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

[Silvanus]

I expect there to be witnesses. But the media has been working very hard to make people think that if they don't call witnesses, it's because they know Trump is guilty and are covering it up, where if they call witnesses, it's because they are now being convinced that Trump is guilty. You could spin either of those things the other way, that having or not needing witnesses expresses confidence in the president's innocence, but they're putting a lot of effort into making witnesses a win for the Democrats so that Republicans will hesitate to give them the PR victory.

And what are you doing, exactly? Ensuring that whatever decision the Dems make, whatever decision the Republicans make, it's the Dems to blame.

It's the same furious spinning. The same framing exercise.

I'm not particularly opinionated about whether the rules are good or bad. I just know McConnell deferred to precedent to tamper down accusations of cheating, and throwing a hissy fit about when to vote on witnesses is just political theater.

You seemed rather opinionated. What was that commentary about the jury picking the witnesses, if not condemnation? & is not McConnell to blame if so? Does precedence not neuter that accusation as well?

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Well, you can add John Kelly to the growing list of Trump officials who have, in Lou Dobbs' words, become a "tool for the left."

Former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly tells Sarasota crowd ?I believe John Bolton?
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200128/former-trump-chief-of-staff-john-kelly-tells-sarasota-crowd-rsquoi-believe-john-boltonrsquo

"....one of Trump?s former top aides told a Sarasota audience Monday evening that if the reporting on what Bolton wrote is accurate, he believes Bolton.

?If John Bolton says that in the book, I believe John Bolton,? said retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as Trump?s chief of staff for 18 months."

 

[Agema]

Well, you can add John Kelly to the growing list of Trump officials who have, in Lou Dobbs' words, become a "tool for the left."

I think it speaks volumes that all sorts of responsible adults like Tillerson, Kelly and Mattis have little time or respect for Trump.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Well, you can add John Kelly to the growing list of Trump officials who have, in Lou Dobbs' words, become a "tool for the left."

I think it speaks volumes that all sorts of responsible adults like Tillerson, Kelly and Mattis have little time or respect for Trump.

I've long argued that the problem with Trump *is* the so-called responsible adults, whether Kelly or people like Cruz who've cowered in his wake. Because without those people, there is no Trump. So when this is all over -- whenever that is -- they can all go fuck themselves because they knew exactly what kind of person Trump was, and the risks that were involved by enabling and defending him, and they did it anyway. While it's great that they're finally owning up now that they've left their posts, it's too little, too late. So they can fuck right off.

 

[tstorm823]

You have argued consistently there is nothing (absolutely) directly and unambiguously tying Trump to the Ukraine misdeeds, and rejected attempts to even look at it. But the rumour of Bolton's book makes that stance look very uncomfortable.

That's not what I've been arguing. It'd be ridiculous to suggest Trump has no connection to these events. What I've been arguing is that there's no evidence that Trump tried to bribe anyone or even instigated most of the events. And every piece of new information makes me look more correct, even this one. Bolton is hypothetically saying that in August, well into the whole affair, that Trump acknowledged not wanting to release the hold until they committed to investigations (which Ukrainians seemed to have offered to do multiple times). That's not in any way confirmation that it was all Trump trying to make Ukraine do his bidding to help his reelection, which is what the problem would be. That doesn't answer the question of how we got to the point where Trump expected investigations.

If we'd like a hint on that question, lets go to the theoretical source leaking Bolton's manuscript. Apparently, it says "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president?s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients". Huh, how about that. Trump was receiving bad information from questionable sources working for other clients. No kidding.

And I know your rebuttal: "the president shouldn't be able to be manipulated by bad actors so easily and should be removed for that." To that, you have to answer: what was he manipulated into doing? He was manipulated into asking a friendly nation to investigate some claims, an investigation that would have come back with nothing but would have been a decent show of cooperation between new administrations. Doesn't sound that bad. He was manipulated into reassigning a seasoned diplomat and filling the role with a more seasoned diplomat. Also, doesn't sound that bad. He was manipulated into holding back military aid that was already withheld for months while Ukraine was essentially audited for worthiness, and then ultimately released it? Doesn't sound that bad. And the theoretical other person hiring Giuliani is arrested, so you're going to have to work pretty hard to suggest bad actors had their way in this one.

 

[Trunkage]

Hey. Just a little hypothetical/ highly unlikely situation around this impeachment trial

Also note, I dont think Garland would get his revenge as he too would have to remove himself due to conflict of interest over McConnell making an even lower court's position stand.

What a time to be alive

 

[Agema]

That's not in any way confirmation that it was all Trump trying to make Ukraine do his bidding to help his reelection, which is what the problem would be. That doesn't answer the question of how we got to the point where Trump expected investigations.

Oh god. Back here again. This is your rubbish argument that Ukraine wanted investigations, so Trump was really just helping them out. But it falls ludicrously flat on its face when we consider the USA's efforts to hold things over Ukraine to force them to comply: if Ukraine wanted investigations it would just fucking do them and this whole rigmarole would be unnecessary.

To that, you have to answer: what was he manipulated into doing? He was manipulated into...

If someone convinces you that committing a crime might be beneficial and you go ahead and do it, it doesn't mean you don't commit a crime. After all, your argument really has never gone any further than "but someone else gave Trump info"... And unfortunately that just doesn't matter, because at the point a person decides to abuse power, responsibility lies on that person and that choice. Someone with good morals wouldn't do it because they would understand it's wrong, but Donald Trump plainly isn't that kind of someone.

As for manipulation, if Trump was manipulated to the point he decided to abuse his power, it just means he's a fucking fool as well as corrupt.

 

[tstorm823]

Oh god. Back here again. This is your rubbish argument that Ukraine wanted investigations, so Trump was really just helping them out. But it falls ludicrously flat on its face when we consider the USA's efforts to hold things over Ukraine to force them to comply: if Ukraine wanted investigations it would just fucking do them and this whole rigmarole would be unnecessary.

We know what the Ukrainians wanted. They basically have all been after the same thing: the public support of the United States president. Assuming Zlochevsky really wasn't doing anything corrupt when hiring Hunter Biden, what do you imagine he was after other than support from the White House? When Parnas and Lutsenko were publicly trashing the Biden's, what were they after other than favor with the White House? When Yermak requested an introduction to Giulianni, what do you imagine his goal was other than favor with the White House? Why do you think they were so determined to get an official visit to the White House?

Assume for one moment that these two simple things is true: that Ukrainian leadership was actively looking for the publicly displayed support of Donald Trump, and that they knew that Donald Trump had expressed interest in the rumors of Democrat's misdeeds. It's not some wild and ridiculous suggestion that they might have offered to investigate those issues.

If someone convinces you that committing a crime might be beneficial and you go ahead and do it, it doesn't mean you don't commit a crime.

There is no crime here. None at all. Holding back missiles a little longer but still hitting the congressionally established timeline is not a crime. Reassigning a diplomat is not a crime. Asking a foreign leader to check into rumors for you is not a crime. They wrote articles of impeachment that include no crimes. If you would stop just assuming there are explicit underlying threats we have still not seen, these are not just legal actions, they are cautious and measured responses to the information Trump was receiving. He could have done some really stupid things; he could have fired Yovonovich, he could have asked congress to rescind the aid entirely, he could have tried to have Hunter Biden investigated by the FBI. He could have done plenty of dumb things, or done dumb things for the bad actors in Ukraine. He didn't.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Hey, have we ever talked about this?

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478557-gao-finds-trump-administration-broke-law-by-withholding-aid-from]

I went back in this thread and I didn't see anyone mention it. But it was a skim.

 

[tstorm823]

Hey, have we ever talked about this?

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478557-gao-finds-trump-administration-broke-law-by-withholding-aid-from]

I went back in this thread and I didn't see anyone mention it. But it was a skim.

I've seen you mention it in one of these threads. It's really not worth mentioning. Their opinion there essentially suggests the White House isn't allowed to ever withhold any funds for any amount of time by choice. Which even in just this particular situation is double extra stupid, because a) this funding explicitly had to be screened by the executive branch for worthiness, and b) there was a deadline to release it and the deadline was met. Like, that office was just embarrassing itself with that one.

 

[Agema]

It's not some wild and ridiculous suggestion that they might have offered to investigate those issues.

[sigh]

1) Ukraine starts at rebuffing Giuliani's approaches (despite almost certainly being aware what he was fishing for in Ukraine).

2) It is the USA that then engages in a string of diplomatic snubs and delaying aid, with State Dept. officials seemingly very active and interesting in pushing for investigations, specifically telling Ukraine it needs to offer investigations, with Trump being the person to initiate the issue of investigations in their phone call. All the evidence points at the USA taking the initiative and pushing.

3) After giving in, it is Ukraine that continues to issue concerns about this will be handled; this is indicating unease, suggesting a degree of reluctance.

4) People in the US government itself are issuing concerns about what the president and his team are doing.

All of this evidence points vastly more strongly at the investigations being a US objective through inappropriate means, not a Ukrainian one. If you're trying to argue it's actually a Ukrainian objective, you're simply ignoring all that evidence, which is irrational.

You have tried, through three or so threads over months, to tackle all the individual points of evidence by selecting out the kindest possible interpretation for Trump and building a case entirely from this kindest interpretation. This is a bit like saying that there are all these unlucky coincidences that just happen to make Trump and team look guilty. Try rolling a die twenty times and hoping it comes out with a 6 twenty times in a row. It is theoretically possible, but in practice doesn't happen. And so when everyone else here sees you try to argue Trump's innocence, by analogy what they're seeing is someone trying to argue the odds of rolling a 6 twenty times in a row. The rational conclusion is going to be that you're rolling a weighted die.

 

[tstorm823]

1) Ukraine starts at rebuffing Giuliani's approaches (despite almost certainly being aware what he was fishing for in Ukraine).

2) It is the USA that then engages in a string of diplomatic snubs and delaying aid, with State Dept. officials seemingly very active and interesting in pushing for investigations, specifically telling Ukraine it needs to offer investigations, with Trump being the person to initiate the issue of investigations in their phone call. All the evidence points at the USA taking the initiative and pushing.

3) After giving in, it is Ukraine that continues to issue concerns about this will be handled; this is indicating unease, suggesting a degree of reluctance.

4) People in the US government itself are issuing concerns about what the president and his team are doing.

All of this evidence points vastly more strongly at the investigations being a US objective through inappropriate means, not a Ukrainian one. If you're trying to argue it's actually a Ukrainian objective, you're simply ignoring all that evidence, which is irrational.

You have tried, through three or so threads over months, to tackle all the individual points of evidence by selecting out the kindest possible interpretation for Trump and building a case entirely from this kindest interpretation. This is a bit like saying that there are all these unlucky coincidences that just happen to make Trump and team look guilty. Try rolling a die twenty times and hoping it comes out with a 6 twenty times in a row. It is theoretically possible, but in practice doesn't happen. And so when everyone else here sees you try to argue Trump's innocence, by analogy what they're seeing is someone trying to argue the odds of rolling a 6 twenty times in a row. The rational conclusion is going to be that you're rolling a weighted die.

You think I'm just giving Trump the kindest possible interpretation, but all I'm doing is assessing the events in chronological order. Stop jumbling the order of events to suit you. You named 4 bullet points and couldn't order them correctly. I'd contest some of your phrasing on those, but at the very least, "3" comes before "2" and that already screws with your claims.

Just admit you have no actual evidence of wrongdoing already. Your position the entire time has been based on the assumption that before all of the back and forth, Trump somehow demanded behind closed doors that they investigate Biden. It's becoming increasingly obvious that didn't happen, and all involved were acting of their own volition based on publicly available information.

 

[Silvanus]

You think I'm just giving Trump the kindest possible interpretation, but all I'm doing is assessing the events in chronological order.

Well, no, you're also assuming dozens of people directly involved in the process are all lying.

 

[Avnger]

Hey, have we ever talked about this?

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/478557-gao-finds-trump-administration-broke-law-by-withholding-aid-from]

I went back in this thread and I didn't see anyone mention it. But it was a skim.

I've seen you mention it in one of these threads. It's really not worth mentioning. Their opinion there essentially suggests the White House isn't allowed to ever withhold any funds for any amount of time by choice. Which even in just this particular situation is double extra stupid, because a) this funding explicitly had to be screened by the executive branch for worthiness, and b) there was a deadline to release it and the deadline was met. Like, that office was just embarrassing itself with that one.

I'm so glad that we have such an expert on this forum to set things straight. Those silly buggers at the Government Accountability Office surely have no idea how the laws keeping the government accountable work compared to the knowledgeable Tstorm.

There must be a real moron leading the government branch the GAO falls under to let them be this incompetent.

 

[Agema]

Stop jumbling the order of events to suit you. You named 4 bullet points and couldn't order them correctly. I'd contest some of your phrasing on those, but at the very least, "3" comes before "2" and that already screws with your claims.

Nope. There's some overlap, but my timeline is right:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

Firstly, the US side are pushing for something in return for the phone call. After the call, they spend a fascinating level of time and attention ensuring Zelenskyy says precisely what Trump and team want him to, whilst it is the Ukrainian rep, Yermak, who explicitly resists due to worries of interfering with US domestic politics (in August), and suggestions Zelenskyy himself may be deeply concerned.

You think I'm just giving Trump the kindest possible interpretation, but all I'm doing is assessing the events in chronological order.

No, you are not.

Every time a witness makes statements sufficiently damning towards Trump, you question their credibility. Every time a media report looks bad for Trump, you question the credibility of the relevant media company. For instance, you're happy to damn the mainstream media such as the NYT, and the initial whistleblower, but look at how much rope you gave Solomon, a journo with plenty of evidence of being unreliable - and indeed who was eventually exposed to be hawking dodgy, ill-sourced material. You have blanket slammed every Democrat politician as slimy and politically motivated, whilst always excusing the Republicans and assuming they are acting in good faith - often clearly inaccurately [footnote]The last one, which I skipped over at the time, was saying that the issue about calling witnesses was made up by the Democrats. And yet potentially not even four out of fifty-three Republican senators will break ranks to call any witnesses. Never mind other evidence, such as Republican strategists on record saying the plan was always to not call witnesses, etc.[/footnote]

You can look at your hypotheses, for instance that somehow Parnas was victim of Lutsenko and then Parnas was tricking Giuliani and thus Trump, as if it's remotely realistic that Parnas would be calling the shots with a man like Giuliani. They are nearly always absurdly favourable to Trump, often beyond reasonable credibility.

 

[tstorm823]

Every time a witness makes statements sufficiently damning towards Trump, you question their credibility. Every time a media report looks bad for Trump, you question the credibility of the relevant media company. For instance, you're happy to damn the mainstream media such as the NYT, and the initial whistleblower, but look at how much rope you gave Solomon, a journo with plenty of evidence of being unreliable - and indeed who was eventually exposed to be hawking dodgy, ill-sourced material.

The NYT has no credibility, they deserve no trust. I never questioned the credibility of the whistleblower, the complaint has always seemed to be entirely honest, there were just a couple points which were honest speculation that didn't turn out to be accurate, specifically the question of when Ukrainian officials knew Trump had frozen the aid. I have conceded the point from the outset that Solomon's sources might be factually inaccurate, what matters is that those sources exist: if Solomon has high ranking Ukrainian officials telling him these things, they could also be telling Trump or Giuliani the same things; it's not important because it shows Biden was corrupt the whole time, it's important that sufficiently high-ranking Ukrainians were the ones saying so, namely Lutsenko and Shokin.

often clearly inaccurately

I mean, do we want to compare records? You insisted Ukraine would have known about the aid freeze promptly, I said they probably found out from the news; primary source comes out and they found out from the news. You thought Volker was setting up a meeting with Yermak on behalf of Giuliani, I thought the opposite; Volker testifies and I was right. You insist Parnas was a Giuliani stooge ousting Yovanovich on behalf of Trump, I suggest he's doing this own his and is more likely the one hiring Giuliani; we now have Bolton saying Pompeo was afraid Giuliani was working for someone else, and we get a recording of Parnas personally trying to convince Trump to oust her about a week after Trump took on Giuliani as a personal attorney.

How many details do you have to predict wrong while I'm getting it right before you think "huh, maybe my overall perspective here is off. Maybe Trump isn't a mafia boss."

 

[SupahEwok]

I mean, do we want to compare records? You insisted Ukraine would have known about the aid freeze promptly, I said they probably found out from the news; primary source comes out and they found out from the news. You thought Volker was setting up a meeting with Yermak on behalf of Giuliani, I thought the opposite; Volker testifies and I was right. You insist Parnas was a Giuliani stooge ousting Yovanovich on behalf of Trump, I suggest he's doing this own his and is more likely the one hiring Giuliani; we now have Bolton saying Pompeo was afraid Giuliani was working for someone else, and we get a recording of Parnas personally trying to convince Trump to oust her about a week after Trump took on Giuliani as a personal attorney.

How many details do you have to predict wrong while I'm getting it right before you think "huh, maybe my overall perspective here is off. Maybe Trump isn't a mafia boss."

Agema seems to get a lot more right than you do. You didn't even respond to refutations on your thoughts of the state of the economy or to Agema's source of the timeline. So when do you concede your overall perspective is off?

 

[tstorm823]

Agema seems to get a lot more right than you do. You didn't even respond to refutations on your thoughts of the state of the economy or to Agema's source of the timeline. So when do you concede your overall perspective is off?

I was going to say that I did respond to his "refutations" on the economy, but I actually missed the post you're talking about. With the new page of the thread, it slipped past me, so genuinely thank you for pointing it out.

Every step of that refutation is wrong and I'll tear it to pieces properly later. Unfortunately I have to work right now, so it'll be a few hours til I get there.

 

[Agema]

...there were just a couple points which were honest speculation that didn't turn out to be accurate, specifically the question of when Ukrainian officials knew Trump had frozen the aid...

Unfortunately, you've chosen a poor example of something allegedly inaccurate, because a Ukrainian ex-official says they did know in late July:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/top-ukrainian-official-claims-government-knew-of-military-aid-freeze-in-july-we-had-this-information/

...namely Lutsenko and Shokin...

Both of very low repute, which the most cursory check would reveal...

I mean, do we want to compare records? You insisted Ukraine would have known about the aid freeze promptly, I said they probably found out from the news; primary source comes out and they found out from the news.

You're misrepresenting here. See above - Ukraine knew the aid was frozen earlier, as the whistleblower notes. Later, Yermak contacts I think Volker demanding to talk after a press article - presumably this article might have given them details they did not earlier know, or maybe they were forced to act because of the issue being made public.

You thought Volker was setting up a meeting with Yermak on behalf of Giuliani,

[citation needed]

Not least because you not uncommonly slightly reframe other people's arguments in a different meaning from the one they wrote.

You insist Parnas was a Giuliani stooge ousting Yovanovich on behalf of Trump, I suggest he's doing this own his and is more likely the one hiring Giuliani; we now have Bolton saying Pompeo was afraid Giuliani was working for someone else, and we get a recording of Parnas personally trying to convince Trump to oust her about a week after Trump took on Giuliani as a personal attorney.

1) Giuliani has been working with/for Trump in various capacities since 2016, even though he was specifically hired as a personal attorney in April 2018. He's known to have been active fishing around Ukraine since 2017.
2) Pompeo's fears are hearsay at the worst, and it is doubly speculation for you to think it means Parnas (Dmitry Firtash is a more likely choice, not least as Parnas seems to have had significant money problems).
3) I don't deny that Parnas and Giuliani likely have other business interests than each other's, which may have overlapped with their mutual task aiding Trump get dirt on his political opponents. Such wheeler-dealers usually have lots of irons in the fire.

How many details do you have to predict wrong while I'm getting it right before you think "huh, maybe my overall perspective here is off. Maybe Trump isn't a mafia boss."

What you do is fill the uncertainty in any issue with a convenient fantasy, and claim that fantasy is the truth, in fact just like you've done now claiming Parnas was hiring Giuliani. An argument based on the evidence you can see is better than one based on the holes where the evidence is incomplete.

 

[Marik2]

I'm just wondering if whoever succeeds Donald will have to be pressured to pardon him. It is somewhat of a lose lose situation.