BREAKING: Bolton to Claim Trump Held Up Ukraine Military Aid Over Biden Investigations

Is Roberts bound by some precedent to vote in favour?

 

No. He could Vote against the Dems.

That is why 4 GOP votes would clinch it.

 

As an initial matter, they are wrong about Ukraine not knowing. There are multiple pieces of evidence to suggest that they knew long before the Politico article was published. But even if they only learned when the Politico article was published, the hold on the aid lasted for another ~2 weeks if my memory serves. And we know that the Ukrainians felt the pressure to deliver because Zelensky was scheduled and reportedly going to make the announcement two days after the hold on the aid was dropped.

With that said, and to the hypothetical scenario where you want to bribe someone but they do not learn of the bribe, is it still a crime? And the answer, I believe, is yes to the crime of attempted bribery so long as you have taken substantial steps to complete the act. And I would call on @Nemesis to review or confirm my explanation if he would be so inclined.

For example, let's say that I write a bribery demand letter where I say I will grant your friend a pardon (assume there is no doubt on my authority to grant that pardon unilaterally) only if you agree to give me 10,000 dollars. And then, I send the letter - by mistake - to the wrong address, perhaps to the police directly. I am still guilty of the crime of attempted bribery even though you never learned of the attempt.

The lone caveat that I will make, and it's the reason i included the assumption about me having the authority to grant the pardon is what is called a legal or factual impossibility. If I had written that letter, but my job is janitor, then I am not guilty of the attempted bribery because it is impossible for me to ever carry out the official act of granting the pardon. Please note that I might still be guilty of some other crime, like falsely impersonating a federal official, though.

 

Because it happens all the time. Thats what corruption is.

More accurately, aid money would free up other money thats easier to funnel away, but the result is the same: it goes to corrupt politicians and corporate board members instead of where its sposed to go.

Why do you think they wouldn't?

 

No, you are right and I should not say that 3 is sufficient. It is necessary, but not enough on its face to grant the outcome.

 

...why do I think some of the 400 million in military aid would not be directed to Joe Biden personally?

Are you serious? How is this not a purely extreme example of just tossing an allegation out of left field?

 

More precisely, aid money would free up other money thats easier to funnel away, but the result is the same: politicians and corporate board members getting richer instead of the country benefitting.

Im certain no dollars from the aid would physically go into a Biden's pocket. However, given the Biden's influence in Ukraine, it would be very easy to have the funds shuffled around govt and corporate accounts so the effect is that the corrupt reduce the effect of the aid by benefitting themselves instead. Thats how it tends to work.

If Trump had reason to believe this was a threat to the effectiveness of the aid, thats plenty of reason to withhold and investigate. Whether its Ukraine officials or Bidens or both.

 

Right...but 4 Republican votes to reach a 51 simple majority to call for witnesses and documents beyond what's in the House reports.

 

I'm not online much these days but good job you jumped on this quickly and Bolton's book will continue causing damage to Trump after the trial is concluded.

 

He signed the bill. If he wanted to withhold funding for ANY REASON, he had to notify Congress. He didn't. And, if he had the "perfect call" with Zelenskiy, on July 25th, why didn't he discuss the withholding, instead of checking within 90 minutes of the call, with DoD to make sure the funds were being withheld? As the President suggests, read the transcript. But, what is important about it, is not what's there, but what isn't...discussion of the withholding of the funds. Why isn't it there? Because other's were delivering that message.

 

Can’t be impeached for it unless you can name the statute lol

 

Of course. If I plan to rob a Bank, and take active steps to implement my plan, that the Bank does not know (which is obvious) does not render me innocent of attempted robbery. If I had a partner, and we plan to rob the Bank (and the Bank does not know) we are guilty of conspiracy to rob.

 

Sure. But the big questions is: was Trump trying to benefit himself or the nation? Thats what the Senate will likely be using as their guideline for whether this warrants removal from office. The 'bombshell' that Trump may have withheld aid because of worry about Biden corruption instead of just general corruption doesn't go any further to demonstrate that Trump was trying to benefit himself. The bombshell is another dud.

 

The answer to that is simple. He goes through the normal channels. No, he chose the back door (through Guiliani) because it was all to benefit him, Donald Trump.

 

If Trump had probable cause to launch an investigation into Biden and his son, then he should have called Barr, told him of the probable cause and asked Barr to launch a formal investigation. Barr would have contacted the FBI and the FBI rep at our Kiev embassy would have coordinated with their counterpart in the Ukrainian government. Instead, he apparently picked his personal attorney, Rudy and Friends to conduct a private investigation while threatening to withhold Congressionally appropriated funding (which he'd earlier approved) unless they cooperated. Further, the second part was a second investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory initiated by Russian intelligence called Crowdstrike, which claimed that the hacking of the DNC computer had been done by Ukrainians, instead of the Russians, indicted by his own DoJ. And, he did this while breaking the law, in ignoring his required notification of the withholding of funds to Congress. The most prevalent cause of impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors," in 17th and 18th century England, from where we borrowed the phrase for our Constitution, was the misappropriation of funds passed by Parliament, by the King's ministers.

 

Not sure about that. Roberts doesn't automatically get the tie breaker, as would the VP. I believe that the Senate would have to vote to give him that power. But, not certain on this.

 

So if it is true you acknowledge Trump committed a crime? You just think it's not true?

Good.

 

The publisher has denied that there were multiple copies. They've said there was only one copy and that was delivered to the White House to be reviewed for executive privilege and classified material. So...the leak, if there was one, must have come from Bolton himself, the publisher, or the WH.

 

Still doesnt demonstrate a liklihood that it was for personal gain. So, still a dud as far as grounds for removal from office goes.

 

So, you are saying that if he did it for his own personal political gain, that is not impeachable?

 

Historically speaking, Roberts DOES "automatically get the the breaker":

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...john-roberts-could-cast-tie-breaking-n1117506

 

Inference...he used his "personal" attorney, for a personal task...as Rudy and his associates will testify to...and as others have already testified to...Sondland among them.

 

Huh? Who cares how they got it?

 

So ddI trumps lawyers entre into evidence all the proof they had to suspect Biden of crimes? Did the fbi get copies? Where’s any evidence this was actually legit??

 

My post was actually a reply to another poster who was accusing the NYT report as being "fake news." I was just noting that if the publisher was telling the truth, the "leak" could have come only from three places. I agree, that if the information is true (and I suspect it is), the source doesn't matter.