impeachment enquiry is a lie. The Republican Party has been completely taken over by Trump and his lies, and will now defend them to the death. All concept of justice and impartiality has been abandoned in pursuit of political power based on lying to the electorate. The rule of Trump and the rule of law are incompatible, and the Democratic party is locked in struggle to preserve the rule of law.

Ive finally caught up on the thread, and aside from being disappointed in myself for bothering Ive also become curious as to what any of you are getting or hoping to get out of continuing discussion with Nos.
If you truly believe he is a troll, then shame on you for feeding him, right?
If you think him dishonest, putting defence of Trump before truth, then why continue?
If he is ignorant, am I wrong that you all think him hopelessly so? He has proven himself immune to all arguments any of you have put forth...hadnt he? So why continue? What are you getting out of it at this point...just a place to vent and Trump bash with Nos as the piñata? Im genuinely curious.



And to you Nos, the same question. What are you getting out of it at this point? You must realise by now that everything you say including an actual valid point you might make would be ignored or otherwise dismissed out of hand. A troll, a liar, an idiot etc etc. Is what they call you and as far as I can tell precisely what they think you are, to varying degrees.
So what are you getting out of it at this point (im assuming you are not a troll for the sake of this question).

The mere "potential" that there is wrongdoing is not probable cause to investigate. Furthermore, the evidence points toward this being politically motivated, not a virtuous act to uncover corruption. We could review the available facts, if you like.


I’m glad you say this because this statement accurately describes crossfire hurricane and the Mueller investigation. Except Trump did not ask Zelensky to investigate anything, only to speak with the Attorney General and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom are doing investigations. — NOS4A2

That's the "two wrongs make a right" defense, which is ludicrous.

The IG ruled that there was probable cause to initiate the investigation, and no errors by Mueller have been identified. There was indeed malfeasance in the renewals of FISA applications for Carter Page, perhaps rising to the level of criminality - and if so, the responsible parties should be charged. Nevertheless, the IG did not find a political motivation for these. How widespread is the abuse of FISA warrants? Is it common, or was this the first time? Time will tell, but even if it does turn out to be something unique to investigating people associated with Trump (a big IF), that will not excuse Trump committing such errors.

Except Trump did not ask Zelensky to investigate anything — NOS4A2

According to the memorandum documenting Trump's call with Zelensky, Trump said, "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, 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. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

What does "looking into it" mean, if not an investigation? We needn't speculate, because Trump told us, on Oct 3:

Q Mr. President, what exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer. (source)

As for it being politically motivated, I would love to see those facts. — NOS4A2

Here's some, off the top of my head:

1) Trump named the Bidens in his conversation with Zelensky, which looks bad on its face.
2) Trump did not discuss corruption in general with Zelensky, in either of their phone calls.
3) Biden is a key political rival and therefore Trump stands to gain politically by a public declaration of an investigation into the Bidens,
4) Among the public facts, there is a lack of probable cause to investigate either of the BIdens. (numerous people make money off their connections, including Trump's kids and Rudy Giuliani; are they all to be investigated for this?) Contrast that with Trump's action, which has more than the mere on-its-face request to Zelensky). There is also no evidence to suggest Trump has non-public knowledge about either of the Bidens that implicate their involvement in corrupt acts in Ukraine.
5) According to Sondland, Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly declare an investigation into the Bidens - a political benefit to Trump, but of no positive benefit toward exposing corruption
6) The Defense Department certified to congressional committees on May 23 that Ukraine had met established benchmarks toward reducing corruption.
7) The Trump administration had approved sending aid to Ukraine nearly 50 times without holding it because of corruption concerns.
8) Testimony by David Holmes, and confirmed by Sondland that in a call between Trump and Sondland, Trump said, "So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” Ambassador Sondland replied that “he’s gonna do it,” adding that President Zelenskyy will do “anything you ask him to.” and in response to a question about the call, Sondland noted that Trump only cares about "big stuff" - which means things that affect him personally.
9) Fiona Hill testified that she and John Bolton perceived something wrong (the "political errand" of pushing for investigation of a political opponent of Trump's) was being advanced by Mulvaney, Sondland, and Giuliani - referring to Giuliani as a "hand grenade").
10) Sondland testified that he brought it to the attention of both Pence and Pompeo that Ukrainian aid had become tied to the issue of investigations, and neither of them denied it. If the notion of there being such a tie was so far fetched, one would expect some pushback.

Trump never told them to break any laws. In fact it appears they were trying to do everything by the book, as emails suggest, and not engaging in any efforts to break the law. — NOS4A2

Trump never told them NOT to break any laws. Trump appears unconcerned about what the laws are and equally unconcerned about breaking them (consider Rex Tillerson's comment about his interactions with Trump: “So often, the president would say here’s what I want to do and here’s how I want to do it and I would have to say to him, ‘Mr. President I understand what you want to do but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law,’" and Tillerson indicated that this frustrated Trump).

Mueller's investigation also supports this tendency of Trump's:
The President 's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

Both of these are suggestive of Trump's general disregard for the law.

Sure, the OMB people didn't want to break laws, so they looked for legal ways to implement Trump's desires - at this point, it's not completely clear if they were successful. It would be great to get testimony and documents that would help us know.

just a place to vent and Trump bash with Nos as the piñata? Im genuinely curious. — DingoJones

I've been interested in American politics since a child. I used to read Time magazine when quite young. I was part of the anti-vietnam movement. I read a lot of news media on my iPhone, it's a hobby of sorts.

You will notice I generally avoid interacting with Nos as I think he or she might be an agent tasked with disseminating Trump-friendly disinformation on this and various other minor social media sites. As the Mueller report found, there are disinformation units run by Russia that actively propagate pro-Trump disinformation. Nos is very good at it, always staying inside the mod guidelines and politely contributing to a smattering of other topics. ("Lost in the barrio, I walk like an Indian.")

I mostly post excerpts from various media - NY Times, WaPo, Slate, Daily Beast, The Atlantic Monthly in particular - with some commentary. I do this to provide a counterbalance to the disinfo being propagated by NOs. Also because as I have followed Trump's malign ascendancy since the outset, I have become quite knowledgeable about it, and a lot of people don't understand the details. So it's a minor act of public education. And also sounding off about something that I think is a terrible blight on American culture. (I have near and dear relatives in America.)

what any of you are getting or hoping to get out of continuing — DingoJones

There's a potential he'll bring up something I'm not aware of, or at least I might understand his point of view a bit.

There is hard evidence that proves Russian interference with the 2016 election. That is corruption of the most serious kind. Trump and the Republican party has done nothing to insure it does not happen again...
— creativesoul
Trump welcomes interference, if it's in support of him. Did you read about Putin's recent press conference, and Trump proudly tweeting a positive quote of Putin's? — Relativist

No.

The point I'm making is that if Trump was actually so concerned with corruption, he would have done everything in his power to insure that our next election could not be interfered with in the same way as 2016.

He has not. Thus, he clearly is not. The claims of him being concerned about corruption are a ruse...

Pure unadulterated bullshit!

What would obstruction look like to you? What would count as Trump obstructing and/or impeding the investigations into himself?

:brow:

You claim that nothing has been done. What would have to be?

@Hanover The link about executive privilige mentions the US vs. Nixon case and that holds:

The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the president of the United States, is completely above the law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial."

So Nixon was also prosecuted under criminal law? How does that work? And why, since obstruction of justice carries a criminal penalty, wouldn't the Democrats use the regular criminal process, which avoids the possible political blow back.

Also, and not related to you I think, but the idea the Democrats are doing this to overturn the 2016 election results is silly because the vice president, also a republican, gets to replace him. Nevertheless, I see that argument continuously repeated but it's nonsensical.

You've been a driver of this thread through an astonishing 251 pages, but you've done it by exhibiting the agility - and the morals - of a weasel. — tim wood

Actually, first it was Agustino. Remember that? Now Agustino seems to have gotten fired, acquired some morals, or found a better job, so NOS4A2 has been hired to fill the position

So Nixon was also prosecuted under criminal law? How does that work? And why, since obstruction of justice carries a criminal penalty, wouldn't the Democrats use the regular criminal process, which avoids the possible political blow back. — Benkei

No, Nixon was not prosecuted under criminal law.

Indictments are done by the Justice Dept, but that won't be done because the Justice Dept's Office of Legal Counsel has decided that a President may not be indicted while in office because it could impair his ability to do his job (this predates Trump). The only way to hold a President accountable for illegal acts is through impeachment.

I see. Apologies, I grouped you in where I should not have.

Also, you realise the Russians also spread disinformation from the left as well right? Russia is interested in creating conflict and chaos, internal strife etc, and they troll from and to the left as well as the right. Renee Deresta has good material on this subject, and the “Internet Research Agency” which is the Russian professional service whose goal is to amp up pre-existing animosity.

Am I wrong in my assessment that you do not trust him or his information? Also, what is it about his view you do not understand?

ou will notice I generally avoid interacting with Nos as I think he or she might be an agent tasked with disseminating Trump-friendly disinformation on this and various other minor social media sites. — Wayfarer

Where is NOS4A2? Oh that's right, I've noticed that NOS tends to take the weekends and holidays off from his job.

So Nixon was also prosecuted under criminal law — Benkei

No. Nixon wasn't prosecuted. There's a long standing DOJ policy not to prosecute sitting presidents, but there's no Constitutional prohibition. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

Seven of Nixon's aides were indicted ("The Watergate Seven"). In the 1974 Nixon case (not to be confused with District Court Judge Nixon's impeachment in the 90s cited in another post), Nixon was forced to produce tapes pursuant to subpoenas arising out of the criminal case involving his aides.

I cited to in another post a link regarding Congressional subpoenas and their limited enforcement mechanisms compared to those issued by a court.

Also, and not related to you I think, but the idea the Democrats are doing this to overturn the 2016 election results is silly because the vice president, also a republican, gets to replace him. Nevertheless, I see that argument continuously repeated but it's nonsensical. — Benkei

"Overturn" may be an exaggerated term (as if it will cause Hillary to become President), but the argument is that the Dems are refusing to accept that Trump really is the President and that the battle for the 2016 presidency is over.

Indictments are done by the Justice Dept, but that won't be done because the Justice Dept's Office of Legal Counsel has decided that a President may not be indicted while in office because it could impair his ability to do his job (this predates Trump). — Relativist

The validity of these memos has been rejected by a federal judge: https://www.scribd.com/document/429138545/Read-judge-s-ruling#from_embed

"The Court is not persuaded that it should accord the weight and legal force the President ascribes to the DOJ Memos" and the memos "do not constitute authoritative judicial interpretation of the Constitution concerning those issues."

That's the "two wrongs make a right" defense, which is ludicrous.

The IG ruled that there was probable cause to initiate the investigation, and no errors by Mueller have been identified. There was indeed malfeasance in the renewals of FISA applications for Carter Page, perhaps rising to the level of criminality - and if so, the responsible parties should be charged. Nevertheless, the IG did not find a political motivation for these. How widespread is the abuse of FISA warrants? Is it common, or was this the first time? Time will tell, but even if it does turn out to be something unique to investigating people associated with Trump (a big IF), that will not excuse Trump committing such errors.

The IG report revealed vast, systematic errors, and found the explanations for them to be inefficient. Mueller, with his vast investigative powers, found no such errors or malfeasance. He never mentioned that the Steele dossier was utterly false. The special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier and false FBI claims to the FISA court, but they chose to look the other way and keep us in the dark about it. Why?

According to the memorandum documenting Trump's call with Zelensky, Trump said, "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, 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.Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

According to the transcript he never asked Zelensky to open any investigations into the Bidens, nor did he tie any such investigations to the aid, which was released anyways. He specifically referred to the 2016 election and Ukraine’s involvement, and suggested Zelensky speak to Barr about it. In the end Barr never made that call but Durham travelled there and currently doing that investigation. It was Zelensky who brought up Guiliani and his investigation.

Here's some, off the top of my head:

1) Trump named the Bidens in his conversation with Zelensky
2) Trump did not discuss corruption in general with Zelensky, in either of their phone calls.
3) Biden is a key political rival and therefore Trump stands to gain politically by a public declaration of an investigation into the Bidens
4) Among the public facts, there is a lack of probable cause to investigate either of the BIdens. There is also no evidence to suggest Trump has non-public knowledge about either of the Bidens that implicate their involvement in corrupt acts in Ukraine.
5) According to Sondland, Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly declare an investigation into the Bidens - a political benefit to Trump, but of no positive benefit toward exposing corruption
6) The Defense Department certified to congressional committees on May 23 that Ukraine had met established benchmarks toward reducing corruption.
7) The Trump administration had approved sending aid to Ukraine nearly 50 times without holding it because of corruption concerns.
8) Testimony by David Holmes, and confirmed by Sondland that in a call between Trump and Sondland, Trump said, "So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” Ambassador Sondland replied that “he’s gonna do it,” adding that President Zelenskyy will do “anything you ask him to.” and in response to a question about the call, Sondland noted that Trump only cares about "big stuff" - which means things that affect him personally.

None of those points give evidence to political motivations regarding seeking dirt or influencing the 2020 elections. I’m looking for a statement or any expression of motives, that he wants dirt so it can help him in an election.. anything but guesswork and mind-reading. And it’s absurd to suggest someone cannot be investigated for possible corruption because he is Trump’s possible opponent in the 2020 election.

Trump never told them NOT to break any laws. Trump appears unconcerned about what the laws are nor about breaking them (consider Rex Tillerson's comment about his interactions with Trump: “So often, the president would say here’s what I want to do and here’s how I want to do it and I would have to say to him, ‘Mr. President I understand what you want to do but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law,’" and Tillerson indicated that this frustrated Trump).

Mueller's investigation also supports this tendency of Trump's:
The President 's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

Both of these are suggestive of Trump's general disregard for the law.

Sure, the OMB people didn't want to break laws, so they looked for legal ways to implement Trump's desires - at this point, it's not completely clear if they were successful. It would be great to get testimony and documents that would help us know.

Of course Trump doesn’t know about the obscure impounding Act. That’s why he has the OMB, the general counsel, advisors and others. They are tasked with following through on Trump’s policies in a legal fashion. And, according to them, they did so.

Where is NOS4A2? Oh that's right, I've noticed that NOS tends to take the weekends and holidays off from his job.

I’m your huckleberry.

What would obstruction look like to you? What would count as Trump obstructing and/or impeding the investigations into himself?

:brow:

You claim that nothing has been done. What would have to be?

The omnibus clause is the factor. If that’s proven one is guilty of obstruction of justice.

The IG report revealed vast, systematic errors, and found the explanations for them to be inefficient. Mueller, with his vast investigative powers, found no such errors or malfeasance. He never mentioned that the Steele dossier was utterly false. The special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier and false FBI claims to the FISA court, but they chose to look the other way and keep us in the dark about it. Why? — NOS4A2

Mueller was not investigating the investigators, so it's irrelevant that he didn't uncover the FISA errors. Sure, the FBI placed more credibility on Steele's information than was warrranted, but it's false to claim it was "utterly false", since much of it has been substantiated. Your claim that "the special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier" sounds like something taken from the script of Mark Levin or Sean Hannity- negative speculation based on zero evidence.

Most significantly, it's the same old crap even bringing this up in the context of what Trump did - as I pointed out, two wrongs do not make a right. I pointed this out in my post, and you repeat the same absurdity. No errors made by the FBI or Mueller comprise an excuse for Trump to do something wrong.

According to the transcript he never asked Zelensky to open any investigations into the Bidens — NOS4A2

LOL! You're ignoring the Trump quote I have you in which he ADMITTED he expected Zelensky to open an investigation!

None of those points give evidence to political motivations regarding seeking dirt or influencing the 2020 elections. — NOS4A2

You're denying the obvious. Apply the epistemological process of Inference to the Best Explanation: there are two possible explanations (primary motive) for the available facts: political motivation or a motivation to address general corruption. Which of the two explanations is a better fit for the facts? If you're just going to emulate Congressional Republicans and duck the facts, then you aren't engaging in an honest debate.

Of course Trump doesn’t know about the obscure impounding Act. That’s why he has the OMB, the general counsel, advisors and others. They are tasked with following through on Trump’s policies in a legal fashion. And, according to them, they did so. — NOS4A2

The President bears responsibility - ignorance of the law is not an excuse; he has White House Counsel to advise him. I see you have no rebuttal to the points I made about his indifference to the law.

Mueller was not investigating the investigators, so it's irrelevant that he didn't uncover the FISA errors. Sure, the FBI placed more credibility on Steele's information than was warrranted, but it's false to claim it was "utterly false", since much of it has been substantiated. Your claim that "the special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier" sounds like something taken from the script of Mark Levin or Sean Hannity- negative speculation based on zero evidence.

Most significantly, it's the same old crap even bringing this up in the context of what Trump did - as I pointed out, two wrongs do not make a right. I pointed this out in my post, and you repeat the same absurdity. No errors made by the FBI or Mueller comprise an excuse for Trump to do something wrong.

It is completely relevant that your coveted Mueller report is as dodgy as the dossier many have pinned their conspiracy theories on. Of course, the scope of the investigation involved “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”. FBI malfeasance and corruption.

My claim that “the special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier” sounds like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, who made the exact same argument, not Levin or Hannity, neither of whom I have ever watched. But routine fantasy is the going rate here so it’s no surprise you would reach for it when you couldn’t find anything else.

LOL! You're ignoring the Trump quote I have you in which he ADMITTED he expected Zelensky to open an investigation!

Because it’s a stupid angle. He said that Zelensky (and China) should open investigations into the Biden’s possible corruption, and he’s right. But given that you had to find quotes to journalists, and not Trump asking Zelensky to open investigations, doesn’t do your case any favors. He never told Zelensky that he should do investigations. He never told Zelensky that he “expected” him to do investigations.

You're denying the obvious. Apply the epistemological process of Inference to the Best Explanation: there are two possible explanations (primary motive) for the available facts: political motivation or a motivation to address general corruption. Which of the two explanations is a better fit for the facts? If you're just going to emulate Congressional Republicans and duck the facts, then you aren't engaging in an honest debate.

I’m denying the obvious? Nonsense. You’re making things up, or worse, passing off DNC propaganda as your own thinking. Your little false dichotomy is also piffle. You have zero evidence of motive save for the screams of career Democrat politicians.

The President bears responsibility - ignorance of the law is not an excuse; he has White House Counsel to advise him. I see you have no rebuttal to the points I made about his indifference to the law.

He didn’t do anything wrong. He broke no law. He committed no crime. Your eschewing of the presumption of innocence and due process is laughable, especially when you cry about Biden’s due process out of the other side of your mouth.