Just like you knew exactly what happened with Kavanaugh and with the Mueller investigation and all the others, right? I don’t know if you realize this or not but your track record with this stuff is pretty bad.
What would be an impeachable offense to you?
- Thread starter firm_bizzle
- Start date
I don't think that's true at all regarding the hold. If you could point to other instances of aid being withheld under similar circumstances - no public announcement regarding the hold, order directly from OMB/Potus, inter-agency staff having little to no information as to why there was a hold - then sure. That's good evidence that Trump just randomly holds up aid for no rhyme or reason.
On the other hand, other examples of aid being withheld could be bad for Trump if they don't follow that same pattern. If the other hold's have public announcements, congress is aware of them, agency staff are supportive, and there's a clear general understanding of the purpose of the the hold - then that just makes this one stick out all the more.
When questioned “everyone knew the meeting was a quid pro quo” Sondland was given a list of names of whom he actually spoke to and they agreed it was a quid pro quo. His answer, it was all speculation. Even if there was a quid pro quo for an office visit, so what.
This entire thing is a joke.
Let's talk Abuse of Power for a minute here. I think quid-pro-quo and bribery make it easy to get distracted. It seems at this point that it's pretty hard to argue against the idea that Trump was asking Zelensky to open specific investigations. In particular, POTUS was asking for an investigation centered around the Bidens (per transcript).
The debate is now a nuanced one. Was this a "demand" or simply a polite request? Was the aid specifically tied to the investigations? If the White House visit and/or aid were tied to the investigations, does that exchange support a Solicitation of Bribery?
Those are all good discussions. But let's take a step back and simply look at the ask - investigations around the Bidens. An interesting part of George Kent's testimony was how it is common practice in Ukraine for a new administration to launch investigations and prosecutions of the previous administration. We know their system has endemic corruption of prosecutors and judges. So put the entire "ask" in context here - regardless of what Zelensky may or may not get in return.
With a massive power disparity, where Zelensky is dependent on US support against Russia generally, POTUS asks an endemically corrupt prosecutorial and judicial system to launch an investigation into specific American citizens. He does this with ZERO internal support or legal justification. This isn't the DOJ seeking cooperation to further an American investigation - where judges generally aren't bribed and the targets would have due process protection. This is a direct ask - using the inherent power of the presidency - to use a corrupt judicial system to zero in on specific American citizens.
That's REALLY bad just on it's face, exclusive of any exchange of value. And that part is essentially accepted by both sides thanks to the transcript. So while an explicit demand matters in terms of "bribery", I think it's largely irrelevant when we simply ask if POTUS was abusing the power inherently granted to him by the people.
The debate is now a nuanced one. Was this a "demand" or simply a polite request? Was the aid specifically tied to the investigations? If the White House visit and/or aid were tied to the investigations, does that exchange support a Solicitation of Bribery?
Those are all good discussions. But let's take a step back and simply look at the ask - investigations around the Bidens. An interesting part of George Kent's testimony was how it is common practice in Ukraine for a new administration to launch investigations and prosecutions of the previous administration. We know their system has endemic corruption of prosecutors and judges. So put the entire "ask" in context here - regardless of what Zelensky may or may not get in return.
With a massive power disparity, where Zelensky is dependent on US support against Russia generally, POTUS asks an endemically corrupt prosecutorial and judicial system to launch an investigation into specific American citizens. He does this with ZERO internal support or legal justification. This isn't the DOJ seeking cooperation to further an American investigation - where judges generally aren't bribed and the targets would have due process protection. This is a direct ask - using the inherent power of the presidency - to use a corrupt judicial system to zero in on specific American citizens.
That's REALLY bad just on it's face, exclusive of any exchange of value. And that part is essentially accepted by both sides thanks to the transcript. So while an explicit demand matters in terms of "bribery", I think it's largely irrelevant when we simply ask if POTUS was abusing the power inherently granted to him by the people.
This is a very US-centric perspective to stretch to find a crime to fit the man. The problem that you have with this is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and that power relationship isn’t nearly as clear as in a work relationship. Add in that the Ukrainians are saying they weren’t pressured and the meeting happened and the aid was given and the investigation didn’t seem to happen. So to say that Trump used the power of the US to force compliance from the lowly Ukraine is hard given that they didn’t comply and nothing happened to them.
No matter how polite, informal, and non-demanding the ask is - and no matter who the foreign President it - it's still POTUS leveraging the unique power of that office to focus a foreign government's investigative arm at specific US citizens.
I'm not saying that in all cases that is an abuse of power. Every situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, in a case like this, I don't think the burden-of-proof falls on the accuser. When using official powers, and singling out individuals who just happen to be your political rivals, I think the burden now falls on the official to provide a cogent explanation and defense of their actions. This isn't a criminal prosecution, it's an examination of whether or not POTUS is using his office towards personal ends.
Ok. I think it also hinges on leveraging the nation’s resources to achieve those ends. Let’s be honest, every incumbent leverages their office for political ambitions which are personal gains. But did Trump use the military aid as leverage. Maybe. I think you should need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to remove him from office, especially when you’re accusing him of a crime. We’ll see if that evidence comes out.
After seeing and hearing what’s been presented to us in the last few weeks, how can you presume “maybe” with respect to the military aid being held for the investigations? Take the GOP glasses off and it’s clear as day.
Heck, it was worst than most of us thought. I assumed this was a little side deal that Trump worked up with Guliani, Sondland, and Volker. It turns out it was everybody - including Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Perry.
Answer the question, why was it released. I’m willing to bet you get it wrong.
It was released because Trump got caught. The aid was released AFTER the House started investigating him.
I believe it got released (Sept 11) after the whistleblower made a complaint (Sept 9).
Wrong, Senator Durban introduces a bill that would have forced the payment and Senator Graham called the White House and said he was also supporting it. It’s all documented but hey, stick to msnbc for you orders.
lets see:
- raping multiple women
- colluding with Russia to win an election
- peeing on hookers
- being a fukn RACIST
- locking up children in dog kennels
- encouraging attacks on the LGBTQIAPK+ community
- supporting violence against blacks
- deplatforming women of colour
- lying 1000s of times
none of those would apply to our cheeto in chief tho
- raping multiple women
- colluding with Russia to win an election
- peeing on hookers
- being a fukn RACIST
- locking up children in dog kennels
- encouraging attacks on the LGBTQIAPK+ community
- supporting violence against blacks
- deplatforming women of colour
- lying 1000s of times
none of those would apply to our cheeto in chief tho
Are you really this dumb, now I have to figure out what prior banned poster you are.
Last edited:
It will happen now, they have no choice. If they don’t then the country will know this was a hit job all along. If they do impeach him they will save face with 40% of the morons that follow every workf cnn and msnbc tells them no matter how many times the have been lied to them.
Last edited:
I am by far no fan of Trump, but:
-when was he convicted of rape?
-that's shit both sides did
-I thought the hookers peed on him?
-he polls ok with blacks in this country and their unemployment is at all-time lows
-when on earth did he ok an attack on anyone in that community???
-see point #4
-see point #4 and WTF is deplatforming?????
-yes, he's a habitual liar
In short, get your mind right.
Your best-case scenario is that it was solely the pressure from Congress that got Trump to release the aid to Ukraine.
it still begs the question, why the hold up in the first place?
Last edited:
Your best-case scenario is that it was solely the pressure from Congress that got Trump to release the aid to Ukraine.
it still begs the question, why the hold up in the first place?
Corrupt country with a history of losing USaid dollars, new president. Kinda makes sense to want to find out if the new guy is ok or if he's as bad as the last 2 guys before him.
You did listen to the testimony of the State Dept officials these past two weeks, right?
Cute outdated analogy but there are legitimate criminal referrals in the probe summary that drops on 12/9. Maybe your congress can continue the new hoax a little longer to get simpletons like you to take your eye off the ball
He will be not for something he has done wrong but because the democrat majority in the house will do it out of sheer tds. In other words he will be impeached because the house does something wrong. I look forward to the senate tril where schifty continues to get owned by jim jordan but he cant avoid the questioning with his gavel
I heard from several unnamed sources that heard from other people you loved trump. So it is true right?
Aid was given to ukraine
No quid pro
None of the witnesses had direct first hand account of the call
This circus has been a disaster by the dems and im over here saying “i told ya so”. Oh and the IG report is dropping soon. Enjoy
No quid pro
None of the witnesses had direct first hand account of the call
This circus has been a disaster by the dems and im over here saying “i told ya so”. Oh and the IG report is dropping soon. Enjoy
Why was it delayed when it had been approved by Congress long ago? Was it because of Ukrainian corruption? If so, why didn’t Trump bring up corruption in his phone calls with Zelensky? Why did corruption only come up with Trump’s favor request? And why did the aid magically get released once Congress starting asking questions and rumors of a whistleblower hit DC?
Clearly you didn’t watch the inquiry hearings since you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Despite your complete ignorance about the proceeding, you’re convinced “this circus has been a disaster.”
Putin has to be laughing out loud when he watches his “Ukraine did it” disinformation campaign used by the GOP members of the intell committee as a Trump life preserver in the impeachment hearings.
Latest posts
-
OT: Carjacking in Winter Springs/Tuscawilla leads to murder- Latest: UCF_SystemsEng
-
-
