Official Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230
edited November 13 in News & Current Events

Brethren,

The public Impeachment Hearings begin tomorrow by The U. S. House of representatives. Here are the factual charges.

The case for impeaching Trump (The Facts):

Trump solicited election meddling from Ukraine

Democrats believe this might be the slam dunk against Trump. The whistleblower said it first, and it has been corroborated by multiple witnesses: "The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 US election."

Trump made the request directly to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This is clear from the rough transcript of their July 25 phone call, which was released by the White House.

After an exchange of pleasantries, Trump said the US had been "very good to Ukraine" but the relationship was not "reciprocal." Zelensky thanked Trump for providing Ukraine with military assistance and said he was almost ready to purchase additional anti-tank missiles from the US.

Trump responded, "I would like you to do us a favor though," and asked Zelensky to investigate a conspiracy theory that would help him undermine the Russia investigation. Later in the call, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading 2020 rival.

Diplomats appointed by Trump later told Ukrainian officials that Zelensky needed to publicly announce the probes, which is very rarely done in legitimate criminal investigations. This strongly suggests the plan was designed to maximize political damage to Biden's presidential campaign and was not motivated a by a sincere effort to root out corruption, as Trump claimed

"The Ukraine situation encapsulates almost exactly what impeachment was created to address," said CNN legal analyst Michael Gerhardt, who was called as a nonpartisan expert witness on impeachment during the Clinton hearings. "When the Framers talked about impeachable offenses, they mentioned the President engaging in a corrupt relationship with a foreign power."

There was a quid pro quo for a White House invite

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a quid pro quo as "something given or received for something else." Multiple witnesses have testified that the Trump administration tried to establish a quid pro quo with Ukraine to secure investigations into Biden and the Democrats.

"I think it's very likely that the Democrats will be able to show that there were conditions to presidential actions on Ukraine," said CNN legal analyst Ross Garber, a leading expert on impeachment. "Then the question becomes, were those conditions legitimate or illegitimate?"

One element of the allegedly improper arrangement included withholding a White House invitation from Zelensky. The clearest evidence of this comes from a text message sent by Kurt Volker, who was Trump's handpicked envoy for Ukraine, to top Zelensky aide Andrey Yermak.

Volker texted Yermak right before Trump called Zelensky. He said: "Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow."

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the White House's National Security Council, listened in on the Trump-Zelensky call. He later testified that based on the "vast" power disparity between the two leaders, Trump's request would have been interpreted as "a demand" and that Zelensky would need to "fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting."

There was a quid pro quo for US military aid

In addition to dangling the White House visit, the Trump administration froze $391 million in military and security assistance to Ukraine, which is still at war with Russia and Kremlin-backed militias. Weeks later, US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Yermak that the money likely wouldn't be released until Zelensky announced the investigations. 

Other witnesses also said the military aid was linked to Zelensky's announcement. This includes Vindman and Tim Morrison, two officials on the White House's National Security Council who listened to the Trump-Zelensky call. It also includes Ambassador Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, who testified that "everything" Ukraine wanted relied on the investigations.

George Kent, a top State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy, testified that US military support for Ukraine was "critically important" but "partisan interest" got in the way of US policy.

"That's the most compelling argument why aid to Ukraine was in our national security interests," said CNN contributor Joe Lockhart, who was President Bill Clinton's press secretary during his impeachment. "Russia is at war with Ukraine, our ally. But President Trump put his own political interests ahead of our national security interests. That's why it rises to an impeachable offense."

At a press conference last month, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney brazenly admitted that US military assistance had been withheld until Ukraine investigated the conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in 2016 and the Democratic National Committee's hacked servers. Mulvaney quickly walked back some of his comments, but the damage was already done. 

Some Democratic lawmakers have raised the stakes and said the quid pro quo is tantamount to "bribery" -- a key distinction because bribery is listed in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. It's not clear yet whether Democrats will levy that accusation against Trump in an article of impeachment. Some strategists have said this might be an effective strategy. 

"They need to be careful to be simple," said CNN contributor Paul Begala, a senior Clinton adviser during his impeachment. "Donald Trump knows that simple and clear slogans, repeated relentlessly, can have an effect. The Democrats should just call this what it is. It's bribery."

Trump's directives to Giuliani undercut US policy

Trump deployed his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to lead the effort to secure investigations from Ukraine. As Giuliani worked to make that happen, he circumvented State Department channels and undermined US policy toward Ukraine, multiple witnesses told lawmakers. 

Taylor, the man responsible for promoting US interests in Ukraine, said it explicitly: "The official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani." 

In his closed-door deposition, Sondland testified that Trump "directed" him, Volker and Energy Secretary Rick Perry to coordinate with Giuliani on Ukraine and corruption-related matters.

Rudy Giuliani, personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, speaks to members of the media at the White House in May 2018 in Washington, DC. 

Things went awry after Sondland and the others teamed up with Giuliani. Former White House adviser Fiona Hill testified that she and others were alarmed by Giuliani's shadow diplomacy and that she reported these concerns to White House lawyers. Kent also testified that Giuliani's parallel foreign policy was "wrong." Even Sondland said he was "disappointed" by Giuliani's role.

"The direction from Trump was clear -- work with Giuliani because he represents me in this matter," CNN legal analyst Michael Zeldin said. "Giuliani has confirmed that in his tweets, that he was working on behalf of the President. Giuliani was working under Trump's authorization."

Democrats could draft articles of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing his powers and manipulating the State Department for political gain, and having Giuliani do his dirty work. The former New York City mayor has maintained that everything he did was meant to defend his client, and that protecting Trump from "false charges" actually "is in the nation's best interest." 

Trump improperly removed Yovanovitch

As part of his shadow diplomacy, Giuliani also pressed for the removal of Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer who served as US ambassador to Ukraine from 2016 until May of this year.

She testified that after she was instructed to leave Ukraine, she was informed by Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan that she had "done nothing wrong" and that the State Department "had been under pressure from the President to remove me" since summer 2018.

Former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, arrives on Capitol Hill on Friday, October 11. 

Kent, another State Department official, testified that Giuliani led a "campaign of lies" to oust Yovanovitch. This included allegations that she was a "deep state" partisan who stood in the way of Trump getting what he wanted from Ukraine. Giuliani prepared a dossier with these claims and gave it to the White House, which passed it to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

"One of the elements of an impeachable offense is that you have to show bad faith," said Gerhardt, the impeachment expert. "Shoving aside US diplomats and conducing your own shadow foreign policy is the same as shoving aside the US Constitution. If the State Department wasn't ready to help Trump do what he wanted, that says a lot. It underscores the bad faith."

In Trump's phone call with Zelensky, he hinted that Yovanovitch was "going to go through some things." She testified that she felt threatened by this. Democrats could portray this episode as an act of political retaliation by Trump, based on false pretenses, against a respected civil servant.

The Trump administration obstructed the inquiry

Early on in the process, the White House declared the impeachment inquiry "unconstitutional" and ordered staff not to cooperate by providing documents or testimony to House investigators.

At least 10 senior Trump administration officials have ignored subpoenas, including Mulvaney, Perry and Pompeo. The State Department and the Office of Management and Budget have defied subpoenas for documents that could shed new light on Trump's dealings with Ukraine.

"I believe the House of Representatives is acting under its impeachment authority, and has the legal right to this testimony," Zeldin said. "For White House witnesses to refuse to honor these subpoenas, it appears obstructionist to me. There is no arguable basis to deny Congress."

After President Richard Nixon ignored congressional subpoenas in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved an impeachment article against him for contempt of Congress. Rep. Adam Schiff, a top Democrat leading the Trump inquiry, has repeatedly invoked the Nixon precedent and has pointed out that a federal judge ruled that the House impeachment inquiry is legal. 

If Democrats want to broaden their obstruction case against Trump, they have options. 

The White House admitted that it used a highly classified filing system to suppress transcripts of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, which Democrats could portray as a cover-up. Also, Vindman testified that he was blocked by the White House from adding more context to the transcript, specifically a reference to "Burisma," the company where Biden's son sat on the board.

Let's not burden this thread with propaganda. Please, cite only the facts. Keep it clear... CM


source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-sets-stage-for-impeachment-hearings

Comments

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,101

    Lots of silly non-sensical talk ... instead you should consider some other items happening under Washington's hegemonial regime rule.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/10/08/ecuador-protestors-move-into-captial-president-leaves-quito/3914546002/ However, Washington of course propagates that Moreno, who seems to follow Washington's desires and instructions about Julian Assange for a $4 billion IMF loan, brought freedom back to Ecuador.

    Venezuela government holds the same position about USA instrumentalized coup in Bolivia https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/statement-bolivarian-republic-venezuela-coup-bolivia .

    Since president Trump presided over such major crime against humanity, thiswould be perhaps a real valid reason for impeachment when compared to the phony hot air accusations made by Demorats and even some Republians.

    The American people at large seem unable to realize that if the elected US president can be removed in an orchestrated coup, the people in the USA will effectively have lost all control over their government which supposedly according to the constitution they hold. The two big political parties apparently pursue this goal of doing away with the people's power in a republic / democracy. Those in those two donkey and elephant parties who are willing to do anything to throw the elected USA president out of the White House with false charges either do not understand the price to democracy of removing an elected president via orchestrated coup or else are purposely paying that price hoping for satisfying their own greed for money and power. And yet, the American people to a large degree go along with what the party heads (and behind the scenes big players) are doing to them and their liberties by conducting a staged coup against their elected president?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    The OP is nonsense. There is very little fact and a lot of "fact."

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    Huh? Do you want to rewrite your statement above? What are you trying to say.

    What is not factual? Can you for once, keep it factual for all the Americans who take this process seriously. It's your President allow the facts to come out. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    It is NOT factual that Trump solicited Ukraine to meddle in the election.

    It is NOT factual that there was quid pro quo for aid.

    It is NOT factual that there was quid pro quo for a White House Meeting.

    It is NOT factual that Trump improperly removed Yavonovitch. Diplomats serve at the pleasure of the POTUS.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    My, my! Where to you live? Do you have the internet? Do you get any of the live hearings? Did you watch it?

    Day 1:

    Trump was exposed.

    Are the men lying under oath? No!

    It's factual, he was over heard on another call?

    Fact-- Trump was not really interested in crime and corruption in another country. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,101

    Listening in on the public hearing toward an impeachment of president Trump, one can only be disgusted at the chairman of this committee and the Democrat members and their flat out lies and utter non-sense.

    The lies started with A. Schiff, chairman of this committee, claiming he did not know the identity of the "whistleblower". Excuse me ?????? Schiff started an investigation or hearing for impeachment against Trump and does not even know who the person is on whose "testimony ideas" he is building his entire case ?????

    Furthermore, according to a report by the New York Times and the Wadhington Post the "whistleblower" approached the committee inquired where and how he could file his "complaint" against Trump ... Also, his name already has been making it through the press for some time, and the representative Rand Paul even made it publically known. Everyone following this case even a little bit knows ... but Mr. Schiff does not know ??? Schiff is a top liar or top ignorant fool!

    Good night, America!

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Oh yeah I watched the hearings. It was a big FLOP for the Democrats.


    Here is what they have....


    He told me that so and so told him that he heard, that so and so believes that this might be what is happening.


    Overheard on what other call? Be specific. Who was overheard on another call? More hearsay nonsense.


    Fact: You can't say what you are saying with 100% certainty because it's all hearsay and opinion.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    Brethren,

    Let's not get lost. It's just day two. Keep these six points before you. The case for impeaching Trump hangs on these points:

    • Trump solicited election meddling from Ukraine
    • There was a quid pro quo for a White House invite
    • There was a quid pro quo for US military aid
    • Trump's directives to Giuliani undercut US policy
    • Trump improperly removed Yovanovitch
    • The Trump administration obstructed the inquiry

    Allow the U. S. House to make its case: Wait, watch, listen! CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Except we already know that none of that is true. These hearings are a waste of time.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,101
    edited November 15

    Hmn ..... interesting is that just one day after the testimony of the two witnesses in the hearing for an impeachment of president Trump, the foreign minister of the Ukraine, Wadym Prystajko, stated on Thursday that there was no connection between a military aid from the USA and an investigation against Burisma. He contradicted what the US diplomats Wayleor and Kent testified before the committee, when they stated that they believed in such a connection. Note, they "believed" such hearsay ... they did NOT KNOW. Their testimony is a shot into their own and the Demorats foot.

    On the other hand, the Demorats have a bit of a "distinguished" and "unusual" view concerning the value of testimonies ... their representative Mike Quigley proclaimed that sometimes hearsay is a better proof than first hand or direct evidence.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230
    edited November 15

    This is an Impeachment Trial -- the burden of proof is somewhat different. Please watch -- In 1999, Sen. Lindsey Graham spoke on the floor about the definition of high crime in impeaching a president. Graham was in support of impeaching then-president Bill Clinton. -- BY C-SPAN

    Read more here: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article230483449.html#storylink=cpy

    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article230606129.html

    Abuse of power/bribery/obstruction of the House Investigation, etc.

    Graham calling for Clinton impeachment in 1999: High crime 'doesn't even have to be a crime'

    Do you really think "the foreign minister of the Ukraine, Wadym Prystajko" told the truth? If you do, "I have a bridge to sell you, for a nickel [an American coin], called Brooklyn". Ha, ha,.. -- CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    And again you show your lack of understanding. This is not an impeachment trial. This is an inquiry.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    LOL Schiff was not happy Trump released another transcript during the hearing today that blows even more of their narrative out of the water. It keeps getting better and better. Keep sinking that ship Democrats!

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,777

    @reformed posted:

    OH BROTHER!

    No Pencil Neck says Trump is witness tampering because of tweets during the hearing.

    Bret Baier on FoxNews called the president's tweet "adding an article of impeachment real-time." It reflected who Mr Trump is - the kind of person, the kind president, we know him to be - so it wasn't surprising; but it was disgusting. Witness intimidation? Consider low level State Department staffers who believe they have relevant information, but then realize that if they testify, they will likely be the target of a tweet from the president of the United States. As Ambassador Yvonovich said in her hearing on Friday, that could be "very intimidating."


    In my view, Friday was the worst day yet for President Trump, both in his presidency and the impeachment inquiry. The ambassador's testimony before and after the presidential tweet was unchallenged by Republicans. One, because she spoke the truth and there is no evidence to the contrary - Giuliani and company DID smear her to get her out of her job so they could have a clearer path to pressure Ukraine for the investigations the president wanted. Two, she is by nature and character a soft-spoken, credible, and sympathetic figure - adjectives NONE of which apply to the president, Mayor Giuliani, or his band of henchmen.

    But the news for the president got MUCH worse later in the day when a diplomat stationed in Ukraine testified that he was in the restaurant with Gordon Sondland on July 26 - the day after the infamous call - when Sondland received a call from the president over an unsecured line. I encourage you to investigate the diplomat's opening statement. It is devastating to the president and to Sondland. The diplomat said he heard the president's voice on the call because Sondland held the phone away from his ear to account for the president's loud voice, that the president asked whether Zelinsky was going to do the infamous investigations, and when the call ended, Sondland said the president cared more about "big stuff" such as the investigations he sought than stuff such as Ukraine's war with Russia, for example.

    And then there was the celebrated summary released on Friday of the first Zelenskyy-Trump phone call in April. Trumpsters tout the call as an effective counter to the narrative that the president pressured Zelenskyy for investigations. @reformed says the summary "blows even more of their narrative out of the water." Of course, we wouldn't expect Trump to ask for investigations the first time he spoke with the newly elected president. He had to establish some form of connection with the new leader before making the ask.

    But more important is the fact that the summary includes NO mention of corruption, when the White House's read-out of the call, released at the time of the call, reported that the president declared his commitment to help Ukraine "root out corruption." But he didn't do that. He didn't mention corruption in April, just as in the July 25 call he didn't mention corruption. Trumpsters everywhere have told us the president was simply giving voice to his commitment to fight corruption in Ukraine! But in two phone calls with that country's leader, our president didn't even say the word. We now know he was given talking points to raise with Zelenskyy in April that included corruption, but Mr Trump still didn't mention it. That's how "much" the president cared about corruption.

    It was an awful day and this is an awful season for the president. Witness after witness is telling the same basic story, and NO ONE is denying the facts they're asserting. Republicans spend their question times spouting irrelevant and often unfounded assertions about the Bidens rather than defending the president's actions. That might be their best move since there is no defense for what the president did.

    This is vile, disgusting conduct. Mr Trump WILL be impeached and the GOP senators who allow him to stay in office after the trial will have and will deserve a stain on their resumes for the rest of their lives.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    Roger Stone =

    This number 6 of the President 's men. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Yeah, her second-hand testimony that she actually has no information about things that happened and it is all feeling and opinon. Yeah, solid there...

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,777

    @reformed posted:

    Yeah, her second-hand testimony that she actually has no information about things that happened and it is all feeling and opinon. Yeah, solid there...

    In fact, Yvonovich was a first-hand witness to the falsehoods that filled Giuliani & company's smear campaign against her. She was a first-hand witness to the fact that she was told she had done "nothing wrong," but for reasons no one understood, the president had lost confidence in her. And she was a first-hand witness to the intimidation she felt and predicted from the president's real-time tweet about her.


    It's telling, in my view, that you engage Yvonovich as a witness in your your post, but chose not to address - not even to mention - the OTHER witness I referenced in my previous post, the diplomat David Holmes who was in the restaurant in Kyiv to hear first-hand the president over a cell phone ask Gordon Sondland about the investigations and to hear first-hand Sondland say the president was more interested in the Burisma and Biden investigations than he was in Ukraine.

    Also telling is the fact that in your response you chose not to mention the facts about about the April phone call summary to which I called attention in my previous post. You previously suggested that the summary "blows even more of [Democrats'] narrative out of the water." How is that possible given that the call summary raises the significant issue of why the the president chose not to mention Ukrainian corruption in the April call, even though he had been given talking points that advised him to do so, a series of events that resulted in the White House's release of a materially false call summary. If fighting corruption was SUCH an important policy issue for the American president, why did he choose not to mention it in EITHER of his calls with the Ukrainian president?

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230
    edited November 18


    This is utter nonsense! The President is keeping those with first-hand information from testifying. Better yet, he can testify before the Committee himself. Your President is playing games and people are going to jail for him. It is true : "Everything Trump Touches Dies". They're not my words. They are by Rick Wilson.

    See the recent thread, "Stop Defending The Guilty: President Trump & Assoc." America needs to free herself of Trump or he needs to resign, now. His hands are too dirty to lead America. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Sorry, second hand on anything that is actually an impeachable accusation. There was no witness intimidation. That is ABSURD. If she thought that was intimidating I wouldn't want her representing our country either. Sorry here fragile feelings were hurt. Pathetic. Furthermore, she would not have even known about the tweet if Pencil Neck had not read it in the hearing. What was the need for that? Is the President not allowed freedom of speech? And what about the tweet exactly was intimidating? So ridiculous to even hint that it was witness intimidation.

    The April call shows that there was no quid pro quo there either. There was no mention of the things Democrats said were to be found on that call. The April call had nothing wrong on it just like the July call.

    Furthermore, the second call DID mention corruption and discussed ongoing corruption investigations. Remember, the POTUS did not initiate an investigation that included Burisma and the Biden's, it was already ongoing. Yvonovitch actually affirmed this.



    Yeah, we don't need testimony. We have the transcript of the call.....

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,777

    @reformed posted:

    Sorry, second hand on anything that is actually an impeachable accusation.

    The former ambassador didn't witness impeachable action directly, but the way Giuliani and company treated her is highly suggestive of damnable, if not impeachable, presidential conduct if the president had knowledge of but took no steps to stop Giuliani's smear campaign of lies against Yvonovitch.


    There was no witness intimidation. That is ABSURD. If she thought that was intimidating I wouldn't want her representing our country either. Sorry here fragile feelings were hurt. Pathetic.

    Since when do YOU get to decide whether another person felt intimidated by the actions of the president of the United States?


    Furthermore, she would not have even known about the tweet if Pencil Neck had not read it in the hearing. What was the need for that?

    She had testified to the impact of the president's statements about her in the July 25 phone call with Zelenskyy and his removal of her as ambassador when the president issued his attack tweet. It was "needed" because the tweet showed the character of the president who made the statements in the call and issued the tweet, and his willingness to attack her even as she testified before Congress. If he was willing to do that, it's not hard to believe he would have approved of the Giuliani smear campaign against her earlier in the year.


    Is the President not allowed freedom of speech? And what about the tweet exactly was intimidating? So ridiculous to even hint that it was witness intimidation.

    I have the "freedom of speech" to call you all kinds of names. But to do so would be wrong, and likely childish and reflective of a character flaw. Just because you have the "freedom" to do something, doesn't make that something right.

    Just because YOU don't think people should feel intimidated when the president they ultimately work for publicly tweets harsh criticism of them for telling the truth while under oath doesn't mean they weren't intimidated.


    The April call shows that there was no quid pro quo there either. There was no mention of the things Democrats said were to be found on that call. The April call had nothing wrong on it just like the July call.

    What "things" did the Democrats say "were to be found on that call"? I am not aware of any Democrat who voiced expectations about what would be found there. Democrats certainly wanted the transcript of the first call, given the content of the second one, but I'm not aware of any who predicted what would be found on that document. Please provide a link to information that backs up your claim.


    Furthermore, the second call DID mention corruption and discussed ongoing corruption inves0tigations. Remember, the POTUS did not initiate an investigation that included Burisma and the Biden's, it was already ongoing. Yvonovitch actually affirmed this.

    My point was that the president didn't use the word "corruption" in either call, and, contrary to the talking points given to him before the first call, didn't even reference the concept let alone the term then.

    The point of the impeachment inquiry is that there is NO evidence the president mentioned the Bidens or the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory because they were examples of corruption. Had they been examples of Ukrainian corruption, Mr Trump could have said so. In fact, it would have made MUCH more sense for the president to say, "I'm concerned about corruption in your country, Mr President. Two examples I'm aware of - though I'm afraid there are many others - are...." But the president expressed NO concern about the prevalence of Ukrainian corruption in EITHER call, and instead introduced his reference to the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory as a "favor" he wanted from Mr Zelenskyy. Since when is it American foreign policy to ask other countries to fight their domestic corruption as a "favor" to the U.S.?

    Your claim that the Burisma investigation was "ongoing" at the time of the July 25 call is false. In May 2019 Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko told Bloomberg news that he had found "no wrongdoing" by the Bidens during a review of the case that he had reopened in March 2019.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,777

    The Townhall.com article to which linked quotes from the portions of Under Secretary of State David Hale's deposition in which he reports foreign aid to nations other than Ukraine has been withheld pending what Hale called a "foreign affairs review." What Secretary Hale did NOT say in his testimony was that aid to any other nation had been withheld pending that nation's launch of investigations into the president's domestic political rivals.

    As you know, @reformed , the issue in this case is NOT that the Ukrainian aid was withheld for a period of time. The issue is WHY the money was withheld for a period of time, then magically restored two days after the Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson by letter notified Intelligence Committee Chair Schiff and Ranking Member Nunes of the whistleblower's complaint.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    And there is ZERO evidence that it was withheld for an investigation into the Biden's. Not a shred. The only thing that even closely resembles evidence is people's opinions, nothing more.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,777
    edited November 20


    @reformed posted:

    And there is ZERO evidence that it was withheld for an investigation into the Biden's. Not a shred. The only thing that even closely resembles evidence is people's opinions, nothing more.

    As has been established in other posts, your definition of "evidence" is "proof." Evidently, your definition of "proof" in this case is the two presidents publicly acknowledging a quid pro quo with Trump as the one asking and Zelenskyy the one pressured to give. I say that because basically EVERY fact witness in this case has testified to the same basic truth: President Trump tied a White House meeting and the release of foreign assistance money to Ukraine to that nation's announcement of investigations into the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory and the Bidens. Now it didn't work - the president got caught and released the money in September - but the failure to complete an act does not prove there was no intention or action toward that act. Witness after witness after witness has said the same basic thing.

    Will Trump get infected with a case of truthfulness and fess up? Of course not. Will Zelenskyy (whose government, we now know, felt pressure from the Trump administration to investigate in the spring of this year) acknowledge the pressure he felt? No. He needs the aid and American support. But because the one robbing the bank and the teller with a gun to his or her head won't say there's anything wrong doesn't mean there isn't a robbery underway.

    There is MUCH evidence/proof that the money was withheld to apply pressure. Remember, the Ukrainians learned about the hold on August 29. They quickly communicated their concerns to US officials. Did the money get released on August 30 or 31, or in the first week of September? No! It wasn't released until September 11, nearly two weeks after the Ukrainians expressed their concerns. Why then? Because on September 9 the Intelligence Community's Inspector General notified the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee about the whistleblower complaint. And on THAT date two days later (September 11) of all dates: the House IC announced an investigation, the White House released the aid, and a planned Zelenskyy interview on CNN (in which he planned to say the magic words about the two investigations!) was cancelled. Because it's not Donald Trump saying "I did it," for you that's not evidence or proof. So be it. You're wrong.

    Post edited by Bill_Coley on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Proof would also be an investigation into the Biden's triggering a release of aid. But here are facts.


    No investigation.

    Aid was released.

    Transcript shows no connection between the two.

    No calls have ever shown linkage between the two.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,777
    edited November 20

    @reformed posted:

    No investigation.

    Aid was released.

    Transcript shows no connection between the two.

    No calls have ever shown linkage between the two.

    Again you choose to overlook evidence.

    • There wasn't an investigation because the money was released on September 11.
    • The money was released on September 11, it seems clear to me, because on September 9 the ICIG informed Intelligence Committee ranking member Nunes (as well as Chairman Schiff) of the whistleblower's complaint, which the White House had to know would put the money hold under scrutiny.
    • The transcript DOES show a connection between the two when in response to Zelenskyy's mention of anti-tank weapons, Mr Trump's FIRST response is "But I want you to do us a favor, though." That is: "Mr President, we need those weapons." "Well then, Mr President, do us a favor." What was the favor? According to the transcript, Crowdstrike and the Bidens.
    • Listen to this morning's Sondland testimony. He says key leaders at State and the NSC knew - were "in the loop," as he states it - about what he calls in his opening statement the "quid pro quo."
    • And one more time: The fact that the money was released on September 11 DOES NOT MEAN that BEFORE September 11 the money wasn't held up as part of a quid pro quo: The Ukrainians would make a statement about the investigations (as agreed to, Zelenskyy planned to go on CNN) then they would get the money. The failure to complete an act does not prove there was no intention or action toward that act. The fact that would-be bank robbers get caught while planning their next heist DOES NOT MEAN they weren't planning to rob a bank before they got caught!


    Post edited by Bill_Coley on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    You are making an ASSUMPTION that the aid and investigation were linked. There has been nothing, except third party opinions to suggest there was ever a link between the two.


    The transcript only shows a connection if you read that into it.


    Yeah Sondland has said in his statement no quid pro quo was ever suggested by the President. Nice try.


    There is no evidence that there was ever linkage between the aid and said investigation. The only "evidence" of that are opinions of people "reading between the lines." Nothing real.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,101

    There is no evidence that there was ever linkage between the aid and said investigation. The only "evidence" of that are opinions of people "reading between the lines." Nothing real.


    Exactly this type of stuff happened with Mr. Biden sen. in his influence taking on Ukrain while vice-president and his son being in a high paid job in a Ukraine company etc ... but then I guess, there is a difference if Mr. A does something and Mr. B does the same ... in Mr. A's case it is commendable "democracy foreign poiicy", in Mr. B's case it is a crime ?

Sign In or Register to comment.