Faithful execution requires being consistent with due process and equal protection. Criminal investigations are predicated on there being crimes to investigate. There is no evidence of a US law being broken (and only US law is pertinent) and the Ukranian prosecutor said he's aware of no Ukranian laws being broken. This leaves only two possible reasons to investigate: a fishing expedition to see if some crime can be pinned to him, or simply an effort to dig up dirt. Fishing expeditions are unconstitutional and dirt digging is an abuse of power.
You're parrotting Republican talking points and emulating their ignoring of evidence. I've addressed all those with you before, and yet you repeat your statements without rebutting what I said.
Stopping a crime in progress does not exonerate the criminal. A quid pro quo was established, and Bolton will likely add credence. There were indeed Ukranians who expressed concerns, and it's obvious why Zelensky would refrain from stating it.
The conflict of interest laws apply specifically to government employees, their spouse, and minor children. It does not apply to Hunter Biden.That’s not the case because there are conflict of interest statutes on the books, violations of which are criminal offences. — NOS4A2
Executive branch employees are required to agree to a stringent ethics policy, which includes addressing cases where there's merely the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. This gives the government the right to look into these matters without there being probable cause to investigate a crime. The ethics policy is not applicable to asking Ukraine to investigate a non-government employee.As I’ve said before, investigations into various Trump administration employees resulted in resignations despite here being no evidence of a crime being committed. To say those investigations were not warranted because there is no evidence laws are being broken is absurd. — NOS4A2
They are partial facts that ignore extremely relevant context:They aren’t just Republican talking points, but facts — NOS4A2
- This was the reprise from virtually every Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, and all these ignore the damning context: there was no investigation, no public statement, and the aid was released ONLY AFTER the whistleblower complaint was made. Trump still did the misdeed.No investigations. No public statements. Aid was released on time.
- Testimony shows there was a quid pro quo:No quid pro quo.
False.Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause.
It's starting to become clear to me that if fox news did not exist, none of this would have been remotely possible... — VagabondSpectre
The conflict of interest laws apply specifically to government employees, their spouse, and minor children. It does not apply to Hunter Biden.
Executive branch employees are required to agree to a stringent ethics policy, which includes addressing cases where there's merely the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. This gives the government the right to look into these matters without there being probable cause to investigate a crime. The ethics policy is not applicable to asking Ukraine to investigate a non-government employee.
Testimony shows there was a quid pro quo:
Gordon Sondland tells House impeachment panel ‘we all understood’ there was a quid pro quo
We also know that OMB held up aid without valid reason, in violation of the Impoundment act. Related to this is that Trump's post hoc claims about "pausing" the aid because of corruption concerns or concerns about what other nations were giving are not reflected in the documentation, and there is no other evidence that these were established priorities.
What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.
False.
Ukrainians Contacted U.S. Officials in May About Aid Fears
Trump pressure weeks before July call: reports
I stand corrected. His minor children benefitting from his position would present a legal a conflict of interest, but his elder son benefitting from his position doesn’t. Quite odd, but you’re right. — NOS4A2
The regulation calls for ethics investigators examining such situations on a case by case basis:Except in the case of Biden’s son. As we now know according to Vindman’s, Jeniffer Williams’ and George Kent’s testimony, questions of Biden’s conflict of interest were a concern, but these same stringent ethics policies didn’t apply. They were legal, as you’ve shown, but they didn’t pass the appearance test apparently. — NOS4A2
He assumed it because he could see no other explanation, and he kept the State department and NSC apprised. " The State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing." Sondland also testified he told Pence that he believed there to be a tie. Why did no one correct him, if his assumption was wrong? Why has Trump blocked all testimony and documents? If these were exculpatory, why not release them?Sondland was wrong, as his own testimony shows. They did not all “understand” there was a quid pro quo. Sondland only presumed it. — NOS4A2
You're missing the relevance: the excuses that were used to hold up aid were contrived and do not reflect Trump's post hoc rationalizations (general corruption concerns and aid from Europe).Everytime The GAO says the administration violated the Impoundment act, the administration says it disagrees, as did the Obama administration, the Bush administration, and so on. They have no binding power over the Whitehouse and the world goes on. The aid was sent nonetheless. — NOS4A2
You're assuming a motive based on questions Trump asked. No one involved, including Cooper, has testified that this was the reason for holding back aid.But there is evidence of Trump’s motives here. An article compelled Trump to put hold on the aid according to released emails. — NOS4A2
Do you agree that Bolton's testimony could potentially establish Trump's guilt? We have a right to know what Bolton has to say. This is particularly important in light of the Republican claim that removal is inappropriate this close to an election. Sure- let the voters decide, but give them the complete information needed for ab informed decision.What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.
I’d need to read the manuscript or hear a testimony — NOS4A2
It's starting to become clear to me that if fox news did not exist, none of this would have been remotely possible... — VagabondSpectre
He assumed it because he could see no other explanation, and he kept the State department and NSC apprised. " The State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing." Sondland also testified he told Pence that he believed there to be a tie. Why did no one correct him, if his assumption was wrong? Why has Trump blocked all testimony and documents? If these were exculpatory, why not release them?
Also recall that Mulvaney admited a quid pro quo in his famous "get over it" press conference. He only specifically attached the investigation into the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, not the Bidens, but it seems clear that Bolton can connect the final dots. Trump's defense is to claim he's lying.
With these facts in mind, I see no rational basis for claiming it likely there was no quid pro quo.
You're missing the relevance: the excuses that were used to hold up aid were contrived and do not reflect Trump's post hoc rationalizations Trump (general corruption concerns and aid from Europe).
You're assuming a motive based on questions Trump asked. No one involved, including Cooper, has testified that this was the reason for holding back aid.
Do you agree that Bolton's testimony could potentially establish Trump's guilt? We have a right to know what Bolton has to say. This is particularly important in light of the Republican claim that removal is inappropriate this close to an election. Sure- let the voters decide, but give them the complete information needed for ab informed decision.
I agree. On occasions!The innocent politics he does, has been good. He has been criminal on occasions, but shouldn't the people he's working good for, pardon him? — Qwex
You're playing the partisan game, ignoring everything that was said on the call with Sondland, other than Trump stating "no quid pro quo. Trump said those words, then outlined what he wanted -which constituted a quid pro quo. This article summarizes the context.He was corrected by Trump himself. — NOS4A2
His words were clear:Mulvaney clarified that he was not in fact speaking about a quid pro quo, claiming the media misconstrued his statements. Of course no one includes the clarification in impeachment because that would be telling both sides of the story. — NOS4A2
The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.Mark Sandy of the OMB testified that Duffey "attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing money to Ukraine" in "early September". He does not recall the exact date. The reasons that were given to the OMB match up to the initial questions on Ukraine aid — NOS4A2
If Bolton's testimony is consistent with reporting from the leaked manuscript, it will show that Trump's guilty of wrongdoing. It's another matter as to whether of not that wrongdoing constitutes a crime or whether or not it is adequate reason to remove him from office. My complaint with you is that you refuse to acknowledge that the evidence shows it likely Trump engaged in wrongdoing.I'd like to see what Bolton has to say, yes. But I do not think it will establish guilt because, as we know, there is no crime. It could establish that the administration was lying or Bolton is lying. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.