The US Politics |OT|

[jason1637]

SpokenTruth said:

jason1637 said:

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. You're innocent til proven guilty and if the Ukraine government is saying they had no idea aid was witholded you can't prove a quid pro quo.

2. Thats proper procedure and them not doing it comes across as rushed.

3. Oh okay if that's the case then I do see the case for impeachment under obstruction of justice.

1). That doesn't absolve someone of the crime though.  And why hold back thousands of documents and prevent the entire executive branch from testifying if you aren't guilty?

2). I'll have to look further into what they should have done.

3). And just for the record, the House did ask the courts about the subpoenas.  They said it's not our jurisdiction.

I do think it's very sketchy how the Trump admin was trying to keep things under lock and not complying with Congress and impeachment for obstruction does nakes sense but there's no solid evidence for impeachment for the quid pro quo since Ukraine is saying they didn't know about the withheld aid.