As of this writing it appears very much as though witnesses will not be called in the trial of the impeachment of President Donald Trump. All that is left is the vote on whether to convict or acquit. Hardly anyone believes the Senate will vote to convict.
Here’s my question. Will more Democrats vote to acquit Trump than Republicans voted to impeach? I think so.
This entire proceeding has been full of “don’ts”. Don’t elect low characters like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to the presidency. Don’t appoint Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. Don’t make her your nominee for the presidency.
Don’t open an impeachment investigation unless you’re willing to do a thorough job of it with the patience to see claims of executive privilege through the courts and unless you can get bipartisan support for an eventual impeachment. Don’t expect that the House can strongarm the Senate. Don’t insult people whose support you’re trying to obtain.
And for goodness sake, don’t ask a foreign head of state to investigate your political opponents.
Dave, another way to put it is, “don’t ask a foreign country, who has voiced concerns about corruption, to investigate a corrupt company in their country connected to any US official who is running for POTUS.â€
You can always wait until after the election.
You can always wait until after the election.
That’s an interesting point though because “election interference†cuts both ways. If looking into Burisma related corruption was wrong for Trump because it could aid his electoral chances against Biden, then it’s also clear that Biden’s interests would have been served by making sure information about the alleged corruption did not come to light (at the very least, hiding the bad optics of his son’s board position.) That’s also why the “whistleblower’s†identity matters, because it looks likely that he was involved in decisions surrounding the calls for firing the Ukrainian prosecutor. To pretend this was just some neutral bystander who became alarmed at the content of the hone conversation is absurd, if instead what he overheard actually had potential to put himself and his former bosses in hot water.
“don’t ask a foreign country, who has voiced concerns about corruption, to investigate a corrupt company in their country ”
They had been asked to do something about their corruption many times in the past. Trump got rid of the ambassador who was working on the issue and what he really asked for was an investigation of Hunter Biden.
Dave- You could always ask the DOJ to investigate. Besides, I am sure it was only a coincidence that trump waited 3 years, right before the election, to ask.
“To pretend this was just some neutral bystander who became alarmed at the content of the hone conversation is absurd, if instead what he overheard actually had potential to put himself and his former bosses in hot water.”
You really think there is a chance in hell that AG Barr and Trump’s DOJ hasn’t looked into this already?
Steve
I am beginning to believe low character is an absolute requirement for winning national elections today. The stakes are high for ambitious candidates, and opportunities for personal gain plentiful for incumbents. Maybe we could ask them to take an oath.
I would assume they have Steve, yes. So what?
“Trump got rid of the ambassador who was working on the issue….”
Comedy gold.
No Republican Representative voted to impeach, and one or two Democrats voted against impeachment. No Republican Senator will vote to convict, not even Romney, and it is possible one or two Democrats would vote against conviction, too, although I would be surprised.
Trump is heading towards a solid victory in November. His crowds are delirious with joy. The Democrats do not have a single serious, or even reputable, candidate this time.
Besides, I am sure it was only a coincidence that trump waited 3 years, right before the election, to ask.
I’m sure the timing had nothing to do with the new administration coming on board in Ukraine (replacing the one that had leaked files against a Trump campaign chairman but I’m sure that detail isn’t important either.)
Zelensky was elected president last year, on an anti-corruption agenda that supposedly won him the election. Bringing up the issue of long-standing corruption in Ukraine, with a new president showing every indication he wanted to be a player in that quest, was appropriate timing for Trump to do so. To then color a re-election motive, as the underlying reasons for his corruption concerns, is another way to augment the continuing democrat narrative that Trump is an illegitimate, unfit president – something they have been hammering since before day one of his inauguration as POTUS.
“I would assume they have Steve, yes. So what?”
Then there is no purpose in making the name public.
“I’m sure the timing had nothing to do with the new administration coming on board in Ukraine”
They elected a 42 y/o actor- comedian with no political experience. I am sure that had a lot to do with it.
Steve
Steve
They elected a 42 y/o actor- comedian with no political experience. I am sure that had a lot to do with it.
As am I. But that negates the point you made earlier that the timing was connected mainly to US electoral politics.
“But that negates the point you made earlier that the timing was connected mainly to US electoral politics.”
The two arent mutually exclusive. They could have had the AG start an investigation 3 years ago. They could have had the DOJ working on it. They could have asked the prior Ukraine govt to work on reducing corruption. They did none of those things. I think they figured they just got lucky with a neophyte in office and he would easily roll over. The timing would have been the same.
Steve
“They could have had the AG start an investigation 3 years ago. They could have had the DOJ working on it. They could have asked the prior Ukraine govt to work on reducing corruption. They did none of those things. I think they figured they just got lucky with a neophyte in office and he would easily roll over. The timing would have been the same.”
As soon as Trump walked into the WH Russian Collusion was rolled out, taking up most of the air space and legal time. Ukraine arose, as yet another democrat lynch pin to impeach Trump with, only after the 2 1/2 year long Mueller Report failed to find collusion and/or indict him for something/anything. Discussion of any Ukrainian corruption was an internal WH matter, only in it’s infancy, after the arrival of the new corrupt-conscious Zelensky took office, and those two introductory phone calls took place.Â
Before that, during the Obama/Biden years, there were efforts to look into Ukrainian corruption, especially dealing with Burisma. Here is an extensively researched timeline from John Solomon documenting the progress, and obstruction to progress, dealing with attempted investigations into corruption. Along the way was this Political piece indicating DNC’s attempts to seek “Russian dirt” on Trump. New cases, however, exploring money laundering in Ukraine by the Kyiv Post, were confirmed to have been opened in May 2019. So, Ukraine apparently was independently engaged in their own anti-corruption investigations, not having anything to do with the phone calls that were singled out by the faux whistleblower.
“As soon as Trump walked into the WH Russian Collusion was rolled out, taking up most of the air space and legal time. ”
Trump publicly asked the Russians to interfere in the election. Hard to ignore. However, taking up all of the legal time is BS. It was farmed out to Mueller. The AG and the DOJ had lots of time, unless Trump was covering for Biden. Obsession over Ukraine and the “server” and Hunter Biden existed in the WH for years. This was not something new.
“new corrupt-conscious Zelensky”
Oddly enough Trump never asked him to investigate corruption, just Biden. He sent Rudy to try to get Biden investigated, not corruption.
By the way, where are all those quotes that show Trump is out fighting corruption in foreign countries. Of course, he doesn’t even fight it here, he just appoints corrupt officials to his cabinet.
Steve
Come on Steve, that call out to “the Russians,” was a sarcastic comment, lobbed out at a rally, meant to draw attention to HRC’s sloppy safekeeping of her emails. It has been used over and over again, though, like it was a legitimate request — even looked into by Robt Mueller, who finally had to admit there was no collusion with Russian and the Trump organization, whatsoever.
The Ukraine issue didn’t really materialize, or come into the public eye, until the Mueller report indictment proved to go nowhere. Where you can reasonably think then that all a president has to worry about, in the first years of an embattled presidency, is to investigate another foreign country”s corruption is crazy. Trump couldn’t even get his government appointees approved without long drawn-out resistance by the Democrats. Nothing has been easy for this administration. And, there has been absolutely no cooperation from the Democrats to address even policies, a few years before Trump’s presidency, they had advocated for themselves.
I don’t know if you’re just reaching for straws or inserting red herrings in your arguments, anymore!
Come on jan, no presidential candidate had ever done such a thing. Given everything we learned later it doesn’t really come across like some sarcastic comment. Now you are trying to make the case that Trump and co didnt even realize Ukraine existed until the middle of 2019. Its just a coincidence they want to bring this up right before the election. Not buying it. On top of which, unlike past administrations, they did this stuff in private. Other administrations have tackled corruption publicly. (Plus, the biggest factor in not getting nominees confirmed was the Trump admin being slow to name people. McConnell breezes them all through.)
Cooperation from the Democrats? About the same as the GOP with Obama.
Again, still waiting for all of those other examples of Trump fighting corruption in foreign countries, or even our own.
Steve
It’s common knowledge that Trump’s demeanor, language, political approaches are like no other president. This iconoclastic behavior both alienates and attracts people to him. But, because he doesn’t “act†presidential, can’t then be extrapolated to being “criminal,†and triggering impeachment. There has to be other collaborating evidence, such as a Putin email saying, “Thanks for the heads up, Donald!â€
How did the Obama Administration tackle Ukraine corruption, during the 8 years of his presidency? Was there any serious inquiry over the man assigned to look into Ukraine corruption, having his inexperienced son, recently expelled from the Navy on drug charges, being hired for millions of dollars by the most corrupt Ukrainian company already undergoing investigations in Ukraine? Was the WH meeting with Ukraine officials in January 2016 openly publicized, their conversations revealed for public consumption? How did Obama handle the 2016 Russian election meddling he knew about for at least a year? Oh yes, he tepidly did nothing, except to tell Putin to â€Knock it off,†only having a rash of urgent calls to action after Trump, not Hillary, unexpectedly won that election. Then, a flurry of accusations, pulse racing fears, and investigations aimed at Trump, mostly to discredit his win, disabling the Trump presidency as much as an outgoing president could possible do. Obama’s EOs, like increasing the ease of passing classified info around to more departments (access bound to create more leaks), were being activated right up to the day of his nemesis’s inauguration.