late wrote:1) Problem is, they need a defense, and no defense is possible. The "transcript" showed extortion (both sides have to want to deal in a quid pro quo, and Ukraine didn't want to get involved American domestic politics because it could really hurt them down the road). There are several witnesses. It's a slam dunk.
Well, in such a theory, Ukraine would have to act as a Plaintiff. The United States Code defines extortion as:
(C) the term “extortion” means an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person;
I think based on the transcript and the testimony, Schiff and his coup plotters are going to have a pretty hard time proving extortion as defined in the United States Code.
late wrote:2) This is about the Constitution.
There is no such "about the Constitution" crime defined in the United States Code. You have to specify the nature and cause of the charge.
late wrote:3) If there was evidence, Barr would be all over this like a rash.
Durham is the one leading the investigation.
late wrote:4) That would be a possibility if you didn't have everything else pointing in that direction.
The original theory was that Trump's quip was a solicitation by Russia to hack the DNC server, which had already been hacked. There was $40M spent on that investigation and not a shred of evidence to support that charge.
late wrote:5) "Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities."
First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging.
Name a single violation of the United States Code you think Trump committed. Identify the action and the law. So far, nobody has done that. There are multitudinous sections in Title 18 alone. Yet, we cannot get a single definitive act.
1) There is no judicial proceeding. Scratch that.
2) There is no witness tampering or witness retaliation as nobody has been physically threatened in any way.
3) There is no obstruction of proceedings. Nobody has prevented any hearing from taking place.
4) Conspiracy to defraud the United States isn't obstruction of justice, and it takes two or more persons to establish a conspiracy.
5) Nobody has been found in contempt and upheld by the DoJ or the courts.
I think you defined this sort of blanket charge as firehosing. You can cite the entire United States code if you like. What matters is establishing a foundation for a charge against the president, and nobody has even established probable or even reasonable cause to believe a crime was committed.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
"Folks, I can tell you I've known eight presidents, three of them intimately."
-- Joe Biden