The Impeachment Trial

[Cow Poke]

No they haven't, that's just the echo chamber reverberating through you.

Are you OK, Jim, seeing as this incredibly large dose of reality has come crashing down on your head?

[Cow Poke]

Of course you haven't.

Well, I have now, but then, no, I hadn't.

[The Pendragon]

If it ‘looks bad‘ then there’s nothing wrong with asking Zelensky to look into it but to withhold aid until they announce investigations publicly naming Biden is the problem. Where’s the public interest here?

I there is the rub, you are making the case that Trump was digging up dirt on an opponent. I make the point that Trump was acting on Probable Cause and asking Zelensky to look into some things that look very shady. Are you saying running for President exempts you from investigation You are the one that is saying that Biden is above the Law and the Dems have been telling me for years that no one is above the law, That applies to Biden as well as Trump.

Start with ‘Withholding aid unless AG is removed’. If this was legitimately done then the rest doesn’t matter, you can only go to motives after first establishing improper conduct. So what was the aid? Did it have preconditions attached? When was it withheld and by who? Was reason for hold legitimate?

To Start with If you get the AG removed because the AG is investigating your son and you get the investigating stopped this is Obstruction of Justice and is worthy of asking for an investigation you can only truly find motive if you investigate the situation. The Aid was Aid voted on by congress and Biden threatened to with hold by his own admission , the preconditions where that the AG was fired and the investigation into Bidens son was halted. It was with held by Biden at a time that he was aware the his son may be investigated. When you look at all the facts it look like there is reason to investigate. You missed one that applies to Trump asking. Did Trump ask for a specific result? No he ask Zelensky to look into it with out indicating what result he expected. This goes against the clam that Trump asked Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. while a side effect may hurt Biden it could also help him by clearing him.


By the way Trump is bound by Law ask about possible corruption in Ukraine before releasing aid. another part of when this was asked is to realize that the government had just changed hands and the old corruption investigations where cleared under the old government, it is prudent to take a another look at thing to get a feel of the new government. this is another legitimate reason for Trump to hold the aid.

Also I can apply every thing in this paragraph to Trump and show that he had the right to with hold the aid legitimately. So thank you for making the point that none of what Trump did was a Crime or Impeachable. After an intense investigation by the House. The House could only get Innuendo, Hear say, and Assumption. None admissible in a real court of law. The House choose not to fight for what they thought could prove there case and Ignored witnesses that might clear Trump. So using your logic Trump is Innocent ((Unless Biden is Above the Law).

[The Pendragon]

If the crime is spelled out in the Articles then it's still the same crime even if it is defined under the heading of "abuse of power." And it's defined that way because that is the definition of all crimes charged in an impeachment whether listed as such or not. The crime of bribery/extortion is spelled out in the articles for those who have the ability to comprehend.

"Abuse of Power" is an amorphous term used to describe many other Crimes and in itself is not a crime. If I just accuse Jim of Abuse of Power it can be Briery or Extortion, or it could be sexual harassment, it could be ordering an subordinate to commit a murder, It could be using you position to cause someone to lie. It is not a Crime in it self. If I brought Jim up on charges of Abusing his Power and did not specify an actual Crime / Crimes connected to it, and brought it to court, the court would trough it out. Reason, because as the trial goes on I can attribute anything to the case it also does not allow the defense to actually defend against a real crime.

It is like taking Jim to court and asking that he be put in jail for life because he did some bad stuff. It does not matter what he did its obverse he's just a bad guy there is no doubt about it everyone can just see how bad he is (This is Abuse of Power with out the under lying Crimes).

[Watermelon]

I there is the rub, you are making the case that Trump was digging up dirt on an opponent. I make the point that Trump was acting on Probable Cause and asking Zelensky to look into some things that look very shady. Are you saying running for President exempts you from investigation You are the one that is saying that Biden is above the Law and the Dems have been telling me for years that no one is above the law, That applies to Biden as well as Trump.



To Start with If you get the AG removed because the AG is investigating your son and you get the investigating stopped this is Obstruction of Justice and is worthy of asking for an investigation you can only truly find motive if you investigate the situation. The Aid was Aid voted on by congress and Biden threatened to with hold by his own admission , the preconditions where that the AG was fired and the investigation into Bidens son was halted. It was with held by Biden at a time that he was aware the his son may be investigated. When you look at all the facts it look like there is reason to investigate. You missed one that applies to Trump asking. Did Trump ask for a specific result? No he ask Zelensky to look into it with out indicating what result he expected. This goes against the clam that Trump asked Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. while a side effect may hurt Biden it could also help him by clearing him.


By the way Trump is bound by Law ask about possible corruption in Ukraine before releasing aid. another part of when this was asked is to realize that the government had just changed hands and the old corruption investigations where cleared under the old government, it is prudent to take a another look at thing to get a feel of the new government. this is another legitimate reason for Trump to hold the aid.

Also I can apply every thing in this paragraph to Trump and show that he had the right to with hold the aid legitimately. So thank you for making the point that none of what Trump did was a Crime or Impeachable. After an intense investigation by the House. The House could only get Innuendo, Hear say, and Assumption. None admissible in a real court of law. The House choose not to fight for what they thought could prove there case and Ignored witnesses that might clear Trump. So using your logic Trump is Innocent ((Unless Biden is Above the Law).

The difference is not difficult to understand. Like I said, establishing motives is secondary to first establishing wrongdoing.

So withholding aid - are there legitimate reasons for doing it? Of course. So the first step is to find out if it was legitimate.

Biden - threatened to withhold aid unless Shokin was fired.

Circumstances - anti corruption reforms highly prioritised in international support of post revolution Ukraine. Shokin and his office criticised for protecting oligarchs and obstruction investigations by Ukrainians. Criticism is supported by international community who call for his removal.

US 1 billion loan guarantee granted to Ukraine who had promised to clean up Shokins office.

Reason - shokin not fired.

Biden threatens to take back loan guarantee. US congress issue bipartisan letter to Ukraine calling for shokin to be removed. IMF threatens to withhold 40billion. Ukrainians stage protests calling for shokins removal. Ukraine legislators vote to remove Shokin. US loan guarantee is provided.

Bidens threat surely contributed to Shokins removal but it was a sustained international effort to do it. Legitimate due to widespread support, advancement of public interest and consistent to official foreign policy.

Trump - withheld aid

Circumstances - Ukraine elects new president.

Reason - not given

Can’t determine if it’s legitimate if reason is unknown so consider if there’s any legitimate reasons for the hold.

Preconditions confirmed as met. Officials given no explanation despite repeated requests to Trump asking for release. If there’s no obvious legitimate reason or reason given is weak or nonexistent then cause for investigation.

[rogue06]

OK, so what ya got is....

Trump did bad stuff which, though "improper" (as Alexander said), is not impeachable.
The Democrats kinda sort proved the "improper" bad non-impeachable stuff.
Bolton, apparently, will provide ADDITIONAL proof of the "improper" bad non-impeachable stuff.

What's changed? Trump is forever impeached and will be forever acquitted.

The incredibly vindictive partisan Democrats of the House are free to impeach AGAIN.

With luck some like Mad Max[ine] Waters and Adam Schiftless will start demanding it immediately which oughta do well for the 2020 election since the public is so eager to go through another couple years of this.

[rogue06]

If the crime is spelled out in the Articles then it's still the same crime even if it is defined under the heading of "abuse of power." And it's defined that way because that is the definition of all crimes charged in an impeachment whether listed as such or not. The crime of bribery/extortion is spelled out in the articles for those who have the ability to comprehend.

Cite where they are explicitly mentioned.

You don't get to make an amorphous charge and then let the jury read into it what they want.

[JimL]

"Abuse of Power" is an amorphous term used to describe many other Crimes and in itself is not a crime. If I just accuse Jim of Abuse of Power it can be Briery or Extortion, or it could be sexual harassment, it could be ordering an subordinate to commit a murder, It could be using you position to cause someone to lie. It is not a Crime in it self. If I brought Jim up on charges of Abusing his Power and did not specify an actual Crime / Crimes connected to it, and brought it to court, the court would trough it out. Reason, because as the trial goes on I can attribute anything to the case it also does not allow the defense to actually defend against a real crime.

Military aid for an investigation announcement on CNN against Biden. Quid pro quo, extortion, bribery by the President is an "abuse of power," thus the charge, "abuse of power."
The crime is detailed in the Articles themselves and republicans have already admitted to it. Not to mention a violation of the Impoundment act by not informing Congress of the reason for the withholding of the aid.

[Mountain Man]

Military aid for an investigation announcement on CNN against Biden.

Not a crime. You might consider it bad foreign policy, but it's not a criminal act.

[JimL]

Not a crime. You might consider it bad foreign policy, but it's not a criminal act.

Extorting a foreign country for personal political gain is what we call an "abuse of power" which is a crime against the Constitution.

[JimL]

Cite where they are explicitly mentioned.

You don't get to make an amorphous charge and then let the jury read into it what they want.

Don't be such an air head, the charges against the president are not only detailed in the Articles, but the same have been argued throughout the trial. The Articles don't just say "Abuse of power" and "Obstruction of Justice" they go on to give detailed explanation as was explained at trial as well.

[Bill the Cat]

Extorting a foreign country for personal political gain is what we call an "abuse of power" which is a crime against the Constitution.

And they didn't prove the "personal political gain" part. They asserted it all day long, but never proved anything.

[Mountain Man]

Extorting a foreign country for personal political gain is what we call an "abuse of power" which is a crime against the Constitution.

First of all, extortion has a very specific legal definition, and this doesn't fit. For one thing, Ukraine was never officially told the aid was being withheld or that its release was tied to their agreeing to conduct investigations. In fact, the Ukrainian government has repeatedly said they were never pressured to do anything.

Second, there's no evidence whatsoever that the President was motivated by personal political gain.

[JimL]

And they didn't prove the "personal political gain" part. They asserted it all day long, but never proved anything.

Don't tell that to Lamar Alexander! And the rest of the Senate Republicans know the same, but there was no way they could allow for a fair trial because that would reveal the whole conspiracy which would implicate Mike Pompeo, Lindsey Graham, Devin Nunes, Atty Gen. Barr, Mike Pence, Mick Mulvaney, White House Council Pat Cipollone, and a host of others who were in on it.

[JimL]

First of all, extortion has a very specific legal definition, and this doesn't fit.

Extortion: The practice of obtaining something through force or threat. Yeah, I think that fits, MM.

For one thing, Ukraine was never officially told the aid was being withheld or that its release was tied to their agreeing to conduct investigations. In fact, the Ukrainian government has repeatedly said they were never pressured to do anything.

Whether told explicitly or not, "I need you to do us a favor though," they knew and made it clear that they knew.

Second, there's no evidence whatsoever that the President was motivated by personal political gain.

Actually there is. For one thing the president didn't hold up the appropriated aid to Ukraine in the previous years of his administration, he only held it up in 2019 after Biden announced his candidacy.