Rand Paul Blows the Roof off Rally Last Night

And yet whatever Randy Boy or Dirty Donald had to say didn't sway the gubernatorial voters.

 

He should, in this country the accused has a right to face their accuser.

 

It's quite triggering to globalists.

 

That was about the only race the GOP didn't win, they even elected the first black AG.

 

Has he been charged yet? The WB's concerns have been upheld by others involved in the tel-con and Ukrainian relations, including the President's release of the transcript. Read the transcript.

 

And it has been denied by others, including Zeleny who was on the call. Trump had every right to root out corruption in a nation with a history of it before they get taxpayer money. He wasn't asking them to make up dirt on Biden, but to follow through on a possible crime Biden admitted to on tape, and which was an issue for him before he decided to run for POTUS. He doesn't get a pass because he's running, Hillary and Trump didn't.

 

You let me know when Trump faces a CRIMINAL TRIAL and I will let you know when he has a right to face his accuser.

 

You're telling me that Biden confessed to a crime on tape and Trump still had to go directly to the Ukrainian President to request an investigation a year later!?

 

Zelenskyy...and he's not going to cross Trump and risk losing aid to Ukraine. He just went through that. Read the transcript. The only "corruption" Trump specifies is Biden and the "Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory." Biden admitted to no crime on tape. He was carrying out U.S. policy, as were a number of EU countries and international organizations. The tape shows him bragging about how he threatened to stop aid, if the pro-Russian prosecutor wasn't fired. Trump, on the other hand, actually suspended aid, appropriated by Congress, claiming the reason was for "corruption" only after he was caught himself.
Biden is just a red herring. Investigate all you want. Trump's real target is to disprove the Mueller report conclusion that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, in order to both justify future pardons and to lift sanctions.

 

I'm not sure anyone says Russia didn't interfere in our affairs, they've been doing that since 2017, heck, the US in the biggest 'interferer' of all. The main Mueller report collusion was that there was no Trump campaign collusion, and that they refused such offers.

Is collusion a crime?

 

The WB is not his accuser if his statement isn’t used as evidence in the impeachment. And right now there is no reason it would be

 

There is no such law...

 

You should read it...he spends some time explaining that they were never looking for "collusion," because that isn't a crime. They were looking for conspiracy. They found insufficient evidence on conspiracy at the time the report was completed, to rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, used by DoJ for indictments, other than those issued at the time. A number of those indictments are still to be tried...Roger Stone is one, the Russians are another. On the second issue...obstruction of justice, Mueller reached no conclusion one way or the other. He left it to either his boss, AG Barr, to repeal the DoJ policy regarding not indicting a sitting President or to Congress via impeachment.
Russian interference was in the 2016 election...although it is impossible to gauge its impact, it's principal impact (IMO) was to shift Democratic vote to either third parties or to "stay at home" voter suppression. Trump won the expected "Blue Wall" states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a combined total of less than 90,000 votes, while losing the total popular vote by close to 3 million. I contribute that to three factors: 1) the enhanced turnout of the rural white vote; 2) the suppression of the urban African-American vote (via the BLM movement); and the third party or stay-at-home vote for Sanders' supporters discouraged by the revelations of the Wikileak stolen e-mails, which showed a pro-Clinton bias within the DNC.

Nevertheless...Trump was elected constitutionally and not indicted, or shown to be indictable, by the Mueller Report. So...ask yourself...why then would he want to reopen its investigation, which was essentially what he was doing with Rudy in Ukraine and the Durham/Barr investigation. I can think of only one reason...to exonerate the Russians from their 2016 election interference. Why? To justify pardons and the lifting of sanctions.

 

I know. that was my point.

 

However, there is no purpose in endangering the WB's safety. The concerns expressed in his complaint were expressed according to law, per both the IG and the DNI and have subsequently been shown to have been shared by others.

 

I was referring to Rand, but yeah, there should be more than 2 choices.

 

Why change the subject, I never said anything about Trump we're directly talking about sworn testimony? Why do you ignore everything that was said and simply cherry pick? You think intelligent people are smart enough to actually see what was actually said?

 

Not even sure what that means but when a witness says he perceived something and then states Trump directly told him no quid pro quo's I tend to see that as good for Trump.

 

I see the disconnect there.

So again, do you trust Trump to tell you the truth about whether a quid pro quo existed, especially when those statements are not made under oath? Hell, I personally don't even trust the man to understand the concept, let alone trust him to tell the truth.

 

He is an accuser, and the US Constitution protects Trump's right to face his accuser.

The USC 6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

I find it hard to imagine that ANYONE would "Trust" a 24/7 Pathological LIAR...

 

When Trump demands a public statement from the Ukrainian President and says that the aid will not be released until he gets that statement, a quid pro quo exist regardless of whether Trump simultaneously says, "no quid pro quo."

 

Do you think Trump is currently facing a criminal prosecution?

But more to @The Mello Guy 's point, let me pose an alternative situation to help explain it.

Let us suppose that Police rely on a confidential informant or an anonymous tip to start an investigation into a drug operation. During the course of that investigation, they lawfully collect evidence and get multiple witnesses to agree to testify at trial. If the Prosecution does not present the testimony from the CI/anonymous tip at trial, then the defendants do not have a right to "confront" that witness.

 

Impeachment is a political process, not a "criminal prosecution." And, no one has approved of articles of impeachment anyhow. Be assured that if he's charged, he'll have his day in "court," which in the case of impeachment will be in his Senate trial. Out of curiosity, what was the name of your American Government textbook?

 

That doesn't support your claim.

That applies to one office-holder only. Even then, there are couple of circumstances which lift that guideline.