Why are we investigating Trump

[ataraxia]

What politician does not try to gain a political advantage?

There are legal and illegal ways to do it. This is illegal.

 

[ataraxia]

1) The plutocracy wanted WWIII under cover of sociopathic Queen of Rape Hillary. :thumbs:

2) Hillary lost.

3) Plutocracy mad. :2mad:

4) Trump hates hot war. eace

5) Plutocracy REALLY mad. :fueltofir

Annnnnnnnnnnnnd...

Impeachment.

Cool story bro. Say it to the judge.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Tell us what section and paragraph of election law was criminally violated by Trump's request(s) of the Ukrainian government. I "excitedly" wait to hear of your "serious" finding, one overlooked by the remainder of well versed academics and experts.

Asked and answered. Multiple times here.
Pwned.

Sad that you're so broken.

Others will step in here.

Please burn in Hell.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

That's a pathetically weak claim of illegality based on this statute. The law defines a "contribution" as "anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” Before your "horse" leaves the gate it falls over dead - one cannot show that Trump asked a foreign government to "find out what happened" for the purpose of influencing the 2020 election (whether the results would have or not). Moreover, Trump is on record, prior to Joe Biden's decision to run, of expressing his suspicion and in the public interest wanting to know what happed regarding Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's actions in the Ukraine in regard to the presumptively corrupt Burisma.

Moreover, the request is fully within the constitutional prerogative (even if he is abusing it) of the executive branch both in use of its power for law enforcement as well as the unique powers accorded in foreign policy. Investigation and knowledge of an issue of public interest, especially potential corruption by US citizens, does not make them and their family exempt just because a member of that family is running for President - this applies as much to Biden as it does to Trump.

The overly broad assumptions by the "orange man bad" pot bangers are daffy if assumed to be correct. Not "everything" of value is a campaign contribution. If China agrees to a trade deal, it may help Trump but its not a campaign contribution. If a Governor signs a state bill passed while running for President, its not a campaign contribution by his state legislator. If someone provides an endorsement, gives an interview, or writes a book (any of which could influence an election) OR the politician has a bill signing ceremony, town hall, or is allowed to visit a hospital or press dinner its not a campaign contribution.

There are better laws to cite to suggest that Trump may have done something illegal - but please retire the FEC canard. It's dumb.

It's always nice to see you bend the knee when you have no actual legal argument.

I like nice.

 

[GDViking]

That's a pathetically weak claim of illegality based on this statute. The law defines a "contribution" as "anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” Before your "horse" leaves the gate it falls over dead - one cannot show that Trump asked a foreign government to "find out what happened" for the purpose of influencing the 2020 election (whether the results would have or not). Moreover, Trump is on record, prior to Joe Biden's decision to run, of expressing his suspicion and in the public interest wanting to know what happed regarding Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's actions in the Ukraine in regard to the presumptively corrupt Burisma.

Moreover, the request is fully within the constitutional prerogative (even if he is abusing it) of the executive branch both in use of its power for law enforcement as well as the unique powers accorded in foreign policy. Investigation and knowledge of an issue of public interest, especially potential corruption by US citizens, does not make them and their family exempt just because a member of that family is running for President - this applies as much to Biden as it does to Trump.

The overly broad assumptions by the "orange man bad" pot bangers are daffy if assumed to be correct. Not "everything" of value is a campaign contribution. If China agrees to a trade deal, it may help Trump but its not a campaign contribution. If a Governor signs a state bill passed while running for President, its not a campaign contribution by his state legislator. If someone provides an endorsement, gives an interview, or writes a book (any of which could influence an election) OR the politician has a bill signing ceremony, town hall, or is allowed to visit a hospital or press dinner its not a campaign contribution.

There are better laws to cite to suggest that Trump may have done something illegal - but please retire the FEC canard. It's dumb.

When it is only do e in order to assist his campaign, it IS an illegal campaign donation...

 

[maxparrish]

It's always nice to see you bend the knee when you have no actual legal argument.

I like nice.

Handwaving. Try again.

 

[maxparrish]

When it is only do e in order to assist his campaign, it IS an illegal campaign donation...

I already debunked that. There is no proof that it was only to influence the election - Biden's doings have been an issue of public interest, established by investigative journalist(s) and widely criticized, including by Trump prior to Biden's announcement.

Hence, there is no point in chasing a hare when the dog you bet on is dead.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Show me the money Trump got from his phone call.

I can show you the money Hillary and Bill got from the Russians when she let Russia have a lot of our uranium. Bill got a half million for one speech, and the Clinton Foundation got 140 million dollars. That is crooked as hell.

Then Biden's kid was getting $80,000 a month after Biden leaned on Ukraine. That too is crooked as hell.

Again why are we investigating Trump when those two are the crooks and got crooked money?

Why are we investigating Trump? Because both Trump and the White House have admitted that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors, which is unconstitutional. Trump put his own self-interest ahead of U.S. national security, by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political opponent and withholding military funding from Ukraine as a result.

It really is that simple. Trump will be impeached, you just have to accept that. Obfuscation and crying about it won't do any good.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I already debunked that. There is no proof that it was only to influence the election - Biden's doings have been an issue of public interest, established by investigative journalist(s) and widely criticized, including by Trump prior to Biden's announcement.

Hence, there is no point in chasing a hare when the dog you bet on is dead.

It doesn't matter if there were multiple reasons. The fact that Trump mentioned Biden in that phone call with Zelensky shows that Biden was obviously a major reason for withholding military funding from Ukraine. And that's high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is no spinning this, no matter how hard you try. Trump will be impeached. The only question now is if 20 spineless Repugs can find the courage to remove Trump from office.

 

[HAL9000]

Moreover, Trump is on record

Nope, Trump first believed that Biden's run was inevitable on 3/18/19.

Joe Biden got tongue tied over the weekend when he was unable to properly deliver a very simple line about his decision to run for President. Get used to it, another low I.Q. individual!

Biden announced 4/25

Welcome to the race Sleepy Joe...

The first time Trump publicly referenced the scandal was this retweet on May 2.

NEW: The BIDENS are entangled in a Ukrainian corruption scandal:
@JoeBiden pushed Ukraine to fire a prosecutor seen as corrupt.
BUT the prosecutor had opened a case into a company that was paying HUNTER BIDEN.
The Bidens say they never discussed it.

Then, later on May 2, he mentioned Biden's scandal in an interview with Fox News

I'm hearing it's a major scandal, major problem. Very bad things happened, and we'll see what that is. They even have him on tape, talking about it. They have Joe Biden on tape talking about the prosecutor, and I've seen that tape. A lot of people are talking about that tape, but that's up to them...."

If Trump was interested in justice, he would have used the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine.

Article 2
Central Authorities
1. Each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this Treaty
2. For the United States of America, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General.
3. Each Central Authority shall make only such requests as it considers and approves. The Central Authority for the Requesting State shall use its best efforts the request is not made where, in its view:
(a) the offense on which the request is based does not have serious consequences; or
(b) the extent of the assistance to be requested is disproportionate to the sentence expected upon conviction
4. The Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of this Treaty.

Article 4
Form and Contents of Requests
1. A request for assistance shall be in writing except that the Central Authority of the Requested State may accept a request in another form in urgent situations. If the request is not in writing, it shall be confirmed in writing within ten days unless the Central Authority of the Requested State agrees otherwise. The request shall be in the the language of the Requested State unless otherwise agreed.
2. The request shall include the following
(a) the name of the authority conducting the investigation, prosecution or proceeding to which the request relates;
(b) a description of the nature and subject matter of the investigation, prosecution, or proceeding, and applicable provisions of law for each offense;
(c) a description of the evidence, information or other assistance sought; and
(d) a statement of the purpose for which the evidence, information, or other assistance is sought.
3. To the extent necessary and possible, a request shall also include:
(a) information on the identity and location of any person from whom evidence is sought;
(b) information on the identity and location of a person to be served, that person's relationship to the proceedings and the manner in which the service is to be made.
(c) information on the identity and suspected location of a person or item to be located
(d) a precise description of the place or person to be searched and of the item to be seized;
(e) a description of the matter in which any testimony or statement is to be taken and recorded
(f) a description of the testimony or statement sought, which may include a list of questions to be asked of a person
(g)a description of any particular procedure to be followed in executing the request, including certifications specified in articles 8,9 and 15 of this Treaty through completion of the appropriate forms annexed to this Treaty.
(h) information as to the expenses related to travel and subsistence of a person asked to appear outside the Requested State; and
(i) any other information that may be brought to the attention of the Requested State to facilitate its execution of the request.

He would have made the request through the Central Authority as per Article 2, the AG(or he would have at least told the AG what he wanted and the AG could have made him Central Authority), and his request would have adhered to the form and content requirements of the Treaty as outlined in Article 4.

Also, if he was so interested in justice, and not the political benefits, then why did Giuliani and other diplomats place such a focus on a Zelensky delivering a statement announcing the reopening of the investigation?

 

[HAL9000]

Moreover, Trump is on record, prior to Joe Biden's decision to run, of expressing his suspicion and in the public interest wanting to know what happed regarding Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's actions in the Ukraine in regard to the presumptively corrupt Burisma.

But let's talk about Biden. Now, I wouldn't claim that getting a cushy job with a fat paycheck on no experience isn't shady. But what I am fairly confident about, is that, even if Hunter committed a crime, Biden didn't need to fire Shokin for his son to get off easy. Firstly, the Ukrainian investigation was initiated through a request from the British, who were investigating Zlochevsky for money laundering, and froze $23 million in assets. Under Shokin, the PGO refused to give the UK all the documents it requested. The UK closed its investigation and unfroze the $23 million. The PGO investigation into Burisma went dormant when the British closed theirs, and it remained dormant until after Shokin was replaced. With Lutsenko in office, Burisma settled with the Ukrainian government for ~$7 million.

The thing is, it's said Ukraine has a corruption problem, it's not a joke. Zlochevsky is corrupt, Shokin is corrupt, Lutsenko is corrupt, Poroshenko is corrupt, etc, etc.

Shokin is one of Poroshenko's closest loyalists. In fact, Shokin is the godfather of one of Shokin's kids. While prior to replacing Shokin, there was a push among the Ukrainian public for a PG who wasn't one of Poroshenko's cronies, in the end, Lutsenko was appointed. He's also a Poroshenko loyalist, and wasn't very active in pursuing corruption.

Poroshenko's main business is Ukraine's largest confectionery company, Roshen. Now, hopefully it isn't too difficult to grasp, that the profit margin of a business whose primary activity largely consists of melting sugar and chocolate, has a profit margin which is highly dependent on energy prices. Poroshenko's financial interests are deeply entangled with Zlochevsky. Burisma is Roshen's natural gas supplier. It also supplies gas to many companies owned by Poroshenko allies.

So as long as Poroshenko was in office, it's was in his interest that Zlochevsky wasn't looked into too deeply. Understanding that, and understanding that it would require a lot of political pressure to get Poroshenko to fire someone who was practically family, if Biden was significantly motivated by making sure his son got off the hook, firing Shokin is a difficult and extraneous step in accomplishing that.

 

[Sabre]

Who Trump considered to be his most likely opponent, as he was running this scheme, doesn't rely on your opinion.

Not who was or who will be, but most likely. As I have said all along, none are his opponent yet.

 

[maxparrish]

It doesn't matter if there were multiple reasons. The fact that Trump mentioned Biden in that phone call with Zelensky shows that Biden was obviously a major reason for withholding military funding from Ukraine. And that's high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is no spinning this, no matter how hard you try. Trump will be impeached. The only question now is if 20 spineless Repugs can find the courage to remove Trump from office.

It is certainly ill-considered and abusive of his authority, the rest however is a matter of it warrants impeachment.

 

[HAL9000]

Not who was or who will be, but most likely. As I have said all along, none are his opponent yet.

Yawn...

Trump's intent is what matters. So his belief is important.

 

[maxparrish]

Nope, Trump first believed that Biden's run was inevitable on 3/18/19.

Biden announced 4/25

The first time Trump publicly referenced the scandal was this retweet on May 2.

Then, later on May 2, he mentioned Biden's scandal in an interview with Fox News

Except that Giuliani had been involved with the Ukraine and the political battles with a nexus to defending Trump and his conspiracy theories since 2017. The Biden story's broad outlines of dubious conduct and connections since the NYTimes article several years ago. By December 2018 Giuliani spoke with Viktor Shokin, Ukraine's former prosecutor general, met with Lutsenko (Ukraine's prosecutor general un Poroshenko) in January and again in February. The fact is that Trump and his surrogate have been looking to discredit Democratic investigative efforts since the Mueller investigation began.

It wasn't future "mind reading" Joe Biden's April 25th decision to run, anymore than it was a plot for a series of articles in The Hill in March that blew this controversy wide open and spawned Trump's tweets. You can look for all the excuses you like, including conjecture on what he was thinking, but the obvious introduction of this a story of major public interest was already established, as was Giuliani and Trump's interest.

If Trump was interested in justice, he would have used the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine.

By now everyone knows that whatever Trump's interest he is uniquely untalented at achieving it in a conventional, wise, or disciplined manner. His management is chaos and his actions are impulsive. Only a fool would mind read his intentions based on his ineptitude - especially for someone who is used to wheeling and dealing directly with stakeholders and asking for "favors".

Also, if he was so interested in justice, and not the political benefits, then why did Giuliani and other diplomats place such a focus on a Zelensky delivering a statement announcing the reopening of the investigation?

Because Trump does not trust private assurances, any more than he trusted Comey's regarding him not being a target. A public commitment, as most President's know, is necessary to lock in committments.

Look, I'm not saying that Trump is interested in Justice in any abstract sense, I am saying that his motives are most likely as they have always been "protect the brand" and prove that the Democrats (who are his current brand critics) are scum bags and never to be trusted. But throwing everything but the kitchen sink is not a violation of election law.

To repeat: I am more than happy to entertain the notion that he abused his authority and that it may, or may not, be impeachment worthy in and of itself. I have little patience with those attempting to war the federal election code to come up with a fake violation.

 

[marke]

Yawn...

Trump's intent is what matters. So his belief is important.

I think Schiftt plans to nail Trump on democrat assessments of his unspoken intent, since Schiftt has nothing else to go on.

 

[ataraxia]

I think Schiftt plans to nail Trump on democrat assessments of his unspoken intent, since Schiftt has nothing else to go on.

No, his intent is on the transcripts he released.

There are also the ten criminal obstruction charges in the Mueller report. The only reason he is not in jail for them already is because he is in the whitehouse.

What more do you want, for him to stand on 5th Avenue and shoot people on camera?

Oh wait, don’t answer that. We already know.:roll:

 

[Oborosen]

No, his intent is on the transcripts he released.

There are also the ten criminal obstruction charges in the Mueller report. The only reason he is not in jail for them already is because he is in the whitehouse.

What more do you want, for him to stand on 5th Avenue and shoot people on camera?

Oh wait, don’t answer that. We already know.:roll:

The Mueller report did not say that he committed obstruction and Schiff was so laid up for ammo against Trump. That he had to lie about the very transcript her was reading.

And the 5th avenue comment is old and worthless at this point. We know it doesn't mean what you're trying to imply it does.

 

[ataraxia]

The Mueller report did not say that he committed obstruction

It does. There are 10 instances enumerated. They are just waiting for Trump to be removed from the Whitehouse to land him in jail.

]and Schiff was so laid up for ammo against Trump. That he had to lie about the very transcript her was reading

No you can read it yourself. Or listen to every single aid who was working with him.

Ambassador to Testify: Quid Pro Quo Text Was Trump'''s Message | Time

Look, I know truth can be painful and psychological denial can be powerful. But the evidence is going to becoming so overwhelming that even you are eventually going to have to admit we have a wee bit of a problem.

 

[haymarket]

Her campaign went to the Ukrainian government for dirt on Trump.

Provide the verifiable evidence of that charge.

 

[Oborosen]

It does. There are 10 instances enumerated. They are just waiting for Trump to be removed from the Whitehouse to land him in jail.



No you can read it yourself. Or listen to every single aid who was working with him.

Ambassador to Testify: Quid Pro Quo Text Was Trump'''s Message | Time

Look, I know truth can be painful and psychological denial can be powerful. But the evidence is going to becoming so overwhelming that even you are eventually going to have to admit we have a wee bit of a problem.

Alrght, I'll bite.

What is an instance in which Trump committed obstruction, as worded by the Muller report and what did Trump say in his call to the Ukrainian president that amount to quid pro quo?

Take your time, I'll wait.

 

[haymarket]

That's a pathetically weak claim of illegality based on this statute.

Opposition research which one candidate gathers to hurt another candidate is very valuable in an election and campaigns have paid for such information. It is definitely a thing of value and Trump broke the law in requesting it from Ukraine. He is a criminal and must be impeached and removed ASAP.

 

[haymarket]

According to Schiftt's version of the call, Trump threatened the Ukrainian president to hurt him financially if he did not dig up dirt on Biden for him. Of course that narrative was not actually in the call, but was just Schiftt's take on the events according to what he wanted to believe. Schiftt's lying version will never hold up in court.

Trump solicited the Ukraine leader in TRUMPS VERSION OF THE CALL. He broke the law right there.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Why are we investigating Trump

To keep his name in the news so that he gets re-elected. If Dems wanted Trump out, they would cover him up at all costs, just like legal self-defense gun use. Trump is a RINO and the Dems need him to get a second term so that Trump can do some Dem **** in his last year.

 

[HAL9000]

Except that Giuliani had been involved with the Ukraine and the political battles with a nexus to defending Trump and his conspiracy theories since 2017.

Except that's not an argument against what I've said, it's an argument for my point. Thanks. I'm familiar with the timeline, but I deliberately didn't mention Trump's knowledge of the scandal, only his public statements about it(what he's said on the record.) That's the demonstration of intent. Trump uses public statements like weapons against his opponents. He held back, and only started mentioning the scandal once it was politically useful for him to do so, once Biden announced.

Here's a plot of the cumulative Trump tweets mentioning Biden's name. Starting with the last Biden mention before the election 10/17/16, there's only one Biden mention through 2017 and 2018, until Biden hints at his run on 3/18/19, after which, there are 101. You can't hand wave away that correlation.

By now everyone knows that whatever Trump's interest he is uniquely untalented at achieving it in a conventional, wise, or disciplined manner. His management is chaos and his actions are impulsive. Only a fool would mind read his intentions based on his ineptitude - especially for someone who is used to wheeling and dealing directly with stakeholders and asking for "favors".

I like calling the president stupid too, but we're not talking about getting 50% on a true-false test here, we're talking about someone getting a 0%. That's the difference between being inept, and doing it wrong on purpose. The truly stupid, and the truly insane, don't avoid getting caught.

"I sensed something odd when Ambassador Sondland told me on June 28 that he
did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call
planned with President Zelenskyy later that day. Ambassador Sondland,
Ambassador Volker, Secretary Perry, and I were on this call, dialing in from
different locations. However, Ambassador Sondland said that he wanted to make
sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelenskyy to
the call." - Bill Taylor

In the same July 19 phone call, they gave mean account of the July 10 meeting
with the Ukrainian officials at the White House. Specifically, they told me that
Ambassador Sondland had connected “ investigations with an Oval Office meeting
for President Zelenskyy, which so irritated Ambassador Bolton that he abruptly
ended the meeting, telling Dr. Hilland Mr. Vindman that they should have nothing
to do with domestic politics. He also directed Dr. Hill to the lawyers. Dr.
Hill said that Bolton referred to this as a "drug deal” after the July 10
meeting. Ambassador Bolton opposed a call between President Zelenskyy and
President Trump out of concern that it“ would be a disaster.

Later on July 20, I had a phone conversation with Ambassador Sondland while he
was on a train from Paris to London Ambassador Sondland told me that he had
recommended to President Zelenskyy that he use the phrase , “ I will leave no stone
unturned with regard to investigations when President Zelenskyy spoke with
President Trump .

A formal U .S . request to the Ukrainians to conduct
an investigation based on violations of their own law struck me as improper, and I
recommended to Ambassador Volker that we stay clear. find out the legal
aspects of the question, however, I gave him the name of a Deputy Assistant
Attorney General whom I thought would be the proper point of contact for seeking
a U.S. referral for a foreign investigation .

Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a
mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White
House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement
of investigations fact, Ambassador Sondland said , everything was dependent
on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President
Trump wanted President Zelenskyy " in a public box” by making a public statement
about ordering such investigations

Because Trump does not trust private assurances, any more than he trusted Comey's regarding him not being a target. A public commitment, as most President's know, is necessary to lock in committments.

You know that's nonsense right? World leaders make secret deals every day.