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

Pure and utter conjecture.

And so did the impeachment inquiry witnesses and that is true, foreign aid is withheld and delayed all the time in order to get foreign countries to comply with our desires and policies. And yes US vs. Curtis-Wright on the President's plenary power in foreign policy.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.

In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation's "sole organ" in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.[1] The Court reasoned that while the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such authority, these powers are implicit in the President's constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.

Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President's plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp.

And just the first.

 

Yeah if it was done deliberately as the Democrats testified that it is routinely deliberately done. Congresses beef about the impoundment act is not an impeachable offense and the money was released within the timeframe.

 

Because conversation with foreign leaders!!

Doh.

 

I suspect fewer and fewer people are willing to fall on their swords to protect Trump. Executive privilege would be a bonafide claim, but none has been made...yet. And, I doubt any claim of blanket "executive privilege" (any and all Executive conversations and documentation) would hold up. IMO, it would have to be argued on a question by question basis. The counter argument - established in the Courts during Watergate - would be you cannot claim executive privilege in order to cover-up a crime. That becomes an "abuse of power."
The letter that may best outline the administration's position on impeachment is the October 8th letter, from the Counsel to the President, Pat Cipolline, to Pelosi and the relevant House Committee chairpersons, which basically states the WH will refuse to cooperate with any House impeachment proceedings, because they consider such to be unconstitutional (one section is entitled "Your 'Inquiry' Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights and the Separation of Powers"). Pelosi, et al took this to be an attempt to throw the entire impeachment inquiry and the validity of their subpoenas for witnesses and documentation, into the Judicial system - the Courts, to tie-up all impeachment efforts through the next election. Since one of the charges is essentially a conspiracy to corrupt that election, sending the impeachment to the Courts to tie it up through the election would basically allow the charged crime to be completed and not prevented. Ergo...they determined to move ahead with impeachment and bank on public opinion shifting against the President, on the basis of their public presentation in the House inquiry and Senate trial.
My position is to back the call for additional witnesses and documentation relevant to the charges and complete the trial in 1-2 months. That's still long before the Party Conventions that select the nominees.

 

You don't get it. Per the law, it can't be withheld prior to notification. There was no notification - therefore the act of withholding the funds was in itself illegal. As to others...I don't know whether Congress was informed or not. But, I don't think the temporary withholding was done secretly. And, if it was done secretly...why? All of which brings me back to the tel-con of July 25th and the "perfect call." If everything was "perfect," why didn't the President mention the withholding of the funds to Zelenskiy, which he checked to make sure was being accomplished ninety minutes after the call?

 

I don’t have a problem with more witnesses. If the articles standing on their own is compelling enough to warrant removal, then yes, call more witnesses. If they are not, then end this now. The senate is not the place to bolster the articles, that should have been done in the house.

The fact that trump ran on ending corruption, recalled Masha before joe even declared his run for presidency, tells me this isn’t about election interference, it pre-dates biden’s Run. Masha in her self proclaimed interest in fighting corruption in Ukraine somehow wasn’t interested in hunter Biden. Hunter had as much business being on that board as you or I, but why? Another why is why was Masha coached on how to answer congressional questioning by Obama’s state department officials? She admitted to such in sworn testimony.

 

Noted that you can’t back up your position. Your surrender is accepted.

 

It will extend the trial by a significant amount of time, but it is - IMO - an important enough issue to do so. Also, the judicial system can move reasonably quickly under national pressures. Remember the Bush election? Bring in the relevant witnesses and documents and get on with it. My guess is an extra 2-3 months, still months away from the nominating conventions for the November election.

 

If the witnesses would have even been neutral, Trump would not have ordered them to refuse to cooperate. That's the only reasonable inference one can draw from his refusal to comply with the Constitution.

 

What "lies"? You keep making the accusation and yet cannot point to anything.

 

I'm against a continual witch hunt by you anti-Trump folks.

You've left-wingers have been throwing crap at the fan to see what sticks for over 3 years now and nothing has stuck.

Hillary lost! Trump won! Get over it!

Oh, and Trump is still your President.

 

Then post the exact Trump quote that confirms your accusation.

*crickets*

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...-ukraine-military-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11


Then, critically, the president added: "I mean, I asked it very point-blank, because we're looking for corruption. There's tremendous corruption. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there's this kind of corruption?"

 

I have no problem with an investigation of Hunter Biden, but it can be done separately from the impeachment trial and through regular U.S. government channels...not the President's personal attorney. But, what are you going to find? Hunter worked for a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm. Burisma (sp?) contacted the lobbying firm on how to improve their image with the U.S. The lobbying firm probably said put our man Hunter Biden on your board. It can't hurt to have the VP's son on your corporate board. They then negotiated a ridiculous compensation package (with the lobbying firm telling Burisma all along "this is the way it's done"). Does that pass the smell test? No. He shouldn't have taken the job. Joe Biden would have been better off if he'd hired Hunter to work on his staff or found a job for him in the WH. The fundamental question of an investigation will be related to the question: Where did the money go? I am guessing that a large chunk of it went to Biden's lobbying firm. IF it can be proven that Burisma money flowed through Hunter back to Joe, then it becomes hugely problematic for Joe...but pretty good for Bernie, Elizabeth, Amy, and the other candidates. Want to stop all of this...revise campaign finance laws and enforce ethics laws. Few openly "bribe." Corporations play both political sides and seldom bribe political officials for votes in their favor...they pay for what they call "ACCESS." A chance for an hour long meeting in the officials office, following a ridiculous donation, where their PR and lobbyist people "present their case," which always ends with a summation of why the law or regulation change will vastly benefit the American people (and seldom mention how well it will improve the bank statements of their stockholders). Then the political thinks about it for a couple of minutes and say's: "By golly, I think you're right, you can count on my vote." And, as they leave, he/she adds: "By the way, I am having a little get together on such and such a date, at such and such a place, and I hope you'll be able to make it." He can't say it's a fund raiser while he's in his government office, so maybe it's a call from his campaign staff later. You think Trump came in to "clean the swamp?" He IS the swamp.

 

If I were House Speaker, that's the immediate action I would have taken. Should have taken. When it comes to discipline, you act according to the offense and you build levers. The House Dems wanted to use a bulldozer, when a carpenter would've sufficed.

What stops them now? Technically nothing, but from an optics standpoint it now looks terrible: The censure after a failed impeachment gambit looks like trying to fix slop, and that's what it is. It's no longer credible.

 

Next you'll be quoting the Dred Scott decision. "Plenary power" means "absolute power." Absolute power, by any one branch of government, is what the Constitution does NOT give and, in fact, the Founders spent a lot of time and effort in creating the "checks and balances" to ensure against it. The President is the sole representative of U.S. foreign policy abroad. But the underlying power, in the Constitution's "advise and consent" powers and their "powers of the purse" are significant restrictions and limitations on the President's powers. If the President had plenary foreign policy powers, Obama would have jailed Boehner, Speaker of the House, for inviting Netanyahu to address Congress on why we shouldn't do the Iranian deal.
Also, remember, Curtiss-Wright (a private corporation) was challenging the Congressional right to issue a resolution regarding the details of the implementation of foreign policy by the President...i.e. the President must have some latitude in the implementation of such. It also qualifies that latitude with: "It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by the exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President's, the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, BUT WHICH, OF COURSE, LIKE EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL POWER, MUST BE EXERCISED IN SUBORDINATION TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION."
The Impoundment Control Act applies to ALL appropriations, not just foreign aid. It's principal purpose is not to infringe upon the Presidential powers in foreign policy, but to ensure the protection of the Congressional power of the purse.
Try again.

 

I don’t have a problem on it’s face of a politician’s kid landing a lucrative job, but if that job is in a country that the US is sending aid to, I have a problem. It would be a tough sell to convince me that hunter’s salary wasn’t from US aid dollars. I’m suspect of our members of Congress’ wealth. These folks don’t make a whole lot more than I do, yet look at their net worth.
Is Trump greasy? I have no doubt. A successful real estate developer in New York, of all places, must know how to grease the right palms. I’m sure pay to play is a language requisite in that business and zip code. Trump has spent his life successfully navigating these waters. This all takes place in the private sector though, and as someone who has spent their career in the construction industry, I know how cut throat the building industry is. It’s a dog eat dog world. But it isn’t our money, it’s his money. But when the same thing happens in government it is your money, it’s my money, it’s our tax dollars that we work, and toil, and sweat our balls to pay. To give this money freely to the offspring of a politician sticks in my throat. Look, I’m not interested in trying to change your political bent, you are who you are, and I’m cool with that. This isn’t the super bowl where we cheer for our favorite team regardless, this is about right and wrong. Trump, being fluent in the pay for play language has identified the Bidens as corrupt, and he did so long before Joe tossed in his hat. Maybe that’s why he decided to run, for political cover, his low energy doesn’t suggest he actually wants the job.

 

So...what part of the tel-con was classified, then de-classified for the purpose of showing it was the perfect tel-con? And, it wasn't the ordinary storage location for such calls, it went beyond that to a special storage location normally reserved for our deepest secrets.

 

You're both weakening. You've stepped back to accept the facts, but now are claiming it was due to incompetence and worthy only of a "censure." You don't seriously think that Trump will accept a censure do you? Or, are you speaking for him through a back channel?

 

Uh, no. You're the one who completely misinterpreted what I was saying. Let me spell it out in no uncertain terms: These are allegations. Unproven allegations. And frankly, untrue allegations. But even if they were true, they still aren't impeachable offenses.

I made no claim of incompetence(except in the case of Nancy Pelosi.). The President doesn't have to accept or deny a censure. It's a House-only measure. What I'm saying is that whatever legitimacy that might have arose from it, can't arise anymore because they already cried to the Senate.

The argument lost legitimacy, and both the hearts and minds of the Republic. For if your argument is only so one-sided as to not accept any other alternative, that begets the right for another alternative to also deny other possibilities. TLDR: We don't have to give a damn what Democrats think of his actions.

 

Your chronology is not correct.

Biden was a front runner in early polls in April 2018, and in July 2018 said he would decide by January.

Yovanovitch was recalled almost a year later, in May 2019.

Also, a possible question about the Bidens was just one of a whole load of questions she prepped for. It was thought the issue might be raised because of concerns about the possible appearance of a conflict of interest.

George Kent testified that he was concerned about poor optics, but that it was a tricky topic to address at the time, as Biden had just lost his other son, and Hunter Biden himself has said (and most I think would agree) that it was poor judgment to have taken the job.

There was no conflict here with Yovanovitch's anti-corruption stance, as there was absolutely no grounds for suspecting Hunter of doing anything wrong. The concern was purely optics. Furthermore, corruption investigations related to the owner's activities, not the company, when he was Minster of Ecology from 2010 to 2012 - two years before Hunter joined the board.

 

Was Masha recalled before or after the date Buden officially announced his candidacy?

 

Duplicate

 

I have no problem in "following the money" in a Biden investigation, but I doubt Joe had control over U.S. aid money as VP. And, I suspect that the aid money was tracked to some extent by the U.S. government and I doubt it went to Burisma. Actually, under the pro-Russian Ukrainian regime, the President of Ukraine "licensed" Ukrainian oligarchs involved in Ukrainian energy companies to receive a "energy transit fee," for Russian energy flowing through the Ukraine. That fee was then divided into a part for the Ukrainian President, a part for the Ukrainian energy oligarch, and a kick-back to Russian oligarchs. So, you seem to be suggesting that we - via Hunter and Joe - were involved in a similar scheme? One major reason for the Baltic pipeline running from north Russia to Germany and Western Europe was to eliminate "the middle men" in corrupt transit countries. We oppose that pipeline supposedly because of our desire to sell more of our own natural gas to Europe. At the moment, however, that's transported by boat, making the cost prohibitive. There is also a huge Exxon-Mobile/Russian deal (largely accomplished by former State Department Secretary Tillerson - when he was CEO of Exxon-Mobil) for off-shore drilling in the Russian Arctic. It's supposedly a $500 billion deal, which has been blocked by U.S. sanctions put in place over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
IMO, there is more to come regarding Ukrainian energy companies and Russian energy, but it may involve Rudy & Associates instead of Biden. Again...I have no problem with a formal government investigation of U.S. involvement in Ukrainian finances, by no matter whom.

 

You doubt Bidens involvement if joe in the money going to Ukraine? He was Obama’s point man FFS.