You don’t own the truth.
You own your opinion.
Well, he does say that he needs a favor after zelinksy asked about javelins then proceeds to mention looking into crowdstrike then the bidens, directing him to Giuliani.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
1 Like
WATCH THE BRAG VIDEO.
I would ask to look at this.
Truth is with the just. Is it even possible Biden looks good for fighting corruption?
Well we moved into the “ok i did it but it wasn’t wrong” phase.
Weird how this wasn’t an issue until Biden began is run for President
1 Like
It’s not my truth.
Yall don’t want to hear from Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani, or a whole slew of other witnesses.
Y’all don’t care about the truth.
1 Like
Biden got sloppy and made the brag in a public forum.
Trump didn’t have to dig…Biden served it on a hard drive platter.
Bragging about implementing official US foreign policy in an official capacity going through official channels and further our official national interests.
1 Like
Weird how this wasn’t an issue until Biden began is run for President. Weird how Trump needed to tuck it under his personal attorney to “investigate” it by pressuring Ukraine with military aid.
You seem to want to force opinion.
I would rather force intestinal gas.
We are here to share opinion, not to pretend our POV is truth and others are a lie.
Biden made the video.
Maybe he was baiting Trump since he knew he was clean and a champion corruption fighter.
Consider all the angles.
You don’t want to hear the POV of key witnesses. I get why 
1 Like
I am fine with it.
I think you are kidding yourself if you think this will be anything more than pleading the 5th or no answer.
Neither side witnesses will say anything worth spending time on.
2 Likes
No it has not. Try again.
Incompetent Republicans? You don’t say.
You must be arguing semantics since we are not at this point yet…
An executive privilege claim would be fairly strong relating to Bolton, perhaps at its strongest among the potential witnesses that Democrats want called. A claim on Mick Mulvaney’s testimony might be as strong. Bolton and Mulvaney work or worked in entirely advisory capacities to the president within the White House itself, where there is no shared authority with the legislature (as opposed to the State Department, for instance, or other Cabinet agencies).
Courts have at least paid respect to the principle of executive privilege as necessary for the proper operation of the presidency, but within limits. One key limit is that a president cannot use executive privilege to shield conversations directly related to the commission of crimes. In this case, however, the House has not identified any statutory crimes, unlike in US v Nixon , which began with a burglary and later came to include a number of statutory crimes. Or for that matter the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which involved admitted perjury and obstruction of justice. The House and Senate are therefore not entitled to go on fishing expeditions by subpoenaing presidential advisers, not even if the witnesses bring their own fishing tackle, as Bolton seemed to offer.
McConnell was facing a revolt in the Senate from vulnerable Senators over his rules making this look too much like a cover-up. McConnell’s concession was to give the Democrats more time.
How should McConnell have played this, given that the did not have the votes in his caucus to do exactly what Trump wanted?
Who’s “us?” Republicans?
I’m not arguing semantics. I’m arguing that Trump* has not declared EP in any of their arguments before the courts. It is inaccurate to suggest that the House merely needed to let the EP debate transpire through the courts in seeking witnesses and documents, when that is NOT the defense being made by Trump* and his legal team. They’re arguing that Congress has no authority to ever even investigate a President. Hence the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment.
*3rd Impeached President of the United States
Nope. Not what we have in these proceedings.
I am going to move on.
