Pam Bondi DROPS A MOAB ON Joe Biden and Son Hunter Biden at Senate Impeachment Trial

Did Congress authorize the appropriation?

Yes.

 

As an initial matter, you raise a lot of points and I am loathe to get into all of them - especially as most relate to topics that are not relevant to the topic of this thread. But I will still try. In reverse order of your questions/arguments.

There are very few instances where a public statement, one not made under oath, from the purported victim is dispositive as to whether a crime took place. Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress are not such examples. Also, even if there was not evidence that Ukraine knew about the freeze as early as the day of the July 25th phone call (there is) and they only learned when the politico article came out in late August, trump did not release the aid for another 2 weeks and thus Ukraine would have known of the military freeze and been able to connect the dots of the requested investigation for that two week period - at a minimum. But even if they had never learned about the freeze, you could still accuse him of taking substantial steps to complete the act (i.e. he is guilty of the attempt).

The White House meeting was still desired and had been requested for months. Even during the meeting on the sideline at the UN, Zelensky requested the White House meeting.

I wholly disagree with the notion that Democrats have set some new definition for Abuse of Power. All four Constitutional Law professors who testified before the House Judiciary Committee said they believe Trump's alleged conduct was impeachable. The notion that Abuse of Power can not be grounds for impeachment (Dershowitz) is a minority view soundly rejected by most Constitutional Law Professors. But the ultimate check on some unchecked expansion of the definition of impeachment grounds is the voter support. If you can get ~50% public support for your new theoretical example of abuse of power, then there is probably a strong argument to be made that the President did commit an impeachable offense.

And finally, the goal in the situation of, "President has damaging information on a political rival and wants an investigation" is not to avoid criticism. That will happen regardless because of the obvious conflict of interest. The goal is to avoid impeachment and I posit that had trump directed the DOJ or the FBI or the CIA to investigate the evidence alleged by Giuliani and had let them decide and to handle any potential request for cooperation along the normal channels, then Trump would not have been impeached.

 

No idea

 

Yeah, and Ivanka Trump gets a pass. I suggest you look in the mirror when you accuse others of being biased.

 

DUH!! Of course he would be accused, it would be crystal clear to anyone with an IQ above trumps (~99% of the population and most small furry animals) what trump was trying to do. It would not, however, bring impeachment.

 

Oooh! Yes!

The republicans are indulging in partisan politics!

 

Yes.

 

Prove it

 

It is illegal to use your public office to enrich your family. Biden Sr. was in charge of Ukraine and China policy and what do you know, the worthless cokehead Hunter gets huge contracts from both nations.

 

Doesn't make my argument any weaker. In fact, it makes it stronger. So you'll allow Republicans to strong-arm then, but not now. Because of the perception of interest? Who's to say I as a citizen hold ANY interest in Ukraine(I don't), or Syria, or the myraid other times this government has used foreign dollars and US men and women, as political bargaining chips(or as trip wires.)

Fundamentally, either strong arming is okay or it's not.(regardless of the reason). If it's okay, why are we doing this? If it's not okay, then those four senators should be expunged and Biden should be disqualified from running(In that, I utterly don't trust the guy and I suspect and believe, we'll be here with the same damn topic a couple years later. Given billions of dollars of okay, let's call it 'suspect' circumstances.)

 

I'm sure that it's not just the prosecutor. I'm sure there were also other wink, wink deals in order to secure Hunter Biden's positions in both Ukraine and China. Or basically to spell it out, I'm going to accuse Joe Biden of Quid Pro quo. I don't know what the quid was yet, but I suspect in this long and lenghy trial, that's going to come out.

And if you don't like my position? It's the SAME position Adam Schiff has towards entering new witnesses into the record. So we'll see the record be fully hashed out. After all, we're here now might as well make the most of it.

 

Then that is entirely YOUR problem if you cannot recognize REALITY when you see it.

 

A precedence has been set. Nearly every president going forward will have an * by their name unless the they control the house. Matter of fact, they could probably go back and add some asterisks next to all prior presidents names since all others would fall into impeachment under the new guidelines for Abuse of Power.

 

Nah.

That WON'T Happen.

 

Ivanka, Eric and little Donnie jr are 2nd generation beneficiaries of nepotism and the criminal IMPOTUS's bonespurs did not prevent him from benefiting from nepotism either.

 

There was nothing illegal. Not one accuser can show anything illegal.

 

You haven't whined about your criminal IMPOTUS enriching his own family for the last 3 years!

 

What crimes, other than the ones in your head?

 

NOT proven at all. Someone’s opinion is not proof. Knowing Biden is corrupt because his son was on a board of corrupt people without any experience or reason to be there is in the greater interest of the nation, NOT just Trump. The corruption was the fact that Democrats ignored it all, not that Trump simply asked why no one has asked WHY. If Trump should be impeached for asking why, them Biden can’t even be a nominee and needs to be removed and Obama needs his presidency stripped away and every policy he signed deemed NULL.

Try again. Do pass GO. Have a nice day.

 

Thanks... you too...

 

Blond, pretty, white female Republican... She was poison to the democrats before she began to speak.

I don't want just talk to come out of this though, I want the GOP to step up and prove they have balls by actually taking down a top democrat. They've been lying and making their own case to impeach one of the best presidents in American history, and the reason is because he doesn't share their views, that's his sin.

 

It won't happen for a while as the left has assured control of all branches for at least 2 of the next 4 years to the elephants. But be assured, controlling house will work on impeaching political rivals as this is the new standard. It surely sucks since it makes a mockery of our political system, thank to the lunatic left.

 

Have you forgotten that YOU called this a crime?

Your criminal IMPOTUS provided jobs to Ivanka and Jared thereby ENRICHING them!

 

With regards to it being the "minority" view, I want to say the rule of the majority is a known intellectual fallacy that in this case, is particularly scary. While the Framers most certainly would have wanted to remove a President who abused his power, that abuse has to be quantified and defined.

Again, Obama droned a US Citizen. Where was Pelosi's concern then? It wasn't covered under the War Powers Act, the citizen wasn't yet designated as a terrorist(the suspected terrorist's son.) It wasn't covered under anything and in fact violated the basic premise of the idea of being tried for your crimes. If there's an abuse of power, Obama's actions that day were a naked extortion of abuse.

And yet, nothing. The controversial missile defense in Europe? Obviously that was a tit-for-tat. Was it in America's interests? Ah, Obama got to decide that. And this isn't per say saying "Democrat bad", he simply happens to be(like it or not) the past administration and that's the actions we can judge in comparison.

If Obama got to determine US policy, then why can't Trump? And i think Derchowitz argued, very simply the same point: Every President has had interests align where the national interest, coincides with the personal policy.

Why should the "official channels" determine point and policy in Ukraine or anywhere? Like all advisors, they are to be heard from and seen, but they don't "direct" anything. That's the President's job.

That brings us to the actions of Rudy Giuliani. The BIG offense is Giuliani's involvement here. But in the same breath, can it even be remotely argued that the President's counsel acted illegally? That argument doesn't exist because the DOJ hasn't indicted on Giuliani on anything. And there's no letter of law, constitutional or otherwise that says "The president's personal attorney cannot be point man on a subject of his interest."

Would that be admitting that it's his personal interest? Yes, I'll submit that. But even submitting that, was there an "abuse of power" just because he acted personally? No. The President is expected to act in our nation's interest, but he's not expected to be a passive actor.

The very argument of "he's forever impeached" is the same action that Trump took(in the Democratic view of allegations.) Impeachment has been used to affect the 2020 elections if he remains on the ballot. So even if Trump abused his power, even the democratic point man for the arguments(Turley) argued that impeachment in this manner was inefficient and an abuse of the House's power.

How can an abuse be remedied by another abuse in kind? It can't.

 

No, he's making it up as he goes. It's the democrat way.