List of Trump's crimes?

[oxmixmudd]

Mark Sandy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-po...ial-testifies/

Yep, I was wondering when this bit of news would show up here. Of course, I was pretty sure I knew who would not be first to bring it up

So what we now know is that two more fantasies of the Trump support delegation have bit the dust.

1) Trump not only was behind halting the aid, he did it in the same timeframe as the July 25 call. And further, there was so much concern about the illegality of the move that the person in charge of 'doing the deed' was removed and replaced by a Trump loyal appointee. And that 2 omb employees resigned in protest of the action.

2)Trump knew about the whistleblower very early on and in fact cancelled the apparently illegal hold on the aid not only after he knew about the whistleblower, but immediately after he knew about the whistle blower!

[firstfloor]

Yep, I was wondering when this bit of news would show up here. Of course, I was pretty sure I knew who would not be first to bring it up

So what we now know is that two more fantasies of the Trump support delegation have bit the dust.

1) Trump not only was behind halting the aid, he did it in the same timeframe as the July 25 call. And further, there was so much concern about the illegality of the move that the person in charge of 'doing the deed' was removed and replaced by a Trump loyal appointee. And that 2 omb employees resigned in protest of the action.

2)Trump knew about the whistleblower very early on and in fact cancelled the apparently illegal hold on the aid not only after he knew about the whistleblower, but immediately after he knew about the whistle blower!

All this would sink any ordinary mortal. Unfortunately, the Republicans have elevated Trump to god-like status - which he clearly enjoys.

Christians and their idols?

Important tests of the neutrality of the SCOTUS are coming up in the next few weeks.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...werent-giving/

[oxmixmudd]

All this would sink any ordinary mortal. Unfortunately, the Republicans have elevated Trump to god-like status - which he clearly enjoys.

Christians and their idols?

Important tests of the neutrality of the SCOTUS are coming up in the next few weeks.

I dont think Trump would function as an idol, but certainly for many Christian's in his base he takes on messianic elements wrt their perception of the liberal media and the left leaning of the Democrats.

[Mountain Man]

Let's look at the actual testimony:

Q: Okay. When did you go on leave?

A: I was out of the office starting on Monday, July 8th.

Q: So you did not hear anything about Ukraine security assistance possibly being on hold at any time during the month of June or during that first week of JuIy?

A: No.

Q: Did you hear of any questions that were being raised by OMB about Ukraine security assistance at the end of June or the beginning of July?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you describe what you heard?

A: I heard that the President had seen a media report and he had questions about the assistance.

Q: When did you hear that the President had seen a media report and had questions about the assistance?

A: 0n June 19th.

Q: Do you know what media report that was?

A: I don't recall the specific article.

Q: Who told you that the President had these concerns on these questions?

A: Mike Duffey.

Q: And that was the conversation that you had with Mr. Duffey on June 19th?

A: I believe it was an email.

Q: Okay. Can you describe what that email said?

A: The email expressed an interest in getting more information from the Department of Defense.

Q: And what kind of additional information?

A: A description of the program.

Q: What exactly did Mr. Duffey say, to the best of your recollection, in that email?

A: That the President had questions about the press report and that he was seeking additional information.

Q: Anything else in that email?

A: Not that I recall.

...

Q: Between JuIy 19th and JuIy 22nd, including July 22nd, did Mr. Duffey provide you any explanation as to why the President wanted to place a hold on Ukraine security assistance?

A: No.

Q: Did you ask?

A: Yes.

Q: And what was the response?

A: He was not aware of the reason.

Q: To the best of your recollection, what precisely dld he say to you when you asked for the reason for the President's decision to place a hold on security assistance?

A: That he was not aware.

Q: He simply said, "I don't know"?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he indicate that he was going to try to get more information as to why the President was placing a hold on security assistance?

A: I am pausing because I -- there was certainly a desire to learn more about the rationale.

Q: Whose rational?

A: A desire on the pant of Mike Duffey, myself, and other people working on this issue. So I want to answer your question accurately in terms of saying, that desire was acknowledged.

Q: All night. Did Mr. Duffey say that he was going to try to get additional information as to the reason for the hold?

A: Yes. He certainly said that if he got additional information he would share it with us.

Q: Okay. At any point in time, from the moment that you walked into the SCIF to anytime in history, has Mr. Duffey even provided to you a reason why the President wanted to place a hold on security assistance?

A: I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...-held-n2557127

So nothing about Joe Biden, nothing about pressuring the Ukrainian government to begin investigationa. Rather, the President had unspecified concerns based on a news report, and he later said that he was concerned that other countries weren't contributing more to Ukraine's defense.

[oxmixmudd]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...werent-giving/

Now that quote from the article is some serious spin. Unfortunately, it crosses the line into out and out deception worthy of a YEC quote mine.

The impoundment act limits a Presidents power to refuse to distribute funds allocated by congress and interestingly came to be as a result of the abuse of that power by Nixon.. So, clearly funds allocated for ukraine being illegally held on the order of the president is about the president's approach to the ukraine.

[oxmixmudd]

Let's look at the actual testimony:

Q: Okay. When did you go on leave?

A: I was out of the office starting on Monday, July 8th.

Q: So you did not hear anything about Ukraine security assistance possibly being on hold at any time during the month of June or during that first week of JuIy?

A: No.

Q: Did you hear of any questions that were being raised by OMB about Ukraine security assistance at the end of June or the beginning of July?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you describe what you heard?

A: I heard that the President had seen a media report and he had questions about the assistance.

Q: When did you hear that the President had seen a media report and had questions about the assistance?

A: 0n June 19th.

Q: Do you know what media report that was?

A: I don't recall the specific article.

Q: Who told you that the President had these concerns on these questions?

A: Mike Duffey.

Q: And that was the conversation that you had with Mr. Duffey on June 19th?

A: I believe it was an email.

Q: Okay. Can you describe what that email said?

A: The email expressed an interest in getting more information from the Department of Defense.

Q: And what kind of additional information?

A: A description of the program.

Q: What exactly did Mr. Duffey say, to the best of your recollection, in that email?

A: That the President had questions about the press report and that he was seeking additional information.

Q: Anything else in that email?

A: Not that I recall.

...

Q: Between JuIy 19th and JuIy 22nd, including July 22nd, did Mr. Duffey provide you any explanation as to why the President wanted to place a hold on Ukraine security assistance?

A: No.

Q: Did you ask?

A: Yes.

Q: And what was the response?

A: He was not aware of the reason.

Q: To the best of your recollection, what precisely dld he say to you when you asked for the reason for the President's decision to place a hold on security assistance?

A: That he was not aware.

Q: He simply said, "I don't know"?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he indicate that he was going to try to get more information as to why the President was placing a hold on security assistance?

A: I am pausing because I -- there was certainly a desire to learn more about the rationale.

Q: Whose rational?

A: A desire on the pant of Mike Duffey, myself, and other people working on this issue. So I want to answer your question accurately in terms of saying, that desire was acknowledged.

Q: All night. Did Mr. Duffey say that he was going to try to get additional information as to the reason for the hold?

A: Yes. He certainly said that if he got additional information he would share it with us.

Q: Okay. At any point in time, from the moment that you walked into the SCIF to anytime in history, has Mr. Duffey even provided to you a reason why the President wanted to place a hold on security assistance?

A: I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...-held-n2557127

So nothing about Joe Biden, nothing about pressuring the Ukrainian government to begin investigationa. Rather, the President had unspecified concerns based on a news report, and he later said that he was concerned that other countries weren't contributing more to Ukraine's defense.

Your objections, aside from being misleading, dont address the issue raised, which is that he put the hold in place coincident with the request for a favor, he had to force it to be done by removing the career person in place willing to raise an objection due to it's illegal nature, and he pulled the hold immediately after learning the whistle blower had outed his plan.

It is amazing to watch you as you continue to skirt about trying to come up with disparate and inconsistent justifications for each individual line of evidence, all the while the evidence telling the singular story of how trump tried to buy help in his bid for 2020 from ukraine with congressionally allocated funds builds and builds.

It will be interesting to see just how many more revelations of this sort will be required before the cognitive dissonance that lives in the minds of Trump supporters on this issue finally can overcome the need to 'get back' at the MSM and the democrats. Will it ever collapse, or will they just keep drooling along at his feet ever fixed on the hope that he will deliver them from the dreaded 'liberals'?

[Cow Poke]

All this would sink any ordinary mortal. Unfortunately, the Republicans have elevated Trump to god-like status - which he clearly enjoys.

Christians and their idols?

Important tests of the neutrality of the SCOTUS are coming up in the next few weeks.

So, why didn't the Democrats do all their homework before putting on their show trial*? Who, in their right mind, would "go to trial" in public and fail miserably in their main objective**, only to have back later and add, "oh, and we SHOULD have said...."?




*while the impeachment hearing is not actually a "trial", Schiff ran it as such, making himself the chief prosecutor, judge, jury and media liaison.
**their main objective was obviously to sway the American public in their favor

[Mountain Man]

Your objections, aside from being misleading, dont address the issue raised, which is that he put the hold in place coincident with the request for a favor, he had to force it to be done by removing the career person in place willing to raise an objection due to it's illegal nature, and he pulled the hold immediately after learning the whistle blower had outed his plan.

That sort of idle speculation would never fly in the courtroom. It's not about what you think happened, it's about what you can prove, and there is no evidence to prove your theory. What we know, based on sworn testimony, is that Trump's concerns came from a news report, and that he later said he had concerns about other countries not sufficiently supporting the Ukraine.

We also know based on sworn testimony from a firsthand witness that Trump emphatically said that he didn't want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo, and not a single witness has testified anything to the contrary based on firsthand knowledge.

Finally, we know for a fact that Ukraine didn't know about the hold, that nobody in the Ukrainian government felt any pressure from the Trump Administration, and that the aid was released without Ukraine ever agreeing to investigations.

These are the facts you have to work with, and they simply don't support your desired conclusion.

So...

[Roy]

That sort of idle speculation would never fly in the courtroom. It's not about what you think happened, it's about what you can prove, and there is no evidence to prove your theory. What we know, based on sworn testimony, ...

We also know based on sworn testimony ... not a single witness has testified ...

Finally, we know for a fact that Ukraine didn't know about the hold ...

These are the facts you have to work with, and they simply don't support your desired conclusion.

If it's not about what you think happened, but what you can prove, then none of your "facts" are anything of the sort, since they are based solely on testimony, and testimony is not necessarily truthful. We do not know any of those things, we only know that we have been told them.

It's astonishing how you elevate statements made in court to 'knowledge' while simultaneously rejecting statements made in press conferences.

[oxmixmudd]

That sort of idle speculation would never fly in the courtroom. It's not about what you think happened, it's about what you can prove, and there is no evidence to prove your theory. What we know, based on sworn testimony, is that Trump's concerns came from a news report, and that he later said he had concerns about other countries not sufficiently supporting the Ukraine.

We also know based on sworn testimony from a firsthand witness that Trump emphatically said that he didn't want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo, and not a single witness has testified anything to the contrary based on firsthand knowledge.

By this you mean we have no-one testifying that Trump told them directly he would not release the aid until they committed to the investigations - which is not something Trump is likely to have done regarding any of his 'questionable' requests. And yet we have a large amount of testimony that was what was understood by everyone around Trump. Sondland, Taylor, Volker, etc. But we do have testimony of statements from him that indicate undue concern over Zelensky being willing to investigate Biden and Burisma as part of the 'favor'. And - in fact - we have Mulveny, in a press conference, stating that the aid was in the fact tied to the investigations. So you have effectively played calvinball here by defining the only acceptable evidence Trump was holding the aid for the investigations as whatever particular sort of evidence might exist for that which we don't, at the current time, have. To say there is 'no evidence' then is simply false. There just isn't the specific evidence you require to be convinced.

Finally, we know for a fact that Ukraine didn't know about the hold,

No - we know for a fact they did know about it in early august:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/u...peachment.html

or earlier:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1XU2VX

that nobody in the Ukrainian government felt any pressure from the Trump Administration,

A statement that falls under duress and is countered by their inquiries trying to understand why the aid was delayed

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/ukra...testimony.html

and that the aid was released without Ukraine ever agreeing to investigations.

An action which did not take place until and immediately following knowledge of the whiste-blower. Further, we also know that Giulianni was heavily involved in helping Ukraine craft the 'announcement' that would have been forthcoming - excepting of course that there was this pesky whistleblower.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/polit...int/index.html

These are the facts you have to work with, and they simply don't support your desired conclusion.

So...

No, we have a whole lot more facts to work with than this MM. And they all show, when taken together and not in isolation as you are prone to do, exactly what Trump was trying to do. Which was to use the congressionally allocated aid as leverage to force Ukraine to announce publicly on CNN an investigation into corruption that had to include Burisma and Biden in the text.

ETA: Although trump supporters will look the other way, it is painfully obvious that

Aid tied to the investigations + investigations must include Burisma and Biden = Aid tied to investigation of Burisma and Biden. Any logical, objective person knows that is what it means.

[oxmixmudd]

So, why didn't the Democrats do all their homework before putting on their show trial*? Who, in their right mind, would "go to trial" in public and fail miserably in their main objective**, only to have back later and add, "oh, and we SHOULD have said...."?




*while the impeachment hearing is not actually a "trial", Schiff ran it as such, making himself the chief prosecutor, judge, jury and media liaison.
**their main objective was obviously to sway the American public in their favor

Again, they did not 'fail'. That they could not convince people like you and MM is not a 'failure' on their part, or of the evidence itself.

[Cow Poke]

Again, they did not 'fail'.

You can say that all you want, Jim, but it's a POLITICAL process where they were obviously trying to move the needle to get overwhelming public support. Fail.

That they could not convince people like you and MM is not a 'failure' on their part, or of the evidence itself.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[firstfloor]

That sort of idle speculation would never fly in the courtroom. It's not about what you think happened, it's about what you can prove, and there is no evidence to prove your theory. What we know, based on sworn testimony, is that Trump's concerns came from a news report, and that he later said he had concerns about other countries not sufficiently supporting the Ukraine.

We also know based on sworn testimony from a firsthand witness that Trump emphatically said that he didn't want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo, and not a single witness has testified anything to the contrary based on firsthand knowledge.

Finally, we know for a fact that Ukraine didn't know about the hold, that nobody in the Ukrainian government felt any pressure from the Trump Administration, and that the aid was released without Ukraine ever agreeing to investigations.

These are the facts you have to work with, and they simply don't support your desired conclusion.

So...

This is just an obstructed investigation at the moment. Some way to go yet. Nobody has accused anyone of anything yet. The Dems May decide they have insufficient evidence, but I think the dam is about to burst.

[Mountain Man]

...testimony is not necessarily truthful.

As the great Simon Greenleaf, widely regarded as the father of our modern legal system put it, "In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector."

It's astonishing how you elevate statements made in court to 'knowledge' while simultaneously rejecting statements made in press conferences.

Statements made to the press are not sworn testimony and are therefore legally worthless.