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.

That’s not the case because there are conflict of interest statutes on the books, violations of which are criminal offences. As I’ve said before, investigations into various Trump administration employees resulted in resignations despite here being no evidence of a crime being committed. To say those investigations were not warranted because there is no evidence laws are being broken is absurd.

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.

They aren’t just Republican talking points, but facts. A quid pro quo was not established and you’re basing your own presumption on someone else’s presumption. It’s not obvious why Zelensky would refrain from stating it because you aren’t a mind reader. So to levy the same accusation, you’re just repeating House talking points.

For all the repetition that Dems are forced into, the defense team does absolutely nothing but repeat, repeat, repeat. It's like an avalanche of re-asserted falsehoods (at times, contradicting false-hoods).

Schrödinger's quid pro quo... Trump both extorted and did not extort Ukraine for help in the election, and only once we get access to documents and first hand witnesses, it's impossible to anticipate into which state the constitution will collapse into.

That’s not the case because there are conflict of interest statutes on the books, violations of which are criminal offences. — NOS4A2

The conflict of interest laws apply specifically to government employees, their spouse, and minor children. It does not apply to Hunter Biden.

As I’ve said before, investigations into various Trump administration employees resulted in resignations despite here being no evidence of a crime being committed. To say those investigations were not warranted because there is no evidence laws are being broken is absurd. — NOS4A2

Executive branch employees are required to agree to a stringent ethics policy, which includes addressing cases where there's merely the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. This gives the government the right to look into these matters without there being probable cause to investigate a crime. The ethics policy is not applicable to asking Ukraine to investigate a non-government employee.

BTW, ethics regulations require all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned.  This supports my assertion that Trump's action looks wrong on its face.

They aren’t just Republican talking points, but facts — NOS4A2

They are partial facts that ignore extremely relevant context:

No investigations. No public statements. Aid was released on time.

- This was the reprise from virtually every Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, and all these ignore the damning context: there was no investigation, no public statement, and the aid was released ONLY AFTER the whistleblower complaint was made. Trump still did the misdeed.

No quid pro quo.

- Testimony shows there was a quid pro quo:
Gordon Sondland tells House impeachment panel ‘we all understood’ there was a quid pro quo

We also know that OMB held up aid without valid reason, in violation of the Impoundment act. Related to this is that Trump's post hoc claims about "pausing" the aid because of corruption concerns or concerns about what other nations were giving are not reflected in the documentation, and there is no other evidence that these were established priorities.

What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.

Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause.

False.
Ukrainians Contacted U.S. Officials in May About Aid Fears
Trump pressure weeks before July call: reports

It's starting to become clear to me that if fox news did not exist, none of this would have been remotely possible...

It's starting to become clear to me that if fox news did not exist, none of this would have been remotely possible... — VagabondSpectre

Jon Stewart said something like that when Trump was first elected, not re: fox news, but rather talk radio. He said there was an accumulated effect of years of it.

I guess he meant people like Rush Limbaugh.

The conflict of interest laws apply specifically to government employees, their spouse, and minor children. It does not apply to Hunter Biden.

I stand corrected. His minor children benefitting from his position would present a legal a conflict of interest, but his elder son benefitting from his position doesn’t. Quite odd, but you’re right.

Executive branch employees are required to agree to a stringent ethics policy, which includes addressing cases where there's merely the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. This gives the government the right to look into these matters without there being probable cause to investigate a crime. The ethics policy is not applicable to asking Ukraine to investigate a non-government employee.

Except in the case of Biden’s son. As we now know according to Vindman’s, Jeniffer Williams’ and George Kent’s testimony, questions of Biden’s conflict of interest were a concern, but these same stringent ethics policies didn’t apply. They were legal, as you’ve shown, but they didn’t pass the appearance test apparently.

Testimony shows there was a quid pro quo:
Gordon Sondland tells House impeachment panel ‘we all understood’ there was a quid pro quo

Sondland was wrong, as his own testimony shows. They did not all “understand” there was a quid pro quo. Sondland only presumed it.

We also know that OMB held up aid without valid reason, in violation of the Impoundment act. Related to this is that Trump's post hoc claims about "pausing" the aid because of corruption concerns or concerns about what other nations were giving are not reflected in the documentation, and there is no other evidence that these were established priorities.

Everytime The GAO says the administration violated the Impoundment act, the administration says it disagrees, as did the Obama administration, the Bush administration, and so on. They have no binding power over the Whitehouse and the world goes on. The aid was sent nonetheless.

But there is evidence of Trump’s motives here. An article compelled Trump to put hold on the aid according to released emails. The first indication of the White House taking a focused interest in military aid to Ukraine was a July 19th email with the article attached, “The President has asked about this”. Laura Cooper of the Pentagon testified she received 3 questions from the president about Ukraine aid around that same time, and the questions were about which American companies were making the weapons, what are other countries paying, and where is the money coming from. There’s the burden sharing question.

As for corruption, Trump’s concerns about Ukraine corruption were well testified to by at least Sondland, Volker and Yovanovitch. “ It was a generic, as I think I testified to Chairman Schiff, it was a generic corruption, oligarchs, just bad stuff going on in Ukraine”, as Sondland said in his testimony.

What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.

I’d need to read the manuscript or hear a testimony.

False.
Ukrainians Contacted U.S. Officials in May About Aid Fears
Trump pressure weeks before July call: reports

When I say “ Ukrainians say they were not pressured”, I mean by Trump on the phone call, not that they “felt pressure” about concerns of Giuliani in May 7th meeting. If you don’t remember, Trump is being impeached for his phone call.

That was a horrific argument. Very disappointed with the old civil libertarian on that one. The press will chew it up.

I stand corrected. His minor children benefitting from his position would present a legal a conflict of interest, but his elder son benefitting from his position doesn’t. Quite odd, but you’re right. — NOS4A2

Except in the case of Biden’s son. As we now know according to Vindman’s, Jeniffer Williams’ and George Kent’s testimony, questions of Biden’s conflict of interest were a concern, but these same stringent ethics policies didn’t apply. They were legal, as you’ve shown, but they didn’t pass the appearance test apparently. — NOS4A2

The regulation calls for ethics investigators examining such situations on a case by case basis:
"For situations that involve appearances of conflicts, provides that the circumstances be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts."
The relevant facts do not demonstrate a conflict of interest.

This proves Trump was NOT doing his duty to call for the investigation, as you claimed; he was doing wrong.

Sondland was wrong, as his own testimony shows. They did not all “understand” there was a quid pro quo. Sondland only presumed it. — NOS4A2

He assumed it because he could see no other explanation, and he kept the State department and NSC apprised. " The State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing." Sondland also testified he told Pence that he believed there to be a tie. Why did no one correct him, if his assumption was wrong? Why has Trump blocked all testimony and documents? If these were exculpatory, why not release them?

Also recall that Mulvaney admited a quid pro quo in his famous "get over it" press conference. He only specifically attached the investigation into the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, not the Bidens, but it seems clear that Bolton can connect the final dots. Trump's defense is to claim he's lying.

With these facts in mind, I see no rational basis for claiming it likely there was no quid pro quo.

Everytime The GAO says the administration violated the Impoundment act, the administration says it disagrees, as did the Obama administration, the Bush administration, and so on. They have no binding power over the Whitehouse and the world goes on. The aid was sent nonetheless. — NOS4A2

You're missing the relevance: the excuses that were used to hold up aid were contrived and do not reflect Trump's post hoc rationalizations (general corruption concerns and aid from Europe).

But there is evidence of Trump’s motives here. An article compelled Trump to put hold on the aid according to released emails. — NOS4A2

You're assuming a motive based on questions Trump asked. No one involved, including Cooper, has testified that this was the reason for holding back aid.

What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.

I’d need to read the manuscript or hear a testimony — NOS4A2

Do you agree that Bolton's testimony could potentially establish Trump's guilt? We have a right to know what Bolton has to say. This is particularly important in light of the Republican claim that removal is inappropriate this close to an election. Sure- let the voters decide, but give them the complete information needed for ab informed decision.

It's starting to become clear to me that if fox news did not exist, none of this would have been remotely possible... — VagabondSpectre

Yes. Fox News is at the core of the alt-fact simulacrum. The chancel of the echo chamber.

Trump is not the problem. Trump is a symptom thereof. Fox is not the problem either.

The problem with an "anything goes" societal ethics is that anything stays.

Corruption is the problem. One general one anyway.

When profit is the sole motive... to hell with what's good, right, just, best, moral...

The impeachment process itself has been corrupted. The Judge is allowing jury members who cannot perform the only job they have here...

If what Donald John Trump has done does not count as obstruction of justice then nothing will. There are many who are complicit as well.

Try to condense your frustration in a single post instead of 5 one-liners.

You're not the boss of me.

:wink:

Unless you're unemployed I very well might be. :naughty: The wonders of the internet.

It's cool, in my replacement software that I'm totally not putting off, it automatically combines consecutive posts into one. creativesoul gave me the idea actually.

Don and John.

He assumed it because he could see no other explanation, and he kept the State department and NSC apprised. " The State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing." Sondland also testified he told Pence that he believed there to be a tie. Why did no one correct him, if his assumption was wrong? Why has Trump blocked all testimony and documents? If these were exculpatory, why not release them?

He was corrected by Trump himself.

Also recall that Mulvaney admited a quid pro quo in his famous "get over it" press conference. He only specifically attached the investigation into the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, not the Bidens, but it seems clear that Bolton can connect the final dots. Trump's defense is to claim he's lying.

With these facts in mind, I see no rational basis for claiming it likely there was no quid pro quo.

Mulvaney clarified that he was not in fact speaking about a quid pro quo, claiming the media misconstrued his statements. Of course no one includes the clarification in impeachment because that would be telling both sides of the story.

You're missing the relevance: the excuses that were used to hold up aid were contrived and do not reflect Trump's post hoc rationalizations Trump (general corruption concerns and aid from Europe).

You're assuming a motive based on questions Trump asked. No one involved, including Cooper, has testified that this was the reason for holding back aid.

Mark Sandy of the OMB testified that Duffey "attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing money to Ukraine" in "early September". He does not recall the exact date. The reasons that were given to the OMB match up to the initial questions on Ukraine aid. It matches up with the transcript and Trump's complaints about EU not doing enough. It matches up to Sandy and his NSD staff receiving a number of email requests from Duffey, at Robert Blair’s prompting, asking for data about the contributions of other countries to Ukraine. The aid was released after the questions were answered, after the data was given. Add on top of that Trump's general aversion to foreign aid and the previous times aid was held back. There is no evidence the OMB sent the aid because of a whistleblower complaint.

Do you agree that Bolton's testimony could potentially establish Trump's guilt? We have a right to know what Bolton has to say. This is particularly important in light of the Republican claim that removal is inappropriate this close to an election. Sure- let the voters decide, but give them the complete information needed for ab informed decision.

I'd like to see what Bolton has to say, yes. But I do not think it will establish guilt because, as we know, there is no crime. It could establish that the administration was lying or Bolton is lying.

Here’s Bolton talking about the call in earlier interview.

OH NO!!! :scream:

Trump's beautiful wall! It fell down!

Wind is part of the Democratic conspiracy. Damn Californian wind.


A newly built chunk of Trump's new border wall blew over in the wind and landed in Mexico

Why don't some of you like Trump?

The innocent politics he does, has been good. He has been criminal on occasions, but shouldn't the people he's working good for, pardon him?

What will you do?

Impechment of Trump, to elect anew potentially more corrupt president. Be careful then.

You think Hillary wouldn't have comitted a crime? Are some candidates policy worse than that crime?

What do you think of the latest candidates? Trump is a lot different than most politicians, there's a bit of right in there.

In my opinion you're lucky for Trump and you wanna keep it like Trump.

He has been criminal on occasions, but shouldn't the people he's working good for, pardon him? — Qwex

Yes, agreed. I can't think of any reason why a country wouldn't want a criminal for President, especially when he's working so good for the rich Republican senators that can pardon him.

sheer policy would be bad from other candidates, Trump has excelled.

The innocent politics he does, has been good. He has been criminal on occasions, but shouldn't the people he's working good for, pardon him? — Qwex

I agree. On occasions!

Putin has also done great things. No, really, I'm serious. The fall of the average life expectancy of Russian males has been stopped and is rising under his term in power. That's really a great thing.

So let's forget he instigated three wars, one inside of Russia and two with Russia's neighbours. But he doesn't have anything against my country, so should I be all smiles? I guess so.

Nevermind. I think a pro immigration policy is stupid for the West, and some military policies would be stupid, of other candidates.

Trump is onto something good. Big change now would be X to V.

Who cares about his image? If there was another like Trump, but better, sure it's good to vote against. I know there is. But not in the line-up.

Yes.

And do notice many of Trump's policies ARE THE SAME as with (ghasp!) Obama!

For example, Obama didn't like European members of NATO spending so little on defence. So does Trump, yet Trump has gotten them to do something about it.

Basically it's a one way road leading to war with Russia I'm against. That is, at the least, not Trump's ideal. That is there, two White Primary locations locking horns based on Obama.

Whites non existent.

It is deemed so, you can be pointed out.

A Customs and Border Protection agent told CNN that the wall was newly installed and had been set in concrete that had not yet hardened.

He was corrected by Trump himself. — NOS4A2

You're playing the partisan game, ignoring everything that was said on the call with Sondland, other than Trump stating "no quid pro quo. Trump said those words, then outlined what he wanted -which constituted a quid pro quo. This article summarizes the context.

Mulvaney clarified that he was not in fact speaking about a quid pro quo, claiming the media misconstrued his statements. Of course no one includes the clarification in impeachment because that would be telling both sides of the story. — NOS4A2

His words were clear:

Reporter: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:34)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

Reporter (M): (21:42)
Withholding the funding?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:43)]Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed. ...

Reporter (M): (22:25)
But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into into the Democratic server happened as well.

Mick Mulvaney: (22:35)
We do that all the time with foreign policy. ...

While it's true Mulvaney tried to deny saying what he said, his motivation for doing so is obvious. This his statements aren't dispositive, it's suggestive coming from the man who is both head of OMB and acting chief of staff.

Mark Sandy of the OMB testified that Duffey "attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing money to Ukraine" in "early September". He does not recall the exact date. The reasons that were given to the OMB match up to the initial questions on Ukraine aid — NOS4A2

The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.

I'd like to see what Bolton has to say, yes. But I do not think it will establish guilt because, as we know, there is no crime. It could establish that the administration was lying or Bolton is lying. — NOS4A2

If Bolton's testimony is consistent with reporting from the leaked manuscript, it will show that Trump's guilty of wrongdoing. It's another matter as to whether of not that wrongdoing constitutes a crime or whether or not it is adequate reason to remove him from office. My complaint with you is that you refuse to acknowledge that the evidence shows it likely Trump engaged in wrongdoing.

Bolton lying? Who has better credibility - Bolton (particularly if testifying under oath) or Trump, who has uttered thousands of falsehoods since taking office. John Kelly, who knows them both, believes Bolton. Testimony has already established that Bolton strongly disagreed at the time with what was going on - terming it a "drug deal", whereas the President has taken extreme measures to avoid letting the facts get out.