Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Serial Seppuku in the Capital

 

In all my many years of watching politics, I have never seen so many people so absolutely convinced of something where the facts support the exact opposite conclusion. The Democrats are literally screaming for Trump’s removal for a myriad of so-called high crimes and misdemeanors while the facts show none of their accusations are valid. The Ukraine aid was released, meetings were not denied and Zelinskyy never initiated any investigation nor promised to do so.

The actual transcript of the so-called incriminating conversation mentions no conditions on aid or assistance; in fact, it does not mention any assistance or aid at all. Zelisnkyy said he never felt pressured by Trump and did not know that the aid had been even delayed at the time of the call. There were five high-level meetings between US and Ukraine officials subsequent to the initial call and not once was any condition mentioned regarding the forthcoming aid.

The only “fact” witness who had any direct dealing with President Trump was Ambassador Sondland, and he made it clear that he just assumed there were conditions. Trump never once told him, in fact no one ever told him, that the aid was conditioned on an investigation of the Bidens. Sondland just assumed. And when he asked President Trump about this directly; that is “what did he [President Trump] want from Ukraine?” Trump said, “I want nothing. I want nothing. There is no quid pro quo.”

And yet the Democrats maintain their death-hold on the allegation that Trump demanded dirt on the Bidens in exchange for aid. Quite frankly, this entire ordeal likely bodes the end of the Biden candidacy (RIP) as it casts sunshine on Hunter Biden’s sweet dealings in Ukraine, Romania, and China. The more daylight Hunter receives, the more he looks like a corrupt rent seeker, a fraud, eager to sell out America for his fortune. And that does not reflect well on dad, the well-honed persona of everyman, blue-collar Joe.

Have they forgotten that the US Senate is controlled by the opposition? A Senate trial could prove very damaging to those who engineered the Russia hoax, the Hillary dismissal, the surveillance of the Trump campaign, and the so-called House Intelligence investigation. Imagine a damaging inspector general report, a thorough Senate trial and acquittal, and a devastating Durham investigation.

This will not be a good election year for Democrats; worse yet for their deep state allies and their cronies in the press.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 178 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Doug Kimball: Trump said, “I want nothing. I want nothing. There is no quid pro quo.”

    I think the rest of the sentence is also important. Paraphrasing, it was something like “I want him to do what he ran on”

    Zelenskyy ran on attacking corruption.

    I also agree that the House seems to think that the Senate will follow their lead. I hope that isn’t true and the Senate uses the hearings to address all of the Intelligence Community corruption and connections to the rest of the Obama administration.

     

    • #1
    • December 5, 2019, at 2:44 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  2. She Reagan
    She Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Doug Kimball: Quite frankly, this entire ordeal likely bodes the end of the Biden candidacy ((RIP) as it casts sunshine on Hunter Biden’s sweet dealings in Ukraine, Romania and China.

    I don’t know if the death-blow will be dealt by the ongoing impeach-at-any-cost charade that’s going on, or whether it will be delivered as a result of this paternity/child support case that’s going on in Arkansas. Hunter Biden’s attorneys have withdrawn from the case, citing “irreconcilable conflict,” and the judge in the case has said that Biden must provide a complete set of financial records. (They’re supposed to remain under seal, but I wonder how long that will last.)

    I don’t admire much about Joe Biden, but I do admire that he’s standing by his son, no matter how inelegant his doing so sometimes turns out to be. I hope he’s sticking by his son out of love and loyalty, and not because he thinks that if Hunter goes down, Joe won’t be far behind.

    Perhaps that’s wishful thinking.

     

    • #2
    • December 5, 2019, at 3:05 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  3. Gary Robbins Reagan

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    • #3
    • December 5, 2019, at 3:11 PM PST
    • Like
  4. EODmom Coolidge

    Reading the reporting about the Sondland/Trump exchange read to me as if Trump had heard the same thing from Sondland before and was tired of being asked again. Sondland said Trump was irritated: maybe he was tired of Sondland pestering him. Sondland didn’t approve of the way the Ukraine contact was being handled (not by his team) and assumed a lot about what he wasn’t involved in. Maybe he mostly assumed he was in charge.

    • #4
    • December 5, 2019, at 3:22 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  5. She Reagan
    She Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Here is a rundown of the remedies Congress has, when an administration official refuses to cooperated with the initial subpoena. I look forward to them exhausting the described alternatives before they go nuclear and impeach based on “contempt of Congress.” Or are they simply looking/hoping to go straight for the endgame and avoid the recognized process?

    A blast from the past, from Wikipedia:

    “Following a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee, in April 1974 edited transcripts of many Watergate-related conversations from the Nixon White House tapes were made public by Nixon, but the committee pressed for full tapes and additional conversations. Nixon refused, but on July 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to comply. “

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Oh, come on. Much as the Democrats would like to fold that into the impeachment hearings, that dog won’t hunt.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    We shall see. Personally, I hope the Senate calls Schiff and Ciamarella, and compels their testimony as well.

    • #5
    • December 5, 2019, at 3:26 PM PST
    • 10 likes
  6. Gary Robbins Reagan

    She (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Here is a rundown of the remedies Congress has, when an administration official refuses to cooperated with the initial subpoena. I look forward to them exhausting the described alternatives before they go nuclear and impeach based on “contempt of Congress.” Or are they simply looking/hoping to go straight for the endgame and avoid the recognized process?

    A blast from the past, from Wikipedia:

    “Following a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee, in April 1974 edited transcripts of many Watergate-related conversations from the Nixon White House tapes were made public by Nixon, but the committee pressed for full tapes and additional conversations. Nixon refused, but on July 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to comply. “

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Oh, come on. Much as the Democrats would like to fold that into the impeachment hearings, that dog won’t hunt.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    We shall see. Personally, I hope the Senate calls Schiff and Ciamarella, and compels their testimony as well.

    Nunes also needs to be called to testify.

    • #6
    • December 5, 2019, at 3:44 PM PST
    • Like
  7. Richard Easton Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    Obama obstructed justice on national TV in April 2016 by declaring HRC innocent while an investigation of her server and emails was ongoing. Trump has done nothing which resembles this.

    • #7
    • December 5, 2019, at 3:45 PM PST
    • 24 likes
  8. Hoyacon Member

    I don’t expect much, if anything, from most politicians, so the antics of professional, elected Democrats don’t surprise me.

    am, however, extremely disappointed in the testimony of a couple of the law professors to the point of finding their blind ideological interpretations depressing. The hallmark of a good attorney (supposedly those being taught and “in training” at Stanford and UNC under these folks) is a dispassionate assessment of facts and knowledge of law to achieve an end result/decision

    Admittedly, once one takes on a client for representation, one’s allegiances can and should change. But that’s not the case here. These law professors are front and center because of their alleged objective expertise. Obviously, the Democrats knew what they were getting, but that’s not an “out” for the professors themselves.

    Thanks to Jonathan Turley–the smartest of the bunch- for restoring some of my faith.

    • #8
    • December 5, 2019, at 4:02 PM PST
    • 11 likes
  9. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    My God man, are you serious? Please consider the facts. The call did not even mention the forthcoming aid, much less a precondition. Not a wit. Sondlands conversation is directly exculpatory. The aid was released. There was no investigation nor any announcement of one. There were five subsquent high level meetings among top US and Ukraine officials regarding the aid and not once was a precondition mentionned.

    BTW, Biden’s candidancy does not exempt him from legitimate inquiry into the unfathomably fortunate and lucrative business dealings of his troubled son.

    • #9
    • December 5, 2019, at 4:11 PM PST
    • 17 likes
  10. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses

    Hilarious. Gary, you are one step behind Slow Joe attacking a DEMOCRAT primary voter for being “fat,” and Sparticus Booker calling DEMOCRAT primary voters racists. It just doesn’t get much better than this.

    • #10
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:15 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  11. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    My God man, are you serious? Please consider the facts. The call did not even mention the forthcoming aid, much less a precondition. Not a wit. Sondlands conversation is directly exculpatory. The aid was released. There was no investigation nor any announcement of one. There were five subsquent high level meetings among top US and Ukraine officials regarding the aid and not once was a precondition mentionned.

    Trump released the aid only when he got caught.

    • #11
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:15 PM PST
    • Like
  12. Boss Mongo Member

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):
    My God man, are you serious?

    @dougkimball, no. No he’s not. @garyrobbins only blows hot air to rise the sails of our ire.

    Were he as convinced as he states, he’d’ve picked up any of the myriad wagers I’ve proffered to him in the past. Or he could do it now. I’d take any wager he’d care to make on whether the outcome of the impeachment is removal from office. And have an impartial Ricochetti hold the stakes. But that won’t happen.

    We know that the rabid democrats will impeach, no matter what; that’s a foregone conclusion. It’s whether Trump is voted guilty and removed from office that is the result of the match.

    “Game. Set. Match” means POTUS is gone. I’d take any wager @garyrobbins cares to make.

    He won’t make a wager. He doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. He just wants to run about the sight banging pots and pans shouting “Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!”

     

    • #12
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:29 PM PST
    • 18 likes
  13. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Doug Kimball: this entire ordeal likely bodes the end of the Biden candidacy

    This ordeal has kept Biden in the race. The Dems need him in the race to support the “dirt on Biden” and have told the media and other candidates not to take him out. If not for the intervention, the media would have destroyed him and all his malarkey.

    • #13
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:40 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  14. PHCheese Member

    She (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball: Quite frankly, this entire ordeal likely bodes the end of the Biden candidacy ((RIP) as it casts sunshine on Hunter Biden’s sweet dealings in Ukraine, Romania and China.

    I don’t know if the death-blow will be dealt by the ongoing impeach-at-any-cost charade that’s going on, or whether it will be delivered as a result of this paternity/child support case that’s going on in Arkansas. Hunter Biden’s attorneys have withdrawn from the case, citing “irreconcilable conflict,” and the judge in the case has said that Biden must provide a complete set of financial records. (They’re supposed to remain under seal, but I wonder how long that will last.)

    I don’t admire much about Joe Biden, but I do admire that he’s standing by his son, no matter how inelegant his doing so sometimes turns out to be. I hope he’s sticking by his son out of love and loyalty, and not because he thinks that if Hunter goes down, Joe won’t be far behind.

    Perhaps that’s wishful thinking.

     

    I would point out that Joe isn’t sticking by his grandson or his grandson’s mother. Your point about Hunter’s financial records is well taken. I will guarantee that JR did not pay income taxes on his ill-gotten gains.

    • #14
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:42 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  15. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Trump released the aid only when he got caught.

    That implies an intent of which there no evidence. Conversely, there is evidence that Trump held up the aid while he pressured Germany to kick in some money. 

    • #15
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:43 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  16. PHCheese Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    TDS

    • #16
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:43 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  17. Boss Mongo Member

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    TDS

    Concur.

    • #17
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:51 PM PST
    • 10 likes
  18. I Walton Member

    Robbins.

    The President has the authority to give or withhold Aid. Holding it up for any reason other than putting it in his own pocket, (which Biden may have been doing )is not an impeachable offense. The aid was already flowing to the Ukraine and had been. Trump used the upcoming aid which wouldn’t arrive until later in the future, to try to get them to investigate a crooked Ukrainian company, where Biden got some big bucks for free. Trump figured that if guilty Biden and hence his father would get tainted. Again, nothing illegal about that, just, at worst, bad taste. Obama never left direct finger prints, he always presented a clean pro American public image while he galloped toward ending our Republic . The Trump gesture was an example of, at worst, bad taste, at best, due diligence. Biden is probably crooked and his son obviously is, but Trump is unpopular with the folks who claim a monopoly on that kind of shenanigan.

    • #18
    • December 5, 2019, at 5:53 PM PST
    • 11 likes
  19. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Trump released the aid only when he got caught.

    I assume you are talking about the mysterious whistleblower complaint. I don’t think Trump would worry much about that. Think of all the other abuse he has taken.

    On the other hand, it was also after he had gotten bi-partisan reports that the Zelenskyy was ‘the real deal’ and was serious about fighting corruption.

    • #19
    • December 5, 2019, at 6:20 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  20. philo Member

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):
    My God man, are you serious?

    @dougkimball, no. No he’s not.

    Coulda stopped there.

     

    • #20
    • December 5, 2019, at 6:49 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  21. Hoyacon Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment) If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Could you expand on the “demanded” part? This would seem to be a predicate to deciding next whether he had the authority to demand.  

    • #21
    • December 5, 2019, at 7:31 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  22. Petty Boozswha Inactive

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses. First, the only witnesses who could contradict them haven’t testified under Trump’s orders. If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    Game. Set. Match. Trump has richly earned impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will have the guts to call Pompeo and Bolton and compel their testimony.

    Gary, I wish more than anything that I could agree with you but I think this is the biggest gift Trump has gotten in a long time. I thought Turley’s description of the case as a nothingburger was compelling, and as much as I dislike Trump I don’t think these charges are worth turning us into a banana republic for. 

    In the 1880’s the Dems ran on Rum, Romanism and Rebellion. In the 1970’s it was Acid, Amnesty and Abortion. This election is going to be on Illegals, Impeachment and Infanticide, and Trump might win despite being the worst President we have ever had.

    • #22
    • December 5, 2019, at 8:02 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  23. Petty Boozswha Inactive

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment) If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Could you expand on the “demanded” part? This would seem to be a predicate to deciding next whether he had the authority to demand.

    Even Trump supporters that have a knowledge of the law like Andy McCarthy at National Review concede that Trump’s quid pro quo is an undeniable fact from the evidence on record.

    • #23
    • December 5, 2019, at 8:11 PM PST
    • Like
  24. Barfly Member

    It’s fear.

    There are three strategies by which a person may make his way in any human society. He may produce a good or service of value and barter it for his needs, he may persuade others to support him, or he may step outside the frame and operate the system. Most of us mix two of these, sometimes but very rarely all three.

    People who depend on persuasion or who occupy a preferred place from which they may work the system sense the menace that PDT, Brexit, and all the other current so-called populist phenomena represent. The know that they do not contribute, and they know that they are naturally inferior to those of us who do.

    For some reason it does not occur to such a mind to become productive. I won’t speculate here on what goes wrong to produce such dead weight individuals. I’ll just note that most of them are beyond practical help – they can only become productive under conditions of extreme pain and deprivation. The society has to crash for these people to get well. Of course, most of them just get dead when that happens, and they take most of us along with them.

    When they fight the “populist” leanings of productive people, they are fighting for all the things people value – wealth, power, and status, and the good things they bring.

    Added a moment later: The reason things have come to such a head with the election of President Donald Trump (sounds so nice) is that humans are much more attuned to avoid loss of what they have, than to work and discipline themselves a little to gain even a great deal more. Under Barack the Magic Persuader, they gained quite a lot. Think of Maerose Pelosi’s fixation on “burly man jobs.” It’s that loss that drives them to insanity and the immorality of their insistence that their lies are true.

    • #24
    • December 5, 2019, at 8:17 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  25. Hoyacon Member

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment) If they don’t testify, the uncontroverted evidence is that Trump demanded that Zelinskyy publicly institute an investigation before Trump would release the aid that Congress had approved and that Trump had signed.

    Could you expand on the “demanded” part? This would seem to be a predicate to deciding next whether he had the authority to demand.

    Even Trump supporters that have a knowledge of the law like Andy McCarthy at National Review concede that Trump’s quid pro quo is an undeniable fact from the evidence on record.

    McCarthy is not a Trump supporter so much as an informed observer with a level head.. And that doesn’t actually answer my question.

    • #25
    • December 5, 2019, at 8:39 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  26. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):
    My God man, are you serious?

    @dougkimball, no. No he’s not. @garyrobbins only blows hot air to rise the sails of our ire.

    Were he as convinced as he states, he’d’ve picked up any of the myriad wagers I’ve proffered to him in the past. Or he could do it now. I’d take any wager he’d care to make on whether the outcome of the impeachment is removal from office. And have an impartial Ricochetti hold the stakes. But that won’t happen.

    We know that the rabid democrats will impeach, no matter what; that’s a foregone conclusion. It’s whether Trump is voted guilty and removed from office that is the result of the match.

    “Game. Set. Match” means POTUS is gone. I’d take any wager @garyrobbins cares to make.

    He won’t make a wager. He doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. He just wants to run about the sight banging pots and pans shouting “Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!”

    This is is not about making wagers. It is about writing what I think is right.

    The Founders were concerned that a President could be bribed by foreign powers. To that end, Presidents were not allowed to receive emoluments, and Presidents could be impeached specifically for bribery, along with treason, high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Will the Senate convict? Probably not. But that is a measure of the inadequacy of the courage of Senators, not the sufficiency of the evidence.

    First issue. The testimony of the 12 witnesses that Trump used taxpayer funds to entice/bribe the Ukraine President to announce an investigation of Biden is clear and convincing. There are no witnesses to the contrary.

    Second issue. Trump insists that he can refuse to allow witnesses to testify before Congress. This completely ignores the Constitutional framework of ambition checking ambition. For Trump to refuse to allow witnesses to testify, especially concerning the sole check on him, of impeachment, would, per se, be an Obstruction of the Constitutional right of Congress to investigate, and potentially impeach him.

    Third issue. Anyone but a President would have been charged with Obstruction of Justice ten times over as recounted in the Mueller Report. (Yes, I am literally sitting with a printed copy of Volume II of the Mueller Report as I type this.) So there is good cause to impeach for Obstruction of Justice.

    Will the House file two or three Articles of Impeachment? I don’t know. Not my job. Looking back at 1974, there were 5 or 6 proposed Articles of Impeachment which went before the House Judiciary Committee. Three of these Articles passed the House Judiciary Committee. (The House Judiciary Committee declined to approve an Article concerning the invasion of Cambodia, and an Article concerning tax fraud for improvements to his homes.) 

    I have four predictions. First, the House will impeach Trump, and they will be fully justified in doing so. (I will proudly wear my “Proud to be HUMAN SCUM” tee-shirt that day.)

    Second, the Senate will not convict and remove Trump. There will be the die hard Trump advocates who will fully support Trump’s arguments. Hopefully, there will be Republican Senators who will admit that Trump acted badly, and while they are not voting to convict and remove him, they condemn his reckless behavior.

    Third, independent voters will punish the Republican Party In 2020 and for years afterwards for its support of Trump. Republicans of good faith who can’t or won’t swallow the Trump line, will decline to vote for him, either by staying home, or voting for a third party, or even voting for Democrats. We will be blamed for Trump like we were blamed for Hoover and the Great Depression for years, and how Hispanics in California have blamed Republicans for Prop. 187 and Pete Wilson.

    Fourth, there will come a point where many conservatives will regret their blind support of Trump despite the evidence. In the early 1950’s most Republicans supported Joe McCarthy. That ended. There will be a point where most Republicans will regret their blind support of Trump.

    • #26
    • December 5, 2019, at 8:39 PM PST
    • 1 like
  27. Hoyacon Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    [Edit]

    First issue. The testimony of the 12 witnesses that Trump used taxpayer funds to entice/bribe the Ukraine President to announce an investigation of Biden is clear and convincing. There are no witnesses to the contrary.

    Second issue. Trump insists that he can refuse to allow witnesses to testify before Congress. This completely ignores the Constitutional framework of ambition checking ambition. For Trump to refuse to allow witnesses to testify, especially concerning the sole check on him, of impeachment, would, per se, be an Obstruction of the Constitutional right of Congress to investigate, and potentially impeach him.

    Third issue. Anyone but a President would have been charged with Obstruction of Justice ten times over as recounted in the Mueller Report. (Yes, I am literally sitting with a printed copy of Volume II of the Mueller Report as I type this.) So there is good cause to impeach for Obstruction of Justice.

    Will the House file two or three Articles of Impeachment? I don’t know. Not my job. Looking back at 1974, there were 5 or 6 proposed Articles of Impeachment which went before the House Judiciary Committee. Three of these Articles passed the House Judiciary Committee. (The House Judiciary Committee declined to approve an Article concerning the invasion of Cambodia, and an Article concerning tax fraud for improvements to his homes.)

    I have four predictions. First, the House will impeach Trump, and they will be fully justified in doing so. (I will proudly wear my “Proud to be HUMAN SCUM” tee-shirt that day.)

    Second, the Senate will not convict and remove Trump. There will be the die hard Trump advocates who will fully support Trump’s arguments. Hopefully, there will be Republican Senators who will admit that Trump acted badly, and while they are not voting to convict and remove him, they condemn his reckless behavior.

    Third, independent voters will punish the Republican Party In 2020 and for years afterwards for its support of Trump. Republicans of good faith who can’t or won’t swallow the Trump line, will decline to vote for him, either by staying home, or voting for a third party, or even voting for Democrats. We will be blamed for Trump like we were blamed for Hoover and the Great Depression for years, and how Hispanics in California have blamed Republicans for Prop. 187 and Pete Wilson.

    Fourth, there will come a point where many conservatives will regret their blind support of Trump despite the evidence. In the early 1950’s most Republicans supported Joe McCarthy. That ended. There will be a point where most Republicans will regret their blind support of Trump.

    Should I be hurt that you drafted this rather long, conclusory response (totally ignoring Jonathan Turley’s testimony before the House) and went right by a rather simple question from me at #21? There’s probably a relatively easy answer that I’ve missed somewhere.

    • #27
    • December 5, 2019, at 8:58 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  28. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have come to the exact opposite conclusion based upon the testimony of the twelve witnesses.

    …based upon your hatred for the president.

    Those “witnesses” did not actually witness anything. They are simply people with opinions.

    Second, Trump has refused to cooperate with the Impeachment Investigation, which is contempt of congress per se.

    President Trump has not been held in Contempt of Congress. And by Executive Privilege, the president can’t be held in Contempt of Congress.

    Third, Trump engaged in 10 acts of Obstruction of Justice with the Mueller Probe.

    The Mueller Probe does not fit the definition of Obstruction of Justice. 

     

    • #28
    • December 5, 2019, at 9:25 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  29. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    [Edit]

    First issue. The testimony of the 12 witnesses that Trump used taxpayer funds to entice/bribe the Ukraine President to announce an investigation of Biden is clear and convincing. There are no witnesses to the contrary.

    Second issue. Trump insists that he can refuse to allow witnesses to testify before Congress. This completely ignores the Constitutional framework of ambition checking ambition. For Trump to refuse to allow witnesses to testify, especially concerning the sole check on him, of impeachment, would, per se, be an Obstruction of the Constitutional right of Congress to investigate, and potentially impeach him.

    Third issue. Anyone but a President would have been charged with Obstruction of Justice ten times over as recounted in the Mueller Report. (Yes, I am literally sitting with a printed copy of Volume II of the Mueller Report as I type this.) So there is good cause to impeach for Obstruction of Justice.

    Will the House file two or three Articles of Impeachment? I don’t know. Not my job. Looking back at 1974, there were 5 or 6 proposed Articles of Impeachment which went before the House Judiciary Committee. Three of these Articles passed the House Judiciary Committee. (The House Judiciary Committee declined to approve an Article concerning the invasion of Cambodia, and an Article concerning tax fraud for improvements to his homes.)

    I have four predictions. First, the House will impeach Trump, and they will be fully justified in doing so. (I will proudly wear my “Proud to be HUMAN SCUM” tee-shirt that day.)

    Second, the Senate will not convict and remove Trump. There will be the die hard Trump advocates who will fully support Trump’s arguments. Hopefully, there will be Republican Senators who will admit that Trump acted badly, and while they are not voting to convict and remove him, they condemn his reckless behavior.

    Third, independent voters will punish the Republican Party In 2020 and for years afterwards for its support of Trump. Republicans of good faith who can’t or won’t swallow the Trump line, will decline to vote for him, either by staying home, or voting for a third party, or even voting for Democrats. We will be blamed for Trump like we were blamed for Hoover and the Great Depression for years, and how Hispanics in California have blamed Republicans for Prop. 187 and Pete Wilson.

    Fourth, there will come a point where many conservatives will regret their blind support of Trump despite the evidence. In the early 1950’s most Republicans supported Joe McCarthy. That ended. There will be a point where most Republicans will regret their blind support of Trump.

    Should I be hurt that you drafted this rather long, conclusory response (totally ignoring Jonathan Turley’s testimony before the House) and went by a rather simple question from me at #21? There’s probably a relatively easy answer that I’ve missed somewhere.

    I go sequentially through comments. I commented at #11. Boss Mongo commented at #12. My comment #26 addressed Boss Mongo’s Comment #12.

    After writing comment #26 for the better part of an hour in response to comment #12, I simply was not up to responding to your comment at #21, or Petty Boozswha at #22 or #23. If I had more time, I’d respond to them, but I need to get to bed and then to get to work tomorrow.

    [Edit. I put off sleep to respond to #21 and #22 at #31 and #32.]

    • #29
    • December 5, 2019, at 9:28 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  30. Hoyacon Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Should I be hurt that you drafted this rather long, conclusory response (totally ignoring Jonathan Turley’s testimony before the House) and went by a rather simple question from me at #21? There’s probably a relatively easy answer that I’ve missed somewhere.

    I go sequentially through comments. I commented at #11. Boss Mongo commented at #12. My comment #26 addressed Boss Mongo’s Comment #12.

    After writing comment #26 for the better part of an hour in response to comment #12, I simply was not up to responding to your comment at #21, or Petty Boozswha at #22 or #23. If I had more time, I’d respond to them, but I need to get to bed and then to get to work tomorrow.

    Thanks for the response. I should underscore the fact that I’m seriously interested in what direct evidence (the word “demanded” as attributed to Trump) people produce for the existence of a quid pro quo.

    From the aforementioned Prof. Turley:

    The physics are simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy has not offered such a foundation and would easily collapse in a Senate trial.

    • #30
    • December 5, 2019, at 9:41 PM PST
    • 3 likes