Overheal wrote: » He won’t drop out. If he drops out he will be indicted the minute he leaves office for crimes highlighted in the Mueller report. Statute of limitations would expire before the end of a 2nd presidential term.
Duane Dibbley wrote: » I dont think anything will happen. If Trump finds out there is enough evidence I think he will drop out of the next election. If he knows there is not enough evidence he will run and win and the impeachment process will go around in circles for years.
drunkmonkey wrote: » The book calling out Biden last year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo3LpGOFIAY and Today.. Biden Ukraine dealings – 7 essential factshttps://www.foxnews.com/opinion/peter-schweizer-biden-familys-foreign-dealings-7-essential-facts
drunkmonkey wrote: » He said he asked the new Ukraine president to help with the criminal investigation of Biden. I don't see how he's going to come out of this worse than them.
Lockstep wrote: » Not many questions for either Biden to answer
drunkmonkey wrote: » Egypt were mentioned, there was a book written about it last year. Hunter has a few questions to answer along with Biden, add in this all happened on Obamas watch.
Lockstep wrote: » It is fairly interesting that Trump is suddenly concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Has he shown any similar willingness to pressure corrupt allies like Egypt? Or just as it involves a rival?
A few days after the telephone conversation between the two presidents, Mr Giuliani flew to Madrid to meet Mr Zelensky’s adviser, Andriy Yermak. He urged Mr Yermak to investigate the matters that were of interest to Mr Trump and held out the prospect of a state visit to America and a meeting with the president. That meeting in Madrid was arranged by Kurt Volker, America’s special envoy, whose efforts to help Ukraine restore its territorial integrity and sovereignty over the Donbas region were undermined by the suspension of military aid. Although the State Department insisted Mr Giuliani was merely acting in his private capacity rather than on behalf of the state, in the eyes of any reasonable person—particularly the one from Ukraine where oligarchs wield much informal power—Mr Giuliani was more important than a state official; he was Mr Trump’s consigliere. Mr Giuliani’s main source of disinformation on Ukraine was Yuriy Lutsenko, a controversial former prosecutor-general. Mr Lutsenko first tried to sabotage anti-corruption efforts by Ukrainian activists and American-backed investigators, then accused his critics of conspiring against Mr Trump. Trying to ingratiate himself with the White House, and settle his own scores, Mr Lutsenko declared that the stuff about Mr Manafort was all part of an anti-Trump conspiracy.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Ahh because they blew a whistle or so they think. I think the whistleblower was bait and they took it hook line and sinker.
Penn wrote: » Regardless, if Trump did what he's being accused of, that's a crime.
Eric Cartman wrote: » You think itll keep going till 2024 ?
Boggles wrote: » How do you know he / she has a dislike for Trump?
drunkmonkey wrote: » Those proceedings are going nowhere she doesn't even know what she's impeaching him for, all off the back of a whistleblower with a dislike for Trump. She's playing high stakes poker and has went all in without checking her cards. He won't be impeached by a republican Senate he may win the election while this is all going on though.
drunkmonkey wrote: » all off the back of a whistleblower with a dislike for Trump.
Penn wrote: » Pretty sure impeachment proceedings against the sitting President is the story.
drunkmonkey wrote: » I don't think that's what there saying. CNN aren't even saying that. Biden is the story.
Boggles wrote: » When Fox News contributors are saying he committed a crime, I think it's time for his cheerleaders to check their pom poms.
Duane Dibbley wrote: » I think this will drag out so long that Trump will have finished his term of Presidency by the time it reaches conclusion.
Call me Al wrote: » Trump doesn't think so either. I think he said as much a couple of weeks back?... hmmm... I wonder why he might have said that!
Boggles wrote: » You don't see anything wrong in the POTUS using the office to effectively get an edge on an election by "blackmailing" a foreign power? Srsly? Whether you don't see anything wrong with it or not, it's a crime.
drunkmonkey wrote: » What crime is it?
As explained by my colleague, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, in the Daily Beast, it is a crime under the federal bribery statute for a public official to demand anything of value in exchange for performing an official act. Additionally, the Hobbs Act defines extortion as "obtaining property from another, with his consent, under color of official right." McQuade continues:The essence of both crimes is a demand by a public official to obtain something for himself to which he is not entitled in exchange for performing an official act of his office. Here, if the reporting is correct, Trump may be similarly committing bribery and extortion by using the power of his office to demand a thing of value, dirt on Biden, in exchange for an official act, the provision of military aid. This is precisely the kind of old-fashioned corruption scheme that the bribery and extortion statutes were designed to punish. And, if Giuliani assisted or agreed to assist this scheme — even if he did not fully adopt the entire plan — may have aided and abetted or conspired to commit those same crimes. In addition, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal for a U.S. citizen to corruptly offer “anything of value” to a foreign official to retain business or influence an official decision. Giuliani defended himself by claiming that “no money was mentioned, no quid pro quo,” in the call between Trump and the Ukranian president. Let’s see if that’s true. But more important, Giuliani — a former mob prosecutor — surely knows that most crimes don’t happen so explicitly. In 16 years of listening to criminals on wiretaps, I rarely heard anyone say, “If you don’t give me X, I will do Y.” That’s not how mafia bosses work. They make a “request” and others follow up with the demand. The law is very clear that a quid pro quo need not be explicit for a crime to have taken place. It can be inferred from the facts as a whole.
drunkmonkey wrote: » It's a republican Senate not a hope. I don't see anything wrong with asking Ukraine to assist in the criminal investigation of Biden. It's looks like it goes a bit deeper than Biden, Obama and the Clintons are wrapped up in it.
