President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

woohoo!!!

notobtuse wrote: »

So the democrats need witnesses to make their case? Leads one to believe they're admitting they had no case when they impeached Trump.

Why did they not try and get those witnesses they so desperately need to testify when they had total control of the House impeachment process?

So you're happy that evidence is withheld and witnesses blocked? This is a trial of Trump, whether he or his supporters like it or not and if he's innocent, why block,
why not put it to bed?

weisses

notobtuse wrote: »

So the democrats need witnesses to make their case?

I fully agree ...Its very uncommon to use witnesses in a trial ... where do they get these ridiculous ideas

mcmoustache

Balls!

Excerpts of John Bolton's book have come out. It looks like this whole thing was a misunderstanding and that there was no Ill intent behind Trump's actions with regard to making Ukraine aid conditional on the announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden's son.

Oh wait...

TheRepentent

woohoo!!! wrote: »

and if he's innocent, why block,
why not put it to bed?

Because he's not innocent .



Trump and the GOP are morally bankrupt........

Outlaw Pete

Bolton saying Trump told him that he wouldn't be releasing the aid unless the Biden-Burisma controversy was investigated certainly lends weight to the democrats' case for sure (a game changer as I called it a couple of months back) but it all depends on just exactly what it was that Trump said to (or even around) Bolton.

For example, if it's just that Trump was adamant that he wouldn't believe Zelensky was different to other Ukraine leaders unless he took steps to show it and those steps Trump believed should involve him giving assurances that Ukraine would look into the incidents of Ukraine corruption which directly affected and impacted the US (such as the last administration's meddling in the 2016 election and the Burisma-Biden controversy for example). Well, that's not really going to be enough (imv) as I can't see the GOP caring about that, on the contrary, and tbf we know as much already from the call transcript that Trump clearly wanted those issues looked into by Ukraine.

However, if Bolton claims that Trump was saying that Ukraine wasn't getting the aid until Zelensky made it clear they/he would investigate the two issues of corruption of interest to the US, BUT only BECAUSE Trump felt it would hinder Biden's chances in 2020 (and enhance his) well then that's a different matter entirely. If Bolton gave evidence along those lines, well then that's a game changer for sure as it would clearly support the charge that he was using his position for personal political gain.

Without such evidence though from Bolton (or even Mulvaney) then can't see it mattering all that much. Showing that there would be a general overall benefit for Trump in 2020 from such investigations being undertaken by Ukraine won't cut it as it's too easy to argue that such a benefit is incidental in nature, as opposed to an objective.

Gonna be interesting what happens next for sure. I'd say this will at least result in some republicans now voting for witnesses to be allowed.

Outlaw Pete

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663763138588672
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663764971491329

hetuzozaho

Well if Trump says he didn't then he probably did.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663763138588672
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663764971491329

Well that's me definitely convinced that we don't need witnesses in the senate trial

woohoo!!!

Trump did meet Z at the UN. Dems stated that this occurred last week in the Senate. There's tv footage of them meeting. So yet again Trump cannot help lying. Bolton and Rudy need to testify and be questioned.

Cody montana

Bolton must testify.

osarusan

There's no way that the timing of the release of the excerpts from the book was coincidental.

Does Bolton want to get involved? And why?

Call me Al

osarusan wrote: »

There's no way that the timing of the release of the excerpts from the book was coincidental.

Does Bolton want to get involved? And why?

Maybe because he's grown a backbone?
Maybe because he has recognised that the person in the White House is dishonest and is lying about the whole thing?
Maybe because he doesn't want his reputation linked to, and ruined by, this scandal?
Or maybe trump is telling the truth.. he wants to sell books?
Or maybe all of the above, or none of them.

kilns

Call me Al wrote: »

Maybe because he's grown a backbone?
Maybe because he has recognised that the person in the White House is dishonest and is lying about the whole thing?
Maybe because he doesn't want his reputation linked to, and ruined by, this scandal?
Or maybe trump is telling the truth.. he wants to sell books?
Or maybe all of the above, or none of them.

Bolton is selling a book simple as

It has been reported this morning that the white house are going to apply for a restraining order to stop him talking

Boggles

kilns wrote: »

Bolton is selling a book simple as

It has been reported this morning that the white house are going to apply for a restraining order to stop him talking

He hasn't been talking, the White House had the book for a month, his lawyer is claiming the leak came from there.

Call me Al

kilns wrote: »

Bolton is selling a book simple as

It has been reported this morning that the white house are going to apply for a restraining order to stop him talking

It's not simple as anything!

Bolton hasn't been allowed testify.
Their reaction to him smacks of complete desperation on the part of the WH, and fear on the part of Trump.

kilns

Boggles wrote: »

He hasn't been talking, the White House had the book for a month, his lawyer is claiming the leak came from there.

However after that bombshell, how can republican senators not allow witnesses and he would be first up now, so he will have to talk but Trump is determined for him not to. To be honest even if Bolton said he okd the worst of the worst crimes the republicans will still back him, they are in so deep

Boggles

kilns wrote: »

However after that bombshell, how can republican senators not allow witnesses and he would be first up now, so he will have to talk but Trump is determined for him not to. To be honest even if Bolton said he okd the worst of the worst crimes the republicans will still back him, they are in so deep

They will do what they have done since Trump took office. Tell lies and push conspiracy theories.

Hande hoche!

osarusan wrote: »

There's no way that the timing of the release of the excerpts from the book was coincidental.

Does Bolton want to get involved? And why?

Flogging the book. Plus he never got his war with Iran, so he might be hoping for starting one with the next administration.

woohoo!!!

Trump continues to dig by yet more lies. Congress did in fact seek Bolton to testify.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221764212873224193?s=19

Boggles

He is scared shítless of Bolton.

I wonder will there be a deal done in the background to keep him quiet.

Bolton was very quick from the start to distance himself from the "drug deal" and making sure people were aware he had nothing to do with it.

That evidence has all ready been presented to the House and Senate.

manual_man

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Trump continues to dig by yet more lies. Congress did in fact seek Bolton to testify.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221764212873224193?s=19

Bluster and nonsense. They never subpoenaed him. The Senate's only duty is to try the case provided to them by the House. If the House wishes to relitigate in The House it is their prerogative to do so. It is not The Senate's duty to gather additional information - information which The House declined to pursue.

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

Bluster and nonsense. They never subpoenaed him. The Senate's only duty is to try the case provided to them by the House. If the House wishes to relitigate in The House it is their prerogative to do so. It is not The Senate's duty to gather additional information - information which The House declined to pursue.

There was no point, they all ready blocked several subpoenas.

Also Trump made it pretty clear he wasn't going to corporate at any level with the process.

For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process. Your unprecedented actions have left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional
inquiry under these circumstances.

This is all part of the trial.

The house did invite Bolton to testify, so yes King Trump is indeed telling more lies.

The excuse for not calling at least Bolton as a witness just went out the window.

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

There was no point, they all ready blocked several subpoenas.

Also Trump made it pretty clear he wasn't going to corporate at any level with the process.



This is all part of the trial.

The house did invite Bolton to testify, so yes King Trump is indeed telling more lies.

The excuse for not calling at least Bolton as a witness just went out the windows.

Would that be lie 16001?

Boggles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Would that be lie 16001?

Alternative reality.

Everyone is telling lies apart from the man who can't speak without lying.

Again for those at the back, the is the party of law and order, the Republican party removing Impeachment from the constitution and giving America a King.

manual_man

Boggles wrote: »

There was no point, they all ready blocked several subpoenas

You mean they asserted standard executive privelige? Like all other administrations have done? This is called Separation of Powers, as outlined and in the Constitution, and is designed to ensure no one branch of government (Executive Branch/The House/The Senate) oversteps its mark and abuses its authority. The courts make the ultimate decision when there is disagreement between branches of government. The House rushed to an impeachment vote, citing urgency and overwhelming proof of guilt. They then sat on the articles of impeachment for a month and are now demanding documents and witnesses that they declined to pursue in the process they controlled in the House.

Cry me a river.

notobtuse

Pretty please with sugar on top? Wow... some powerful request to testify!

House investigators could have subpoenaed Bolton to testify as they did with Charles Kupperman, a top aide to national security adviser John Bolton. Both he and Bolton stated they would testify if a court ordered them to comply with a subpoena. Normal course of action regarding the separation of powers. But the House impeachment investigators withdrew their subpoena for Kupperman, even though judge Richard Leon had agreed to an expedited schedule. The judge gave a statement even after the House dropped the subpoena “The House clearly has no intention of pursuing Kupperman, and his claims are thus moot.” I guess the democrats didn’t think their testimony was ultimately necessary… that is until they realized they had no case, evidently.

Don’t blame the Senate because the House rushed their articles and did a lousy job. Anyway, it gives Democrats reason for their next impeachment push against Orange Man Bad… which might have been their goal all along.

Viva la perpetual investigations?

The trial needs to take place on the House investigator’s case they presented. Otherwise it will become an even bigger farce than it already is.

Recent history of assertions of executive privilege … Kennedy twice, Johnson 3 times, Nixon 4 times, Ford once, Carter once, Reagan 3 times, GHWBush once, Clinton a whopping 14 times, GWBush 5 times, and Obama once in response to congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. Should they all have been impeached? Or just Trump? Maybe 14 assertions of executive privilege should be the threshold for impeachment.

kilns

manual_man wrote: »

You mean they asserted standard executive privelige? Like all other administrations have done? This is called Separation of Powers, as outlined and in the Constitution, and is designed to ensure no one branch of government (Executive Branch/The House/The Senate) oversteps its mark and abuses its authority. The courts make the ultimate decision when there is disagreement between branches of government. The House rushed to an impeachment vote, citing urgency and overwhelming proof of guilt. They then sat on the articles of impeachment for a month and are now demanding documents and witnesses that they declined to pursue in the process they controlled in the House.

Cry me a river.

I would refer you to the constitution which differs. Even Nixon who fought hard on executive privledge admitted that congress under the impeachment act supercedes executive priviledge

woohoo!!!

manual_man wrote: »

Bluster and nonsense. They never subpoenaed him. The Senate's only duty is to try the case provided to them by the House. If the House wishes to relitigate in The House it is their prerogative to do so. It is not The Senate's duty to gather additional information - information which The House declined to pursue.

The only reason that there is a need for new witnesses, is the very obstruction of Congress, most notably from the WH. It would have been far preferable if material witnesses offered material evidence to the charge.

The precedent for every future president not to co-operate has been set, thus undermining the Impeachment process.

If this was a perfect call, why not co-operate with enthusiasm to clear his name, and Implicitly knock political opponents out the door.

By definition, Trump is guilty of obstruction, he has said as much and his excuse doesn't address the charge.

notobtuse

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The only reason that there is a need for new witnesses, is the very obstruction of Congress, most notably from the WH. It would have been far preferable if material witnesses offered material evidence to the charge.

The precedent for every future president not to co-operate has been set, thus undermining the Impeachment process.

If this was a perfect call, why not co-operate with enthusiasm to clear his name, and Implicitly knock political opponents out the door.

By definition, Trump is guilty of obstruction, he has said as much and his excuse doesn't address the charge.

Going forward if a president fails to cooperate with Congress, they'll just impeachment him/her for Obstruction of Congress. That is the precedent the Democrats have now set. Sad state of affairs!

campo

notobtuse wrote: »

Going forward if a president fails to cooperate with Congress, they'll just impeachment him/her for Obstruction of Congress. That is the precedent the Democrats have now set. Sad state of affairs!

The parts highlighted above are exactly as you outlined, obstruction of congress which is an impeachable offence