Bill Taylor's Testimony (impeachment)
- Thread starter Boosted87
- Start date
As we've seen throughout the Trump Presidency, his people have been working overtime in efforts to save Trump from himself.
That's the talking point du jour.
Ukraine got their aid 2 days after the whistleblower came out. Trump asked for a public announcement about an investigation. That's a bribe, which is impeachable under the Constitution.
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4
Are you just copy/pasting his Tweets now?
Do you need a Whistleblower when
1.) Trump admitted to the bribe
2.) Trump's chief of staff admitted to the bribe
3.) Rudy Guilani admitted to the bribe
4.) Bill Taylor explained how the bribe worked
Yes because he asked a foreign gov't to interfere in our election which is a crime. But why would they do it unless he gave them incentive?
it was the number 1 news story for a couple weeks. why havent we heard from them?
Here are the rules our federal government uses to determine bribery:
- The individual being bribed is a "public official," which includes rank-and-file federal employees on up to elected officials;
- A "thing of value" has been offered, whether it's tangible (such as cash) or intangible (such as the promise of influence or official support);
- There's an "official act" that may be influenced by a bribe (such as pending legislation that may have a direct impact on the party offering the bribe);
- The public official has the authority or power to commit the official act (for instance, the official is a senator who is voting on a particular piece of legislation);
- There must be the establishment of intent on the part of the bribing party to get a desired result (the intent to sway the vote by handing over an envelope full of cash); and
- The prosecution must establish a causal connection between the payment and the act meaning there must be more than just a suspicious coincidence.
Ignoring that, Trump's actions meet many of the conditions on the list, so at this point, I'm not opposed to an investigation. I think 5 and 6 will be problematic with prosecution. You have Trump repeatedly stating and you have testimony supporting that Trump said that there is no quid-pro-quo and he doesn't want it to be a quid-pro-quo. Now, you can say that acknowledgement that it could look this way proves that he is guilty. But that's not the way it works, he would need to actually come out an express an intent to profit from the investigation.
Similarly, on 6, they have to prove that Trump personally held up the money until the investigation was reopened and then released it afterwards. Not that it happened chronologically, but that it happened that way precisely because Trump made it happen that way and he made it happen that way with the intent of damaging his political rival. I haven't seen any direct testimony from anyone actually involved (no, the 3rd-party hearsay of the whistleblower doesn't count) that Trump expressed this intent and there was an actual cause and effect. That proof may be hard to find.
Duh. Because the players who were actually involved (e.g. Bill Taylor) are confirming what the whistleblower reported.
I don't know? Maybe because the POTUS threatened him/her with death?
1.) Trump didn't ask for an investigation. He asked for an announcement of an investigation.
2.) You don't have to specifically express that you want X in exchange for Y. Mob bosses are put in jail all the time without saying their intent as it is in their actions and correspondence.
3.) According to Taylor's testimony, Sondland explained that the money would be held up until Trump got his announcement.
First - great analysis. Agree pretty much 100% with everything you said. The bolded part above is what Crazyhole inferred, not what I said.
Second - Yes. This is splitting hairs. It had virtually nothing to do with my post. My question was simply that if you perpetually subscribe to the "both sides are just as bad argument", are you prepared to recognize when that's no longer the case and one side really has jumped the shark? I chose to frame it as democracy vs authoritarianism. In modern use of the term, when we say "democracy" we're generally referring to western or (classically) liberal democracies - right? We certainly are not referring to authoritarian democracies.
So I think it's perfectly reasonable to frame something as a democracy sliding towards authoritarism without implying they are opposites. It's framed this way all the time.
In your analysis, don't forget to account for "conspiracy to commit bribery." I'm not saying it meets that, just pointing out that you don't need a successfully completed bribe for it be a crime.
And again, I don't think Trump repeatedly saying "no quid pro quo" helps out at all here. If anything, I think it hurts him. For example, if I'm running a ponzi scheme and I keep telling my grandma "no this isn't a ponzi scheme", that demonstrates that I know what a ponzi scheme is AND that I know it's bad. If Trump never uttered those words, you would have a better case that he didn't know what he was doing was inappropriate.
So is it bribery when the US sends aide money to countries and expect them to do certain things he in return? I’m pretty sure all side money cones with expectations and those expiry are set by the state department. Tell me again what branch that falls under again?
A foreign government helping to investigate corruption regarding your own government employees or former employees is not interfering in an election. Asking them to fabricate documents to lie about a candidate as if it were the truth is a lot closer to interfering. There's a big difference.
Again, you are assuming his intent based on a denial of intent. That's your confirmation bias but it is not evidence.
If someone comes out and says that Trump told me that he was going to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation so that he can derail Biden and win the Presidency, that is evidence. Going back to your previous statement, no mob bosses are not convicted all the time on innuendo. They are convicted on evidence. If you have innuendo, there has to be a hell of a lot of support to clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt define that intent. For example, if someone says, this world would be better off if X wasn't in it, and then an associate kills X, you still can't convict the original. You'd need to demonstrate that the killer understood it as an order to kill and most likely have to demonstrate that there was a proven pattern of punishment for not following that order or a pattern of that ambiguous order being carried out. That's why it's hard to prosecute mob bosses in the criminal system.
I can make a case that all the red flag laws and hate speech laws and gender pronoun laws and other social justice laws are one side jumping the shark into authoritarianism, absolutely.
meanwhile the stable genius wants to build a Wall around Colorado , this is the guy Boomers are ruining their reputation for
Thank goodness we don't have her. Everyone can agree on that.
Maybe the 2 party system needs to go when the political Final Four consists of Hillary, Bernie, Trump and Ted Cruz.
2016 was hands down our best shot at a meaningful 3rd party run, given we had two of the most catastrophicly unqualified candidates in living memory running against each other. Look what happened, didn't even break 5%. You can't blame me during 2016 for that.
2020 we have no hope, 46% of this nation is literally brain dead and the other 54% have no choice but to vote for anyone other than Trump if we want to salvage our country.
Apparently the Republicans created these house rules.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...re-protesting-their-own-rules-for-impeachment
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...re-protesting-their-own-rules-for-impeachment
You mean the gerrymandering party who hasn’t elected a president with the popular vote since the 1980s don’t like a rule that they created when it goes against them.
I can hardly believe it.
Now it's been reported by several Republican Representatives that every meeting has begun with the statement that "no classified information" is being discussed.
Then WTF are they in the SCIF for? That's a total misuse of the SCIF! And it utterly undermines the 'ruining national security' argument that the US Media is pushing.
Behind closed doors is one thing. But why are they using the SCIF when there's no classified information? That pretty much destroys the entire Democratic and US Media narrative right now.
This is becoming a joke ...
Five lessons from the Nixon impeachment inquiry
https://www.aei.org/politics-and-public-opinion/five-lessons-from-the-nixon-impeachment-inquiry/
Democrats are violating every standard of due process. It will backfire.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-every-standard-due-process-it-will-backfire/
https://www.aei.org/politics-and-public-opinion/five-lessons-from-the-nixon-impeachment-inquiry/
Democrats are violating every standard of due process. It will backfire.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-every-standard-due-process-it-will-backfire/
' ... the Nixon inquiry was a model of bipartisan cooperation. The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Peter Rodino (N.J.), assembled a unified staff (including Doar’s father, John, a Republican whom Rodino appointed as special counsel). The full House voted on authorizing the inquiry. The minority was given joint subpoena power. The president’s counsel was allowed to be present during depositions, given access to all of the documents and materials presented to the committee, allowed to cross-examine witnesses, and even permitted to call witnesses of his own. Most important, the committee did not leak or release selective documents cherry-picked to make the president look bad.
The same was true during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. As former House speaker Newt Gingrich explained in a recent interview, Republicans “adopted every single rule that Rodino had used in 1973.” Yet today, Rodino’s party is systematically undermining every principle of fairness and due process he put in place in 1973.
Take this week’s testimony by acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., who alleged that President Trump made U.S. aid contingent on “investigations.” He was deposed inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) in the Capitol, a room that is designed to protect the government’s most highly classified information. Cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF. Yet somehow what appear to be cellphone photos of his prepared statement were leaked to the news media.
But the full transcript of his deposition — including his answers to questions from Republicans challenging his accusations — remains under lock and key in that SCIF. The president’s counsel is not allowed to see it, much less be present at the deposition to cross-examine the witness. So, Democrats are leaking derogatory information about the president, while restricting public access to potentially exculpatory information, all while denying him the right to see or challenge testimony against him.'
The same was true during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. As former House speaker Newt Gingrich explained in a recent interview, Republicans “adopted every single rule that Rodino had used in 1973.” Yet today, Rodino’s party is systematically undermining every principle of fairness and due process he put in place in 1973.
Take this week’s testimony by acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., who alleged that President Trump made U.S. aid contingent on “investigations.” He was deposed inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) in the Capitol, a room that is designed to protect the government’s most highly classified information. Cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF. Yet somehow what appear to be cellphone photos of his prepared statement were leaked to the news media.
But the full transcript of his deposition — including his answers to questions from Republicans challenging his accusations — remains under lock and key in that SCIF. The president’s counsel is not allowed to see it, much less be present at the deposition to cross-examine the witness. So, Democrats are leaking derogatory information about the president, while restricting public access to potentially exculpatory information, all while denying him the right to see or challenge testimony against him.'
I'm starting to side with the Republicans on this. This is becoming a publicity stunt by the Democratic party, not the Republican party.
The leaks are pretty much a great example ... and then the US Media talking about Republicans hurting national security, when no classified discussions are taking place in the SCIF, let alone Democrats are selectively leaking photos from the SCIF.
That door swings both ways, like the Democrats complaining about the rules in 2000 and wanting to change them.
And yes, no Republican is going to win the popular vote as long as California is in the union. One would have to remove the next half-dozen Republican states to balance it out.
We're an union of states, not a single, federal entity. If people don't want that, I'm sure Texas and other states will gladly leave if they have no say. Oh wait, we'd use the federal government's guns to stop that. Sigh ...
Last edited:
That's the Russians' version of 'Yo'Momma.'
Yes, it's a running joke over there now in Russia how they elected Trump.
I don't blame them.
They re-elected W. in 2004 with the popular vote.
Re-elected being the key word. His approval rating spiked 40 points overnight after 9/11 and didn’t plummet to pre 9/11 levels until well into his second term when the 2 wars were still ongoing and the economy started to tank.
Any update on when these GOP reps have had their security clearances revoked and charges brought against them for the multiple security felonies they committed on tape yesterday? I was told that MAGAts care about how we deal with classified data....
Sorry , wrong President, you are talking about Clinton now.
My argument is pretty straight forward. IF - after you reviewing the facts - you believe this was indeed a "quid-pro-quo", then Trump's contemporaneous and specific denials of a "quid-pro-quo" are evidence (not proof) of a consciousness of guilt. If you DON'T see the underlying facts as a "quid-pro-quo" then it's irrelevant.
Let's imagine for a second that it is illegal to walk around carrying a duck. I have been accused of walking around carrying a duck. I point at the "duck" and tell several people "this isn't a duck". If the facts show that indeed, it was a chicken, then my statements are mostly irrelevant. The case had no merit and I was telling the truth. One might wonder why I felt the need to point at my chicken and tell people it wasn't a duck, but it's not really relevant.
However, if after reviewing the facts you determine it was a duck, then my statements are evidence (not proof) that (1) I know ducks exist and (2) know I shouldn't be carrying one. If I was this self-aware then I either knew it was a duck the whole time or I was being willfully ignorant.
If the context is Trump saying - "I don't believe this is a quid-pro-quo. But before we press forward, I want to get everyone's opinion on this. Let's get the White House Counsel to look at this and give us an opinion. Do it quick because we need to get this aid released if we're not in a legally defensible position here." Trump then follows through on this, White House advisers agree he's in the clear and legal writes a memo justifying the position. In that case, big time exculpatory evidence.
Of course, reality seems to be the opposite, with various White House officials concerned some even reporting to administration lawyers their concerns, and the Pentagon informing the White House the the hold might be illegal on it's face.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and squawks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and squawks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Unless of course you repeatedly said "this isn't a duck", providing direct evidence that even if it really was a duck, it couldn't have actually been a duck, because you said so.
And yet, quid pro quo is excessively common. That's the problem here, non-State employees are making an issue of it, but not State employees. Of course it would be an issue in Defense and even Intelligence ... and yet, there are State and other Intelligence that implement it with impunity.
That has been repeatedly pointed out by the Trump administration, even if Trump is dancing around words like he usually does.
That has been repeatedly pointed out by the Trump administration, even if Trump is dancing around words like he usually does.
Similar threads
