WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 5))

you could have easily compelled the witnesses. You failed to do so.
Oops!

 

Romney wants his name in the paper and seems to have a personal ax to grind. It is Pelosi's fault but why even go down this road to begin with? Vendetta? Why not just work with the President to get things done that they want done? She is a power hungry megalomaniac tired piece of San Fran trash. People like her are a stain on the country and to the state she steals from.

 

Further down it is mention and claimed as fact, it is not according OMB and the money was released within the time period.
The statute is not mentioned in the article.

 

I think Schiff violated the law when he worked directly with the WB and lied about it. The DOJ should investigate it.

 

What makes you think, and want others to believe, Rep. Schiff worked directly with the WB? Do you have evidence that he did? If so, please post it. Otherwise ...

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whistleblower-spoke-to-schiff-aides-before-filing-complaint

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...ted-schiffs-committee-before-filing-complaint

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...r-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-reveal

https://www.newsweek.com/obama-official-whistleblower-media-1461642

https://saraacarter.com/whistleblower-and-dnc-contractor-visited-obama-wh-it-must-be-investigated/

 

The President's team elaborated on it. A full House vote. And when they finally did make such a vote, they never issued subpoena's after that time. Again, because they didn't want to litigate the issues. It's a shame that the Senate has to litigate these issues for a full record, but the blame is always on Pelosi not the President.

 

Unfortunately members of Congress are protected under the speech and debate clause.

 

She has proven time and time again that she can't be worked with, she can't be reasoned with or compromise in anyway. She's the one acting like a monarch here. It's time to use the legal process of the law to literally get her to put up or shut up.

 

"Just statutory language?" Hahahaha. You mean, "well...that's just the law." Do you have a link to the DoJ opinion? My understanding is that they simply opined that the Trump tel-con did not break any campaign finance laws. If it went beyond that, I'd like to read the opinion. A formal investigation into Burisma and Biden's actions on the board is fine with me. Trump should call Barr and ask him to launch an investigation. Barr should then ask the President for his "probable cause." Maybe Trump can obtain a "probable cause" from Rudy? Rudy says he has evidence. But, when you look at part of Rudy's evidence, it's a deposition given to an Austrian Court that is holding a Ukrainian oligarch under house arrest, while waiting for extradition to the U.S. on charges of breaking U.S. law regarding the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act and a foreign bid on a Boeing contract. The deposition was given by Shokin, the fired Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor.
The statutory language "credible and urgent," is the standard. The WB compliant was judged to be accurate by the IG and the DNI. "Credible" meant "probably accurate." "Urgent" was a reference to the 2020 election...i.e. IF the complaint was true, it would involve an urgent threat to Biden's candidacy.
That urgency led to the decision in the House NOT to pursue the WH's refusal to honor subpoenas in the Courts. If the President's actions were legal, let the direct witnesses testify and release the relevant documentation. That would allow the charges against the President to be voted down on the facts, rather than the politics, and we can move on...with Trump or with Pence.

 

Please provide a link to this supposed process.

 

You weren't watching yesterday? I'm sure they'll elaborate some more tomorrow.

 

It is in the accompanying report, "Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States - Report of the Committee of Judiciary, House of Representatives - To Accompany H. Res. 755": Page 83: "Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. Government, the President withheld from Ukraine their military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anticorruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for provision to Ukraine of military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act." The OMB, still I believe under Mulvaney, disagrees with the GAO. Do you have a link to their opinion? I'll try and find it. There has been no opinion, that I am aware of, from the DoJ. There is no time limit specified in the Act for the President to notify Congress, only that such notice must be made PRIOR to the withholding of appropriated funding. Congress then has 45 days to reply to the notice. All unspent funding, unless specified, expires at the end of the fiscal year. However, since no formal notice was ever given to Congress, the aid was withheld illegally from the beginning.

 

Everything should have been in the super secret storage much sooner - less would have been leaked by Obama remnants.

 

I’ll wait for you to provide a link to this process that you claim exists.

 

I'm not going to entertain you further, so you can watch along with everyone else or just prefer to believe as you believe.

 

Think your right on the 45 day thing but what's to stop him from saying I didn't know and just canning the OMB director

 

If it was "the perfect call," why would that have mattered?

 

Because then Mulvaney would tell things the President doesn't want us to know. You're absolutely right...just admit the error and move on. Not sure Trump is (pardon the pun) constitutionally able to admit his mistakes?
Plus...remember, Mulvaney has already told the press that they do "quid pro quo's all of the time and we just have to get use to it." So, I think Mulvaney, Trump and others in the WH (and possibly Congress) genuinely believe in an expansion of the political theory of a "unitary presidency" and close to absolute powers in foreign policy. That's the danger, IMO, to our national security and the foundation of the republic.

 

Yes I know the law and the money was released within the allocated time. This is a minor administrative matter dealing with a policy matter. NOT an impeachable offense.

 

And they don't seem to realize that going down the witness path could extend this out for months, they are just going to show up at the impeachment trial and start answering questions.

 

Well, that's how we've conducted foreign policy for quite some time because the precedent that's clearly been set is that even in the Senate, "foreign policy" is another word for kickbacks. Democracies invite corruption, because it is the most corrupt system of government on the planet IMO. But that's an argument for another time, a saner time once this is all over.

 

Presidents trying to do shadey stuff isn't exactly new though

Also the part about Mulvaney, how much if push came to shove would be able to be covered by way of executive privilege.

I've said all along the Kurt Vought of OMB should've been the sacrificial lamb imo I think it's roughly what Blues Guy said a procedural error and I also agree with American Nationalist previous thoughts about censure. I feel impeachment is much too harsh especially given the even polling numbers and proximity to the election.

 

Not if it was done deliberately...and there are many who believe it was...they've been testifying over the past few months. Why was the money withheld? Why was it released? Per the law, Congress must be notified of the PROPOSED withholding...i.e. PRIOR to the withholding.

 

Hell, mad maxine’s District is so nasty, she won’t even live in it.