Impeachment Standards: Dershowitz and Philbin

[JimL]

we have a legal agreement with Ukraine to investigate any corruption in that country. Trump would have been in violation of that agreement if he didn't try to look into something he thought was corrupt.

Sure, and if that's the case then you go through proper/legal channels, not secret illegal ones. The U.S. wasn't investigating wrongdoing by Biden, Trump was simply demanding/extorting an announcement on CNN in order to smear his political rival. If if were actually meant to be an investigation, you don't announce it ahead of actually doing it.

OK, now prove it. Or is this just another talking point you read?

It was testified to under oath by Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland, the former hashing out the wording of the announcement with Andriy Yermak, Zelensky's top aid, and the latter telling Yermak that the aid would not be released, and the White House visit would not take place, until the announcement was made. I understand that you don't take their under oath testimony as proof, but that's just how a completely biased mind works.

[Sam]

we have a legal agreement with Ukraine to investigate any corruption in that country. Trump would have been in violation of that agreement if he didn't try to look into something he thought was corrupt.



OK, now prove it. Or is this just another talking point you read?

We do not have a legal agreement with Ukraine to investigate "any corruption" in Ukraine. That's literally crazy-talk. We have MLAT, which allows our investigatory agencies to cooperate on domestic investigations that pertain to Ukraine through a legal channel.

That channel was not used and was specifically avoided by Trump.

Why are you concocting an alternate reality here? If you think an agreement to investigate any corruption in Ukraine exists, find it! If you can't find it, reevaluate! But enough of these fact-less assertions that don't even make sense but are directly at odds with how y'all have griped about the domestic investigation into Trump, Giuliani, et al.'s corrupt actions in and regarding Ukraine.

--Sam

[Sparko]

We do not have a legal agreement with Ukraine to investigate "any corruption" in Ukraine. That's literally crazy-talk. We have MLAT, which allows our investigatory agencies to cooperate on domestic investigations that pertain to Ukraine through a legal channel.

That channel was not used and was specifically avoided by Trump.

Why are you concocting an alternate reality here? If you think an agreement to investigate any corruption in Ukraine exists, find it! If you can't find it, reevaluate! But enough of these fact-less assertions that don't even make sense but are directly at odds with how y'all have griped about the domestic investigation into Trump, Giuliani, et al.'s corrupt actions in and regarding Ukraine.

--Sam

That's horse poop Sam. Here is the text of the MLAT. Nowhere does it delineate that only respective investigatory agencies can initiate the investigations. I argue that the first step in such an investigation would be for the two leaders to initiate contact and discuss the matter, then if they agree, the first step would be to have the Attorney General contact the Ukraine. But they never got past the initial stage here because of the Democrats going nuts and screaming AHA! WE GOT YOU NOW!!!

[Sam]

That's horse poop Sam. Here is the text of the MLAT. Nowhere does it delineate that only respective investigatory agencies can initiate the investigations. I argue that the first step in such an investigation would be for the two leaders to initiate contact and discuss the matter, then if they agree, the first step would be to have the Attorney General contact the Ukraine. But they never got past the initial stage here because of the Democrats going nuts and screaming AHA! WE GOT YOU NOW!!!

That's not how any MLAT works or has worked in USA. It's just a complete misrepresentation of what the MLAT is for, which involves one country providing necessary documents or witnesses to an ongoing, lawfully predicated investigation.

It's just an invention to say that the MLAT is meant for one leader (Trump) to request another foreign leader (Zelensky) to perform investigations of US persons outside of his own agencies.

So you are correct when you say that the appropriate course of action for a president who receives information into potential wrongdoing is to send it to the FBI or another agency for investigation, if a lawful predicate is found. That's not what Trump did: he specifically and intentionally circumvented US agencies, using his personal lawyer to demand investigations that said personal lawyer took pains to note were not part of his presidential duties. He then conditioned government resources on the public announcement of those investigations -- again, specifically avoiding relaying any information of potential wrongdoing to his own agencies.

He had the opportunity to send Giuliani's (dis)information to "the initial stage" of a FBI investigation before the House took any action and declined.

So, you had it right at the start and then veered far off course by trying to retrofit Trump's actions into that framework. He didn't refer information to investigative agencies and did attempt to use it for campaign purposes.

Why reimagine the MLAT as being something that somehow fits with Trump's actions?

--Sam

[Tassman]

Kinda mirrors the sham foisted on the public by the House, eh?

Not at all. The House, despite being stonewalled by the WH, acted upon the legitimate concerns of the whistle-blower resulting in the impeachment of the president.

Here's what you seem to be incapable of understanding, Tass --- we have a REPRESENTATIVE Republic, where "the people" elect representatives and senators to go to DC to represent the interests of their districts and states.

Regrettably, the “REPRESENTATIVE” Republicans are representing the interests of Trump and denying “their districts and states” the opportunity of seeing a fair impartial trial as per the oaths ALL the Senators swore to God. They went out of their way to block first-hand fact witnesses such as Bolton, who is on record saying that Trump told him to help his Ukraine pressure campaign ...

[Cow Poke]

Not at all. The House, despite being stonewalled by the WH, acted upon...

Lemme stop your false narrative right there, bud, because it wasn't "The House" -- it was the incredibly partisan DEMOCRATS in the House, minus a few of their own.

[Sparko]

That's not how any MLAT works or has worked in USA. It's just a complete misrepresentation of what the MLAT is for, which involves one country providing necessary documents or witnesses to an ongoing, lawfully predicated investigation.

It's just an invention to say that the MLAT is meant for one leader (Trump) to request another foreign leader (Zelensky) to perform investigations of US persons outside of his own agencies.

So you are correct when you say that the appropriate course of action for a president who receives information into potential wrongdoing is to send it to the FBI or another agency for investigation, if a lawful predicate is found. That's not what Trump did: he specifically and intentionally circumvented US agencies, using his personal lawyer to demand investigations that said personal lawyer took pains to note were not part of his presidential duties. He then conditioned government resources on the public announcement of those investigations -- again, specifically avoiding relaying any information of potential wrongdoing to his own agencies.

He had the opportunity to send Giuliani's (dis)information to "the initial stage" of a FBI investigation before the House took any action and declined.

So, you had it right at the start and then veered far off course by trying to retrofit Trump's actions into that framework. He didn't refer information to investigative agencies and did attempt to use it for campaign purposes.

Why reimagine the MLAT as being something that somehow fits with Trump's actions?

--Sam

That's your opinion Sam. That is not what is in the MLAT, nor is the President limited by the MLAT to not contact the leader of Ukraine directly. The MLAT merely states that the OFFICIAL written request should be handled through the assigned "Central Authority" which in the US is the Attorney General. It doesn't preclude the leaders from talking to each other and discussing such investigations, especially preliminarily as Trump did. You have no idea what Trump was doing, or would have done after Guilliani met with Zelensky to discuss it. To claim he was circumventing the proper channels is nothing more than mind reading on your part.

[Sam]

That's your opinion Sam. That is not what is in the MLAT, nor is the President limited by the MLAT to not contact the leader of Ukraine directly. The MLAT merely states that the OFFICIAL written request should be handled through the assigned "Central Authority" which in the US is the Attorney General. It doesn't preclude the leaders from talking to each other and discussing such investigations, especially preliminarily as Trump did. You have no idea what Trump was doing, or would have done after Guilliani met with Zelensky to discuss it. To claim he was circumventing the proper channels is nothing more than mind reading on your part.

In truth, we just had months of investigation and prosecution detailing what Trump did before, during, and after his call with Zelensky.

You started this out by saying that USA is legally obligated to investigate any corruption in Ukraine. That's false. You then latched onto the MLAT as the means by which it was appropriate for Trump to "start an investigation" by asking Zelensky to investigate in Ukraine even though the MLAT isn't used way and Trump -- before, during and after the phone call -- specifically avoided involving DOJ or other law enforcement agencies. Trump was circumventing proper channels and we know that because we just saw reams of evidence and testimony that Trump did not involve DOJ or even engage normal diplomatic or national security personnel to deliver consistent US foreign policy.

You can't just reimagine MLAT or any other thing to fit inside something it was never used for, especially when the MLAT explicitly was not used here -- not before July 25 and not between July 25 and September 11.

--Sam

[Sparko]

In truth, we just had months of investigation and prosecution detailing what Trump did before, during, and after his call with Zelensky.

You started this out by saying that USA is legally obligated to investigate any corruption in Ukraine. That's false. You then latched onto the MLAT as the means by which it was appropriate for Trump to "start an investigation" by asking Zelensky to investigate in Ukraine even though the MLAT isn't used way and Trump -- before, during and after the phone call -- specifically avoided involving DOJ or other law enforcement agencies. Trump was circumventing proper channels and we know that because we just saw reams of evidence and testimony that Trump did not involve DOJ or even engage normal diplomatic or national security personnel to deliver consistent US foreign policy.

You can't just reimagine MLAT or any other thing to fit inside something it was never used for, especially when the MLAT explicitly was not used here -- not before July 25 and not between July 25 and September 11.

--Sam

You don't think the President has a legal obligation to investigate corruption if he knows about it? If Trump was to know about corruption and just look the other way, you guys would be screaming collusion and demanding he be impeached for THAT.

[seer]

So Mittens is going to vote to impeach!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/u...ment-vote.html

[Cow Poke]

So Mittens is going to vote to impeach!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/u...ment-vote.html

You mean convict. On one of the charges, but yes, and with passion.

[Sam]

You don't think the President has a legal obligation to investigate corruption if he knows about it? If Trump was to know about corruption and just look the other way, you guys would be screaming collusion and demanding he be impeached for THAT.

You're not responding to the argument -- more accurately, you're walking around in circles.

The question was asked what the President should do if he receives information of potential wrongdoing from a foreign source. The appropriate answer is that the President should relay that information and its source to the FBI for potential investigation.

You've tried to shift that answer toward what Trump actually did instead of relay any such information, as well as its source, by arguing that USA is legally obligated to investigate any corruption in Ukraine, using the MLAT as justification for that claim but completely misrepresenting how the MLAT is used. You've refused to acknowledge that the President specifically avoided relaying that information to his domestic investigative agencies and instead concocted a practice -- hitherto unknown in American history -- of a President initiating a lawful investigation of US persons by asking a foreign country to investigate what would be domestic criminal activity.

And you've put yourself into an argument where you'd have to stipulate that the President is now legally obligated to demand investigations of potential wrongdoing into his personal attorney and other close associates (i.e., Lev Parnas, Paul Manafort, General Flynn, etc.) but has completely failed to do so, either through domestic agencies or foreign governments.

And that's the problem with doing this thing ad-hoc. Without a guiding principle and adherence to truth and facts, you end up undercutting the very argument you're trying to build.

--Sam

[Sam]

You mean convict. On one of the charges, but yes, and with passion.

Maybe the party can edge Romney out, too, and continue the mendacious claim that no Republicans voted to impeach or convict.

--Sam

[seer]

You mean convict. On one of the charges, but yes, and with passion.

Right...

[rogue06]

Maybe the party can edge Romney out, too, and continue the mendacious claim that no Republicans voted to impeach or convict.

--Sam

The person that you keep trying to present as a Republican wasn't edged out or as you've previously claimed "run out." He left of his own volition. Much in the same way that Reagan as well as Trump were Democrats at one time but increasingly disagreed with them and so left the party. But using Sam Logic™ we should consider them to be Democrat presidents