(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . The impeachment of Biden compared to the indictments & impeachments of Trump [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2023-12-18 Donald Trump showed interest in weaponizing the Department of Justice as early as 2015 and 2016. This is evident because he led chants of "Lock her up" at campaign rallies and he asked why he nominated Jeff Sessions for attorney general when he recused himself from the Trump Russia investigation. He nominated David Weiss to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden in 2018 and sent Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine shortly after to try to get Hunter and Joe Biden prosecuted and damage Joe Biden politically. He clearly wanted this while he was president. If it didn't happen when they had years to get this done while Trump was president and they were motivated to do so, the only way to account for this is that there was no evidence to support the claim that Joe Biden committed a crime. On the other hand, President Biden told Merrick Garland that he was not going to tell him who to prosecute and who not to prosecute, but simply that he expected the law to be enforced. Attorney General Merrick Garland recognized that recusal isn't just if there is an actual conflict of interest, but also should be done if it appears that there is or may be a conflict of interest. Thus, he did recuse himself and there is no way to deny this. Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donahue testified that Jack Smith is a real Republican. . Freak pretend holy man fundamentalist liar Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson claims that this impeachment of President Joe Biden is a solid, evidence based action and that the impeachments and indictments of Donald Trump were rushed, not supported by evidence, and were purely partisan acts. This diary disproves that lie, that intentional falsehood. It shows that the impeachments were based upon evidence and fact. The Indictments also are fact based. Then this diary considers how the voters are responding to the impeachments and Indictments of Donald Trump compared to the impeachment of President Biden. . For your edification, I present this video in which James Carville explains everything about Mike Johnson. . . The Hill writes, "Biden impeachment inquiry risks backfiring on GOP" . In those, DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said the impeachment inquiry is “a cheap, cynical stunt by MAGA Republicans” and that they are “doing Donald Trump’s bidding." Not impeaching Biden risks Republicans appearing to clear him of wrongdoing during an election year, boosting Democratic arguments that the probe is political and infuriating both hard-line conservative House members and voters eager to see the president impeached. “ There shouldn’t be any such thing as a snap impeachment, a sham impeachment, what the Democrats did against President Trump. This is the opposite of that,” Johnson said . . Johnson is lying. He is saying something he knows is not true. Liz Cheney said that the fundamentalist is a bullshitter. . There were two says Vox . In fact, there were two. Voluminous testimony and key documents released as part of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry make clear that the Trump administration’s attempts to get Ukraine to launch investigations in exchange for something in return proceeded in two stages. The first was the offer of a White House meeting in exchange for investigations. The Ukrainians were repeatedly told that Trump would agree to host new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a meeting if Ukraine pursued the investigations Trump wanted. There was also a second: The Trump administration would stop blocking hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine if the Ukrainians committed to those investigations. Trump himself ordered the aid blocked back in mid-July, and he seemed to connect the general topic of military aid to investigations on his late July call with Zelensky. But it wasn’t until August that the Ukrainians learned the aid was being held up. After that, the quid pro quo became explicit: One administration official, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, began telling the Ukrainians that Ukraine would only get the aid if they publicly announced those investigations. Sondland said the same thing to several of his American colleagues — and he claimed several times that this was coming from Trump himself. .According to NSC staffer Alexander Vindman’s testimony, Sondland there asked the Ukrainians specifically for an “investigation of the Bidens.” On the call, Zelensky mentioned buying “more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.” On the call, immediately responded, “I would like you to do us a favor though,” and urged Zelensky to talk to Barr about “what happened” in 2016. . . Nichols states Trump is being impeached over a shakedown of Ukraine . Trump is being impeached over an extortion scheme, not a 'policy dispute' Trump was shaking down Zelensky while trying to keep the rest of the government in the dark. That’s not a 'policy,' that’s a conspiracy. Tom Nichols Opinion columnist Trump’s own executive departments certified that all conditions had been met . He does not have the right to shake down our friends. He does not have the right literally to break the law and withhold aid duly authorized by the people of the United States, purely for his personal benefit. . CNN gives us the Trump-Ukraine impeachment report annotated . .The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election. The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Trump has repeatedly said he never personally made a demand. However, Trump did ask for a “favor” right after Zelensky referred to US missile systems during their key phone call — and other officials transmitted to the Ukrainians that the aid was contingent on an investigation. Witnesses in the impeachment inquiry were split. Some said it was a request. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified he believed it was a demand. To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary. During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. You can read an annotated transcript of the July 25th phone call. And look at a timeline of all the events that happened on this pivotal day. . This is from the annotation of the phone call . The US Congress had OK’d a lot indeed, nearly $400 million in aid for Ukraine this year alone, but Trump, just before this phone call, had put the skids on that aid for the fiscal year that ends this month. If he didn’t know it when this phone call took place, Zelensky was about to find out. I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. “I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily.” Every word here matters and will be closely scrutinized, this line no doubt chief among them. What does Trump mean here? Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. Subtext: Included in that nearly $400 million aid package is $250 million in military aid the Ukrainians were expecting from the US. Trump had held that aid up The President I would like you to do us a favor though . . . It continues . There is nothing subtle about “I would like you to do us a favor.” Zelensky isn’t exactly saying no to Trump here. This is proof that Zelensky was already aware of Giuliani’s efforts. Those include both the Manafort angle and pressure to look at the Bidens. Giuliani did ultimately meet with a Zelensky confidant in Madrid not long after this call took place. Trump asks for a favor. Zelensky said, essentially, “you got it.” Biden, many Ukrainians and other Western officials wanted the top Ukrainian prosecutor, Shokin, fired because he wasn’t prosecuting corruption. In Trump’s telling, he was “shut down and that’s really unfair.” . Wikipedia describes the Trump extortion of Ukraine . . CAP's report, "Trump's Extortion of Ukraine, a Complete Government Shakedown" is available at the link for those who want to read even more about it. . I questioned the necessity of discussing the second impeachment as it is self-evident, apart from MAGA, that it was completely justified. Nevertheless, just to shut this down, I am going to include it. . . . WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump on Wednesday became the first American president to be impeached twice, as 10 members of his party joined with Democrats in the House to charge him with “incitement of insurrection” for his role in egging on a violent mob that stormed the Capitol last week. Reconvening in a building now heavily militarized against threats from pro-Trump activists and adorned with bunting for the inauguration of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., lawmakers voted 232 to 197 to approve a single impeachment article. It accused Mr. Trump of “inciting violence against the government of the United States” in his quest to overturn the election results, and called for him to be removed and disqualified from ever holding public office again. The vote left another indelible stain on Mr. Trump’s presidency just a week before he is slated to leave office and laid bare the cracks running through the Republican Party. More members of his party voted to charge the president than in any other impeachment. . It cannot be stressed enough that ten republicans in the House of Representatives voted to impeach Donald Trump and seven Senate Republicans voted to convict him. In today's partisan time, that would never have happened if Trump were not guilty of inciting the insurrection. There was a bipartisan House of Representatives' Committee that investigated the incitement of the insurrection. The above NY Times documents former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy's statement acknowledging Trump's guilt in the matter. . . Professor Garrett Epps of the University of Baltimore analyzes Trump's words at the Ellipse for the BBC . Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide". Mr Trump said there would be no concession. He went on: "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore." 'We are going to the Capitol' At one point, Mr Trump said the Biden presidency had to be challenged. "You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen." 'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore' .The language was very different from other sections, which borrowed more from combat or war.It's pretty goddamn imminent because he's telling people to march to the Capitol and I will march with you.He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen. . Professor Epps says it is a jury question. While it seems obvious that Donald Trump committed the crime of incitement of the insurrection to us, there are defenses available to Donald Trump that aren't available to other charges. This explains why Special Prosecutor Jack Smith chose not to include this charge on the Indictment. . Wikipedia describes the second impeachment trial . Trump had originally hired Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier to represent him, but they quit along with three other lawyers after "the former president wanted the lawyers representing him to focus on his allegations of mass election fraud" and his false claim that "the election was stolen from him."[7] At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate voted 57–43 to convict Trump of inciting insurrection, falling 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution, and Trump was therefore acquitted. Seven Republican senators joined all Democratic and independent senators in voting to convict Trump, the largest bipartisan vote for an impeachment conviction of a U.S. president or former U.S. president.[8][9] After the vote on the acquittal, Mitch McConnell said there is no doubt that Trump is practically and morally responsible for inciting the events at the Capitol but he voted against conviction due to his interpretation of the United States Constitution.[10] . Even pilot fish Graham admits that the impeachment of President Biden has problems . Graham says Biden impeachment inquiry narrative ‘falling apart’ Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday said he believes the “narrative” at the center of the House’s impeachment inquiry into President Biden is “falling apart,” arguing if there was a “smoking gun” in the inquiry, there would be more clear discussions. “If there were a smoking gun, I think we’d be talking about it,” Graham said on NBC News’s “Meet The Press.” . . Donald Trump pressured House Republicans to impeach President Biden . Donald Trump has been weighing in behind the scenes in support of the House GOP push to impeach President Joe Biden, including talking with a member of leadership in the lead up to Tuesday’s announcement authorizing a formal impeachment inquiry. The former president has not been shy about his belief that Biden should be impeached. Late last month he wrote on Truth Social: “Either IMPEACH the BUM, or fade into OBLIVION. THEY DID IT TO US.” . . . . . ABC considers the pressure Donald Trump has pushed upon House Republicans to impeach President Biden . Before House Speaker Kevin McCarthy decided to move forward with an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump openly pushed Republicans to do more, claiming his political rival is a "crook," Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, said this week that he was "not seeing facts or evidence at this point." Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., who would serve as a juror at an impeachment trial, agreed. She said this week she did not think enough evidence had been presented for a conviction. Out on the trail, Trump has pledged to investigate Biden and other political opponents, . From my own text to myself: ."CNN has reported that there are as many as 30 [House] Republicans who don't believe there's enough evidence yet for impeachment " Republican Ken Buck (Colorado) said that, 'the time for impeachment is the time when there's evidence linking President Biden, if there's evidence linking President Biden, to a high crime or misdemeanor " but that the evidence "doesn't exist right now " . He also said, " I don't think that evidence has been presented " connecting President Biden to wrongdoing " and that, "I'm not convinced that that evidence exists " Republican Republican Dave Joyce (Ohio) told Forbes, he is 'not seeing facts or evidence ' that would merit an impeachment inquiry. Republican Rep Dusty Johnson (South Dakota) told CNN that ,' there is a constitutional and legal test that you have to meet with evidence ' when it comes to impeachment and that he ' has not seen that evidence ' . Republican Rep Don Bacon (Nebraska) said, 'I think that before we move on to [an] impeachment inquiry , we should there should be a direct link to the president in some evidence. We should have some clear evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, not just assuming there may be one. I think we need to have more concrete evidence to go down that path'. Republican Rep French Hill (Arkansas) told CBS that House Republicans have not even remotely completed their work on the kind of detailed investigations and quality work ' needed to proceed to an impeachment . Republican Rep Mike Lawler (New York) , 'With respect to impeachment we're not there yet.' Republican Rep Chuck Edwards (North Carolina) said in a House hearing, 'I've heard over and over that President Biden has not been implicated or proven for any wrongdoing here, and I acknowledge that.' A Republican lawmaker told CNN, 'There's no evidence that Joe Biden got money [...] There's just no evidence of that . And they can't impeach without that evidence. And I don't think the evidence exists.' A senior House Republican aide told Politico, 'We haven't proven the case for impeachment yet. How can you start impeachment? We haven't done what you need to do to start impeachment.' " . . From a previous diary with comments by Representative Dan Goldman . . In the process of exposing this hypocrisy, Brian has Representative Dan Goldman on this clip and Representative Goldman reviewed what little was claimed to be evidence against President Biden and completely smashed it. Representative Dan Goldman said, “Well basically all they have is, right now is, two things they point to. One is an FBI document of an interview a confidential source who spoke to someone we now know to be the head of the Ukrainian energy company (Mr. Zlochevsky), Burisma, on whose board Hunter Biden served. In that document, he alleged that he paid five million dollars, I think, it looks like a five million dollar bribe. Either Joe, Hunter or both. The Trump Department of Justice had that information available to them when Bill Barr set up a repository for Rudy Guliani’s conspiracy theory within the Department of Justice to see if anything could be made from that.After a review by the Trump Department, they found clearly that this information was not credible and they did not pursue an investigation. Perhaps part of the reason they found it was not credible is that the source itself after a meeting has gone on record to say that he not only never paid a bribe, but never had a single conversation with Joe Biden. Then, in addition, they have Hunter Biden’s business partner (Devon Archer) who says that Joe Biden, that Hunter put Joe Biden on the phone approximately twenty times over a decade to say, ‘hello’ to some of Hunter’s business partners. Therefore, they are making the allegations and this is quite a stretch that Joe was using his official position to help Hunter. But that same witness, their own witness, said that they never discussed business, that Joe Biden never discussed business with the business associates, never discussed business with Hunter, did not know what was going on, never benefited from any of Hunter’s business. So, they are pinning a lot on these non credible and very weak evidence to say that Joe Biden committed some sort of high crime and misdemeanor. And it is quite clear from the evidence that they have, not only did he not commit a high crime or misdemeanor, but he didn’t commit a low crime or misdemeanor. He didn’t commit any crime or misdemeanor. “ Representative Jared Moskowitz said, “I am going to do the story even quicker than you just did it. Two brothers loan each other money, they pay it back, not in office. End of story. One brother gives the other brother money. The other brother pays it back. No one is elected. At all. They are private citizens. What are we talking about? Oh well, it could be this, it could be that, we think it’s this, we think it’s that. No evidence.So do yourself a favor, take a breath, take a breath, and don’t have a new hearing over two brothers loaning each other money when nobody was in office. “ . The repeater (can't really call him a source as he has no evidence) claims (the oy evidence we have of this is this guy says that this happened) in 2016 a guy told him that Joe and Hunter Biden pressured the CEO of Burisma Holdings for ten million dollars or he was going to use the prosecutor general to bring down the company. Trump sent Rudy Giuliani with Lev Parnas who recently admitted that they found nothing to indicate President Biden extorted anybody or committed any crime. Trump also nominated David Weiss to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden in 2018. Rudy told the repeater to go to the FBI and tell them what he told Rudy. The repdeater went to the FBI and the repeater told them the same story that he told Rudy. The FBI memorialized the statement in FD 10-23, noting that they had no evidence to corroborate the claim. The FBI investigated the matter and they were quite motivated as they were all MAGA. Yet, the FBI was unable to find any evidence to support the claim. . They tried to use Gal Luft as a witness against Joe Biden. Unfortunately for them, Gal Luft was arrested for arms trafficking and serving as a covert Chinese spy. . Hunter Biden made some big mistakes, mistakes that were moral failures. I have too. I made a couple of mistakes, NOT THE MISTAKE, but still serious moral failures that along with the profound change in my beliefs as I was no longer a fundamentalist led to a heartbreaking outcome. The pain from that has not dissipated in fifteen years. I hurt so much that I just had to be with someone, anybody, and that person turned out to be an abuser who had all the narcotics in the world. And I was just trying to escape the pain. I nearly 24 hours a day seven days a week mock myself for my mistakes that along with the changes in my beliefs led to this unbelievably traumatic event in my life. I struggle profoundly with self-harm which started along with suicide attempts in middle school. There is not a moment that goes by that my mistakes and that pain are not in the forefront of my thinking. I too ended up in becoming addicted to a narcotic, Vicodin in my case. I have been completely clean without any relapses since I first sought help more than five years ago. I regularly pace and breakdown in crying really hard, multiple times every day. Therefore, let nobody think that I think I am better than anybody else including Hunter Biden because I don't believe that. . Hunter's main moral failure as I see it was not the narcotics; rather, it was selling the myth of influence, pushing a false view that he could influence government policy for his potential business associates by influencing his father. However, there is zero evidence to support the thesis that Hunter Biden actually did alter the political views of his father, Joe Biden. . Professional liar and smearer James Comer repeatedly promoted witnesses who tended to make the claims and accusations against Joe Biden less credible. Over a period of about a decade, Hunter Biden or Joe Biden would call the other, about twenty telephone calls in total, during an evening meal which frequently included a business associate or two. Devon Archer, a close business associate of Hunter Biden, stated that Joe Biden NEVER discussed Hunter's business interests with Hunter's business associates. Gary Shapley, tax agent within DOJ, held a grudge against Trump nominated US Attorney for Delaware, David, claiming that David Weiss cost him a promotion. The other tax person who testified before the House of Representatives' Committee along with Gary Shapley was anonymous. Their claim was not even internally consistent. The claim was that the investigation and potential prosecution was slow-walked by David Weiss and the DOJ IN THE YEAR 2020 WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT AND JOE BIDEN DID NOT HOLD ANY POSITION IN GOVERNMENT. THIS THEORY COULD ONLY MEAN THAT THEY BELIEVE AND THEY WERE TESTIFYING THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS PROTECTING HUNTER BIDEN. THAT'S LUDICROUS. . Then Comer et al found a check marked loan repayment from James Biden, President Joe Biden's brother, to President Biden when Joe Biden wasn't even in office. . Yahoo presents Huff Post's article correctly states that this was also a dud . Another GOP ‘Bombshell’ About Joe Biden Turns Out To Be A Dud WASHINGTON — Republicans announced Friday that they had uncovered a “direct payment” to President Joe Biden — exactly the kind of evidence they’ve sought linking Biden to his family’s foreign business deals. But the March 2018 payment came from Joe Biden’s brother James, not a Ukrainian oligarch or Chinese tycoon, and the check was marked as a “loan repayment.” Still, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who obtained the records via subpoena, said the $200,000 check looks suspicious for the president. . CNN Fact-checked Comer & the Republican accusations & found that evidence supports the Democratic Party claims that these checks were simply a loan and a repayment of that loan from one brother to another brother . Fact check: Evidence supports Democrats’ case that Joe Biden made a personal loan to his brother By Daniel Dale , CNN Washington, DC. Washington CNN — On October 20, House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. James Comer released a video raising questions about a 2018 personal check to Joe Biden from his brother James Biden and James’ wife Sara Biden, which had the words “loan repayment” written on the front. Comer said he would view the $200,000 check to Joe Biden as “troubling” even if it was a loan repayment, since it came on the same day that James Biden received $200,000 from a struggling health company he did business with. Then Comer went further. In a series of interviews with conservative media outlets, Comer, a Republican, repeatedly said he did not “believe” that Joe Biden had actually made a loan to his brother. And when Democratic members of the committee and a lawyer for James Biden said that Comer’s committee has documents that show there had indeed been a $200,000 loan from Joe Biden to James Biden, less than two months prior to the $200,000 check from James Biden and his wife to Joe Biden that said “loan repayment,” Comer declared that the Democrats were “lying” – saying that “at the end of the day, there’s no document that shows there was a loan.” But banking records reviewed by CNN, which Comer’s committee possesses, provide substantial evidence in support of the Democrats’ assertions that there was indeed a $200,000 loan from Joe Biden to James Biden less than two months before the James Biden “loan repayment” check to Joe Biden for the same amount. . Many people in various governments and multiple governments wanted Viktor Shokin removed from the special prosecutor position because he was not investigating and prosecuting corruption. In fact, they suspected that he himself was corrupt. . . USA Today explains that many people not just Joe Biden wanted Shokin out because he was not pursuing investigations and prosecutions of corrupt people and corrupt organizations . Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases Courtney Subramanian USA TODAY WASHINGTON – A whistleblower complaint centering on President Donald Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president has spurred a number of allegations and counterallegations as Republicans and Democrats jockey for position amid an impeachment inquiry. At the heart of Congress' probe into the president's actions is his claim that former Vice President and 2020 Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden strong-armed the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor in order to thwart an investigation into a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden. But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim. It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe. Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament. . . This letter by 3 Senate Republicans shows that Joe Biden was NOT the only person in government who wanted Shokin removed . This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too. Alex Ward @AlexWardVox alex.ward@vox.com Oct 3, 2019, 12:30pm EDT By The reality is that the Obama administration — as well as many other Western European officials — wanted the prosecutor, a man named Viktor Shokin, removed because he was believed to be trying to stymie anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. In other words, if anything, Biden’s efforts could have put his son in more legal jeopardy, not less. . But it turns out Republicans have failed to mention one important thing: At least three GOP senators at the time also wanted that Ukrainian prosecutor fired. CNN uncovered a letter dated February 12, 2016, in which Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Mark Kirk (R-IL), along with several Democratic senators, called for Ukraine’s then-president to “press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.” Four days later, Shokin resigned (although he didn’t officially leave until the following month when Ukraine’s Parliament voted him out). In other words, both Republicans and Democrats in the US — and many European nations — wanted Shokin gone for failing to clamp down on graft. ​​​​​ . . The Financial Times explains that our European allies wanted Shokin removed as well . Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden EU and US officials dispute Trump’s claim former vice-president acted to protect his son European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin, the country’s former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden, the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his removal, people involved in the talks said. Mr Biden did not act unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Mr Shokin, despite suggestions to the contrary by supporters of US president Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter said. EU diplomats working on Ukraine at the time have, however, told the FT that they were looking for ways to persuade Kiev to remove Mr Shokin well before Mr Biden entered the picture. The push for Mr Shokin’s removal was part of an international effort to bolster Ukraine’s institutions following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the armed conflict in the eastern part of the country. “All of us were really pushing [former Ukrainian president Petro] Poroshenko that he needs to do something, because the prosecutor was not following any of the corruption issues. He was really bad news,” said an EU diplomat involved in the discussions. “It was Biden who finally came in [and triggered it]. Biden was the most vocal, as the US usually is. But we were all literally complaining about the prosecutor.” . Here is another example of the Republican Party's flailing and failing, namely that the fact that Hunter Biden listed his father's address on a wire transfer is supposed to mean that President Biden received money and is corrupt. . . . CNN tells us about yet another failed attempt to smear President Biden . House Oversight Republicans say new bank subpoena shows Hunter Biden listed father’s Wilmington house in wires with China , CNN By Annie Grayer , CNN This went directly to Hunter Biden and the address listed was Joe Biden’s,” Comer told reporters. The wires allegedly were addressed to Hunter Biden when his father was not in office and do not prove that Joe Biden received any of the money. CNN previously reported Hunter Biden used the Wilmington address on his driver’s license and the home was the site of a family intervention over his drug addiction in 2019. . Of course, the address doesn't determine into whose bank account the wire transfer goes. The reason that Hunter listed this address on the wire transfer is because that was his only legal address and that was the address listed on his driver's license. So, there's absolutely nothing to this smear just like there is nothing to any of their other smears. . . . Voters in congressional districts held by Republicans are quite skeptical of an impeachment of President Biden . New poll shows battleground voters doubt GOP's plan to impeach Biden New polling data suggests voters in districts held by Republicans but won by President Biden in 2020 see his impeachment as a political charade. By Ja'han Jones Voters in key battleground districts, where Republicans will fight to maintain their slim House majority in 2024, are deeply skeptical of the GOP’s effort to impeach President Joe Biden, a new poll finds. About 56% of people polled in these districts said an impeachment inquiry would be “a partisan political stunt," compared with 41% who said it’d be “a serious effort to investigate important problems.” And 56% said the inquiry would be about damaging Biden, compared with 41% who said it’d be about "finding the truth." What's more, 55% said an inquiry would be more about helping former President Donald Trump, compared with 41% who said it’d be about truth-finding. . . . NY Times sees polling differs for Biden impeachments and Trump indictments . Majority of Americans Say Trump Charges Have Merit, but His G.O.P. Grip Grows Recent polls conducted before the Georgia indictment showed that most believed that the prosecutions of the former president were warranted. A majority of Americans, in four recent polls, said Mr. Trump’s criminal cases were warranted. Most say a felony conviction should be disqualifying. In the Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of registered voters said Mr. Trump should be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election. And seven out of 10 voters said that anyone convicted of a felony should no longer be eligible to be president. When asked by Fox News whether Mr. Trump had engaged in illegal activity to overturn the 2020 election, 53 percent of registered voters said yes. But just 13 percent of Republicans shared that view. . . While Trump is ahead of President Biden in polls, a conviction would change that . Trump Indictments Haven’t Sunk His Campaign, but a Conviction Might Polls by The New York Times and Siena College show his strength in key swing states, in part because of concerns about President Biden’s age. But a conviction could be the difference in 2024. . Now I have to at least mention the indictments and the apparent strength, quality, and quantity of the evidence against Donald Trump in each of the four Indictments. . . This is an annotated version of the Bragg Campaign Finance Violation Indictment . Admittedly, this is the one indictment I have not read. I have read all the others from beginning to end. However, I have thought of this as a campaign finance law violation. Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to pay Stormy Daniels or Clifford $130,000 so that the story of their affair would not come out to the voters before the election. The payment took place three weeks before the election. Michael Cohen admitted that this was a campaign finance law violation, his defense attorney admitted that this was a campaign finance law violation, the SDNY prosecutors said that this was a campaign finance law violation, the trial judge agreed that this was a campaign finance law violation, and the general counsel of the FEC said that this was a campaign finance law violation and Michael Cohen went to prison, in part, because of this campaign finance law violation. Michael Cohen was NOT the principal in the election. He was not the one whose potential presidency was at risk. Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to make the payment. Therefore, since Michael Cohen went to prison in part because of this campaign finance law violation, Donald Trump should also go to prison for this campaign finance law violation. . This is a link to an annotated version of the Georgia RICO indictment . There are so many acts given (and some are so blatant and egregious) that it is not going to be hard for District Attorney Fani Willis to prove this RICO indictment. . . . This is a link to an annotated version of the Trump Espionage Act Classified Documents Indictment . Again, from a text to myself: Again, here's the relevant section of the Presidential Records Act and the relevant section of The Espionage Act and the definition of illegally retaining: The relevant section of The Espionage Act: (d)Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it The relevant section of The Presidential Records Act: From the Presidential Records Act: "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter." And: "Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President" And the legal definition of retain from a law dictionary: To hold or keep that which one already has, not to lose, part with or dismiss it. The decision of Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Judicial Watch vs Clinton: District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled against Judicial Watch. She wrote that by the act distinguishes official presidential records from personal records. . In May of 2021, NARA notified Donald Trump that they knew he had classified documents and asked him to return them. He lied, denying that he had them when he knew that was untrue. They notified him that if he did not return the classified documents, they would turn the matter over to the DOJ. ON February 9, 2022, the FBI opened an investigation into the matter. As quoted above, The Presidential Records Act requires all former presidents and vice presidents to return all classified documents back to NARA. Notice if Trump believed he actually could use The Presidential Records Act to defend willfully retaining classified documents, then he, the most litigious person in the history of the country, would have fought the matter in court. Criminal law revolves around INTENT. Given the amount of classified documents that the president encounters (The Presidential Daily Brief is a collection of the most important and most corroborated classified information that the US intelligence community has to offer and it's given to the president, well, daily. Thus, by itself, in 4 years, this would be 1,440 classified documents. Hence, we can't prosecute former presidents and former vice presidents who unintentionally possessed classified documents from their time in office. However, we can and must prosecute those who willfully retain, in violation of The Espionage Act, classified documents and, therefore, are intentionally placing classified documents at greater risk of exposure to covert agents of hostile foreign powers. The Indictment lays out an immense amount of strong proof that Donald Trump willfully retained many highly classified documents after he had left office. He lied about having them, knowing he had them, and moved them to hide them from his attorneys who were seeking to fully comply with a lawful subpoena and government investigators. Nobody who has read the Indictment like I have will have any doubt of Donald Trump's guilt of the charges laid out in this indictment. . . . This is a link to an annotated version of the federal January sixth Indictment . Donald Trump was told that he lost the election and that his claims were false by (and these are all Republicans ) the White House Counsel, Pat Cipillione, by the Deputy White House Counsel Eric Herschmann, by his campaign manager Bill Steppien, by the lead data guy within the campaign Matt O, by the attorney general Bill Barr, by the Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, by the Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donahue, by state legislators in Arizona like Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers and other state legislators in both Michigan and Pennsylvania, by the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, by the republican Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and by the republican Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, and by the real time response of the courts with fully half of the judges having been nominated by Republicans as he and his allies lost 61 of 62 election related lawsuits. His efforts to stay in office despite knowing that he lost the 2020 presidential election are well documented in the Indictment. . . . Household savings is growing. Consumer confidence is increasing. These are leading indicators that the voters' views are changing and they are starting to believe that the economy is improving and relatively good. . . Consumer confidence is rebounding . WASHINGTON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - U.S. consumer confidence rose in November after three straight monthly declines, with Americans planning big-ticket purchases like motor vehicles and houses over the next six months even as they continued to fret over higher prices and interest rates. Despite the rebound in morale, which was driven by an improvement in expectations . . Only 37% wanted President Reagan to run for reelection . Almost six in 10 Americans feel Ronald Reagan should not run for a second term as president, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. In all, 35 percent of those who said they voted for Reagan in 1980 -- and 58 percent of all those polled -- said he should not seek re-election. Only 37 percent of all those polled said he should run again. . . People here are confused and upset about polling except those who constantly trash the Democratic Party and whoever the leader of the party is. The vast majority of voters do not want a Trump Biden rematch. A majority of democrats do not want President Biden to run for reelection. However, only a relatively small group of democrats or people on the left are pretending in polls that they won't vote for President Biden in a Biden Trump rematch. Their hope is to strike so much fear because their refusal to tell pollsters that they will vote for President Biden in the rematch that President Biden will end his campaign and Democratic Party nominee for president Jesus will run and the party will suddenly coalesce around Democratic Party Jesus. . However, no major Democratic Party elected official wants to end their political career. The truth is that while most Democratic Party voters want somebody else to be the party's nominee, there is NO ONE INDIVIDUAL DEMOCRAT who commands more support than President Biden. Any such candidate, say Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, would have to trash President Biden. And what topics would they have to use to drag President Biden? Age and inflation. They might even have to falsely suggest that President Biden is losing his mental acuity. In doing so, they would turn nearly the whole party against her. It would be the end of her political career. And God forbid that Donald Trump ends up winning the 2024 presidential election. In all likelihood that means that our democracy is over. Even if it doesn't, Donald Trump will implement project 2025 and take total and direct control of any and all agencies and departments within the executive branch. This means Donald Trump would tell the attorney general who to prosecute and who not to prosecute, ending even the theory of equal under the law. Both elected leaders and voters would place a large share of the blame on that candidate because they would have confirmed Republican Party attacks on President Biden. . Thus, no major Democratic Party elected official will run a real campaign against President Biden as long as he is running for reelection. He won't end or suspend his campaign unless there is some Democratic Party elected official around whom the entire political party would coalesce according to polls. The Democratic Party is broken up into a lot of disparate factions. It's difficult to appeal to almost every faction in the Democratic Party. President Joe Biden, therefore, is NOT going to suspend or end his campaign for reelection. . Several events will take place that will alter the polls. Eventually, all democrats will understand that President Biden will be the nominee. Either the voters will gradually understand and acknowledge the truth about the economy. More news about Trump's prosecution will come out. The federal indictment of Donald Trump for the attempted coup is designed for speed and should yield a verdict before the conventions and that verdict is likely to be guilty. The two political parties will have their conventions. Almost all Democrats and some independents and a few Republicans will understand that the numbers show that the economy is very good. As poll respondents indicate that their own personal economy is good, then it's mostly dishonesty that produces the Earth 2.0 results. In addition, more progressive and liberal voters will see that under the Biden administration a lot of good legislation has passed. Finally, voters will see that not only is President Biden the Democratic Party's nominee for president, but that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party's nominee for president. . . At that point reality settles in the minds of liberals and progressives who hoped to avoid a President Biden vs Donald Trump election. They will have to have some idea that if Donald Trump wins, then there is no more democracy which they will eventually understand means that Donald Trump and Republicans will stay in office no matter what the outcome of the election is. That's because that message will be dominant across any and all liberal or progressive media and progressive organizations and moderate Never Trump organizations and media. They will hear how even if you adopt these extreme and extremely false views of certain things, allowing Trump to become dictator for life and project 25 to become reality and all the coal plants that Big Oil wants will make things much worse, not improve things. They will hear how anything but a vote for President Biden enables all that. . With all of these events and the reality of the economy and the forced recognition that whether they like it or not it will be a rematch of President Biden and Donald Trump. The polls will likely be very close, but in our favor. . . . . . [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/12/18/2212219/-The-impeachment-of-Biden-compared-to-the-indictments-impeachments-of-Trump?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/