I don't know how many people would be called as a witness if there is a trial but realize this is a hypo. To the degree that his vote is not likely to be the deciding one, as compared to the close vote in 1868, if he is called, perhaps recusal would be sensible on policy grounds. He can always vote "present" or whatever.

But, to the extent we are making calls here, perhaps we also should wonder if Chief Justice Roberts should recuse in cases with an impeachment connection given his role as presiding officer. For instance, he just acted on a pending case, holding a lower court opinion in abeyance for the time being, that in part involves investigations of matters related to emoluments. The opinion below specifically notes it is not an impeachment matter (the dissent partially turned on this) but if very well can be eventually.

The reasons why justices recuse are not made clear though it often can be figured out why they do so. They might have some sort of family connection or whatnot that is relatively minor. So, in theory, he can recuse for a range of reasons. Of course, he is not obligated to do so any more than Senator Johnson. But, the presiding officer no less than a senator can think about such matters and act as they see fit.
 

I'd like to clear something up: the impeachment argument does not hinge on quid pro quo. A President asking for, in a secret, official call to another head of state, the investigation of a US citizen is itself perhaps impeachable. The same situation, but the US citizen being his chief domestic political rival (or family member) singled out, is the epitome of an impeachable offense.
 

There is no legal compulsion for Johnson to do so, only normative ones. But the GOP has left such concerns behind long ago.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Gerard: Senator Johnson might have to think hard about whether he should recuse.

Why?

Senator Johnson is not a fact witness.

The Democrat allegation is Trump told Ukraine they would receive military aid only if they conducted an investigation of and provided Trump with "dirt" on the Bidens. They charge these facts constitute the high crime of bribery.

Although there is zero evidence of the fact allegation, let us assume the Democrats offered a witness who actually observed such a demand. Then, the focus shifts to whether Trump had a "corrupt motive" for the quid pro quo.

If Trump was aware of the evidence suggesting Russian oligarch paid bribes to the Bidens and demanded the Ukrainians investigate that evidence, then this rebuts the charge the POTUS had a corrupt motive for the demand.

However, some third party's "concerns" about the evidence against the Bidens and the fact they communicated those concerns to others is irrelevant.

If these were grounds for removing a juror for cause, no one who consumed media reporting of a crime could serve on a jury.
 

A President asking for, in a secret, official call to another head of state, the investigation of a US citizen is itself perhaps impeachable.

This was flagged in the second round yesterday (Chris Hayes' summary on MSNBC website has video) -- the Republican witnesses agreed that was improper.

It has been covered that the Constitution provides an open-ended test on what is impeachable though I personally have noted that its usage of specific textual markers is somewhat informative (thus it is not simply a "no confidence" vote though nothing really stops it from being one as matter of raw power especially after Walter Nixon v. U.S.). Basic violation of appropriate executive action would fit the rules in place.

My first comment touched upon emoluments and it should be remembered too that though the impeachment hearings occurring as I type focus on Ukraine that other matters are also being investigated. I personally hope if there is an impeachment that the Ukraine matters is but one count.


 

Mr. W: A President asking for, in a secret, official call to another head of state, the investigation of a US citizen is itself perhaps impeachable.

(1) Never happened. You can read the transcripts of both calls between Trump and Zelensky, the second of which was confirmed "very accurate" by LTC Vindman yesterday.

(2) Our government routinely asks foreign governments to conduct criminal investigations of US citizens. Nothing remotely improper about that unless there is no evidence the target committed a crime.
 

MW, it's even worse: the request was not just to investigate a political rival -- using taxpayer dollars as the bribe/extortion -- *but to corruptly interfere with a free and fair election in 2020 for Trump's own personal benefit*. The fact that the "investigation" was entirely phony makes it that much worse. The fact that the co-conspirators have repeatedly lied about it and attempted to obstruct justice are not just crimes, but evidence of their criminal intent.
 

Bart, you’ve lost your mind.
 

"only normative ones"

There are a political and/or self-interest related ones.

If there is a credible reason to avoid voting on the record, someone like Ron Johnson particularly might grab it.
 

But, to the extent we are making calls here, perhaps we also should wonder if Chief Justice Roberts should recuse in cases with an impeachment connection given his role as presiding officer.

This is partisan bullcrap on the same level that Bart and Brett normally give us.

There is ZERO reason for Chief Justice Roberts to recuse himself. The Constitution CONTEMPLATES that the Chief Justice might very well have sat on cases involving Presidential power. The idea that the framers were unaware of this or that this was a problem is ridiculous.

You just want to get a Democrat in there. It's sad, partisan, and the substitution of political hackery for actual legal analysis.
 

And no, there's nothing wrong with a Senator being a witness.

The Senate is not a jury. The Senate is not a court. The Senate is the Senate. It is expected to make a political judgment, and they aren't required to conduct a fact trial under rigorous rules.
 

Ok, here's a hypothetical a law professor might love: assume Johnson testifies at the impeachment trial, but commits perjury. Would he be immunized by the speech and debate clause?
 

Mark Field said...Ok, here's a hypothetical a law professor might love: assume Johnson testifies at the impeachment trial, but commits perjury. Would he be immunized by the speech and debate clause?.

The false statement would have to concern a material fact, which the receipt of third party concerns would not.
 

" the Republican witnesses agreed that was improper."

There's nothing stopping a Republican witness from being a hostile witness. In 2016 Trump wasn't just opposed by the Democrats, but also by the Republican establishment, and NeverTrump Republicans are hardly a rare beast. The Republican party has some vicious intra-party fights going on, and has since the 90's.
 

"But, to the extent we are making calls here, perhaps we also should wonder if Chief Justice Roberts should recuse in cases with an impeachment connection given his role as presiding officer."

Somehow me offering as a hypo for discussion [all that a bunch of people on the Internet are doing here] is "partisan" though the principle could apply when the players are different.

My hypo does not merely reference "cases involving Presidential power." It -- again, I'm not saying he should recuse -- involves a case specifically in some fashion involved in the case for which he would preside. This is very well related to general rules of recusal -- justices, e.g., recuse regularly in cases for which they had a role as a lower court judge or while in some other capacity.

As I have said before without anyone really refuting me, I can imagine cases where recusal might be warranted. If the person being impeached is someone's spouse, e.g., should they preside? What if the person is allegedly directly involved in the matter impeached, such as a POTUS alleged to have blackmailed a Chief Justice to rule in a certain way? It is at least reasonable to talk about such things.

The fact it is "not a court" or follows "rigorous rules" etc. also doesn't answer what should happen as a matter of policy. There were since the beginning of impeachment trials rules of proceedings and this could be something that is addressed by them. That is the context of the discussion, not what is compelled by the Constitution.
 

The Democrats have changed their "bribery" allegation to Trump demanded Ukraine publicly announce an investigation of the 2016 campaign and Burisma in exchange for a Trump meeting with Zelensky.

Really?

What a freaking circus.
 

Mark flagged this clause:

shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Testimony in an impeachment trial would not seem to be "any speech or debate" though the terms to my understanding have been defined broadly. It is interesting btw that senators in general "shall be on Oath or Affirmation" in an impeachment trial.

Does that have any effect? Is it merely symbolic? How is this above and beyond their constitutional oaths taken when sworn in?
 

Oh my...

Looks like Ukraine finished its criminal investigation of Bursima.

The Russian TASS news agency is reporting:

The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General has drawn up an indictment against the owner of the Burisma Holdings energy company, ex-Ecology Minister Nikolai Zlochevsky, that contains information that the son of former US Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter, as a Burisma board member along with his partners received $16.5 million for their services, Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada MP from the ruling Servant of the People party Alexander Dubinsky told a press conference on Wednesday, citing the investigation’s materials. According to him, the money came from duplicitous criminal activity.

"Zlochevsky was charged with this new accusation by the Office of the Prosecutor General but the press ignored it," the MP said. "It was issued on November 14."

According to the politician, "the son of Vice-President Joe Biden was receiving payment for his services, with money raised through criminal means and money laundering." He also clarified that "Biden received money that did not come from the company’s successful operation but rather from money stolen from citizens."

Concurrently and likely not coincidentally, the ranking GOP member of the House Intelligence Committee, Deven Nunes, renewed the Republican demand the committee subpoena Hunder Biden to testify.
 

Thanks, Bart, but I think trusting TASS for news about Ukraine is just a bit iffy. Wait for the story to be picked up by some more reliable news organization, like WND. (Which is reporting today that Hunter Biden has a love child in Arkansas -- a "99.9% DNA match, so apparently he's both the father and the mother...)

 

"(1) Never happened. You can read the transcripts of both calls between Trump and Zelensky, the second of which was confirmed "very accurate" by LTC Vindman yesterday.

(2) Our government routinely asks foreign governments to conduct criminal investigations of US citizens."

Lol, this is the fevered GOP defense! "Never happened, but if it did, totally ok!" Lol.
 

" trusting TASS for news"

That's Bart, totally.
 

"and NeverTrump Republicans are hardly a rare beast."

The Goldstein moment, par excellence.
 

"Thanks, Bart, but I think trusting TASS for news about Ukraine is just a bit iffy."

I tend to agree: While Tass will certainly report the truth if the truth serves its purposes, it's also willing to publish lies if that's what advances the cause.

Rather like the Washington Post in that regard, I suppose, only working for foreign enemies of the country, rather than domestic.

So I'm going to wait on some independent reporting before I place much reliance on this.
 

Rather like the Washington Post in that regard, I suppose, only working for foreign enemies of the country, rather than domestic.

Birchers gonna Birch!
 

Trump demanded Ukraine publicly announce an investigation of the 2016 campaign and Burisma in exchange for a Trump meeting with Zelensky.

An official act in exchange for a political hit, the epitome of an impeachable offense
 

Democrats killing the messenger follows bad news for the party like night follows day.

Gentlemen, TASS was reporting public statements from identified Ukrainian representatives at a press conference, not anonymous sources offering groundless allegations like our own Democrat media.
 

"Trump demanded Ukraine publicly announce an investigation of the 2016 campaign and Burisma in exchange for a Trump meeting with Zelensky."

Or such is the allegation, anyway.

I've now seen a bit of independent confirmation of the Tass story, so I'm tentatively trusting it; Only tentatively because it may be the nominally independent confirmation was just copied off Tass. We should know for sure in the next couple of days.
 

Mr. W: Trump demanded Ukraine publicly announce an investigation of the 2016 campaign and Burisma in exchange for a Trump meeting with Zelensky. An official act in exchange for a political hit, the epitome of an impeachable offense

When and where exactly did the POTUS make any such demand to Ukraine? Remember, you are relying on hearsay, speculation and opinion.

How precisely is an investigation of Bursima a "political hit" on the Bidens? Unless, of course, the Ukrainian MP Alexander Dubinsky is correct that such an investigation led to an indictment where Hunter Biden was named as part of a Bursima money laundering operation. In that case, Trump was truly cleaning up corruption and should be praised, not impeached.
 

To any non-partisanly deranged and corroded person an executive pushing a foreign government to single out their chief political domestic rival for a public announcement of investigation by that government is an egregious abuse of power. And the quasi-transcript itself shows that explicitly.
 

If Hunter Biden's activities were of such concern, no doubt the Rs investigated them in 2017-8 when they controlled both branches of Congress plus the DOJ.
 

Mr. W: To any non-partisanly deranged and corroded person an executive pushing a foreign government to single out their chief political domestic rival for a public announcement of investigation by that government is an egregious abuse of power.

Never happened. Sondland denied today that anyone targeted the Bidens.

Any more slanders you want me to debunk?
 

Mark Field said...If Hunter Biden's activities were of such concern, no doubt the Rs investigated them in 2017-8 when they controlled both branches of Congress plus the DOJ.

The GOP establishment does not want to investigate them even now and have the Democrats retaliate against Elephant pay to play operations.
 

Bingo. The Republican establishment are far too dirty to have any interest in starting a series of tit for tat investigations that could end with mutually assured destruction in both parties.
 

"We're too corrupt to investigate Biden." is a very odd defense of Trump. But it's probably no worse than some of the nonsense spewing out of the GOP congressdopes
 

"Never happened."

lol, Trump plainly singles out his chief domestic political rival in the quasi-transcript of the phone call (and his personal lawyer admits to pushing for the same).

Later when Trump was asked for any other American he was pushing for international corruption investigations he could name none.

A political hit, flagrant abuse of office.
 

BB:

The GOP is not my team, right or wrong, it is the lesser of two corrupt evils.

Ditto Trump.

You Democrats are making it easy to defend Trump by acting like the God damned Soviet Union complete with state media propaganda hauling an opposition POTUS before a show trial on trumped up charges.

What is really scary is none of you can see what you have become. You think that weaponizing law enforcement, the intelligence services and now launching a groundless impeachment offering the same apparatchiks as witnesses to remove a opposition POTUS is somehow normal. It's fine and dandy to abandon to abandon all constitution standard of high crimes and due process because impeachment only "political."

I had to think long and hard about voting for Trump in 2016 because I generally do not cast ballots for the lesser of two evils. Today, there is no alternative. You Democrats cannot be allowed back in power. You are a clear and present danger to what is left of the Republic.
 

BD: "Never happened."

Mr. W: lol, Trump plainly singles out his chief domestic political rival in the quasi-transcript of the phone call (and his personal lawyer admits to pushing for the same).

Once again...never happened.

Stop watching the Daily Show, CNN or wherever you go for your daily Two Minutes of Hate.

Read the damned transcript your own witness admitted was "very accurate."

Zelensky, not Trump, brought up Burisma & Co. in the telephone call.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Republicans had investigations when they controlled the House over the years. They even impeached. That is what Congress does among other things, so this isn't surprising. It amounts to looking at details to determine when it is appropriate.
 

The GOP is not my team, right or wrong, it is the lesser of two corrupt evils.

Ditto Trump.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:56 PM

That is complete and utter bullshit. You constantly defend behavior that only a true believer could possibly defend. Hell, there are even a few Rethuglicans that are having trouble defending Trump. But not you.
 

The GOP is not my team, right or wrong

Bart,

I've read a lot of your clownish, idiotic, comments. I've concluded that not even you take them seriously. But really, this? Not your team?

Hilarious.
 

"Read the damned transcript your own witness admitted was 'very accurate.'

Zelensky, not Trump, brought up Burisma & Co. in the telephone call."

I just reread the "transcript." Burisma isn't mentioned; Trump brings up the Bidens.

Not to mention that even if your talking point were true, it would probably be incriminating, as it would tend to show that Trump's desire to have Burisma investigated had been communicated to Zelensky. E.g., wouldn't the following exchange be pretty weird, absent additional context?

President of France: I'm concerned about corruption in the administration of municipal elections in the U.S.

U.S. President: I'm also very concerned about the election irregularities in Pittsburg's Third Ward.
 

"Not to mention that even if your talking point were true, it would probably be incriminating, as it would tend to show that Trump's desire to have Burisma investigated had been communicated to Zelensky."

You've clearly reached the point where you just can't conceive of any alternative to Trump being guilty of something. Even counter-evidence looks like evidence to you.

"President of France: I'm concerned about corruption in the administration of municipal elections in the U.S."

Your hypo is particularly crazy, because it elides the key point that the Biden corruption took place in Ukraine, and involved a Ukrainian company. In fact, wasn't the talking point last week that corruption in Ukraine was no concern of the American government? Now you've relocated the corruption to the US to make an excuse why Ukraine isn't properly involved?

So it can't be investigated by the US because it's in Ukraine, and it can't be investigated by Ukraine because it's in the US? Somehow that argument doesn't make sense.

No, the last day or so has not been looking good for Biden, and it all came out because Democrats decided to make THIS the excuse to impeach Trump. You'd almost think there was a faction in Congress that wanted to sabotage Biden's Presidential bid.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Ryan: I just reread the "transcript." Burisma isn't mentioned. I just reread the "transcript." Burisma isn't mentioned; Trump brings up the Bidens.

On page four, Zelensky discuses appointing a new prosecutor and "will work on the investigation of the case." So far as I know, the Ukrainians never had a case against the Bidens.

Where did Trump discuss the Bidens?

Not to mention that even if your talking point were true, it would probably be incriminating, as it would tend to show that Trump's desire to have Burisma investigated had been communicated to Zelensky.

I know your Democrat Two Minute Hate is not telling you this, but Bursima was the target of both American and Ukrainian investigations starting back during the Obama administration. While Joe Biden was blackmailing Ukraine to fire their investigating prosecutor, Bursima was lobbying the Obama administration to end their investigation, dropping Hunter Biden's name in the process.
 

It was suggested that I was biased because I offered a recusal hypo regarding Roberts as a Trump investigatory case with possible impeachment implications is being considered in a thread to a discussion about recusal possibilities.

Talking about partisan matters, after I noted that two Republican witnesses flagged something Mr. W. (a former Buchanan voter who noted here he supported the Libertarian Party candidate in 2016) deemed possibly impeachment worthy, it was also noted that there is some Republican division on these matters.

Quite true. It might be confusing with all this talk about "Democrats," but from the campaign, there was strong concern about Trump, including his overall history in a range of ways. These things didn't suddenly pop up when he was the nominee. OTOH, once he was, Republican officials suddenly mostly stopped opposing "their guy" who "has the right enemies" (or perhaps not wanting to make enemies with his friends) though some did say they didn't support him in November 2016. In that fashion, even there, Republicans showed their concern over him.

It was noted that early on -- unsurprising given some facts found in a report put out by a life-long Republican, Vietnam vet, former FBI director appointed by Bush43 [impeachment off the table by Pelosi] -- a majority of Democrats supported impeachment of Trump. The House was controlled by Republicans, of course, and there was no actual serious effort by House Dems as a whole to impeach. Again, there has been decades of evidence of bad acts by Trumps in a variety of ways.

Dems then gained control of the House. Did they suddenly support impeachment? No. Some Dems actually were upset at this. They did start investigations. It was suggested Republicans wouldn't want to do that. They of course did investigate and even impeach. The Republican leader of the Senate said the biggest goal was to make Obama a one term President. Don't recall that happening with Bush. Republicans were quite active against Obama. Democrats aren't suddenly starting something here. And, they didn't go after Bush in the same way. So, perhaps, it isn't just party for them.

Anyway, the Ukraine matter (this one) was seen a tipping point. It was not an "excuse." It was something that a broad range of the public -- the testimony of Republican witnesses and Trump appointees suggest the concern here (and, in another comment, this division was NOTED, but foolish consistency and all that) -- specifically had special concern over. Impeachment being a political judgment, this special concern over Ukraine (him being in office, it being blatant, there being "smoking guns" etc. all factors in) was noted by Pelosi et. al.

A majority is needed to impeach and a supermajority to remove. The fact a true believer still doesn't think anything is there is not surprising. True believers still think the Nixon impeachment was a sham, e.g., and there are always going to be dissenting views here. One try to see things as objectively as they can.

As to Biden, he has various issues as a candidate, and I would not be surprised if even the b.s. involved here will taint him in some fashion, but impeachment is about the current person in power. We are a limited constitutional republic and impeachment and other ways are in place to honor that. Even if true believer partisans wish to selectively trust people with the right enemies.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Ukrainian media via Facebook claims to be publishing parts of the prosecutor's "suspicion" (likely the equivalent of our indictment) and alleges:

WHAT EXACTLY WILL BE PUBLISHED TODAY:

Firstly. New documents, approving involvement of top officials of Ukraine and US into international corruption.

Secondly. New evidences about a US investment fund, being close to one of the US parties, which helped Yanukovich’s family to launder USD 7,4 billions and drived Ukraine deeply into our debt.

Thirdly. Facts about son of former US vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, who together with his partners received not only 16,5 millions from Burisma, but millions that were stolen from Ukraine.

And the main thing: detailed eventual bankruptcy scheme for Ukraine

NEW FACTS ABOUT INTERNATIONAL CORRUPTION, BURISMA AND SCHEME TO BANKRUPT UKRAINE»АНДРЕЙ ДЕРКАЧ·WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019

The Ukrainian MP press conference which TASS reported apparently prompted the Ukrainian prosecutor to announce Ukraine has widened its investigation into the founder of energy company Burisma to include suspicion of embezzling state funds, according to Reuters.
 

"It might be confusing with all this talk about "Democrats," but from the campaign, there was strong concern about Trump, including his overall history in a range of ways. These things didn't suddenly pop up when he was the nominee."

Trump has been committing impeachable offenses since before he was elected. He has continued committing them regularly ever since. What explains the difference here -- at least for House Dems -- was that he tried to corrupt the integrity of the 2020 election for his own benefit. That alone is impeachable, as MW noted above, but he did it in his typical thuggish and corrupt way, using bribery/extortion involving taxpayer dollars, obstructing justice, and concealment. It's the epitome of impeachable offenses.
 

Bart -- sure, that would be very concerning, except:

1. Even if it were the case (which is not unlikely, given the heritage of kleptocracy from the Soviet era) there's no proof that Hunter Biden, let alone Joe, was aware in a culpable sense of where Burisma's money was coming from. Good luck proving that.

2. This reeks of Putin's standard methodology, of using legal shenanigans to tar or even imprison his political opposition.

3. If you watched Holmes' testimony this morning and you still have any doubt about what happened, and the fact that Trump participated in an attempt to subvert a foreign government in pursuance of his personal political benefit, then you are hopeless (note to everyone else: yes, I know, that ship sailed long ago...)
 

"Trump has been committing impeachable offenses since before he was elected. He has continued committing them regularly ever since."

Indeed, the very first of them was filing as a Republican candidate, and they continued in that tenor to this day.
 

Brett: "Indeed, the very first of them was filing as a Republican candidate." Quite so. It was an attack on American democracy for a career petty criminal and long-term asset of Russian intelligence to seek election to any public office, let alone the Presidency. Trump was impeachable from the day he took office.

That's how the Democratic base sees it anyway, to judge from a genuinely partisan blog like Lawyers, Guns and Money. Brett and Bart are gravely mistaken to think the genteel Ivy League commenters at Balkinisation are at all representative of progressive American opinion today. The kleptocrats have woken Smaug.
 

C2H50H:

I completely agree the Ukrainians have not offered any actual evidence Hunter Biden committed a crime.

I am not offering these news reports as proof of Biden the Younger’s guilt of a crime, but rather as a defense against the claim that the POTUS possessed the “corrupt intent” in demanding an investigation of Bursima necessary t prove the Democrats focus-group derived charge of bribery.

As an aside, the fact the Ukrainian prosecutor did not deny any of the Ukrainian MPs’s claims about the existence and substance of the alleged “suspicion” (indictment) suggests both are real, not Russian disinformation.
 

Sorry, Bart, but your "defense" requires that we accept facts not in evidence, to whit: that Trump somehow was aware that there was some corrupt dealings by Hunter Biden or Joe Biden involving Burisma. That has never been demonstrated. In fact, those who have looked in on this in an official capacity have universally concluded that these are empty charges.

Which means that Trump's push did demonstrate a "corrupt intent", especially, since we also know that there are other Americans with corrupt dealings in Ukraine (a fact that has never been in doubt: see Manafort, Parnas, etc.) By not making it a blanket request, Trump proved that he was seeking only political advantage.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Reference is made to Lawyers Guns & Money Blog.

As a reader, I can tell you that until the Ukraine matter came out, there was a group (and one or more of the people who run the blog were included) that were against impeachment. The blog is clearly strongly anti-Trump, given the facts on the ground.

But, there was a divide on if impeachment was appropriate. Some might still be, but before, it was a much stronger divide. As to Mark's comment, I think it has force though I think the Ukraine matter has special bite for a variety of reasons.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Indeed, the very first of them was filing as a Republican candidate, and they continued in that tenor to this day."

More can and was said on this, but suffice to say, there were strong grounds to be very concerned about Trump early, and someone else noted early recognition of a wrongdoer is not sign of malfeasance on the part of the accusers.

But, impeachment itself by the relevant party [the House] came together mid-2019 and we are here.
 

C2H5OH said...Sorry, Bart, but your "defense" requires that we accept facts not in evidence, to whit: that Trump somehow was aware that there was some corrupt dealings by Hunter Biden or Joe Biden involving Burisma. That has never been demonstrated. In fact, those who have looked in on this in an official capacity have universally concluded that these are empty charges.

To start, there is zero evidence Trump told Ukraine to investigate the Bidens or to announce an investigation of the Bidens in exchange for anything. We do not even have to go there.

Assuming for the sake of argument, Trump did make such a demand, there was sufficient evidence in the public domain to begin an investigation over whether a Russian oligarch was paying bribes to the Bidens through Bursima. Our chief law enforcement officer demanding investigation of evidence of a crime is part of his damned job.

There is some evidence Trump asked Ukraine to reopen its investigation of Bursima, which again was the target of American and Ukrainian corruption investigations since at least the Obama administration. No one disagrees there was evidence of Bursima corruption and Ukrainian anti-corruption efforts were a proper prerequisite for US aid.

The suggestion Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Bursima to indirectly get at the Bidens only has merit IF you first assume Trump knew the investigation would uncover the Biden crimes. Once again, our chief law enforcement officer demanding investigation of evidence of a crime is part of his damned job.

Under all three scenarios, no "corrupt intent."
 

"zero evidence" !!!!

Sure. Just the testimony of a troop of career diplomatic workers, avowedly non-political, who have worked for both D and R administrations for decades and who were personally present at key moments.

But on the other hand you will accept "evidence" no matter how circumstantial or from whatever questionable sources -- if it agrees with your desired outcome.


 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH said... "zero evidence" !!!! Sure. Just the testimony of a troop of career diplomatic workers, avowedly non-political, who have worked for both D and R administrations for decades and who were personally present at key moments.

Disabusing Democrats of their Two Minutes of Hate is getting old.

What witness personally observed Trump tell Ukraine to investigate the Bidens or announce an investigation of the Bidens in exchange for military aid, a meeting with the POTUS or anything else?

Quote the testimony with transcript page citations or the time mark in a video clip.
 

Bart, you wouldn't have to "disabuse" anyone so often if your arguments were, well, cogent and believable.

But in answer to your question, I'd suggest the current Chief of Staff of the WH would be an obvious answer. Since he already all but did that on video in front of witnesses...

Asked and answered. Now I'm out of here.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH:

Maybe you are waiting for the testimony of David Holmes, the Democrats' only Democrat bureaucrat who claims he personally heard Trump say the word "investigation?" Holmes' incredibly claims he was standing near Sondland, overheard only five seconds of a call from Trump to Sondland's cell without the speaker phone on, and just happened to have heard the following:

Trump: "Is he going to do the investigation?"

Sondland: "He's going to do it. He'll do anything you ask him to."

If you believe the witness (Trump is having fun ridiculing him with a cell phone demonstration), this is evidence of the high crime of bribery?
 

C2H5OH said...But in answer to your question, I'd suggest the current Chief of Staff of the WH would be an obvious answer. Since he already all but did that on video in front of witnesses...

Mike Mulvaney (who is not one of the witnesses you cited) admitted during a press conference that part of the reason Trump suspended military aid to Ukraine was to gain Ukraine's cooperation with the Justice Department's criminal investigation of the Obama administration spy and dirty trick operation against the 2016 Trump campaign.

Sorry, no demand to investigate the Bidens.

 

Per Mark's comment, Schiff at the end of today's session said a deciding thing for him personally was that the events came right back to back with the Mueller testimony.
 

The point of my hypo has zero to do with the specifics of this case. It was intended to illustrate that if Person A raises a very broad concern, and Person B responds by mentioning a very specific concern that happens align with Person A's specific concerns, it suggests that Person B has been clued into Person A’s concerns
 

Yeah, Schiff's comment was the equivalent of "fool me once". Trump and Russia violated the integrity of the 2016 election, and here he is trying to do it again precisely because he thought he got away with it the first time.
 

Now, for real high crimes attempting to influence an election.

Justice IG Michael Horowitz will finally release his report on December 9 and appear before the Senate Justice Committee on December 11. The IG investigation began with the reported perjury and fraud on the FISA court to obtain a top secret warrant to spy on Trump associate Carter Page and has reportedly expanded well beyond, amounts to a small telephone book and includes multiple criminal referrals to Justice.

The media is currently reporting the report includes an FBI attorney altering a document submitted to the FISA Court. The Washington Post originally reported the perp was working under Clinton operative and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, then removed the reference without explanation.

The belated release suggests U.S. Attorney John Durham has finished calling any relevant witnesses in that report before his grand jury.

We will see whether indictments will follow.
 

Trump singled out an investigation into the Biden's as his 'favor' he wanted Zelensky to do 'though.' It's a plain political hit, the epitome of an impeachable offense (a main idea of impeachment rather than just waiting for the next election to remove a President is that they are using their powers to subvert the next election).
 

The IG report has become Bircher Bart's mantra. This is the Benghazi, Clinton emails, etc., of the season. They throw it on the wall to see if anything will stick, when it inevitably doesn't (indeed, even if there were indictments they'd be tainted by how we now know the AG and the DOJ are oriented and operate, as basically Trump's interchangeable personal lawyer[s]) conspiracy theorists never re-assess, they just enlargen their 'cover-up' nuttery and move on the next smear campaign.

Remember these were the folks who were rending their sackcloth and gnashing their teeth about being 'demonized' for 'simple political disagreement' (usually something like, 'I'd like to discriminate against gay people, but people then want to discriminate against me for that! Wah!'.

Lock her up indeed!

 

"There is some evidence Trump asked Ukraine to reopen its investigation of Bursima"

1. Of all the foreign companies in the world this is the only for which there's any evidence of Trump being interested in investigating. Only the willful naivite of the utter partisan on issues involving their party are gullible to think this had nothing to do with the Bidens.

2. And, of course, you don't even need argument 1, because Trump explicitly has said it was the Bidens he wanted investigated (including in the phone call).