Impeachment now certain

PeterZ wrote:
President Trump is the ONLY politician I know can't get away with any illegalities. Had he committed such crimes, he would have already been removed from office.

Have you completely lost your mind? Just going through the undisputed facts:

• Ran a fraud university, had to pay a $25 million dollar fine.
  
• Ran a fraud charitable organization. Entire family currently barred from running a charity in NY state without adult supervision.
  
• Is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony election finance violation that his lawyer is currently in jail for, and which in the indictment he was specifically identified as the party who had ordered the crime. (Remains un-indicted only because of DOJ rules against indicting sitting presidents.)
  
• Has been receiving money from foreign governments through his hotels his entire presidency. Direct violation of the Constitution.
  
• Was identified as having committed at least 10 different acts of Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller report. Again, not indicted because Mueller wasn't allowed to indict a sitting president. Multiple associated people who are not protected by virtue of being sitting presidents sent to prison or awaiting sentencing.
  
• Tried to award his own family a massive federal contract to host the G7.
  
• Had military flights being diverted to have the aircrews stay in one of his properties so he could profit off of that too.
  
• OPENLY called for foreign governments to interfere in the next presidential election by launching requested criminal investigations into his most likely opponent. In one case doing so while simultaneously putting a hold on vital military aid that country needed and also withholding a strongly desired White House visit while telling the leader of that country he wanted their relationship to be more "reciprocal" and that he needed "a favor though" when he was asked about already committed aid being provided and then spending the rest of their call talking about the specific investigations he expected.
  
• When facing investigation for impeachment, instructed all White House personnel to engage in total blanket non compliance with all Congressional investigative activities, without invoking any valid legal privilege to do so.

Any ONE of those is grounds for removal from office. All of them together make him the single most corrupt president in the history of the nation and it's not even close to a comprehensive list. He hasn't been removed from office because the Senate GOP will not allow it under *any* circumstances.

And go to the courts? Trump is currently arguing in those very courts that they have no legal authority to regulate his conduct because he has total immunity to all laws and that only Congress can deal with him by impeachment while SIMULTANEOUSLY declaring he has total authority to 100% obstruct any Congressional impeachment investigation.

So how the hell is that supposed to work Peter?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:It isn't illegal for Hunter Biden to collect millions from a Ukrainian energy company for alleged expertise that he does not have.
It is illegal for Vice President Biden to extort a job for his cocaine addicted son from the Ukrainias in return for US aid.

Hold on...the allegation against Biden has been that he held up the aid in order to block investigation of Burisma because his son was working there. Now you're saying he did it to (somehow) get Hunter a job at Burisma? Where did you pull that from? Make up your mind.

Eyal wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:It isn't illegal for Hunter Biden to collect millions from a Ukrainian energy company for alleged expertise that he does not have.
It is illegal for Vice President Biden to extort a job for his cocaine addicted son from the Ukrainias in return for US aid.

Hold on...the allegation against Biden has been that he held up the aid in order to block investigation of Burisma because his son was working there. Now you're saying he did it to (somehow) get Hunter a job at Burisma? Where did you pull that from? Make up your mind.

Republican conspiracy theories are not in any way required to make sense. They have only one qualifying criteria for being accepted as gospel truth by the MAGA base.

"Does it say Democrats/Liberals did a bad thing/are bad people?"

PeterZ wrote:
President Trump is the ONLY politician I know can't get away with any illegalities. Had he committed such crimes, he would have already been removed from office.

gcomeau wrote:
Have you completely lost your mind? Just going through the undisputed facts:

• Ran a fraud university, had to pay a $25 million dollar fine.
  
• Ran a fraud charitable organization. Entire family currently barred from running a charity in NY state without adult supervision.
  
• Is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony election finance violation that his lawyer is currently in jail for, and which in the indictment he was specifically identified as the party who had ordered the crime. (Remains un-indicted only because of DOJ rules against indicting sitting presidents.)
  
• Has been receiving money from foreign governments through his hotels his entire presidency. Direct violation of the Constitution.
  
• Was identified as having committed at least 10 different acts of Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller report. Again, not indicted because Mueller wasn't allowed to indict a sitting president. Multiple associated people who are not protected by virtue of being sitting presidents sent to prison or awaiting sentencing.
  
• Tried to award his own family a massive federal contract to host the G7.
  
• Had military flights being diverted to have the aircrews stay in one of his properties so he could profit off of that too.
  
• OPENLY called for foreign governments to interfere in the next presidential election by launching requested criminal investigations into his most likely opponent. In one case doing so while simultaneously putting a hold on vital military aid that country needed and also withholding a strongly desired White House visit while telling the leader of that country he wanted their relationship to be more "reciprocal" and that he needed "a favor though" when he was asked about already committed aid being provided and then spending the rest of their call talking about the specific investigations he expected.
  
• When facing investigation for impeachment, instructed all White House personnel to engage in total blanket non compliance with all Congressional investigative activities, without invoking any valid legal privilege to do so.

Any ONE of those is grounds for removal from office. All of them together make him the single most corrupt president in the history of the nation and it's not even close to a comprehensive list. He hasn't been removed from office because the Senate GOP will not allow it under *any* circumstances.

And go to the courts? Trump is currently arguing in those very courts that they have no legal authority to regulate his conduct because he has total immunity to all laws and that only Congress can deal with him by impeachment while SIMULTANEOUSLY declaring he has total authority to 100% obstruct any Congressional impeachment investigation.

So how the hell is that supposed to work Peter?

There have been no fact witnesses in the impeachment hearings except for Sondland. Everything else has been opinion. The judiciary committee just had academics gas on about their opinions. One of the lefty academics disagreed with the others, so even that was not unanimous.

You interpretation about President Trump asserting Executive Privilege is wacked. The Executive Branch is co-equal to Congress. Congress can exert its authority and the Executive can exert its authority and resist. The Courts decide which authority prevails in any given question. Neither Congress nor the Executive is supreme in all cases. Congressional subpoenas are enforced not by congress but by the courts. If congress wanted their subpoenas enforced, they should have gone to court.

As to you other wacked view of the phone call. He asked Ukraine for help in rooting out corruption as the transcript clearly suggests. His reference to Biden was tangential not primary. Again the transcript was pretty clear on that. He didn't ask for help in the election, but asked for help as both countries are obligated to do by treaty. That Biden, Kerry, and a number of other Dems are up to their necks with corrupt Ukrainian companies is tangential to the request. Being a presidential candidate is not a free pass to avoid investigations into corruption just as being president gives no immunity to investigations. Asking for assistance as obligated by treaty is no abuse of power but a proper exercise of it.

All in all, you got your impeachment. Dems have utilized their political tools available. Now the Repubs will use the political tools at their disposal. Dems started this political confrontation and it seems the Republicans appear to be ready to continue to fight it out. We'll see how this ends. Trying to describe these events as anything but pure politics is ridiculous.

Now, if Dems or anyone else is guilty of corruption with regards to Ukraine, that too will come out. If there are criminal activities surrounding the FISA court processes, that will also come out. How that will play out will be interesting.

n7axw wrote:
Peter, The man openly welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election. That was there for all of us to witness and was affirmed in the Mueller report. Then Trump even according to the redacted transcript that he released sought cooperation from a foreign government in investigating a political rival, contrary to the constitution which he promised to uphold. That is a direct assault upon our system and a violation of the law. Exactly this is what the founders were worried about and why impeachment is provided for in the first place.

He made a joke on TV, Don. Mueller found no evidence of any coordination with Russia with respect to 2016 elections.

That he asked for a historically corrupt government in Ukraine to provide assurances that it was no longer corrupt in order to receive US assistance is something I have no issues with. That Biden was exposed as having questionable dealings and making questionable comments regarding Ukrainian corruption is secondary. Just because he is running for office doesn't mean Joe Biden is above being investigated. President Trump is complying with the US/Ukrainian anti-corruption treaty when he asks for their help in fighting corruption.

And what the Founders were most worried about was that Presidents would accept bribes from powerful nations to shape policy. That did not happen. They were also worried that Impeachment would be used to enforce policy differences. that appears to be what is happening now.

n7axw wrote:I can respect your difference of opinion with me on how far government should be. In fact if you can convince the voters to see it your way and elect your people to office, then it should go your way. In fact if my side loses, then I shrug my shoulders and go home and wait for my next chance to convince people to see things my way in the next election.

I don't think we can separate morality from politics quite the way you seem to be doing in your post. On the one hand, I have no right to coerce you into believing in God, nor do I have a right to impose my morals on you beyond what is needed to live peaceably in society. Not only is that against our social contract as Americans, but contrary to Christian faith as well. On the other hand, I am responsible for bearing witness to my faith and advocating for justice and goodness... Or as a good liberal would say it...working toward a more perfect union.

God can and does use evil to work out his will. But we certainly can't. To be willing to use evil means to promote what seems to me a good purpose is spiritually to make a pact with the devil. It certainly isn't to "let love be genuine; hate what is evil; hold fast to what is good..." Rom. 12:9. This has to apply to our politics as well as our personal lives.

I believe that Donald Trump has done vast harm to both our country, to the conservative cause, and the Republican Party. The Republicans themselves should have been screaming bloody murder over Trumps stewardship of his office right away when it started becoming apparent how Trump was conducting his office and his willingness to flout the law. After all, it's Republicans reputation he is trashing.

Don

-

God is love. Jesus asks us to give onto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto god what is God's, he does not advocate that we place Caesar between us and God. He asks us to exercise love as best we may guided by His Word. That is the exercise of morality he requires of us.

The United States has tried to forge a social contract whereby the sovereignty of government resided in the citizenry. Effectively, we the people ARE Caesar. We are free to engage God as we see fit so long as we do not transgress against other citizens. As sovereign citizens we are not hindered by government in how we exercise our love for and morality towards our fellow man. That attitude is being discarded as more and more citizens choose to transfer more authority to government contrary to the social contract that is our Constitution.

If God chooses to sully government prestige using President Trump so that people begin to actively reclaim their God given sovereignty, then how is that a bad thing? Is it better to have government corruption gilded in a patina tradition and respectability? Is having Hillary Clinton earning hundreds of millions while she is Secretary of State or Joe Biden and John Kerry having family work at a company whose owner is accused of laundering $7.4 billion of corruption money from Ukraine? The Press is covering that up. Had President Trump been accused of all that with the evidence already discovered, he would have been impeached and removed from office already. I would cheer.

So, yes, I am eager to see our government's reputation tarnished. I am eager to see any and all instances of corruption revealed. If in order to get that I need to see a vulgar boor with a penchant for extracting vengeance in office, so be it. Placing so much faith in government run by human agents is pure folly.

PeterZ wrote:

n7axw wrote:
Peter, The man openly welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election. That was there for all of us to witness and was affirmed in the Mueller report. Then Trump even according to the redacted transcript that he released sought cooperation from a foreign government in investigating a political rival, contrary to the constitution which he promised to uphold. That is a direct assault upon our system and a violation of the law. Exactly this is what the founders were worried about and why impeachment is provided for in the first place.

He made a joke on TV, Don. Mueller found no evidence of any coordination with Russia with respect to 2016 elections.

That is a flatly untrue statement.

He found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy. That is WORLDS away from no evidence of coordination. There were over 100 documented contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian government linked operatives during the election. And no, that is in no way a normal thing.

And Mueller also stated that extensive efforts to obstruct his investigation and destroy evidence prevented him from compiling a fuller picture of those interactions.

That he asked for a historically corrupt government in Ukraine to provide assurances that it was no longer corrupt in order to receive US assistance is something I have no issues with.

It's not something anyone else would have issues with either.

That. Is. Not. What. He. did.

And what the Founders were most worried about was that Presidents would accept bribes from powerful nations to shape policy. That did not happen.

He's been taking money from foreign governments from the first day in office.

And an announced criminal investigation into his expected political opponent in the next election is far more valuable than cash as a bribe. Or in this case perhaps more aptly characterized as a payoff from an extortion attempt.

PeterZ wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
President Trump is the ONLY politician I know can't get away with any illegalities. Had he committed such crimes, he would have already been removed from office.

gcomeau wrote:
Have you completely lost your mind? Just going through the undisputed facts:

• Ran a fraud university, had to pay a $25 million dollar fine.
  
• Ran a fraud charitable organization. Entire family currently barred from running a charity in NY state without adult supervision.
  
• Is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony election finance violation that his lawyer is currently in jail for, and which in the indictment he was specifically identified as the party who had ordered the crime. (Remains un-indicted only because of DOJ rules against indicting sitting presidents.)
  
• Has been receiving money from foreign governments through his hotels his entire presidency. Direct violation of the Constitution.
  
• Was identified as having committed at least 10 different acts of Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller report. Again, not indicted because Mueller wasn't allowed to indict a sitting president. Multiple associated people who are not protected by virtue of being sitting presidents sent to prison or awaiting sentencing.
  
• Tried to award his own family a massive federal contract to host the G7.
  
• Had military flights being diverted to have the aircrews stay in one of his properties so he could profit off of that too.
  
• OPENLY called for foreign governments to interfere in the next presidential election by launching requested criminal investigations into his most likely opponent. In one case doing so while simultaneously putting a hold on vital military aid that country needed and also withholding a strongly desired White House visit while telling the leader of that country he wanted their relationship to be more "reciprocal" and that he needed "a favor though" when he was asked about already committed aid being provided and then spending the rest of their call talking about the specific investigations he expected.
  
• When facing investigation for impeachment, instructed all White House personnel to engage in total blanket non compliance with all Congressional investigative activities, without invoking any valid legal privilege to do so.

Any ONE of those is grounds for removal from office. All of them together make him the single most corrupt president in the history of the nation and it's not even close to a comprehensive list. He hasn't been removed from office because the Senate GOP will not allow it under *any* circumstances.

And go to the courts? Trump is currently arguing in those very courts that they have no legal authority to regulate his conduct because he has total immunity to all laws and that only Congress can deal with him by impeachment while SIMULTANEOUSLY declaring he has total authority to 100% obstruct any Congressional impeachment investigation.

So how the hell is that supposed to work Peter?

There have been no fact witnesses in the impeachment hearings except for Sondland.

Yes there damn well have been. "Had to talk to Trump in person" is not the criteria for a fact witness.

Everything else has been opinion.

No, it has not been. The ordering the aid be withheld is fact, not opinion. The lack of contemporaneous provided explanation for the hold is fact, not opinion. The hiding of the hold from Congress is fact not opinion. The occurrence of discussions with the Ukrainians by Trump officials telling them they needed to get the investigations going to get what they wanted from Trump is fact, not opinion. Etc.

You interpretation about President Trump asserting Executive Privilege is wacked.

HE NEVER EXERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FFS.

Executive privilege is a specific thing, not some blanket limitless power of the president to suppress any and all evidence and testimony from Congress. And Trump didn't even claim it was executive privilege he just issued a unversal order to all federal employees NOT TO COOPERATE with the impeachment investigation.

And the sad thing is I know you damn well know that that is totally insupportable, because there is ZERO possibility you were arguing Obama could just blanket order total witholding of all documents and testimony from the Republican Congress when they were holding their 5000 investigations into Benghazi.

The Executive Branch is co-equal to Congress. Congress can exert its authority and the Executive can exert its authority and resist. The Courts decide which authority prevails in any given question. Neither Congress nor the Executive is supreme in all cases. Congressional subpoenas are enforced not by congress but by the courts. If congress wanted their subpoenas enforced, they should have gone to court.

The same court Trump claims has NO jurisdiction over him as president because he is immune to all laws?

As to you other wacked view of the phone call. He asked Ukraine for help in rooting out corruption as the transcript clearly suggests.

He didn't use the word corruption one single time.

He asked them to investigate two things that were both in his personal interest. He wanted to be able to say there was a serious investigation into whether it was Ukraine and not Russian interfering because he wanted to claim Russia didn't actually help him get elected, and he wanted to be able to point at a criminal investigation of a Biden.

He had already been REPEATEDLY briefed by his own people that the Ukraine interfering bullshit was Russian propaganda. He didn't care. And every single person from the administration willing to testify under oath who was asked about it said there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Biden either. And the Pentagon had ALREADY DONE their checks on the corruption issue as part of authorizing the aid and cleared Ukraine on that question. again, Trump didn't care because he has never cared about corruption. Only about getting personal benefits for himself.

His reference to Biden was tangential not primary.

No, it was not.

Again the transcript was pretty clear on that. He didn't ask for help in the election, but asked for help as both countries are obligated to do by treaty. That Biden, Kerry, and a number of other Dems are up to their necks with corrupt Ukrainian companies is tangential to the request.

Yeah? Show me where he asked for investigation into ANY area of potential corruption that actually touches on military procurement then. You know, besides his specific request that the one single company a Biden worked for that was in no way involved in the disbursement of the aid finds be investigated.

Being a presidential candidate is not a free pass to avoid investigations into corruption

1. Which is what the FBI is for. You let the DOJ do its job you do NOT ask a foreign country to launch an investigation while you hang witheld critically needed military aid over their head.

2. Funny how you thought Trump being a presidential candidate made any investigation into any aspect of his campaign by an actual properly authorized US law enforcement agency the biggest scandal in the history of the world.

just as being president gives no immunity to investigations.

You have literally spent the first half of this post arguing that is exactly what it gives him when you declared executive privilege could be extended to any and all requests for evidence or testimony of any kind.

Asking for assistance as obligated by treaty is no abuse of power but a proper exercise of it.

There is no treaty obligating Ukraine to conduct criminal investigations of US politicians or their family members just because Trump tells them he wants it to happen while he is withholding their aid.



PS: Noticed you skipped most of that list of Trump offenses that clearly warrant removal from office.

And just to put a fine point on it. DOJ lawyers representing Trump are, right now, TODAY, arguing to a federal appeals court that the courts have NO ROLE in mediating disputes between Congress and the White House so they can't issue a ruling to force Don McGahn to testify to Congress.

Not that executive privilege should apply in this specific case... that in ALL cases the courts have no place mediating the dispute. That Congress has to try to enforce compliance with their subpoenas themselves. It's a constant shell game of endless obstruction and attempts to make Trump immune to the law. When it's Congress they say it needs to go to the courts, then when they do go to the courts they say it has to stay with Congress.

So then what Peter? What happens to your "they have to take it to the courts" argument then?

PeterZ wrote:

n7axw wrote:
Peter, The man openly welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election. That was there for all of us to witness and was affirmed in the Mueller report. Then Trump even according to the redacted transcript that he released sought cooperation from a foreign government in investigating a political rival, contrary to the constitution which he promised to uphold. That is a direct assault upon our system and a violation of the law. Exactly this is what the founders were worried about and why impeachment is provided for in the first place.

He made a joke on TV, Don. Mueller found no evidence of any coordination with Russia with respect to 2016 elections.

That he asked for a historically corrupt government in Ukraine to provide assurances that it was no longer corrupt in order to receive US assistance is something I have no issues with. That Biden was exposed as having questionable dealings and making questionable comments regarding Ukrainian corruption is secondary. Just because he is running for office doesn't mean Joe Biden is above being investigated. President Trump is complying with the US/Ukrainian anti-corruption treaty when he asks for their help in fighting corruption.

And what the Founders were most worried about was that Presidents would accept bribes from powerful nations to shape policy. That did not happen. They were also worried that Impeachment would be used to enforce policy differences. that appears to be what is happening now.

n7axw wrote:I can respect your difference of opinion with me on how far government should be. In fact if you can convince the voters to see it your way and elect your people to office, then it should go your way. In fact if my side loses, then I shrug my shoulders and go home and wait for my next chance to convince people to see things my way in the next election.

I don't think we can separate morality from politics quite the way you seem to be doing in your post. On the one hand, I have no right to coerce you into believing in God, nor do I have a right to impose my morals on you beyond what is needed to live peaceably in society. Not only is that against our social contract as Americans, but contrary to Christian faith as well. On the other hand, I am responsible for bearing witness to my faith and advocating for justice and goodness... Or as a good liberal would say it...working toward a more perfect union.

God can and does use evil to work out his will. But we certainly can't. To be willing to use evil means to promote what seems to me a good purpose is spiritually to make a pact with the devil. It certainly isn't to "let love be genuine; hate what is evil; hold fast to what is good..." Rom. 12:9. This has to apply to our politics as well as our personal lives.

I believe that Donald Trump has done vast harm to both our country, to the conservative cause, and the Republican Party. The Republicans themselves should have been screaming bloody murder over Trumps stewardship of his office right away when it started becoming apparent how Trump was conducting his office and his willingness to flout the law. After all, it's Republicans reputation he is trashing.

Don

-

God is love. Jesus asks us to give onto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto god what is God's, he does not advocate that we place Caesar between us and God. He asks us to exercise love as best we may guided by His Word. That is the exercise of morality he requires of us.

The United States has tried to forge a social contract whereby the sovereignty of government resided in the citizenry. Effectively, we the people ARE Caesar. We are free to engage God as we see fit so long as we do not transgress against other citizens. As sovereign citizens we are not hindered by government in how we exercise our love for and morality towards our fellow man. That attitude is being discarded as more and more citizens choose to transfer more authority to government contrary to the social contract that is our Constitution.

If God chooses to sully government prestige using President Trump so that people begin to actively reclaim their God given sovereignty, then how is that a bad thing? Is it better to have government corruption gilded in a patina tradition and respectability? Is having Hillary Clinton earning hundreds of millions while she is Secretary of State or Joe Biden and John Kerry having family work at a company whose owner is accused of laundering $7.4 billion of corruption money from Ukraine? The Press is covering that up. Had President Trump been accused of all that with the evidence already discovered, he would have been impeached and removed from office already. I would cheer.

So, yes, I am eager to see our government's reputation tarnished. I am eager to see any and all instances of corruption revealed. If in order to get that I need to see a vulgar boor with a penchant for extracting vengeance in office, so be it. Placing so much faith in government run by human agents is pure folly.

I'm sorry, Peter. I see this as being wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin to count them.

First of all, let's dispense with the Bidens. If there is real evidence of law-breaking against the Bidens, let it be presented and brought forth in a court of law where they could be convicted or their name cleared publicly.

Secondly, If you were being accused of a crime and there was as much evidence against you as against Trump in this situation, you'd be convicted and sent to prison. There was at least one witness in the hearings who heard the phone call directly. What is sometimes been referred to as "hearsay" is in a court referred to as circumstantial evidence. To be sure the credibility of such evidence, must be evaluated by the jury. But it is evidence and people have been sentenced to prison or even to hang on the basis of such evidence.

Spiritually, this isn't a case of "placing trust in government" rather than God. It's more a matter of what it means to responsibly act as citizens of the society in which God has placed us. You say that the Democrats are corrupt. I say that if you have concrete evidence that some specific elected or appointed official is corrupt, bring it forward so it can be dealt with. In short put up or shut up. You are sinning against the eighth commandment with vague innuendos that no one can confront or refute one way or the other.

I am not worried about Trump being a vulgar bore. I say that Donald Trump is corrupt. Geomeau's summary is not bad if not complete. I could add to it. This should be a bipartisan project, not something left to Democrats. But where are the Republican giants of the past, you know, the Goldwaters, the Dirksens and others whose integrity you could trust even if you disagreed with their policies? No longer with us, I guess...

We have a Republic in which the people are sovereign. That comes to us as a stewardship from God. Can we keep it? We can only do that by unfailingly upholding the rule of law. That is what we mortals contribute to the preservation of our liberties. Unless we keep that charge by holding our public officials accountable -- most especially the President of the United States who is charged with executing the laws passed by our duly elected representatives, we will fail. Failing to carry out that stewardship would leave us only with the forms of democracy with real sovereignty carried out by some sort of oligarchy or perhaps even an autocrat like Trump. That would be the wrath of God's judgment descending upon us for failing the charge entrusted to us... anybody ready for a bannana republic? If so, beware lest the house you are so willing to pull down crash on your own heads!

Don

-

gcomeau wrote:Any ONE of those is grounds for removal from office. All of them together make him the single most corrupt president in the history of the nation and it's not even close to a comprehensive list.

If that is the case, WHY did the Democrats not include any of those items in their Articles Of Impeachment? Since they are such 'obvious' violations of the law, after all.

gcomeau wrote:He hasn't been removed from office because the Senate GOP will not allow it under *any* circumstances.

The impeachment has so far been exclusively conducted in the Democrat-controlled House Of Representatives. So, again, WHY have none of those issues been raised in a venue under their control?

n7axw wrote:There was at least one witness in the hearings who heard the phone call directly.

Where is that witness? We do not deal in 'secret denunciations' and 'anonymous accusations' here. Present your witnesses for cross-examination. All of them.
———————————
"That's not an argument! That's just contradiction!"
"No it 'tisn't!"