The fact that Parnas was passing along the spurious information about Yovanovotch tells us the smear campaign was already in progress. How else can you explain Parnas' statements about her?

No you're right. I was specifically speaking of the smear campaign involving Giuliani. I imagine smear campaigns against American diplomats is par for the course in Ukraine.

The first amendment protects every citizen, even government officials. The only reason a civil servant can be fired or disciplined is if his speech violates his job duties, as it is with any job. — NOS4A2

Right. So he cannot just threaten anyone.

Something that rises to the level of treason or bribery. "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" — NOS4A2

That's conveniently vague and also wrong. Nothing about that sentence suggests anything about the severity of high crimes and misdemeanors. The penal code contains murder and other crimes and misdemeanours. Are they all as severe as murder?

I gave you a list of British precedents on which the discussion of the founding fathers were based. That discussion is relatively well documented as well.

In other news Trump just threw some Palestinians under a bus.

Right. So he cannot just threaten anyone.

Who's going to fire him?

That's conveniently vague and also wrong. Nothing about that sentence suggests anything about the severity of high crimes and misdemeanors. The penal code contains murder and other crimes and misdemeanours. Are they all as severe as murder?

I gave you a list of British precedents on which the discussion of the founding fathers were based. That discussion is relatively well documented as well.

"Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses

Big News.

Trump releases long-awaited Middle-East peace plan

His proposals are:

- The US will recognise Israeli sovereignty over territory that Mr Trump's plan envisages being part of Israel. The plan includes a conceptual map that Mr Trump says illustrates the territorial compromises that Israel is willing to make

- The map will "more than double the Palestinian territory and provide a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem", where Mr Trump says the US would open an embassy

-Jerusalem "will remain Israel's undivided capital"

- An opportunity for Palestinians to "achieve an independent state of their very own" - however, he gave few details

- "No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes" - suggesting that existing Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank will remain

- Israel will work with the king of Jordan to ensure that the status quo governing the key holy site in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims is preserved

- Territory allocated to Palestinians in Mr Trump's map "will remain open and undeveloped for a period of four years". During that time, Palestinians can study the deal, negotiate with Israel, and "achieve the criteria for statehood".

Trump releases long-awaited Middle-East peace plan

Who's going to fire him? — NOS4A2

Impeachment?

"Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning." — NOS4A2

The word "high" refers to the fact these are crimes only elected officials can commit or that can only be committed against elected officials instead by or against the common man. Misdemeanours are by definition lesser crimes than felonies. So no, you cannot argue that because of the word "other", misdemeanor now means felony because bribery and treason are felonies.

The lawyer from cornell coming up with that argument is clearly a retard.

Yeah, that isn't going anywhere obviously.

It wasn't Trump who violated either of those laws. — NOS4A2

The articles accuse that he did. I’ll quote them again:

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended

This article accuses Trump of withholding aid with a corrupt motive, which is a violation of the ICA.

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

This article accuses Trump of directing others to defy lawful subpoenas, which is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505.

The articles accuse that he did. I’ll quote them again:

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended

I'm not a lawyer so I'll just defer to Judge Ken Starr.

I'm not a lawyer so I'll just defer to Judge Ken Starr. — NOS4A2

Deferring to the defense? A stark confession of bias.

I hope they never call you for jury duty.

Deferring to the defense? A stark confession of bias.

I hope they never call you for jury duty.

You wouldn't listen to the defense attorney's arguments because he from the defense? Wow.

A stark confession of bias. Let's hope they never call you for jury duty.

You wouldn't listen to the defense attorney's arguments because he from the defense? Wow. — NOS4A2

A lie.

Defer is different from listen.


(P.S. A rhetorical question designed to furtively assert what it purports to question can indeed be a lie.)

McConnell acknowledges GOP doesn't yet have votes to block witnesses in Trump trial


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/gop-senators-meet-discuss-calling-witnesses-trump-trial-n1124691

McConnell, by his own admission, cannot execute the exclusive duty of Senate members to be an impartial witness during an impeachment trial in the Senate.

Why on earth has he remained acting as the member of a jury during an impeachment proceeding when he himself has publicly admitted that he is incapable of executing his official duty... his sworn oath?

:angry:

That is one of the key responsibilities given to the Senate that is part of the separation of powers...

No one else has that. All Senate members are bound by that.

Judge Kennedy needs to do his job. A bit more than warning the kids to quit the practice of name calling.

Why on earth has he remained as an active influencial Senate member during an impeachment proceeding that he himself has publicly admitted that he is incapable of doing what he took an oath to do? — creativesoul

What's good for the chieftain is good for the tribe.

The fact-checking was fun and illuminating, but the inevitability of a breezy acquittal has drawn the old boredom near. A tribalized nothing-burger Presidential impeachment - that's something new for the People to digest.


Meanwhile, the Senate and the Executive are well-situated to steal - or (at worst) overrule the results of - the next election. And possibly the next one. And the next one. And the next one.

Judge Kennedy needs to do his job. — creativesoul

Not sure what options are available to him here... Have you looked into it?

There's nothing to look into my friend. This is uncharted territory.

In light of the Bolton intervention, the Trump defense's best argument seems to be: It's not as bad as what Nixon did.

Judge Kennedy can surely know that the framers did not intend for a Senate majority leader to publicly disavow his ability to do what he gave his word to do...

...and yet still act as a member of that jury, despite not meeting the qualification.

What's good for the chieftain is good for the tribe. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Unless the tribe dethrones the chieftain.

Ukraine has publicly stated they want good relations with both Republicans and Democrats. If they were to acknowledge the pressure, it would hurt them with Republicans. It would also look bad within Ukraine, implying they were letting themselves be used for US political purposes - a bad image for someone elected for being anti-corruption. — Relativist

It is in the best interest of the administration of Ukraine to remain silent on this issue, and the US has no judicial power over potential witnesses. I think NOS4A2 has made at least one unfounded claim about what the administrators of Ukraine have said. Such claims of silent witnesses making statements, would be made in an effort to support Trump in the eye of the American public. But he seems to have no American witnesses to support his apparent lies.

In light of the Bolton intervention, the Trump defense's best argument seems to be: It's not as bad as what Nixon did. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And/or the Dershowitz defense that this does not constitute a "high crime". I've always felt this was the backstop that Republicans could use, but would only use as a last resort. Reaching that point, and having some Republicans admit Trump did the deed- and that it was wrong, was as much as anyone could realistically hope for.

And/or the Dershowitz defense that this does not constitute a "high crime". I've always felt this was the backstop that Republicans could use, but would only use as a last resort. Reaching that point, and having some Republicans admit Trump did the deed- and that it was wrong, was as much as anyone could realistically hope for.

I’ve always said that Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden’s possible corruption and Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election was certainly not impeachable, and even a good thing, required by the office. Had they made this case since the beginning they wouldn’t have to argue for this or that interpretation of the constitution.

I’ve always said that Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden’s possible corruption and Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election was certainly not impeachable, and even a good thing, required by the office. Had they made this case since the beginning they wouldn’t have to argue for this or that interpretation of the constitution. — NOS4A2

Yes, I know you've said that, but you're wrong. In no sense was this "required", and it was clearly wrong because it did real damage to Ukraine. We could debate just how bad the damage, but there's zero evidence it was helpful to anyone in Ukraine or the U.S.. It's also further exposed Trump's low moral character.

Interpretation of the Constitution was inevitable, and always will be in an impeachment. There is no Constitutional bright line, and I think reasonable people could reach different conclusions about that. Not that I think everyone in Congress is being reasonable. The facts have been against Trump from the beginning, and most Republicans have turned a blind eye to that from the beginning.

Who saw it coming?

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-threat-john-bolton-book-publication-2020-1

The White House sent a letter to John Bolton's attorney saying that his upcoming book "appears to contain significant amounts of classified information," some of which is at the "TOP SECRET level."

Yes, I know you've said that, but you're wrong. In no sense was this "required", and it was clearly wrong because it did real damage to Ukraine. We could debate just how bad the damage, but there's zero evidence it was helpful to anyone in Ukraine or the U.S.. It's also further exposed Trump's low moral character.

Interpretation of the Constitution was inevitable, and always will be in an impeachment. There is no Constitutional bright line, and I think reasonable people could reach different conclusions about that. Not that I think everyone in Congress is being reasonable. The facts have been against Trump from the beginning, and most Republicans have turned a blind eye to that from the beginning.

I say it’s “required” because the president has a duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. So it is clearly right that he make sure government officials weren’t engaging in corruption.

The only “real damage to Ukraine” is the mess Trump’s accusers have brought upon them. For instance they are weary of investigating Burisma because they do not want to be accused of influencing America politics by helping Trump or damaging Biden. These accusers have effectively damaged US/Ukraine relations.

The facts have been against the accusers from the beginning. The facts favor Trump. No investigations. No public statements. No quid pro quo. Aid was released on time. Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause.

(1) The facts have been against the accusers from the beginning. (2) The facts favor Trump. No investigations. No public statements. (3) No quid pro quo. Aid was released on time. (4) Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause. — NOS4A2

Two unsupported opinions, one Trumpster slogan and one lie.

I say it’s “required” because the president has a duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. So it is clearly right that he make sure government officials weren’t engaging in corruption. — NOS4A2

Faithful execution requires being consistent with due process and equal protection. Criminal investigations are predicated on there being crimes to investigate. There is no evidence of a US law being broken (and only US law is pertinent) and the Ukranian prosecutor said he's aware of no Ukranian laws being broken. This leaves only two possible reasons to investigate: a fishing expedition to see if some crime can be pinned to him, or simply an effort to dig up dirt. Fishing expeditions are unconstitutional and dirt digging is an abuse of power.

The only “real damage to Ukraine” is the mess Trump’s accusers have brought upon them. — NOS4A2

Had this not come to light, Trump would have induced Zelensky to engage in a corrupt act: announcing a Biden investigation solely to please his benefactor. This would be apparent upon announcement, and it would have been politically damaging for the anti-corruption Zelensky to be exposed. Trump's failure to publicly support Zelensky also hurt his standing in his discussions with Putin.

The facts favor Trump. No investigations. No public statements. No quid pro quo. Aid was released on time. Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause. — NOS4A2

You're parrotting Republican talking points and emulating their ignoring of evidence. I've addressed all those with you before, and yet you repeat your statements without rebutting what I said.

Stopping a crime in progress does not exonerate the criminal. A quid pro quo was established, and Bolton will likely add credence. There were indeed Ukranians who expressed concerns, and it's obvious why Zelensky would refrain from stating it.

... if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. — Dershowitz

So the defense has moved from "no quid pro quo" to "quid pro quo to help his re-election, but that's OK."

:roll: