Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sparko]

In that case, yes, Guilianni was acting as a personal representative of his client, and he never presented himself as anything else as far as I know. He never claimed to be establishing official policy, or speaking on behalf of the United States government.

Which kind of supports their claim that Trump was doing the investigation for personal reasons.

[JimL]

The reputation of the SCOTUS is in his hands;

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?” Grassley asked.
“I do,” Roberts said.

Would impartial justice include the admissability of relevant witnesses and documentary evidence?

[oxmixmudd]

The reputation of the SCOTUS is in his hands;

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?” Grassley asked.
“I do,” Roberts said.

I have no confidence any of them will honor their oaths in this regard.

[Mountain Man]

Which kind of supports their claim that Trump was doing the investigation for personal reasons.

You could infer it, I suppose, but there are many other reasons a president chooses to use unofficial channels. For instance, Ukraine had tried to contact the US concerning Joe Biden on several occasions, but they were repeatedly stonewalled in the official channels by Obama holdovers. It wasn't until Guilani got involved that they started making forward progress.

[Watermelon]

You could infer it, I suppose, but there are many other reasons a president chooses to use unofficial channels. For instance, Ukraine had tried to contact the US concerning Joe Biden on several occasions, but they were repeatedly stonewalled in the official channels by Obama holdovers. It wasn't until Guilani got involved that they started making forward progress.

Could you provide more information on the Ukrainians concerns over Biden? I’m genuinely interested.

On an unrelated note, it’s amazing how many people in government are seemingly still so loyal to Obama. He sounds like a great guy.

[Sam]

You could infer it, I suppose, but there are many other reasons a president chooses to use unofficial channels. For instance, Ukraine had tried to contact the US concerning Joe Biden on several occasions, but they were repeatedly stonewalled in the official channels by Obama holdovers. It wasn't until Guilani got involved that they started making forward progress.

It's not an inference. Giuliani's letter clearly states that he is acting as a representative for Trump "as a private citizen, not as President of the United States." In his "capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent", Giuliani requests the meeting with Zelensky.

You don't have to infer what is explicitly stated.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Could you provide more information on the Ukrainians concerns over Biden? I’m genuinely interested.

On an unrelated note, it’s amazing how many people in government are seemingly still so loyal to Obama. He sounds like a great guy.

This article is worth reading:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...-ukraine-story

[Mountain Man]

It's not an inference. Giuliani's letter clearly states that he is acting as a representative for Trump "as a private citizen, not as President of the United States." In his "capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent", Giuliani requests the meeting with Zelensky.

You don't have to infer what is explicitly stated.

--Sam

The inference is that Trump was interested in Joe Biden's corruption purely as a personal matter.

[NorrinRadd]

The reputation of the SCOTUS is in his hands;

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?” Grassley asked.
“I do,” Roberts said.

So? That doesn't grant him any special powers to "do" anything. He will mainly serve as referee, and will be constrained by whatever rules the Senate puts in place. The Senate will determine which witnesses, if any, will be called. As a member of SCOTUS, somewhat separate from his role presiding over the trial, he may be involved in evaluating claims of Executive Privilege.

[JimL]

I have no confidence any of them will honor their oaths in this regard.

There may be a few who do, but that could be for political reasons. Problem is that the leadership, Moscow Mitch, is dishonoring his oath of impartiality right from the get go by rigging the trial set-up to favor the defense. Unfortunately it's going to take a few principled republicans to actually honor their oaths to up-end the intended set-up. Not sure if we'll get that or not.

[DivineOb]

The inference is that Trump was interested in Joe Biden's corruption purely as a personal matter.

So we're back to this again. Other than Trump confessing "Yes I did criming" you won't accept anything.

[oxmixmudd]

There may be a few who do, but that could be for political reasons. Problem is that the leadership, Moscow Mitch, is dishonoring his oath of impartiality right from the get go by rigging the trial set-up to favor the defense. Unfortunately it's going to take a few principled republicans to actually honor their oaths to up-end the intended set-up. Not sure if we'll get that or not.

We can hope enough of them still have a conscience. But the lack of conscience seen here daily makes it hard to hold onto that hope.

[JimL]

We can hope enough of them still have a conscience. But the lack of conscience seen here daily makes it hard to hold onto that hope.

I feel the same way. It's hard to believe that they actually believe their own arguments even. I'm not sure I do believe them, in their sincerity that is, and if that's true, that would be the worst possible scenario.

[Mountain Man]

So we're back to this again. Other than Trump confessing "Yes I did criming" you won't accept anything.

I will accept direct evidence that he broke the law and not biased guesswork that paints targets around arrows and calls them bullseyes.

[firstfloor]

I will accept direct evidence that he broke the law and not biased guesswork that paints targets around arrows and calls them bullseyes.

Does this count?

A cornerstone of President Trump’s impeachment defense is the argument that his administration delayed the release of congressionally appropriated military assistance to Ukraine due to his concerns about corruption in that country. Another is that the articles of impeachment currently being considered by the Senate don’t deal with illegal conduct.


But a decision released Thursday by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), a federal agency that oversees the use of taxpayer funds, undercuts both of these specious defenses: It explains in detail why the hold was unlawful, and it further illustrates that the White House knew — or should have known — that the hold was illegal, but went ahead and did it anyway.

WaPo