Ukrainian Indictment Claims Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million

a reply to: OzBoomer77

Be specific. What exactly is the "stuff" Trump has done that would warrant impeachment?

This #ing story reads like a Nigerian Prince email. I always wondered who the hell would ever fall for them, but now I know...Trumptards.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Point out the inaccuracies.

No need for personal attacks. Make your points like an adult. Be specific.

a reply to: elDooberino

how about

1) violation of the logan act. using an unauthorised person to deal in foreign policy
2) witness tampering - which he did live during the hearing and this morning on his fox and friends interview
3) obstruction of Justice - not adhering to congressional subpoenas, firing of comey
4) violation of the emoluments clause - using his personal business to profit directly from the presidency
5) campaign funds violations - which cohen is in jail for right now but recently, the miss use of hundreds of thousands of dollars from his charity, funnelled into his campaign funds.

should I keep going??

a reply to: OzBoomer77

1. Are you referring to Guiliani? The Logan Act refers to unauthorized persons dealing with a foreign nation we are in conflict with. Are we in conflict with Ukraine?
In any event, the president has the right to use anyone he wants to enact his foreign policy, regardless of the career
bureaucrats approval.

2. Tell me about that witness tampering on Fox this morning. Specifically, whose testimony did he intend to prevent or change? The text message during Yavonovich's testimony argument is weak, at best. The law requires proof of intent. You would have to prove that he intended for Schiff to read it to her in the middle of her testimony. Even then, it didn't rise to the level of tampering. He stated an opinion, that everywhere she worked turned to sh!t, and stated a fact, that the President is soley responsible for foreign policy. It wasn't specifically addressing her and it could be reasonably argued that it was intended to be seen by his millions of followers on twitter. Attempting to shape public perception of a congressional witness isn't a crime.

3. Until the impeachment "inquiry" is made official by a vote to move it to the judiciary committee, executive privilege still applies.
Firing Comey wasn't obstruction of justice. It is within the rights of the president to fire the director of the FBI for anything he wants. If I'm not mistaken, Comey even acknowledged that in his testimony.

4. Show me the numbers. In what transactions did the president profit from his position as president?

5. Campaign finance violations are rarely criminal. It was the other seven counts of tax evasion and lying to financial institutions that probably did Cohen in.
Yeah, I'm not impressed with the actions of the Foundation but I'm not seeing an impeachable offense.

Should you keep going? No, you really shouldn't.

a reply to: elDooberino

1) Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. § 953. Private

correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Constitutional authority for foreign relations

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution includes the 'Treaty Clause,' which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur

- learn to read

2) well 1 to start off with not everywhere she went turned to # (show your proof). quote from a lot things she did the I didn't like and we will talk about that at some time.... that's a pretty open ended threat. maybe weak but it's still a threat. which he also did during the hearing and just because Schiff read it out doesn't mean that it's not a threat. lets us the legal term in the act intimidate. Rather than threat, threat isn't the right word. Remember this is just the enquiry. she still may have to testify after the house draws up the articles of impeachment and there is a trail in the senate.

3) Trump said it himself he fired comey because of the Russia investigation, He said it directly on television. his own words. you have nothing, the only reason mueller didn't go through with it is because he believed a sitting president can't be indicted. Talk to Israel about that one, they don't seem to have an issue with it.

en.wikipedia.org... read the USA v Nixon part. it's shakey ground at best and if came down to it the supreme court would rule that they would have to testify. It's a grey area for sure.

4) www.cheatsheet.com... theres plenty of articles, you should use google sometime

5) the only reason they are rarely criminal is because there are rarely criminal acts. so something like donating above the allowed amount, which obamas campaign got done for and they had to give it back. paying for a porn star to keep quiet well you'll have to ask Cohen if that's criminal or not....oh wait he's in jail for that matter and names the president as a co conspirator. 3 of the 8 counts were campaign contribution laws, you aren't very good at using google are you??
www.cnbc.com...

I know deep down you want to believe that Trump is fighting the right fight, but he's not, All he did was just put a big sgn on top of the swam and called it a Trump property,

a reply to: tinner07
I get it you leftists get the double standard clause.

a reply to: OzBoomer77

Just spamming legalese without reading doesn't help your cause and is the tactic of half the media. "If we just say it is illegal and applies, or is debunked or whatever, people will believe it because they are stupid."

1. What disputes with the US was Guiliani discussing ? It is very clear where it applies. Just wishing it doesn't count.
2. No real legal professional outside of paid news analysts will touch this as witness tampering -- "she sucks" only counts in clown world
3. Trump had every right to fire Comey. There is not even the tiniest leg to stand on here other than it made people mad. Comey dug his own hole.
4. The only attacks regarding emoluments clause have so far failed the courts test. You know, the legal one.
Trump Wins Big in Emoluments Lawsuits: Two Down and One to Go

Saying "learn to read" to people while jamming your foot in your mouth repeating the "The news said, so this counts as murder" ...really ??

originally posted by: tinner07

Looks like most media won't touch this right now, but this is going to bust wide open very quickly.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Lets pretend for a second this was money that trump received....you would argue that he got it in good conscience and the story is a nothing burger... right????

What is your idea of "very quickly"?

But that only happens when you pretend that Trump did something wrong but actually didn't.. And it turns out to be nothing and fails, like the dozens of times up to now. Who's been pretending the entire time? Certainly not Trump supporters.

But the dark side will keep trying and pretending and get him some day. Isn't that a sadder story?

a reply to: Halfswede

I haven't repeated any news?? and lets get some things straight I am not a "leftist" I don't adhere to the idea of left or right just policy

I am not going to go over every thing again but I love how you say i'm just spamming legalese out there, lol that's the actual law which the last poster disputed it wasn't. it's a mute point anyway because the dems aren't using it, they are going for bribery.

as for he had the right to fire comey. he does just not for the reason HE SAID. lol you call out biden for supposedly getting rid of the prosecutor in Ukraine yet you turn a blindeye to trump doing the same thing regardless of what country lol. it's called being hypocritical.

what I find amazing is the clear double standard from trump supporters, you all screamed lock her up for Hillary over an email scandal that was actually not illegal that the last 2 secretaries of state had done the same things. Yet trump has done way worse and you just throw more shade at Hillary or Obama, or biden, while saying don't look over there, nothing to see here. plus you all seem to forget that you don't have to be anything illegal to be impeached. talk to your butt buddy Lindsay graham about that.

originally posted by: OzBoomer77
a reply to: Halfswede
... talk to your butt buddy Lindsay graham about that.

Well played. You have now convinced me you are correct in all of your points.

a reply to: Halfswede

the difference between you and I, I don't care who does something illegal. if they do it they need to be punished. So if Biden did something wrong, he needs to go down. Yet you will NEVER hear that from any trump supporter or republican, there have been multiple convictions of trumps staff and campaign staff, yet you scream fake news Russian hoax or witch hunt at the top of your lungs and you know what it will be trumps and the republican parties downfall.

a reply to: OzBoomer77

I haven't repeated any news?? and lets get some things straight I am not a "leftist" I don't adhere to the idea of left or right just policy

For not being a leftist you certainly are triggered like one suffering from TDS.

And you are in fact vomiting verbatim the nonsense fabricated, demonstrably false talking points from CNN and MSNBC that have no basis in reality.
But by all means, please continue. It's working out so well for you so far.

Let us know when you get tired of losing and you want to join the side of America.

So now we know how Obama came into office being worth under a million and left being worth 10s of millions.....

Ukraine is just another place where politicians get rich......

That's why so many want to be the ambassador there..... Or frequent there so much...... Cutting deals left and right.... Funneling billions of our tax dollars there so they can launder it back to OUR politicians to make them rich........

Ukraine is to the world what that corner cover business on that small ghetto street was to the mob.....

a reply to: OzBoomer77

clearly you are just an unbiased observer who posts irrelevant laws in the hopes that more people believe they are applicable without reading, and posts bogus claims about Comey's firing being illegal, and believes a tweet about crappy job performance is witness tampering. Listen to yourself. Yep, unbiased.

The reason the bar needs to be the same and fair for both parties is so when the shoe is on the other foot, you aren't crying foul. The shoe will wind up on the other foot and you need to remember where the bar was set. That is the only reason I and everyone else continue to correct blatant misinformation.

Finally, if you can't beat him on legal grounds and he us such a scoundrel why not just put up a good candidate. It shouldn't be hard considering everyone thinks he is so terrible. If the people want a boorish, bombastic, scoundrel, is there some law that says they can't have one.

a reply to: OzBoomer77

1. We aren't in a conflict with Ukraine. The Logan act is specifically written to address unauthorized persons dealing with foreign govts we are in current conflict with, intended to prevent U.S. citizens from undermining the govt's policy. So, irrelevant in this case.

2. It's his opinion that everywhere she worked went to sh!t. I stated as much. It's not even remotely a threat. Witness tampering requires proof of intent. Can you prove that Trump intended to stop or change her testimony by stating an opinion on her past performance? No, you can't.

3. Comey was fired for numerous reasons. Comey told trump he wasn't even investigating him but he lied.
Mueller and Barr have debunked the OLC opinion argument more than once. It has been clearly stated in a joint letter with the DOJ, as well as in Mueller's public testimony.
For reference, watch the beginning of the second portion of his testimony that day.

4. You made the claim. Provide transactions in which the president has financially gained from his position in govt.

5. Well, for one, Cohen was convicted for 2 campaign finance related charges, not 3. It's also a reasonable argument that the payments didn't amount to a campaign contribution due to the fact that he has made several similar payments in the past, when he wasn't running for office, in order to prevent embarrassing his wife.


I need to learn to read?
You may know how to read but your comprehension is sh!t. I'm sure that won't slow you down at all, though. You'll continue to push half baked assertions and pretend to know what you're talking about, even though you're just regurgitating the latest smear you read.

a reply to: elDooberino

what delusional planet do you live on, seriously

that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States......it says DISPUTE not conflict not war dispute. that's why I said learn to read, that's the actual law, you can keep trying to change that position but you're wrong, and again. it's a mute point and just my view on what he needs to be impeached on. If you think what Rudy did was standard procedure, you're just being ignorant and foolish.

(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

ENGAGES IN MISLEADING CONDUCT TOWARDS ANOTHER PERSON WITH INTENT TO INFLUENCE.

if you don't think that the intent of a tweet about the person while they are testifying is not intent, regardless of whether they see it at that exact time or not, then you must be some kind of special, again she is probably going to have to testify in front of the senate in a trial of impeachment. Don't be all shocked when this is one of the articles of impeachment

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said.

Quote from Mueller regarding the indictment of a sitting president from his testimony. He literally said that under oath.

trump said he fired Comey because of the investigation, do I need to link the clip?? or will that just be fake news too

Technically it was 2 but 3rd related to the payment, but you went from "It was the other seven counts of tax evasion and lying to financial institutions" to they weren't criminal to there was only 2 he got convicted on. So tell me again how the campaign violations that trump is named in as a co conspirator isn't an impeachable offence, when according to Lindsay Graham, you don't even need a crime to be impeached?? do I need to link that video too??

I can comprehend things just fine. if this were a dem I would be saying the same stuff and saying they need to be impeached. Clinton lied under oath and deservedly needed to be impeached. should he lose the presidency over what he did, NO. Trumps little racquet is worse than what Nixon did. Even all the Nixon staff agree. yet you sit here and keep moving goal posts by changing the words in the law or just turning a blind eye to what's actually happening because you don't want you beliefs in trump to be wrong and that's just sad

a reply to: OzBoomer77

Yeah, we're not in a dispute with Ukraine either. Oh, and it's "moot", not "mute". Your opinion is irrelevant. The Logan Act doesn't apply in this case. That's why it's so funny you would tell anyone to learn to read. Your comprehension is lacking, at best.

Prove that Trump intended for his tweet, that wasn't even addressed to her personally, to change or prevent congressional testimony. You can't. It's a weak accusation. I get it though. Schiff said it was tampering, so you're going to parrot it and twist yourself into a knot trying to rationalize it.

Robert Mueller attempting to clarify OLC comment:

 "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion,'" Mueller said near the end of his opening statement.
"That is not the correct way to say it," he added. "As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime."

From the DOJ/OSP joint letter:

 “The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination—one way or the other—about whether the President committed a crime,”

I'm sorry if you're not able to understand the difference between "if not for the OLC opinion, we would have recommended charges" and " In part, because of the OLC opinion, we made no determination either way."


While discussing Comey's firing, Trump said "this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story". We all know this to be true now. If you don't, you're in denial because your ego won't allow you to believe that you were manipulated and lied to for three years.
What's interesting is that he followed up that comment by saying:
 
"I just want somebody that's competent. As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly."

He added:
"Look, I want to find out if there was a problem with an election having to do with Russia. Or, by the way, anybody else. Any other country. And I want that to be so strong and so good. And I want it to happen. I also want to have a really competent, capable director. He's not. He's a showboat."
It wasn't an attempt to stop the investigation. It was replacing an FBI Director who both parties had been calling for to be fired. If you've read any of the IG reports, you would understand why.

Your "point" on the cohen charges is incoherent. He was convicted of 2 campaign finance violations. Not sure where you're getting the third from. Trump wasn't technically named an unindicted co-conspirator. Sure, the house can impeach him for literally anything, criminal or not. So far, it doesn't look like the Dems even thought it was worth pursuing. But you know it's totally impeachable, right?

Trump's "little raquet" is worse than Nixon? Be specific. What raquet exactly are you referring to?

originally posted by: OzBoomer77
a reply to: elDooberino

how about

1) violation of the logan act. using an unauthorised person to deal in foreign policy
Trump authorized Guliani..he can do that as President..FAIL
2) witness tampering - which he did live during the hearing and this morning on his fox and friends interview
Without a gag order he is allowed to make his opinion public, no threats were made...FAIL
3) obstruction of Justice - not adhering to congressional subpoenas, firing of comey
After 2+ years of Mueller, I don't think so...FAIL
4) violation of the emoluments clause - using his personal business to profit directly from the presidency
Already discussed ad nauseam , he has lost money. A multi billionaire doesn't become president to make money, nonsensical...FAIL
5) campaign funds violations - which cohen is in jail for right now but recently, the miss use of hundreds of thousands of dollars from his charity, funnelled into his campaign funds.
The equivalent to a parking ticket,..FAIL

should I keep going??

You haven't gone anywhere

a reply to: OzBoomer77

"Hillary over an email scandal that was actually not illegal that the last 2 secretaries of state had done the same things."

That is a blatant lie my friend.