Floridaman’s spin theory

[Pete F.]

The spin plan is starting
Trump has a very viable defense, and a large enough defense team that it was inevitable that someone on that team would discover it. Today, an interview by Fox News Channel with one of Trump's top surrogates, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), revealed what Trump's defense will be.
The defense Kennedy revealed is the defense any public defender would've eventually come up with in a case like this. I'll first summarize the defense, then unpack—and conclusively rebut—all aspects of it.
The defense: For Trump to be authorized to withhold aid from Ukraine, he doesn't need to be “correct” in his belief Ukraine aided Clinton, just show (1) there is “some” evidence of that; (2) it was never investigated; and (3) he consistently has been worried about this issue.
He'll also argue (4): he doesn't have to personally have raised a specific issue involving Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 election with Ukrainian officials in order to be able to say it motivated him; his agents can do so or he can have done so in prior statements.
This is a defense Democrats and media don't appear to expect, but it's the one that's coming. And it'll have maximum impact on America—as it involves witnesses most Americans haven't heard of—if it isn't “conclusively debunked in the media” before it arrives. Thus this thread.
To understand how the defense works, you must understand first the info Trump is hoping Democrats and media “don't” reveal to Americans pre-trial. Many desperate defenses—the sort that arise in unwinnable cases that no one wanted to go to trial on—involve such "missing" info.

Here's a list of things Trump does “not” want you to know as he prepares a "surprise" defense for America:

1. Trump's presidential candidacy was openly endorsed by numerous world leaders during the 2016 presidential election. Trump eagerly received such endorsements.
Trump's presidential candidacy was publicly and formally endorsed by the presidents of Hungary and the Czech Republic. It was endorsed implicitly—via public statements—by the presidents of Russia, North Korea, and Egypt. But that's not all—not by a long shot.
Trump's candidacy was also endorsed by numerous high-level politicians from conservative political parties all around the world, including France, the Netherlands, Israel and many other nations. Trump deemed all these endorsements to be wonderful and legal.
The reason this matters is that Trump's defense hinges on the idea that any public statement of support for Clinton by a Ukrainian official immediately legitimized him considering Ukraine to be a "corrupt" nation his administration would have to investigate.
So Trump's defense will focus on statements by Ukrainian officials like Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly and Ukrainian parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko. Trump wants you to falsely believe he considers foreign endorsements of political candidates "corruption."
Side note: no foreign nation has ever had better reason to see its politicians come out in favor of a US politician's rival than Ukraine had in seeing a few of its politicians (a very, very few) express support for Clinton over Trump. And it's Trump's fault this happened.
Ukraine is a European nation. It's the largest European nation entirely in Europe and the seventh-largest European nation by population. It is America's indispensable buffer zone between Russian military aggression and the West. It will end up in NATO and the EU.

Ukraine is AT WAR with Russia because Russia INVADED EUROPE.

To repeat: Russia INVADED EUROPE to MAKE WAR on one of America's most indispensable EUROPEAN ALLIES, a country that WILL soon gain admittance to NATO AND the European Union.
The Russian invasion was a WAR CRIME.
America has never before had a president who would fail to support a European ally invaded by an enemy of the United States.

Yet Trump not only opposed lethal defense aid to Ukraine during the 2016 campaign, but said Russia should face no punishment for invading Ukraine.
And Trump announced—as Ukrainians were fighting and dying in a war with Russia—that Russia should probably be allowed to keep the part of Ukraine it had already invaded and stolen: an area of land making up more than 7% of all of Ukraine. And Trump acted on this belief.
Not only did Trump support Putin's claim to 7% of Ukraine and its right to invade Europe without consequence, his team worked secretly with Kremlin agents/pro-Kremlin Ukrainians to craft a "peace deal" in the Ukraine-Russia war that was full Ukrainian capitulation to Putin.
In view of this, it's amazing that every Ukrainian politician didn't come out publicly in support of Clinton—which Trump wouldn't have been able to complain about, as he was receiving foreign endorsements left and right. Instead, only a few Ukrainian politicians did.

The second point Trump will emphasize:

2. Trump will say that not only did Ukrainians (in tiny numbers) publicly attack him and support Clinton's candidacy—frankly, it was more them rightfully attacking his Ukraine policy than endorsing Clinton—he'll say they helped her.
Specifically, Trump will call left-wing/semi-reluctant U.S. witnesses like Alexandra Chalupa and willing/"faux whistleblower" Ukrainian witnesses like Andrii Telizhenko to claim that in 2016 the Ukrainian embassy was passing information to the DNC through Chalupa.
One reason any high-volume criminal defense attorney would choose the defense Trump is going to go with is because there are many accurate pieces of information within it and anything "false" is merely something left out (as opposed to a lie actively delivered).
For instance, Chalupa was a well-paid DNC consultant who was, in 2016, secretly passing information from Ukrainian nationals at the Ukrainian embassy to officials at the DNC. But—well, there are a lot of buts here that Trump's defense will of course leave out.
Chalupa's work was focused on Manafort—not Trump—and she'd been investigating him pro bono since before Trump announced his run. The DNC never asked her to get info and never used in its materials any info she got them. But there's more wrong with Trump's defense.
It's unclear that any info the Ukrainian embassy gave to Chalupa it wasn't also giving to reporters and/or making available in other ways. And Chalupa's aim was to get Congressional hearings on Manafort, not Trump. But there's more wrong with Trump's defense.
Chalupa stopped working for the DNC in June 2016, before Trump was the Republican nominee. During the general election, her focus was on getting info about Manafort to the press, not the DNC. But there's even more wrong with Trump's "Chalupa defense" than this.
Manafort's activities in Ukraine, per Trump, had nothing to do with him—so why would he care if Chalupa uncovered them? (And BTW, Manafort did, as Chalupa claimed, turn out to be a criminal.) And Trump fired Manafort and moved on—so what's the big deal here?
The January '18 NBC report that reveals Trump has told friends that Manafort could bring him down—meaning there was criminal conduct involved in Trump's relationship with Manafort that he wants hidden.
So to the extent Trump is "angry" he "lost" Manafort as campaign chief—except he didn't, as he kept secretly speaking to him for 9 to 18 months, per major-media reports—is because it led to Manafort being convicted and Trump needing to eventually pardon him to keep him happy.
So Trump will have difficulty explaining why an attack on Manafort's pre-campaign Ukraine activities is an attack on Trump, as the answer to this—a question I and others are feverishly working on now—is likely that Trump knows more than he says about Manafort's activities.
Indeed, it'd be better to say Ukraine and Chalupa aided Trump is excising from him a criminal actor with a shady past that could only explode in his face as more info about Russian attacks on America became known. Thank god they got their info to Trump by August of 2016!
But more than all this, isn't Ukraine entitled to investigate (domestically) an American who committed crimes in Ukraine? And can't they do that on any schedule they like? On what basis can Trump claim the proper functioning of Ukrainian law enforcement is targeted at him?
And beyond this—the real kicker—Don Jr. did far worse things in bringing information from the Kremlin to Trump's campaign, as did more than a dozen Trump aides, and Trump...

...said there was nothing wrong with it. So he can't pretend he finds such actions corrupt now!

This brings us to the third part of Trump's defense, because every good "desperate" defense has multiple fallback positions:

3. Trump will say that even if Ukrainians could endorse Clinton, and even if they could send info to the DNC, they can't manufacture evidence.
That's right: part of Trump's defense will involve claims (previously ferried by Nunes, Giuliani, Kennedy, and others) that the "black ledger" that proved Manafort was a criminal was... wait for it... forged by the Ukrainians to help Clinton win the White House!
Trump's theory is that if he can show (spoiler: he can't) that either the Poroshenko administration or NABU (Ukraine's independent anti-corruption unit) released forged evidence to target Manafort, that was, implicitly, an attempt to aid Clinton and hurt him.
The issues in this second-to-last fallback position in Trump's defense are...many. First, Manafort has already been successfully prosecuted/imprisoned. Second, there's no credible evidence of forgery. Third, Russia did far worse to help Trump and he welcomed it.
Trump learned Russia was waging cyberwar on America and stealing US docs and Trump publicly and privately sought access those docs and told ABC him doing so was OK. How could it be—had it happened, which it didn't—"corrupt" if Ukraine did something similar?
Trump's defense will raise old grievances against Ukraine that he'll say were sufficient in number, seriousness, and proof that he always thought Ukraine needed investigating, was justifiably upset, and therefore withheld aid in a valiant attempt to force a new probe.
Which brings us to the *fifth* element—and final fallback position—of Trump's defense.

5. Trump actually only spoke about the "Crowdstrike" and "Burisma" conspiracy theories with Zelensky—and this could be a problem for his defense that he has only a few options to solve.
Any complaints Trump had about Chalupa or the "black ledger" were ferried by surrogates—not Trump—so he'd need to call witnesses who'd say he privately was angry about (and publicly referring to) Chalupa and the "black ledger" when he complained about Ukraine.
Alternatively, Trump could—this'd be the real Hail Mary—try to claim the "Crowdstrike" (Ukraine hacked the DNC server, not Russia) and "Burisma" (Biden bribed Poroshenko to protect Hunter) conspiracy theories are true...though there's no evidence of that at all.
Today on FNC, Trump surrogate John Kennedy accidentally—or out of stupidity, as he is very stupid—revealed that Trump and his defense team are conflating the Chalupa evidence and the Crowdstrike evidence to pretend the former is the latter. (It's not!)
This is the "bait-and-switch" in Trump's impeachment defense: use something stupid, true, but non-illegal (particularly in Trump's view)—Ukraine, Chalupa and the DNC being in contact in 2016—and pretend it's something nonsensical but illegal like the "Crowdstrike" theory.
Trump's defense suggests he's told his defense team and surrogates he'll not let go of the "Crowdstrike" and "Burisma" theories—perhaps because these are what actually animated his hatred of Ukraine. So his team is trying to fold "real" evidence into those phony theories.
There's also no evidence Democrats like Adam Schiff, smart as they are (and Schiff is, truly, the lawyer most lawyers want to be)—realize the circus Trump is planning to turn his trial into by running a "Crowdstrike"/"Burisma" defense that uses things that really happened.
I hope Dems and media will see this thread. It's based on research, experience and a willingness to say—not all Democrats will—that stupid things were done in 2016 that will return to haunt Democrats, even if they shouldn't.

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/sta...180255232?s=21

[nightfighter]

I clearly remember accepting Obama's victories, which in my mind was legitimizing the election results and the office.... You are not going to overturn the results... If you want him out, put forth a candidate with a platform that Americans can support.

[Pete F.]

It’s not about election results
It’s about the person elected’s actions
If the interference of foreign governments in our elections is acceptable, then feel free to stand with Trump
If you think that we should have sovereign elections, you need to look at what is happening.
Trump is living true to his history, purely transactional with zero empathy and whomever is willing to pay wins
Russia if you’re listening..............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

PeteF hears voices
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s not about election results...
It’s about the person elected’s actions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So why were there protests and riots before his inauguration? Your ilk went off the rails from the day he announced his candidacy...

And it's not even about his actions. It's about what someone claims they heard someone else saying, about what they heard, about his actions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

... If you want him out, put forth a candidate with a platform that Americans can support.

They can't.

The cast of Maoist freaks running over there (except Biden, who can't even get an endorsement from Obama), is really something to see. They have no bench. None. This is the best they can do?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So why were there protests and riots before his inauguration? Your ilk went off the rails from the day he announced his candidacy...

And it's not even about his actions. It's about what someone claims they heard someone else saying, about what they heard, about his actions.

Sounds just like every trial of a conspiracy that produce convictions with exactly that evidence. You are not required to leave your common sense at the door. Think about the retreat in claims by the Trumplicans and the actions of the WH.

When the whistleblower filed the complaint, the Office of the Inspector General quickly concluded that it was both credible and “a matter of urgent concern.”

When the OIG filed what should have been a pro-forma notification of the complaint with the Director of National Intelligence, something happened. Instead of facilitating the passing of the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees as the law requires, the administration began a frantic effort to bottle it up, permanently.

Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the president’s efforts to get Ukraine to do him a “favor” and investigate Joe Biden was not “a matter of urgent concern” under the whistleblower act.

Seventy Inspectors General, including the Inspector General of the Justice Department itself, signed a joint letter insisting that the OLC withdraw or modify that opinion.

The OLC opinion only concluded that the statute did not “require” DNI Maguire to send the complaint to Congress. It did not conclude that the complaint could not or should not be sent to Congress.

Maguire refused to help the whistleblower contact Congress directly even though the law gives a whistleblower the right to do so and directs the Director of National Intelligence to facilitate the whistleblower’s communications with Congress.

Was Maguire was acting entirely on his own, which seems unlikely. Or did someone in the chain of command order Maguire to bury the complaint. Why did Maguire not answer when he was asked by Congress “Did you or your office ever speak to the president of the United States about this complaint?” It's a yes or no question.

Who organized the coverup that obstructed the investigation by attempting to bury the whistleblower complaint, was it someone in his administration or Floridaman himself?

So tell me again how how there is no evidence and that bribery, betraying our national security for personal gain, interfering with the justice system of a foreign government to investigate an American and interfering with the justice system of our country isn't impeachable.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So why were there protests and riots before his inauguration? Your ilk went off the rails from the day he announced his candidacy...

And it's not even about his actions. It's about what someone claims they heard someone else saying, about what they heard, about his actions.

Again what you posted has zero relevance.. to Trumps actions.. however you do try hard .. .. Obama also was protested against . Again historical amnesia.. strikes again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

They can't.

The cast of Maoist freaks running over there (except Biden, who can't even get an endorsement from Obama), is really something to see. They have no bench. None. This is the best they can do?

And Trump is your best. That says alot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And it's not even about his actions. It's about what someone claims they heard someone else saying, about what they heard, about his actions.

What does this mean?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again what you posted has zero relevance.. to Trumps actions.. however you do try hard .. .. Obama also was protested against . Again historical amnesia.. strikes again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes it is relevant. Your side started protesting well before the inauguration. Which is fine, but you can't then say that all the opposition has been based on things he has done as POTUS.

Your side can't stand him. I get it. He's a jerk who humiliated your unbeatable candidate, and has continued to repeatedly goad your elected officials into humiliating themselves. Of course much opposition to him is fair based on his actions and words, but not all of it. Some of the opposition has been an irrational side effect of TDS.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What does this mean?

The opposition to his "actions" last week, was actually opposition to second and third-hand hearsay accounts of his actions, plus one guy who, in his own words, had nothing but "presumption".

If someone passes you a note in gym class that says that they heard Bobby claim he heard Suzie say that Joey said that Lisa has a crush on someone, is that direct evidence?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And Trump is your best. That says alot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, he's not, not in my opinion. But with all his flaws, he was more than enough (a lot more than enough, it turns out) to defeat the only person on your side besides Biden, who has any appeal whatsoever beyond the coasts.

And that's the source of the TDS-inspired hatred. A guy comes out of nowhere, and not just any guy - a not-especially-bright, thin-skinned, vindictive, boorish, sophomoric, vulgar baby. Out of nowhere, and he annihilates your candidate, who had been preparing for, and being groomed for, her coronation her entire adult life.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The opposition to his "actions" last week, was actually opposition to second and third-hand hearsay accounts of his actions, plus one guy who, in his own words, had nothing but "presumption".

If someone passes you a note in gym class that says that they heard Bobby claim he heard Suzie say that Joey said that Lisa has a crush on someone, is that direct evidence?

This isn't even remotely true, put down the talking points pipe Jim, it's feeding you lies.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't even remotely true, put down the talking points pipe Jim, it's feeding you lies.

So who had direct, firsthand knowledge that he asked for a quid pro quo?

And even if he did, Biden also bragged about using promised aid as leverage to get what he wanted. Now, what Trump wanted is different than what Biden wanted, but if Trump did this (a big 'if'), he did what Biden did.

I still don't know what the offense is? If the offense is using aid as leverage to get a desired outcome, then I'm sorry, that's what Biden did too. And that seems to be what the liberals are all worked up about.

If the offense was asking Ukraine to get dirt (or truth?) on the Bidens, that's something else. But the chief executive is allowed to keep tabs on what Americans are doing abroad, even those who aren't in his party.

Let me ask you while you're here...anything smell fishy to you, about Hunter Biden joining a company back in 2009, and then 3 weeks later, that company gets a $130 million load from the feds? Anything fishy there?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The opposition to his "actions" last week, was actually opposition to second and third-hand hearsay accounts of his actions, plus one guy who, in his own words, had nothing but "presumption".

If someone passes you a note in gym class that says that they heard Bobby claim he heard Suzie say that Joey said that Lisa has a crush on someone, is that direct evidence?

So the Trumplican defense apparently is that mass hysteria happened to all involved in the Ukraine affair and therefore they all came to the same conclusion, which was nothing like what Floridaman desired or if the desired result occurred it was merely happenstance.

Direct evidence is not required to obtain a conviction, common sense is. I know that is how it worked on the juries I have sat on and the great majority of jurors I served with had it.

I assume most of us have common sense and some watched the Intelligence Committee hearings. They are on Youtube if you missed them. https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+hearings+2019

Not many people upon committing a crime announce "I just bribed xxxx" or "I am going to murder xxxx" nor would you expect them to, though it is the Trumplican theory that it is required to convict.

There is plenty of admissible evidence, assume that it was a court of law rather than the House.

I would assume that even you would admit to the first two elements of the crime.

Elements of Bribery

In order to find the president guilty of the crime of bribery, the House must prove each of the following elements:

First, that the president, on or about July 25, 2019, demanded, sought or received something of value;

Second, that at that time the president was then a public official; and

Third, that the president did so with the corrupt intent to be influenced in the performance of an official act.

The bribery law makes no distinction between demanding, seeking or receiving a bribe; the mere seeking of a bribe is just as much a violation of the statute as the actual receiving of one.

The thing of value may be tangible property, intangible property, or services, of any dollar value, so long as it has value.

Corrupt intent means simply having an improper motive or purpose. The president must have demanded, sought or received a thing of value with the deliberate purpose of being influenced in the performance of his official duties. This involves conscious wrongdoing, or as it has sometimes been expressed, a bad or evil state of mind.

An official act means any decision or action on any question or matter that may at any time be pending or that may by law be brought before any public official in his official capacity or in his place of trust.

Credibility of Witnesses

The House and the president are asking you to draw very different conclusions about various factual issues in the case. Deciding these issues will involve making judgments about the testimony of the witnesses you have listened to and observed. In making these judgments, you should carefully scrutinize all of the testimony of each witness, the circumstances under which each witness testified, and any other matter in evidence that may help you to decide the truth and the importance of each witness’s testimony.

Your decision whether or not to believe a witness may depend on how that witness impressed you. How did the witness appear? Was the witness candid, frank, and forthright; or, did the witness seem to be evasive or suspect in some way? How did the way the witness testified on direct examination compare with how the witness testified on cross-examination? Was the witness consistent or contradictory? Did the witness appear to know what he or she was talking about? Did the witness strike you as someone who was trying to report his or her knowledge accurately? These are examples of the kinds of common sense questions you should ask yourselves in deciding whether a witness is, or is not, truthful.

How much you choose to believe a witness may also be influenced by the witness’s bias. Does the witness have a relationship with the president or the House that may affect how he or she testified? Does the witness have some incentive, loyalty, or motive that might cause him or her to shade the truth? Does the witness have some bias, prejudice, or hostility that may cause the witness to give you something other than a completely accurate account of the facts he or she testified to?

You should also consider whether a witness had an opportunity to observe the facts he or she testified about. Also, you should consider whether the witness’s recollection of the facts stands up in light of the other evidence in the case.

In other words, what you must try to do in deciding credibility is to size up a person just as you would in any important matter when you are trying to decide if a person is truthful, straightforward, and accurate in his or her recollection.

Indirect Proof: Inferences from Evidence

An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a disputed fact exists on the basis of another fact that you know exists.

There are times when different inferences may be drawn from facts, whether proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. The House asks you to draw one set of inferences, while the President asks you to draw another. It is for you, and you alone, to decide what inferences you will draw.

The process of drawing inferences from facts in evidence is not a matter of guesswork or speculation. An inference is a deduction or conclusion that you are permitted to draw—but not required to draw—from the facts that have been established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In drawing inferences, you should exercise your common sense.

So, while you are considering the evidence presented to you, you are permitted to draw, from the facts that you find to be proven, such reasonable inferences as would be justified in light of your experience.

Evidence and Witnesses Withheld From the Proceedings

You have heard evidence about witnesses who have not been called to testify. The House has argued that the witnesses could have given important testimony not furnished by other witnesses in this case, and that the president was in the best position to produce these witnesses.

If you find that these witnesses could have given such testimony and were not available to the House to call, you are permitted, but you are not required, to infer that the testimony of the uncalled witnesses would have been unfavorable to the president.

You have also heard testimony that the president refused to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas.

While the president’s refusal to comply with these lawful congressional subpoenas may not be considered by you as a substitute proof of guilt, you may, but need not, infer that the President believed that he was guilty.

Whether evidence of the president’s refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas shows that the president believed that he was guilty and the significance, if any, to be given to such evidence are matters for you to decide.

Destruction or Concealment of Evidence

Willful intent or guilty knowledge may be inferred from the secretive or irregular manner in which a transaction is carried out.

Willful intent or guilty knowledge may be inferred from such conduct as the handling of one’s affairs so as to avoid making records or issuing documents that are usually kept in transactions of a particular kind; or from the failure to keep records or, in fact, any conduct the likely effect of which would be to mislead others or conceal information.

Intimidation of Witnesses

You have heard testimony that the president attempted to intimidate or coerce a witness whom he believed was to be called by the House against him. You may not consider the evidence as a substitute for proof of guilt in this case.

However, if you find that the president did coerce or intimidate a witness whom he believed the House was going to call, you may, but are not required to, infer that the president believed that he was guilty of the crime for which he is here charged.

Whether evidence of the president’s intimidation or coercion of a witness shows that the president believed that he was guilty of the crime for which he is now charged and the significance, if any, to be given to such evidence, is for you to decide.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/some-rel...aw-impeachment

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So who had direct, firsthand knowledge that he asked for a quid pro quo?

And even if he did, Biden also bragged about using promised aid as leverage to get what he wanted. Now, what Trump wanted is different than what Biden wanted, but if Trump did this (a big 'if'), he did what Biden did.

I still don't know what the offense is? If the offense is using aid as leverage to get a desired outcome, then I'm sorry, that's what Biden did too. And that seems to be what the liberals are all worked up about.

If the offense was asking Ukraine to get dirt (or truth?) on the Bidens, that's something else. But the chief executive is allowed to keep tabs on what Americans are doing abroad, even those who aren't in his party.

Let me ask you while you're here...anything smell fishy to you, about Hunter Biden joining a company back in 2009, and then 3 weeks later, that company gets a $130 million load from the feds? Anything fishy there?

They would rather pursue a hoax than hold one of their hero’s accountable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Gordon Sondland is still the US Ambassador to Europe. He is Trump's pick. He was a Republican witness at the impeachment hearing. He testified that everyone was in the loop about the quid pro quo.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Gordon Sondland is still the US Ambassador to Europe. He is Trump's pick. He was a Republican witness at the impeachment hearing. He testified that everyone was in the loop about the quid pro quo.

wrong. he testified that he presumed trump asked for a quid pro quo. According to his own testimony, he had no evidence of the quid pro quo, just his presumption. His exact words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wrong. he testified that he presumed trump asked for a quid pro quo. According to his own testimony, he had no evidence of the quid pro quo, just his presumption. His exact words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He presumed by inference based on his knowledge of the facts and discussions with other people involved.

An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a fact exists on the basis of other facts that you know exist. Odd that they all came to the same conclusion, isn't it?

One Floridaman toady or another asked him a question that required a yes or no answer, but he and several other witnesses testified as to the implied intent of the actions of the people involved and the person they were working for and that it was common knowledge that Floridaman wanted and investigation of Biden announced in return for a meeting and military aid.

Sort of like Nunes "statements" that had nothing to do with the hearings but were only made to provide carefully orchestrated spin talking points.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wrong. he testified that he presumed trump asked for a quid pro quo. According to his own testimony, he had no evidence of the quid pro quo, just his presumption. His exact words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes a smart business man clearly has no experience in understanding the bosses intent.. because he wasn't told directly By Trump.

Would that excuse work on your child ? My father only told me i couldn't throws rocks
A brick isn't a rock
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He presumed by inference based on his knowledge of the facts and discussions with other people involved.

An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a fact exists on the basis of other facts that you know exist. Odd that they all came to the same conclusion, isn't it?

One Floridaman toady or another asked him a question that required a yes or no answer, but he and several other witnesses testified as to the implied intent of the actions of the people involved and the person they were working for and that it was common knowledge that Floridaman wanted and investigation of Biden announced in return for a meeting and military aid.

Sort of like Nunes "statements" that had nothing to do with the hearings but were only made to provide carefully orchestrated spin talking points.

i understand
the difference between a presumption and a wild, random guess. But a presumption isn’t evidence.

if trump called his own witnesses who said “since ukraine got the aid and since there was no investigation, I presume there was no quid pro quo”, that is also a presumption arrived at after a logical review of facts. would
you consider that evidence of his innocence?

You seem to immediately believe all presumptions that help the left, and immediately dismiss all
presumptions that help the right.

Can you cite any examples that don’t follow that pattern?

He’s not getting removed from office. No chance. And given the weak slate of democratic candidates currently running, there’s a good chance he gets re elected.

As rockhound said, we’re due for a recession, that usually marks
the end of the run for the party in power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i understand
the difference between a presumption and a wild, random guess. But a presumption isn’t evidence.

if trump called his own witnesses who said “since ukraine got the aid and since there was no investigation, I presume there was no quid pro quo”, that is also a presumption arrived at after a logical review of facts. would
you consider that evidence of his innocence?

You seem to immediately believe all presumptions that help the left, and immediately dismiss all
presumptions that help the right.

Can you cite any examples that don’t follow that pattern?

He’s not getting removed from office. No chance. And given the weak slate of democratic candidates currently running, there’s a good chance he gets re elected.

As rockhound said, we’re due for a recession, that usually marks
the end of the run for the party in power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Trump didn't withhold all information requested and refuse to let any witnesses testify, perhaps he would be able to rebut the testimony presented to date. He has been afforded that opportunity and did not use it.
Since he will not, I assume the evidence to date is not disprovable and he has no witnesses who would dispute it.
I have seen statements issued by members of his cabinet that seem to contradict testimony, go ahead and do it under oath.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If Trump didn't withhold all information requested and refuse to let any witnesses testify, perhaps he would be able to rebut the testimony presented to date. He has been afforded that opportunity and did not use it.
Since he will not, I assume the evidence to date is not disprovable and he has no witnesses who would dispute it.
I have seen statements issued by members of his cabinet that seem to contradict testimony, go ahead and do it under oath.

do you ever give a direct answer to challenging questions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

do you ever give a direct answer to challenging questions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never to stupid questions without a subpoena.

You'll just have to get your badge out.

So far anyone who has appeared before Congress, like DNI Maguire, has dodged when asked questions regarding this subject, I think they will continue hiding.

You may think this is over but Watergate took years.

Here is what Floridaman's cabinet and other co-conspirators are worried about

Just think Floridaman is the second president to be named as an un-indicted co-conspirator by a Grand Jury

John N. Mitchell – former United States Attorney General and director of Nixon's 1968 and 1972 election campaigns; faced a maximum of 30 years in prison and $42,000 in fines; on February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison, which was later reduced to one to four years; Mitchell actually served 19 months.

H. R. Haldeman – White House chief of staff, considered the second most powerful man in the government during Nixon's first term; faced a maximum of 25 years in prison and $16,000 in fines; in 1975, he was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and received an 18-month prison sentence.

John Ehrlichman – former assistant to Nixon in charge of domestic affairs; faced a maximum of 25 years in prison and $40,000 in fines. Ehrlichman was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury and other charges; he served 18 months in prison.

Charles Colson – former White House counsel specializing in political affairs; plead nolo contendere on June 3, 1974 to one charge of obstruction of justice, having persuaded prosecution to change the charge from one of which he believed himself innocent to another of which he believed himself guilty, in order to testify freely;[8] he was sentenced to 1 to 3 years of prison and fined $5,000; Colson served seven months.

Gordon C. Strachan – White House aide to Haldeman; faced a maximum of 15 years in prison and $20,000 in fines. Charges against him were dropped before trial.

Robert Mardian – aide to Mitchell and counsel to the Committee to Re-elect the President in 1972; faced 5 years in prison and $5,000 in fines. His conviction was overturned on appeal.

Kenneth Parkinson – counsel for the Committee to Re-elect the President; faced 10 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. He was acquitted at trial. Although Parkinson was a lawyer, G. Gordon Liddy was in fact counsel for the Committee to Re-elect the President.

[Sea Dangles]

This is fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This is fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i understand
the difference between a presumption and a wild, random guess. But a presumption isn’t evidence.

if trump called his own witnesses who said “since ukraine got the aid and since there was no investigation, I presume there was no quid pro quo”, that is also a presumption arrived at after a logical review of facts. would
you consider that evidence of his innocence?

You seem to immediately believe all presumptions that help the left, and immediately dismiss all
presumptions that help the right.

Can you cite any examples that don’t follow that pattern?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the Republicans’ counsel asked about the “irregular channel” with Ukraine, Sondland shot back: “I’m not sure how someone could characterize something as an ‘irregular channel’ when you’re talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, [and] the Secretary of Energy.”

“I don’t know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel, and they to be the regular channel, when it’s the leadership that makes the decisions,” he added.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Putin is smiling watching Trump, Rudy, senator Kennedy and others in the GOP gobble up their narrative. Our ENTIRE intelligence community has told us what Russia did in 2016 and what they continue to do, yet idiots are buying into the Ukraine narrative. They love to disrupt us from within and if you don’t see what’s happening, than they will continue to toast our stupidity over Russian vodka.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Bump, watch as Floridaman follows the script and Detbuch recites the Party line

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The spin plan is starting
Trump has a very viable defense, and a large enough defense team that it was inevitable that someone on that team would discover it. Today, an interview by Fox News Channel with one of Trump's top surrogates, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), revealed what Trump's defense will be.
The defense Kennedy revealed is the defense any public defender would've eventually come up with in a case like this. I'll first summarize the defense, then unpack—and conclusively rebut—all aspects of it.
The defense: For Trump to be authorized to withhold aid from Ukraine, he doesn't need to be “correct” in his belief Ukraine aided Clinton, just show (1) there is “some” evidence of that; (2) it was never investigated; and (3) he consistently has been worried about this issue.
He'll also argue (4): he doesn't have to personally have raised a specific issue involving Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 election with Ukrainian officials in order to be able to say it motivated him; his agents can do so or he can have done so in prior statements.
This is a defense Democrats and media don't appear to expect, but it's the one that's coming. And it'll have maximum impact on America—as it involves witnesses most Americans haven't heard of—if it isn't “conclusively debunked in the media” before it arrives. Thus this thread.
To understand how the defense works, you must understand first the info Trump is hoping Democrats and media “don't” reveal to Americans pre-trial. Many desperate defenses—the sort that arise in unwinnable cases that no one wanted to go to trial on—involve such "missing" info.

Here's a list of things Trump does “not” want you to know as he prepares a "surprise" defense for America:

1. Trump's presidential candidacy was openly endorsed by numerous world leaders during the 2016 presidential election. Trump eagerly received such endorsements.
Trump's presidential candidacy was publicly and formally endorsed by the presidents of Hungary and the Czech Republic. It was endorsed implicitly—via public statements—by the presidents of Russia, North Korea, and Egypt. But that's not all—not by a long shot.
Trump's candidacy was also endorsed by numerous high-level politicians from conservative political parties all around the world, including France, the Netherlands, Israel and many other nations. Trump deemed all these endorsements to be wonderful and legal.
The reason this matters is that Trump's defense hinges on the idea that any public statement of support for Clinton by a Ukrainian official immediately legitimized him considering Ukraine to be a "corrupt" nation his administration would have to investigate.
So Trump's defense will focus on statements by Ukrainian officials like Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly and Ukrainian parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko. Trump wants you to falsely believe he considers foreign endorsements of political candidates "corruption."
Side note: no foreign nation has ever had better reason to see its politicians come out in favor of a US politician's rival than Ukraine had in seeing a few of its politicians (a very, very few) express support for Clinton over Trump. And it's Trump's fault this happened.
Ukraine is a European nation. It's the largest European nation entirely in Europe and the seventh-largest European nation by population. It is America's indispensable buffer zone between Russian military aggression and the West. It will end up in NATO and the EU.

Ukraine is AT WAR with Russia because Russia INVADED EUROPE.

To repeat: Russia INVADED EUROPE to MAKE WAR on one of America's most indispensable EUROPEAN ALLIES, a country that WILL soon gain admittance to NATO AND the European Union.
The Russian invasion was a WAR CRIME.
America has never before had a president who would fail to support a European ally invaded by an enemy of the United States.

Yet Trump not only opposed lethal defense aid to Ukraine during the 2016 campaign, but said Russia should face no punishment for invading Ukraine.
And Trump announced—as Ukrainians were fighting and dying in a war with Russia—that Russia should probably be allowed to keep the part of Ukraine it had already invaded and stolen: an area of land making up more than 7% of all of Ukraine. And Trump acted on this belief.
Not only did Trump support Putin's claim to 7% of Ukraine and its right to invade Europe without consequence, his team worked secretly with Kremlin agents/pro-Kremlin Ukrainians to craft a "peace deal" in the Ukraine-Russia war that was full Ukrainian capitulation to Putin.
In view of this, it's amazing that every Ukrainian politician didn't come out publicly in support of Clinton—which Trump wouldn't have been able to complain about, as he was receiving foreign endorsements left and right. Instead, only a few Ukrainian politicians did.

The second point Trump will emphasize:

2. Trump will say that not only did Ukrainians (in tiny numbers) publicly attack him and support Clinton's candidacy—frankly, it was more them rightfully attacking his Ukraine policy than endorsing Clinton—he'll say they helped her.
Specifically, Trump will call left-wing/semi-reluctant U.S. witnesses like Alexandra Chalupa and willing/"faux whistleblower" Ukrainian witnesses like Andrii Telizhenko to claim that in 2016 the Ukrainian embassy was passing information to the DNC through Chalupa.
One reason any high-volume criminal defense attorney would choose the defense Trump is going to go with is because there are many accurate pieces of information within it and anything "false" is merely something left out (as opposed to a lie actively delivered).
For instance, Chalupa was a well-paid DNC consultant who was, in 2016, secretly passing information from Ukrainian nationals at the Ukrainian embassy to officials at the DNC. But—well, there are a lot of buts here that Trump's defense will of course leave out.
Chalupa's work was focused on Manafort—not Trump—and she'd been investigating him pro bono since before Trump announced his run. The DNC never asked her to get info and never used in its materials any info she got them. But there's more wrong with Trump's defense.
It's unclear that any info the Ukrainian embassy gave to Chalupa it wasn't also giving to reporters and/or making available in other ways. And Chalupa's aim was to get Congressional hearings on Manafort, not Trump. But there's more wrong with Trump's defense.
Chalupa stopped working for the DNC in June 2016, before Trump was the Republican nominee. During the general election, her focus was on getting info about Manafort to the press, not the DNC. But there's even more wrong with Trump's "Chalupa defense" than this.
Manafort's activities in Ukraine, per Trump, had nothing to do with him—so why would he care if Chalupa uncovered them? (And BTW, Manafort did, as Chalupa claimed, turn out to be a criminal.) And Trump fired Manafort and moved on—so what's the big deal here?
The January '18 NBC report that reveals Trump has told friends that Manafort could bring him down—meaning there was criminal conduct involved in Trump's relationship with Manafort that he wants hidden.
So to the extent Trump is "angry" he "lost" Manafort as campaign chief—except he didn't, as he kept secretly speaking to him for 9 to 18 months, per major-media reports—is because it led to Manafort being convicted and Trump needing to eventually pardon him to keep him happy.
So Trump will have difficulty explaining why an attack on Manafort's pre-campaign Ukraine activities is an attack on Trump, as the answer to this—a question I and others are feverishly working on now—is likely that Trump knows more than he says about Manafort's activities.
Indeed, it'd be better to say Ukraine and Chalupa aided Trump is excising from him a criminal actor with a shady past that could only explode in his face as more info about Russian attacks on America became known. Thank god they got their info to Trump by August of 2016!
But more than all this, isn't Ukraine entitled to investigate (domestically) an American who committed crimes in Ukraine? And can't they do that on any schedule they like? On what basis can Trump claim the proper functioning of Ukrainian law enforcement is targeted at him?
And beyond this—the real kicker—Don Jr. did far worse things in bringing information from the Kremlin to Trump's campaign, as did more than a dozen Trump aides, and Trump...

...said there was nothing wrong with it. So he can't pretend he finds such actions corrupt now!

This brings us to the third part of Trump's defense, because every good "desperate" defense has multiple fallback positions:

3. Trump will say that even if Ukrainians could endorse Clinton, and even if they could send info to the DNC, they can't manufacture evidence.
That's right: part of Trump's defense will involve claims (previously ferried by Nunes, Giuliani, Kennedy, and others) that the "black ledger" that proved Manafort was a criminal was... wait for it... forged by the Ukrainians to help Clinton win the White House!
Trump's theory is that if he can show (spoiler: he can't) that either the Poroshenko administration or NABU (Ukraine's independent anti-corruption unit) released forged evidence to target Manafort, that was, implicitly, an attempt to aid Clinton and hurt him.
The issues in this second-to-last fallback position in Trump's defense are...many. First, Manafort has already been successfully prosecuted/imprisoned. Second, there's no credible evidence of forgery. Third, Russia did far worse to help Trump and he welcomed it.
Trump learned Russia was waging cyberwar on America and stealing US docs and Trump publicly and privately sought access those docs and told ABC him doing so was OK. How could it be—had it happened, which it didn't—"corrupt" if Ukraine did something similar?
Trump's defense will raise old grievances against Ukraine that he'll say were sufficient in number, seriousness, and proof that he always thought Ukraine needed investigating, was justifiably upset, and therefore withheld aid in a valiant attempt to force a new probe.
Which brings us to the *fifth* element—and final fallback position—of Trump's defense.

5. Trump actually only spoke about the "Crowdstrike" and "Burisma" conspiracy theories with Zelensky—and this could be a problem for his defense that he has only a few options to solve.
Any complaints Trump had about Chalupa or the "black ledger" were ferried by surrogates—not Trump—so he'd need to call witnesses who'd say he privately was angry about (and publicly referring to) Chalupa and the "black ledger" when he complained about Ukraine.
Alternatively, Trump could—this'd be the real Hail Mary—try to claim the "Crowdstrike" (Ukraine hacked the DNC server, not Russia) and "Burisma" (Biden bribed Poroshenko to protect Hunter) conspiracy theories are true...though there's no evidence of that at all.
Today on FNC, Trump surrogate John Kennedy accidentally—or out of stupidity, as he is very stupid—revealed that Trump and his defense team are conflating the Chalupa evidence and the Crowdstrike evidence to pretend the former is the latter. (It's not!)
This is the "bait-and-switch" in Trump's impeachment defense: use something stupid, true, but non-illegal (particularly in Trump's view)—Ukraine, Chalupa and the DNC being in contact in 2016—and pretend it's something nonsensical but illegal like the "Crowdstrike" theory.
Trump's defense suggests he's told his defense team and surrogates he'll not let go of the "Crowdstrike" and "Burisma" theories—perhaps because these are what actually animated his hatred of Ukraine. So his team is trying to fold "real" evidence into those phony theories.
There's also no evidence Democrats like Adam Schiff, smart as they are (and Schiff is, truly, the lawyer most lawyers want to be)—realize the circus Trump is planning to turn his trial into by running a "Crowdstrike"/"Burisma" defense that uses things that really happened.
I hope Dems and media will see this thread. It's based on research, experience and a willingness to say—not all Democrats will—that stupid things were done in 2016 that will return to haunt Democrats, even if they shouldn't.

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/sta...180255232?s=21

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device