President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

US Presidents have broad authority to condition aid to a foreign nation... even to delay it if there are concerns that it will not be used for its intended purposes. That is Trump’s (and any president's) power as president. Trump held up the money because of concerns over corruption. Efforts to help end corruption in Ukraine were objectives of both the Obama and Trump administrations. Foreign assistance programs are often held back and conditioned to ensure that systems are in place to prevent corruption. The real issue is not that Trump held up the money, but that he first should have (pursuant to the Impoundment Act) asked for the funds to be redirected. But he did not do this. It’s a slap on the wrist offense, but in no way an impeachable one.

Missing the point AGAIN..

Yes , of course Presidents can require their Government etc. to do lots of things in lots of places pursuant to Government policy etc.

What they cannot do, is get a coterie of henchmen and personal lawyers to carry out these tasks independent of Government oversight and control whilst contrary to standing government policy.

For the umpteenth time , the issue here is not WHAT Trump did , the issue is WHY and HOW he did it.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Missing the point AGAIN..

Yes , of course Presidents can require their Government etc. to do lots of things in lots of places pursuant to Government policy etc.

What they cannot do, is get a coterie of henchmen and personal lawyers to carry out these tasks independent of Government oversight and control whilst contrary to standing government policy.

For the umpteenth time , the issue here is not WHAT Trump did , the issue is WHY and HOW he did it.

I think you just don't like my answers to your somewhat misleading and manipulative questions. Yes, we know the WHAT. I already answered the HOW was not done in the totally proper fashion, which should warrant him a slap on the wrist. And the impeachment trial will determine the WHY. If he's acquitted then the WHY will have been determined to be not enough of a matter for removal from office... agree?

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

I think you just don't like my answers to your somewhat misleading and manipulative questions. Yes, we know the WHAT. I already answered the HOW was not done in the totally proper fashion, which should warrant him a slap on the wrist. And the impeachment trial will determine the WHY. If he's acquitted then the WHY will have been determined to be not enough of a matter for removal from office... agree?

Assuming all available/requested evidence and testimony is made public and available and Senators vote based on that information and not party loyalty then yes. That's how it's supposed to work.

But if Trump and the GOP continue to obfuscate and refuse to cooperate and the Senators vote as they are told to by Mitch McConnell then no , not really.

And in relation to the HOW - Not requesting the money be redirected first is only one of many ways in which the HOW was not done correctly , several of which are most certainly worth more than a "slap on the wrist"

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Assuming all available/requested evidence and testimony is made public and available and Senators vote based on that information and not party loyalty then yes. That's how it's supposed to work.

But if Trump and the GOP continue to obfuscate and refuse to cooperate and the Senators vote as they are told to by Mitch McConnell then no , not really.

And in relation to the HOW - Not requesting the money be redirected first is only one of many ways in which the HOW was not done correctly , several of which are most certainly worth more than a "slap on the wrist"

Why would ANY president want to cooperate with a total sham of a purely political impeachment process?

So I take it you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office?

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

Why would ANY president want to cooperate with a total sham of a purely political impeachment process?

To prove his innocence and remove all the doubt that's out there?

Even with the limited amount of evidence that has been made public over half the country want him impeached and removed from Office - Surely he;d want to do something to change that perception?

As I said before , if for example Bolton is lying as Trump has said - Get him in under oath and make him repeat the lie and charge him with Perjury same with any others that are being accused of lying about this issue. Get Rudy in under Oath to share all this evidence he claims to have about Biden and Ukrainian Election interference.

Hiding information , refusing to allow witnesses etc. are not the actions of the innocent man with nothing to hide as he claims to be.

notobtuse wrote: »

So I take it you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office?

In hindsight , yes , quote possibly , he did obstruct - Although he was sanctioned and was forced to give up his law licence etc. so there were penalties for him.

Equally , Ken Starr and others should have been heavily sanctioned for their actions - Their treatment of and threats to Monica Lewinsky were pretty appalling and Starr and others (perhaps even the now Justice Kavanaugh) should have also had their law licenses reviewed or possibly even removed .

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

To prove his innocence and remove all the doubt that's out there?

Even with the limited amount of evidence that has been made public over half the country want him impeached and removed from Office - Surely he;d want to do something to change that perception?

As I said before , if for example Bolton is lying as Trump has said - Get him in under oath and make him repeat the lie and charge him with Perjury same with any others that are being accused of lying about this issue. Get Rudy in under Oath to share all this evidence he claims to have about Biden and Ukrainian Election interference.

Hiding information , refusing to allow witnesses etc. are not the actions of the innocent man with nothing to hide as he claims to be.

The trial is about the case the House impeachment managers made. It they want more witnesses the democrats can impeach Trump again after he's acquitted for this one. Hell, they'll find some reason, any reason, to impeach him again... it's what they do.

In hindsight , yes , quote possibly , he did obstruct - Although he was sanctioned and was forced to give up his law licence etc. so there were penalties for him.

Equally , Ken Starr and others should have been heavily sanctioned for their actions - Their treatment of and threats to Monica Lewinsky were pretty appalling and Starr and others (perhaps even the now Justice Kavanaugh) should have also had their law licenses reviewed or possibly even removed .

I don't think Clinton should have been removed from office, nor impeached. His crimes didn't warrant an impeachment. The most that should have been done to him was to be censured and disbarred.

Then I guess the House democrats, especially Adam Schiff, should also be sanctioned for their lies in this matter. That goes for Hillary Clinton and the DNC for their involvement in the bogus dossier used as the basis for illegal spying on Trump and for what their actions did to this country for the last three years.

Maybe force Trump to paint his properties bronze instead of gold... that will show him who is boss!

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Can't handle that the truth of the answer to the question wasn't what you were looking for, eh?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-businesses-take-a-hit-as-the-brand-has-lost-its-mojo-2018-12-23

Trumps investments losing money? Hardly a shocker is it? how many times has he been bankrupt?

All though the American tax payers have been pumping some amount of money into his golf resorts and hotels since he took office.

Anyway to be completely sure if he is losing or making money we would need to see his tax returns, they are hardly still been audited are they?

Cody montana

Boggles wrote: »

Trumps investments losing money? Hardly a shocker is it? how many times has he been bankrupt?

All though the American tax payers have been pumping some amount of money into his golf resorts and hotels since he took office.

Anyway to be completely sure if he is losing or making money we would need to see his tax returns, they are hardly still been audited are they?

It's 6, 6 times he's been bankrupt.
Currently seen bankrupting the USA.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Trumps investments losing money? Hardly a shocker is it? how many times has he been bankrupt?

All though the American tax payers have been pumping some amount of money into his golf resorts and hotels since he took office.

Anyway to be completely sure if he is losing or making money we would need to see his tax returns, they are hardly still been audited are they?

Trump gets audited by the IRS every year.

notobtuse

Billy Mays wrote: »

I must've imagined all those times Trump has visited and stayed in his numerous properties since he became president.

Sure he made a nice few quid out of Pence's visit to Ireland when he stayed in Doonbeg despite it being nearly 300km from Dublin where he was conducting business.

Not benefiting from his presidency financially :pac: :pac:

The gullibility of Trumpers :rolleyes:

According to CNN we should now be called Illiterate Boomer Rubes. And the Left has the audacity to claim Trump is dividing America?

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump gets audited by the IRS every year.

And?
Why hasn't he release his tax returns?
What is he hiding?

notobtuse

Trump’s defense team had a great closing. They played video of the House impeachment managers from the Clinton impeachment.

Nadler…
"There must never be a narrowly-voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our political parties and opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will produce the divisiveness and bitterness in our politics in our years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions"

Lofgren…
"This is unfair to the American people" "By these actions, you would undo the free election that expressed the will of the American people in 1996. In so doing, you will damage the faith the American people have in this institution and in the American democracy. You will set the dangerous precedent that the certainty of presidential terms — which has so benefitted our wonderful America — will be replaced by the partisan use of impeachment. Future presidents will face election, then litigation, then impeachment."

Markey…
"This is a constitutional amendment that we are debating, not an impeachment resolution," Markey screams in the video. "The Republicans are crossing out the impeachment standard of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and they are inserting the words 'any crime or misdemeanor.' We are permitting a constitutional coup d'etat which will haunt this body and our country forever."

Menendez…
"I warn my colleagues that you will reap the bitter harvest of the unfair partisan seeds you sow today. The Constitutional provision for impeachment is a way to protect our government and our citizens, not another weapon in the political arsenal."

And they saved the best for last, Schumer…
"I expect history will show that we’ve lowered the bar on impeachment so much, we have broken the seal on this extreme penalty so cavalierly, that it will be used as a routine tool to fight political battles. My fear is that when a Republican wins the White House, Democrats will demand pay-back."

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

And?
Why hasn't he release his tax returns?
What is he hiding?

Just proving the poster wrong, once again.

Why? Simple... He's not required to.

MeMen2_MoRi_

notobtuse wrote: »

Just proving the poster wrong, once again.

Why? Simple... He's not required to.

Haven't courts said he needs to release them? Iirc last I heard he's going to the US supreme court to have the previous judgement over turned.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump gets audited by the IRS every year.

Has anyone other than Trump confirmed that to be true?

Trump claimed that he was "being audited" as a reason for not releasing his returns , but I certainly don't recall any independent corroboration of Trumps claim of a continuous audit.

Outlaw Pete

Quin_Dub wrote: »

For the umpteenth time , the issue here is not WHAT Trump did , the issue is WHY and HOW he did it.

It's the WHAT also.

He's being accused of many things within that first article of impeachment which it wouldn't matter how or why he did it, just the fact that he did it would be enough and so while the how and why Trump said and did certain things are very relevant to some of the accusations, there are also certain accusations which that is not the case and just him having done them would be enough.

Let's look at the main accusations:

1: that he solicited the interference of a foreign government in the 2020 election.

This is based on the narrative that Trump's intention of asking Zelensky to look into the Burisma-Biden controversy was to help him in 2020. Have they any evidence whatsoever to support that contention? Nope.

2: that he solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.

This is a double pronged one and they haven't even evidence to show that the first prong is true (that he solicited Ukraine to publicly announce investigations) and even if they did, just like the the first accusation, they don't have a damn thing to suggest he was doing it to benefit him in 2020 as opposed to wanting to get to bottom of both issues.

3: that he conditioned the aid release on the announcement of investigations.

Again, where's the proof of this? They have none and yet they claimed they did.

4: that he solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

This one is laughable as he didn't mention Russia and the Republicans have produced reports on Russia's hacking. Aspects of what Trump said with regards to the server may have no basis but the rest absolutely does. Trump said on the call:

"There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

This was in reference to the black ledger and Manafort, and how all that played a role in Trump being accused of colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election and for the democrats to claim as part of impeachment that this is all a conspiracy theory is pathathic.

5: that [after the aid was paid] he corruptly urged and solicited Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

Again, there is nothing to back this nonsense up but their own suspicions based on what they have inferred from other's admitted presumptions.

Boggles

that he solicited the interference of a foreign government in the 2020 election.

Again we have moved on from this.

He did it but it isn't impeachable apparently. Keep up.

As for evidence, Mick admitted in a press a conference and the Ambassador to Europe admitted it to the House impeachment hearing.

Now Bolton has removed all doubt.

That's before you even get to the rough transcript of the phone call and deposition of the people who actually heard it, not to mention the comical Rudy and his Goons running around the Ukraine.

If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton

- John Kelly

Outlaw Pete

Love how the defense closed out last night by playing footage of democrats (some of which are involved today) speaking about impeachment in 98-99.

Timestamped at that point ...

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Love how the defense closed out last night by playing footage of democrats (some of which are involved today) speaking about impeachment in 98-99.

Timestamped at that point ...

You must also have loved it when the Democrats did exactly the same thing in their arguments playing video of Lyndsay Graham from back then too.

Politicians are partisan - we know that.

duploelabs

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You must also have loved it when the Democrats did exactly the same thing in their arguments playing video of Lyndsay Graham from back then too.

Politicians are partisan - we know that.

They also played a video of Dershowitz arguing, a few years ago, that a president could be impeached without committing a federal crime

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Has anyone other than Trump confirmed that to be true?

Trump claimed that he was "being audited" as a reason for not releasing his returns , but I certainly don't recall any independent corroboration of Trumps claim of a continuous audit.

The IRS cannot comment on an individual’s tax return. Therefore there isn't independent corroboration. While it is highly unlikely an individual person is audited every year by the IRS, the agency does have tipwires designed to single out returns for audits. And the more complex a tax return is the chances are very high they will trigger those tipwires for audits. Also, the more complex a return is... it causes the IRS to think you must have made a mistake somewhere so an audit is set in motion. Plus, companies can be subject to annual auditing by the IRS. Since Trump files both an individual tax return and owns numerous companies that file tax returns it is extremely likely something of his is under audit every year.

(I do individual taxes)

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You must also have loved it when the Democrats did exactly the same thing in their arguments playing video of Lyndsay Graham from back then too.

Politicians are partisan - we know that.

Yes, but it's not the republicans who have brought about this impeachment. It is the job of the democrats to prove, with evidence, there is a valid reason to impeach Trump and not just a political one. That is why the statements by the democrats at the time are exponentially more important because they point to this impeachment as one of pure political vindictiveness.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

The IRS cannot comment on an individual’s tax return. Therefore there isn't independent corroboration. While it is highly unlikely an individual person is audited every year by the IRS, the agency does have tipwires designed to single out returns for audits. And the more complex a tax return is the chances are very high they will trigger those tipwires for audits. Also, the more complex a return is... it causes the IRS to think you must have made a mistake somewhere so an audit is set in motion. Plus, companies can be subject to annual auditing by the IRS. Since Trump files both an individual tax return and owns numerous companies that file tax returns it is extremely likely something of his is under audit every year.

(I do individual taxes)

Trump is fighting in court to stop the release of his tax returns. the only person stopping their release is Trump. The IRS dont care if he releases his tax returns. He doesn't want to release them because they know they will release a can of worms that show how corrupt he truly is. For some reason you dont care that he is corrupt. So corrupt he wants to repeal the act that prevents american companies from paying bribes in foreign countries.

duploelabs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Trump is fighting in court to stop the release of his tax returns. the only person stopping their release is Trump. The IRS dont care if he releases his tax returns. He doesn't want to release them because they know they will release a can of worms that show how corrupt he truly is. For some reason you dont care that he is corrupt. So corrupt he wants to repeal the act that prevents american companies from paying bribes in foreign countries.

Aside from the corruption, I would say it'll prove that he's not worth an nth of what he claims to be

ohnonotgmail

duploelabs wrote: »

Aside from the corruption, I would say it'll prove that he's not worth an nth of what he claims to be

there is that as well.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

The IRS cannot comment on an individual’s tax return. Therefore there isn't independent corroboration. While it is highly unlikely an individual person is audited every year by the IRS, the agency does have tipwires designed to single out returns for audits. And the more complex a tax return is the chances are very high they will trigger those tipwires for audits. Also, the more complex a return is... it causes the IRS to think you must have made a mistake somewhere so an audit is set in motion. Plus, companies can be subject to annual auditing by the IRS. Since Trump files both an individual tax return and owns numerous companies that file tax returns it is extremely likely something of his is under audit every year.

(I do individual taxes)

Yet Michael Bloomberg who is worth way more than Trump, has bigger and much more complex businesses can say he will reveal his tax returns. You are being naiive if that is the reason Trump doesnt want to reveal his tax returns. i dont think there is anything dodgy in there, it would be probably just emabarrassing to him showing that he is fair from the billionaire he claims to be and his net worth is probably quite low

Quin_Dub

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Trump is fighting in court to stop the release of his tax returns. the only person stopping their release is Trump. The IRS dont care if he releases his tax returns. He doesn't want to release them because they know they will release a can of worms that show how corrupt he truly is. For some reason you dont care that he is corrupt. So corrupt he wants to repeal the act that prevents american companies from paying bribes in foreign countries.

I personally don't think that his taxes will show any direct evidence of crime to be honest. The IRS would have found it long ago. I don't think he "fiddles his taxes" particularly , I just think he doesn't pay much tax as he is nowhere near as wealthy as he has claimed and isn't anything like as great a business man as he claims.

His entire Persona is "Brilliant Billionaire Business man" - I think the release of his tax details would show that to be entirely false.

It may expose him to legal implications (breech of contract type stuff) as well though.

Lots of hints/suggestions that he has been more than a little "loose" with the valuations of his Properties and holdings over the years to maximise the benefit to himself.

The valuations the IRS has are probably the right ones and the values he has used for Insurance claims and loan guarantees are the ones that might get him into Trouble.

ohnonotgmail

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I personally don't think that his taxes will show any direct evidence of crime to be honest. The IRS would have found it long ago. I don't think he "fiddles his taxes" particularly , I just think he doesn't pay much tax as he is nowhere near as wealthy as he has claimed and isn't anything like as great a business man as he claims.

His entire Persona is "Brilliant Billionaire Business man" - I think the release of his tax details would show that to be entirely false.

It may expose him to legal implications (breech of contract type stuff) as well though.

Lots of hints/suggestions that he has been more than a little "loose" with the valuations of his Properties and holdings over the years to maximise the benefit to himself.

The valuations the IRS has are probably the right ones and the values he has used for Insurance claims and loan guarantees are the ones that might get him into Trouble.

I would consider lying about the true value of your properties to get loans as being corrupt. YMMV.

duploelabs

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The valuations the IRS has are probably the right ones and the values he has used for Insurance claims and loan guarantees are the ones that might get him into Trouble.

It's well documented (in sworn court evidence with documentation) that Trump inflates and conflates the price of his properties depending on what returns/valuations he's doing. Since he's kept his tax returns private, I'm sure if his insurance companies read his 'tax valuations' of his properties versus his 'insurance valuations' he's be in serious fraud problems due to the mismatch

Quin_Dub

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I would consider lying about the true value of your properties to get loans as being corrupt. YMMV.

Oh Absolutely agree.

I'm just not 100% on what the legal implications would- Breach of Contract possibly , some version of fraud/misrepresentation etc.

Also not sure if the IRS would necessarily care or be in a position to report if they noted a discrepancy between what was listed on a Tax return vs. what was on a Loan application for example - As long as the one on the tax return was right I don't know if they could do anything about it.