Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

[Foxi4]

It was so politically motivated that they were fired immediately by lifelong Republican Robert Mueller.

Standard clean-up after a boo-boo.

On a whim, yes. To dissuade the FBI from investigating his ties to a foreign power, no. There's a reason the Saturday night massacre didn't play well for Nixon, but I suppose that was a time when Republicans still put country over party.

In his testimony Special Counsel Mueller explicitly states that he never felt impeded in any way in his investigation, which may I add found "insufficient evidence to support criminal charges (...) charge any Trump campaign official as an unregistered agent (...) charge with criminal campaign finance violation (...) or charge that any Trump campaign official conspired with representatives of the Russian government". You would think that he would, seeing that in your mind Trump was so eager to "obstruct the investigation" when the far more likely scenario is that he was just angry at Comey for continuing a farce that had no merit from the get-go. Trump is an impulsive man, he likes quick results, not meandering in the weeds when there's nothing there to find. The funny thing is that none of any of this would've ever happened if the investigation was resolved when it was supposed to - when Trump was elected and the dossier was thoroughly discredited by the FBI. It took Mueller two whole years to find what Republican voters knew Day 1 - that the campaign was approached by the Russians, not the other way around, and while they initially welcomed any help in electing their candidate, they ultimately rebuffed it, which is a sign of better judgement. The same cannot be said about the opposition which will happily jump on anything, including a live grenade, so long as some of the viscera-laden aftermath splashes onto the president. This is yet another grenade just like that, and I sincerely hope it will be another dud, considering the fact that Trump's suit appears to be made of teflon - nothing sticks to it.

 

[Xzi]

Standard clean-up after a boo-boo.

It wasn't necessary to fire them, none of their texts had any connection to the investigation itself. Mueller values impartiality and the appearance thereof to the point where he goes above and beyond to maintain it, however. That's been clear throughout the entirety of his career.

In his testimony Special Counsel Mueller explicitly states that he never felt impeded in any way in his investigation, which may I add found, "insufficient evidence to support criminal charges (...) charge any Trump campaign official as an unregistered agent (...) charge with criminal campaign finance violation (...) or charge that any Trump campaign official conspired with representatives of the Russian government".

There were several people involved with the Trump campaign, and close to Trump personally, that were put on trial and went to jail over similar charges. Roger Stone is still dealing with legal fallout. Mueller also made it clear during his testimony that he was unable to exonerate Trump of any charges, and that Russians were still interfering with our political system and elections to this day.

Trump is an impulsive man, he likes quick results, not meandering in the weed's when there's nothing there to find.

In other words: he's a child who cannot sit still or pay attention to any one thing for more than ten minutes. Let alone keep himself from lying for ten minutes at a time. It's for that reason I was annoyed when Mueller didn't push for a live interview, but I suppose all attempts at that were futile once Barr was hired on as Trump's personal lawyer.

 

[Foxi4]

It wasn't necessary to fire them, none of their texts had any connection to the investigation itself. Mueller values impartiality and the appearance thereof to the point where he goes above and beyond to maintain it, however. That's been clear throughout the entirety of his career.

So you're saying that when they wrote that "Trump isn't going to become president" because "they won't let him" that was on the up-and-up? Okay.

There were several people involved with the Trump campaign, and close to Trump personally, that were put on trial and went to jail over similar charges. Mueller also made it clear during his testimony that he was unable to exonerate Trump of any charges, and that Russians were still interfering with our political system and elections to this day.

This is patently untrue, or at least misleading, I provided you with quotes directly from the report. Volume I is explicitly concerned with "colluding with Russia", and the evidence was insufficient to establish any wrongdoing in this regard. None of the indictments or plea deals which were the result of the Special Counsel's investigation are connected with the alleged crimes listed, according to Mueller himself. It's also worth noting that Trump and Trump Campaign officials are de facto innocent of any alleged crimes until proven guilty in a court of law - if there is no evidence, there can be no verdict on guilt and thus no exoneration. It's not Mueller's job to exonerate anyone, nor was it his job to judge anyone. He's not a prosecutor nor a judge, he's an investigator, his job was to gather evidence - he failed to do so, and he had ample time. If you feel like living in a world of presumption of guilt as opposed to presumption of innocence, you're welcome to do so - I don't. If you're interested in the findings, I invite you to read the report, particularly the conclusion of Volume I, since that's the volume that concerns the origin of this whole affair. I personally don't care about any "gotcha" attempts as far as supposed obstruction is concerned - if there was no collusion, the case was fruit from the poisonous tree.

In other words: he's a child who cannot sit still or pay attention to any one thing for more than ten minutes. Let alone keep himself from lying for ten minutes at a time. It's for that reason I was annoyed when Mueller didn't push for a live interview, but I suppose all attempts at that were futile once Barr was hired on as Trump's personal lawyer.

Hyperbole yet again. Comey's actions directly undermined the legitimacy of Trump's presidency and needed to be stopped, although the method used was admittedly not ideal. Barr is not "Trump's personal lawyer", he simply applies the law as it is written.

 

[Deleted User]

Could someone provide context for this? I don't know if I'm being stupid or what, but I'm not sure what the treasonous part of this is.

 

[Xzi]

I personally don't care about any "gotcha" attempts as far as supposed obstruction is concerned - if there was no collusion, the case was fruit from the poisonous tree.

Volume 1 was inconclusive specifically because there was so much obstruction of justice going on and several subjects failed to cooperate/hand over requested evidence, so the two volumes are very much connected in that sense.

Barr is not "Trump's personal lawyer", he simply applies the law as it is written.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. This is the guy who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, purposefully misled the public with his preemptive "summary" of the Mueller report, and now has been mentioned as the middle-man during the phone conversation in which Trump is requesting dirt on Biden.

 

[Foxi4]

Could someone provide context for this? I don't know if I'm being stupid or what, but I'm not sure what the treasonous part of this is.

It's problematic because Biden will likely be the Democratic front-runner and Trump's opponent in the 2020 election. If it's proven that Trump wanted to use his political power in order to eliminate a political opponent, it would be an abuse of his position as POTUS. This poses a dilemma though, as it limits the scope of the executive to "those who aren't currently running for President", which is a little silly. In short, the inquiry needs to establish if Trump leveraged his position in this way, which should be fairly simple considering the fact that we can just ask the Ukrainian president if that was the case.

Volume 1 was inconclusive specifically because there was so much obstruction of justice going on and several subjects failed to cooperate/hand over requested evidence, so the two volumes are very much connected in that sense.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. This is the guy who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, purposefully misled the public with his preemptive "summary" of the Mueller report, and now has been mentioned as the middle-man during the phone conversation in which Trump is requesting dirt on Biden.

He never explicitly asks for any information about Biden. He makes a suggestion that perhaps the investigation was closed too hastily, drawing a connection to the Bidens and the firing of the prosecutor who was on the case. Even you can't deny that the man was fired at least in part due to Joe Biden's conduct, so if we're talking quid pro quo, you have a prime example of it there - loan guarantees in exchange for killing an investigation.

 

[Xzi]

He never explicitly asks for any information about Biden. He makes a suggestion that perhaps the investigation was closed too hastily, drawing a connection to the Bidens and the firing of the prosecutor who was on the case.

He explicitly asks them for "a favor," to investigate Biden and his son, with the help of Barr (who he supposedly didn't consult about this, or at least that's what Barr has said).

Even you can't deny that the man was fired at least in part due to Joe Biden's conduct, so if we're talking quid pro quo, you have a prime example of it there - loan guarantees in exchange for killing an investigation.

I can neither confirm nor deny that. There had been pressure from the Obama administration and some Ukrainians for months to fire that particular prosecutor, and the position of vice president doesn't usually wield a lot of power of any kind. There will probably be more scrutiny into the whole event now, both from within and outside of the Democratic party.

The 'quid' has already been proven and confessed to in Trump's case, and that's a crime in itself. Like I said before, if this ends up hurting Trump and Biden equally, I see it as a win-win.

 

[Deleted User]

It's problematic because Biden will likely be the Democratic front-runner and Trump's opponent in the 2020 election. If it's proven that Trump wanted to use his political power in order to eliminate a political opponent, it would be an abuse of his position as POTUS. This poses a dilemma though, as it limits the scope of the executive to "those who aren't currently running for President", which is a little silly. In short, the inquiry needs to establish if Trump leveraged his position in this way, which should be fairly simple considering the fact that we can just ask the Ukrainian president if that was the case.

Why was he asking the Ukrainian president about this, of all people? Is he connected to Biden in some way?

Edit: Okay, so as far as I can tell, Biden was doing something in Ukraine and Trump wants the president to look into it?

 

[Foxi4]

He explicitly asks them for "a favor," to investigate Biden and his son, with the help of Barr (who he supposedly didn't consult about this, or at least that's what Barr has said).

I can neither confirm nor deny that. There had been pressure from the Obama administration and some Ukrainians for months to fire that particular prosecutor, and the position of vice president doesn't usually wield a lot of power of any kind. There will probably be more scrutiny into the whole event now, both from within and outside of the Democratic party.

The 'quid' has already been proven and confessed to in Trump's case, and that's a crime in itself. Like I said before, if this ends up hurting Trump and Biden equally, I see it as a win-win.

From the transcript it would appear that the Ukrainian president was intending to revisit the case either way. You'd also have to argue that the matter implicates Joe Biden, as opposed to his son who was actually on the Board of Directors. Hunter isn't running, he's a private citizen. Calling this a crime without fully investigating the matter is a hasty conclusion.

Why was he asking the Ukrainian president about this, of all people? Is he connected to Biden in some way?

Edit: Okay, so as far as I can tell, Biden was doing something in Ukraine and Trump wants the president to look into it?

Biden withheld money from the Ukrainian government in the form of loan guarantees until they fired a prosecutor who was investigating a company Biden's son was on the board of.

 

[Xzi]

Calling this a crime without fully investigating the matter is a hasty conclusion.

You'd have to take that up with Judge Napolitano or any number of other legal experts who have already called this a crime. I'm basing my opinion on their expertise. Simply by making the request he was "soliciting aid for his campaign from a foreign government." The potential extortion is another layer of criminality on top of that.

 

[Deleted User]

You'd have to take that up with Judge Napolitano or any number of other legal experts who have already called this a crime. I'm basing my opinion on their expertise. Simply by making the request he was "soliciting aid for his campaign from a foreign government." The potential extortion is another layer of crime on top of that.

That sounds dangerously close to the appeal to authority fallacy. I don't really understand the context behind this argument though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Xzi]

That sounds dangerously close to the appeal to authority fallacy. I don't really understand the context behind this argument though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

The logic on why this constitutes a crime is sound as far as I can tell, I'm not simply basing it on the fact that someone else said so. Again though, I'm not a lawyer, so it makes sense to defer to an expert's interpretation of the law. And again, if the legal community wasn't 100% sure about this, I seriously doubt there would've been enough pressure on Pelosi to cave on impeachment.

From my point of view, the banning of an entire ethnic group from travel to the US, or the child concentration camps, or any number of other outlandish policies should've spurred impeachment a long time ago.

 

[Deleted User]

The logic on why this constitutes a crime is sound as far as I can tell, so I'm not simply basing it on the fact that someone else said so. Again though, I'm not a lawyer, so it makes sense to defer to an expert's interpretation of the law. And again, if the legal community wasn't 100% sure about this, I seriously doubt there would've been enough pressure on Pelosi to cave on impeachment.

Fair enough. But nonetheless, when you don't back up your claims with said logic, it sounds like appeal to authority, at least from this perspective.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

That sounds dangerously close to the appeal to authority fallacy. I don't really understand the context behind this argument though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

well that be like saying you should not trust a lawyer for legal advice. Not really a fallacy if you can corroborate from various sources as well. Not gonna bother with the main context of this topic because this is pretty much the Mueller 2.0. his supporters will say he is a super hero who is beyond reproach regardless. Just bumped in because i found this part of the back and forth interesting.
I will see myself out again.

 

[Hanafuda]

we can just ask the Ukrainian president if that was the case.

That happened yesterday.

He explicitly asks them for "a favor," to investigate Biden and his son, with the help of Barr (who he supposedly didn't consult about this, or at least that's what Barr has said).

False. The "favor" Trump asked for was that Zelensky look into reports that the DNC is sheltering the server they claimed was hacked by the Russians, and to which they would not permit access by the FBI to confirm their claims, in Ukraine. It is because of the DNC's refusal to cooperate with the FBI that a report by "Crowdstrike" was relied upon as the proof their server was hacked, rather than the FBI actually investigating the claim.

The bit about Biden doesn't come for another several hundred words and another back/forth exchange between them. I won't assume any ill intent on your part for that misleading claim, though, since the Washington Post, MSNBC, Fox, and CNN as well as some Democrats in Congress are distributing that same lie today.

You'd have to take that up with Judge Napolitano

Please stop referring to this guy as a great expert on the law. He was a judge in New Jersey for a while, but most of his career has been as a media talking head. He's a 9/11 truther and will get on board with any conspiracy theory you throw at him. And he has no experience with Federal courts and prosecution. He's a box of hotair, and he started blowing it against President Trump in 2017 when he actually thought he was going to get nominated for the Supreme Court (LOL) but Kavanaugh was nominated instead.

Why was he asking the Ukrainian president about this, of all people?

The United States has a treaty with Ukraine for cooperation in investigating and prosecuting crimes. Has been in effect since 1999.

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf


Now, as much as I am NOT a Glenn Beck fan, this is the best breakdown I've found of why the company Burisma and Biden's son have been the subject of investigation in Ukraine. Otherwise there's no way I'd post this. But if you watch how this breaks down, the timing of events and that a VERY large amount of American taxpayer money was misappropriated ($1.8billion) I think you'd understand why we want to get to the bottom of it. And why Joe Biden would want the Ukrainian General Prosecutor who was investigating it fired.

 

[Foxi4]

You'd have to take that up with Judge Napolitano or any number of other legal experts who have already called this a crime. I'm basing my opinion on their expertise. Simply by making the request he was "soliciting aid for his campaign from a foreign government." The potential extortion is another layer of criminality on top of that.

I can happily take it up with you - in order to violate campaign law Trump would have to stand to gain either a monetary contribution or "a thing of value", this usually refers to valuable objects. While seeing Joe Biden scramble to cover up a scandal involving his son (again) would be a "thing of entertainment", it's highly questionable whether it has any monetary value.

 

[Searinox]

Is anyone surprised he just can't stop skirting the edge of law?

 

[morvoran]

I can't believe that the dems want to impeach our Great President Donald J Trump so much that they had to make up their own script. How low will these Democrat's in the House go before they just accept they aren't going to win and give up?

 

[Deleted User]

well that be like saying you should not trust a lawyer for legal advice. Not really a fallacy if you can corroborate from various sources as well. Not gonna bother with the main context of this topic because this is pretty much the Mueller 2.0. his supporters will say he is a super hero who is beyond reproach regardless. Just bumped in because i found this part of the back and forth interesting.
I will see myself out again.

Well, no... Even when I had a lawyer, if he told me I should sue Disney or something, I wouldn't just say 'Yeah, sure bro'. I had an amicable relationship with the guy, as well. But despite that, I would be sure to ask for his reasoning and logic behind it even if he was some kind of master ninja lawyer who has defended over three million clients successfully or something.

Suffice to say, while I would generally trust a lawyer for legal advice, I wouldn't do so completely blind just because he has a pretty diploma.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

Well, no... Even when I had a lawyer, if he told me I should sue Disney or something, I wouldn't just say 'Yeah, sure bro'. I had an amicable relationship with the guy, as well. But despite that, I would be sure to ask for his reasoning and logic behind it even if he was some kind of master ninja lawyer who has defended over three million clients successfully or something.

Suffice to say, while I would generally trust a lawyer for legal advice, I wouldn't do so completely blind just because he has a pretty diploma.

again, corroborate from various sources. dont cherry pick my statement. Read what i said... slowllyyyyy. There are more legal experts than Napolitano saying the same thing. Also if that counts as fallacy, I worry that you will not listen to your doctor if god forbid he gives you a diagnosis. Seek a second and third opinion if you want but you should take it seriously.
I would say if 10 lawyers from different firms say yes go ahead and sue, I would say youd be the fool to not listen to them