Impeachment proceedings against Trump

I'm curious, what source have I "refused to acknowledge" ramage? I've never said that I hold CNN in high regard either, please feel free to check all of my previous posts if you feel otherwise. As I've said before, I follow specific reporters, not entire media organizations, because there are good and bad journalists at each.

When Pam Bondi said that Joe Biden threatened to withhold the aid money (@27:00min mark) if they didn't fire the Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin because he investigating his son's company, Burisma, she lied - Shokin was not investigating Burisma and I provided those references here almost 2 months ago. Shokin let them get off free; him being removed was a step in the right direction in cleaning up the corruption in Ukraine's government.
Senate impeachment trial: Fact-checking opening arguments of Trump's defense team
Fact check: 4 things Trump's attorney left out of her arguments about Biden and Burisma

Was Zlochevsky and Burisma corrupt? Almost certainly. Did Hunter Biden make a huge mistake in joining their board, and create what could've been construed as a conflict of interest for his father? Absolutely. The red flags thrown up by the Ambassador at the time was on point. BUT, Joe Biden's demand to remove the corrupt prosecutor was done as official policy, brought up by officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, and endorsed by other nations and U.S. Republican Congress critters at the time. The action did NOT benefit his son.

But, all of this is a red herring. If Trump was really concerned about corruption in the Ukrainian government, why did he single out this one company, and one person specifically on the board related to the person who he happens to be running against? Why didn't he request the Department of Justice formally send a request to the government for them to open an investigation? Why did he have no problem sending money to Ukraine before this hold with a president who was pretty obviously corrupt? Why does he have no problem working with other corrupt governments, such as the Saudis, or meeting with a president at the White House who's actually been indicted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust (interesting that the FOX news article makes not a single mention of that)? He sold nuclear technology to the Saudis, glossed over their murder of a journalist, and just had an entire terrorist cell here on one of our Air Force bases where one snapped and killed several Americans and yet they were summarily deported and not a single one held accountable or their government chastised. His actions consistently display that he puts himself, and making money, first over the right thing to do or the safety of the country.

Joe Biden more than likely helped his son's career, but nothing indicates that it was at the expense of the country, or in conflict with official policy. If Republicans want to call Hunter Biden to testify, they are fully capable, but in so doing, open a bigger can of worms that is the open nepotism going on right now of Trump's kids, Guiliani's kid, and Barr's kid all serving in the WH and you can bet your ass they want to avoid that at all costs.

The question is: do we still believe in fair and thorough trials? The Senate is trying to ram this through to a vote without having a single witness, even though the person accused of improper actions has directly held those witnesses up from testifying, and withheld documentation that has been requested that directly pertains to this case, an action Brett Kavanaugh once argued that Hiding Evidence From Congress Is an Impeachable Offense.

Jim Sciutto @jimsciutto Jan 28

The current state of play is pretty remarkable: the president’s former national security advisor - a lifelong, conservative republican - says he has firsthand knowledge to corroborate the core allegation in the impeachment. And his testimony may still be a long shot.

Kevin M. Kruse @KevinMKruse 18h

There have been 15 impeachment trials in the history of the Senate, and every single one had witnesses.

So the burden is on *you* to explain why this one should be different, to explain why there’s no need to call witnesses who can provide firsthand accounts of what went down.

I'm going on record to predict that Gardner's gonna lose his seat this November.

Sen. Cory Gardner: No Need For Further Impeachment Witnesses
By Megan Verlee and Caitlyn Kim, CPR News | January 29, 2020

POLL-Let them speak: Most Americans want witnesses in Trump impeachment trial

The poll showed that Republicans and Democrats want to see people like Bolton and Pompeo tell the Senate what they know about the administration's policies in Ukraine.

About 72% agreed that the trial "should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify," including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. And 70% of the public, including 80% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans, said senators should "act as impartial jurors" during the trial.

About 40% of Americans said they had a favorable view of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while 60% said they have an unfavorable view of him.

The poll showed that two out of three Americans are paying attention to the proceedings, with Democrats more interested than Republicans.

Senate should remove Trump, majority of independent voters say in Fox News poll

Half of registered voters and a majority of independents think the Senate should convict President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial and remove him from office, according to a Fox News poll released Sunday.

Fifty percent told Fox News that Trump should be convicted and removed, and 44% said he should not. Registered voters' impeachment opinions largely fell along party lines, with 81% of Democrats favoring the president's removal and 84% of Republicans opposing it. Independents said Trump should be removed by a nearly 20-point margin, with 53% in favor of conviction and 34% opposed.

Rick Wilson made a good point a few days ago. Regardless of the outcome of this impeachment vote, the damaging information will keep coming out. Bolton's book drops in March, there are multiple court cases still going on, and this administration continues to believe that it is above the law. But, the vote everyone in Congress makes will be on record and hang over them forever.
Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson January 26, 2020

1/ Sitting down for a dinner with REDACTED and the Bolton news is lighting up my phone.

Watch for Mitch and the WH team (but I repeat myself) to work overtime to end the entire proceedings as fast as possible.

2/ This Bolton information is previously unheard, entirely relevant, directly makes the president’s direct command of the scheme of illegal extortion apparent.

Unless you vote to demand it, you’re not Senators.

You’re co-conspirators.

3/ More will come out. More will be revealed. The truth will out.

Trump will skate.

Republicans will be left holding the fecal end of the stick.

Live in fear, lose in shame.

Parnas is a mobster who can't be trusted, but recordings don't lie. Why would Trump tell someone outside his administration to "take her out" (nice mob speak there) when he could simply fire her himself, since all appointments serve at his pleasure and can be fired at will?
Do you wonder what else is on his umpteen devices that LE now has?

Andrew Desiderio @AndrewDesiderio January 29, 2020
BREAKING: House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel says Bolton told him on a Sept. 23 call that “the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch” and “strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.”

Story: Eliot Engel says Bolton implied Yovanovitch ouster was improper

Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom 21h

This is the GOP now: A former national security advisor with impeccable Republican credentials offers to testify on the central fact of an impeachment charge, and the Republicans are doing everything they can to prevent it.

He hired him and sang his praises. Now this:


Philbin is right now basically saying that we can't call witnesses because it would be a "dragged out" affair. The Chief Justice is sitting right there presiding over this, there's no need to go to an outside court, he can rule on it right then and there. How long would it take for any one witness to give their testimony? A day? Two at most? Democrats have asked for 4 witnesses. It would take only another week. Or, we could just hear from Trump himself. Clinton had to do a deposition. Hillary testified for 11 hours straight during one of the Benghazi hearings. Where's this POTUS?

Oh, but now he's saying partisan impeachments will become too easy and we'll start having them all the time. LOL. Hey, if a future president violates the Constitution, he or she should be impeached and go through this process. This absurdity of being able to obstruct an investigation by forcing the House to go to court and wait months, stretching it out so long that the next election would come and go and leaving a president in office who is conducting themselves improperly, is against everything our Founding Fathers envisioned and our Constitution was designed for. This is a dangerous precedent to set for all future presidents, regardless of their political affiliation.