The impeachment - 13 December 2019

The impeachment.   The two articles of impeachment are so anemic as to invite ridicule.

1.  "Abuse of power" by expressing concern over thievery by Ukrainians and Americans?  This is a charge?  The Washington Post has been running a series of articles based on "leaked" US Afghan IG reports and interviews with people involved in that wretched place.  These articles reveal the massive scale of the thievery that lost America enormous amounts of money taken through graft and bribery.  Was it unreasonable for this president to solicit the Ukrainian president's cooperation in trying to deal with a similar situation in that country.  He mentioned Uncle Joe Biden and his drug addled son?  Well, why not?  The younger of the two has IMO been used as the family bag man for collecting protection money.  Joe Biden himself looks to me to be a political version of Jimmy Hoffa the mobbed up Teamsters boss of long ago, but, with less charm, "a little for you, a lot for me," etc.   He was potentially a rival for the 2020 election?  He was not then a candidate.  Is every human or semi-human to be exempt from  investigation and prosecution because he MIGHT become a political rival?  The Democrats know full well this would be absurd.

2.  "Obstructing congress"  What we are seeing in the behavior of the Democratic majority in the House and minority in the senate is an attempt to seize control of the federal government using the constitutional powers to "advise and consent" on appointments and the ability to impeach in the House..  They have not yet tried to impeach federal judges appointed by the other party but IMO they will try that soon.  In this article of impeachment they claim that the president has obstructed their function by relying on the doctrine of Executive Privilege to deny them access to his present and past staff.   Trump did not invent this doctrine.  It is a well established feature of American law.  Without it no president could conduct internal policy discussions or confidential discussions with foreign leaders.  The Democrats know full well that the principal of Executive Privilege is often contested in the courts.  That is what they should have done this time, but instead they have chosen to charge the president for impeachment for claiming Executive Privilege.  They do not claim this is a violation of law.  They merely stamp their feet and scream that they are unhappy and want him gone.

This farce will end in a trial in the US Senate with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.  The Republicans control the senate and will not allow Trump to be deposed.   The senate can dismiss the charges by a simple majority vote and that is what Senator Lindsey Graham wants to see happen.  Trump does not want that.  He wants to be tried for the purpose of turning the tables on the Democrats.

I think he is correct in wanting that.  If that occurs, witnesses must be subpoenaed and examined in open court.  The Bidens must be so called to demonstrate the reasonable nature of Trump's concern over their behavior in Ukraine.  pl

Comments

[Seamus Padraig]

Yup, exactly. Graham is basically on the same side as the Democrats on the Ukraine issue, so he doesn't want it getting any more exposure than it's gotten already. As he sees it, time to change the conversation ...

[JerseyJeffersonian]

Here is a tongue in cheek account, but at root, pithy:
https://babylonbee.com/news/trumps-popularity-rises-after-revelation-he-obstructed-congress

[srw]

I am a facts based guy and think that the impeachment inquiry brought out indisputable facts by the testimony of numerous civil servants. Whether these facts justify an impeachment is in the eye of the beholder.
Facts
1. Trump sought to have the Ukrainian President, Zelenski, open an investigation on both Biden's by withholding military aid and a White House visit. This was for his own election benefit and not in the interests of the US. (Sounds to me like an abuse of presidential power)
2. Stonewalled the whole impeachment investigation by withholding all requested documents and instructing his advisers, appointees, and civil servants to not testify in the inquiry. (sounds to me like obstruction of Congress)
If you believe all this is kosher, then we have something more than an "imperial presidency".

[artemesia]

The Biden corruption is only the tip of the iceberg of the whole Ukraine affair; Vindman's finger-wagging comments made that clear.

It may be -- perhaps in a more perfect world -- it WOULD be that case that a trial would track back to what USA - Victoria Nuland was doing in Ukraine in the first place.

Were American interests being protected, or is US animosity toward Russia, w/ Ukraine the battle ground in fact the continuation of the Bolsheviki grudge against Russia?
In a conversation w/ John Bathelder a few weeks ago, Russia expert Stephen Cohen said that Trump, thru Giuliani, has been attempting to bring Zelensky and Putin to a resolution of their conflicts.
https://www.unz.com/scohen/why-are-we-in-ukraine/

However, it is now verboten to even raise the matter of the grudges of a certain protected class. So if Trump opted for a trial, he may find himself afoul of the (spirit of) the executive order he just signed into being, or of the agenda of the U S State Dept. Monitor for Antisemitism, Elan Carr, who declared that "anti-zionism IS antisemitism."

[kgbgb]

Was it this article at The Conservative Treehouse? https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/08/wow-oan-stunning-lutsenko-interview-outlines-marie-yovanovitch-perjury-george-kent-impeachment-motive-lindsey-graham-motive-to-bury-investigation/

[Jack]

What was the evidence that the civil servants provided of the quid pro quo ? Memo from Trump or their superiors? Verbal order from Trump?

There is indisputable evidence of Biden demanding a quid pro quo from the Ukrainians.

[blue peacock]

srw

I'm not sure we saw the same hearings. I did not see or hear any actual evidence that Trump ordered them to withhold aid until an inquiry on the Bidens was launched. What I heard was testimony of hearsay and presumption and assumption. Not facts in the meaning of that word.

BTW, whatever happened to the "whistleblower" who apparently began it all? No testimony, no nothing.

Also, do you think the inquiry was fair? The Democrats decided who could be called as witnesses and neither Trump nor the Republicans could call any to rebut. Bill Clinton was afforded more courtesy by the Republicans in his impeachment inquiry. Notwithstanding while he did commit perjury, I don't believe it met the bar of high crimes for an impeachment.

[Fred]

Srw,

So all other presidents who claimed privilege were actually obstructing Congress and were subject to impeachment as will be all future presidents who claim privilege. Burisma, a Ukrainian company, can not be investigated because a Biden is on the board. Hunter has a very lucrative future ahead of him as an insurance against investigation.

[J]

I would have rather have seen they expend such energy and money in shutting down Israeli Intelligence Epstein Pedophile Blackmail Honey Trap operation. It would be great to see some backbone be shown by DOJ, FBI CI, and CIA in shutting down the Israelis putrid operation!