WATCH LIVE: Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump (Day Six)

I'm not your research clerk.

 

Try making some sense next time.

 

Just trying to help you out.

Yes, there were Republican Senators who joined in the pursuit of getting the prosecutor fired.

 

Sondland had direct knowledge. Others HAVE direct knowledge...Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, et al. They should testify as well.

 

A President is impeached so they can be prosecuted in court but that being said yes the Judge charged him with contempt of court for it although she held her ruling until after the impeachment so as not to influence it.
What is the point you are trying to make? Starr brought 11 charges I believe 8 were felony charges in his report to the House. Those were proven in the impeachment. Of course asserting yourself as a lawyer what do you call submitting a false affidavit into a court proceeding?

 

So what? It was appropriated by Congress and the Biden threatened to withhold it.

 

The only direct knowledge he had was Trump telling him there was no quid pro quo. If they should testify then why weren't they called to do so in the impeachment? What are they going to add that we don't already know?

 

Trump is claiming powers that belong to Congress.

 

Not on what he "knew and saw", but on what he THOUGHT based on his military experience(I guess he's used to being disciplined and yelled at.). Unfortunately, his military experience doesn't cover law, or intent, or evidence, or ANYTHING. And it's clear(through the WB's complaint) that Vindman was basically point man.

This dude took his own personal perceptions and used them to possibly forever alter the course of our history. But if that weren't bad enough, the man gloated about the Ukrainian offer. A US SOLDIER was happy to have received an offer from a foreign nation. Do you believe in Vindman's allegiance? Despite Fiona Hill's pathetic defense that we shouldn't question it, his actions are damnable to the highest.

I'm an American-German, with German blood flowing from my grandmother and mother. How would it feel if Angela Merkel said: "AN, we see your political views and think you'd make a great member of German Parliament. Why not come over?" My answer would be "I'm humbled that Germans think fondly of me, deeply touched beyond words actually. But, my allegiance remains with the flag and country I was born with. "

Vindman couldn't give an equally strong statement. Because his feelings just aren't there. That's why he did this to begin with, his beloved Ukraine matters more to him.

 

Me?? You’re claiming trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden...if not for the impound control act, then what?? Why bring it up otherwise?

 

Sondland talked directly to the President several times. And, he claimed to be acting directly for the President...a claim the rest believed. Bolton apparently has direct evidence of being told by the President that he didn't want funding released until the investigations had been agreed to and publicly announced. Pompeo, Mulvaney, Esper, et al would be able to confirm that (or deny it).

 

Have you served in the U.S. military?

 

Definitely not a crime and definitely not against official US policy.

 

And that's a fallacy suggesting that if I hadn't served, I have no right to criticize the bastard. No, I haven't served. And the same(sadly) goes for 99% of citizens and likely for yourself as well. Yet, you don't see me bringing it up.

My loyalty to the nation is not solely seen on whether or not I can pull the trigger.

 

You seem to claim loyalty to the nation, but reject the Constitution in your claim to favor totalitarianism.

 

So? You're suggesting quid pro quo, which is not illegal. As Dershowitz said yesterday, "Quid pro quo is part of the way foreign policy has been operated by Presidents since the beginning of time". We don't just hand out money for nothing. We give aid in exchange for a desired behavior.

Dershowitz used the hypothetical that a Democrat President may tell Israel that we would withhold aid, and no White House meeting would be scheduled, unless Israel stops building settlements. You may disagree with that President's foreign policy decision, but quid pro quo in our relationships with other countries is not an impeachable offense.

 

What was that part of Thomas Jefferson that said: "If government should abuse the nation, to address grievances and to form a new union"? So, it's very cute that you think my wish for Empire means my lack of loyalty to the country. The framers would disagree, both yes with my viewpoint but also with the idea that I'm not Nationalistic.

In fact, they would view me as very Nationalistic, probably with English-leaning sympathies at the time of early America.. I probably would've been among those arguing for reform and talks with the King, rather than war with England.

But make no mistake: When hostilities broke out, if I were one of the Founders at the time, I would have supported the US.

It's clear that we're too big for a small federal union, and there's no way the Framers would just cede the territory. So what's needed is a unitary government. While the political chaos of Europe is noted(and noted for its disadvantages.), one of the HUGE advantages they have, is the unitary parliament.

In Britain's parliament, the Brexit party could affect its change. Had we Nationalists not engaged in the unholy marriage that is conservatism, we would not have been able to have any voice in the American political stratosphere. Whereas again, Britain has the UKIP or the BNP.

I would have had a home in either the UKIP or the BNP. However, I support the Nationalist end goal, of one party for all of America to rally behind and unite as one, to end the political division and Van Buren's fiction. Our division doesn't strengthen us, and it doesn't unite us. It only conquers us from within.

 

Yeah, it is illegal. The President must spend the money Congress appropriates the way Congress directs. It's not his money to spend or to withhold. If he believed there was a valid reason to hold up funding, he needed to, by law, inform Congress of his intent BEFORE withholding the funding. He broke the law...and even more seriously, he violated the Constitutional "power of the purse" given to Congress, NOT the Executive. His only power in withholding funding would have been to either vetoed the appropriation bill or declared a national emergency (as he did with the transfer of funding from DoD to build his Wall). In this case, he did neither. He signed the bill and there was no declaration of an emergency or even the required notification to Congress of his INTENT to withhold funding. And...he got caught and has been backtracking ever since.
Dershowitz was wrong. He was once a good civil rights lawyer...focusing on due process and the bill of rights (the first ten amendments). IMO, he went downhill after he represented Jeffery Epstein. But, he was never a constitutional expert...never claimed to be one...never known as one.

 

Hmmm...I suspect Jefferson said that BEFORE he became President. Jefferson said a lot of things...and his political philosophy went through several changes. And, Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention. He was in Paris at the time, as our Ambassador to France.

 

The money was released 3 weeks before the deadline. Trump didn't need any Congressional approval to hold it. Only if he had wanted to extend the deadline, or even cancel the aid, would he have needed approval. Freezing funds is not a crime.

 

The British, French and Germans possessed "Empires" during the colonial era, while simultaneously developing democracies at home. You seem to be advocating some form of Trotskyism...global domination with a single party system. Or, do you consider yourself more a neo-Nazi? Where do you place yourself in the political spectrum? I consider myself a moderate who favors a liberal democratic republic.

 

The law requires notification of Congress BEFORE it's withheld. The act of withholding the money without pre-notification of Congress was illegal. The "deadline" is irrelevant. Read the Impoundment Control Act and the GAO opinion. And...yes "freezing funds" is illegal, if Congress has apportioned them and no notice is given.

 

On July 25th, the OMB signed off on paperwork making the hold official and valid through early August. OMB continued to file proper paperwork for a serious of temporary extension holds on the funds up until funds were released....3 weeks early.

 

Impoundment Act as you guys are trying to charge Trump. Policy doesn't matter. And there was an actual quid pro quo.