the 45th is The Fourth US President to officially Face Impeachment.

[Agema]

That being said, you might want to consider that you're not having your mind changed specifically because I am trying to convince with evidence.

I have explained simply enough why I don't think your interpretation of the evidence is high quality. There's too much supposition in it, trying to use the unknowns around the established facts to build a case. For every unknown, there are a load of possibilities. In order for them all to line up to build your case is, as per my previous analogy, a bit like rolling a 6 on a die repeatedly: deeply implausible. You're making the evidence fit a conclusion, not seeing what conclusion is most likely from the evidence.

Trump has a history of disreputable conduct that long predates his political career, and I really don't think people who routinely use underhanded tactics magically become honest and plain-dealing when they gain political office. The minute his political career started, he was neck deep in ethically-challenged associates (several now jailed) and clearly lacked judgement by sailing too close to Russian election interference, hence the Mueller probe which lined a substantial amount of credible evidence against him. He has aggressively installed toadies into government, including nepotism, and attacked or (when government personnel) removed anyone who he didn't feel showed him enough personal loyalty. Who seriously thinks he wouldn't do this shit?

Spoiler

Although admittedly, I particularly hate Trump because he's a bullshitter extraordinaire. I think democracy requires a degree of "informed consent", and that politicians have a duty to reasonably inform the public. What's the saying? "It takes ten times as much effort to disprove bullshit as to make it"? So what happens when the president is a non-stop bullshit generator? Late-era Soviet information warfare theory (now employed by the Russians) was simply to fill the information sphere with so much bullshit that people could no longer tell right from wrong. And there's your president, undermining people's ability to make sense of the world right from the top.

Not to keep circling back, but I suspect the other thread ended where it did because I presented a case that left you disgusted with the House Democrats and you didn't want to defend them.

I'm pretty sure I just hit one of my breaks when I have better things to do and when I return I don't always go back to old threads. I'm sure the Democrats had their political angles, but at the end of the day there was a whistleblower which fairly identified a matter of huge concern about abuse of power that was subsequently vindicated by further evidence. You can complain about process all you like, but the core accusation and requirement for action was substantial.

Why stick to the idea that this was directly connected to getting at Bidens?

Giuliani himself said she needed to go to clear the way for investigations. He said she was blocking visas for ex-officials to the USA, and actively attempting to impede investigations. Investigations were Giuliani's task in Ukraine. What's the complication here?

Nobody that I know of has absolutely that the Ukrainians knew early on, but they especially haven't said they knew Trump was directly involved.

Who else would have the authority to hold that Congressionally-approved aid except the president?

I don't think there is anyone saying they were proactively informed by the Trump administration

Maybe not. It might have been a quiet whisper off the record, or an unguarded slip. It doesn't really matter. But we have consistent sources saying Ukraine knew the aid was held, and that hold could only come from the WH.

And like, if they don't know Trump decided to freeze the aid, it doesn't matter what Trump wants. You can't do 2+2=4 without knowing both 2s exist.

But they do know the aid is held, and it must be the WH responsible because no-one else can be responsible. Then the guy who runs the WH asks them for favours...

 

[tstorm823]

Who seriously thinks he wouldn't do this shit?

It's not about wouldn't. Would Trump do something like this, threaten people with something that he's actually not allowed to in order to advance his own interest? Sure, absolutely, that was my first instinct too. If you recall, my initial response to all this was "So you'd prefer not to know if the Vice President had held foreign aid hostage to benefit his son's business?" I didn't doubt Trump was putting on pressure to investigate Bidens until the evidence started to come out. You might recall the first conversation where I was accused of choosing the friendliest possible interpretation for Trump, not because I was contesting the events, just because I was suggesting investigating Burisma might be worthwhile. And I said something along the lines of: I thought I was too, but now that the evidence is coming out, I think he might actually have done nothing wrong. It kinda looks like Ukrainians were the ones offering deals to Trump.

I don't believe that Trump wouldn't do something sleazy and reckless. He would. But I do believe the evidence in this case suggests that isn't what happened here. The evidence suggests that Trump didn't really care for Ukraine, so various Ukrainians tried to work Trump through Giuliani, and Trump hesitantly agreed to cooperate only once the President of Ukraine was involved.

Spoiler

Giuliani himself said she needed to go to clear the way for investigations. He said she was blocking visas for ex-officials to the USA, and actively attempting to impede investigations. Investigations were Giuliani's task in Ukraine. What's the complication here?

Giuliani made that argument to try and convince Trump, and that took place way after Lutsenko assigned Parnas the task of getting the ambassador out. First, you're just taking Giuliani's word as fact. Second, you are again arguing that people were trying to convince Trump to do something on Trump's behalf, which still doesn't make any sense. Lutsenko wanted her out and tasked Parnas with it. Parnas needed Giuliani to help him get visas approved and Yovanovich out. The ambassador's role in approving political visas was what Giuliani claimed she was doing to block investigations... How does that not smell like BS to you? Giuliani was working Trump on behalf of Parnas to try and get Yovanovich out. It wasn't for Trump.

Who else would have the authority to hold that Congressionally-approved aid except the president?

The Pentagon, the Office of Management and Budget, it could just be an innocent bureaucratic delay... plenty of options here.

Maybe not. It might have been a quiet whisper off the record, or an unguarded slip. It doesn't really matter. But we have consistent sources saying Ukraine knew the aid was held, and that hold could only come from the WH.

We don't have that. We have sources saying the Ukrainian's were worried that it was being delayed or there might be problems, but the supposedly damning testimony from Laura Cooper claims they were told there was no delay when they called to ask. You're making a leap here.

But they do know the aid is held, and it must be the WH responsible because no-one else can be responsible. Then the guy who runs the WH asks them for favours...

They knew the aid was delayed, we haven't seen indication they knew the White House was responsible. There are other reasons aid could be delayed than a presidential hold. And the guy in charge was asking for favors before the hold even officially got to the Pentagon.

Like, the timeline here is very difficult to make into a threat. Trump is on record asking about holding the aid before the phone call was even being considered, he had ordered it before the phone call, it didn't actually hold until after the phone call, it just doesn't work out.

 

[Silvanus]

They knew the aid was delayed, we haven't seen indication they knew the White House was responsible.

So, a colossal, moronic misunderstanding. One that requires we believe... 1) official enquiries between governments of two major nations just literally went unanswered and they didn't bother to follow up on an issue of national importance;

...and 2) the Ukrainians were inexplicably unaware of the fact that only the White House could have done it, even though that much was obvious to almost anyone with faint knowledge of the system.

 

[Agema]

The evidence suggests that Trump didn't really care for Ukraine,

I think you mean he doesn't care about Ukraine. I think he spent two years or so letting policy on Ukraine pootle on, (probably just left it to the staff and signed off what they put in front of him). The fact that he suddenly starts paying attention and interfering when he starts hearing back about investigations into his political enemies, hmm...

Giuliani made that argument to try and convince Trump, and that took place way after Lutsenko assigned Parnas the task of getting the ambassador out. First, you're just taking Giuliani's word as fact.

And you're just assuming that Giuliani's lying. I prefer to apply Occam's razor: claiming someone's lying without good evidence is just an unnecessary complication that's more likely to distract than inform.

Incidentally, you accuse of lying a lot when people come out with statements that are bad for Trump: Sondland, Bolton, Schiff, the Ukrainian ex-official, Parnas, Giuliani, etc. It's not that some of these guys are so trustworthy, it's just the dull monotony of how you reach for that line whenever someone says anything bad for your case.

Second, you are again arguing that people were trying to convince Trump to do something on Trump's behalf, which still doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does. It's very simple basics of delegation. Bosses tell minions to go do something, minions try to carry it out. If the minions realise they need more resources, they go back to the bosses to ask for what they need to advance the task.

...but the supposedly damning testimony from Laura Cooper claims they were told there was no delay when they called to ask. You're making a leap here.

We have a Ukrainian ex-official stating that Ukraine knew the aid was held. Cooper's testimony is consistent with that. These are the most basic, verifiable statements: it's you cooking up explanations to try and claim otherwise. Again, Occam's razor.

They knew the aid was delayed, we haven't seen indication they knew the White House was responsible. There are other reasons aid could be delayed than a presidential hold. And the guy in charge was asking for favors before the hold even officially got to the Pentagon.

FYI, timeline: https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/17/trump-ukraine-timeline-editorial/

It is very consistent with the notion that when Trump et al find out Zelenskyy is finally on their hook, motions start to hold the aid.

 

[tstorm823]

We have a Ukrainian ex-official stating that Ukraine knew the aid was held. Cooper's testimony is consistent with that. These are the most basic, verifiable statements: it's you cooking up explanations to try and claim otherwise. Again, Occam's razor.

Stop here and verify it. Go find those actual quotes. (Hint, I have them in spoilers in post 201.) If these are basic, verifiable statements, why are you not verifying? None of them say they knew the aid was held. They thought the aid might be in jeopardy, or they knew there were some issues, or they might bring up the topic, or US staffers thought Ukrainians knew there was a hold but have no record of it and can't remember any specific time it came up.

The basic verifiable statements are not saying what you are.

 

[Agema]

Stop here and verify it. Go find those actual quotes. (Hint, I have them in spoilers in post 201.) If these are basic, verifiable statements, why are you not verifying? None of them say they knew the aid was held. They thought the aid might be in jeopardy, or they knew there were some issues, or they might bring up the topic, or US staffers thought Ukrainians knew there was a hold but have no record of it and can't remember any specific time it came up.

The basic verifiable statements are not saying what you are.

An American official will almost certainly not know exactly what Ukrainian officials think or know. But they can interpret the activity of Ukrainian officials - with of course their wealth of expertise and experience - into a reasonable supposition. As Cooper said, it was not her experience that Ukraine sent enquiries for general progress updates, but they did over specific concerns. The implication of them asking is therefore that they had specific concerns.

And then a Ukrainian ex-official tells us what the Ukrainians were thinking, which turns out to be what Cooper believed that Ukraine knew the aid had been held, and it was viewed as a major worry.

There's no need to overcomplicate this, it's totally straightforward.

 

[tstorm823]

And then a Ukrainian ex-official tells us what the Ukrainians were thinking, which turns out to be what Cooper believed that Ukraine knew the aid had been held, and it was viewed as a major worry.

What did the Ukrainian ex-official say about what Ukrainians were thinking? Did that official say "we knew the aid was held?"

 

[Agema]

What did the Ukrainian ex-official say about what Ukrainians were thinking? Did that official say "we knew the aid was held?"

She does not apparently state that they knew specifically why it was held, if that's what you mean. I know all you want to do is argue that there's no explicit threat therefore no threat, but no-one you're arguing against thinks there was an explicit threat: we're saying the implicit threat was enough.

Trump seems to have thought the implicit threat was enough too, because we have evidence (via Sondland and Bolton) that Trump was indeed using the aid to squeeze Ukraine. We also have good reason to believe Ukraine was very concerned about the missing aid - more concerned than a mere delay in a bank transfer would warrant - suggesting Ukraine was very live to the possibility it was a threat too. The mere possibility would influence their actions, and the more so the more it dragged on.

You want to spend your time staring at individual trees, but you really need to take a step back and look at the wood.

 

[tstorm823]

She does not apparently state that they knew specifically why it was held, if that's what you mean. I know all you want to do is argue that there's no explicit threat therefore no threat, but no-one you're arguing against thinks there was an explicit threat: we're saying the implicit threat was enough.

Trump seems to have thought the implicit threat was enough too, because we have evidence (via Sondland and Bolton) that Trump was indeed using the aid to squeeze Ukraine. We also have good reason to believe Ukraine was very concerned about the missing aid - more concerned than a mere delay in a bank transfer would warrant - suggesting Ukraine was very live to the possibility it was a threat too. The mere possibility would influence their actions, and the more so the more it dragged on.

You want to spend your time staring at individual trees, but you really need to take a step back and look at the wood.

Nah, I think you need to zoom in on the forest and find out if you're actually looking at trees.

Sondland and Bolton did not say Trump was using the aid to squeeze Ukraine. Both of them have said Trump didn't want to give the aid until after they started investigations, but the implicit threat you are inferring is that Trump would have not given them the aid ever. There's no indication that was ever a possibility, the freeze was done as a temporary hold as footnotes in one-week increments, denying the aid permanently was never even asked about, and all of this happened before the deadline.

Like, if you have a relationship built on doing favors, it matters who did the last favor. If the last favor was Ukraine helping Trump, then they might act as though he owes them. If they receive all that military aid after they do the investigations, then it's Ukraine's turn again. Yes, that sounds dumb, but it isn't. You don't want to be the last person on the receiving end, because that means it's your turn to give. The reporting on Bolton's claims was that Trump didn't want to give the aid until after, Taylor's testimony about Sondland said something like you don't sign the check until after they pay up. Neither said anything about cancelling the aid, only the desired order of events.

You're reading an implicit threat into everything. But that's you doing it. Like, I've been accused of this thread as reading everything in a specific way to suit my ends. What about you? Why is it ok when you assume that everything coming from Trump has an implicit threat even if nobody has ever said it? Why is it ok for you to assume the Ukrainians knew exactly what was going on even though nobody has ever said it? Why do you get to take an extra leap beyond people's words into theoretical winking and nodding every step of the way?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

And it would seem this farce has come to its predictable conclusion with an acquittal. Well done Democratic Party, 2020 is lost because his campaign is going to consist of nothing but that word and how fucking bent and sour you are.

 

[Baffle]

Well, y'all fucked that up. Brexit's looking pretty sweet now isn't it! (It isn't.)

 

[Hades]

And it would seem this farce has come to its predictable conclusion with an acquittal. Well done Democratic Party, 2020 is lost because his campaign is going to consist of nothing but that word and how fucking bent and sour you are.

Possibly. Its also possible that Trump being openly and uniquely corrupt and being allowed to get away with it will energize the democratic base.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

And it would seem this farce has come to its predictable conclusion with an acquittal. Well done Democratic Party, 2020 is lost because his campaign is going to consist of nothing but that word and how fucking bent and sour you are.

Possibly. Its also possible that Trump being openly and uniquely corrupt and being allowed to get away with it will energize the democratic base.

There's also the possibility that voters just grow tired of him. He'll say acquitted all he wants, but there's a possibility, even a remote one, that the damage is effectively done (and may have been before the Ukraine story came to light). I think the real question is whether GOP senators (and conversely Red-State Democrats) get punished for their votes today. The only person who crossed party lines was Mitt Romney, who was one of the safer seats to vote against Trump because Ronmey's support there is considerably stronger than Trump's due to the large Mormon population (Utah had one of the largest third-party votes in the 2016 presidential election [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Utah]).

 

[Saint of M]

We have another 9 months till we can oust him now, and that is assuming we don't get someone so cray we are going to have another situation where the two main parties candidates are unapealing and vote for a third party that aint a winnin any time soon.

 

[Kwak]

Don't people have a basic threshold for how much they can enthusiastically cheer on a bloviating blowhard imbecile who supposedly runs the country before they reach their upper tolerance level?
Even the racist whitetrash that is his base must eventually get sick of how much energy it takes to stick it to the liberals by backing an obvious moron.
The sound of his voice alone....
Just let him be himself, sanity will eventually prevail. Surely?

 

[JamesStone]

And the clowncar came to its predictable end. Props to anyone who was emotionally manipulated to think this would be anything other than performative bullshit, I envy your positivity.

 

[Agema]

And the clowncar came to its predictable end. Props to anyone who was emotionally manipulated to think this would be anything other than performative bullshit, I envy your positivity.

I would argue that it should have been done for the sake of upholding proper process, outside any electoral considerations. Both presidents and the public need to know that the president is scrutinised and that there are ramifications for misbehaviour, even if their party will ensure they never go down for their misdeeds.

The fact that the evolution of the party system and its takeover of US politics has rendered the Constitutional impeachment system unfit for purpose is something Americans need to be aware of, too, and a farce that actually plays out is a lot more convincing than a theoretical farce.

 

[Agema]

Sondland and Bolton did not say Trump was using the aid to squeeze Ukraine. Both of them have said Trump didn't want to give the aid until after they started investigations,

It beggars belief that you don't see what that means.

but the implicit threat you are inferring is that Trump would have not given them the aid ever.

Is it? Why?

Like, if you have a relationship built on doing favors, it matters who did the last favor.

So a relationship that's not like how countries deal with each other, then. That's more like how a mobster does business.

Why is it ok when you assume that everything coming from Trump has an implicit threat even if nobody has ever said it?

That's what an implicit threat is: a threat not explicitly stated.

Why is it ok for you to assume the Ukrainians knew exactly what was going on even though nobody has ever said it?

I have not said the Ukrainians knew exactly what was going on, repeatedly and consistently: indeed this is intrinsic to the nature of an implicit threat. The Ukrainians are inevitably going to speculate reasons to explain why Trump has started cold-shouldering them and their aid isn't arriving. Inevitably one of those reasons is going to be that they need to please Trump somehow, and that possibility will factor into their decision-making.

Of course, they don't have to wait long to know what Trump wants: Trump just tells them straight out on July 25th 2019.

 

[tstorm823]

It beggars belief that you don't see what that means.

You're treating every statement as innuendo, and you're treating innuendo as fact, and then getting confused when I take anyone at their word.

 

[Silvanus]

And it would seem this farce has come to its predictable conclusion with an acquittal. Well done Democratic Party, 2020 is lost because his campaign is going to consist of nothing but that word and how fucking bent and sour you are.

2020 is lost because this had the outcome everybody expected (including the DNC)?

Almost nobody is going to change their voting intention on the basis of a bunch of Republican senators judging Trump innocent.

More likely...

1) It made the corruption more obvious, by thrusting quite a lot of evidence into the public spotlight;

2) It tarred the Republican party in general through their obvious willingness to pardon corruption for political reasons.