(01-22-2020, 01:34 PM)Gabe Wrote:

(01-22-2020, 01:17 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Yeh.  To heck with executive privilege, due process, presumption of innocence.  Let's just keep digging until we find something.  Let's ignore the clearly exculpatory statements by the alleged targets of extortion or the clear evidence that joe biden acted corruptly....  


Notice how this zeal for investigations never extends to the left?

Notice my bold statement? I can underline it for you if you like. Regardless, I appreciate the deflections, JJ.

It's not a deflection.  You are talking about potentially piercing confidentiality.  You don't do that based on may or may not.  You do that based on probable cause to believe that it has evidence about a crime that has been committed.  You don't have that in this case.  

My approach: There's a smoking gun...hell, lots of smoking guns - so you dig for information. Evidence roots it all out. Why withhold if you're clearly innocent? Trump's words in Davos this morning, taking a pre-victory victory lap didn't help: "They (democrats) don't have any material, we (republicans) have all the material." 

If there's clear evidence the WH has that Biden acted corruptly, I'd love to see that too - I've gone on record saying that I don't care for Biden, nor do I trust his leadership. FOIA seems to be getting things in piecemeal, so that's a start. It helps paint a clearer picture so nobody needs a time turner

I'll ask again: what legitimate reason does the White House have for not releasing OMB docs and/or blocking witness testimony? What legitimate reason does the Senate have for not wanting to see/hear that evidence? Both were requested in House proceedings, but the withholding only added to the passing of the 2nd article (obstruction of congress). These aren't partisan questions.

Better question, what is the legitimate reason for the inquiry?  The Democrats are making three basic accusations.  

1.) The president of the United States used public funds to extort the Ukrainians.  The statements by the Ukrainian officials, including but not limited to President Zellensky, that the Ukrainians did not know before 8-29-2019 (Open source reporting in the media) is completely and totally exculpatory.  It has not been contradicted by any one of the witnesses called during the entirety of the house inquiry.  

2.) The President of the United States obstructed congress by invoking executive privilege.  This isn't even a @#$()ING thing.  

3.) That the president of the united states violated the ICA by withholding aid to Ukraine.  The deadline for the release was 9-30-2019.  The aid was released on 9-12-2019.  Not to mention that even if he did, Congress would take the administration to court and have the funds released & or re-appropriated.  That's the way that the system is designed.  

There is no credible assertion that a document at the OMB or any other agency is going to provide communications between the Trump administrations and the Ukrainians or that they will magically delay release of the aid beyond 9-30-2019.  Compliance in the face of your opponent weakness lends false credibility to a witch hunt.  The Trump administration gave Robert Mueller and his team over a million and a half documents, they let them interview and nearly bankrupt anyone they want, up to and including 30 hours of testimony from the White house council.  For his efforts?  They threw his campaign manager in solitary confinement because he refused to lie about him, they ransacked his attorneys office based on a debunked theory of campaign finance that the former head of the FEC shot down.  And when they found out that he wasn't guilty of anything they wrote a two page hyperbolic fiction based on a theory of obstruction of justice that SCOTUS has specifically shot down in the past.  The president of the united states released the Transcript of a phone call with a foreign power.  That alone is a massive affront to the office of the president and could have a negative affect on future communications between potus and his foreign counterparts.  But he had to do it and it clearly proves his innocence.  


After you demonstrate in plain text that you never talked about the election or foreign aid with Zellensky then there is no PROVING YOU INNOCENCE (which he shouldn't have to).  It's playing into the most disgraceful witch hunt in this countries history.

---

(01-22-2020, 07:07 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(01-22-2020, 06:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Two words: "Brett Kavanaugh"

Republicans let the Democrats call witnesses, and the witnesses were not credible. But that doesn't mean witnesses shouldn't be called now.

And that witness needlessly destroyed a distinguished public servant.  

As for the Democrats, they didn't let us call witnesses in the house inquiry...  "Well now it is my turn, wise @#$" (Yes, that's from GB 84)

---