General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo what if it's not a "transcript". It's a confession of guilt.
Does anyone think that any "omitted" material might save him? Everything that's in this "transcript" pretty much hangs him.
How he or any of his people thought the release of this would protect him is just unbelievable.
I can only think he did something much, much worse that he and his party are desperately trying to hide.
I guess we'll find out.
ffr
(22,644 posts)Do you hear any news today of Pence's KNOWN involvement with Zelensky from April 2019 thru Sept 2019?
No?
Then today's transcript mentions Barr to call Zelensky, but not Pence, when we already know Pence was making calls to Zelensky!!
Link to tweet
09/19/19 - .@VP spoke by phone yesterday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyyz. Trump plans to meet him next week
BTW, where is Pence today???
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)is there an actual law that was broken?
I know that it's considered bad form to criticize American political figures while overseas, the phrase, "politics stops at the water's edge" comes to mind, but that seems to be more of a tradition, or good manners, or something like that which is short of a law.
It is despicable to ask a foreign entity to do your dirty work, and more so if there is a threat to withhold funds, but is it actually illegal? American money has been used for decades to pick winners and losers overseas, and I don't recall anyone being prosecuted for it.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)As president, you are not permitted to collude with foreign governments in any way to help yourself.
If you need to look it up, it's Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution.
He's been violating that clause, on several fronts, since before he took office. This is the one time where he came right out and confesses to doing it. It seems like he might have done a lot of other things that were even worse than this.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)is that it's not really been tested in court ever since it was written. Thus, the first real interpretation of it will be by a GOP-controlled Senate.
The Constitution also mentions in Article 1, Section 8 the right of Congress to "...grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" which refers to the days of piracy on the high seas. Surely, that is an obsolete part of the Constitution, it could be argued that the emoluments clause refers to something that just doesn't happen today, especially if there is no case law regarding it.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Was it illegal, strictly speaking, for Nixon to do any of the things he did surrounding Watergate?
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)is indeed a crime, and planning it, or ordering it is also a crime. Knowing about it after the fact and not alerting authorities can certainly make a person an accessory to the crime.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Doesn't have to be a formal 'crime' to impeach is my point.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)That's why the cover-up is almost always worse then the crime, in the case of Nixon.
Impeachment is always considered a political process, not strictly a legal one. The history of the writing of the Constitution makes that clear. That's why a two-thirds majority is needed for removal from office.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Flaleftist
(3,473 posts)But Trump thought it was a good idea.
moondust
(19,917 posts)I suspect that once you develop a God complex you may no longer even understand the concept of "right" and "wrong." Dumpy has gotten away with so much for so many years--because he inherited all those millions and figured out how loudly money talks--that he may actually believe he can do no wrong.