Lawyer Explains ABSURDITY of Trump Impeachment Hearings Day 1

[jmdrake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoJkDAvP4yo

[dannno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNRcieqljBg

[TheCount]

It's hard to have testimony from people with direct involvement when we're all collectively pretending that the executive branch has a magical and non-constitutional immunity to oversight and subpoena.

[dannno]

It's hard to have testimony from people with direct involvement when we're all collectively pretending that the executive branch has a magical and non-constitutional immunity to oversight and subpoena.


Quid pro Joe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIPw_Who7E

Fires the prosecutor investigating Hunter's company who had given him over $3 million in payments.

Trump wants to investigate that.

What's wrong?

I would want to impeach Trump if he didn't want to investigate that, and covered it up.

[Zippyjuan]

Trump continues to insist that he was only concerned about corruption in the Ukraine- yet in neither of the phone conversations released (another one was put out today) does he even mention "corruption". But "Biden" comes up several times in the July phone call.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778497217/the-white-house-just-released-a-log-of-trumps-first-call-with-zelenskiy


White House Releases Rough Transcript Of Trump's First Call With Zelenskiy

President Trump on Friday released the rough transcript of a brief, 16-minute congratulatory conversation he had on April 21 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, timed to coincide with the beginning of the second day of open hearings in the House impeachment inquiry.

It's the second such transcript released by the White House. In September, Trump released the rough transcript of his July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy, which is at the heart of the Democrats' impeachment push. The White House has said releasing the transcripts shows Trump had nothing to hide.

The rough transcript of the April 21 call differs significantly from the way the White House had initially described the conversation on the day that it happened.

"President Trump underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption," the press statement said.

But in the rough transcript, Trump mentions neither U.S. support for Ukraine in its fight over territory with Russia, nor Ukraine's effort to address corruption.




Zelenskiy invited Trump to attend his inauguration and to visit his country to see it for himself. Trump said he would be sure to send "a great representative" to the event.

And then Trump invited Zelenskiy to the White House, an invitation Trump still hasn't followed through on. "When you're settled in and ready, I'd like to invite you to the White House," Trump said, according to the rough transcript. We'll have a lot of things to talk about, but we're with you all the way."

Actually setting a date for that White House meeting would become a central thread in what witnesses have described as a pressure campaign by Trump and his allies to get Zelenskiy to launch investigations that would benefit Trump politically. During the July call, Trump asked Zelenskiy to look into former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter and a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election.

Those investigations were never launched, and Zelenskiy still hasn't gotten his Oval Office meeting, although Ukraine's leader did meet with Trump at the United Nations General Assembly in late September.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump continues to insist that he was only concerned about corruption in the Ukraine- yet in neither of the phone conversations released (another one was put out today) does he even mention "corruption". But "Biden" comes up several times in the July phone call.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778497217/the-white-house-just-released-a-log-of-trumps-first-call-with-zelenskiy

Biden was a case of corruption, an obvious one that if they ignored would prove they didn't care about corruption

[eleganz]

Trump continues to insist that he was only concerned about corruption in the Ukraine- yet in neither of the phone conversations released (another one was put out today) does he even mention "corruption". But "Biden" comes up several times in the July phone call.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778497217/the-white-house-just-released-a-log-of-trumps-first-call-with-zelenskiy

Are you really still living in this delusion?

Jesus, TDS is a true mental illness.

[Zippyjuan]

Biden was a case of corruption, an obvious one that if they ignored would prove they didn't care about corruption

If he is concerned about corruption, why did he not inquire about any other possibilities besides Biden? Biden is the only one he was interested in.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump continues to insist that he was only concerned about corruption in the Ukraine- yet in neither of the phone conversations released (another one was put out today) does he even mention "corruption". But "Biden" comes up several times in the July phone call.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778497217/the-white-house-just-released-a-log-of-trumps-first-call-with-zelenskiy

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055536-7689977-image-a-29_1573828493864.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055546-7689977-image-a-30_1573828507920.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055542-7689977-image-a-31_1573828514548.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055538-7689977-image-a-32_1573828520793.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055532-7689977-image-a-33_1573828525213.jpg

There is NO mention of Biden and NOTHING wrong was said.

There was no pressure campaign.

[Swordsmyth]

If he is concerned about corruption, why did he not inquire about any other possibilities besides Biden? Biden is the only one he was interested in.
He can't ask about everything in one phone call and he has an entire DoJ and State Department to pursue things with.

And he DID ask about something else, the Ukrainian interference in 2016 and the Crowdstrike connection.

[Zippyjuan]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055536-7689977-image-a-29_1573828493864.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055546-7689977-image-a-30_1573828507920.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055542-7689977-image-a-31_1573828514548.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055538-7689977-image-a-32_1573828520793.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055532-7689977-image-a-33_1573828525213.jpg

There is NO mention of Biden and NOTHING wrong was said.

There was no pressure campaign.

That is the one released today- from a call in April. The Biden call occurred in July and was released previously. Trump had said he discussed corruption in the Ukraine on this call but as the post you shared shows, he did not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/15/trump-releases-rough-transcript-call-ukraines-zelensky/2567105001/


WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump released a rough transcript Friday of his first conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and was quickly confronted with questions about why it departed from an initial description of that April conversation.

Absent from the call was any discussion of corruption in Ukraine, which Trump and his allies have said was at the heart of the president's requests for investigations. A brief summary of the same call released by the White House in April claimed Trump "expressed his commitment" to strengthen democracy and "root out corruption."



None of that is in the transcript of the call released today despite claims it did.



(But both are "memorandums" and not full, direct transcripts

"The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room duty officers and [National Security Council] policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place," ).

You can read a transcript of the "Biden" call here: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-full-transcript-trump-s-conversation-ukraine-s-president-n1058581

[Swordsmyth]

That is the one released today- from a call in April. The Biden call occurred in July and was released previously. Trump had said he discussed corruption in the Ukraine on this call but as the post you shared shows, he did not. (But both are "memorandums" and not full, direct transcripts).

You can read a transcript of the "Biden" call here: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-full-transcript-trump-s-conversation-ukraine-s-president-n1058581
The other transcript has already been discussed, there was nothing wrong with it.

[Zippyjuan]

The other transcript has already been discussed, there was nothing wrong with it.

According to Trump.

[Swordsmyth]

According to Trump.
According to anyone with a brain.

[TheCount]

Quid pro Joe

Fires the prosecutor investigating Hunter's company who had given him over $3 million in payments.

Trump wants to investigate that.

What's wrong?

I would want to impeach Trump if he didn't want to investigate that, and covered it up.

I prefer white cheddar to regular cheddar.

[dannno]

I prefer white cheddar to regular cheddar.

Whataboutism is a retarded argument in this case, because Trump was investigating corruption plain and simple.

You wanna get rid of Trump, why not attack him on a legitimate issue?

[TheCount]

Whataboutism is a retarded argument in this case, because Trump was investigating corruption plain and simple.

You wanna get rid of Trump, why not attack him on a legitimate issue?

Goat meat is tougher, though. You'll have to cook it longer.

[TheTexan]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055536-7689977-image-a-29_1573828493864.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055546-7689977-image-a-30_1573828507920.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055542-7689977-image-a-31_1573828514548.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055538-7689977-image-a-32_1573828520793.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/15/14/21055532-7689977-image-a-33_1573828525213.jpg

There is NO mention of Biden and NOTHING wrong was said.

There was no pressure campaign.

That's a tremendous transcript, just really fantastic how incredible it is. Thanks for sharing, just really inspiring how great it is

[jmdrake]

It's hard to have testimony from people with direct involvement when we're all collectively pretending that the executive branch has a magical and non-constitutional immunity to oversight and subpoena.

Ummmm.....what? The people there testifying were there on subpoena. Did you even watch the video?

[jmdrake]

Trump continues to insist that he was only concerned about corruption in the Ukraine- yet in neither of the phone conversations released (another one was put out today) does he even mention "corruption". But "Biden" comes up several times in the July phone call.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778497217/the-white-house-just-released-a-log-of-trumps-first-call-with-zelenskiy

And ^this is why I don't rely on NPR for news anymore. If Joe Biden stopped an investigation looking into a company that was paying his son $50,000 per month, that is evidence of corruption affecting the Ukrainian government. My only problem is, that's the only corruption regarding the Ukrainian government Trump raised. Even looking into the Crowdstrike server had nothing to do with the Ukrainian government.

[TheCount]

Ummmm.....what? The people there testifying were there on subpoena. Did you even watch the video?

Yes, they were.


What about all of the people that congress "can't" subpoena because of "executive privilege?"

[donnay]

Trump continues to insist that he was only concerned about corruption in the Ukraine- yet in neither of the phone conversations released (another one was put out today) does he even mention "corruption". But "Biden" comes up several times in the July phone call.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778497217/the-white-house-just-released-a-log-of-trumps-first-call-with-zelenskiy

Umm... do have anything else because NPR is not a reliable source.

[donnay]

Yes, they were.


What about all of the people that congress "can't" subpoena because of "executive privilege?"

Obama pulled more Executive Privileges but I guess you forgot that. Example: Fast & Furious investigation.

[Zippyjuan]

Umm... do have anything else because NPR is not a reliable source.

How about Fox? Though they aren't that reliable.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document

[TheCount]

Obama pulled more Executive Privileges but I guess you forgot that. Example: Fast & Furious investigation.

Who the fuck cares? Are you a toddler? "But Timmy did it too" has nothing to do with whether executive privilege should exist.

[donnay]

Who the $#@! cares? Are you a toddler? "But Timmy did it too" has nothing to do with whether executive privilege should exist.

Just pointing out that I do not recall you lambasting Obama for his egregious executive privileges the way you have over Trump. Granted you think executive privilege should not exist but it has been there for a very long time and sometimes the good-guys have to use it to correct the wrongs.

[donnay]

How about Fox? Though they aren't that reliable.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document

So post something reliable then.

[TheCount]

Granted you think executive privilege should not exist but it has been there for a very long time and sometimes the good-guys have to use it to correct the wrongs.

Swordsmyth, is that you? Get off of donnay's account.




Do you think that executive privilege should exist?




Just pointing out that I do not recall you lambasting Obama for his egregious executive privileges the way you have over Trump.

Sounds legit.

[Zippyjuan]

So post something reliable then.

Actually though it is Fox, it isn't an article but the White House released memorandum of the phone call. It is OK to read that. (assuming one trusts the White House- it is not a literal transcription of the actual conversation but was written from notes later and it has since been learned that some parts were left out). Trump expresses concern about Biden but does not mention Ukrainian corruption at all. Trump has claimed that it is corruption he was concerned about- not dirt on a political opponent. He also criticizes the US Ambassador who was actually trying to crack down on corruption in the Ukraine (he had her removed).

[eleganz]

Does anybody here actually have an argument against the OP's posted video stating how absurd the impeachment hearings were?

Just curious.

[jmdrake]

Yes, they were.


What about all of the people that congress "can't" subpoena because of "executive privilege?"

Who has congress wanted to subpoena but can't?

[jmdrake]

Does anybody here actually have an argument against the OP's posted video stating how absurd the impeachment hearings were?

Just curious.

Good question for TheCount and Zippyjuan. I'm guessing the answer is no.

[Swordsmyth]

Actually though it is Fox, it isn't an article but the White House released memorandum of the phone call. It is OK to read that. (assuming one trusts the White House- it is not a literal transcription of the actual conversation but was written from notes later and it has since been learned that some parts were left out). Trump expresses concern about Biden but does not mention Ukrainian corruption at all. Trump has claimed that it is corruption he was concerned about- not dirt on a political opponent. He also criticizes the US Ambassador who was actually trying to crack down on corruption in the Ukraine (he had her removed).
The usual MSM lies.
Biden was a case of corruption and so was Ukrainian interference in the US election in 2016.
And the Ambassador was complicit in corruption and was removed because she is corrupt.

[Swordsmyth]

Just pointing out that I do not recall you lambasting Obama for his egregious executive privileges the way you have over Trump. Granted you think executive privilege should not exist but it has been there for a very long time and sometimes the good-guys have to use it to correct the wrongs.
We are supposed to keep our boxing gloves on while the enemy pulls a gun.
That's the way to restore liberty.:sarcasm:

[Swordsmyth]

And ^this is why I don't rely on NPR for news anymore. If Joe Biden stopped an investigation looking into a company that was paying his son $50,000 per month, that is evidence of corruption affecting the Ukrainian government. My only problem is, that's the only corruption regarding the Ukrainian government Trump raised. Even looking into the Crowdstrike server had nothing to do with the Ukrainian government.
The Ukrainian interference in 2016 did have to do with the Ukrainian government and Trump doesn't have to deal with every corruption issue in every phone call.

[jmdrake]

The Ukrainian interference in 2016 did have to do with the Ukrainian government and Trump doesn't have to deal with every corruption issue in every phone call.

There has been no accusation that the Ukrainian government ran Crowdstrike or was involved with hacking the DNC server. Not even by Trump.

[Swordsmyth]

There has been no accusation that the Ukrainian government ran Crowdstrike or was involved with hacking the DNC server. Not even by Trump.
But there are accusations that they participated in the election tampering that involved those.

[jmdrake]

But there are accusations that they participated in the election tampering that involved those.

That's a totally separate matter.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48268762

[Swordsmyth]

That's a totally separate matter.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48268762
No, it isn't.

It's all connected.

[jmdrake]

No, it isn't.

It's all connected.

Not at all. But you will keep saying it is even if it isn't. You have a knack for ignoring facts and just making crap up.

[Swordsmyth]

Not at all. But you will keep saying it is even if it isn't. You have a knack for ignoring facts and just making crap up.
That's what you are doing.
You are either ignorant or making things up.
Hitlery and the coup plotters conspired with Ukrainians to manufacture dirt on Trump as part of the Russiagate hoax.

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si-vMj-FB88

[TheCount]

Who has congress wanted to subpoena but can't?

John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council
Michael Ellis, deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council
Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff
Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney
Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget
John Bolton, National Security Council advisor
Dr. Charles Kupperman, aide to John Bolton as National Security Advisor
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy


Those are just from the last two weeks.

[TheCount]

Good question for @TheCount (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58229) and @Zippyjuan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=17293). I'm guessing the answer is no.

I already answered.


If you think that the proceedings were absurd because people are relaying second-hand information, the reason for that is supposed executive privilege, that the executive branch thinks that it is immune to congressional oversight.

[Swordsmyth]

I already answered.


If you think that the proceedings were absurd because people are relaying second-hand information, the reason for that is supposed executive privilege, that the executive branch thinks that it is immune to congressional oversight.
That's just a stupid excuse.
There is nothing and can't be anything.

[TheCount]

That's just a stupid excuse.
There is nothing and can't be anything.

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned contribution to the discussion. I learned a lot.



What's your opinion on executive privilege / absolute immunity?

[acptulsa]

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned contribution to the discussion. I learned a lot.



What's your opinion on executive privilege / absolute immunity?

Many people approve of it when they approve of the president, and hate it when they hate the president.

Any bets?

[Stratovarious]

We don't even have a crime to attach to Trump yet, you all know I'm not keen on Trump lately,
but I always call blsht when I see it, and right now I see this topic swarming with Hillary sycophants
that could care less that Hillary Committed treason, too many times to count, admits it along with
Comey, and doesn't even get indicted.
And Hillary's Russian Collusion along with Mueller regarding uranium 1 , foundation shenanigans.

:frog:

[KEEF]

We don't even have a crime to attach to Trump yet, you all know I'm not keen on Trump lately,
but I always call blsht when I see it, and right now I see this topic swarming with Hillary sycophants
that could care less that Hillary Committed treason, too many times to count, admits it along with
Comey, and doesn't even get indicted.
And Hillary's Russian Collusion along with Mueller regarding uranium 1 , foundation shenanigans.

:frog:
Agree

[Swordsmyth]

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned contribution to the discussion. I learned a lot.



What's your opinion on executive privilege / absolute immunity?
You seem to think the following overrides all other pieces of the Constitution including specific rights in the BoR:


The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

So what does this mean to you?


The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.


I think the President and those that work for him are protected from malicious prosecution etc. and that the reasonable suspicion barrier hasn't been satisfied in the least because not only is what he did not a crime but he was required to do it by law and treaty.

[TheCount]

Many people approve of it when they approve of the president, and hate it when they hate the president.

Any bets?

No bets; we already know that he favors a dictatorial executive.

[oyarde]

Trump continues to insist that he was only concerned about corruption in the Ukraine- yet in neither of the phone conversations released (another one was put out today) does he even mention "corruption". But "Biden" comes up several times in the July phone call.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/778497217/the-white-house-just-released-a-log-of-trumps-first-call-with-zelenskiy

Biden , bernie etc is legitimate code for corruption.

[TheCount]

You seem to think the following overrides all other pieces of the Constitution including specific rights in the BoR:



So what does this mean to you?

Saying that he has executive power does not mean that he has unlimited power.

That is the first line of article II. Article II then goes on to specify the powers of the executive. Nowhere in the listed executive powers is an immunity from oversight, investigation, or prosecution.



I think the President and those that work for him are protected from malicious prosecution etc. and that the reasonable suspicion barrier hasn't been satisfied in the least because not only is what he did not a crime but he was required to do it by law and treaty.

Protected by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

Also, reasonable suspicion, the lack thereof, malicious prosecution, etc. are entirely irrelevant to the matter. The powers which he - and you - claim to exist do not merely extend to the impeachment proceedings but to all matters. His claims of immunity from any and all oversight did not start with his impeachment but with the beginning of his presidency.

[acptulsa]

...and right now I see this topic swarming with Hillary sycophants
that could care less that Hillary Committed treason, too many times to count, admits it along with
Comey, and doesn't even get indicted.

Who are you talking about? Because there's not more than one person who has participated in this thread who wouldn't be absolutely delighted to see the Wicked Witch of the West indicted.

[oyarde]

Does anybody here actually have an argument against the OP's posted video stating how absurd the impeachment hearings were?

Just curious.

There can be none .

[Stratovarious]

Agree

I think Sword nailed it when he said this forum has been over run.

This isn't a libertarian forum and its not a free speech friendly one either, damn shame, look at who's name
is on it, I'd be shocked if Ron knew what went on here, and I'm guessing he has no idea of the censorship a
buses that are rampantly pervasive.

[Swordsmyth]

Saying that he has executive power does not mean that he has unlimited power.

That is the first line of article II. Article II then goes on to specify the powers of the executive. Nowhere in the listed executive powers is an immunity from oversight, investigation, or prosecution.
I see, but saying the House has the power of impeachment DOES mean they have unlimited power?
Please explain that.





Protected by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

Also, reasonable suspicion, the lack thereof, malicious prosecution, etc. are entirely irrelevant to the matter. The powers which he - and you - claim to exist do not merely extend to the impeachment proceedings but to all matters. His claims of immunity from any and all oversight did not start with his impeachment but with the beginning of his presidency.
5thA:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


There are laws governing the instigation and conduct of investigations and Congress is NOT immune from them.
No crime has been committed to be investigated and no conduct meets the reasonable suspicion threshold.

[Stratovarious]

It shouldn't take a Brilliant Legal Mind to lead us to the conclusion that all of these witch hunts
against Trump are just that.
Globalist , socialist Liberals, will use any means to justify the end, they have lost any scruples that
they once may have sported.

[Swordsmyth]

I think Sword nailed it when he said this forum has been over run.

This isn't a libertarian forum and its not a free speech friendly one either, damn shame, look at who's name
is on it, I'd be shocked if Ron knew what went on here, and I'm guessing he has no idea of the censorship a
buses that are rampantly pervasive.

The entire movement has been overrun, it is filled with leftists who happened to agree with real liberty lovers on a few topics like ending wars and ending the Fed.
The only hope to revive it is to graft on Trump and conservative Republicans.

[Swordsmyth]

It shouldn't take a Brilliant Legal Mind to lead us to the conclusion that all of these witch hunts
against Trump are just that.
Globalist , socialist Liberals, will use any means to justify the end, they have lost any scruples that
they once may have sported.
They openly gloat about not following any rules and try to tell us that the rules don't apply to them.
Then their trolls come and tell us they are right and that we must follow all the rules while the enemy breaks them all.


Nobody ever survived a gunfight using boxing gloves.

[RJB]

Trump will be found guilty. He just must! There is so much evidence hidden. Where are the transcripts of conversations between himself and his 13 year old son, Barron? Where are the stool samples from Ivanka's dog? Why aren't Zippy and the Count allowed to give testimony before Congress about how miserable their lives are because the bad orange man was elected. We need to get to the bottom of this travesty. If Ukraine is a bust like Russia and everything else, we must find something else. We just have to.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump will be found guilty. He just must! There is so much evidence hidden. Where are the transcripts of conversations between himself and his 13 year old son, Barron? Where are the stool samples from Ivanka's dog? Why aren't Zippy and the Count allowed to give testimony about how miserable their lives are because the bad orange man was elected. We need to get to the bottom of this travesty. If Ukraine is a bust like Russia and everything else, we must find something else. We just have to.
The Reasonable Suspicion for all those investigations and any more that they think of is that it was her turn.

[TheCount]

I see, but saying the House has the power of impeachment DOES mean they have unlimited power?

First:
A thing that exists is more than a thing that does not exist.

A power is more power than no power.


Second:
What legal document restricts the House's power of impeachment?

You imagine all sorts of standards and requirements, but are unable to support them.


Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?




5thA:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of lawIt's not a criminal case, and he is not going to be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Therefore, the Constitution does not entitle him to due process.


It's just that easy!


Also, nowhere in the 5th Amendment does it say that it prevents or prohibits others from testifying, only the accused themselves, so even if it did apply, it in no way supports the concept of allowing the President to prevent an aide or official from testifying to Congress.


Drilling home on that last part: Which Founding Father do you think would support the idea that government officials do not have to answer to the representatives of the people? Anyone? Anyone at all?

Where in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention is such a concept proposed or discussed?


There are laws governing the instigation and conduct of investigations and Congress is NOT immune from them.

They only apply to Congress if they say that they apply to Congress.

Do they?

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?




No crime has been committed to be investigated and no conduct meets the reasonable suspicion threshold.

No crime needs to be committed for Congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

[Swordsmyth]

First:
A thing that exists is more than a thing that does not exist.

A power is more power than no power.


Second:
What legal document restricts the House's power of impeachment?

You imagine all sorts of standards and requirements, but are unable to support them.


Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?



It's not a criminal case, and he is not going to be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Therefore, the Constitution does not entitle him to due process.


It's just that easy!


Also, nowhere in the 5th Amendment does it say that it prevents or prohibits others from testifying, only the accused themselves, so even if it did apply, it in no way supports the concept of allowing the President to prevent an aide or official from testifying to Congress.


Drilling home on that last part: Which Founding Father do you think would support the idea that government officials do not have to answer to the representatives of the people? Anyone? Anyone at all?




They only apply to Congress if they say that they apply to Congress.

Do they?

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?





No crime needs to be committed for Congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch.
LOL

Congress isn't bound by the Constitution?
They ARE bound by it and all laws that are pursuant to it.

Impeachment IS a criminal case, it specifically is according to the Constitution and his term in office IS his property.

Congress may indeed investigate and prosecute the President but they MUST have a crime or at least reasonable suspicion to do so.


Congress doesn't have the power to harass or impeach the President for any or no reason, what makes you think the founders intended to allow Congress to abuse and fire the representative of the people chosen to be President?

We are NOT a parliamentary democracy.

[Stratovarious]

They openly gloat about not following any rules and try to tell us that the rules don't apply to them.
Then their trolls come and tell us they are right and that we must follow all the rules while the enemy breaks them all.


Nobody ever survived a gunfight using boxing gloves.

So true,,,,,

[TheCount]

Completely abandoned the argument, huh? That's fine, I'll still take you apart piece by piece.



LOL

Congress isn't bound by the Constitution?

Congress is bound by the Constitution. They are granted a power by it, and so far as I can see, that power is not otherwise limited.



They ARE bound by it and all laws that are pursuant to it.

Correct!

They are, therefore, bound by their own rules for impeachment, which were passed in 2015 by a Republican House and remain in effect to this day.


Oh... but you don't like those rules, do you? You want some other rules to apply, rules which would be more favorable to your of-the-instant feelings... a shame, really.




Impeachment IS a criminal case, it specifically is according to the Constitution and his term in office IS his property.

No, no, and no. This is just as stupid of an argument as when you made it last time.

Despite what you claim, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is a criminal matter. In fact, it says the opposite:


Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.



Congress may indeed investigate and prosecute the President but they MUST have a crime or at least reasonable suspicion to do so.

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?



Congress doesn't have the power to harass or impeach the President for any or no reason

Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?





what makes you think the founders intended to allow Congress to abuse and fire the representative of the people chosen to be President?

The very thing that you so completely despise: Knowledge.


Better not read it, it might be more than you need to know.



if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.


https://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/003/0500/05080496.gif

https://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/003/0500/05090497.gif
https://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/003/0500/05100498.gif




There is another provision against the danger, mentioned by the honorable member, of the President receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered, he may be impeached.

https://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/003/0400/04980486.gif

[RJB]

Translation:. theCount knows that no crime has been committed, but Orange Man bad.

Completely abandoned the argument, huh? That's fine, I'll still take you apart piece by piece.




Congress is bound by the Constitution. They are granted a power by it, and so far as I can see, that power is not otherwise limited.



Correct!

They are, therefore, bound by their own rules for impeachment, which were passed in 2015 by a Republican House and remain in effect to this day.


Oh... but you don't like those rules, do you? You want some other rules to apply, rules which would be more favorable to your of-the-instant feelings... a shame, really.





No, no, and no. This is just as stupid of an argument as when you made it last time.

Despite what you claim, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is a criminal matter. In fact, it says the opposite:






Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?




Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?






The very thing that you so completely despise: Knowledge.


Better not read it, it might be more than you need to know.





https://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/003/0500/05080496.gif

https://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/003/0500/05090497.gif
https://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/003/0500/05100498.gif





https://memory.loc.gov/ll/lled/003/0400/04980486.gif

[TheCount]

Translation:. theCount knows that no crime has been committed, but Orange Man bad.

Maybe try reading the convention minutes that I posted.

[Swordsmyth]

Completely abandoned the argument, huh? That's fine, I'll still take you apart piece by piece.




Congress is bound by the Constitution. They are granted a power by it, and so far as I can see, that power is not otherwise limited.
Wrong, they are limited by the BoR among other limitations.




Correct!

They are, therefore, bound by their own rules for impeachment, which were passed in 2015 by a Republican House and remain in effect to this day.


Oh... but you don't like those rules, do you? You want some other rules to apply, rules which would be more favorable to your of-the-instant feelings... a shame, really.
Their rules are not law and were never passed as legislation and signed by a President.
They remain bound by the actual laws governing investigations and by the Constitution which even a law passed by them couldn't breach.






No, no, and no. This is just as stupid of an argument as when you made it last time.

Despite what you claim, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is a criminal matter. In fact, it says the opposite:
It most certainly does say it is a criminal matter:


The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
The limitation on what punishment Congress may inflict upon CONVICTION doesn't change a criminal case into anything else.









Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?
The Constitution and the law.
Ask a lawyer about the laws that govern investigations, they are well known.





Again:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.






The very thing that you so completely despise: Knowledge.
Projection.



if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.
That is about issuing pardons to those who commit crimes on the order of the President.
That hasn't even been alleged and it certainly isn't true.
There is no reasonable suspicion of it even.


There is another provision against the danger, mentioned by the honorable member, of the President receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered, he may be impeached.

That has been alleged but it is not involved in the current impeachment and it isn't true.

And none of that implies a power to prosecute, convict, remove from office and bar from any future office for any or no reason.
They may only do so for actual crimes and they must follow the laws and Constitution in order to investigate them.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe try reading the convention minutes that I posted.
Yes.

Everyone should get a good laugh at your expense.

[RJB]

Maybe try reading the convention minutes that I posted.

Sounds legit.

[TheCount]

Wrong, they are limited by the BoR among other limitations.

The Bill of Rights is the Constitution. So yes, they are limited by the Constitution... and empowered by the Constitution.


Among other limitations:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?




Their rules are not law and were never passed as legislation and signed by a President.

Doesn't matter. They have the sole power of impeachment. Their own rules for their own proceedings are the only rules which govern impeachment, because that is a proceeding of their house of Congress.

If it were any other way, then the Senate and the President would be able to govern impeachment. That is plainly not the intent of the Constitution.



They remain bound by the actual laws governing investigations and by the Constitution which even a law passed by them couldn't breach.

Only if those laws were written to govern Congress or are unlimited. Given that you can't or won't post any such law, I think that we know where this is going...



It most certainly does say it is a criminal matter:

The House cannot and will not convict anyone of anything.




The limitation on what punishment Congress may inflict upon CONVICTION doesn't change a criminal case into anything else.

Again, you are confusing the Senate and the House. Maybe you need a bit more knowledge. Not a lot more, but some.




The Constitution and the law.
Ask a lawyer about the laws that govern investigations, they are well known.

Again:
Only if those laws were written to govern Congress or are unlimited. Given that you can't or won't post any such law, I think that we know where this is going...




That is about issuing pardons to those who commit crimes on the order of the President.

Exactly. The pardon is an explicit and unlimited power given to the President by the Constitution.

Is the use of the pardon a crime? No. It is not a criminal act, and it is against no law.

And yet there it is, clearly stated, that the President could be impeached for it.


You asked for the founders' intent. Well, here you go:
The President could be impeached for the wholly legal and Constitutional use of his power, if Congress so judges that his use of his powers is unacceptable in some way.


It's even worse for your nonsense than that. Read this again:

there be grounds to believe he will shelter him

Even if the President hasn't done anything yet but there is reason to believe that he might, he could still be impeached in anticipation of some conduct that the Congress opposes.




That hasn't even been alleged and it certainly isn't true.
There is no reasonable suspicion of it even.


That has been alleged but it is not involved in the current impeachment and it isn't true.

And none of that implies a power to prosecute, convict, remove from office and bar from any future office for any or no reason.
They may only do so for actual crimes and they must follow the laws and Constitution in order to investigate them.

Again, it's not a crime and yet the President could be impeached for doing it.

[Swordsmyth]

The Bill of Rights is the Constitution. So yes, they are limited by the Constitution... and empowered by the Constitution.


Among other limitations:
Limited by what? Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?

The laws defining Due Process which the Bill of Rights refers to.





Doesn't matter. They have the sole power of impeachment. Their own rules for their own proceedings are the only rules which govern impeachment, because that is a proceeding of their house of Congress.

If it were any other way, then the Senate and the President would be able to govern impeachment. That is plainly not the intent of the Constitution.
WRONG, the Constitution and laws govern impeachment and Congress power over it is restricted by them




Only if those laws were written to govern Congress or are unlimited. Given that you can't or won't post any such law, I think that we know where this is going...
The laws define Due Process which the Constitution gives to all including the President without limit or exception for impeachment.




The House cannot and will not convict anyone of anything.
That doesn't mean they aren't dealing with a criminal matter and aren't bound by the BoR.
Prosecutors and detectives don't convict either but they must abide by Due Process.





Again, you are confusing the Senate and the House. Maybe you need a bit more knowledge. Not a lot more, but some.
Again, it doesn't matter.
Prosecutors and detectives don't convict either but they must abide by Due Process.





Again:
Only if those laws were written to govern Congress or are unlimited. Given that you can't or won't post any such law, I think that we know where this is going...
Again:
The laws defining Due Process which the Bill of Rights refers to.
The laws define Due Process which the Constitution gives to all including the President without limit or exception for impeachment.




Exactly. The pardon is an explicit and unlimited power given to the President by the Constitution.

Is the use of the pardon a crime? No. It is not a criminal act, and it is against no law.

And yet there it is, clearly stated, that the President could be impeached for it.
Misusing the power is a "High Crime" which is specified in the Constitution as impeachable and which is by definition a CRIME.
It's a principle of common law.



You asked for the founders' intent. Well, here you go:
The President could be impeached for the wholly legal and Constitutional use of his power, if Congress so judges that his use of his powers is unacceptable in some way.
WRONG
Again:
Misusing the power is a "High Crime" which is specified in the Constitution as impeachable and which is by definition a CRIME.
It's a principle of common law.



It's even worse for your nonsense than that. Read this again:


Even if the President hasn't done anything yet but there is reason to believe that he might, he could still be impeached in anticipation of some conduct that the Congress opposes.
If the President is involve in the crime, if he ordered it and promised a pardon, for example.
There is no reasonable suspicion of any such thing and that principle doesn't apply to anything but pardons for crimes.





Again, it's not a crime and yet the President could be impeached for doing it.
It IS a crime, it is specifically prohibited in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

AGAIN:

That has been alleged but it is not involved in the current impeachment and it isn't true.

And none of that implies a power to prosecute, convict, remove from office and bar from any future office for any or no reason.
They may only do so for actual crimes and they must follow the laws and Constitution in order to investigate them.

[TheCount]

The laws defining Due Process which the Bill of Rights refers to.

Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?


WRONG, the Constitution and laws govern impeachment and Congress power over it is restricted by them

You're arguing nothing with no one. What is wrong? What are you correcting?



The laws define Due Process which the Constitution gives to all including the President without limit or exception for impeachment.

Again:
Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?


That doesn't mean they aren't dealing with a criminal matter and aren't bound by the BoR.

The BoR says what it applies to. Impeachment does not meet the standard specified.

Even if it did meet the standard of a criminal proceeding, that only applies to one sub-clause of the 5th amendment, not the rest. It's also not the part that you keep arguing about.


Prosecutors and detectives don't convict either but they must abide by Due Process.

There are laws that govern the action of prosecutors and detectives. I can show them to you, if you'd like.

Meanwhile, you are unable to show the laws governing impeachment. Why is that?

Again:
Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?




Again:
The laws defining Due Process which the Bill of Rights refers to.
The laws define Due Process which the Constitution gives to all including the President without limit or exception for impeachment.

Which laws, Swordy? Show them to us. C'mon.




Misusing the power is a "High Crime" which is specified in the Constitution as impeachable and which is by definition a CRIME.

What constitutes misuse of a pardon?

Where is that specified?

What limits the President's ability to pardon?

Where does it say that?




It's a principle of common law.
Again:
Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?





WRONG
Again:
Misusing the power is a "High Crime" which is specified in the Constitution as impeachable and which is by definition a CRIME.
It's a principle of common law.

Saying it twice doesn't make it magically true.




If the President is involve in the crime, if he ordered it and promised a pardon, for example.
There is no reasonable suspicion of any such thing and that principle doesn't apply to anything but pardons for crimes.

Nowhere does it say that.



It IS a crime, it is specifically prohibited in the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

If it's a crime, what is the punishment?




And none of that implies a power to prosecute, convict, remove from office and bar from any future office for any or no reason.

Why not? They are the sole arbiter of what it means.




They may only do so for actual crimes and they must follow the laws and Constitution in order to investigate them.

A pardon is not an actual crime.

[Swordsmyth]

Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?



You're arguing nothing with no one. What is wrong? What are you correcting?



Again:
Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?



The BoR says what it applies to. Impeachment does not meet the standard specified.

Even if it did meet the standard of a criminal proceeding, that only applies to one sub-clause of the 5th amendment, not the rest. It's also not the part that you keep arguing about.



There are laws that govern the action of prosecutors and detectives. I can show them to you, if you'd like.

Meanwhile, you are unable to show the laws governing impeachment. Why is that?

Again:
Due process differs depending on context, which is why there are laws specifying due process for various proceedings. It is not universal.

What due process is due an impeachment proceeding, and who decides what that due process should be?




Which laws, Swordy? Show them to us. C'mon.




What constitutes misuse of a pardon?

Where is that specified?

What limits the President's ability to pardon?

Where does it say that?



Again:
Where? Can I read it somewhere? Can you show it to me?





Saying it twice doesn't make it magically true.




Nowhere does it say that.




If it's a crime, what is the punishment?




Why not? They are the sole arbiter of what it means.




A pardon is not an actual crime.
:sleeping:

You aren't worth educating.

[TheCount]

:sleeping:

You aren't worth educating.

You couldn't possibly pay me a greater compliment.

[acptulsa]

You couldn't possibly pay me a greater compliment.

You conducted an interesting experiment. It would seem that if the truth is repeated often enough, the truth can become the truth.

When the truth comes out that this impeachment is a circus, I wonder if anyone will repeat that? The truth is, Clinton's impeachment was a circus, but there were crimes he could have been properly impeached for, and removed, and jailed. I don't see anyone repeating that.

[misterx]

I'm really getting bored with the TDS. I can't even be bothered to respond to these people anymore. At this point everyone knows that it's all just blind hatred.

[TheCount]

When the truth comes out that this impeachment is a circus, I wonder if anyone will repeat that? The truth is, Clinton's impeachment was a circus, but there were crimes he could have been properly impeached for, and removed, and jailed. I don't see anyone repeating that.

Worse.

In the time of Clinton's impeachment, no one argued that Congress couldn't impeach him, only that they shouldn't.


How far we've come since then...

[jmdrake]

\\

[jmdrake]

Worse.

In the time of Clinton's impeachment, no one argued that Congress couldn't impeach him, only that they shouldn't.


How far we've come since then...

Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that Trump can't be impeached. In fact it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that he will be impeached but he won't be removed. The same was true for Clinton.

[jmdrake]

That's what you are doing.
You are either ignorant or making things up.
Hitlery and the coup plotters conspired with Ukrainians to manufacture dirt on Trump as part of the Russiagate hoax.

I post facts and give links. You post your opinion as fact. You have not posted a single link to support your claim that there is a connection between the Crowdstrike server and corruption within the Ukrainian government or the Ukrainian government interfering with the U.S. election. Those are separate issues.

[acptulsa]

Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that Trump can't be impeached. In fact it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that he will be impeached but he won't be removed. The same was true for Clinton.

Well, maybe no one spent this thread arguing that they cannot, but somebody certainly spent it insisting that they may not.

Or are you arguing that he's a straw man?

[jmdrake]

Well, maybe no one spent this thread arguing that they cannot, but somebody certainly spent it insisting that they may not.

Or are you arguing that he's a straw man?

LOL. Maybe "he" is. Okay. I rephrase my statement. No person with any credibility is suggesting that Trump cannot or may not be impeached. Even Sean Hannity isn't saying that. Saying it would be wrong to impeach Trump isn't the same as saying it can't happen.

[Swordsmyth]

I post facts and give links. You post your opinion as fact. You have not posted a single link to support your claim that there is a connection between the Crowdstrike server and corruption within the Ukrainian government or the Ukrainian government interfering with the U.S. election. Those are separate issues.
They are connected and the evidence has been posted many times in other threads dedicated to the question.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, maybe no one spent this thread arguing that they cannot, but somebody certainly spent it insisting that they may not.

Or are you arguing that he's a straw man?
I didn't say either.
I said he can't be impeached for any or no reason and that the current impeachment effort lacks the required basis for an investigation let alone an impeachment.

[jmdrake]

They are connected and the evidence has been posted many times in other threads dedicated to the question.

Then you should have no problem posting a link to said evidence.

[Swordsmyth]

Then you should have no problem posting a link to said evidence.
Fraud Upon the FISA Court Confirmed (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518365-Fraud-Upon-the-FISA-Court-Confirmed&highlight=Trump+Ukraine+Clinton)
Obama White House engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?539888-Obama-White-House-engaged-Ukraine-to-give-Russia-collusion-narrative-an-early-boost&highlight=Trump+Ukraine+Clinton)
Glenn Beck has audio of a Ukrainian Anti-corruption investigator saying they were trying to help Hillary, because she is part of a hegemonic cabal in America and the world, which was better for the Ukrainians, while Trump was better for America (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvfYE7ZdL0&t=4460)

Ukraine 'Anti-Corruption' Director Bragged About Helping Hillary Clinton In 2016: Leaked Audio (https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-anti-corruption-director-bragged-about-helping-hillary-clinton-2016-leaked)

Ukraine Gave More Money To Clinton Foundation That Any Nation On Earth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?539911-Ukraine-Gave-More-Money-To-Clinton-Foundation-That-Any-Nation-On-Earth)This one is biased but it admits the connection:
Trump Is Pressuring Ukraine to Smear Clinton and Biden (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534352-Trump-Is-Pressuring-Ukraine-to-Smear-Clinton-and-Biden&highlight=Trump+Ukraine+Clinton)

[jmdrake]

Fraud Upon the FISA Court Confirmed (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518365-Fraud-Upon-the-FISA-Court-Confirmed&highlight=Trump+Ukraine+Clinton)

From your first link.

Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military.

^That is not implicating the government of Ukraine as being a corrupt partner with Crowdstrike. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Swordsmyth]

From your first link.

Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military.

^That is not implicating the government of Ukraine as being a corrupt partner with Crowdstrike. Quite the opposite in fact.
That is just one facet, Ukraine was up to their eyeballs in conspiracy with the Clinton's and the DNC and the Conspiracy was the same one that involved Crowdstrike.

The whole Russiagate hoax is all one subject and Trump is free to choose which aspect of it to pursue in any given phone call.

[jmdrake]

That is just one facet, Ukraine was up to their eyeballs in conspiracy with the Clinton's and the DNC and the Conspiracy was the same one that involved Crowdstrike.

The whole Russiagate hoax is all one subject and Trump is free to choose which aspect of it to pursue in any given phone call.

He can talk about whatever. It's just not accurate to say he was talking about Ukrainian corruption when he asked if the Crowdstrike server was there. If his defense wants to make that argument in the Senate impeachment trial they are free to do so but they will have to do that with specific facts and not "Well everybody knows it's all the same thing."

[Swordsmyth]

He can talk about whatever. It's just not accurate to say he was talking about Ukrainian corruption when he asked if the Crowdstrike server was there. If his defense wants to make that argument in the Senate impeachment trial they are free to do so but they will have to do that with specific facts and not "Well everybody knows it's all the same thing."
It is all the same thing and just because Ukraine disagreed with Crowdstrike about something else doesn't change that.

[jmdrake]

It is all the same thing and just because Ukraine disagreed with Crowdstrike about something else doesn't change that.

It's not all the same thing. Just because you say that it is doesn't change that.