And again a strawman, that the INDICTMENT could not be SERVED until he left office. He brought NO criminal charges for which to impeach and remove and had he had them he would hold them until he left office and then issue them. He DISBANDED his office, he testified there are NO waiting indictments. With Clinton the OIC issued those charges to Congress and held the indictments, NOT disbanding the office, until Clinton was leaving office and then presented them. There is no OSC to issue any Trump indictments.
I'm not the one making claims. First link: bogus story, video taken out of context, long debunked. The Ukrainian prosecutor was ousted at the request of not just the Obama administration but at the request of most of the civilized world, not because he was prosecuting Burisma, but because he wasn't. Not Burisma or any number of other Ukrainian oligarchs. Second link: all about Hunter's cocaine problem. Not what I asked about. Third link: not one mention of Ukrainian oligarchs or Joe. I SO did not ask about Hunter's love child. Fourth link: no mention of either Biden. You claimed that Joe Biden somehow created "MORE wealth for Ukraine's incredibly rich, incredibly corrupt oligarchs -- plus, a little under-the-table 'mad-money' for his cocaine-huffing child!" When I asked for proof, that was a "put up or shut up" request. Since you can't back that up with a single fact, your credibility is nill and I feel quite free to claim that you are either making it up, or repeating a right wing false narrative. Either way, a lie. Hunter is an idiot and both he and Joe were stupid to have him take a job with a questionable Ukrainian gas company, but there is ZERO PROOF that either of them did anything illegal or corrupt. If they did, why hasn't Trump's Justice Department checked into it? If they have, what's the result? All of this occurred several years ago. Epic fail.
Re-read my post and you'll see that I didn't provide any information about Joe's worthless little boy except that he was thrown out of the Navy for cocaine use. I'm not sure what "love child" you're talking about, and, I don't care. I provided direct from-his-own-mouth evidence that Geriatric Joe demanded a "quid pro quo", or, the Ukrainian oligarchs who run that sorry nest of snakes in Kiev wouldn't get their billion. If you went to the link, you heard it from HIS OWN MOUTH! So, you're saying that Joe's lengthy, mouthy description about WHAT HE DID in Ukraine was all a fabrication?! How do you 'adjust' your mind to believe an idea like that?! Oh, and then 'poor, wittle Hunter', so recently disgraced by being outed as just another rich-boy druggie, is instantly endowed with a $50,000/month job in a Ukrainian energy company (and much more that 'daddy' queued-up for him)! You'd have to be a radical Democrat to be able to ignore the sheer STENCH of the blatantly obvious corruption. Interesting to see how exactly this kind of mental process overlays exactly Orwell's description of "doublethink" in his masterpiece, "1984". But, if that shoe fits, then stick your foot all the way in it.... But, don't read this story, which contains an admission from no less than 'bad-boy' Hunter Biden himself: https://www.dailywire.com/news/hunt...jobs-because-im-the-son-of-the-vice-president . "Sure his kid can have a job, just don't let him TOUCH anything...."
Oh, ffs! One of YOUR LINKS was about Hunter Biden's put-of-wedlock child, and you have the nerve to come back with this crapola? From his own mouth, indeed. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ad-misleads-about-biden-ukraine-and-prosecut/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisett...ned-with-the-bidens-and-ukraine/#35298f2d3938 "In 2016, and with the support of other world leaders, Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion of U.S. aid unless Ukraine’s leaders fired the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for being too soft on corruption—which they did. Before Shokin was fired, he had been conducting an investigation of Burisma, and Hunter Biden allegedly was a subject. But the investigation had been inactive for over a year by the time Joe Biden pushed for Shokin’s ouster." I did not ask about Hunter Biden. I did not ask you to link to the out-of-context, long-debunked video. I did not ask you to prove or disprove whether or not Joe was involved with Shokin's firing. I asked you to prove your claim that Joe Biden made billions of dollars for corrupt Ukrainians. You have no credibility. Nothing you claim has any basis in fact. Please stop replying to my posts until you can man up and admit you were making it up or regurgitating something you heard from a right wing pundit. I may not like the Bidens, but I positively worship the truth, and I'm getting none from you.
In sorting through your clumsy attempts to divert the focus on what Joe actually DID and SAID (very reminescent of some 'godfather' of a big crime family), the fact remains that he told the oligarchs that run Ukraine, "Either you DO what I say, or, you ain't getting the money!" THAT, sir, is the epitome of QUID PRO QUO! You're not stupid, and neither am I; I only made a "C" in Latin, but even I, 'knuckle-dragging right-winger' that I am, KNOWS what the hell a 'quid pro quo' is when it's rubbed in my face! As for the link to Joe's cocaine-huffing child, whatever else was there was irrelevant to the only issue of any real importance -- the fact that 'Daddy' used his power and position to get his bust-out kid an enormously lucrative 'job' in the same country that he was bullying into doing his will. And, son of a bitch! It worked! Do I have carved-in-stone proof that this happened? Do businessmen who pay the godfather for 'protection' have attorneys construct formal contracts for their own quid pro quo, complete with performance bonds, notarization, etc.? When you're being forced to kiss someone's ass, you don't demand that a contract is signed first! Hint: civilization spawned the practices of graft, corruption, extortion, and bribes long before it ever gave birth to lawyers and legal protocol.... And as far as Biden doing this "with the support of other world leaders" goes -- ha! Would that be the same kind of 'support' that Obama was given in a UN resolution when he broke the War Powers Act and used the American military to overthrow the legitimate government of Libya during that country's civil war in 2011? From the Latin, do you know what "collusionem" means...? Another hint: we, the EU, the European Central Bank, and the IMF have been trying to install a permanent puppet-government in Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union. But, back to 'sonny-boy' and his amazing Ukrainian 'job', your faction would have us all believe that some pampered son of the Vice President of the United States could go from being thrown out of the Navy for huffing cocaine, and then on the basis of his MERIT, Hunter Biden lands a $50,000/month gig with an energy corporation in a foreign country, on its BOARD OF DIRECTORS -- an area in which he has no demonstrated experience or expertise at all?! Who but Leftist 'true believers' could possibly believe nonsense like that? Obviously, we're never going to agree on anything, but I'll close this futile effort at debate by being honest enough to admit that if I were offered a billion dollars to kiss Biden's ass, my answer would be, "So, which cheek do you want kissed first?"
I'm not even going to read that since it starts with yet another personal insult and once again doesn't address my question.
None so blind as those who WILL not see.... Just hope that nobody in government is ever successful in getting Geriatric Joe and his useless kid into a situation where they must render testimony about all this corruption, UNDER OATH! And while you're hoping that, you may also want to hope that the Democrat Party comes up with someone with more common sense (and is far less-tainted) than Joe Biden. Whether ol' Joe's right or he's wrong, now that he can't do anything more FOR them, the corrupt Ukrainians will throw him all the way under the bus and then see to it that the bus is driven back and forth over him three or four times.... Have a nice day!
You're missing the point: Mueller said Trump could be charged if he wasn't in office, and he was also never exonerated. Mueller is telling us in no uncertain terms that Trump violated federal laws. Recall also that Trump committed 10 counts of obstruction of justice. Despite Mueller being unable to formerly try a sitting President due to OLC rulings, he never did exonerate Trump on colluding with Russia. Mueller's hands were tied. And yet, a growing list of 10 people in Trump's orbit have been convicted of federal crimes, but not the pathological liar & mastermind behind their crimes, Trump. Trump doesn't have the same clout/power (or brains) as the Clintons, so he may be open game once he leaves office. We'll wait and see. I also wonder just how much longer Trump will be able to keep his tax returns a secret. What could he be hiding? One can think of a number of things he wouldn't want revealed.
Wrong. First: Congress investigating an elected official is not an abuse of power. It's imperative for the benefit of the people & the nation to do so. Second: Trump has never taken action to end any kind of corruption anywhere in the U.S. or abroad. Corruption is what's made Trump rich. He's the alpha swamp monster who rules the swamp and swims in corruption. Third: The American people HAVE been subjected to corruption & abuse of power (and 13,000+ lies). Trump used tax payer money (foreign aid) to benefit his re-election bid. He didn't mention the problem of Ukrainian corruption in his calls...only Biden & the 2016 election. Trump also kept his plan so well hidden that virtually no one outside his circle could figure out why the aid was held up. And isn't it interesting that the Senate Repubs never once demanded that Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Parnas, Fruman, Giuliani, Barr, Pence, Trump, etc. be called to testify? They only wanted individuals who were irrelevant to Trump's abuse of power. And the Senate knew their requests were irrelevant to the case. They also pulled the same 'Trump/GOP are the victims' tactic when the GOP lawmakers stormed the secure impeachment hearing room. The obvious goal was to fool the public into thinking the House Dems were being 'unfair' and deliberately 'blocking' the GOP. The GOP can't debunk the facts, so they use stalling tactics & lies, and throw tantrums like Trump himself. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The impeachment process is only dealing with the Ukraine call. What about all of Trump's other abuses of power? Here's just a PARTIAL listing re-affirming the Trumps as a crime family: Trump using the President's office to enrich himself and his family (eg, foreign & domestic emoluments clause violations). Trump has accumulated over 2300 conflicts of interest. They include: 63 political events held at Trump properties, 362 visits by President Trump to his properties, 630 visits to Trump properties from at least 250 Trump administration officials, 100 events held by special interest groups at Trump properties, 59 foreign trademarks granted to Trump businesses, 111 foreign officials who visited a Trump business, 90 members of Congress visited a Trump business, officials from 57 countries visited a Trump business, 101 members of Congress who have spent campaign funds at Trump properties...and so on. Plus, taxpayers have now paid for Trump to visit Mar-a-Lago 100 times. https://www.citizensforethics.org "The Trump Organization's golf courses drew in $221 million in revenue in 2017." https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fami...uch-richer-president-moved-white-house-975993 AG James Secures Court Order Against Donald J. Trump, Trump Children, And Trump Foundation: Trump to Pay $2 Million in Damages for Illegal Activity During 2016 Election https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/201...ainst-donald-j-trump-trump-children-and-trump Donald Trump Agrees to Pay $25 Million in Trump University Settlement https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/trump-university.html Trump-Scam Accusers Say His Kids Had Key Role in Duping Clients "Donald Trump’s three eldest children were deeply involved in their father’s alleged scheme to rip off tens of thousands of Americans with bogus marketing opportunities in the years before he was elected president, according to a revised lawsuit by four would-be entrepreneurs." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-say-his-kids-had-key-role-in-duping-clients China grants 18 trademarks in 2 months to Trump, daughter https://apnews.com/0a3283036d2f4e699da4aa3c6dd01727 Ivanka Trump, Kushner took in as much as $135M last year https://apnews.com/7b5cf4eec7d547508b7de4f34d3b7f35 Jared Kushner’s Company Curiously Raked in $90 Million Since He Joined the White House: His real estate company, Cadre, has quintupled in value since 2017 https://www.gq.com/story/kushner-company-flooded-with-money "Brookfield, a global property investor in which the Qatari government has placed investments, struck a deal last year that rescued the Kushner Companies' 666 Fifth Avenue tower in Manhattan from financial straits. Kushner was chief executive of Kushner Companies when it acquired 666 Fifth Avenue in 2007 for $1.8 billion, a record at the time for a Manhattan office building. It has been a drag on his family's real estate company ever since. The debt-laden skyscraper was bailed out by Brookfield last August, when it took a 99-year lease on the property, paying the rent for 99 years upfront. Financial terms were not disclosed." https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/qat...tegy-after-kushner-building-bailout-1.6932771 Saudi Crown Prince Boasted That Jared Kushner Was “In His Pocket” https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/jared-kushner-saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman/ And the list goes on... And this is only during Trump's Presidency & campaign. What else did he do before becoming President? This is a guy you think should not be removed from office? I don't know what's worse...Trump or his followers. I can understand why Trump does what he does. He's corrupt to the bone. But what's wrong with all his 'loyal' defenders/followers?
The Dems aren't avoiding it. They're well aware of the timeline, which casts further suspicion on Trump: SEPT. 9: The investigations begin Three House committees launch a wide-ranging investigation into the allegations that Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and possibly others, tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to help the president's reelection campaign by digging up dirt on a political rival. SEPT. 11: The aid is released http://www.startribune.com/timeline-the-curious-release-of-military-aid-to-ukraine/564891462/ Plus... "Mick Mulvaney, the dual-hatted acting White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget, told leaders at the State Department and Pentagon in mid-July that Trump wanted the money withheld because he had “concerns” about the aid’s necessity. Those departments were instructed to inform members of Congress with questions about the delay that the money was coming but that its disbursement had been held up by “interagency process.” Those questions did come, but lawmakers received little information. That timing is important, since Mulvaney’s announcement came about a week before Trump and Zelensky spoke on the phone. What makes matters worse, some say, is that the directive came from the president himself — meaning Trump may have used the new delay as leverage to extract something from his Ukrainian counterpart. Trump has changed his story about why he personally withheld the military support at least twice. On Monday, Trump told reporters that his decision was due to concerns about corruption in Zelensky’s new government. But asked a similar question on Tuesday, Trump’s talking point suddenly changed: now he said he’d withheld the aid out of frustration that European countries were not doing enough to support Ukraine themselves." https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...p-withhold-aid-ukraine-timeline-whistleblower
First: Mulvaney admitted there was a quid pro quo & that aid was contingent on the investigations. Second: Bill Taylor's testimony contradicts Zelensky's claim that he was unaware of Trump's reference to military aid or that he didn't feel pressured: AUG. 12: The complaint A whistleblower files a formal complaint addressed to Congress that details concerns over the July 25 phone call and the hold placed on the military aid. The complaint is withheld from Congress until Sept. 25. AUG. 28: The article Politico publishes details that the military aid to Ukraine is on hold, setting off a scramble among diplomats in Ukraine and the United States. AUG. 29 AND AFTER: Ukraine's desperation William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, testified that he did not know the aid had been withheld until after the Politico article appeared, when he started receiving "desperate" calls from Ukrainian officials. "The minister of defense came to me," he said. "I would use the word 'desperate,' to try to figure out why the assistance was held." Taylor said the minister thought if he spoke to Congress, or the White House, he could find out the reason and reassure them of whatever was necessary to get the aid. If the money wasn't provided by Sept. 30, it would be lost. SEPT. 9: The investigations begin Three House committees launch a wide-ranging investigation into the allegations that Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and possibly others, tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to help the president's reelection campaign by digging up dirt on a political rival. SEPT. 11: The aid is released IN THE AFTERMATH: The canceled CNN interview Taylor said Ukraine's president was planning to do an interview with CNN in which he would make a public statement on the investigations that Trump had pushed for. Taylor was concerned about the interview and its potential to play into "domestic U.S. politics," and on Sept. 13 asked Ukrainian officials about it. The interview never happens. http://www.startribune.com/timeline-the-curious-release-of-military-aid-to-ukraine/564891462/ The whistleblower had second-hand information. We've already heard from first-hand witnesses. Tell me why the whistleblower is of any consequence now? Tell me what he/she could provide that would be new or that would benefit Trump. Also tell me why Trump is so threatened by the whistleblower & the witnesses if Trump did nothing wrong. The witnesses confirmed the whistleblower's complaint, the Trump-Zelensky call, the call records being stored in a secret server, the quid pro quo request (also confirmed by Mulvaney), that aid was held up & contingent on investigations, that Biden & Crowdstrike was Trump's only interest (even asking China to investigate Biden), and the names mentioned associated with the call are all true. And again, Mulvaney admitted there was a quid pro quo & that aid was contingent on the investigations.
So what's your point? I've never defended Clinton and never will. I agree that Clinton skated on not only what he was being impeached for, but also on other crimes he had been involved with...and, that he should be re-investigated & indicted as a separate bi-partisan case. Other living former Presidents should be investigated as well for crimes & abuse of power. But this has nothing to do with Trump's abuse of power. Right now Trump is President, so he should be front-and-center of this investigation. And it's important that Trump not get away with his crimes/abuse of power only as a warning to future Presidents. I know for a fact that if Trump skates again, he'll know he can indeed get away with anything, and commit even worse crimes. When does this bullsh!t stop...particularly with the President who holds the highest 'elected' seat? "The [Mueller] report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019, and a redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019." Further, we read... "The redactions from the report and its supporting material are under President Trump's temporary "protective assertion" of executive privilege as of May 8, 2019, preventing the material from being passed to Congress, despite earlier reassurance by Barr that Trump "confirmed" he would not exert privilege. On March 24, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter detailing the report's conclusions. On March 27, Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions", and that this led to "public confusion". Barr declined Mueller's request to release the report's introduction and executive summaries ahead of the full report. Also on March 24, Barr's letter stated that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the evidence was "not sufficient to establish" that Trump had obstructed justice. On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction; and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report. In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after they left office." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report Cover-up General Barr strikes again!
You folks have yet to debunk the witness testimonies...including admissions by Mulvaney & Parnas, as well as suspicious statements by Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo and others who haven't even testified yet.
One of the interesting things brought out in the testimony of Hill was that the Obama administration wes so concerned about Hunter Biden and Burisma that she was questioned about it during her nomination interview.
My point was quite clear, charges against the sitting President, felony charges, were brought to the Congress so that it could judge to impeach and remove and the prosecution could begin. And he didn't skate on those charges. The Judge in the case fined him $90,000 and he lost his license to practice law for 5 years and of course in the core case he paid the plaintiff $900,000. And as far as Trump there was an investigation and no charges were brought. There is no crime alleged. Prosecutors don't exonerate, that was not Mueller's purpose but the smokescreen he threw up. He did not find evidence of a crime to charge. Even the OOJ he could not bring a case and the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of Legal counsel agreed. You just can't get around that. Mueller disbanded his office leaving no indictments awaiting.
Zelensky AGAIN said in interviews this weekend that military aid was NEVER discussed and there was no quid pro quo. Taylor had no first hand information and was presenting conjecture. Ukraine did not even know the money was delayed at the time of the call. I don't care they found out in the Politico article it was never discussed with him as quid pro quo or a threat. The witnesses other than the Lt. Col. had not first hand information as to the call and all testified they had no knowledge of a quid pro quo or a bribe. The whistleblower, who is NOT a whistleblower, had several errors in his complaint and the aid was held up while the administration considered asking for a public announce that the STILL needed investigation would begin and as I think it was Volker who testified that because the previous Ukriane administrations had promised to begin them in private but then never did. And Mulvaney is correct most foreign policy is based on quid pro quos, which is what he said, but the fact remains none ever occurred here. The fact remains the President has every right to request a foreign leader of a country with whom we have a mutal cooperation agreement to investigate corruption between our two countries to cooperate in such an investigation and it remains that investigation STILL needs to be engaged and completed. It is NOT an impeachable offense for the President to carry out his duties. And we STILL need to know who leaked the classified information.
Throwing your spaghetti against the wall gets you nowhere other than it shows you can't maintain the point being discussed on it's merits. So focus like a laser and stick to the issue here, the impeachment over Ukraine. And Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to call the Presidents inner advisers to testify about internal deliberations, it is called the SCOTUS affirmed executive privilege and the President has a duty to protect that from these abuses of power by the Democrats in the House.
Mueller said in a general fashion that A President could be INDICTED once they left office almost happened with Clinton when he was leaving office but he plea bargained the charges. The charges WERE brought to the House, 8 felony charges, for impeachment and removal by Ken Starr the IC in the Clinton investigation. Your confuse a charge of a criminal act and the actual indictment to report to court. And again a prosecutor does not exonerate, they either find evidence to charge with a crime or they don't. Mueller didn't. And not Trump did not commit 10 counts of OOJ else like with Clinton charges would have been brought. Well it was over 20 in Clinton's case including his hand pick Deputy Attorney General, his hand picked succesor Governor of Arkansas and had he no killed himself his hand picked Legal Counsel to the President and of course his business partner. All those for acts directly tied to Clinton. The charges you are speaking of except for perhaps one of Cohen's were not directly tied to Trump.
Interesting how so many people 'assumed' so many details that corroborate one another. Interesting how the collective testimonies, the call summary, the whistleblower's information, and the text message logs all corroborate one another. Additionally, in the wake of the Ukraine fallout, we have the telling statements by Mulvaney, Giuliani, Parnas, Bolton, and Pompeo and others...former AG Session's recusal from the Russia probe...and the sudden resignations of former WH counsel McGahn, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry (one of the "Three Amigos" subpoenaed), former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, former HHS Secretary Tom Price, former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and former VA Secretary David Shulkin. I guess seeing how so many in Trump's orbit have been indicted/sent to jail, it might be prudent to make a quick escape. But NO...there's no way Trump could be involved with any wrong-doing. He's an innocent angel surrounded by bad people, right?
Again, this is irrelevant to Trump's impeachment case. Trump can't hold either Joe or Hunter Biden (both private citizens) accountable for his own misuse of Presidential powers. I suspect the GOP keeps beating this dead horse because they have no other recourse. There's no reasonable or solid defense for Trump...only resistance, distraction, and judicial loopholes & protections offered to a sitting President. Second, it wasn't Fiona Hill. It's Marie Yovanovitch you're thinking of. Obviously this concerns a potential conflict of interest, as Joe Biden was VP at the time. And Obama wanted Yovanovitch briefed on this in case she was asked about it by the Senate. But she knew virtually nothing about it. But again, this is irrelevant. Whether there was shady stuff going on with Hunter Biden & Burisma, I don't know (that can be investigated as a separate matter)...but let's not pretend Trump was concerned about rooting out corruption in the Ukraine. As Yovanovitch expressed, there were plenty of oligarchs & shady businesses within and connected to the Ukraine to scrutinize. But Trump never once mentioned corruption or the oligarchs in the call. He even lied about the transcript: "Mr. Trump "lied to the public in the readout of the call by saying he brought up two things that he didn't: corruption and the integrity of Ukraine's territorial rights ... which he also did not bring up," said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.). "So, why did the president lie in the readout of the call?" And since when does the President ask for a 'favor' when he should be DEMANDING a cleanup of corruption in return for aid? The devil is in the details.
Yes he DID skate. Bill Clinton remained in the Presidential office and finished his 2nd term, and he received a slap on the wrist after leaving office. That's what I call skating. Trump has protection under the law as a sitting President. That doesn't mean he's not guilty of the charges. He's as guilty as they come, and the GOP & his cabinet know it...and hence, the reason why Trump will never testify (unlike Bill Clinton who testified in front of a grand jury). Trump has absolutely no defense and would only put his foot in his mouth (like he's done so many times already). Yet Trump will still skate (stay in office), but may or may not face various charges after leaving office. I'm not debating the legal/investigative process...only Trump's guilt or innocence. That's my point, which I guess I wasn't being clear enough about.
It appears you're presuming Trump's innocence based solely on the special counsel's inability to indict a sitting President...and not basing it on any evidential material or facts. For Trump's sake, Presidential protection is all he has going for him. He has, as the saying goes, the devil on his side. I guess that's why the President's office is a great place for top criminals who want to break laws willy nilly with impunity. (Essentially, the office is also being used as a sort of 'managerial' tool by the un-elected ruling class to carry out their bidding in hiding.) Federal prosecutors in New York found themselves in the same situation as Mueller. They compiled enough evidence relating to campaign finance crimes & related offenses "directly implicating Trump". Despite having their hands tied & having to close the investigation due to DOJ policies regarding a sitting President, the evidence substantiated that Trump "personally committed up to 8 federal criminal offenses while participating in and covering up a scheme to suppress negative stories about him from impacting the 2016 election." Regarding Mueller & his team, the roadblock again is the legal process, OLC guideline & red tape surrounding investigations & litigation of a sitting President...not the evidence itself. 400 pages of the Mueller report detailed compelling evidence that could be used by the courts to indict Trump if he were not in office. Mueller said he couldn't exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice or witness tampering...and hence, the reason Trump could face charges once he left office. These statements were more a matter of unofficial record pointing to Trump's guilt when Mueller was asked about it...not that the FBI actually had the power to carry out an indictment or prosecution. Mueller was diplomatic & reserved in his speech, but very clear about what he was saying: that the Mueller report had compiled enough evidence to substantiate Trump's guilt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The president pointed to the fact that Mueller corrected himself — and the special counsel only made one correction to his testimony, so the reference was clear. But Mr. Trump was wrong about what Mueller's correction addressed. It was not about whether he could face charges after he leaves office. It was about whether Mr. Trump would have been indicted were it not for the Justice Department guidance that a current president can't be indicted." Mueller: "Before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller told the panel. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, 'You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler: "Under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office — is this correct?" Mueller: "True." And although Mueller did not make a determination that obstruction had been committed by the president, he agreed that an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct — like attempting to remove the special counsel — would still qualify as a crime. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/muelle...trump-could-be-indicted-after-leaving-office/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And regarding Mueller's retirement, perhaps Mueller will indeed have the last laugh. Mueller has apparently taken early safeguards to keep his investigation intact (should he be fired and/or forced to disband his office). It could conceivably be used in future legal entanglements after Trump leaves office. The Strategy Mueller Is Using to Protect His Investigation "By assigning these cases to various different DOJ offices, Rosenstein and Mueller may be protecting them from being destroyed. In the Russia investigation, concern exists that Trump could order Rosenstein to fire Mueller or that Trump could even try to fire Mueller himself, even though the regulations say that only the attorney general may do so. In addition, some scholars have argued that the appointment of Mueller as special counsel is constitutionally flawed, and could face legal challenges. If that were to happen, the investigation could be in jeopardy. By assigning aspects of the investigation to other DOJ components, where career prosecutors are working on them, Rosenstein ensures that these cases will continue even if Mueller is fired or the special counsel’s appointment is found to be legally invalid. To his own cases, Mueller has added staff from the Department’s National Security Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Eastern Virginia and Western Pennsylvania, rather than hiring more staff to the Office of the Special Counsel. He is likely taking advantage of subject matter expertise, but this, too, may be an effort to provide continuity in case he is fired or his office is disbanded." https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-mueller-diversifying-his-prosecution-portfolio There has also been over 1000 former federal prosecutors that have signed a letter stating that Trump would be indicted if he were not President: "Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include: (1) The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort; (2) The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and (3) The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign." https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1
Vindman, Morrison, and Williams testified and listened in on the call: Tim Morrison was on the call: - Morrison was implicated by Taylor and Sondland, but denies potential wrong-doing. - "Morrison said he did ask NSC legal staff to review the log of the conversation, because he was concerned the content might leak and affect bipartisan support for Ukraine. He said he did not believe that anything illegal was discussed." https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/775456663/who-was-on-the-trump-ukraine-call Vindman testified and was on the call: Vindman said two key elements were left out of the call summary. "He listened to the call from the Situation Room. He said he did not think it was "proper" to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen. Vindman reported his concern to NSC's lead counsel." https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/775456663/who-was-on-the-trump-ukraine-call Jennifer Williams testified and was on the call: "She listened to the call, a White House aide said, and later traveled with Pence for a meeting with Zelenskiy in Warsaw, Poland." https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/775456663/who-was-on-the-trump-ukraine-call Others on the call that need to be subpoenaed: Trump, Pompeo, Blair, plus duty officers & policy staff for the White House Situation Room. Charles Kupperman didn't testify, but was on the call and expressed concern: "The Washington Post reported that Kupperman was concerned about the call and the administration's handling of policy toward Ukraine. Kupperman has filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to determine whether he should comply with a congressional subpoena or with the White House order that he not testify in the impeachment inquiry." https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/775456663/who-was-on-the-trump-ukraine-call Others NOT on the call that testified, but have provided valuable, relevant information because of their connections to those who were on the call, and because of their position. They included Bill Taylor, George Kent, Marie Yovanovitch, Gordon Sondland, Fiona Hill, and David Holmes. Key points were made by each witness that corroborate one another in terms of the people implicated in their testimony, and by what was communicated. If these are not important, relevant, or useful witnesses, then why did they receive letters requesting that they not testify? Why didn't Trump & Pompeo testify if the call was 'perfect'? Why were the call records stored in a secret server if the call was 'perfect'? Why did Trump lie about the transcript? Why does Trump & the State Dept. refuse to cooperate with investigators? Why do they refuse to hand over internal documents? Why do they block witnesses? Why doesn't Trump hand over his tax returns? Need I go on?
