White House says it will refuse to cooperate with impeachment inquiry

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Prosecutors don't exonerate people- you know, speaking of FACTS. Furthermore, if Trump obstructed justice, impeachment is the remedy for that. Obviously, the House doesn't think there's enough there there to impeach.

Mueller was investigating, not prosecuting--FACT.  He stated that though he did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, that did not exonerate Trump--FACT.  The House now thinks there is enough there there to impeach.

[Opl]

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Opinion is not truth- no matter how hard you want it to be.

Trump does not know today if Rudy Giuliani still is his lawyer . Truth or opinion? 

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

 

So Congress' decision whether to impeach is contingent on the actions of one cable news channel that has a small percentage of the TV news audience? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

As far as "the House waited"... CORRECTION. The House is STILL waiting. There have been endless investigations and hearings with the goal of getting Trump. The only thing that has changed now is the name of the ongoing witch hunt.

 

Now let's get to Trump's family. Contrary to the numerous predictions of Don Jr. and other family members doing the perp walk as a result of the Mueller scam, it hasn't happened. So your assertion about appeals is completely meaningless. That said, if you can articulate how Trump's endless appeals somehow prevent law enforcement from taking action against family members, let's hear it.

 

As far as being patient, I needn't be. There have been several years of desperate ploys to get Trump. You're the people who need to "be patient", not me.

Congress's decisions on impeachment and other political matters is affected by public opinion.  Didn't you know that?  Unfortunately, public opinion is currently affected by a "news" network that primarily shows pundits that many people think are reporters.

 

If you want an example of endless investigations, check out the Clinton Presidency or the repeated Benghazi investigations.  Trump hasn't had to put up with that much so far.  So you'll have to be patient whether you like it or not.

 

Regarding the Trump family, if and when they are charged it will be with financial crimes, and Trump is using the courts to the best of his ability to keep Congress and prosecutors from seeing his finances.  People who follow the news know this.

[Crazy Alex]

Just now, heybruce said:

Mueller was investigating, not prosecuting--FACT.  He stated that though he did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, that did not exonerate Trump--FACT.  The House now thinks there is enough there there to impeach.

Yes, I agree with your facts. Kinda. There's still one pesky problem for you. It's not a prosecutor's job to exonerate people. All Americans have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is why it's not a prosecutor's role to exonerate. Surely you understand this concept, yes? Or will you simply dodge and once again resort to silly, veiled personal attacks?

 

Now let's get to your statement about the House thinking there is now enough there there to impeach. The House has been babbling about impeachment for years. Not much has changed. If the House thought there was reason to impeach, they wouldn't be trying to keep the identity of the *whistleblower* secret. They wouldn't be keeping Kurt Volker's testimony secret. We don't have secret witnesses and hearings in the US- well, not if we're having a legitimate investigation. Your party's tactics are Gestapo and thug tactics.

[Crazy Alex]

2 minutes ago, Opl said:

Trump does not know today if Rudy Giuliani still is his lawyer . Truth or opinion? 

I give up. Which is it?

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

I'm glad you agree with me. I'm afraid I can't agree with you.

Perhaps because you have no idea what the responsibilities of the Commander in Chief of the US military are.

[Opl]

1 minute ago, Crazy Alex said:

I give up. Which is it?

dépends on how hard you want it to be true , easy !

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Congress's decisions on impeachment and other political matters is affected by public opinion.  Didn't you know that?  Unfortunately, public opinion is currently affected by a "news" network that primarily shows pundits that many people think are reporters.

 

If you want an example of endless investigations, check out the Clinton Presidency or the repeated Benghazi investigations.  Trump hasn't had to put up with that much so far.  So you'll have to be patient whether you like it or not.

 

Regarding the Trump family, if and when they are charged it will be with financial crimes, and Trump is using the courts to the best of his ability to keep Congress and prosecutors from seeing his finances.  People who follow the news know this.

Wow, I had no idea that Fox News was that powerful. I call BS on that, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

Again, I don't need to be patient. I'm confident this latest round of BS is just like the others. Drag it on for as long as you please. I hope I've made my position on patience in this matter clear enough.

 

Your assertion about the Trump family is nonsense. The tax returns are a fishing expedition. And any case against Don Jr. that can't move forward without Trump's tax returns is no case at all. Bottom line: there is no case against family members. If there were, charges would be filed. It's that simple.

[Crazy Alex]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Mueller was investigating, not prosecuting--FACT.  He stated that though he did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, that did not exonerate Trump--FACT.  The House now thinks there is enough there there to impeach.

Hey wait a minute... you said Mueller was investigating not prosecuting. So what's up with the leftists at Vox.com publishing a list of Mueller indictments?

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

[Crazy Alex]

5 minutes ago, Opl said:

dépends on how hard you want it to be true , easy !

Ummm... what if I don't care either way, which is the actual case.

[Crazy Alex]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Perhaps because you have no idea what the responsibilities of the Commander in Chief of the US military are.

Or perhaps you don't. Thanks, but I think we're done here.  I'll be moving along now. Have a nice day!

[Opl]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Ummm... what if I don't care either way, which is the actual case.

Because your opinion is that you don't care if it's true or not, don't believe everything you think!  

Bye bye 

[Crazy Alex]

3 minutes ago, Opl said:

Because your opinion is that you don't care if it's true or not, don't believe everything you think!  

Bye bye 

OK, have a nice day.

[JHolmesJr]

Im actually amazed that most anti trump people think he's a dumb guy.

Like he would actually do something blatantly foolish and illegal

in full view, without thinking about what might happen if it got out.

Maybe he likes you to think that way and occasionally throws you a bone

so you think you've got him figured.

 

It's this underestimating that allows Trump to win most of the time.

 

The entire notion that he would actually blackmail the Ukrainian prez when

he knows there are numerous people on the call that may include civil

servants who voted for Hillary.

 

Laughable. Anyway...carry on....he will sweep it in 2020.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Im actually amazed that most anti trump people think he's a dumb guy.

Like he would actually do something blatantly foolish and illegal

in full view, without thinking about what might happen if it got out.

Maybe he likes you to think that way and occasionally throws you a bone

so you think you've got him figured.

 

It's this underestimating that allows Trump to win most of the time.

 

The entire notion that he would actually blackmail the Ukrainian prez when

he knows there are numerous people on the call that may include civil

servants who voted for Hillary.

 

Laughable. Anyway...carry on....he will sweep it in 2020.

Given Trump's and poor impulse control it's not at all inconceivable that he would do just that. Now it's come out that Trump tried to force Rex Tillerson to free a corrupt client of Giuliani even though it was illegal. He's promised pardons to hasten the building of the wall. He's an ignoramus. He has called for impeaching Pelosi and Schiff!

[heybruce]

39 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Yes, I agree with your facts. Kinda. There's still one pesky problem for you. It's not a prosecutor's job to exonerate people. All Americans have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is why it's not a prosecutor's role to exonerate. Surely you understand this concept, yes? Or will you simply dodge and once again resort to silly, veiled personal attacks?

 

Now let's get to your statement about the House thinking there is now enough there there to impeach. The House has been babbling about impeachment for years. Not much has changed. If the House thought there was reason to impeach, they wouldn't be trying to keep the identity of the *whistleblower* secret. They wouldn't be keeping Kurt Volker's testimony secret. We don't have secret witnesses and hearings in the US- well, not if we're having a legitimate investigation. Your party's tactics are Gestapo and thug tactics.

When did I post that a prosecutor stated that Trump had not been exonerated?  Stop with the diversions.

 

The whistle blower's identity is being kept secret to protect him/her from retribution.  Once again, someone who keeps up on the news would know that.  I assume Kurt Volker's testimony is being kept secret to prevent alerting Trump and friends of areas they need to cover-up.  However his testimony will be made public during the impeachment and trial.

32 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Hey wait a minute... you said Mueller was investigating not prosecuting. So what's up with the leftists at Vox.com publishing a list of Mueller indictments?

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

Mueller had the power to issue indictments.  That didn't make him a prosecutor.  Try to keep up.

[heybruce]

44 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Wow, I had no idea that Fox News was that powerful. I call BS on that, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

Again, I don't need to be patient. I'm confident this latest round of BS is just like the others. Drag it on for as long as you please. I hope I've made my position on patience in this matter clear enough.

 

Your assertion about the Trump family is nonsense. The tax returns are a fishing expedition. And any case against Don Jr. that can't move forward without Trump's tax returns is no case at all. Bottom line: there is no case against family members. If there were, charges would be filed. It's that simple.

Congress and the SDNY prosecutor are also going after the tax returns of the Trump family business.  That will definitely involve Don Jr.  Are you really this poorly informed or just trying to throw up as many diversions as possible.  If the latter, you are definitely a troll.

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Or perhaps you don't. Thanks, but I think we're done here.  I'll be moving along now. Have a nice day!

I'm retired AF and spent half my career on nuclear weapons delivery systems.  I know the unchecked power the President has to launch nuclear weapons.  I know some of the scenarios in which a nuclear war can start.  Trump's total unfitness for the job has always been my top reason for opposing him as President.

 

So what do you know about the responsibilities of CINC US military?

[Crazy Alex]

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

When did I post that a prosecutor stated that Trump had not been exonerated?  Stop with the diversions.

 

The whistle blower's identity is being kept secret to protect him/her from retribution.  Once again, someone who keeps up on the news would know that.  I assume Kurt Volker's testimony is being kept secret to prevent alerting Trump and friends of areas they need to cover-up.  However his testimony will be made public during the impeachment and trial.

Mueller had the power to issue indictments.  That didn't make him a prosecutor.  Try to keep up.

 

1) I didn't say you said a prosecutor said they couldn't or didn't exonerate Trump, though that happens to be true. But you DID say:

 

"Mueller was investigating, not prosecuting--FACT.  He stated that though he did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, that did not exonerate Trump--FACT.  The House now thinks there is enough there there to impeach."

 

So, my point about the presumption of innocence stands. Of course, directly rebutting the logic of your statement about "....did not exonerate Trump" can in no way be construed as a diversion. And your talk about Trump not being exonerated is completely moot as far as how justice works in the United States.

 

As far as the *whistleblower* identity being kept secret, that's unacceptable. I suggest you read up on the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, the right to face one's accuser.

 

Now, regarding Kurt Volker's testimony, your premise is absurd. Volker himself can, and I'm sure DID, alert the Trump administration to every detail of the hearing in which he testified. In fact, I suspect there were other people from the administration there. See how that makes your premise crumble? The point is that the House Democrats want to operate in concealment from the American people. Why is that?

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Congress and the SDNY prosecutor are also going after the tax returns of the Trump family business.  That will definitely involve Don Jr.  Are you really this poorly informed or just trying to throw up as many diversions as possible.  If the latter, you are definitely a troll.

Again with the thinly-veiled personal attacks. That's almost ALWAYS the sign of a person who knows they're losing the argument. Your case is no exception.

 

But regardless, let's proceed. Don Jr. is not the subject of the SDNY investigation. There's your first problem. Secondly, your hope that something, ANYTHING will be found to get Don Jr. and whomever else makes it clear you know there is no case thus far. That was essentially my point. And thankfully, you have made a more-than-tacit concession that I am correct.

 

So... would it be fair to say you realize that thus far, there is no case against Trump family members and that you hope getting your hands on Trump's tax returns will somehow lead to Trump family members being prosecuted?

 

Yes or no?

 

 

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

1) I didn't say you said a prosecutor said they couldn't exonerate Trump, though that happens to be true. But you DID say:

 

"Mueller was investigating, not prosecuting--FACT.  He stated that though he did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, that did not exonerate Trump--FACT.  The House now thinks there is enough there there to impeach."

 

So, my point about the presumption of innocence stands. Of course, directly rebutting the logic of your statement about "....did not exonerate Trump" can in no way be construed as a diversion. And your talk about Trump not being exonerated is completely moot as far as how justice works in the United States.

 

As far as the *whistleblower* identity being kept secret, that's unacceptable. I suggest you read up on the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, the right to face one's accuser.

 

Now, regarding Kurt Volker's testimony, your premise is absurd. Volker himself can, and I'm sure DID, alert the Trump administration to every detail of the hearing in which he testified. In fact, I suspect there were other people from the administration there. See how that makes your premise crumble? The point is that the House Democrats want to operate in concealment from the American people. Why is that?

 

 

What's your point?  You are the one who brought up the fact that prosecutors don't exonerate as if it were pertinent.  Are you now conceding it was a diversion?

 

I suggest you read the sixth amendment of the constitution, which applies to trials, not investigations.

 

Your assumption about Volker is just an assumption.  Perhaps he doesn't have as much loyalty to the "throw them under the bus" chief as you think.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Crazy Alex said:

My qualifications? American citizen, veteran, I can read. What more do you think is necessary?

 

To answer your latter question: winning the election. What more do you think is necessary.

Trump can read, that doesn't mean he does read.  And winning an election means he has the responsibility, not that he's qualified to have the responsibility.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Again with the thinly-veiled personal attacks. That's almost ALWAYS the sign of a person who knows they're losing the argument. Your case is no exception.

 

But regardless, let's proceed. Don Jr. is not the subject of the SDNY investigation. There's your first problem. Secondly, your hope that something, ANYTHING will be found to get Don Jr. and whomever else makes it clear you know there is no case thus far. That was essentially my point. And thankfully, you have made a more-than-tacit concession that I am correct.

 

So... would it be fair to say you realize that thus far, there is no case against Trump family members and that you hope getting your hands on Trump's tax returns will somehow lead to Trump family members being prosecuted?

 

Yes or no?

 

 

I think there is strong evidence of violations of the emoluments clause, and the Trump family is involved in this.  The tax returns and other financial details will provide evidence.  The tax returns will also provide evidence for or against conflicts of interests, which may not be illegal but is definitely information voters should have had in the last election and should have in the next one.  The fact that Trump is fighting to hard to keep this information secret is telling.

 

I also know that the law is very clear on the right of the House to view any tax returns it requests, and that Trump is fighting a losing battle with the goal to delay, not win.  Those are the actions of a guilty person.

[Crazy Alex]

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What's your point?  You are the one who brought up the fact that prosecutors don't exonerate as if it were pertinent.  Are you now conceding it was a diversion?

 

I suggest you read the sixth amendment of the constitution, which applies to trials, not investigations.

 

Your assumption about Volker is just an assumption.  Perhaps he doesn't have as much loyalty to the "throw them under the bus" chief as you think.

No, you're wrong. I was responding to your post. Given you spoke of Trump not being exonerated, it seemed entirely appropriate to tell you about the concept of innocent until proven guilty and thus no one needs exoneration. Education versus diversion.

 

Finally, you make a solid point. So we can expect Democrats to stop with the efforts to conceal the identify of the whistleblower at some point, correct?

 

Yes, I'm assuming about Volker. However, it's based on logic. If Volker's testimony were beneficial to Democrats, they would have released it. Logic dictates his testimony did not further their cause. Would you like to present any facts or logic to cast doubt on my thinking?

[Crazy Alex]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think there is strong evidence of violations of the emoluments clause, and the Trump family is involved in this.  The tax returns and other financial details will provide evidence.  The tax returns will also provide evidence for or against conflicts of interests, which may not be illegal but is definitely information voters should have had in the last election and should have in the next one.  The fact that Trump is fighting to hard to keep this information secret is telling.

 

I also know that the law is very clear on the right of the House to view any tax returns it requests, and that Trump is fighting a losing battle with the goal to delay, not win.  Those are the actions of a guilty person.

I don't think you understand the Emoluments Clause. The Emoluments Clause is about forbidding gifts. Providing a product or service in exchange for money is not a gift. It's a voluntary business transaction. If you think that is a problem, then clearly we need to investigate Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and their spouses and/or offspring. I doubt you want to go there.

 

And no, the law is not very clear on the right to view tax returns. Valid cause must be shown. A broken campaign promise isn't valid cause. We gotta get Trump! is not a valid cause. Here, even Politico calls BS on your assertion:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/12/trump-democrats-tax-returns-1271792

 

 

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.

 

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

I don't think you understand the Emoluments Clause. The Emoluments Clause is about forbidding gifts. Providing a product or service in exchange for money is not a gift. It's a voluntary business transaction. If you think that is a problem, then clearly we need to investigate Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and their spouses and/or offspring. I doubt you want to go there.

 

And no, the law is not very clear on the right to view tax returns. Valid cause must be shown. A broken campaign promise isn't valid cause. We gotta get Trump! is not a valid cause. Here, even Politico calls BS on your assertion:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/12/trump-democrats-tax-returns-1271792

 

 

Saudi Arabia and others are spending vast sums of money at Trump businesses that they didn't spend before he was elected.  Just because the money is laundered doesn't make it clean.

 

Regarding the law, it is dry but clear:

 

"(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

No, you're wrong. I was responding to your post. Given you spoke of Trump not being exonerated, it seemed entirely appropriate to tell you about the concept of innocent until proven guilty and thus no one needs exoneration. Education versus diversion.

 

Finally, you make a solid point. So we can expect Democrats to stop with the efforts to conceal the identify of the whistleblower at some point, correct?

 

Yes, I'm assuming about Volker. However, it's based on logic. If Volker's testimony were beneficial to Democrats, they would have released it. Logic dictates his testimony did not further their cause. Would you like to present any facts or logic to cast doubt on my thinking?

I see, I needed to remind you that Trump, Republicans, and pundits were claiming that the Mueller report completely exonerated Trump before reminding you that the Mueller report clearly did not exonerate Trump.

 

Yes, if the whistle blower report becomes part of the impeachment trial, his/her identity should be revealed.  Not before.

 

Logic dictates that Volker's testimony should be kept confidential until it is made part of the overall argument for impeachment.  Especially if the testimony reveals other sources to question.  Although I can see your point, criminals would love to be kept informed on who said what during an investigation.

[Crazy Alex]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Saudi Arabia and others are spending vast sums of money at Trump businesses that they didn't spend before he was elected.  Just because the money is laundered doesn't make it clean.

 

Regarding the law, it is dry but clear:

 

"(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

Well yes, when a wealthy person becomes president, more people will stay at his hotels. I don't see how that is a crime. And the fact remains these are voluntary business transactions, not gifts. Your Emoluments Clause angle will go nowhere. Mark my words.

 

So the law is clear on tax returns. Apparently, it's not so clear. The matter is being litigated. So you're predicting Trump loses in the end, yes?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

Well yes, when a wealthy person becomes president, more people will stay at his hotels. I don't see how that is a crime. And the fact remains these are voluntary business transactions, not gifts. Your Emoluments Clause angle will go nowhere. Mark my words.

 

So the law is clear on tax returns. Apparently, it's not so clear. The matter is being litigated. So you're predicting Trump loses in the end, yes?

Actually this is the first time we've had a President so corrupt as to let this happen.  Do you want this to be normal?  Rich people to run for President, keep their finances secret, keep their business interests in the family, and use the office to drum up business--that's ok with you?  If so, you are permanently banned from any "drain the swamp" references.

 

The law is clear.  The fact that it is being litigated means nothing, that is just a stalling tactic.