The US Senate is going to obstruct the requests of the Minority Leader because Trump has no defense to the facts.
The US House prepared a perfectly strong case, but, it will be dismissed. It is unfortunate the US Senate is corrupt to the core. The people got their answer about the US Senate's able to remove the president for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The votes in the impeachment will have to stand on their own as proof of the lawlessness of the Republicans in power.
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Patrick Philbin has no defense for Trump and can only attack the US House in hopes it sells to his audience. He knows there is additional facts that have come forward since the Impeachment of Donald John Trump and he has no defense except OBSTRUCT the information.
Former White House communications director and Trump campaign aide Hope Hicks (click here) appeared before the House on Wednesday—and, true to the White House's pattern of stonewalling Democrats, lawmakers weren't able to get much out of her. According to a transcript released Thursday of Hicks's testimony, White House lawyers blocked Hicks from answering questions 155 times during her interview, claiming that they were invoking “absolute immunity” that prevented Hicks from “stat[ing] anything about her knowledge of anything during the period of time in which she was employed in the White House.”...
Executive Privilege and/or the Fifth Amendment was never claimed by Trump of his staff. His staff was instructed to claim "absolute immunity" which Trump is hoping will hold water through his impeachment. So, Philbin is lying. He is not even presenting the facts as they exist.
There is no such thing as "absolute immunity" in the USA Constitution. The information must be forthcoming because of all the incompetency by Trump. As a result the House proceedings were being stalled because it was the only action knew to take.
December 17, 2019
By David A. Graham
For most of the impeachment inquiry, (click here) President Donald Trump has passed on opportunities to mount a formal defense of his conduct. Initially, the White House complained that House Democrats were not affording him chances to defend himself. Once they did, he eschewed them, declining to participate in House Judiciary hearings, and refusing to allow testimony from witnesses who (his allies claimed) might vindicate him....
Philbin is lying. Trump was provided opportunity to provide a defense and end the inquiry, then the impeachment itself, but, it never happened until the work was done and the Articles voted on. A six page hissy fit was his defense.
Former White House communications director and Trump campaign aide Hope Hicks (click here) appeared before the House on Wednesday—and, true to the White House's pattern of stonewalling Democrats, lawmakers weren't able to get much out of her. According to a transcript released Thursday of Hicks's testimony, White House lawyers blocked Hicks from answering questions 155 times during her interview, claiming that they were invoking “absolute immunity” that prevented Hicks from “stat[ing] anything about her knowledge of anything during the period of time in which she was employed in the White House.”...
Executive Privilege and/or the Fifth Amendment was never claimed by Trump of his staff. His staff was instructed to claim "absolute immunity" which Trump is hoping will hold water through his impeachment. So, Philbin is lying. He is not even presenting the facts as they exist.
There is no such thing as "absolute immunity" in the USA Constitution. The information must be forthcoming because of all the incompetency by Trump. As a result the House proceedings were being stalled because it was the only action knew to take.
December 17, 2019
By David A. Graham
For most of the impeachment inquiry, (click here) President Donald Trump has passed on opportunities to mount a formal defense of his conduct. Initially, the White House complained that House Democrats were not affording him chances to defend himself. Once they did, he eschewed them, declining to participate in House Judiciary hearings, and refusing to allow testimony from witnesses who (his allies claimed) might vindicate him....
Philbin is lying. Trump was provided opportunity to provide a defense and end the inquiry, then the impeachment itself, but, it never happened until the work was done and the Articles voted on. A six page hissy fit was his defense.
The US House appropriately was carrying out oversight about the activities of the president, especially in the face of a Whistleblower complaint.
There were no extraneous requests. The requests for information which never was forthcoming were necessary and not invasive past the oversight which was required.
Whistleblowers are vital to a democracy. If the US Senate treats these issues frivolously, then what will Whistleblowers think and do in the future? Maybe that pause by Whistleblowers is what a political party mired in corruption wants in the future, it would make life easier to continue their corruption.
It would be all too easy to end this impeachment if the requested documents were provided and all that was stated as fact so far can seriously be contested. The only reasons the documents and witnesses are not forthcoming is because it would show the truth telling to date by so many were the facts Donald John Trump now faces.
As the Senate prepared (click here) for the impeachment trial, the Government Accountability Office said the White House violated a law that limits a president’s power to withhold money allocated by Congress.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The violation of ignoring the order legislated by Congress to provide military aid to Ukraine is a crime. It is not a minor crime. Trump tried to wrongly change the VOTE of the people in the confidence of their Congress. Congress is the place where the will of the people occurs. When Trump refused Ukraine it's legislated military support he placed his own ideas above the will of the people. It is not a minor crime.
Trump acted unilaterally and in an alarming way that set off circumstances that were supposed to happen. Those on the call to the President of Ukraine knew there was something wrong about the dialogue and not only wrong, but, threatening.
It is unclear why evidence would be offered to the US Senate after the facts were presented, except to attempt to eliminate their need and clarity.
There were no extraneous requests. The requests for information which never was forthcoming were necessary and not invasive past the oversight which was required.
Whistleblowers are vital to a democracy. If the US Senate treats these issues frivolously, then what will Whistleblowers think and do in the future? Maybe that pause by Whistleblowers is what a political party mired in corruption wants in the future, it would make life easier to continue their corruption.
It would be all too easy to end this impeachment if the requested documents were provided and all that was stated as fact so far can seriously be contested. The only reasons the documents and witnesses are not forthcoming is because it would show the truth telling to date by so many were the facts Donald John Trump now faces.
As the Senate prepared (click here) for the impeachment trial, the Government Accountability Office said the White House violated a law that limits a president’s power to withhold money allocated by Congress.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The violation of ignoring the order legislated by Congress to provide military aid to Ukraine is a crime. It is not a minor crime. Trump tried to wrongly change the VOTE of the people in the confidence of their Congress. Congress is the place where the will of the people occurs. When Trump refused Ukraine it's legislated military support he placed his own ideas above the will of the people. It is not a minor crime.
Trump acted unilaterally and in an alarming way that set off circumstances that were supposed to happen. Those on the call to the President of Ukraine knew there was something wrong about the dialogue and not only wrong, but, threatening.
It is unclear why evidence would be offered to the US Senate after the facts were presented, except to attempt to eliminate their need and clarity.
Pat Cipollone considers a subpoena a threat. At least he sincerely knows what defines a threat. Does he consider the withholding of direly needed military hardware a threat?The Javelins are an incredible weapon. It is perfect for the military threat that Ukraine faces. The Javelin is a threat to any enemy Ukraine has to face, even in unjust wars as it is facing now.
So, Pat Cipollone needs to put his idea of threat into context when he finally realizes the threat Donald John Trump has posed to Ukraine and quite possibly the USA.
Now.
Is a subpoena all that much of a threat?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)