Schiff lost his marbles

[Ian]

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Ian

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

they could not have concocted weaker articles of impeachment...now they are paying the price...they need to go back to the drawing board and I have no doubt that they will....btw...Ian didn't state facts he stated opinion

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

if he believed those facts, he wouldn't be trying to scare us into thinking Russia is planning to invade.

I'm old enough to remember when Obama made fun of Romney for suggesting Russia was any kind of adversary, now Russia is planning to invade our shores?

It's a complete joke.

[scottw]

Schiff continues to demonstrate that he is a deranged lunatic...which makes him the perfect democrat to lead his party to slaughter...I feel for the senators that have to sit and be lectured to by this bug eyed toad....it will all be over soon and the democrats can get back to their relentless effort of undermining our country and our president...

some great dirt surfacing on the bidens lately...amazing how every time joe went abroad a close relative with no experience got a boatload of cash and a cushy job

I can't believe commie bernie called lie-a-watha a liar on national tv....those kids need to get together and smoke a peace pipe...

now hillary is taking out bernie, bernie is taking out lie-a...biden just needs to open his trap to take himself out.....bernie's campaign workers are threatening to guillotine and gulag the rich(I wonder if that includes bernie, lie-a, bloomberg, pelosi...the democrat list is long)

did that guy on the democrap impeachment team wear his sneakers into the senate too...I think it's a cool look buy mildly inappropriate

this could not be more enjoyable....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

"Abuse" of power is, in itself, too vague a concept to be considered a crime and is subject to opposing opinion. All Presidents could have been accused of abuse of power, but the "abuse" would have to be specified as a crime before it could be considered impeachable. The actual action that is supposed to be an abuse is what must be considered.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

That law had a date by which it had to be fulfilled. The money was sent before that date. The money was sent, and Ukraine didn't have to do anything extra to get it. Ukraine's President has said more than once that there was no pressure or no bribe or any quid pro quo to get the money. Those are all facts.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, there are not mountains of proven evidence of an actual crime. There is the proven fact that the money was delivered within the specified time frame and that Zelinsky said all was legal and he was not pressured or bribed.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, there are not mountains of proven evidence of an actual crime. There is the proven fact that the money was delivered within the specified time frame and that Zelinsky said all was legal and he was not pressured or bribed.

First of all Floridaman admitted publicly that he has all the evidence and will not release it. The only innocent man in the world who hides exculpatory information.

Crime, you can start here
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.

Read the press statement. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

As far as no pressure goes, you think Zelensky had a choice, that he could say he committed a corrupt act?
As a comedian and an actor, he was famous for his laser focus on the foibles of Ukrainian politicians. Zelensky chooses his words carefully. When he met with Trump, Zelensky knew that Ukrainians would be listening carefully, too.

Zelensky ran for the presidency on an anti-corruption platform, and won in a landslide. Admitting to giving in to pressure — or admitting to pressuring independent members of his government to conduct investigations — would mean not only losing bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress but also destroying his credibility among Ukrainians.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

First of all Floridaman admitted publicly that he has all the evidence and will not release it. The only innocent man in the world who hides exculpatory information.

You have not stated a fact. You have given your opinion.

There is sufficient exculpatory information already available in open sources. The burden is on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence of guilt. That has not happened.

When it comes to the constitutional separation of powers, executive privilege would be eroded by submitting to requests that would abridge that power. There is already sufficient exculpatory evidence, so there is no need to endanger the power of executive privilege.

Crime, you can start here
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.

Read the press statement. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

The money was given on time. The reason for temporary delay was a reasonable request under the circumstances to ask for some assurance that it would not be wasted on further corruption. Some may argue that it was not reasonable, others would say it was. The money was delivered on time without a quid pro quo.

As far as no pressure goes, you think Zelensky had a choice, that he could say he committed a corrupt act?
As a comedian and an actor, he was famous for his laser focus on the foibles of Ukrainian politicians. Zelensky chooses his words carefully. When he met with Trump, Zelensky knew that Ukrainians would be listening carefully, too.

Zelensky ran for the presidency on an anti-corruption platform, and won in a landslide. Admitting to giving in to pressure — or admitting to pressuring independent members of his government to conduct investigations — would mean not only losing bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress but also destroying his credibility among Ukrainians.

Zelensky's satements are facts. Your "interpretation" is conjecture.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Zelensky's satements are facts. Your "interpretation" is conjecture.

Executive privilege only works for certain people and things, it cannot be a protective blanket over all actions that the office wants to conceal, and as with other legal veils, once pierced it is moot and in any case cannot be used to conceal a crime.

[scottw]

I'm really concerned that we won't be able to fight the coming Russian invasion while at the same time fighting the ground war that trump started with iran a couple of weeks while at the same time preventing the takeover of Virginia by white supremacists and nazis

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm really concerned that we won't be able to fight the coming Russian invasion while at the same time fighting the ground war that trump started with iran a couple of weeks while at the same time preventing the takeover of Virginia by white supremacists and nazis

meanwhile we’re all broke because the GOP tax cuts gave everything to the Koch brothers. Grim times, indeed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Executive privilege only works for certain people and things, it cannot be a protective blanket over all actions that the office wants to conceal, and as with other legal veils, once pierced it is moot and in any case cannot be used to conceal a crime.

It ain't been pierced and no crime has been established. I believe the Court would have to decide, not you.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It ain't been pierced and no crime has been established. I believe the Court would have to decide, not you.

Conjecture, obviously.

Just remember, Democrats don't know what the withheld documents say. Maybe they say it was a perfect call or there was no quid pro quo. But if you care about the truth, you'd want the documents released.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, there are not mountains of proven evidence of an actual crime. There is the proven fact that the money was delivered within the specified time frame and that Zelinsky said all was legal and he was not pressured or bribed.

Funny you keep suggesting you are an expert on the real meaning of the constitution, yet the crimes you suggest need to be proven weren’t even on the books and part of law when they penned the constitution, what Trump is guilty of is exactly what they were concerned about. None of these crimes you think need to be proven we’re even codified when our founders wrote the constitution.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Funny you keep suggesting you are an expert on the real meaning of the constitution, yet the crimes you suggest need to be proven weren’t even on the books and part of law when they penned the constitution, what Trump is guilty of is exactly what they were concerned about. None of these crimes you think need to be proven we’re even codified when our founders wrote the constitution.

this is nonsensical