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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I think equality, as an ideal, should only apply in matters of law and justice. But outside of that I cannot see equality as anything worth striving for, and given your examples, even terrifying to consider.

Lol I love your avatar. Just noticed it.

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.

It’s clear that the “premises of life” are actually the premises of their author. Therefor Life isn’t the one in need of justification and reform.

In some cultures suicide was honorable and even heroic. Nowadays it’s difficult to imagine that once upon a time some would commit suicide to maintain honor rather than to escape shame.

In the case of the Japanese writer Yukio Mishima he did it for profound and troubling philosophical reasons.

To continue the metaphor, let us picture a single, healthy apple. This apple was not called into existence by words, nor is it possible that the core should be completely visible from the outside like Amiel’s peculiar fruit. The inside of the apple is naturally quite invisible. Thus at the heart of that apple, shut up within the flesh of the fruit, the core lurks in its wan darkness, tremblingly anxious to find some way to reassure itself that it is a perfect apple. The apple certainly exists, but to the core this existence as yet seems inadequate; if words cannot endorse it, then the only way to endorse it is with the eyes. Indeed, for the core the only sure mode of existence is to exist and to see at the same time. There is only one method of solving this contradiction. It is for a knife to be plunged deep into the apple so that it is split open and the core is exposed to the light—to the same light, that is, as the surface skin. Yet then the existence of the cut apple falls into fragments; the core of the apple sacrifices existence for the sake of seeing.

When I realized that the perfect sense of existence that disintegrated the very next moment could only be endorsed by muscle, and not by words, I was already personally enduring the fate that befell the apple. Admittedly, I could see my own muscles in the mirror. Yet seeing alone was not enough to bring me into contact with the basic roots of my sense of existence, and an immeasurable distance remained between me and the euphoric sense of pure being. Unless I rapidly closed that distance, there was little hope of bringing that sense of existence to life again. In other words, the self-awareness that I staked on muscles could not be satisfied with the darkness of the pallid flesh pressing about it as an endorsement of its existence, but, like the blind core of the apple, was driven to crave certain proof of its existence so fiercely that it was bound, sooner or later, to destroy that existence. Oh, the fierce longing simply to see, without words!

The eye of self-awareness, used as it is to keeping a watch on the invisible self in an essentially centripetal fashion and via the good offices of words, does not place sufficient trust in visible things such as muscles. Inevitably, it addresses the muscles as follows:

“I admit you do not seem to be a illusion. But if so, I would like you to show how you function in order to live and move; show me your proper functions and how you fulfill your proper aims.”

Thus the muscles start working in accordance with the demands of self-awareness; but in order to make the action exist unequivocally, a hypothetical enemy outside the muscles is necessary, and for the hypothetical enemy to make certain of its existence it must deal a blow to the realm of the senses fierce enough to silence the querulous complaints of self-awareness. That, precisely, is when the knife of the foe must come cutting into the flesh of the apple—or rather, the body. Blood flows, existence is destroyed, and the shattered senses give existence as a whole its first endorsement, closing the logical gap between seeing and existing... And this is death.

– Sun and Steel

Mishima planned his suicide for 5 years and in dramatic fashion (while trying to stage a coup) disemboweled himself, finally able to see his “core”, before his comrade beheaded him in the old Japanese way.

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.

Creativity may be a decent conduit through which to sublimate ones suffering.

So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life?

It's difficult to compare the premises of life to anything else because the premises of life are all we know. I think disliking the premises of life is akin to, if not the same as, disliking the premises of oneself.

I actually like Bernie, but I apologize for shining a light on your sacred cows.

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.

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

Bernie doesn't even slightly seem like "one of us."

Is it the 3 houses? All power to him. Even a self-proclaimed democratic socialist can make it big in America.

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

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 protection is only afforded to citizens acting in a private capacity. When acting as President that protection doesn't apply and he can be punished for it if the Senate were so inclined. Just as civil servants can be fired or disciplined for speech.

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.

What's "high crime or misdemeanor" according to you?

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

You meant White House. I agree, it's an awkward attempt to deny the obvious what Trump has done, but who cares.

The Republicans will not do anything whatever the evidence would be. That's the reality.

No, I meant the House, so we disagree. It's obvious what Trump has done, and none of it rises to high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact I think he was doing his job.

So, no, he can't pressure and threaten whoever he wants.

In the US we have the first amendment, which gives us quite a bit of room to speak freely. As a matter of law, unless the threat is a "true threat", that is unless he said it with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death, there is no problem. So yes, he can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. He just cannot threaten someone for money or personal gain (extortion).

Either way there is zero evidence he threatened or pressured anyone. Unless proven or there is sufficient evidence, one cannot say the president threatened or pressured anyone, or that he did so for personal gain.

I refer you again to these:

It doesn't matter how they title the articles. What matters is whether or not the acts described in the articles are criminal acts. The acts described in the first article violate the Impoundment Control Act and the acts described in the second article violate 18 U.S. Code § 1505.

It wasn't Trump who violated either of those laws. Like I said, the only citation to §1505 in the House Impeachment Report refers to the State Department, not the President. It was the OMB, not the president, that may have violated the Impound Control Act. It has to be the president who commits a high-crime or misdemeanor.

So you're interpretation is that Trump was just kidding about dumping Yovanovitch, and it's a mere coincidence that he eventually did so.

This much is clear: there was a smear campaign against her by corrupt former officials in Ukraine, and Trump eventually gave them what they wanted. Further, Parnas was a part of it - at least in terms of being a conduit for the smearing - certainly thru Rudy and at least possibly directly to Trump, even if you aren't convinced of the latter. My point is that you're rationalizing Trump's behavior, and this rationalization depends on assuming a series of coincidences. Examined individually , each coincidence is plausible. But multiple ones are not.

That's my speculation, yes.

Public records and testimony state that there was indeed a smear campaign. According to these same public records and testimony it was started a full year after the Trump/Parnas convo. So I think any sort connection made between the two is specious at best, conspiracy theory at worst.

The articles of impeachment for Trump are “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”, not “violating the ICA” and “Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees”. The articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton were actual laws: “perjury” and “obstruction of justice”, as comparison.

Irrelevant for the reasons I already explained earlier today. Whether a threat works or not or whether the victim felt threatened or not, doesn't mean you can conclude Trump didn't threaten to withhold payment which threat he could only issue based on the power as president, e.g. an abuse of the power vested in his office since threatening people isn't acceptable. Even if it was for the right reasons, he would still be guilty of an abuse of power but possibly excused if it served a higher purpose.

Ok, I get it now. My point is the burden of proof is on the House managers (they are like prosecutors) to prove that Trump “pressured” Zelensky.

The president can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. That’s in his power. He is just not allowed to do so for political gain, which is entirely unproven. But they cannot even prove that he was “pressured” to do investigations.

So I accuse you of cutting someone's head off but don't accuse you of committing the crime of murder, and so therefore the thing I accuse you of isn't a crime? That's ridiculous.

All you have to do is show me where they mention this crime in their impeachment report. They do mention it, by the way, but not against Trump.

Is that supposed to be a joke? It doesn't matter how they title the articles. What matters is whether or not the act(s) described by the articles are criminal acts. The act(s) described by the first article violate the Impoundment Control Act and the act(s) describe by the second article violate 18 U.S. Code § 1505.

No it’s not, because they did not accuse Trump of this crime.

I saw you saying “ If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.”

Executive privilege pertains to confidential communications. I thought I’d give you a brief rundown because it does not seem you know what you’re talking about here.

Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees Is a crime.

I’ll give you a quick rundown because I see some confusion there.

According to the constitution, one can be impeached for committing “treason, bribery, and other high-crimes and misdemeanors”. Of course interpretation of that varies.

There are two “articles of impeachment”, or in other words, Trump is being accused of committing two “high-crimes and misdemeanours” according to the House. The two articles are “Abuse of Power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which are crimes.

Trump allegedly abused his power by pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden for the purposes of helping him in the 2020 election (this isn’t the exact language they use). Trump’s defense is that there was no pressure, that there was no investigation, that his inquiring into the Bidens had to do with corruption and not for the purpose of political dirt for the 2020 election.

Trump allegedly obstructed congress by denying congressional subpoenas for testimony. Trump’s defense for this is “executive privilege”, that he has the right as president to deny subpoenas for reasons of national security and the separation of powers. These issues are usually settled in the courts. The White House denied subpoenas because the Office of Legal counsel told them to. The office of legal counsel is a group of lawyers at the department of justice (which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, and so on).

What argument? The argument that the Ukrainians didn't feel pressured or that Trump didn't intend to pressure them ? If that is indeed central to their case it simply illustrates their lack of confidence in winning the argument they should win. If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.

No, the argument that Trump pressured Zelenski is central to the House manager’s case.Curious, but are you aware of the details of the case at all?

No, I was illustrating a point by making an argument ab adsurdum. If Trump's denials were relevant to ascertain his guilt, as you argue, the same should hold true for criminals. It clearly isn't so his denials are irrelevant and so is your argument.

If someone says you robbed a bank but the banks says they were neither robbed and you didn’t rob them, how could that be irrelevant?

Yeah, I imagine they would come out and say: "Yeah sure, the sitting US President Trump, who will likely be President at least for one year if not longer, pressured us".

Trump wouldn't mind that, or what?

The House’s entire case is premised on their imagination. That’s why it’s falling apart.

I'm not presuming guilt either. I'm only telling you the arguments you raise about the mindset of the Ukrainians and Trump's comments about the same are irrelevant. Nowhere have I said that he therefore must be guilty. You're jumping to conclusions and are attributing statements to me that I haven't made.

Then why is it irrelevant if the argument is central to their entire case?

You presumed guilt here:"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!". Your use of the word “criminal” presumes both a crime has been committed and that Trump has committed it. Both are untrue.

By the way you’re right I don’t know fallacies, apparently. I didn’t mean begging the question. I meant presumption of guilt.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm only telling you your arguments don't work.

That’s false. You’ve begged the question in all of your false analogies. Not only that but the argument that Trump pressured Zelensky is entirely relevant. In fact it’s one of the premises of the House managers.

Now you're just repeating yourself. Cute but not an argument. Trump's comments on the matter are even less relevant and he certainly cannot testify as to the mindset of others.

"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!"

You just assume that Trump pressured Zelensky. All parties involved say the opposite. So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? Is there any evidence? Or are you question begging?

Retreat into your equations all you want. You’re assuming Trump pressured Zelensky without being able to prove it. All parties involved say there was no pressure.

Irrelevant. A defrauder isn't excused merely because his attempt at fraud fails.

Begging the question. Unless you can point to some other reason, the mere accusation of Schiff’s that Trump pressured Zelensky is all you have.

Distraction. It is not the reason Trump pressured Ukraine.

There was no pressure according to Ukrainian president and other officials.

Don’t take my word for it.

OK, you're correct - I do not know what's going on in his mind. I'll rephrase.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements on pretty much a daily basis. I.e., the words coming out of his mouth - or his tweets - do not correspond to reality.

I can think of at least 3 possible explanations. Maybe you have a 4th (or 5th)

1) He is lying
2) He believes what he is saying
3) He is just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't think about it afterwards
4) ???

It's possible that it's some combination of the above.

In either case, I think this behavior is unacceptable for any human being - let alone the POTUS. Maybe you're OK with this, and maybe I'm stupid & naive, but I expect better.

I accept that. That’s at least fair. But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken?

Either way, this is the politics of words. Anyone can talk. Any trained actor can read a script or recite a list of facts. But I think we’re done hiring people who can only talk and sing lullabies to their electorate. Those days are over.