The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

One thing you don't bother to acknowledge......

The House passed on Feb 6, 1974 a resolution passed a resolution by a vote 0f 410 - 4 to give formal authority to its Judiciary Committee to launch an impeachment hearings.

On April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, Nixon did not turn over any items as demanded by subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee.

That is where Article III of the impeachment that Lindsey Graham is talking about comes from. After the House voted to formally consider impeachment Nixon's refusal to comply interfered with their right to go through the impeachment process.

As the House stands now the House can request or subpoena items from the executive branch and the executive branch in return can claim executive privilege. Than the courts will sort it out.

Come back to complain when there is an official impeachment hearing and Trump is doing what Nixon did which was outright ignoring subpoenas.

Oh and continue to be amazed by the Democrats who don't use their subpoena power that they currently have but instead send letters asking for information. Ask yourself why they don't want a court fight.

Whitewater made pretty clear that impeachment hearings aren't a necessary precursor to an impeachment vote. Personally, I think it's a mistake not to let the Judiciary Committee hold impeachment-specific hearings - the more this feels like Watergate, the better I think it'll go - but if Pelosi wants to use multiple committees, or the whole House, that's her prerogative. But the House has subpoena power it didn't in 1974, so it's not strictly necessary. The House can go to court to enforce the subpoenas, not just the Judiciary Committee.

And guess which rule about impeachment was changed while the Republicans were in power?

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/democrats-criticize-house-gop-subpoena-rules-115068

I can never keep is straight. It that Irony?

I have no problem with the subpoena powers.

But notice how Democrats rarely use it......

It's not because they don't like the rule. It's that they don't want to lose in court when executive privilege is claimed by the White House. It works better for the Democrats to issue a request letter and when that's ignored to claim that Trump is ignoring subpoenas. It helps that the Democrats have the media in their pocket.

Whistleblower had 'professional' tie to 2020 Democratic candidate

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.

"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.

Document reveals Ukraine had already reopened probe of Hunter Biden-linked firm months before Trump phone call

https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-...c-shows-significant-shift-in-factual-timeline

A newly unearthed document shows that Ukrainian officials had opened a new probe into the firm linked to Hunter Biden months before President Trump's phone call with that country's leader, Fox News contributor John Solomon reported late Tuesday.

....

"The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation," he claimed. "This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky," he added, noting Petro Poroshenko was still Ukraine's president at that time.

Your problem is that they are employing good public relations in how they approach this?

That they are not resorting to litigation when simply asking might suffice?

Of course it's abut the optics but that's what politics is about and nothing about the fact of asking before demanding is in any way detrimental to the public good or the legitimacy of the process AFAICT?

So to repeat @Fisherman's Worf

Is there anyone who is not completely full of shit who could weigh in on the topic? I'm not saying refusing to comply is impeachable, but it certainly sounds like it might be.

I am pretty sure his problem is that unlike movie zombies his brains actually have rotted and oozed out of his head.

So, because the whistle-blower might have been politically motivated to report Trump, it somehow negates what Trump did?

It's cute that you think Trump did something on the call.

The Democrats were not expecting him to release the memorandum on the call. He called their bluff.

The call shows nothing that you guys on the left claim it does.

And it's a huge issue if the whistleblower was not only a supporter of a 2020 candidate but is actually working for them currently or in the recent past. That's something that's important.

They subpoena'd Sondland within hours of him not showing up.

I'm not sure I get the significance of this.

Yeah. And how does that not fit with what I said: "Rarely use it."

Also he's still an employee of the State Department so this one will be going to court.

They also Subpoena'd Giuliani.

The significance is that it hurts the argument that there is any quid-pro-quo on the phone call.

#1 The Ukraine government didn't know the aid was delayed until a month after the aid went through.

#2 The Ukraine government was already working on re-opening the investigation into the company Hunter Biden was working for months before the call and months before the new President of Ukraine became President.

Again: "Rarely used it"

Seems to be a hard concept for you to understand.

Also again this is going to court and will be hashed out there since Giuliani is representing Trump.

#3 Trump didn't ask Zelensky to re-open the Bursima investigation. He asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens specifically.

#4 Hunter Biden was no longer on the board of Bursima. In fact, the investigation was focusing on things that happened between 2010 and 2012, which was before Biden ever joined the board.

Why do you keep saying they've rarely used it. They've been subpoenaing people and documents. What is the amount per day that they have to subpoena for it to not be "rare"?

"Hey, can you sell me some crack?"

"I was already planning to give you some crack"

*Police arrest you for trying to buy drugs*

"It's not fair! He was gonna give it to me freeeeeee!!!"

That and he/she may have used the wrong form and a comma where he/she should not have. It really does not matter Trump admits to it or is doing it in the view of the public with China at this point as long as the whistleblower is a dem and might have used the wrong punctuation on the short form whistleblower complain.

In this world trum completely admits to holding back aid for a bogus investigation into something we know did not happen for his political benefit. He also sent out a public tweet asking for China to help him.

Could you address the facts in the real world instead of the lies you make up in your head? We are really not arguing over any of the sludge that you imagine. It would help you actually join the conversation in a meaningful way.

US/EU/World Bank: "If you want our support Ukraine, you have to clean up your act. End the corruption."

Ukraine: "Will Do."

US/EU/World Bank: "Hey, that prosecutor over there isn't investigating anybody. What's up with that? Get rid of him and replace him with someone who will do his job. Joe, you take point."

Joe Biden: "^What they said, or we'll cut off your aid."

Ukraine: "Done."

Republicans: "Did you see that? Biden got dude fired to stop him from investigating someone!"

What part of does not require quid pro quo, and that there actually was quid pro quo in how trump denied money destined for Ukraine for a favor he defined?

Did he or did he not ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival? Yes or no?

Who wants some popcorn while we wait for MAGAzombie to twist his mind into a logic pretzel to answer this?

Yeah, I've been trying to figure out the significance of that too.

AFAICT, it’s not specifically impeachable until there’s a court order to do so violated.