POLL: Impeachment

[Bootstrap]

The IG report and Durham may wipe all this away. The IG report will be out the first of December.
I think all this will become lost once that hits.

Personally, I suspect that:

• We do not know what Durham will report until he reports it.
• Whatever he reports, it is not about the Ukraine affair.
• At most, his report is about why we know some of the things that Trump tried to hide with respect to his 2016 campaign and cooperation with Russia. That is unlikely to overshadow any clear evidence of wrongdoing from the Ukraine affair.
• The more wrongdoing is uncovered, the less people are likely to be outraged that we found out.

Regardless, perhaps it makes sense to finish both investigations before we compare the results. We don't have the result of either investigation yet.

[Bootstrap]

I've been surprised how much energy some of the questioning has put into intentionally fogging some pretty clear legal concepts. I saw this helpful Venn diagram on Twitter - the things in blue are wrongdoing. It's not necessarily wrong to ask someone for a favor in exchange for something else (quid pro quo), but it can be bribery, extortion, or both, depending on the circumstances. And asking a foreign leader to make a public announcement that it is investigating your political opponents gets you right into that territory. That's why we are hearing all three of these terms.

[Bootstrap]

This is “grapevine moment,” i read it in comments, have no idea who posted it, i don’t recall which report it was a response to. i know nothing of military protocol, possibly others here are the same.

Vindmann is between a rock and a hard place here. What do you do if you have two bosses, one of them seems to be asking you to do something illegal, and he tells you not to talk to the other boss about it? He was asked this very question in the hearings, and Vindmann said he had a duty to the President, but also to uphold the Constitution, and his duty was to obey any lawful order. He believed he was being given an unlawful order.

Related question: Does the President have the right to hide his own wrongdoing from Congressional oversight by orders and threats? If not, that helps resolve the question in the previous paragraph.

Lawfare had a great article about this, but it's a little technical. It largely amounts to what I said above, but in detailed, legal terms. Also worth pointing out: Vindmann's testimony has been validated by other witnesses, it does not depend on him alone.

What Lt. Col. Vindman’s Testimony Says About Civil-Military Relations and Military Justice

The answer to whether someone in Vindman’s boots can or should be court-martialed is neither a straightforward yes—on the grounds that he disobeyed the president—nor is it a straightforward no—on the grounds that he swore an oath to the Constitution. The answer depends, instead, on whether a lawful disposition authority considers Vindman’s conduct relative to Congress’s subpoena order—that is, framed in terms of civilian control of the military—or whether his conduct is considered relative to the president’s order, framed in terms of obedience. Both frameworks involve various forms of duty and modes of expressing it; both carry different reasons for culpability and threaten different methods of discipline.

When the conduct of an officer is entangled with a long-standing quarrel between two political branches flexing their respective constitutional authorities, the question of what applied justice looks like is determined both by how Congress has defined a generally applicable criminal sanction and what factors the president has directed his military leaders to consider in any case. The “even-handed administration of the law,” as the president’s own court-martial prosecution guidance says, should consider the “nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the offense and the accused’s culpability.” The dynamics of the civil-military relationship, set against the backdrop of a true separation of powers crisis, characterize the nature and seriousness of the incident and provide the relevant circumstances to frame Vindman’s conduct—along with any legal response.

[Bootstrap]

First, Guiliani was not acting as Trump's attorney. He was acting as Trump's fixer and as a back-door diplomatic channel to a foreign country.

The relevant question is this: what does attorney-client privilege protect?

Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communication between a client and an attorney made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. It does not protect:

• Communications your attorney may have had with foreign government officials or with U.S. government officials.
• Communication that are not about acting as a lawyer to provide legal advice.
• Trying to get dirt on a political opponent.
• Testimony required by Congress.
• Communications seeking advice related to the current or future commission of a crime, rather than the consequences of past actions.

So if I am trying to figure out how to avoid being jailed for a crime I committed, and I discuss it with my attorney, that is covered by attorney-client privilege. If I want to figure out how to commit a crime without being caught, and I discuss that with my attorney, it is not covered. If I ask my attorney to help make something happen, and it involves wrongdoing, the actions of my attorney are not covered. If I send my attorney out to act as an agent of the government, his actions are not covered. If I send my attorney to use government resources in order to advance my personal legal interests, that is asking him to help me commit "current or future wrongdoing" and is not covered.

I think this is straightforward, well-established law. I think some sources are intentionally trying to fog this one with misinformation. Giuliani is certainly doing that, which is one reason I doubt we will see him testify under oath, the legal jeopardy would be too great.

And imagine what it would mean if you could commit whatever wrongdoing you want as long as you send your attorney, or if the President could avoid congressional oversight simply by making sure that his attorney is responsible for the wrongdoing. That dog don't hunt. And it isn't what the law says.

[Dan Z]

To me the hearings so far have made it quite clear that there has been a quid pro quo here (despite the President's claims to the contrary) - a public Ukrainian investigation into Biden and Barisma (sp) in exchange for aid and a face to face with the President. It is also clear so far that there has been obstruction of justice in the administration's blocking the investigating body (congress) from access to witnesses under its control and pertinent documents and information.

So, it seems the question now before the public and congress now is "Are these offence enough to remove a sitting president from office, or are they minor infractions or legal actions that should be set aside so that this elected president can continue to function?"

[Bootstrap]

To me the hearings so far have made it quite clear that there has been a quid pro quo here (despite the President's claims to the contrary) - a public Ukrainian investigation into Biden and Barisma (sp) in exchange for aid and a face to face with the President. It is also clear so far that there has been obstruction of justice in the administration's blocking the investigating body (congress) from access to witnesses under its control and pertinent documents and information.

So it seems the question now before the public and congress now is "Are these offence enough to remove a sitting president from office, or are they minor infractions that should be set aside?"

I agree, and Sondland's testimony today was particularly compelling. I do think "so far" is important, the hearings are not over yet.

The proper spelling is Бурісма Холдингс. Or Burisma Holdings. Either will do.

[mike]

To me the hearings so far have made it quite clear that there has been a quid pro quo here (despite the President's claims to the contrary) - a public Ukrainian investigation into Biden and Barisma (sp) in exchange for aid and a face to face with the President. It is also clear so far that there has been obstruction of justice in the administration's blocking the investigating body (congress) from access to witnesses under its control and pertinent documents and information.

So, it seems the question now before the public and congress now is "Are these offence enough to remove a sitting president from office, or are they minor infractions or legal actions that should be set aside so that this elected president can continue to function?"

Do you mean an offer of a quid pro quo? Because as I understand it, the "public Ukrainian investigation into Biden and Barisma" never actually happened, and the aid was only temporarily delayed.

[Szdfan]

I agree, and Sondland's testimony today was particularly compelling. I do think "so far" is important, the hearings are not over yet.

I think Sondland is a problematic witness and I’d like to see some of his claims verified by other witnesses.

At the same time, his testimony this morning was really damaging to the president and it seemed to catch the Republicans off-guard.

I’m curious to see if the White House will throw Giuliani under the bus. I’d be really worried if I was him.

[Bootstrap]

Do you mean an offer of a quid pro quo? Because as I understand it, the "public Ukrainian investigation into Biden and Barisma" never actually happened, and the aid was only temporarily delayed.

Offering a bribe is a crime even if the bribe is not accepted. Extortion is a crime even if the other party does not give in to the pressure. It's a lot like other crimes - attempted murder is still a crime even if you don't actually kill the other person.

The aid was released only after the whistleblower complaint emerged and hearings began. Which is, of course, another reason that Congressional oversight is important. A U.S. ally was able to get military aid to defend itself against Russia because Congress intervened. And one of the patterns that comes out in the testimony of most of the witnesses is that Trump seems to really not like Ukraine, he does not have the same reservations about Russia.

[appleman2006]

Yup in answer to Mike that is precisely why I do not believe this has the legs to go anywhere. The investigation never happened and the aid still went through.
Seems to me like the bigger question in all of this might actually be why an investigation of Biden is not actually happening/

I still think Trump is dancing in the Oval office through all of this.