Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1184559)

When did Floridaman mention corruption at all?

When Rudy did all his admitting on TV, he rubbed out most of the lawyer client privilege

Presidential privilege is not all encompassing in scope and the administration has unprecedentedly blocked everything that congress asked for.

As far as Zelensky not being able to say publicly that he was pressured, there is evidence that Ukraine knew the aid was being withheld, arrangements were made to announce an investigation and the whole drug deal blew up when the whistleblower information was coming out and there was no way around it.

No different than any other extortion case, it's a crime whether you were successful or not.

The other question there is what happened to the criminal referral that came out of the whistleblower report, just how did that disappear?


I answered your true false test. You were not able or not willing to answer mine. That is not unusual for you. You routinely doge, avoid, distract, as in here throwing back more questions to answer than answering the true/false quiz. It comes to a point where there is no purpose in either answering your questions nor expecting an answer from you.

And here's Mulvaney........admitting to a quid pro quo or are you claiming the equal to "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmBiZ0EoXE

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1184560)

pete has also lost his marbles...

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1184570)

He is setting himself up for disappointment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1184569)

It was general response to the give and take involved in foreign policy. I believe that even you had said the same in some previous thread. His answer was not specifically regarding a quid pro quo for information that would benefit the next election.

The phone call that sparked the controversy did not ask for a quid pro quo. The facts are that there was no quid pro quo asked for in the phone call. There was no quid pro quo demanded or received when the money was given. Those are the facts.

As well as the fact that Mulvaney specifically said there was no quid pro quo other than some assurances that corruption would be looked into as Trump had every legal right, and an actual duty, to inquire about.

Those are the discernable facts.

What Mulvaney said is not so much the question as is what Trump said. What is undeniable, manifest, discernable fact, is that Trump has not been shown to ask Zelensky for something, much worse, something illegal, in EXCHANGE for the aid. Zelensky concurred that there was no such quid pro quo. It is conjectured or implied that he did. Those are the facts.

But what is pure conjecture is that what he asked for or intended was dirt to influence the next election. That is pure, unknowable, speculation. It may comfort you to indulge it, but speculation is not grist for impeachment nor for any criminal prosecution.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1184483)

We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office, I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged, I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree, so let’s fing move on to 2020.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1184582)

I moved on to 2020 24 days ago. I think we can all agree that 98% of Americans who have watched any of this impeachment know the boot licking, god is this really my party thinking in private republican senators will never vote against the supreme leader and we too are ready for November.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1184579)

This is what was said when Mulvaney admitted to the ask.
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

Geez . . . I already covered that above. I didn't expect that would satisfy you. But I'm not about to go round and round repeating the same chit.

Claim that only direct evidence counts and ignore as much other evidence as you want,

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I've argued actual evidence with you. But I don't consider conjecture, assumption, speculation, to be evidence.

if this was in a court of law with proper discovery, witnesses and documents, Floridaman would be convicted.

If this was in a court of law, it would be dismissed for lack of an actual crime to adjudicate. The obstruction of Congress charge is a joke. There has been a long accepted, including some adjudication, that the President has executive privilege in protecting conversations with his staff. The abuse of power charge that Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election has not been even closely shown to exist in any pre-trial preparation and discovery. Every thing Trump requested was legitimate under current treaty law. There is no smidgen of FACT that what he did was to effect a future election. That is pure conjecture. That is pure speculation on the President's state of mind. A judge should expect something more solid than a prosecutor's opinion that Trump was doing this for something other than what he would normally do in his office of President in instances where corruption existed.

If he was not president the FBI would have been at the door at 2am and taken the evidence.

The Horowitz investigation has shown that the FBI was quite willing to falsely concoct evidence to spy on Trump. And, anyway, if Trump were not President, he wouldn't have the duties which he was fulfilling and for which he has executive privilege to protect internal communications, for security reasons among others, which I'm sure the FBI would appreciate since it routinely redacts or withholds information for similar reasons.

Cases are concluded with convictions all the time based on indirect, demonstrative and other types of evidence.

When there is direct exculpatory evidence, as in this case, versus a lack of direct evidence of guilt, as in this case, and the prosecution consists of conjecture, assumption, second, third, and fourth hand opinion, conviction would be a breach of justice.

You don't honestly think that Teflon Don II didn't learn anything from Roy Cohn. Keeping the witnesses with direct evidence out will only work if the crime is well hidden. The corrupt behavior affected several branches of the administration, ‘Everyone was in the loop’.
Obstructing congress is only temporary, the truth always finds the light of day and when it does the enablers will be done.
Perhaps they will wish they had chosen to take the risk of having their heads on a pike.

Originally Posted by Got 1184584

Better

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1184427)

It's a complete waste trying to talk to you guys.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1184585)

OK. I like that finish. It was an artfully, (slightly but appropriately demented sounding) rant that would do very well for the closing summation of a prosecutor who had a very weak, totally circumstantial and conjectural case which had been demolished by direct exculpatory evidence--or as well as it could.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1184603)

What exculpatory evidence?

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election? How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1184603)

What exculpatory evidence?

The most obvious one is that Zelensky said there was no pressure, no quid pro quo arrangement. The money was delivered. No special quid pro quo was fulfilled to get the money. And Sondman, the only witness who got direct input from Trump re q pro q, said Trump told him no q pro q and tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election?

Who is it, exactly, that would NEVER cheat in an election, and how would you know? This is frivolous postulation, not rational argument.

How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?

Originally Posted by fishgolf (Post 1184594)

The
I think the argument that it was held up (legally or not) is a red herring and the Democrats a bit disingenuous for focusing on the Trump delay as so shattering to the Ukrainian's ability to defend themselves, and the follow on ability for the US to withstand Russian aggression.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1184631)

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1184632)

Were those instances to hold up the aid done so that a person would receive a personal gain? And was the withholding of the aid done in secret like Trump and his admin has done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1184634)

You have a very cynical view of politicians if you think everything they do is to benefit themselves and not the country. A lot of the civil servants who have come forward to discuss Trump's misdeeds are doing it to their potential detriment. An FYI Hillary was not in office
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1184631)

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.

Is there a law that says someone running for president, is immune from being investigated for anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1184640)

Funny You and other Trump fans heard the evidence and heard Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton and if China was listening to do the same and ask Ukraine to do him a favor against Biden on the perfect call.. but never ask 2016 17 or but late 18 when he saw a poll PS the aid wasn't held until guess when :btu:

AND YOU DON'T CARE

But but Carter Page

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1184640)

Funny You and other Trump fans heard the evidence and heard Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton and if China was listening to do the same and ask Ukraine to do him a favor against Biden on the perfect call.. but never ask 2016 17 or but late 18 when he saw a poll PS the aid wasn't held until guess when :btu:

AND YOU DON'T CARE

But but Carter Page

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1184647)

Clinton's server on which the 33,000 deleted emails were once located, was out of service and in the hands of the FBI at the time that Trump made his obviously sarcastic remark. So Russia could not have hacked them then. He was obviously not asking for Russia to hack Clinton, but making a sarcastic remark to point out Clinton's duplicitous destroying of those emails before she handed the server over to the FBI. And Trump threw in a sarcastic shot at the media as well (which had been all in for Clinton and constantly bashing Trump) by saying that the media would reward the Russians for finding the missing emails.

If Trump had been serious about asking Putin (Russia) for help, he would have done so through secret channels not on national TV for millions of voters, all the media, and the FBI and CIA and the Democrat Party and the rest of the "Swamp" to see and hear.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1184651)

Thru a back channel perhaps?
A resident of Trump Tower?
Or maybe thru Lev or Igor to Firtash?
Interesting new Parnas tape tonight
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by fishgolf (Post 1184648)

"What you’re pointing out is something they should focus on AFTER they hold him accountable for abuse of power, not instead!!!"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All I'm saying if the aid was so vital, why have a 10 or 11 month process to deliver it? If it was approved in August of 2018, why not write the check in January of 2019 if the need was so vital to the troops in the field, and our own Nat'l Sec? Focusing on the weeks that Trump held it up rather than the total timeline makes it a red herring, crime or not.
(btw, I didn't vote for Trump...)