Latest poll

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Although, clearly, Trump is not ultimately guilty of withholding funds. And he did, on a few occasions, explain why he temporarily did

It's not clear at all, and the testimony conflicts with your statement.

Also the documents that would prove one way or another are being withheld as part of Floridamans obstruction, so just what do you think the documents say?

This is the stuff that people in previous administrations have been indicted for and likely will this time also.

Cooper, during Oct. 23 testimony before the three House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump's Ukraine dealings, also said that she had been told Trump had repeatedly expressed concerns about Ukraine and military aid to the country — weeks before the aid was frozen.

Cooper told impeachment investigators that she and other Pentagon officials had answered questions about the Ukraine assistance in the middle of June — so she was surprised when one of her subordinates told her that a hold had been placed on the funds after an interagency meeting in July 18.

“I got, you know, I got a readout from the meeting — there was discussion in that session about the — about OMB [Office of Management and Budget] saying that they were holding the Congressional Notification related to” Ukraine, Cooper testified, according to the transcript.

Cooper, according to the transcript of her testimony, described the hold as "unusual."

Cooper said that she attended a meeting on July 23, where "this issue" of Trump's "concerns about Ukraine and Ukraine security assistance" came up. She said in that meeting, the president's concerns were "conveyed" by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked by lawmakers if the president was authorized to order that type of hold, Cooper said there were concerns that he wasn't.

"Well, I'm not an expert on the law, but in that meeting immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion because there was broad understanding in the meeting that the funding — the State Department funding related to an earmark for Ukraine and that the DOD funding was specific to Ukraine security assistance. So the comments in the room at the deputies' level reflected a sense that there was not an understanding of how this could legally play out. And at that meeting the deputies agreed to look into the legalities and to look at what was possible," she said, according to the transcript.

At the next meeting with national security personnel, she said she told attendees "there were two legally available mechanisms should the President want to stop assistance" — a presidential rescission notice to Congress or for the Defense Department to do “a reprogramming action.”

“But I mentioned that either way, there would need to be a notification to Congress,” she said, according to the transcript.

Asked if that happened, Cooper said, "That did not occur."

In all the relevant inter-agency discussions, Cooper testified, it wasn't just Defense Department officials who believed the aid should flow to Ukraine.

"It was unanimous with the exception of the statements by OMB representatives, and those statements were relaying higher level guidance," she said, according to the transcript.

Investigators have zeroed in on the testimony of several key figures in the Ukraine affair — including Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state who worked on Ukraine and five other countries — to support the allegation that the Trump administration froze aid intended for Ukraine as part of an attempt to pressure the country to open probes that would benefit Trump politically.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It's not clear at all, and the testimony conflicts with your statement.

I said the he is ultimately not guilty of withholding the funds. The funds were delivered. If there is still some relatively small amount left, there may still be a reason for that. I don't know.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I said the he is ultimately not guilty of withholding the funds. The funds were delivered. If there is still some relatively small amount left, there may still be a reason for that. I don't know.

Lots of people have gone been convicted for taking money "temporarily"

Of course Floridaman doesn't believe that attempting to get something for performing an official duty is a crime, or even something you shouldn't do. And you know: "say Norway"

Maybe that's why he is looking at pardoning Blagojevich.

“Lobbyists for a children’s hospital wanted Blagojevich to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates, which meant eight million dollars in revenue to the hospital, But he put out the word through intermediaries that he would only do it if he got fifty thousand dollars in campaign contributions. That quid quo pro was a violation of the Hobbs Act. With Trump, the quid pro quo is taxpayer money in return for political dirt, but the idea is the same.”

By the way, Blagojevich is currently serving time and not just for that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Lots of people have gone been convicted for taking money "temporarily"

Of course Floridaman doesn't believe that attempting to get something for performing an official duty is a crime, or even something you shouldn't do. And you know: "say Norway"

Maybe that's why he is looking at pardoning Blagojevich.

“Lobbyists for a children’s hospital wanted Blagojevich to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates, which meant eight million dollars in revenue to the hospital, But he put out the word through intermediaries that he would only do it if he got fifty thousand dollars in campaign contributions. That quid quo pro was a violation of the Hobbs Act. With Trump, the quid pro quo is taxpayer money in return for political dirt, but the idea is the same.”

By the way, Blagojevich is currently serving time and not just for that.

Trump didn't take any money.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Trump didn't take any money.

The ask is the crime and dirt on an opponent has value
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The ask is the crime and dirt on an opponent has value
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yawn

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The ask is the crime and dirt on an opponent has value
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Asking for investigation of corruption is not a crime, and Hunter Biden was not running for President, and portraying a search for truth as a search for dirt is spin. What is obviously dirty is a corrupt corporation hiring someone with little, if any, qualifications, paying him more than just about anyone else at his corporate level in the company, in order to have some powerful insurance against an investigation into the company's corruption.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Asking for investigation of corruption is not a crime, and Hunter Biden was not running for President, and portraying a search for truth as a search for dirt is spin. What is obviously dirty is a corrupt corporation hiring someone with little, if any, qualifications, paying him more than just about anyone else at his corporate level in the company, in order to have some powerful insurance against an investigation into the company's corruption.

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Let's get this straight

We are really supposed to believe that Floridaman, who tolerates and even admires some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, suddenly got concerned about corruption just in time to demand an investigation of the Bidens?

Or that it’s a coincidence that the ONLY two corruption investigations Floridaman has ever demanded from a foreign country—a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and an investigation of the Bidens—happen to correspond exactly to the baloney Floridaman dishes out at his campaign rallies?

And what about the fact that Floridaman didn’t even really demand an investigation, only a public announcement that one would be conducted? Isn’t that exactly how Trump got elected in the first place? Wasn’t Comey’s last-minute announcement of the reopening of a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton exactly what handed Trump a comeback victory in 2016?

It worked once for Trump, so why would anybody doubt that he tried to use the same winning formula again, this time with Ukraine?