Impeachment Matter Legal Questions House Judiciary Should Resolve!

[JimofPennsylvan]

There are several important legal questions that the American people need to be answered in regard to this effort on impeachment of President Trump by the Democrats.
First, almost all Democrats and almost all their media allies when they talk about the facts of the case they construe the facts or make assumptions to the detriment of the President and I wonder if the law legitimizes this legal analysis. By this I mean let us say for the moment that the Democrats can prove that President Trump conditioned the release of the $400 million dollars of Congressional authorized aid to President of Ukraine , President Zelenski, publicly announcing investigations into Ukrainian interference in America's 2016 election vis-à-vis the hacking of the Democratic National Committee server and former Vice-President Joe Biden's interference in the corruption investigation of the company Burisma where his son was a Director. Let us say they got the proof of this connection dead to rights, beyond all doubt, it still doesn't seem fair to conclude that the essentially entire purpose of these corruption investigations was to personally politically benefit the President. Even if the truth is seventy-five percent of President Trump's motives in this condition effort was to vindicate him in his 2016 election win and hurt his likely political opponent in the 2020 election and only twenty-five percent of his motive was to fight corruption a known and serious historic problem in Ukraine. It seems unfair to me to disregard legitimate motives for an action I would think that the law probably common or case law would have a legal principle to resolve this issue when there is several motives for an action does the defendant get to avail him or herself of the non-incriminating motive?

Another legal question I have is do the facts support a legal determination of extortion, let us assume that withholding something of value can be the subject matter of the crime of extortion. When is the burden of proof of the "withholding" element met. By this I mean it is widespread known that President Trump is big into bluster, making provocative, over the top statements and then he backs down with budgets, with issuing of tariffs, closing the southern border, denying visas to all Muslims, etc. etc. etc.; as the late Senator John McCain used to say watch what President Trump does not what he says! Take the scenario where a Small Business Administration loan officer goes to a loan applicant and says my friend here needs a job he is a real good worker you have a job opening in his field you give him this job and I will feel really good about approving your loan application I will feel really good that you have the good character to repay the loan and you know my office is flooded with loan applications this year and there is a lot of good loan applications it is really hard to determine who deserves approval and who doesn't. The loan applicant doesn't hire the friend and the loan application sits in the undecided status for what can be considered in loan application process standards for a longer than usual time but then the loan officer reviews the application and has a change of heart and decides to approve the loan because it is going to create a lot of good paying jobs and it is the right thing to do. Did the loan office commit extortion he eventually approved the loan and there was no harm done. In President Trump's case he lifted the hold on the $400 million in aid on September 11, no weapon delivery to Ukraine was missed and the scheduling of future deliveries was not impaired where is the harm to supposed victim?

What does the law in America say about all this conclusion finding by many of the members of the pro-impeachment collective that are not substantiated by the facts that make too many logical jumps. The one that seems really unfair and just a smear campaign is the conclusion these proponents perpetuate where they claim it is proven that President Trump doesn't want or doesn't care that actual investigations in Ukraine take place to ferry out corruption President Trump is just after a public announcement that these corruption investigations will take place he doesn't care that they start or conclude. The pro-impeachment campaign is setting a new standard here in criminal prosecutions in America it is called the "make stuff up" standard and it should make the founding Fathers of our nation be turning in their graves!

 

[jc456]

too hard to read.

 

[Siete]

too hard to read.

so stick with "BUT HILLARY" and play to your strength

 

[jc456]

too hard to read.

so stick with "BUT HILLARY" and play to your strength

I can't stand but hillary, it gives me upset stomachs.

 

[kyzr]

There are several important legal questions that the American people need to be answered in regard to this effort on impeachment of President Trump by the Democrats.
First, almost all Democrats and almost all their media allies when they talk about the facts of the case they construe the facts or make assumptions to the detriment of the President and I wonder if the law legitimizes this legal analysis. By this I mean let us say for the moment that the Democrats can prove that President Trump conditioned the release of the $400 million dollars of Congressional authorized aid to President of Ukraine , President Zelenski, publicly announcing investigations into Ukrainian interference in America's 2016 election vis-à-vis the hacking of the Democratic National Committee server and former Vice-President Joe Biden's interference in the corruption investigation of the company Burisma where his son was a Director. Let us say they got the proof of this connection dead to rights, beyond all doubt, it still doesn't seem fair to conclude that the essentially entire purpose of these corruption investigations was to personally politically benefit the President. Even if the truth is seventy-five percent of President Trump's motives in this condition effort was to vindicate him in his 2016 election win and hurt his likely political opponent in the 2020 election and only twenty-five percent of his motive was to fight corruption a known and serious historic problem in Ukraine. It seems unfair to me to disregard legitimate motives for an action I would think that the law probably common or case law would have a legal principle to resolve this issue when there is several motives for an action does the defendant get to avail him or herself of the non-incriminating motive?

Another legal question I have is do the facts support a legal determination of extortion, let us assume that withholding something of value can be the subject matter of the crime of extortion. When is the burden of proof of the "withholding" element met. By this I mean it is widespread known that President Trump is big into bluster, making provocative, over the top statements and then he backs down with budgets, with issuing of tariffs, closing the southern border, denying visas to all Muslims, etc. etc. etc.; as the late Senator John McCain used to say watch what President Trump does not what he says! Take the scenario where a Small Business Administration loan officer goes to a loan applicant and says my friend here needs a job he is a real good worker you have a job opening in his field you give him this job and I will feel really good about approving your loan application I will feel really good that you have the good character to repay the loan and you know my office is flooded with loan applications this year and there is a lot of good loan applications it is really hard to determine who deserves approval and who doesn't. The loan applicant doesn't hire the friend and the loan application sits in the undecided status for what can be considered in loan application process standards for a longer than usual time but then the loan officer reviews the application and has a change of heart and decides to approve the loan because it is going to create a lot of good paying jobs and it is the right thing to do. Did the loan office commit extortion he eventually approved the loan and there was no harm done. In President Trump's case he lifted the hold on the $400 million in aid on September 11, no weapon delivery to Ukraine was missed and the scheduling of future deliveries was not impaired where is the harm to supposed victim?

What does the law in America say about all this conclusion finding by many of the members of the pro-impeachment collective that are not substantiated by the facts that make too many logical jumps. The one that seems really unfair and just a smear campaign is the conclusion these proponents perpetuate where they claim it is proven that President Trump doesn't want or doesn't care that actual investigations in Ukraine take place to ferry out corruption President Trump is just after a public announcement that these corruption investigations will take place he doesn't care that they start or conclude. The pro-impeachment campaign is setting a new standard here in criminal prosecutions in America it is called the "make stuff up" standard and it should make the founding Fathers of our nation be turning in their graves!

Your OP can be boiled down to what Turley said this morning during the impeachment hearing: There is nothing impeachable in the articles. The bar for impeachment is very high. Also, the House needs to consider using the courts to enforce their subpoenas, otherwise the House and Executive will not reach a conclusion, and the House will impeach and the senate will acquit, and nothing will happen except a massive waste of time and money. The taxpayers get fucked over and the pols worry about re-election in 2020. That's not how government is supposed to work.

 

[jc456]

There are several important legal questions that the American people need to be answered in regard to this effort on impeachment of President Trump by the Democrats.
First, almost all Democrats and almost all their media allies when they talk about the facts of the case they construe the facts or make assumptions to the detriment of the President and I wonder if the law legitimizes this legal analysis. By this I mean let us say for the moment that the Democrats can prove that President Trump conditioned the release of the $400 million dollars of Congressional authorized aid to President of Ukraine , President Zelenski, publicly announcing investigations into Ukrainian interference in America's 2016 election vis-à-vis the hacking of the Democratic National Committee server and former Vice-President Joe Biden's interference in the corruption investigation of the company Burisma where his son was a Director. Let us say they got the proof of this connection dead to rights, beyond all doubt, it still doesn't seem fair to conclude that the essentially entire purpose of these corruption investigations was to personally politically benefit the President. Even if the truth is seventy-five percent of President Trump's motives in this condition effort was to vindicate him in his 2016 election win and hurt his likely political opponent in the 2020 election and only twenty-five percent of his motive was to fight corruption a known and serious historic problem in Ukraine. It seems unfair to me to disregard legitimate motives for an action I would think that the law probably common or case law would have a legal principle to resolve this issue when there is several motives for an action does the defendant get to avail him or herself of the non-incriminating motive?

Another legal question I have is do the facts support a legal determination of extortion, let us assume that withholding something of value can be the subject matter of the crime of extortion. When is the burden of proof of the "withholding" element met. By this I mean it is widespread known that President Trump is big into bluster, making provocative, over the top statements and then he backs down with budgets, with issuing of tariffs, closing the southern border, denying visas to all Muslims, etc. etc. etc.; as the late Senator John McCain used to say watch what President Trump does not what he says! Take the scenario where a Small Business Administration loan officer goes to a loan applicant and says my friend here needs a job he is a real good worker you have a job opening in his field you give him this job and I will feel really good about approving your loan application I will feel really good that you have the good character to repay the loan and you know my office is flooded with loan applications this year and there is a lot of good loan applications it is really hard to determine who deserves approval and who doesn't. The loan applicant doesn't hire the friend and the loan application sits in the undecided status for what can be considered in loan application process standards for a longer than usual time but then the loan officer reviews the application and has a change of heart and decides to approve the loan because it is going to create a lot of good paying jobs and it is the right thing to do. Did the loan office commit extortion he eventually approved the loan and there was no harm done. In President Trump's case he lifted the hold on the $400 million in aid on September 11, no weapon delivery to Ukraine was missed and the scheduling of future deliveries was not impaired where is the harm to supposed victim?

What does the law in America say about all this conclusion finding by many of the members of the pro-impeachment collective that are not substantiated by the facts that make too many logical jumps. The one that seems really unfair and just a smear campaign is the conclusion these proponents perpetuate where they claim it is proven that President Trump doesn't want or doesn't care that actual investigations in Ukraine take place to ferry out corruption President Trump is just after a public announcement that these corruption investigations will take place he doesn't care that they start or conclude. The pro-impeachment campaign is setting a new standard here in criminal prosecutions in America it is called the "make stuff up" standard and it should make the founding Fathers of our nation be turning in their graves!

Your OP can be boiled down to what Turley said this morning during the impeachment hearing: There is nothing impeachable in the articles. The bar for impeachment is very high. Also, the House needs to consider using the courts to enforce their subpoenas, otherwise the House and Executive will not reach a conclusion, and the House will impeach and the senate will acquit, and nothing will happen except a massive waste of time and money. The taxpayers get fucked over and the pols worry about re-election in 2020. That's not how government is supposed to work.

it is when one side is so evil like the demofks.

 

[busybee01]

There are several important legal questions that the American people need to be answered in regard to this effort on impeachment of President Trump by the Democrats.
First, almost all Democrats and almost all their media allies when they talk about the facts of the case they construe the facts or make assumptions to the detriment of the President and I wonder if the law legitimizes this legal analysis. By this I mean let us say for the moment that the Democrats can prove that President Trump conditioned the release of the $400 million dollars of Congressional authorized aid to President of Ukraine , President Zelenski, publicly announcing investigations into Ukrainian interference in America's 2016 election vis-à-vis the hacking of the Democratic National Committee server and former Vice-President Joe Biden's interference in the corruption investigation of the company Burisma where his son was a Director. Let us say they got the proof of this connection dead to rights, beyond all doubt, it still doesn't seem fair to conclude that the essentially entire purpose of these corruption investigations was to personally politically benefit the President. Even if the truth is seventy-five percent of President Trump's motives in this condition effort was to vindicate him in his 2016 election win and hurt his likely political opponent in the 2020 election and only twenty-five percent of his motive was to fight corruption a known and serious historic problem in Ukraine. It seems unfair to me to disregard legitimate motives for an action I would think that the law probably common or case law would have a legal principle to resolve this issue when there is several motives for an action does the defendant get to avail him or herself of the non-incriminating motive?

Another legal question I have is do the facts support a legal determination of extortion, let us assume that withholding something of value can be the subject matter of the crime of extortion. When is the burden of proof of the "withholding" element met. By this I mean it is widespread known that President Trump is big into bluster, making provocative, over the top statements and then he backs down with budgets, with issuing of tariffs, closing the southern border, denying visas to all Muslims, etc. etc. etc.; as the late Senator John McCain used to say watch what President Trump does not what he says! Take the scenario where a Small Business Administration loan officer goes to a loan applicant and says my friend here needs a job he is a real good worker you have a job opening in his field you give him this job and I will feel really good about approving your loan application I will feel really good that you have the good character to repay the loan and you know my office is flooded with loan applications this year and there is a lot of good loan applications it is really hard to determine who deserves approval and who doesn't. The loan applicant doesn't hire the friend and the loan application sits in the undecided status for what can be considered in loan application process standards for a longer than usual time but then the loan officer reviews the application and has a change of heart and decides to approve the loan because it is going to create a lot of good paying jobs and it is the right thing to do. Did the loan office commit extortion he eventually approved the loan and there was no harm done. In President Trump's case he lifted the hold on the $400 million in aid on September 11, no weapon delivery to Ukraine was missed and the scheduling of future deliveries was not impaired where is the harm to supposed victim?

What does the law in America say about all this conclusion finding by many of the members of the pro-impeachment collective that are not substantiated by the facts that make too many logical jumps. The one that seems really unfair and just a smear campaign is the conclusion these proponents perpetuate where they claim it is proven that President Trump doesn't want or doesn't care that actual investigations in Ukraine take place to ferry out corruption President Trump is just after a public announcement that these corruption investigations will take place he doesn't care that they start or conclude. The pro-impeachment campaign is setting a new standard here in criminal prosecutions in America it is called the "make stuff up" standard and it should make the founding Fathers of our nation be turning in their graves!

Your OP can be boiled down to what Turley said this morning during the impeachment hearing: There is nothing impeachable in the articles. The bar for impeachment is very high. Also, the House needs to consider using the courts to enforce their subpoenas, otherwise the House and Executive will not reach a conclusion, and the House will impeach and the senate will acquit, and nothing will happen except a massive waste of time and money. The taxpayers get fucked over and the pols worry about re-election in 2020. That's not how government is supposed to work.

Turley is dead wrong. Trump abused his authority and that is a impeachable offense. The bar for impeachment is where the Congress sets it. The fact is that the Senate will never convict however the House should do the right thing and impeach. Government is supposed to work through compromise however that is not how Republicans are doing it. It is either their way or the highway. A majority of Americans voted for that in 2020.

 

[BlindBoo]

The pro-impeachment campaign is setting a new standard here in criminal prosecutions in America it is called the "make stuff up" standard and it should make the founding Fathers of our nation be turning in their graves!

What do you claim they made up?

Is conspiracy to commit bribery, extortion, or unlawful coercion a crime? That is if you plot to extort something from someone but your plot is discovered just days before you get your something, has a crime been committed?

The plot to demonize Joe Biden and throw shade at our Intelligence Services betrayed the public trust. Trump should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem leaders declared Trump guilty BEFORE a single witness testified, this sham of an impeachment hearing is illegitimate.

 

[Siete]

Dem leaders declared Trump guilty BEFORE a single witness testified, this sham of an impeachment hearing is illegitimate.

so go jump off a roof - the house controls determining articles of impeachment, and dems control the house -

pry your lips off of trumps fat ass and step away -

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem leaders declared Trump guilty BEFORE a single witness testified, this sham of an impeachment hearing is illegitimate.

so go jump off a roof - the house controls determining articles of impeachment, and dems control the house -

pry your lips off of trumps fat ass and step away -

After we bitch slap Dem's silly next Nov you fools won't control jack shit.

 

[Siete]

Dem leaders declared Trump guilty BEFORE a single witness testified, this sham of an impeachment hearing is illegitimate.

so go jump off a roof - the house controls determining articles of impeachment, and dems control the house -

pry your lips off of trumps fat ass and step away -

After we bitch slap Dem's silly next Nov you fools won't control jack shit.

until then stfu and quit whining princess -

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem leaders declared Trump guilty BEFORE a single witness testified, this sham of an impeachment hearing is illegitimate.

so go jump off a roof - the house controls determining articles of impeachment, and dems control the house -

pry your lips off of trumps fat ass and step away -

After we bitch slap Dem's silly next Nov you fools won't control jack shit.

until then stfu and quit whining princess -

We control the Senate and White House fool, plenty of time for us to smack House Dem's around before we boot their ass out. Look, Nancy Pelosi is your leader

 

[Siete]

Dem leaders declared Trump guilty BEFORE a single witness testified, this sham of an impeachment hearing is illegitimate.

so go jump off a roof - the house controls determining articles of impeachment, and dems control the house -

pry your lips off of trumps fat ass and step away -

After we bitch slap Dem's silly next Nov you fools won't control jack shit.

until then stfu and quit whining princess -

We control the Senate and White House fool, plenty of time for us to smack House Dem's around before we boot their ass out. Look, Nancy Pelosi is your leader

Trumps base is too old to control their piss stream.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem leaders declared Trump guilty BEFORE a single witness testified, this sham of an impeachment hearing is illegitimate.

so go jump off a roof - the house controls determining articles of impeachment, and dems control the house -

pry your lips off of trumps fat ass and step away -

After we bitch slap Dem's silly next Nov you fools won't control jack shit.

until then stfu and quit whining princess -

We control the Senate and White House fool, plenty of time for us to smack House Dem's around before we boot their ass out. Look, Nancy Pelosi is your leader

Trumps base is too old to control their piss stream.

Ahahaha there will be nothing on stage during the next Dem debate other than old white Dem's hopefully your front runner Biden can stay away this time.

 

[berg80]

and former Vice-President Joe Biden's interference in the corruption investigation of the company Burisma where his son was a Director.

Sorry, I need to stop right there. Biden, the US State Dept., the EU, and the IMF all wanted Shokin removed because he WASN'T investigating corruption.
The facts behind Trump’s bogus accusations about Biden and Ukraine
.............................................................................................................
A quick guide to Trump’s false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens
Trump has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraine’s largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Biden’s son, Hunter, to its board in 2014.

There are two big problems with this claim: One, Shokin was not investigating Burisma or Hunter Biden, and two, Shokin’s ouster was considered a diplomatic victory.

Biden was among the many Western officials who pressed for the removal of Shokin because he actually was not investigating the corruption endemic to the country. Indeed, he was not investigating Burisma at the time. In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt publicly criticized Shokin’s office for thwarting a British money-laundering probe into Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ide-trumps-false-claims-about-ukraine-bidens/
.......................................................................................................................
It is incredibly frustrating to see the board littered with one falsehood after another with respect to every facet of this scandal. Shokin was not investigating Burisma or Hunter Biden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TRUMP'S GOAL OF CREATING A FALSE NARRATIVE IS BEING ACHIEVED EVERY TIME YOU FOLKS REPEAT ONE OF HIS LIES.

He is following Putin's disinformation playbook. For every fact there is a Repub talking point claiming there are no facts. OR LYING ABOUT THE FACTS IN EVIDENCE.