Directly To The Following Office Of: Fill & Download for Free

Let’s take a look at the testimony from the ONLY witness who has testified in an open forum who has actually spoken with the President (no hearsay, but actual first hand knowledge).Despite an opening testimony that Trump’s directives were a “quid pro quo,” Ambassador Sondland did a complete 180 and admitted that the “quid pro quo” was entirely based on his presumption. That is, he was NEVER told from the President that trumped up charges in investigations into Biden were required for aide.So, for me, this entire process comes down to national interests of the United States.Anytime, anyone gives someone else money, there is an exchange of value AND there are strings tied to those dollars. AND THERE SHOULD BE!! Especially in cases of foreign aide.Was there a “quid pro quo” when Trump “DELAYED” $400 Million of aid to Ukraine (without their knowledge)? Of course there was.Was there “quid pro quo” when Biden forcefully withheld $1B from the Ukrainians in March of 2016 if they didn’t fire the prosecutor who had refiled the prosecution into Burisma on Feb 2, 2016 in Ukraine (naming Hunter Biden as a key interest in the investigation)? Of course there was. Additionally, after Feb 2, 2016 continuation of the investigation into Burisma, Devon Archer met with Secretary of State John Kerry to ensure the US investigation into Burisma was dropped (Devon Archer is the business partner of John Kerry’s step son and Hunter Biden).National interests, at this point, are in favor of Donald Trump (pending more evidence to the contrary). Unlike what Nancy Pelosi believes, people are innocent in this country until proven guilty — Donald Trump has no reason to PROVE his innocence to the House of Representatives. WHAT A MOCKERY OF OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS AND PRINCIPLES (regardless of who sits in the office of the Presidency).All evidence at this time points to a CYA, as the only rationale, for Joe Biden having forced the firing of an official simply doing their job in Ukraine.Call Transcript - April 21, 2019 - First call with newly elected Ukrainian PresidentCall Transcript - July 25, 2019 - 2nd call with newly elected Ukrainian PresidentAnyone reading the July 25th transcript has to both realize and understand that nearly 200–300 words are spoken between “do us a favor” and the word “Biden” entering the discussion. This is important because all the following are mentioned by Trump with regard to corruption and his responsibility as Chief Law Enforcement Officer to root out that corruption (especially when facing another $400 Million in aide to Ukraine).He mentions the missing money ($7 Billion)He mentions all the corrupt people still around the Ukrainian President (which would concern him because $7B already went missing)He mentions the corrupt activities of our own US Ambassador Yavonovich (she is believed to have ensured individuals and entities were not investigated and documents Ukrainians had that were damaging to individuals in the US were not given to the US District Attorneys offices)It wasn’t wasn’t until page 4 before Trump even mentions Biden with respect to Biden getting the Ukranian prosecutor fired for no reason. After all, our own State Department APOLOGIZED for spreading rumors about the Inspector General after his firing.So, the question people should really be asking is:WHAT IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST?Let’s look at this from a different perspective, which most are not willing to do, from a neutral point of view.What is more in the National interest of United States?Forcing Ukrainians to fire a “corrupt” prosecutor (who by the way was never formally or informally charged with any corruption in Ukraine and who US diplomats apologized after for targeting) against him before or after his firing) because he wouldn’t choose to investigate or stop investigating entities as directed from the US State Department?ORAsking for Ukrainians to INVESTIGATE:the complete loss of $7 Billion of US Tax dollars before $400 million more would be given ($1.7B in Privat Bank alone)?Convictions of 2 Ukrainian officials (one as the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau hand picked by Obama and Joe Biden) in Ukrainian courts for colluding with the DNC on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US elections?Reports from the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office that the US Ambassador to Ukraine was keeping Ukrainian prosecutors from working with the US Department of Justice to bring documentation regarding the DNC and Hillary Clinton corruption evidence to the United States (the same documents used to convict 2 high level Ukrainian officials)?Knowledge that John Kerry and Joe Biden (along with Devon Archer as a go between) colluded to ensure the Burisma investigation from the US State Department would not become a 2016 campaign issue, leading 1 month later to the firing of Shokin.Requesting an update to an ONGOING investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden relationship with Burisma?I can’t imagine anyone could look at number 1 and say that is in the best national interest of the United States (or even in the best interest of the Ukraine, itself). If you think so, please be very specific in the comments and I will respond.It is important to remember, as I stated above, that the President of the United States is the Chief law Enforcement Officer. In this capacity, he must work with other heads of state to identify and root out corruption. There are several facts here that are important for anyone to think about, with regard to OUR national interest when they evaluate the criticism of this call:Ukraine is a corrupt country.Ukraine just elected, for all intents and purposes, a comedian — a late night talk show host like Jimmy Kimmel. This new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, never debated his opponents, only railed against the corruption in Ukraine that the it needed to be rooted out. Volodymyr Zelensky was an unknown quantity (much like Trump was, from a political and policy perspective, when he was elected).Over the last several years, the United States has provided $7 Billion US Dollars in aid that have simply gone missing.Burisma has (and HAD at the time of his firing) ACTIVE investigations against them by both the US State Department AND Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office in February 2016, just one month before Joe Biden forced the resignation of Prosecutor General Shokin.Court seizes property of ex-minister Zlochevsky in UkraineCourt seizes property of ex-minister Zlochevsky in Ukraine - PGO - Feb. 04, 2016GPO seizes property of ex-minister ZlochevskyJoe Biden referred to the new Prosecutor General, Lutsenko, as the “good prosecutor” after Shokin’s removal. Low and behold, Lutsenko picked up the investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden again (after being directed by Ambassador Yavanovich to leave Burisma and Hunter Biden alone).I know I am missing some critical elements and resources, for instance the document that Shokin filed on Feb 2, 2016, one month before his firing, of his updated and formal prosecution of Burisma with one of their primary targets of interest (Hunter Biden). (This is well documented in Ukrainian newspapers on Feb 2, 2016). One month later Shokin was fired.Now, let’s bring all this back to the initial question:Was the Quid Pro Quo, asserted in the call transcript of July 25, a RATIONAL request with regard to US National Interests and Trump’s duties as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land? I contend they are. If they are NOT, and it can be proven he did something illegal, he should be prosecuted / impeached. I simply see no evidence of this.Do investigations of wrong doing on the part of Joe Biden potentially ALSO help Donal Trump if Biden is his eventual opponent (Democratic Nominee) in 2020? YES, of course it helps Donald Trump.Does the latter mean that the former should not be investigated? No, it does not.I contend at this point (and I’m making a VERY educated guess based on the sources I am including here) that this entire charade has never been about Donald Trump or Joe Biden.This is about the Democrats hiding and protecting collusion between the US State Department, Hillary Clinton and George Soro’s “Civil Society 2.0” that have created chaos in Ukraine, Macedonia, Chile and other countries using more than 800 civil service organizations around the world (according to the State Department themselves) to do nothing more than accumulate power while circumventing those pesky constitutions (1:00:52 to 1:01:40) and governments around the world by making them beholden to the United States.Anyone who wants more proof, here is a clip of a Ukrainian member of Parliament in Nov 2013 (0:20 to 1:07) talking about how the US was just down the street training protestors to foment chaos on their streets (while Pro Russian Parliamentarian, he was not wrong). These Civil Society 2.0 “tech camps” started in Ukraine on Sept 11, 2012 (CRAZY RIGHT?).These were to foment CHAOS. The State Department is using OUR TAX DOLLARS to foment revolutions around the world, to mold their governments to “their” heart’s desire.If this is what Trump has uncovered, that has caused this nonsense about impeachment, (and assuming I’m not wrong he is trying to stop it), then I AM ALL FOR HIS DESTRUCTION OF THESE PROGRESSIVE USES OF BIG GOVERNMENT!Regardless, these practices in the State Department MUST END, regardless who is in the oval office. But this is all about “draining the swamp” and until now, have not believed Trump was doing enough to do so — if this is the fight he is taking on — then all the power to him.

This is really funny and you are not likely to believe. But I can assure you that this is 100% true.Actually it is not me who convinced someone but a colleague of mine. I too would not have believed this, had I not myself witnessed this happening before my own eyes and heard by my own ears.It was in 1986. I was in B Tech third year (IIT-BHU Varanasi) and we had to do a summer attachment in an industry. My father was then posted in Lucknow and hence I chose a the torch division of ‘Union Carbide’ (known for the Bhopal Gas Leak) in Lucknow where they manufactured the Eveready brand of torches.There was another colleague of mine named SB, who also took the attachment in the same company. SB had tremendous sense of humour and he could tell white lies very smartly.During the training, I noticed that there was a draftsman who was a very curious type. He used to ask lots of question from us. I thought, he is very smart and sincere. Once I praised him before SB. He told me that this draftsman was the most stupid person he had ever seen in his life. I asked him to explain why he thinks so.SB told me that once he told an absurd lie to him and he believed. He told him casually that the crows of Kolkata are very smart. When they have to travel from one place to another, they simply sit on the head/helmet of the person on a bike who is going in that direction and fly as soon as they reach to their destination. He then told me that this guy is so stupid that he actually believed such a lie and even enquired from many Bengali colleagues if crows in Kolkata are really so smart.I said that nobody could be so stupid to believe such anabsurd story. He said that he will demonstrate me soon that the man was really very stupid.The next day, he called that draftsman and told him very seriously, “Have you booked the bike that runs on water instead of petrol?”Draftsman: “Sorry sir, I have never heard of this bike.”SB: “Oh! This is a new invention. The bike will run on pure distill water. You have to only put one drop on ‘Benzene’ in a tank of this water and it will take you at the average of 20 km per liter of water. The booking has already started and there seems to be a big rush for booking. You have to pay the booking amount at the General Post Officer at Lucknow. The last date is tomorrow. Don’t miss the offer.”While he was speaking, I was trying to control my laughter. I thought that the draftsman will understand the lie. He will at least enquire from his other friends and know immediately that it is a joke. But nothing like that happened. He in fact took off for the next day to stand in the queue for booking the water-driven-bike.Next day, he did not come to office. When he came to the office the following day, I expected him to shout at SB and confront him with his lies. He instead told SB that he actually went to the GPO for booking but he was told that there was no booking of water-driven-bike there.SB showed a great surprise as if he was shocked by the revelation. He said that this news was given to him by a friend. He will check up from him why the booking is closed now.I can’t remember anything more ridiculous than this which someone had been able to convince to another person.

What evidence exists that Trump committed impeachable offenses as outlined in the Impeachment articles?Abuse of PowerObstruction of CongressLet’s take number 2 first, because quite honestly, it is the easiest one to dismiss as irrelevant (to any honest broker of information). The Legislature and Executive are 2 of the 3 co-equal branches of the federal government (well, they aren’t co-equal really: the order of power from the founders is - legislative, executive and then judicial branches).When there are disagreements between the Executive and Legislative branches, the Judicial branch steps in to resolve the conflict. Ergo, there is no such thing as “Obstruction of Congress.” If after a judicial ruling occured (and all appeals exhausted) and the Executive branch failed to comply with a judicial ruling, that would be Obstruction of JUSTICE.If Congress really wanted to get information from the Executive Branch, that the Executive branch was claiming Executive Privilege for, then all Congress needs to do is sue the Executive Branch in federal court. This is well established with several circuit and SCOTUS decisions supporting my claim. This is a bogus article of impeachment, because it has no standing in the court of law or our constitutional “separation of powers” framework.Don’t believe me, please read from constitutional scholars I actually trust, not because they agree with me, but rather they are very liberal and progressive professors who call balls and strikes according to the constitution (regardless what they themselves believe is in their best personal interest).Alan DerschowitzDershowitz: Articles of Impeachment Don't Meet Constitutional StandardsAlan Dershowitz Criticizes House Impeachment Articles Against TrumpDershowitz: Pelosi Holding On To Articles Of Impeachment "Abuse Of Power," Obstruction Of SenateJonathan TurleyLaw expert Jonathan Turley says impeachment vote was like crazed holiday shopping rushJonathan Turley: I told Congress it needed more evidence to impeach Trump. Here's whyJonathan Turley Schools the Democrats (and Us) on Obstruction and Abuse of PowerNext, let’s take the Abuse of Power claim, because this requires some actual deep dive, background and analysis to frame the impeachment article in the right context.On the surface, Abuse of Power is Bad, I am the first person to agree with this. I have written extensively about the progressive movement and constitutional abuses by both Barack Obama and Donald Trump. I am also the first person to admit, I did not vote for Donald Trump because I believed he would abuse the Constitution as much, if not more, than Barack Obama did when he was President (he left gaping holes in the constitutional fabric of the executive branch).This is the first impeachment of a President, that makes no claim of any actual laws being broken by the President. This is shocking in and of itself, but when we look, specifically, at why Trump is accused of abusing his power, the impeachment articles gets even weaker.During the call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, Trump says, on page 4, when bringing up Biden:“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.” (bold my emphasis)This by itself, isn’t even all that bad when broken down, in context, because the request of Zelenskyy, is for Ukraine to investigate the demands leading to the very public firing of a high level Ukrainian official. It is undisputed that Joe Biden had the official fired by leveraging $1 Billion in US Aid. The question remains whether this act was done:simply to stop a multi-national investigation of money laundering into a company (Burisma) the Vice President’s son, Hunter, was involved with at the time orbecause the official (Skokin) was simply corrupt himself, which is possible. However, if he was corrupt, wouldn’t you think he would have, some 4 years later, stood trial for corruption in Ukraine? As of today, he has not been charged with any corrupt activities for which he lost his high level government job.A little more backstory is probably useful here, too, with regard to the call transcript linked above. Let’s remember, Zelenskyy was elected based solely on his “anti-corruption” stances, having never debated or done any real television interviews prior to his election in the spring of 2019.Zelenskyy is, for all intents and purposes, our version of a Jay Leno or Jimmy Kimmel; he’s a comedian, not a politician (personally, I find this admirable). He has no history for countries like ours to judge him or his actual intent and willingness to root out corruption in Ukraine, despite winning an election purely on that stance (this is akin to Arnold Schwarzenegger being elected Governor to CA in the early 2000s — boy did we make a big mistake then).Ukraine is a country who has squandered $7 Billion of US Aid and is about to receive another $400 Million more, should Trump release said funds. Let’s go a bit deeper and take the entire “FAVOR” asked of Zelenskyy into full context, including the events leading up to the conversation.Then we should ask ourselves if no one can actually point to any “abuse of power” by the president, in the President’s own words, not here-say, then how can the President be guilty of Abuse of Power, especially when he isn’t being accused of breaking any laws?Here are two cross examinations of the only House Witness with any direct conversation with the President, about potential abuses of power. Ambassador Sondland admitted, despite contradicting himself in his written opening statement, that Trump NEVER did what he is accused of.Now, for the remainder of the context, with regard to the transcript of the Ukrainian Call with between President Trump and Zelenskyy:Staring on page 2, Trump discussed that he believes the US has helped Ukraine a lot, but that other European nations are not doing enough to help Ukraine closer to home.This is a consistent stance from Trump leading up this call where he has very little love or interest in continuing to help Ukraine, monetarily, because they are all corrupt.(no citation provided because this is very well documented and should be undisputed at this point).Trump even points to “groups” of people still surrounding the Ukrainian President, noting that they are some of the same corrupt individuals he should be distancing himself from.Starting on Page 3 is where Trump starts to ask for a favor from President Zelenskyy, which includes re opening an investigation into Hunter Biden. However, Trump mentions all the following (about 250 to 300 words) before even bringing up Biden himself:He mentions missing crowd strike serverfrom everything I’ve researched, this is the least contentious item on this list and may even be completely erroneous.He mentions the missing money ($7 Billion)He mentions all the corrupt people still around the Ukrainian President (which would concern him because $7B already went missing)which concerns him because he’s about to release $400 Million more dollars to Ukraine.He mentions the corrupt activities of our own US Ambassador Yavonovich, which Trump seems to credit and thank Zelensky for identifying for the United States (she is believed to have ensured individuals and entities were not investigated and documents Ukrainians had that were damaging to individuals in the US were not given to the US District Attorneys offices)It wasn’t wasn’t until page 4 before Trump even mentions Biden with respect to Biden getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for no reason.Specifically, Trump says this when even bringing up Biden: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.” (my emphasis)So, let’s recap.Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was elected to root out corruption in Ukraine.President Trump believed the Ukraine was so corrupt he could care less about the Ukraine — though, he seemed willing to give the new president the benefit of the doubt despite his cautiousness with $400 Million of new US Aide.this is despite the fact that Trump sold actual weapon systems to the Ukraine (they’s been begging for years for this and Trump delivered) so they could defend themselves against Russian aggression, unlike under the Obama Administration who sent the equivalent of blankets, bandaids and MREs.As a test of the new Ukrainian President’s willingness to investigate corruption, Trump requests his help investigating 6 potential items of corruption, 5 of which potentially involve US entities / people and the last one is US money. It stands to reason that because these activities were centered in the Ukraine, Ukraine is best suited to complete the initial investigation.When Trump finally brought up Biden, the only context in which either Biden’s are mentioned are well documented cases of potential ethics violations on the part of the former Vice President (his son sitting on the board of Burisma) and maybe even extortion when the former Vice President leveraged (in his own words) $1 Billion in US Aid to ensure the prosecutor looking into Burisma (the company the Vice President’s son, Hunter, was a board member of) was fired.Regardless, if Trump stood to benefit from a Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, it is clear that Joe Biden’s duty as Vice President of the United States is to AVOID even the PERCEPTION of a “conflict of interest.”IT IS HIS DUTY, in his own words he failed this duty as an elected official. So, while it is true, Trump might benefit politically from an investigation of the activities of a former Vice President of the United States, it is the actions of the former Vice President of the United States that deserve to be investigated, in the first place.For the record, in this answer, I haven’t submitted whether I believe Joe or Hunter Biden have done anything illegal, despite unquestionably being highly unethical. Whether it is illegal or not requires an actual investigation. Here’s what we know:Hunter Biden was elected to the board of Burisma (2nd largest energy company in the Ukraine), when his father, the Vice President of the United States was the key liaison from the US to Ukraine’s energy sector.this creates the APPEARANCE of pay to play (whether or not it occurred) and corruption.In addition, Hunter Biden chose to join the board of Burisma, which is under investigation my more countries than just the Ukraine, for money laundering concerns.Joe Biden leveraged his influence with Barak Obama, and the $1 Billion aide, to the Ukraine to get the prosecutor fired.Is it possible that Shokin deserved to be fired, despite Biden’s obvious conflict of interest — Sure it is — it’s Ukraine. However, this requires more deep dive, for example:Just one month before his firing, Shokin had completed all the necessary paperwork for the Ukrainian courts, to take his investigation into Burisma and its Oligarch owner to the next level.Court seizes property of ex-minister Zlochevsky in UkraineCourt seizes property of ex-minister Zlochevsky in Ukraine - PGO - Feb. 04, 2016GPO seizes property of ex-minister ZlochevskyIt is impossible that Joe Biden was unaware that Burisma was being investigated and that one of the potential targets for questioning, was his son, Hunter Biden, and Devon Archer (business partners in the same US firm), both board members of Burisma and both connected directly to Joe Biden and John Kerry (Secretary of State at the time).Within a couple weeks after Burisma owner and Oligarch’s property was seized in the Ukraine, the lobbying firm, Bluestar Novelli, contacted the US Department for a meeting specifically about Burisma, emphasizing Burisma’s relationship with Hunter Biden. The second high level US Citizen they are referring to is likely, but not stated, Devon Archer.John Kerry met with Devon Archer just before Joe Biden gave his ultimatum to the Ukrainian President. While no one knows the purpose of the meeting, I’m sure it had nothing to do with what was going on with Burisma investigation.Just after John Kerry met with Devon Archer, a meeting we know nothing about, Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States and in charge of the Unkrainian relationship, gave the ultimatum to the Ukrainian President to fire Shokin or lose the $1 Billion. To date, according to Shokin (and made aware to Trump himself, actually), Shokin has not been charged with any wrong doings (several years after his firing).When looking at, and evaluating, the entire timeline and set of circumstances, I can’t see how anyone could claim that Trump was ONLY looking to find dirt on a political opponent.He never asked for dirt.He asked for specific items to be investigated, that even the US press was “concerned” with when it occurred during the times of the Obama Administration, but few were willing to follow up with.This is important because it all comes back to whether or not Trump Abused the Power of the Presidency, despite not being accused of breaking any laws as a result of that Abuse of Power.In my humble opinion, no one is above the law. This includes Joe Biden. This includes Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney as well. It seems (though I have admittedly investigated this much less) these politicians (and seemingly many more) have family members employed in high profile and extremely lucrative positions in Ukraine. It seems Ukraine is one of the preferred stomping grounds for family members of elected officials in the high ranking positions of the US Government.While this may be technically, legal, it is highly unethical and does not come close to passing the sniff test.Where Joe Biden potentially went wrong, if he actually did something illegal, was when he leveraged the $1 Billion of US Aid to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma and the Burisma owner, an area in Ukraine where his son had a economic interest but virtually no actual experience (other than his name).This is what should be investigated, not Trump doing his job to make sure Americans aren’t benefiting from their positions high in the US Government (even if that was years ago).