71% of Americans want to hear from regime staffers at Senate trial

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/474885-poll-7-in-10-say-trump-should-allow-top-aides-to-testify-in-senate

This includes 64% of Republicans. Of course Mitch/Trump couldn’t care less about Americans. IMHO, that is.

32 thoughts on “71% of Americans want to hear from regime staffers at Senate trial

  1. Pretty much everything Mulvaney and his assistant Blair, or John Bolton would have said or heard from Trump after “Good Morning” would be subject to executive privilege. Michael Duffy of OMB would not be covered by EP, but would also at best be a second hand witness. So, I don’t know what they could add but if Schummer wants to call them, don’t forget that the GOP would also be able to call the Bidens and Hunter’s business partner, and of course Adam Schiff, the whistleblower and Schiff’s staff members who coordinated with him, and even better Alexandra Chalupa, to establish DNC collusion the Ukrainian Oligarchs in the 2016 election. All under oath.

    Their testimony would fully justify Trump’s seeking an investigation into Ukrainian corruption and meddling.

    But I would like to see them go for it. Trump still wouldn’t be convicted in the Senate, and the Bidens, Schiff and Chalupa would be very entertaining. (Hint, it’s a crime for Congressmen to lie to Congress too.)

    Like

    1. I think it’s very telling that you jump on the hiding strategy (blanket executive privilege) that is the go-to of the guilty as the best defense.

      When the facts come out I predict you will be a very unhappy camper…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Executive privilege goers back to George Washington, and is even more important today.

        If advisers have to worry that their conversations with the President will become public, they will protect their future careers by only giving politically correct advice. That means the President is not presented with all options.

        It doesn’t matter which party is in power, that privacy of advice is vital and most be protected.

        That principle is a lot more important than any impeachment.

        Like

        1. …”the President is not presented with all options.” In a normal administration you would be correct. This President only wants people to tell him what he wants to hear. Counter narrative folks tend to get lambasted on Twitter (see Christopher Wray) or fired (see HR McMasters, Jon Bolton, and John Kelley).

          Like

        2. EP may be important in matters of policy discussions and seeking advice for legal matters. I get that.

          In this case, however, there is ample evidence of abuse of power, an impeachable offense. Exerting EP to hide evidence of that is specious at best and obstruction at worst.

          If Trump did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and most of the evidence was circumstantial but still strong, exerting EP protection for those who helped plan the crime is most clearly obstruction of justice.

          Like any other right, EP carries responsibilities.

          Commission of crimes is not covered.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. That is true, but a court must determine whether a specific claim of executive privilege is valid or not, the House of Representatives cannot simply claim executive privilege cannot be asserted on all cases.

            When executive privilege is asserted, the proper way to exclude it is to go to court. Until such time as a court rules, EP is in place.

            Like

          2. RE: “there is ample evidence of abuse of power, an impeachable offense.”

            Many have argued that “abuse of power” is not an impeachable offense. To pretend that it is is constitutionally incoherent.

            I believe it is impossible for the president to commit an abuse of power, although he is certainly capable of committing treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

            Like

          1. Simply put, the work product of a government employee (contractors too, unless specifically excluded in their contract) belongs to the Government, i.e. the “We, the People” part of the Constitution. Except in the circumstances of national security and specific information singled out law, e.g., tax returns, a government employee is free to discuss his work in open hearings with the public’s representatives, i.e., MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.
            In the above special cases, the employee can use a classified hearing.
            The only recourse the President has is, under conditions, to fire the employee.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Let me ask thins. What is the relevance of Biden testimony concerning Trump’s actions wrt to Ukraine? The article of impeachment has to do with abuse of power and regardless of whether the Biden’s are involved in Ukrainian corruption (of which there has been ZERO evidence, short of corrupt former Ukrainian prosecutors attempting to curry favor with Rudy… See Trudy Rubin’s piece in today’s VP.) is not relevant to holding up aid and denying a meeting until an investigation is ANNOUNCED. The actual abuse of power by Trump.

      Your conspiracy concerning DNC-Ukranian oligarchs in 2016 is laughable. Just because people in the Ukraine came out in opposition to Trump does not indicate anything except they didn’t support Trump. There was no collusion there. There were more meetings between Russians and Trump campaign officials than there were editorials in Ukraine that were anti-Trump.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The 2016 collusion between the DNC and Ukrainian oligarchs is through Alexandra Chalupa, one of the 8 witnesses Schiff and Nadler would not allow.

        There is plenty of evidence of Biden’s corruption, you just won’t see it. Hunter Biden, who has only been in Ukraine 2 days in his life, was paid $83K per month by Burisma while his father had control of aid to Ukraine.

        Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid until prosecutor Shokin was fired Shokin, who was probably corrupt as well, was in charge of investigating Burisma.

        That is more than enough probable cause for an investigation, and for compelling their testimony under oath. If Trump had probable cause to believe there was corruption by Biden there is no abuse of power in investigating them, and no law specifies how the President must conduct that investigation.

        Like

          1. But Trudy Rubin is one of the most biased people on the planet.

            Basically, her column says ‘Your corrupt Ukrainians are liars but my corrupt Ukrainians can be trusted, so there is no need to investigate.’

            Like

          2. I said to read it carefully. Obviously you read it with intent to TRY and discredit what she says. Let me just say I will trust her judgement over that of Rudy Giuliani. He keeps trying to come up with dirt, but just can’t get the job done. If he had it, it would have been released by now. If trump really wanted to end all of this, he would put it out there and say “See. Nothing there”.

            And calling the current Ukrainian press and leadership corrupt is disingenuous.

            Like

    1. RE: “using it [EP] to shield the President from criminal acts is a clear abuse of power.”

      That’s impossible, unless you assume a person is guilty until proven innocent, as witch hunters do.

      Like

        1. RE: “I don’t believe that EP covers impeachable acts by POTUS.”

          It doesn’t, but you have to establish the impeachable act before you can remove EP. As I said, it is impossible for EP to be an abuse of power unless you assume the president is guilty.

          Like

          1. “… it is impossible for EP to be an abuse of power unless you assume the president is guilty.”

            The articles of impeachment are certainly assumptions of guilt. So by your logic, EP with regards to the charges as set forth would be abuse of power.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Sounds like a catch-22. But if the cover-up of an impeachable act comes to light…well, Just ask the Nixon staffers who did time over Watergate.

            And I did not say EP is an abuse of power. I did say the use of EP to cover up impeachable acts is criminal. It has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or guilt.

            Like

          3. RE: “The articles of impeachment are certainly assumptions of guilt”

            No, they are assertions of guilt. By my logic, a court would have to find the assertions have a high probability of being correct to justify the removal of EP. In this case, should a court find that the articles of impeachment do not in fact represent impeachable offenses, it would have no basis for removing EP.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s