Abuse of power confirmed, but does it warrant impeachment?

More evidence (from John Bolton) seems to confirm what others have alleged, that Donald Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine until they announced an inquiry into a political opponent of Trump’s, Joe Biden.  I think that this would clear have been an abuse of power. But does that justify impeachment?

I think that even on the Trump scale it’s certainly very poor presidential behaviour, but the impeachment decision effectively is in the hands (and votes) of 53 Republican senators, and being politicians enough of them may choose to lower the standards expected of presidents even more than they are currently and refuse to call witnesses for the trial, which in itself would be a remarkable thing – a trial that refuses to call for testimonies from witnesses would be a farce.

But farce is what Washington politics has become.

NT Times:  Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Bolton’s lawyer has denied that draft copies of the books were circulated to ‘close associates’, but confirms the claim made by Bolton in the book.

Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Of course Trump has denied and diverted by attacking Bolton:

I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.

But Trump has a long record of doing that, so I think his counter claims can’t be taken seriously – Trump has lived by the sword of blatant lying, so his credibility dies by that sword.

With that being said, the transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems. Additionally, I met with President Zelensky at the United Nations (Democrats said I never met) and released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations – and far ahead of schedule. I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration.

Trump has refused to testify properly (bull by Twitter can’t be taken seriously), and he has told witnesses to defy subpoenas requiring them to testify.

NY Times:

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.

The submission to the White House may have given Mr. Trump’s aides and lawyers direct insight into what Mr. Bolton would say if he were called to testify at Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. It also intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying, according to two people familiar with their concerns.

The White House has ordered Mr. Bolton and other key officials with firsthand knowledge of Mr. Trump’s dealings not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Mr. Bolton said in a statement this month that he would testify if subpoenaed.

Trump is again abusing his power trying to run a defence via Twitter but refusing to allow cooperation with the impeachment process.

Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said the Bolton manuscript underscored the need for him to testify, and the House impeachment managers demanded after this article was published that the Senate vote to call him. “There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president’s defense,” they said in a statement.

But if less than four Republican Senators vote to exclude witnesses from the impeachment trial then it will fizzle out, but the controversy will rage on into the US election year.

It’s inevitable that Bolton will be dumped on Trump and his helpers, just as other witnesses who corroborate Bolton’s claims have been dumped on – and some dumped from their jobs. Trumps smashing machine has had plenty of practice. If he is acquitted by the Republican senators the question will become how many Americans will also give Trump a pass and vote for him.

If Trump is impeached I think that Republicans would still hold power in the White House, with Vice President Mike Pence stepping up into the tainted breach until the election in November and the inauguration of a new president next January – unless an impeached president can stand for office again, and win.

It’s quite possible that Trump could contest the presidency against Joe Biden, and it’s feasible that he could win a second term. There seems to be a significant number of people willing to make excuses for his transgressions and support him, defend him, regardless.

I think it is clear that Trump has abused his power as president, but many supporters don’t seem to care as long as he’s still there.

Trump at Davos last week.

I consider what I’ve done here, with this whole witch hunt, from day one — with the insurance policy; with the horrible statements made between Strzok and Page; and McCabe; and Comey, who lied to Congress and did so many other bad things. He lied and he leaked. When I finish, I think that this is going to go down as one of the greatest things I’ve done for our country. These are bad, corrupt people. These are bad people, and very bad for our country.”

Some suggest he is projector in chief.

Image

Leave a comment

57 Comments

  1. Fox News largely ignored the impeachment trial last when the case against Trump was being presented, but not that the defence is making it’s case they are live blogging.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-senate-impeachment-trial-live-updates

    CNN has been giving the whole trial extensive coverage,
    https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-trial-01-27-20/index.html

    Not surprisingly GOP leaders expected to make case against Bolton subpoena

    A source working with the President’s legal team said Republican leaders are expected to argue against subpoenaing former national security adviser John Bolton.

    According to the source, the argument, which will be made at the Senate Republicans’ closed conference lunch, will go like this: Whether John Bolton has relevant information has never been the primary focus. The focus has been on whether the Senate will “agree to pick up the Democrats’ abdicated responsibility” by digging for evidence that did not support the articles of impeachment when they were drafted.

    But the Bolton bolt has made arguments against calling witnesses harder.

    Lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff said he’s “pleased” some Republican senators have said they’d like to hear testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton, whose manuscript is at the center of impeachment news today.

    “I am pleased that the senators are reconsidering,” Schiff told reporters. “This witness obviously has such relevant information to shed on the most egregious of all of the charges in the articles of impeachment, and that is that the President of the United States withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid from an ally at war to help secure that nation’s help to cheat in the next election.”

    Reply
    • David

       /  28th January 2020

      And CNNs ratings couldnt even hit a million viewers even MSNBC stopped covering it.
      It was really really boring and Starr is talking now for Trump and he is absolutely woeful, truly awful.

      Reply
    • PG you write above “If Trump is impeached”

      That’s gaslighting plain and simple. Trump has already been impeached and his name will forever be associated with an asterisk to indicate the fact.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  28th January 2020

        It’s not gaslighting. Gaslighting is when someone convinces someone else that they are mad. It was the name of a play by JB Priestley. I think it was him. A husband keeps telling his wife various things to tip her over the edge.

        Reply
        • it’s not just sanity – gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks make others question their own memories or perceptions as well as sanity.

          The playwright was Patrick Hamilton, and the play is well known for its portrayal of psychological domestic abuse and toxic masculinity.

          PG knows that Trump has already been impeached but writes “if Trump is impeached” as if the fact of impeachment can be questioned.

          Reply
  2. David

     /  28th January 2020

    Schiff could have had Bolton testify if he hadnt been in such a huge hurry to get impeachment done for Christmas media reasons only for Nancy to sit on it for weeks.
    We have the usual playbook, think Kavanagh, where the hearings are underway and an anonymous source makes an unsubstantiated claim about something that may or may not have happened and breathlessly reported in either the NYT, the WaPo or CNN to the benefit of the Dems.
    Democrats have no case, they are loosing public support and as per Kavanagh they are throwing in a last hail mary. Bolton will be making no comment as he watches the pre orders of his book, released yesterday funnily enough, as he does what Comey did when he released his book…its called a tease and then when the book comes out the leak turns out to be salacious and not really in the book.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  28th January 2020

      “Schiff could have had Bolton testify if he hadnt been in such a huge hurry to get impeachment done for Christmas ..”
      Not so , Bolton refused to testify without a court order- which would have taken time to get and Trump also invoked executive privilege ( not that Bolton had to obey Trump now he had been fired)

      Reply
      • David

         /  28th January 2020

        It was before the courts and due to be heard early Jan and the Dems withdrew the action

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  28th January 2020

          Yeah …and be stuck in the courts like all the other Trump related subpoenas are.
          Anyway , if the Senate votes to hear Bolton now , he will come. So here we have the first person testimony Trumps lawyers have been asking about

          Reply
    • Duker

       /  28th January 2020

      The House actions to get Bolton to testify were:

      “The House Intelligence Committee scheduled a deposition with Bolton in early November, then waited to see if he’d show up. Bolton instead said he would go to court to get a ruling on whether the White House could block him from testifying. “We would welcome John Bolton’s deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today,” the Intelligence Committee said in a statement at the time. “

      Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  28th January 2020

    Surely the bigger question is whether Joe Biden was involved in Ukraine corruption and a cover up? Will we ever know? Do Democrats even care?

    Reply
    • artcroft

       /  28th January 2020

      No he wasn’t, so no they don’t.

      Reply
      • David

         /  28th January 2020

        So why did Bidens son get paid millions to work for Burisma given he had no experience and has a pretty bad drug problem ?
        He went to Ukraine with his Dad when he was VP on air force 2

        Reply
        • Riddle me this: Trump’s lawyer Pam Bondi is making twice as much per month as Hunter Biden, from Qatar, and for no apparent reason. Bondi is a part-time, $115,000-per-month lobbyist for Qatar.

          That’s right, Trump is being represented by a registered foreign agent making US$115k-a-month from a filthy-rich monarchy that countenances death camps for its foreign workers. Not only that. As Florida AG, Pam Bondi also took $25,000 from Trump to drop her Trump University case.

          Aaand riddle me this as well: the irony of you invoking nepotism in an allegation of corruption. What about Jared and Ivanka? What qualifications do they have to be White House advisors besides nepotism? And what about Bill Barr’s son, in the White House? They are all profiting enormously off their positions.

          If giving a job to an unqualified kid or spouse of an influential member of government were illegal, half the Senate would be indicted and Trump would have been impeached for nepotism three years ago.

          The GOP and its supporters lecturing people about corruption is like Jeffrey Dahmer giving a speech on the dangers of cannibalism.

          Reply
          • David

             /  28th January 2020

            Bondi is the former AG for Florida, sexist much. She is a smart accomplished lawyer with an unblemished record, just because she is a woman there is no need to denigrate her for her looks and gender.
            Hunter was thrown out of the navy for drug offences, he left his crack pipe in a rental car, he just cheated on his misses and fathered a child with a stripper and drives 120k can while trying to avoid paying child support, he is a piece of garbage but because he is a man and a Democrat he gets a pass.

            Reply
            • so you have no coherent response to Pam Bondi earning $115k a month from the Qataris, or to the millions that the Trump offspring make.

              And like a typical Trumper you introduce a completely irrelevant gaslighting comment about denigrating Bondi for looks and gender – neither of which is mentioned in my comment.

              Gotta love Pam Bondi – the former Florida attorney general who took $25,000 from Trump’s foundation, just as she was considering an investigation into his sham university, before ultimately blocking the case and hiding the donation – lecturing the world on corruption right now.

              Anyway, I’m looking forward to her investigation into Jared’s nepotistic unqualifications, failure of security clearance, his criminal father, and his shakedown of Qatar to get US$1.5B for his personal business.

    • Quite true, we may never know. However, what we do know is that:

      – Ukraine had already met its anti-corruption benchmarks to receive the aid

      – Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine and a witness for the Republicans in November, called the allegations against Biden “not credible.”

      – Trump’s push for a probe agains the Bidens only began when Biden emerged as a possible 2020 presidential candidate, two and a half years after Trump took office

      – but Trump never once mentioned corruption in his “perfect call” (He did name the Bidens 5 times though)

      The Republicans have been aware of the allegations against the Bidens for five years now, much of which during a period of time that the GOP controlled the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office.

      Given the willingness of the GOP to pursue investigations into Benghazi, Hillary’s email server, etc., it’s preposterous to suggest that the allegations against the Bidens are merited but haven’t already been investigated. But no evidence has emerged to support the allegations. Not only is there no evidence, there is a mountain of evidence that actively debunks them.

      so, surely the bigger question is do you continue to ignore the blazing inferno of Trump’s corruption (now additionally evidenced by Bolton’s revelations), while praying for an elusive wisp of smoke from a Russian-originated conspiracy theory about Biden-land.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  28th January 2020

        Only Ukraine can investigate properly what happened in Ukraine.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  28th January 2020

          Good luck with that …. they have been under pressure from all the countries giving aid on the corruption front…. until Trump joined the corruption game and said “I want something in return for the military aid ” Thats his style , but it wasnt something to make america great again, it was dirt on Biden or Clintons server or whatever to benefit him personally during his biggest threat in the re election. Its called Abuse of power.

          Reply
          • David

             /  28th January 2020

            Trump wanted to know what happened in the 2016 election perhaps, he wanted to know why aid was held up by Biden until they fired a prosecutor who was looking at Burisma where Biden son was picking up a few million for who knows what. Even Obamas team raised concerns about Hunter but Bidens family was deemed off limits.
            Trump put hold on us taxpayers money going to 8 other countries.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  28th January 2020

              What aid being held up by Biden until they fired a prosecutor…VP cant do that. EU, US and others wanted this corrupt prosecutor fired eventually it was IMF pressure that did so.
              The Aid money allocated directly by Congress wasnt Trumps to withhold, and the White House was told that it was ‘illegal’ to do so, but did it anyway such that the time for the spending expired.

              Whether Biden, his son danced on tables with prostitutes provided by a prosector or not is irrelevant ( they didnt). Trump withheld money in a way that wasnt allowed.
              It would be a lifes work to look into corruption in Ukraine and theres is no smoking gun connection the Bidens to any of it. You know like ‘direct testimony’

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  28th January 2020

            If Biden did nothing wrong no dirt would have been found. A simple fact that seems to escape the loony Left brigade. Trump asked for an investigation – perfectly reasonable. It could have cleared or condemned Biden. Obviously the Left don’t want to know.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  28th January 2020

              There is no there there. The old if he didn’t do anything wrong there’s nothing to worry about , how come Trump won’t cooperate on any investigation into him. He has abused his power to benefit himselfand broke the law over the aid , as that type of aid he couldn’t touch.
              Anyway if there was a shred of evidence why wasn’t Guiliani finding it , instead he seemed to be deep into the corrupt class himself. Instead the prosecutor that Biden wanted gone was top of the list too for the EU, the IMF as well as the Obama Whitehouse

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  28th January 2020

              None of that rant answers my point: asking for an investigation is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. The Left do it themselves all the time.

            • Remember folks: the same guy (Trump) who has said that he wants to get rid of the federal law which prohibits foreign corruption, is now trying to convince you that he cares about foreign corruption.

  4. Corky

     /  28th January 2020

    ”There seems to be a significant number of people willing to make excuses for his transgressions and support him, defend him, regardless.”

    I’m one for the simple reason the alternatives don’t bear thinking about, both for America and the Western world. We would go from MAGA to MAMA ( make America mediocre again.)

    Reply
    • That horse bolted long ago, Corky. Trump’s America is now the laughing stock of the world.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  28th January 2020

        Well, yes and no. I’m sure Russia and China piss themselves with laughter at Trumpy’s antics. That’s good for world peace. Imagine a joyless wonder like Pence in control? America’s enemies would always be double guessing themselves as to an appropriate course of action. With Trump they know if they don’t kick the bulldogg sleeping on the porch things will generally be alright. However, as Iran and China have found out, if action needs to be taken it will be. Seems to me a nice balance to keep both America and the world happy.
        Barring of course people with TDS.

        Reply
  5. Bolton lacks any fibre of moral courage, unlike Marie Yovanovitch, Jennifer Williams, Fiona Hill, and Alex Vindman. Bolton denied critical information to a lawful and constitutional judicial inquiry while making it available for what is at the end of the day his own private business venture.

    But he was trained by a master in the art of beaurocratic murder, Dick Cheney, so not only does Bolton’s evidence blow the entire defense, but it also reveals that Trump lawyers have been lying to senators’ faces in denying direct evidence of the quid pro quo.

    If Republican Senators fail to approve calling additional witnesses (most notably Bolton) in Trump’s impeachment trial given Bolton’s allegations that Trump is guilty as Hell, we really are in Alice in Wonderland territory

    There’s an interesting “coincidence” between the WH receipt of Bolton’s manuscript for pre-publication review (December 30) and the assassination of Soleimani (January 3, 4 days later) an assassination that Bolton has been long proposing. A coincidence that now looks a little like compensatory action for Bolton’s silence, i.e. another quid pro quo. “I promise you your war on Iran, if you button your lip.”

    Something else that has been missed so far is that Bolton also wrote: “Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by Rudy Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients.”

    Reply
  6. Blazer

     /  28th January 2020

    Bolton would be in a close race with Cheney as to who is the most despicable excuse for a human being.
    The cartoon is classic…’Distinguished Lying Cross’!…bol.

    Reply
  7. sounds like M Romney (Rep.) is considering crossing the floor & he indicated (on Al_Jz) that he may not be the only one.. who thinks ‘further evidence’ needs to be heard & NOT swept under the carpet.. while MrT tweets his rants/opinions on everything from ‘wo to go..’
    It is then up to the ‘powers that be’ to decide on the verdict: whether to give MrT his ‘marching orders’ or not :/

    Reply
  8. The problem Republicans face now is that they, and the president’s attorneys, have both pushed the talking point that Democrats’ call for new witnesses is pointless because none of the witnesses are claiming direct knowledge of any corrupt motives behind the Trump administration’s decision to withhold the aid.

    Now Bolton has revealed he did have direct knowledge.

    What’s more Bolton’s lawyer transmitted the manuscript to the White House a month ago on 30 December. Not only did Bolton had the knowledge, but the White House has known for a month.

    According to Maggie Haberman from the NYTimes, Republican senators now claim to feeling “blindsided” by the Bolton revelations. Evidently they weren’t told, even though the WH knew a month ago.

    So, if the Trump administration had any suspicion that Bolton’s facts were going to emerge, then it would mean Trump has intentionally put his own Senate Republicans in this situation.

    They feel blindsided by what the Dems have been telling them for months? Maybe if they paid attention during the impeachment investigation they’d feel less blindsided.

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  28th January 2020

      MrT needs to be reminded that ‘Reality’ exists.. he does not create it with his imagination OR by tweeting it into the ‘public conscience’ :/ 😦

      ..there are some suckers who thinks he speaks/tweets ‘gospel truth’… BUT you cant fool all the people all the time… 😀 😀 :/

      Reply
    • duperez

       /  28th January 2020

      I like this comment: “This morning President Trump announced he has never met John Bolton, he has no idea who Bolton is. He added that videos of the two of them together were a Ukraine creation to undermine his presidency.” 🙂

      Reply
  9. Zedd

     /  28th January 2020

    I watched part of the impeachment trial.. they kept playing bits of a witness, saying things like; ‘that was my understanding’ or ‘I presume that’ & ‘as far as I was aware’ etc. because he was not just say YES or NO to everything.. the Reps. are trying to say ‘Hes making it all up’ MORE Fake news from the ‘Pro-MrT; side..

    The guy was a witness not a ‘recording device’ or a tweet machine

    Reply
  10. lurcher1948

     /  28th January 2020

    This older female will be the virginal sacrifice for the GOP on election night, MAGA..*.

    Make Act Go Away MAGA

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  28th January 2020

      She looks entertaining, Lurch. A lot better than Hilary or Pelosi.

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  28th January 2020

      A real RIGHTY woman. You just know the party is at her place. Mean
      while down the road Dems would be munching down on vegan fare washed down with Dasani. That would be followed by a documentary on saving the planet from plastic. Us RIGHTIES don’t do that crap, Lurchy.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  28th January 2020

        Really ? looks like Trumps might be more interested in this

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  28th January 2020

          Class v Arse. We all know which is which.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  28th January 2020

          I don’t think he goes for men, duker. The LGBT team seem generally in your camp.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  29th January 2020

            Log Cabin Republicans!
            in NZ they hide in the closet if they are a Nat woman Mp who likes multi sports

            Reply
  11. How about he release the real, actual transcript of the call that is locked in that secure server?
    How come he will not allow Bolton and Mulvaney to testify.
    Me thinks he doth protest too much to be innocent.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  29th January 2020

      Innocent of what? Asking for a potential crime to be investigated?

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  29th January 2020

        There were other ways to deal with Ukraines corruption, it was illegal to with hold specific military aid voted for by Congress, and the WH was told that but went ahead.
        The corrupt prosecutor was eventually forced out anyway, so there was no potential crime for Joe Biden to push for his removal, along with others who wanted it. Even the Ambassador was pushing for the removal of the prosecutor , but Trump ‘wanted her gone’ instead . Funny way to fight corruption, by getting rid of a person the corrupt russian friends/donors of Trump wanted gone

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  29th January 2020

          So no substantive response. The money was not withheld even though the claimed quid wasn’t provided. A lot of nonsense from start to finish.

          Reply
          • Twaddle. The money WAS withheld and it was only released after the WH learned of the whistleblower complaint and the block on the aid became publicly known.

            The military aid that was eventually supplied also came with a couple of Trump-imposed limitations that rendered it pretty much useless to the Ukrainians:
            – the Javelin anti-tank missles cannot be used against the Russians
            – the missiles must be stored under US guard sveeral hundred miles from the border between Ukraine and Russia.

            Moreover, the Trump admninistration and the OMB broke the law by withholding the aid for what they claimed was a “policy reason”, which is a reason that is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,

            On July 13, 2018, DOD certified that Ukraine had taken actions sufficient to release security assistance funds.

            On May 23, 2019, DOD again certified that Ukraine had taken substantial actions to decrease corruption, increase accountability, and sustained improved combat capability enabled by U.S. assistance.

            Finally, before the July 2019 hold, the Trump administration had approved sending foreign assistance to Ukraine nearly 50 separate times without ever holding it because of concerns that it would be diverted due to corruption.

            But the Trump administration and the OMB refused to release the aid and the publicly available evidence along with Bolton’s statements show that the President himself ordered this illegal act.

            No-one is above the law.

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  29th January 2020

              “No-one is above the law.”

              Why does the impeachment not say which law was broken?

            • Duker

               /  29th January 2020

              Because the Constitution only mentions high crimes and midemenours.
              Anyway the specific law for with holding is described by the Government Accountability Office

              The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so.
              Howver the more general ‘crime’ is Abuse of power,

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  29th January 2020

              Abuse of power = asking for a Democrat to be investigated. Only Republicans are allowed to be investigated according to Democrats. As Trump was when running against Hillary.

            • Pink David

               /  29th January 2020

              “Howver the more general ‘crime’ is Abuse of power”

              What does this mean?

    • Corky

       /  29th January 2020

      It’s a little like an atheist on his deathbed… it’s best to hedge one’s bets.

      Reply

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