President Trump, Ukraine, Hunter Biden discussed on Skullduggery



What I would say? It's interesting yesterday. Several of my colleagues were saying I think the fellow from Stanford order that this is not impeachable. Nothing's impeachable I say the reverse if this is impeachable everything's impeachable every action by the president that at least the president in his blunt enough. Or shall we say transparent enough to articulate the way trump did beers impeachment. But is that really what matters. What if somebody does a wink and a nod and says I think it's really skewed interest to investigate this as an example of a broader corruption Ukraine wink quake would that be any different these nothing that the president can do under the legal architecture would forward by the house? Democrats that is not an impeachable. Offense and liquidation is. Does the house want to do that. That is an abusive power most fundamental proportions. You know I think your arguments would have a little more traction. If if you were willing to admit the obvious which was that it was wrong for the president to make this request of the president of Ukraine. It was something that left out at everybody when they read the plain words of the transcript. I want you to do me a favor. And then he identifies Biden by name as should be the subject of the investigation trump's on honest it's rods cracked. It's correct was not why's is wrong wrong. Wrong okay fine. It was wrong. It was foolish not wise but it is a FARC first of all I am. I am not at all convinced that if you take the linguistic you know takes aside that what he really was driving at is looking at the broader earlier context. I know we've been going to discredit feary. He does anything other than he wants. Two Thousand Sixteen election interference and his crazy talking to whack a doodle doodle reference to a missing server and and and then he mentions the Biden. I understand this is sort of like similarly as reference about McCain. I didn't live like people get captured. Can we look like one of the things you do in lawyer tight. Look Beh- was behind it. Look we know that. Russia interfered to why the interferes with different story. When I'm going to debate of course they interfered but Russia was not the only country interfered? There is some evidence. Look John Solomon reporting but Ukraine interfered as well. What is nothing? Like the scandal of what the Russians which was cyber systematic biologists operation the security services their intelligence agency stealing thousands of my own using them political effect. WOJ allies my sing. Like what a few Ukrainian Lloyd's sand. I agree lawyers my second career. My first career was Soviet. Defense Analysis. Familly my work. I'm not gonNA take a backseat to anybody. You might distasteful things Soviet and Russian. But that's not the point. Was it illegitimate for the president to say to Ukraine. You were bad bad guys who will corrupt guys. Why don't you look into it? Did he choose the wisest words. Should he done that on his own. No but all of that has nothing to do remember Mel Administration fraud by the framers. Because there's not an impeachable offence 'cause Mel administrations in the eyes of the beholder that makes president instead of being a CO equal branch award of Congress. That's what Madison and Mason. And everybody else said it has to be real okay. So let's not worry about the wisdom of his of terminology. Okay what do you mean has to be real real innocence in my view when the president uses his authority. He's not exceeding it noisy violating a statute. Which is what Andrew Johnson was impeached? Turns out it was unusual but I mean if a prisoner is operating within his constitutional box. I would argue in most aggressive view as mine per save on unimpeachable offense unless aggressive you is there has to be utterly compelling evidence. What Mike trying to infer it he really did it for this reason? He's not dead reason. It didn't really care about exposing corruption. He really wanted a symbolic announcement of an investigation. The has to be clear and convincing evidence of this the case. And there's absolutely no clear and convincing evidence. The only person who tried to talk about his motivations were Salmond. What happened with Bolton what the happened? We'll move any. You're making a compelling case for why they should be required to testify because they have the first knowledge of what was in the. The President's intent was cutting off the military angry. Why do you think he cut off the military aid? Look I would tell you what the Washington Post Nude Times who snowmass I'm asking. Why do you believe he cut off military aid in? Joel tell you what I believe to be. The case is been described and it's interesting because it doesn't fit this this case while he wanted to go off to buy because he was worried about buying they've been multiple articles in newspapers and nobody can accuse of being sympathetic to president. Trump would say he hated Ukraine from day. They want as soon as he got into office had real issues. We crane because he believed. They want to interfered against him. Do you realize by the way if that's true. You cannot really try. What he's he's done with the aid to trying to block biden in fact was articles in? I'm sure you've read them. In the Post New York Times asserted his aides including Bolton took months to get him to do anything positive is of Ukraine. So let's stipulate this cut off on it and cut off aid to Ukraine in two thousand seventeen. He didn't cut off Aid Ukraine in two thousand eighteen in two thousand nineteen after Biden announces for the presidency and is immediately immediately touted as the front runner. Then he cuts off the the reason I was wanting Mike is US grabbing a tremendous messaging and policy formulation disciplined administration which. I don't think anybody accused bottom. Line is the president rightly wrongheaded real concerns about crane bold because he believed rightly or wrongly rain defeated wrongly kind of matters if it was wrongly that it's an abuse of power no male administration. It's not on abuse of power at all. If you wrongly believe that's using the powers of his office for the wrong reasons that seems to be an abuse of our Barack Barack Obama in my view a very wrong reasons done A. Do nuclear deal. Ron Appreciated Ron gave him hundreds of millions of dollars. So we can engage in terrorism and kill more Americans Ping was but that wasn't really clear. Example lyrically risky deal. That was not gonNA help him get. I mean he was already the second term but it was not going to help his political things tells. Does me that. That's not how you saw. It rightly or wrongly bottom line is. Let's get off a table the issue of political benefits if what that you're doing is per se legal because it is wiser not use a record constitutional powers it is not an impeachable offense by the way with with do coequal branches right. Congress go on price article to Congress has members of Congress have an absolute Unical speech and debate clause right for all oh uses of proper uses village the power so reason people like congressman. William Jefferson Clinton got in trouble because member that cold hard cash in the freezer. But whatever you sand sand floor whatever you do oversight wise whatever you do legislation lies you one hundred percent immune. The executive has in my opinion of annoys. Not written quite quite this way. The very same prerogative. You cannot muck somebody up by virtue of his or her use of constitutional powers because you don't I like it if you don't agree with it. We don't have equal branches and volume sick and tired of hearing office. Well family problem. I suppose I'm not gonNA use the F. Word now yes okay okay. Bought always fucking shit about King George because let me tell you something. The notion that the frame was primarily concerned about king. George is historically ridiculous. If you look at the at the framers and the debates though primarily concern about what legislative supremacy the expected to Congress will be the most powerful branch they wanted to limit it so they would be very very very unhappy today watching Congress do what is doing now. I'm not saying that they weren't concerned about only powerful president they were but that was not the number one priority number one priority is making sure but the president is not a word of Congress. What is being done today? vulgarising trivializes impeachment impeachment. Because it's not high crime and Misdemeanor Hog Council on Foreign Relations Seminar Monrovia or not. It was wise to uphold military bowie. Where's colonel a women complaining? About the fact that Barack Obama's administration hasn't done shit for Ukraine. Am I missing something. Where were you a supporter of bill? Clinton's impeachment I don't know did and come because in my opinion he did not commit a high crime and misdemeanor. He'd indeed perjured himself but the underlying conduct was not nuts. Officially grabner wait. Let me be clear. Heat this expression actually would. He's he's done which is committing perjury is not an accessories constitutional powers so committing perjury. While in office aborting a witness offering offering somebody a bribe is not in that sweet spot of a constitutional powers so technically it was impeach. Actually isn't the word bribery in the constitution as grounds for impeachment of course worse bribery. Well and and here well not on the facts that we know. There's actually a piece by thing Senator Blumenthal yesterday in the Post right and it's interesting I read it. I said to myself myself being over snarky. The difference in his arguments in shifts argues serves arguments kind of vague. An amorphous a wrong but it's not easy to see he tried it down. What precisely and it shows you how ridiculous they are in order to his basic argument is this? He says it more or less this way. If what you're doing is legitimate in its own right so you want to investigate corruption Ukraine or but we. Let's ask us over a second. So let's say he was concerned about by. I don't know if it's true. But let's say he was but he believes bind broke the law. United States government asked foreign foreign governments to investigate every freaking day. Americans who broke a law in foreign country is the fact that you're running on is affected running for president. Gives you some kind of temporary community. I mean coming from people. Don't think a sitting president has immunity so the body you think Biden violated or that. What law do you think the president could could have plausibly believed Biden violent? Well I don't know but I've Vice. President former Vice President Biden but to extend Barista was a nest of corruption. Listen if you have I can tell you this. It's one of areas of law practicing if Burris Mar was a nest of duty money every penny that the paid into Hunter Biden is an act of money laundering. If you still money and you pay me Pelagic Emmett service you engage them laundering. I'm recipient of your money wondering maybe I am an innocent recipient and therefore I can get up. There's more than enough to just fine investments. But you know you you have to believe that. He was fixated on Biden because Biden was his political rival. Right he did not ask you know. There are a thousand of Americans who do business in in Ukraine who H- who are therefore associated with light likely associated with trump businesses. I will fall back on the fact that I'm a lawyer. The impeachment process is a politically infused but at the quasi judicial process. We're not supposed to in four-fifths I cannot get back. cannot get up in the court of law and say this person is bad because of such inside. Let's it's an inferno things. I am not prepared to infer anything you spoke in a way that probably was not wise. You probably should have been driven by him. But fundamentally the essence of requests which is look at the past corruption is not wrong. was there any Justice Department investigation in July of two thousand nine thousand nine hundred into Berea Sma Joe Biden or Hunter Biden. I have no idea but there was. Nobody has even suggested tested. There was there was an adequately predicated investigation by the Justice Department and the president is asking the Ukrainian in President to see to cooperate in that investigation. Fine then you've got a point but there wasn't he just out of thin air in fact less didn't in fact he invokes attorney general bars name and then Barr says he never talked about this. I don't know anything about this. There's some there's look again. We take people as we find them. This trump okay. There is some missing linkages here or look I look. I'm I'm I'm trying to be forthcoming but please be forthcoming foolish me. This is as a use of impeachment power which is most formidable authority. Congress has S. overriding the democratic choice. Destroying Incapacity Neha coordinate branch harming foreign body tremendous harm not to be invoked without enormous justification. Never be completely partners. The most partisan.

Coming up next