BREAKING (AP) — AP source: 2nd US embassy official overheard President Trump’s call with Sondland about need for Ukraine investigations.
Or the cookies belong to a Democrat.
It’s more like extortion than bribery, since bribery does not necessarily suggest coercion, while extortion does, but bribery is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a ground for impeachment.
From Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
My understanding- and I’m sure 6+ Dopers will correct any misapprehension- is there is a concern that Schiff held discussions with the whistleblower and then denied it. Also, the identity could help settle whether the person actually heard anything or is repeating what others have said.
ETA: if this was covered in the previous 4,200+ posts, I apologize for having missed it.
Yeah, but one of them is named Suriya Jayanti. Sounds like one of those Democrat-type names. Can’t trust anyone with tries to Democrats and Ukraine.
Anyone can have it good… until the credit bill is due.
Not helped by the bumbling of the president
Nope, just more incompetents and bigoted as Trump.
Yes, I’m aware that some do think that North Korea helping themselves to testing missiles elsewhere makes it ok then. :rolleyes:
In a very inhumane way and he is alsolimiting **legal **immigration, putting the lie on Trump that he is not opposed to the legal one either.
Actually, 42% How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight
And decent? that is to laugh.
Well, your opinion dude… 
In my opinion,
[ol][li]No[/li][li]No[/li][li]Yes[/li][li]My opinion depends on whether I think the Chief can do a fair job under those circumstances, which depends on my character judgement, which depends on his or her personal history.[/ol][/li]
~Max
What would be the relevance of such a thing, even if it’s accurate? It has nothing to do with the facts of the allegations against Trump.
Why aren’t the Republicans using this tactic? (Maybe they are saving it)
“YES he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Biden’s, it has nothing to do with the election. Biden may be the candidate, he may not be, but if corruption happened in the past, that’s what we are investigating, and he doesn’t become immune to that just because he might be the candidate.”
All of this “no quid pro quo” stuff is just a ridiculous smokescreen. Obviously the military aid money was held up. Obviously he asked them to investigate, heck he asked China too, on national TV.
Their arguments so far have been total garbage, this one seems the least ludicrous as far as I can see.
I generally agree, except in case the only people that law enforcement needs foreign assistance with happen to be political opponents.
Nevertheless, if we were to impeach Mr. Trump for selectively investigating his political opponents while claiming to run a general corruption probe, I would need evidence of the administration declining to act on eg: tips of corruption for political allies. For example, Justice Dept. staffers might testify “we got some tips on RNC wrongdoing but the order came from higher up not to pursue”. Something like that, and I would want heads to roll, too.
It’s also a little difficult because in a sense, everybody not related to Mr. Trump is an opponent. And so far as I know he hasn’t shut down an investigation of a family member. Himself maybe, but that’s a wholly different subject.
~Max
Correction, that was the likely voters poll, on the general polling from 538 Agent Orange has a 41.2% approval right now.
And the latest Ipsos poll from November 12-13 shows a 39% approval vs 58% disapproval.
They are using that. I recall a question to Bill Taylor from Jim Jordan yesterday, along the lines of “Should we not investigate someone just because they’re running for office? We’re all politicians here, we’re all always campaigning, does that mean that we should never be investigated for anything?” Bill Taylor, trying to process the relevance of any of this, finally said, simply, “Nobody is above the law.”
I thought it was a poignant response from Taylor, the irony being absolutely lost, I’m sure, on every Republican in the room.
Although part of my wishes he had said, “Why not get the FBI to investigate him then?”
So to be guilty of one crime, a defendant has to commit two? 
“Impeachment, Day One: Republicans weaponize nihilism, defend Trump, destroy reality
It’s Atticus Finch vs. Cthulhu in the showdown of the century. GOP’s bold defense of Trump: LOL, nothing matters”
So he’s only guilty of his crimes if he ordered staff to not investigate his crimes.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. The crime would be singular, abusing his authority to selectively enforce the law. There might be multiple counts so to speak, but just one crime. Directing law enforcement officials to ignore valid tips would be an element of the crime, but not necessarily a required element.
~Max
So, something from the outside:
“I see #FedSoc2019 is going on today. Sorry to be missing their presentation on 6th Amendment rights.”
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1194988075220254720?s=19
Comment:
I bring this up because lawyers all over Twitter are spending their day debunking HD’s 6th-amendment talking points (it’s the thing today!), so we can just copy their better arguments as ours. 
I don’t agree with that statement either. Either I have made a mistake and contradicted myself, or you have misread me. I think, if I were to summarize the post you quoted in that form, I would say “So he’s only guilty of selectively investigating political opponents if evidence shows that he caused law enforcement to drop investigations of not-political-opponents.”
There’s more nuance but that’s basically what I’m thinking.
~Max
I felt the heat from that burn so badly I need some first aid over here.
You argued that for the kangaroo court investigation of Biden to be invalid, Trump should be shown to have stopped a valid investigation of an ally. That’s nonsense. If I rob a bank, I don’t also have to invest the proceeds in drugs (or whatever other corrupt endeavor) in order to be guilty of robbing a bank.
ETA: alternatively, in light of your further explanation, you’re arguing that I’m only really guilty of bank robbery if it can be shown that I decided against robbing the gas station down the street. The first crime has nothing to do with the second non-crime.