In the same way, Al Capone was criticized a lot and witnesses against him could have threatened him...
And that removing the corrupt prosecutor result in an increased chance of investigation of corrupt companies in Ukraine, including Burisma if they are indeed corrupt. The last US Admin was fighting corruption in Ukraine. This POTUS and GOP sell that (official US and other nation policy to fight corruption) to their naive supporters as corruption. It's the sort of thing that happens in Russia.
trump's lawyer, er I mean gop house counsel unsuccessfully floating a "ukraine out to get trump" conspiracy... trump will try anything.
There's another one? Because the one everyone is aware of is certainly NOT that. It was ALWAYS a political stunt. Anyone that believes otherwise is just being painfully obtuse, just as politicians like it. It's laughable on its face. A serious impeachment inquiry, that actually began BEFORE he was even in office? And BEFORE they even read the whistleblower report? And AFTER the Democrats created the entire Russia hoax for solely political purposes? Seriously?? {fixed quotes}
This is all kinds of stupid, The Russia investigation tally: Not much of a hoax when tons are getting convicted, oh and Roger stone is not on this list yet. Oh, and for the record/mentally challenged. Mueller is a a Republican, he was appointed by a Republican Rosenstein, he reported to a republican in Barr - the Russian Inveistigation was 100% Republican, run by Republicans, overseen by Republicans and called for BY REPUBLICANS..... So, please keep the ignorant - Dems witch hunt comments to yourself - the TRUTH is all that matters here! DD
Nunes knows that they are losing the battle, they have not been able to do anything substantive - it seems they are resolved to just getting to the vote. DD
This is depths that republican trump enablers have fallen to... Seriously, trump's personal lawyer should be allowed at a congressional hearing? btw, I think huckster rudy has his own ukraine issues... And republican congressmen having to defend trump's tweet attacking the ambassador...
Just had a nasty argument with a friend who said the Democrats did this to Stone and to Flynn. LOL I just can't even
Congrats...we know which category you fall into (see my previous post). Of those convictions, how many were for collusion with Russia? That would be zero, for those mathematically challenged. It was a hoax from the get go, remained a hoax, and will always be a hoax. HRC et al drummed it up, knowing they could make it stick with the mentally challenged, simply due to the fact that Trump had business dealing in Russia, and Russia was a good hot button anyway, given the attempts from there to meddle in the election.
Actually, that isn't accurate. Look up Richard Pinedo. He pled guilty for identity theft in connection with Russian tampering. Also, Papadopolous' guilty plea dealt with him lying regarding Russian contacts.
WSJ editorial this morning https://www.wsj.com/articles/adam-schiff-founding-father-11573861981 Adam Schiff, Founding Father The chief impeacher tries to redefine ‘bribery’ under the law. By The Editorial Board Nov. 15, 2019 6:53 pm ET Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff isn’t a constitutional scholar, but he plays one on Impeachment TV. His latest gambit is an attempt to redefine “bribery” in the Constitution to include President Trump’s behavior toward Ukraine. The Constitution specifically mentions bribery, along with treason and high crimes and misdemeanors, as impeachable offenses. It offers a definition only for treason. In an interview with NPR on Nov. 12, Mr. Schiff opined on Mr. Trump’s impeachable offenses: “Well, bribery, first of all, as the Founders understood bribery, it was not as we understand it in law today. It was much broader. It connoted the breach of the public trust in a way where you’re offering official acts for some personal or political reason, not in the nation’s interest.” We didn’t realize Mr. Schiff was a constitutional “originalist,” but note his legal sleight-of-hand. Mr. Schiff is not accusing Mr. Trump of bribery based on a current statute. He’s trying to broaden its meaning to fit his current impeachment purposes—supposedly with a James Madison stamp of approval. He’s wrong about the law and constitutional history. The Founders understood bribery then, as we do now, as involving the offer or acceptance of a quid pro quo. A friend of ours who knows this history supplied us with details from the period. William Blackstone, the preeminent English law expert of the day widely admired by the Founders, wrote that bribery “is when a judge, or other person concerned in the administration of justice, takes any undue reward to influence his behavior in his office.” Jacob’s Law Dictionary defined bribery this way: “taken largely it signifies the Receiving, or Offering, any undue Reward, to or by any Person concerned in the Administration of publick [sic] Justice.” That is, a quid pro quo. At the constitutional convention, Gouverneur Morris discussed the meaning of bribery and used the example of King Charles II taking money from King Louis XIV in return for supporting French policy in Europe. Mr. Schiff’s problem is that he still hasn’t found a quid pro quo in the Ukraine episode that fits this traditional definition of bribery. Here he is on NPR again: “Well, bribery only requires that you’re soliciting something of value. It doesn’t have to be cash. It can be something of value. And clearly, given the concerted effort that was brought about to get these investigations going by the President, by Rudy Giuliani, by Ambassador [Gordon] Sondland, by others, this was something of great value to the President.” Sorry, but bribery requires a specific quid pro quo. Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s President to investigate corruption, including Joe and Hunter Biden. No such investigation began. There was no “quo.” Even if an investigation had started, it is unlikely to qualify as a quo under the bribery law because it isn’t a specific and tangible enough benefit like money. By Mr. Schiff’s definition, “something of value” is anything that might benefit Mr. Trump politically. But Mr. Trump couldn’t know a Ukraine investigation’s result or even how it would proceed. Every President asks foreign leaders for actions or policies that would benefit him politically in some way. None of this absolves Mr. Trump of rotten judgment in all of this, but it doesn’t qualify as bribery. The reason bribery is now the Democratic impeachment word of choice has less to do with the law than with politics. The Washington Post reports that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently conducted focus groups in key House battleground districts to test “messages related to impeachment.” Voters were asked whether “quid pro quo,” “extortion” or “bribery” were more compelling. “The focus groups found ‘bribery’ to be most damning,” according to the Post. Democrats got the message because last weekend they began using “bribery” almost in unison to describe Mr. Trump’s conduct. Mr. Schiff’s NPR riff is an attempt to make the noncrime fit the political spin. All of which means that, after the first week of public hearings, we are left more or less where we were before. Democrats are exposing details of Mr. Trump’s Keystone Kops diplomacy that was stymied by internal Administration opposition. Mr. Trump committed another own-goal Friday when he used Twitter to attack former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as she was testifying. He should take Bill Clinton’s advice that the best impeachment defense is to do your job as President. Americans should by all means consider all this in their voting calculations next year. But on the public evidence to date, there was no crime, much less bribery, that warrants ousting a President months before Election Day.
