The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

The only person he tried to ‘investigate’ (actually he wanted Ukraine to SAY they where investigating) was Biden. And it’s not his job anyway. And that completely leaves out the crystal clear extortion/bribery/national security aspect of it.

He wanted to smear Biden. And get bonus points for doing a solid for his BFF Putin.

It was a selective attack.

Personally, I loved the last two arguments:

“He admitted to the crime in a public announcement, so therefore he is innocent of the crime.”

“He and his advisers are too incompetent to have come up with such a complex extortion scheme. Therefore he is innocent of the crime.”

The discussion about whether the request could be a “legitimate” inquiry into corruption is ludicrous. If US officials have a genuine interest in corruption by a US citizen, then they notify US law enforcement agencies. They don’t ask other countries to do it, and they especially don’t hold back foreign aid for those other countries to do it.

This is not a serious argument against impeachment.

The only possible serious argument against impeachment presented so far is that the wrongdoing doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable conduct.

Thanks for the clear, unambiguous answers. I look forward to the same from HurricaneDitka.

The way I look at it is that bribery and extortion are two sides of the same coin, with extortion the worse side because coercion is worse than inducement. Republicans will surely come to the point of arguing that since this is extortion, not bribery, it’s not grounds for impeachment, but that won’t pass the laugh test. If the Founders considered bribery sufficient to impeach over, they surely felt the same about extortion.

Yes, that is nonsense. If that is what I argued, I retract it with prejudice. There are other reasons an investigation of Joe or Hunter Biden might be invalid, for example if the investigation was started without even a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

I think what I was responding to was CarnalK’s post, which I interpreted to be the argument ‘it is necessarily wrong to investigate only political opponents’. I disagree with my interpretation of CarnalK’s post, and here we are.

~Max

Oh man, I have been getting yuks out of that one all morning. However, if it is really Cthulhu we are up against, we will soon find ourselves so removed from the concepts of “burn”, “yuks”, or really any concept graspable by any human mind, sane or insane, that it simply won’t matter anymore. Nothing will.

Maybe Nyarlatohep could help, but good luck getting though to that guy.

I am of the opinion that if the President asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens without an existing (and legitimate) DoJ investigation that required Ukrainian assistance, that is wrong and almost certainly impeachable. Do we agree at least in part?

What I’m saying is, only getting involved in the investigation of Biden and not other corrupt individuals may be appropriate if the Biden case is the only one that requires the President’s assistance. Something like, ‘the investigation hit a roadblock and Ukrainians don’t want to help out, someone have the President bring this up next time he talks to Ukraine’.

~Max

You don’t need the WB’s identity to settle whether the person actually heard anything or is repeating what others have said. In the WB report he/she specifically says that he/she was not a first-hand witness of much of the report specifics, and is relating what he/she was told by others.

The facts of the case are not disputed by anyone, not even the Republicans. They are disputing process, conclusions, intent, and the "why’, but not the facts.

Trump did ask the President of Ukraine to investigate the 2016 election and Biden. Fact not disputed, the why is.

Trump did hold up the aid for several months. Fact not disputed, the why is.

Guiliani was operating a shadow state department at the direction of the President to uncover proof of the claims that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and that the Bidens were guilty of… something. Fact not disputed, the why is.

The President did direct witnesses with knowledge or evidence of the “why” not to cooperate with a Constitutionally authorized impeachment investigation. Fact not disputed, the why is.

Lev and Igor did spread around money and lies along with their requests to American officials in order to get the ambassador to Ukraine recalled. Fact not disputed, the why is.

The record of the call was locked down in a secure server against protocol. Fact not disputed, the why is.

None of the many, many complaints made by first- hand witnesses of these actions to their superiors or staff council at the time were investigated or escalated. Fact not disputed, the why is.

I could keep going, but it’s pointless. Fact after fact is corroborated by person after person. If the only defense that can be offered is “maybe the WB gasp! is not a fan of Trump, so his allegations are suspect”, then I can only say: which of the allegations were proved untrue?

Agreed but it’s a whole lot better than the cloud of nonsense and BS they are kicking up so far.

Max S. is definitely bringing a taste of the 2003-era Dope, with long arguments and relentless citations, and for that I salute you, Max S. Truly appreciate the effort.

I just got high-fives from a couple who noticed & understood my ITMFA button. I haven’t worn it for a year or so, but it seems appropriate now.

Agreed. This is truly suspicious behavior, and he has to be unmasked!

From Lawfare:

Even if Republicans jam their fingers in their ears and go “La-la-la-la-a-la…”?

Exactly! He’s smart… but maybe just a little too smart.

Joking aside, I meant my first comment in all sincerity.

I had to crank up the REO Speedwagon to stay awake while listening to the “evidence”:
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another Trump’s been messin’ around

I am given to understand that there is a rather obscure clause in the Constitution that says if one party does this during an impeachment proceedings, then those proceedings do not count.

It’s kind of like how the jury system in this country works: If a CEO is on trial, then half the jury must consist of people who work for him, and they are allowed to declare well in advance of the trial that they know he’s innocent and will therefore not be listening to any of the testimony. And then the CEO goes free. This is the American Way.

I also think he’s a good dude.

Seems to fit the cadence:
“Read it in Trump’s tran-script”