ADVERTISEMENT

What would be an impeachable offense to you?

Sondland is making it crystal clear that Trump's bribery scheme was no secret within the Department of State.

Given the people who have refused to testify, it should have been a no-brainer to the Congressional Republicans -- particularly if there was ANY behind-the-scenes discussions going on -- that this happened. So why in the hell did they take such a lamebrained strategy of casting doubt on the proceedings and attacking the credibility of the witnesses?

The Republicans have been played by Schiff and Pelosi like the fools they are. Their best strategy from the get-go would have been to acknowledge what Trump did and instead spend their collective efforts trying to convince folks that while it was wrong, it doesn't rise to the level of being impeached and removed from office.

Why didn't they take this common sense approach? It's because our batsh*t crazy President gets angry at anyone who questions his 'perfect' call (as if there wasn't mountains of evidence that it was far from a call, it was the State Department's policy per Trump.
 
Sondland is making it crystal clear that Trump's bribery scheme was no secret within the Department of State.

Given the people who have refused to testify, it should have been a no-brainer to the Congressional Republicans -- particularly if there was ANY behind-the-scenes discussions going on -- that this happened. So why in the hell did they take such a lamebrained strategy of casting doubt on the proceedings and attacking the credibility of the witnesses?

The Republicans have been played by Schiff and Pelosi like the fools they are. Their best strategy from the get-go would have been to acknowledge what Trump did and instead spend their collective efforts trying to convince folks that while it was wrong, it doesn't rise to the level of being impeached and removed from office.

Why didn't they take this common sense approach? It's because our batsh*t crazy President gets angry at anyone who questions his 'perfect' call (as if there wasn't mountains of evidence that it was far from a call, it was the State Department's policy per Trump.


That strategy is next. Republicans couldn't go there because POTUS demanded loyalty and got pissed when anyone suggested that the call wasn't "perfect". They were in a box.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
That strategy is next.
No doubt. It would be much more effective if it had been the Trump/GOP Party Line from the very beginning.

By calling the Schiff hearing a sham and 'a fake investigation,' it makes it awfully hard for open-minded Americans to buy anything the President and his defenders say. You guys can rail about the real villain here being Adam Schiff, but even his detractors would have to admit his Impeachment Inquiry process (first closed-door, then public) has carefully and methodically laid out the overwhelming evidence of the grand scale of the Trump State Department's bribery attempt.
 
No doubt. It would be much more effective if it had been the Trump/GOP Party Line from the very beginning.

By calling the Schiff hearing a sham and 'a fake investigation,' it makes it awfully hard for open-minded Americans to buy anything the President and his defenders say. You guys can rail about the real villain here being Adam Schiff, but even his detractors would have to admit his Impeachment Inquiry process (first closed-door, then public) has carefully and methodically laid out the overwhelming evidence of the grand scale of the Trump State Department's bribery attempt.

Trump doesn't believe in surrendering any ground. He'll win in the Senate.
 
Trump doesn't believe in surrendering any ground. He'll win in the Senate.
I agree that it's still likely. However, Trump and clowns like Nunes are doing their damnest throughout this impeachment inquiry to get GOP Senators to waver.
 
No doubt. It would be much more effective if it had been the Trump/GOP Party Line from the very beginning.

By calling the Schiff hearing a sham and 'a fake investigation,' it makes it awfully hard for open-minded Americans to buy anything the President and his defenders say. You guys can rail about the real villain here being Adam Schiff, but even his detractors would have to admit his Impeachment Inquiry process (first closed-door, then public) has carefully and methodically laid out the overwhelming evidence of the grand scale of the Trump State Department's bribery attempt.
Trump doesn’t need open minded Americans to buy anything he says. He just needs Hannity to waive his hands and say “nothing to see here” and he won’t lose a single member of his 5th Avenue base.
 
Trump doesn’t need open minded Americans to buy anything he says. He just needs Hannity to waive his hands and say “nothing to see here” and he won’t lose a single member of his 5th Avenue base.
That's a truly troubling sign of the current state of our nation.

I've always considered the beauty of the American experiment is the dynamic balancing act we've successfully navigated for 243 years between the Executive, Congressional, and Judiciary branches given our ever-present 'States-rights' versus 'Federalist' political perspectives we've had since our founding.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why it's so damn hard for people in today's political environment to work with "the other side." Our country was never designed to be a one-party rule. Once upon a time we understood that compromising and getting 'part of what we want' is better than nothing at all.

Nowadays, standing proudly behind our conservative/liberal ideals and...getting DIDDILY-SQUAT is bizarrely taken as a point of pride.
 
Sondland is making it crystal clear that Trump's bribery scheme was no secret within the Department of State.

Given the people who have refused to testify, it should have been a no-brainer to the Congressional Republicans -- particularly if there was ANY behind-the-scenes discussions going on -- that this happened. So why in the hell did they take such a lamebrained strategy of casting doubt on the proceedings and attacking the credibility of the witnesses?

The Republicans have been played by Schiff and Pelosi like the fools they are. Their best strategy from the get-go would have been to acknowledge what Trump did and instead spend their collective efforts trying to convince folks that while it was wrong, it doesn't rise to the level of being impeached and removed from office.

Why didn't they take this common sense approach? It's because our batsh*t crazy President gets angry at anyone who questions his 'perfect' call (as if there wasn't mountains of evidence that it was far from a call, it was the State Department's policy per Trump.

It wasn't a lame brained strategy, and up until this morning it was pretty effective at holding the line. Sondland is the only witness that has been able to move the needle significantly. Trumps biggest mistake was holding firm to the "no quid-pro-quo" line when it's obvious that there was. He should have come out and admitted that there was a quid-pro-quo but it was in the nation's best interest, that way the defense could have focused on that aspect. He really painted them in a corner by trying to claim that his call was perfect and there is no question that he is 100% innocent of everything.
 
No doubt. It would be much more effective if it had been the Trump/GOP Party Line from the very beginning.

By calling the Schiff hearing a sham and 'a fake investigation,' it makes it awfully hard for open-minded Americans to buy anything the President and his defenders say. You guys can rail about the real villain here being Adam Schiff, but even his detractors would have to admit his Impeachment Inquiry process (first closed-door, then public) has carefully and methodically laid out the overwhelming evidence of the grand scale of the Trump State Department's bribery attempt.

I can't believe that anyone would think that Schiff was anywhere close to impressive through all of this. When this goes to the senate he is going to be absolutely skewered on a much more high-profile level. Questions will be asked of people that schiff disallowed, to people that schiff excluded as witnesses, and that will create a narrative that the impeachment hearing wasn't fair and unbiased. Right or wrong, he will come across as being a partisan who was protecting people who shouldnt have been protected. The Biden/Burisma deal, the crowdstrike deal, Chalupa, and Ciaramella will be brought into the forefront in a way that the media has avoided talking about. In the end, the media will have no choice but to start talking about testimony regarding those people/issues because they won't want to appear as being on one side or another and alternative news agencies will present a huge risk to them if they don't.

In the end, only 1 person will come out of this unscathed politically: buttigieg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Trump doesn't believe in surrendering any ground. He'll win in the Senate.
He's going to win in the Senate because the testimony will not support bribery. Here's why.

Everyone so far has testified that they were instructed that there were no preconditions on any meetings with Ukraine and that there were no preconditions on aid. Everyone has testified that they were not aware of any quid pro quo. Some have testified that they were expressly directed that there was to be no quid pro quo.

Everyone who has testified has said that the Bidens never came up in any of their discussions with the President nor was it a point in any of their interactions with Ukraine.

None of them knew why the aid was hung up. If you listen to the Republican's questions, especially Stefanik, and some other public reports, there was an ongoing analysis of aid to a number of countries at this time and many were hung up in the process. Ukraine was one of these. This is a plausible alternate explanation for the hangup of the aid.

Sondland testified that he didn't think there was anything untoward until he saw the transcript of the call recently. Then, because he never received an explanation for the aid holdup, decided that the aid was held up because of Biden. He testified that he had no evidence for that. Others had similar testimony in their cross-examinations.

Which is why bribery won't fly. Because you don't have direct evidence nor testimony that the aid was withheld so that Zelensky would investigate Biden nor do you have any evidence or testimony that anyone knew that the aid hinged on a public announcement of the investigation. You also have a more than plausible alternate theory of the aid hanging up that should more than suffice to create reasonable doubt.

The worst part is exactly what is being demonstrated on these boards; people on both sides are hearing what they want to hear and not considering all of the testimony. The opening statements and Schiff narrative sound horrible and would be damning if left unchallenged. But this is why trials are adversarial. The cross-examinations have been pretty effective. All that is going to come out of this is to drive the wedge deeper between the American public. The people driving the wedge win and the rest of us lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
It wasn't a lame brained strategy, and up until this morning it was pretty effective at holding the line. Sondland is the only witness that has been able to move the needle significantly.
You're assuming that the Courts are going to allow impeachment inquiry witnesses to willfully ignore their Congressional subpoenas. I'll go out on a limb and say they'll enforce the subpoenas.

Knowing now that the 'three amigos' were not running a rogue diplomacy and were, in fact, operating with the full knowledge and support of the White House and the Department of State, it was only a matter of time before these circumstances were made public.

By taking this tack, the GOP's upcoming "its no big deal" defense is going to ring hollow since they fought so hard to hide it.
 
You're assuming that the Courts are going to allow impeachment inquiry witnesses to willfully ignore their Congressional subpoenas. I'll go out on a limb and say they'll enforce the subpoenas.

Knowing now that the 'three amigos' were not running a rogue diplomacy and were, in fact, operating with the full knowledge and support of the White House and the Department of State, it was only a matter of time before these circumstances were made public.

By taking this tack, the GOP's upcoming "its no big deal" defense is going to ring hollow since they fought so hard to hide it.

I doubt the courts are going to get involved in this in any meaningful way unless the dems don't feel they have the votes to impeach. If they impeach and the senate isn't able to attain testimony from people then I could see a court challenge but seriously doubt it comes to that. At this point this is generally political in nature and executive privilege has been established so I'm not sure that much of a constitutional case can be made against anyone. There is some gray area with Rudy but I doubt that the dems want him to testify.
 
I can't believe that anyone would think that Schiff was anywhere close to impressive through all of this. When this goes to the senate he is going to be absolutely skewered on a much more high-profile level.
Skewered why? By protecting the whistleblower? That's Federal law.

By not allowing Hunter Biden to testify? What in God's name does HE have to do with Trump's alleged abuse of power?

By running a 'sham' investigation that
outlined in detail a State Department-endorsed policy to bribe Ukraine into supporting the President's reelection campaign?
In the end, only 1 person will come out of this unscathed politically: buttigieg.
Yeah, baby!!! :)
 
I'm not so sure that a constitutional challenge against Schiff isn't a better case, quite honestly. He expanded the role of the intelligence chair to dictate the rules to a point that may have gone too far. If a case can be laid out that there is evidence of election interference and that Burisma was breaking domestic financial laws in regards to their payments to bidens investment company then Schiff may be viewed as having blocked pertinent evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
It wasn't a lame brained strategy, and up until this morning it was pretty effective at holding the line. Sondland is the only witness that has been able to move the needle significantly. Trumps biggest mistake was holding firm to the "no quid-pro-quo" line when it's obvious that there was. He should have come out and admitted that there was a quid-pro-quo but it was in the nation's best interest, that way the defense could have focused on that aspect. He really painted them in a corner by trying to claim that his call was perfect and there is no question that he is 100% innocent of everything.
It's only obvious if you make the jump that the aid was withheld because of the investigation. That hasn't been proved and Republicans would call witnesses to rebut that point if they were allowed to subpoena witnesses. You've gotta hand it to Schiff for ensuring that none of the witnesses actually understood why the aid was withheld, nor participated in the processing of the aid, nor had any discussion with Trump or anyone else about the process the aid was going through. So there's not a clear and indisputable link there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Skewered why? By protecting the whistleblower? That's Federal law.

By not allowing Hunter Biden to testify? What in God's name does HE have to do with Trump's alleged abuse of power?

By running a 'sham' investigation that
outlined in detail a State Department-endorsed policy to bribe Ukraine into supporting the President's reelection campaign?
Yeah, baby!!! :)


Just game the thing out. Hunter Biden will be invoked over and over in the senate and investigations and public documents will show that pertinent questions into his involvement with Burisma exist. As the public learns more about that relationship, they will start to believe that Trump was correct in asking Zelensky and Barr to look into it. Then it will turn into a question of why Schiff excluded any discussion or questions on the topic. Just think about the average American here:

Hunter biden is an avowed alcoholic and drug user who was paid 600 grand directly by a company that does business in an industry that he had no knowledge in. One of his business partners went to the state dept with concerns about the relationship. At the very least, it creates a narrative of cronyism and corruption due to him being the son of the VP. Trump asked about this topic so it will resonate with the average person. They will also invoke election interference and provide evidence that ukranians were actively involved in our 2016 election (convictions in Ukraine prove this), another topic that trump asked about. Schiff blocked any questions or discussion regarding those things. Ultimately it makes no difference on whether or not trump is guilty of other crimes but it raises questions into whether or not Schiff was acting politically or in the pursuit of justice. He won't come out unscathed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
He's going to win in the Senate because the testimony will not support bribery. Here's why.

Everyone so far has testified that they were instructed that there were no preconditions on any meetings with Ukraine and that there were no preconditions on aid. Everyone has testified that they were not aware of any quid pro quo. Some have testified that they were expressly directed that there was to be no quid pro quo.

Everyone who has testified has said that the Bidens never came up in any of their discussions with the President nor was it a point in any of their interactions with Ukraine.

None of them knew why the aid was hung up. If you listen to the Republican's questions, especially Stefanik, and some other public reports, there was an ongoing analysis of aid to a number of countries at this time and many were hung up in the process. Ukraine was one of these. This is a plausible alternate explanation for the hangup of the aid.

Sondland testified that he didn't think there was anything untoward until he saw the transcript of the call recently. Then, because he never received an explanation for the aid holdup, decided that the aid was held up because of Biden. He testified that he had no evidence for that. Others had similar testimony in their cross-examinations.

Which is why bribery won't fly. Because you don't have direct evidence nor testimony that the aid was withheld so that Zelensky would investigate Biden nor do you have any evidence or testimony that anyone knew that the aid hinged on a public announcement of the investigation. You also have a more than plausible alternate theory of the aid hanging up that should more than suffice to create reasonable doubt.

The worst part is exactly what is being demonstrated on these boards; people on both sides are hearing what they want to hear and not considering all of the testimony. The opening statements and Schiff narrative sound horrible and would be damning if left unchallenged. But this is why trials are adversarial. The cross-examinations have been pretty effective. All that is going to come out of this is to drive the wedge deeper between the American public. The people driving the wedge win and the rest of us lose.

The bolded statement is remarkable considering your opening statement is not accurate in regard to Sondland's testimony that's happening right now. Sondland is testifying directly today that meeting-for-investigation was absolutely the case and it was a quid-pro-quo.

Now, you are correct in that no one so far has directly connected the aid hold up with investigations. However, there's been no testimony that gives credence to the argument that it was held up bureaucratically. Individuals that could testify to that end from OMB have refused to testify. Those who have testified have consistently said that there was never any explanation given except that POTUS had concerns about corruption (Laura Cooper in particular). Mark Sandy, OMB official who did testify says he doesn't know why it was withheld. The normal bureaucratic processes were completed and there was a time crunch. The hold was directly from OMB via POTUS. There was no agency doing anti-corruption checks. If you have testimony to the contrary please let me know because I haven't seen it.

So the narrative that Trump was using this as leverage fits all the available testimony and facts, even if no one heard him say it out loud. At the same time, no credible alternative narrative supported with facts and testimony has emerged.

So while I agree with you generally that we should have better evidence to assert bribery as it relates to he aid, if the White House itself is preventing evidence and testimony that could prove it one way or the other, then Trump should be impeached on obstruction of congress. That is the Constitutional remedy for a POTUS who *might* have solicited a bribe and obstructs the congressional investigation into that question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
The bolded statement is remarkable considering your opening statement is not accurate in regard to Sondland's testimony that's happening right now. Sondland is testifying directly today that meeting-for-investigation was absolutely the case and it was a quid-pro-quo.

Now, you are correct in that no one so far has directly connected the aid hold up with investigations. However, there's been no testimony that gives credence to the argument that it was held up bureaucratically. Individuals that could testify to that end from OMB have refused to testify. Those who have testified have consistently said that there was never any explanation given except that POTUS had concerns about corruption (Laura Cooper in particular). Mark Sandy, OMB official who did testify says he doesn't know why it was withheld. The normal bureaucratic processes were completed and there was a time crunch. The hold was directly from OMB via POTUS. There was no agency doing anti-corruption checks. If you have testimony to the contrary please let me know because I haven't seen it.

So the narrative that Trump was using this as leverage fits all the available testimony and facts, even if no one heard him say it out loud. At the same time, no credible alternative narrative supported with facts and testimony has emerged.

So while I agree with you generally that we should have better evidence to assert bribery as it relates to he aid, if the White House itself is preventing evidence and testimony that could prove it one way or the other, then Trump should be impeached on obstruction of congress. That is the Constitutional remedy for a POTUS who *might* have solicited a bribe and obstructs the congressional investigation into that question.
He said that the quid-pro-quo that he saw being there had nothing to do with aid or Biden though. That's why I didn't include it.

How do you know what Mark Sandy testified to? As far as I've seen, that transcript hasn't been released.
 
It's only obvious if you make the jump that the aid was withheld because of the investigation. That hasn't been proved and Republicans would call witnesses to rebut that point if they were allowed to subpoena witnesses. You've gotta hand it to Schiff for ensuring that none of the witnesses actually understood why the aid was withheld, nor participated in the processing of the aid, nor had any discussion with Trump or anyone else about the process the aid was going through. So there's not a clear and indisputable link there.

That's totally absurd. Multiple officials who could testify as to "why" the aid was held have been subpoenaed and have failed to show. Offhand, Mick Mulvaney, Brian McCormack, and Robert Blair are all OMB officials who failed to show up for scheduled depositions. Can you name a single White House official with knowledge of the aid hold up that Republicans have tried to call that Schiff has shot down? Good luck finding a source on that claim.
 
That's totally absurd. Multiple officials who could testify as to "why" the aid was held have been subpoenaed and have failed to show. Offhand, Mick Mulvaney, Brian McCormack, and Robert Blair are all OMB officials who failed to show up for scheduled depositions. Can you name a single White House official with knowledge of the aid hold up that Republicans have tried to call that Schiff has shot down? Good luck finding a source on that claim.
Rep. Devin Nunes made the claim on the House floor that people that could rebut weren't witnesses. Schiff makes all the rules. Carry water for them all you want but Schiff is not playing this fairly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
He said that the quid-pro-quo that he saw being there had nothing to do with aid or Biden though. That's why I didn't include it.

How do you know what Mark Sandy testified to? As far as I've seen, that transcript hasn't been released.

Your statement is not accurate unless you are separating "Biden" from "Burisma." Sondland testified directly today that in regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid-pro-quo in exchange for a public statement committing to investigations of Burisma and 2016 (see page 14 in section titled "Quid Pro Quo"). The only shield to POTUS is that this directive came from Rudy, not POTUS, although everyone understood these to be the desires of POTUS.

You're right that Sandy's testimony isn't out yet, but the source was NYT who, to my knowledge, have been correct in all their testimony leaks up to this point.
 
Rep. Devin Nunes made the claim on the House floor that people that could rebut weren't witnesses. Schiff makes all the rules. Carry water for them all you want but Schiff is not playing this fairly.

I'm not carrying water. Here's the list of witnesses requested by Nunes. Who on here that Schiff didn't call that could shed light on why the aid was withheld?

BTW - I don't think there's a single witness that will be able to connect that dot anyway. Trump isn't stupid enough to tell someone "I'm not going to release the aid until they announce an investigation of Biden." That's just not how this works. Assuming he's guilty as charged, he saw the aid as an opportunity to increase his leverage and refused to sign off. There's no reason he would tell anyone that.

It's like the scientific method. You "prove" something like this by disproving any other reasonable alternative. If you can throw out 2 or 3 bureaucrats that say they recommended the hold because certain corruption checks hadn't been completed - then boom. Exculpatory evidence and you're done. I highly doubt that exists or the White House would have put forward those witnesses voluntarily.
 
Your statement is not accurate unless you are separating "Biden" from "Burisma." Sondland testified directly today that in regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid-pro-quo in exchange for a public statement committing to investigations of Burisma and 2016 (see page 14 in section titled "Quid Pro Quo"). The only shield to POTUS is that this directive came from Rudy, not POTUS, although everyone understood these to be the desires of POTUS.

You're right that Sandy's testimony isn't out yet, but the source was NYT who, to my knowledge, have been correct in all their testimony leaks up to this point.
Sondland separated Biden from Burisma when he made the statement and never linked the two until "probably" after the call transcript. We can speculate all we want, but they have to prove the two are actually linked and that proof hasn't been presented. You also have to prove additional elements that I've presented before and don't have the energy to talk about now. I just don't think they've done it and you do. That's fair either way.

The leaks have been carefully selected and tell only a part of the story. Who was that said the greatest lies are based in truth?
 
Sondland separated Biden from Burisma when he made the statement and never linked the two until "probably" after the call transcript. We can speculate all we want, but they have to prove the two are actually linked and that proof hasn't been presented.
You have GOT to be kidding us. You really expect everybody to believe that you, Sondland, and Volker never connected the dots between Burisma and the Bidens??!?
 
I'm not carrying water. Here's the list of witnesses requested by Nunes. Who on here that Schiff didn't call that could shed light on why the aid was withheld?

BTW - I don't think there's a single witness that will be able to connect that dot anyway. Trump isn't stupid enough to tell someone "I'm not going to release the aid until they announce an investigation of Biden." That's just not how this works. Assuming he's guilty as charged, he saw the aid as an opportunity to increase his leverage and refused to sign off. There's no reason he would tell anyone that.

It's like the scientific method. You "prove" something like this by disproving any other reasonable alternative. If you can throw out 2 or 3 bureaucrats that say they recommended the hold because certain corruption checks hadn't been completed - then boom. Exculpatory evidence and you're done. I highly doubt that exists or the White House would have put forward those witnesses voluntarily.
David Hale testified that multiple countries were going through a review of making sure that taxpayer money was appropriately spent. He said that Ukraine was one of a list of countries that included Lebanon, Pakistan, and the Northern Triangle countries. There's one person corroborating the alternate theory for the holdup. Want to bet whether there are more?
 
You have GOT to be kidding us. You really expect everybody to believe that you, Sondland, and Volker never connected the dots between Burisma and the Bidens??!?
I'm telling you that Sondland testified in front of Congress that he didn't make a connection until after Trump released the transcript of the phone call. You can be as incredulous as you want, but that's what he testified.
 
Your statement is not accurate unless you are separating "Biden" from "Burisma." Sondland testified directly today that in regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid-pro-quo in exchange for a public statement committing to investigations of Burisma and 2016 (see page 14 in section titled "Quid Pro Quo"). The only shield to POTUS is that this directive came from Rudy, not POTUS, although everyone understood these to be the desires of POTUS.

You're right that Sandy's testimony isn't out yet, but the source was NYT who, to my knowledge, have been correct in all their testimony leaks up to this point.

 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I'm not carrying water. Here's the list of witnesses requested by Nunes. Who on here that Schiff didn't call that could shed light on why the aid was withheld?

BTW - I don't think there's a single witness that will be able to connect that dot anyway. Trump isn't stupid enough to tell someone "I'm not going to release the aid until they announce an investigation of Biden." That's just not how this works. Assuming he's guilty as charged, he saw the aid as an opportunity to increase his leverage and refused to sign off. There's no reason he would tell anyone that.

It's like the scientific method. You "prove" something like this by disproving any other reasonable alternative. If you can throw out 2 or 3 bureaucrats that say they recommended the hold because certain corruption checks hadn't been completed - then boom. Exculpatory evidence and you're done. I highly doubt that exists or the White House would have put forward those witnesses voluntarily.

Plus somebody held up the aid, who was that?
 
David Hale testified that multiple countries were going through a review of making sure that taxpayer money was appropriately spent. He said that Ukraine was one of a list of countries that included Lebanon, Pakistan, and the Northern Triangle countries. There's one person corroborating the alternate theory for the holdup. Want to bet whether there are more?

Hale testifies later today so we'll see if can explicitly link this delay to that process. I'll predict that he won't based on the other testimony we've seen so far. I know he spoke generally about scrutiny on foreign aid and how it can get held up. If you can point me where in the 190 page deposition that he gave an explanation for the delay I'd love to read it. The reporting I've seen has consistently been that all of the standard processes were complete and the hold up was coming directly from OMB. Not from DOD or State running through some process.
 
Hale testifies later today so we'll see if can explicitly link this delay to that process. I'll predict that he won't based on the other testimony we've seen so far. I know he spoke generally about scrutiny on foreign aid and how it can get held up. If you can point me where in the 190 page deposition that he gave an explanation for the delay I'd love to read it. The reporting I've seen has consistently been that all of the standard processes were complete and the hold up was coming directly from OMB. Not from DOD or State running through some process.
You're right, we'll see. Even if the President did order the hold, with Hale previously stating that he was holding up a number of them for review, you still have to prove that Ukraine was explicitly because of the Biden investigation. Yes, they're coincidental in time, but coincidence does not prove causation. And you have to prove causation, not disprove it. You and Shuck and Schiff are assuming there was causation and requiring someone to tell you that there wasn't. That isn't how it will work under real due process rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
You're right, we'll see. Even if the President did order the hold, with Hale previously stating that he was holding up a number of them for review, you still have to prove that Ukraine was explicitly because of the Biden investigation. Yes, they're coincidental in time, but coincidence does not prove causation. And you have to prove causation, not disprove it. You and Shuck and Schiff are assuming there was causation and requiring someone to tell you that there wasn't. That isn't how it will work under real due process rules.

I agree. In order to prove the bribery (or similar) accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to link the hold to the investigations. I think we can agree on that. I don't agree that you need a smoking gun connection. Cases hinge on circumstantial evidence all the time. Particularly if the defense can't provide a credible alternative narrative that also fits the facts as presented.

That said, we have a huge problem here - politics. You want to apply standard rules of evidence and due process, but the subject of the investigation is able to ignore subpoenas for testimony and documents. The "defense" is not able to call witnesses of their own. We can argue the politics of who should be doing what, but the bottom line is that we have a limited set of information from which to form a conclusion.

Based on those restrictions - and an administration that is not cooperating - I don't see how we can require such a high standard in order to take the next step. Presumably, if the administration had exculpatory evidence - testimonial and documentary - they would provide it. Because they haven't, and thus we have no credible alternative explanation, I lean heavily towards concluding that the balance of the evidence favors the argument that he was abusing the power of his office - regardless of what specific article that leads to.

I also presume that a Senate trial will lift those restrictions. The attorney's of the President can call witnesses, and I assume they will cooperate with document and testimony requests. In the event they do not cooperate, I think that is a hard line that the Senate cannot allow a POTUS to cross as there will almost certainly be an article for Obstruction of Congress on the table.

If the administration does cooperate, then we get all the dirty laundry aired and let the chips fall where they may.
 
I agree. In order to prove the bribery (or similar) accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to link the hold to the investigations. I think we can agree on that. I don't agree that you need a smoking gun connection. Cases hinge on circumstantial evidence all the time. Particularly if the defense can't provide a credible alternative narrative that also fits the facts as presented.

That said, we have a huge problem here - politics. You want to apply standard rules of evidence and due process, but the subject of the investigation is able to ignore subpoenas for testimony and documents. The "defense" is not able to call witnesses of their own. We can argue the politics of who should be doing what, but the bottom line is that we have a limited set of information from which to form a conclusion.

Based on those restrictions - and an administration that is not cooperating - I don't see how we can require such a high standard in order to take the next step. Presumably, if the administration had exculpatory evidence - testimonial and documentary - they would provide it. Because they haven't, and thus we have no credible alternative explanation, I lean heavily towards concluding that the balance of the evidence favors the argument that he was abusing the power of his office - regardless of what specific article that leads to.

I also presume that a Senate trial will lift those restrictions. The attorney's of the President can call witnesses, and I assume they will cooperate with document and testimony requests. In the event they do not cooperate, I think that is a hard line that the Senate cannot allow a POTUS to cross as there will almost certainly be an article for Obstruction of Congress on the table.

If the administration does cooperate, then we get all the dirty laundry aired and let the chips fall where they may.
Good points. I'm all for getting it out and done with either way at this point. Let the House get back to passing a budget and all the other stuff that is not really progressing right now. Especially the passing the budget part. These CRs are getting ridiculous.
 
You're right, we'll see. Even if the President did order the hold, with Hale previously stating that he was holding up a number of them for review, you still have to prove that Ukraine was explicitly because of the Biden investigation. Yes, they're coincidental in time, but coincidence does not prove causation. And you have to prove causation, not disprove it. You and Shuck and Schiff are assuming there was causation and requiring someone to tell you that there wasn't. That isn't how it will work under real due process rules.

If they could prove that even just one other nation had its aid held up in the same timeframe, the argument goes out the window. If it's true that there were 5 other nations, this creates a major problem for the democrats narrative of bribery. On the flip side, and Schiff kind of showed his hand today, if they can prove the the meeting was for official business and not just a meet & greet, trump is painted into a corner. I will add that even if this was the case, it's going to be a very fine line for both sides to maneuver. The dems have to PROVE that it was completely political in nature and the republicans have to PROVE that there are other aspects at play.
 
sk8 and Crazy can discuss ad nauseum whether or not the dems have the goods on a bribery charge. The truth of the matter is that at this point the American people know exactly what happened.

Beyond that, when the President ordered his people to defy congressional subpoenas to share what they knew about this situation, it pretty much ended the discussion about whether Congress had enough evidence of Presidential abuse of power to impeach him. Trump has made it easy.
 
ADVERTISEMENT