Obstruction is clear. Trump's behaviour has trumped Nixon's behaviour many times over.

Divert. Distract. Disrupt. Obstruct. Devalue. Demean. Ridicule.

Ray Charles could see that.

A president who does everything in his power to stop any and all investigations into his own behaviour is a prima facie example... living proof, if you like... of obstruction.

If that does not count nothing will.

“Democrats are just trying to force anyone, with any remote connection to this issue, to testify without administration lawyers present, and that puts national security at risk and also creates risks for potential witnesses who may unknowingly divulge privileged or classified information,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I see, it's a matter of "national security". I guess the president's allowed to do anything when national security is at risk.

I see, it's a matter of "national security". I guess the president's allowed to do anything when national security is at risk. — Metaphysician Undercover

As usual. That's how Palpatine rebranded the Republic the First Galactic Empire.

“Democrats are just trying to force anyone, with any remote connection to this issue, to testify without administration lawyers present, and that puts national security at risk and also creates risks for potential witnesses who may unknowingly divulge privileged or classified information,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's an interesting way to frame it considering Bolton's concerns were that president Trump's behaviour were exactly that(putting national security at risk).

Mike Purpura: "As soon as the Ukrainians learned about the hold [on military aide] [via the Politico article] they asked about it."

A misleading statement.

More accurately put: "As soon as the hold on military aid was made public via the Politico article, the Ukrainians asked about it."

Re whether Ukrainians knew there was a hold on military aid. (Third of Purpura's six 'facts': "3. President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know about the pause in security assistance until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call.") https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/trumps-defense-after-democrats-bluster-and-innuendo-six-key-facts



https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472780-former-ukraine-official-says-country-knew-of-military-aid-freeze-in

A former deputy foreign minister said in a new interview that Ukraine was aware of a U.S. freeze in military aid as early as July, marking the first public acknowledgement from an official in Kyiv that the country knew about President Trump’s move to withhold the assistance.

“We had this information. It was definitely mentioned there were some issues,” Olena Zerkal told The New York Times in a report published Tuesday.

House investigators are probing allegations that Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid in an effort to persuade Ukraine to announce politically beneficial investigations. Trump and Republican lawmakers have questioned the accusations, claiming that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky couldn’t have felt pressured because he wasn’t aware of a freeze in security aid.

Zerkal’s account is matched by Laura Cooper, a U.S. deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine who testified before the House Intelligence Committee in November. In her testimony, Cooper said that her staff received emails on July 25 in which the State Department said the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee were “asking about security assistance.”

July 25 is the same day that Trump asked Zelensky to do him a "favor" and investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running for president, and a conspiracy theory related to the 2016 election.

Zerkal told the Times that she became aware of the hold in military aid on July 30 after reading a diplomatic cable from Ukrainian officials in Washington. The cable described the freeze on aid and asked for a meeting with a senior aide to Zelensky to address it. Zerkal said she could not confirm the exact date of when the cable was sent.

She noted that the Ukrainian presidential administration was also a recipient of the message.

She also added that Zelensky's administration tried to prevent any potentially harmful information from surfacing as the impeachment inquiry intensified. Zerkal told the Times that the Ukrainian government blocked her from taking a trip to Washington in October out of concern that she might discuss issues related to the impeachment hearings.

“They worried about this,” she said. “They said, ‘This is not the time for you to travel to D.C.’”

Zerkal resigned from her position last week in a protest against Ukraine's back channel diplomacy with the Trump administration and Russia, the Times reported.

Her account — as well as Cooper's — indicates that senior Ukrainian officials were aware of a hold in military aid as some of Trump's aides pushed Zelensky's administration to make a public announcement about investigations into Trump's political rivals.

Zelensky has insisted that he faced no pressure from Trump in his talks with the White House this summer. He told Time magazine on Monday that he never talked to the president "from the position of quid pro quo.”

But he also made critical remarks about the freeze in aid, stating, “We’re at war."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

Mike Purpura failed to mention Zerkal. Why?

“We had this information. It was definitely mentioned there were some issues,” Olena Zerkal told The New York Times in a report published Tuesday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472780-former-ukraine-official-says-country-knew-of-military-aid-freeze-in

Purpura's arguments do not disprove the impeachment charges, at best they just suggest an alternative interpretation of the facts. IMO they don't fit the facts nearly as well, but if they raise serious doubt, that's all the more reason to bring in witnesses.

IMO they don't fit the facts nearly as well, but if they raise serious doubt, that's all the more reason to bring in witnesses. — Relativist

For Republicans, muddy waters are a perfect excuse to shut the whole thing down.

Trump's War on Corruption



Trump and GOP killed an energy anti-corruption rule for no good reason, advocates say

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/trump-and-gop-killed-energy-corruption-rule-for-no-good-reason-advocates-say.html

---------------------------------
[Trump has] been hunting for ways to cripple the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.In 2012, for instance, he gave an extended CNBC interview ranting that the FCPA is a “horrible law” and that “the world is laughing at us” for enforcing it.

The FCPA, passed after Watergate, was a trailblazing law. It said that bribes were illegal not only when paid to U.S. officials, but also when paid to foreign ones. That is, people or entities that operate in the United States (whether or not they’re American) can be held criminally liable here if they grease palms in, say, China.

“Every other country goes into these places, and they do what they have to do,” he complained. If American companies don’t offer bribes, too, he said, “you’ll do business nowhere.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-says-he-hates-corruption-but-he-wants-to-make-bribery-easier-worldwide/2020/01/20/d6d6a652-3bcd-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html
------------------------------------

Since Trump's inauguration, the federal government has actually rolled back rules aimed at preventing bribery and other corrupt practices.

So they point to two decisions made early on after Trump took office that they say really set the tone. The Securities and Exchange Commission had issued a rule that would've required oil and gas companies to disclose any payments they made to governments around the world. The rule was really aimed at preventing bribery, which is an issue for oil and gas companies who may be working in countries where oversight isn't that tight. But big oil companies were not a fan of this regulation, and Trump signed a law rescinding the rule. He argued that these rules were burdensome and might hurt businesses.

After that rule was rescinded, the Trump administration followed that up by pulling the U.S. out of this international effort to set a global standard for transparency in oil and gas resource management. This is known as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

This is really the place where there has been a lot of criticism for Trump from these advocates. They argue that Trump's decision to not divest from his own businesses and put them in a blind trust has sent a message to countries that they don't have to worry about these corruption issues or these conflicts. They also say that Trump has mostly spoken out against corruption when it comes to adversaries like Venezuela or political adversaries and not with countries that have serious corruption issues, like Russia or Saudi Arabia.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768373873/a-look-at-president-trumps-anti-corruption-record

----------------------------------------------------
Firing of Marie Yovanovitch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Yovanovitch#Anti-corruption_work_and_other_activities

Yovanovitch was respected within the national security community for her efforts to encourage Ukraine to tackle corruption,[27] and during her tenure had sought to strengthen the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau, which had been created to bolster efforts to fight corruption in Ukraine; these efforts earned Yovanovitch some enemies within the country.[28] In a March 2019 speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center,Yovanovitch said that the Ukrainian government was not making sufficient progress to combat corruption, saying: "It is increasingly clear that Ukraine's once-in-a-generation opportunity for change has not yet resulted in the anti-corruption or rule of law reforms that Ukrainians expect or deserve."[29] On April 1, 2019 Yovanovitch spoke at an anti-corruption conference where she thanked Ukrainians for their courage and commitment to end corruption.[30]

Fact Check Continued

In a letter, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said continuing the inquiry without a vote would render the process "devoid of any merit or legitimacy."

While the House voted to launch a formal impeachment inquiry in the case of both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Democrats say the Constitution does not require any such vote to conduct an inquiry. Furthermore, recent changes to subpoena powers mean the Democratic-majority House committees leading the inquiry already have that tool at their disposal.

Location of the hearings

Rep. Jim Jordan criticized the secretive nature of the hearings, telling Fox News's Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith that "it's all being done in the basement of the Capitol where no one in the country can see."

The hearings are taking place in the SCIF, a secure space on Capitol Hill often used for classified briefings, which is located in the basement of the Congressional Visitor's Center. The SCIF is where the House Intelligence Committee — which is leading the impeachment investigation — conducts its work. It's the same space where the Republican-led Intelligence Committee conducted interviews for the Russia investigation in the last Congress.

Although normally committee hearings must be open, members can vote to close the hearing under specific circumstances. According to House rules, a hearing should be closed if the "disclosure" of the witnesses would defame or incriminate someone, endanger national security, compromise sensitive law enforcement info, or violate a House rule.

Investigations into Nixon and Clinton also both featured closed door depositions before public hearings. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has said the committees will hold public hearings after the initial round of closed-door interviews.

Schiff told reporters it was important the hearings were closed so as to prevent witnesses from overhearing and influencing each others' testimony, similar to the rationale used in criminal investigations.

Selective leaks

President Trump has also criticized the Democrats' impeachment hearings for "selective leaks," writing on Twitter that they were "allowing no transparency."

It's not true that there has been "no transparency." The names of scheduled and subpoenaed witnesses are public. Additionally, the opening statements of several witnesses have been made available after their testimony.

Schiff has said he plans to release transcripts but has not specified when.

However, it is true that some information has been leaked, but both Republicans and Democrats have a long history of leaking information when convenient, as well as ridiculing leakers when the info is inconvenient. And some of the leaks, such as opening statements, have come from the witnesses themselves, including one that was issued as a press release.

Barring lawyers

On Fox, Jordan claimed, "In the interviews, no White House lawyers can be there, no agency lawyers can be there."

It's true that White House lawyers are not participating, but barring them is not surprising nor unusual for hearings of this nature.

To justify his decision, Schiff has said he is conducting these preliminary hearings like grand jury testimony. And Republicans will have their chance to allow White House lawyers to participate should the impeachment inquiry go to trial in the Senate.

However, to Jordan's point, for the closed-door sessions during the Nixon impeachment investigation, the President's lawyer was allowed to participate and cross-examine witnesses.

Hearing procedure

On October 16, McCarthy accused the Democrats of preventing Republicans from cross-examining witnesses during these hearings.

Schiff said this is inaccurate, and that he has been conscientious about "giving the GOP members every opportunity to ask questions."

McCarthy's fellow Republican Rep. Mark Meadows told The Washington Post that each side alternates asking questions in set time blocks and that there has been no limit provided for the number of questions each side can ask the witnesses.

Normal procedure dictates that the chair of the committee gets the first statement, then the ranking member or another member of the minority, followed by the witnesses opening statement.

Thus far, staff attorneys for both parties have led the majority of the questioning, with members adding in their own questions, too. Lawmakers and aides have told CNN the Democrats and Republicans have traded off hourlong and 45-minute rounds until all of their questions have been exhausted, meaning both sides have equal time.

Republicans calling witnesses

Jordan told Fox News the Republicans "can't get the witnesses we want to call."

This is because the House Republicans are in the minority and as such, they do not have subpoena power.

In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, language in the resolution granted the minority party this power, but with a caveat: subpoenas were voted upon by the committee, which meant the majority, in theory, had the power to block subpoenas proposed by the minority.

Even in the Clinton investigation, witnesses for the defense were not called until several weeks of hearings had already been completed.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/impeachment-republican-complaints-fact-check/index.html

The New York Times: Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says.

I wonder how Republicans will justify not calling witnesses now.

I wonder how Republicans will justify not calling witnesses now. — Relativist

I can't get to the article. Would you be willing to paste it here?

I wonder how Republicans will justify not calling witnesses now. — Relativist

Here's an article from the Hill on Bolton's book:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/480014-bolton-book-alleges-trump-tied-ukraine-aid-freeze-to-biden

Here's what the "failing New York Time" (LOL) reported:

WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.
The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair. The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

The NYT publishes rumor as written by a go-to journalist for the DNC. Consider me shocked.

Would you care to place a small wager on whether or not Bolton's book, and or his testimony, will be consistent with this reporting?

Be careful. They say this is based on multiple sources, and Bolton's attorney has essentially acknowledged it.

As I often say when debating Christians: faith is an obstacle to truth.

Would you care to place a small wager on whether or not Bolton's book, and or his testimony, will be consistent with this reporting?

Be careful. They say this is based on multiple sources, and Bolton's attorney has essentially acknowledged it.

As I often say when debating Christians: faith is an obstacle to truth.

No wagers from me. What I would question is the editorializing and lack of direct quotes of the manuscript itself. It takes faith to trust in a 3rd-hand account of someone’s book.

I'm enjoying your posts and great to see you have the energy to keep pointing out the bullshit NOS4A2 keeps peddling. I got tired of it a zillion posts earlier.

I love when you guys pat each other on the back. Very cute.

No props for Relativist? He’s the only one making coherent arguments. If you need someone to copy and paste articles you can find that on Twitter.

The NYT publishes rumor... — NOS4A2

A lie.

Did you even so much as glance at the articles?

Statement from Bolton's lawyer:

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1221606673447575552/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1221606673447575552&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fpolicy%2Fnational-security%2F480014-bolton-book-alleges-trump-tied-ukraine-aid-freeze-to-biden

No props for Relativist? He’s the only one making coherent arguments. — NOS4A2

Again: We don't need arguments. We need facts. We need documents and witnesses.

But, sure, if you like:



Awesome work, Relativist! Thanks for helping us show Nosferatu what a toady-hoodwinkee [sic] he is!

:party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap:
:party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap: :party: :cheer: :clap:

Also, thanks for pasting the article.

faith is an obstacle to truth. — Relativist

Yep.

A weeping woman in the shadow of the cross of the crucified Trump.

I'm enjoying your posts and great to see you have the energy to keep pointing out the bullshit NOS4A2 keeps peddling. I got tired of it a zillion posts earlier. — Benkei

:smile: I've been learning a lot.

Trump's pathetic attempt to discredit Bolton via tweet:


"I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. [followed by repetitions of the Republican defense]"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663763138588672?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

If he wasn't the least credible human being on the face of the earth, this tweet would still be pathetic.

What I would question is the....lack of direct quotes of the manuscript itself. — NOS4A2

Then you must be in support of inviting witnesses - Bolton and Mulvaney, for starters - to testify. Do you support the call for witnesses?

I second that...

Thanks to for taking the time...

The defense is diversion/distraction and amounts to throwing as much shit as possible against the American media wall and running with what sticks...

Then you must be in support of inviting witnesses - Bolton and Mulvaney, for starters - to testify. Do you support the call for witnesses?

I do, yes. I don’t trust the GOP and do not understand why the McConnell does not want witnesses. A long senate trial effectively removes Warren, Klobechar and Sanders from the campaign trail.