The Impeachment Trial

[Watermelon]

OK so given that, if Trump did tell Ukraine they had to investigate the Burisma mess, that would be legal unless he did it for personal motives, right?

So far they have not proven Trump did anything for personal motives. That is just the Democrats accusations. Which is denied by everyone directly involved, including Ukraine. You keep screaming "extortion! he kept the money from Ukraine to force an investigation" -- well so what? Unless you can prove he did it for personal gain, it is perfectly legal as you just admitted.

The claim is that Trump intended to personally benefit as the announcement would discredit one of Trumps main political opponents thus increasing his chances for reelection.

Intent isn’t something that can be positively proven unless Trump confesses under oath. If a witness was to testify that Trump directly said this was his intention, unless that witness was also a co conspirator, it would be considered hearsay.

So it has to be negatively proven by showing what it isn’t. This requires Trump/defense to state what his intent was so the prosecution can use evidence to question it. A situation like this would usually require both subjective and objective evaluation by the jury. Subjective since the jury has to put themselves in the presidents shoes to understand the actions taken and objective to determine how likely those actions, according to a reasonable person in a similar position, would likely result in achieving the stated intention.

Example, if trumps intention for the announcements/investigations was a genuine desire to help Ukraine stamp out corruption then the jury needs to decide whether the evidence is consistent with that intention.

It’s unreasonable to expect the prosecution to prove everything that it CANT be since they don’t even know everything that it CAN be so a situation like this puts the burden of proof on the defense.

This means trump has to prove that he didn’t do it for personal gain, all he has to do is show a legitimate cause behind the contested act.

I took the time to explain it to deal with the presumption of innocence comments from the last time I mentioned this.

[Sam]

I didn't say anything about laws, I said there were procedures in place.

And Trump circumvented those procedures in outing a likely Israeli spy deeply embedded in Syria to the Russian Foreign Minister. Because, as President, he can. It's a bad idea to have a president who would just hand out codeword-server information like that but he can -- and Trump did.

So the idea that Trump can't clear Bolton to deny something false is in his book is laughably absurd.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

We've seen multiple testimonies that many people saw clear evidence this was all about hitting out at Biden.

At least that was the rumor being passed around at the water cooler.

[Watermelon]

Because Trump isn't a mob boss strong-arming subordinates who are obligated to keep him happy.

Witnesses testified that there was absolutely no credibility behind the Biden corruption claim. Maybe that’s why?

[oxmixmudd]

At least that was the rumor being passed around at the water cooler.

You've allowed your fielty to Trump to drag you down into almost unconscionable disdain for people that have risked their careers to make sure the truth has been heard.

[Sparko]

The question is whether or not Bolton can deny the reported content in his book. If, for example, I say that Bolton accuses Trump in his book of murdering the Last Unicorn to serve at a celebratory dinner for Franklin Graham, Bolton can release a statement denying that his book contains any such allegations.

"The bank robber walked out of the bank before the clerk handed him the bag of money" is one heckuva defense you got there.

--Sam

But then he would lose a lot of curious book buyers at presale.

[Sparko]

The claim is that Trump intended to personally benefit as the announcement would discredit one of Trumps main political opponents thus increasing his chances for reelection.

and if Biden is indeed guilty of personally using HIS position as VP to benefit himself and his son using extortion, then we would WANT to know that and to keep him from running, yes?

And if Biden ISN'T guilty and that comes out, why then it makes Trump look foolish and he would LOSE support.

The only way Trump benefits is if Biden IS guilty, in which case he deserves to be stopped from running for all of our sakes.

Either way, it would be up to the people at the ballot box to decide. As it should be.

[Sparko]

Witnesses testified that there was absolutely no credibility behind the Biden corruption claim. Maybe that’s why?

And people (including the Ukraine President himself) said that there was absolutely no credibility behind the Trump corruption claim.

[Sam]

But then he would lose a lot of curious book buyers at presale.

The argument is that Bolton can't deny what's reportedly in his book, thus preserving the idea that he does not have that direct witness testimony of the President's motives.

The argument is not that he's not denying it because preserving a false account drives book sales. One can make that argument but it's significantly weaker than the former, which is already fatally weak.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

You've allowed your fielty to Trump to drag you down into almost unconscionable disdain for people that have risked their careers to make sure the truth has been heard.

Nobody is has sworn fealty to Trump, you insufferable ass (and at least I know how to spell "fealty").

The fact is that nobody who testified before the House said that they had ever received any direct instruction from the President or anybody else to make any kind of offer to Ukraine tying the release of aid to investigating the Bidens. All we heard were presumptions and "I heard from a guy who heard from guy" hearsay. So even if what Bolton says is true, that Trump floated the idea in a top level meeting, it would seem that nothing was ever put into action.

[Watermelon]

and if Biden is indeed guilty of personally using HIS position as VP to benefit himself and his son using extortion, then we would WANT to know that and to keep him from running, yes?

And if Biden ISN'T guilty and that comes out, why then it makes Trump look foolish and he would LOSE support.

The only way Trump benefits is if Biden IS guilty, in which case he deserves to be stopped from running for all of our sakes.

Either way, it would be up to the people at the ballot box to decide. As it should be.

Of course if Biden is guilty then people need to know. The problem is first identifying when he was corrupt. The Shokin firing isn’t it, it’s well documented that there was domestic and international pressure to fire shokin before Biden became involved.

Is there any evidence that Biden got his son the Burisma role? There’s no doubt it was due to who Biden is but what exactly did Joe Biden do to land Hunter that role besides being VP?

Biden being investigated for corruption is what people will remember and they will believe what they want to believe. Do you honestly believe if the Ukrainians find nothing on Biden that Trump or his supporters would just accept that? It’s more likely that Ukrainians will be blamed for being corrupt too.

Didn’t they find nothing to pursue on Hillary’s corruption investigation? She is still known as crooked Hillary to some.

That’s why a credible basis for an investigation is required to justify it regardless of the result.

[Sparko]

Of course if Biden is guilty then people need to know. The problem is first identifying when he was corrupt. The Shokin firing isn’t it, it’s well documented that there was domestic and international pressure to fire shokin before Biden became involved.

Is there any evidence that Biden got his son the Burisma role? There’s no doubt it was due to who Biden is but what exactly did Joe Biden do to land Hunter that role besides being VP?

Biden being investigated for corruption is what people will remember and they will believe what they want to believe. Do you honestly believe if the Ukrainians find nothing on Biden that Trump or his supporters would just accept that? It’s more likely that Ukrainians will be blamed for being corrupt too.

Didn’t they find nothing to pursue on Hillary’s corruption investigation? She is still known as crooked Hillary to some.

That’s why a credible basis for an investigation is required to justify it regardless of the result.

Hillary was pronounced guilty then let off the hook by Comey.

They actually had the evidence on her.

And Biden was bragging how he personally extorted Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. On video. And the fact that the person he got fired had ties to his Son's "job" is enough to raise eyebrows and be investigated.

[Watermelon]

Nobody is has sworn fealty to Trump, you insufferable ass (and at least I know how to spell "fealty").

The fact is that nobody who testified before the House said that they had ever received any direct instruction from the President or anybody else to make any kind of offer to Ukraine tying the release of aid to investigating the Bidens. All we heard were presumptions and "I heard from a guy who heard from guy" hearsay. So even if what Bolton says is true, that Trump floated the idea in a top level meeting, it would seem that nothing was ever put into action.

Fielty is also a word and more suitable to his statement. Fielty is choosing to serve while fealty is being bound to serve.

The aid was already frozen. Bolton said ‘release the aid!!!!’ and trump said ‘not until they announce those investigations!!!’.

If true, is a link between aid and announcement.

[lilpixieofterror]

You've allowed your fielty to Trump to drag you down into almost unconscionable disdain for people that have risked their careers to make sure the truth has been heard.

“I don’t understand why you stupid, gap toothed, idiots, don’t bow down and agree with my superior morality and intellect!”

[lilpixieofterror]

Fielty is also a word and more suitable to his statement. Fielty is choosing to serve while fealty is being bound to serve.

The aid was already frozen. Bolton said ‘release the aid!!!!’ and trump said ‘not until they announce those investigations!!!’.

If true, is a link between aid and announcement.

So you’ve seen the book and know that is in there?