The Shampeachement Follies

[Seriati]

You can't be accurately informed and believe that Trump hasn't committed an impeachable crime for which there is adequate evidence that an impartial jury would find him guilty - those are mutually exclusive.

Maybe you can provide this evidence of an "impeachable crime" that ties to Trump.  Sounds, once again, like you're making a false claim that relies more on wishful thinking than any bit of matching to reality.

There's not one bit of evidence proferred in the Ukranianian mess that - as of yet - actually ties Trump to a crime, or even bribery.  Lot's of "supposes" and minor officials claiming that their policy preferences were somehow the official policy and that it would be criminal not to follow them.  That's just a bad understanding of law.

The most egregious thing to come out, was whether the Ukrainian aide - along with other aide this year - was held too long by the OMB (which they did in the past 2 years  well).   

You could think that a jury member might deliberately go against the law and facts and find him not guilty.

A jury wouldn't have any evidence to convict as of yet.  Just about zero of the opinions of the low level diplomats are actually relevant, and absolutely none of them provided any information about a direction from Trump on the quid pro quo let alone on elements of bribery.

This is one of those times, when you're staring at an inkblot and think you can make out a picture that isn't really there.

That isn't thinking he isn't guilty, that is a belief about behavior.  Do I believe there are Trump supporters immoral enough that they would lie during voir dire and then hang a jury even if Trump were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?  Sure.

Again that's just nasty, but I guess it's reciprocal since I'm completely convinced that your position is literally hang him now and we'll figure out why later.

That has nothing to do with the strength of the evidence - it simply speaks to the immorality of some individuals.

I disagree.  This has to do with the inability to critically reason.  Or possibly, with an inability to properly empathize. 

If Trump was really guilty, and it was open and shut, there woudn't have been a sham process.  The process would have been designed to maximize the procedural protections (as it was for Nixon and Clinton), to close off any avenue of escape and to be sure that the President's best defense had come out and been exposed as false.  The deck was stacked the other way, specifically to prevent to the prosecutions "best case" from being exposed as false.  If nothing else that should cause you to have some doubts.

Ask yourself, if you're really the good guys why is your side ignoring everything about fairness and the sense of American justice?  I think you know the answer, which is why you're out her talking about how there is no possibility of the other side acting in good faith.  You know the case is so weak that admitting even the possibility of the other side operating rationally means you'd have to consider if you are in fact just wrong or misled.  Too much cognitive dissonance.

[Seriati]

Originally Posted by wmLambert:

All those Schiff witnesses came to the conclusion there were no crimes.

Every one of them... "conclusions"? really?  I can't wait to see those quotes...

Read the transcripts.  You won't find any of them that assert a crime, and they did pretty much admit to the factual problems on cross.

Specifically, they all said there was no bribery, quid pro quo, threats, nor any other impeachable actions.

No, they did not.

Ambassador Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo - as I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call, and the White House meeting, the answer is 'yes' "

Ambassador Taylor: "Mr Ratcliffe, I would just like to say that I'm not here to do anything having to do with to... to decide about impeachment, that is not what either of us is here to do, that is your job."

And you chose not to quote the cross on quid pro quo, why?

Just because it undermined your claim and eliminated it as testimony that supports your position.

I realize the cross afforded to the GOP panelists was short

Wrong again - the Republicans were granted exactly the same amount of time as were the Democrats.

Sort of.  Show me where anyone was allowed to interrupt Schiff or the Dems in the manner that the Republicans were interrupted.  He disallowed Republican questions.  He disallowed relevant Republican witnesses (again - there's no good reason for this other than to protect a weak case).

it was also a sham to set the rules so Schiff got unlimited time, and Nunes could "match" it.  The Republicans should have been allowed to designate the member they wanted to ask the questions.  But that didn't serve the DNC purposes - about manipulating the narrative - not getting to the truth.

Schiff repeatedly timed breaks to ensure that RNC questions were deprioritized, to give pressers of his own.  He interjected - live - with false statements, that no one was allowed to object to or even respond to for sometimes over an hour.  He led witnesses on multiple occasions.

The idea that time was "equal" just because it ran on a stop watch (though Schiff also gave himself extra time on at least one occasion) is absurd. 

[Fenring]

There's not one bit of evidence proferred in the Ukranianian mess that - as of yet - actually ties Trump to a crime, or even bribery. 

Well what we *do* have is Trump making requests of a foreign leader, in a case that is possibly related to an upcoming election. I'd like to ask you, as someone knowledgeable in law, what it would take to legally connect the dots between this and coming to the conclusion 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Trump's requests were purposefully (and solely) designed to disrupt Biden's 2020 election chances?

I personally do see the argument being made: an upcoming election candidate, a front-runner as well, is being subjected to a lateral attack by someone who might end up being his opponent in an election. It's not unreasonable to want to verify whether this whole thing isn't a preemptive political attack abusing Trump's power. But it's also possible that it really is a legitimate investigation into the 2016 election practices and is a form of draining the swamp. For it to be a bribe I presume one would have to show that it wasn't really about 2016 but was about 2020; knocking Biden out of the race. For it to be not-a-bribe I assume there would have to be some kind of evidence that Trump was legitimately concerned about the events around 2016. Of course there's a third option, which is that Trump legitimately - and stupidly - thought there was malfeasance around 2016, and it just wrong about that, but wanted the investigation because he really thought there was. That would be a wasted use of his resources, but I assume not outright an abuse. Just a fruitless exercise and waste of his time if that's the case.

So as a lawyer how do you get from "it could have been a bribe" to "it was almost certainly a bribe" in a court of law? How do those dots get connected to separate out the 'concerns about 2016 hjinx' from the 'trying to disrupt 2020'?

[DonaldD]

Read the transcripts.  You won't find any of them that assert a crime, and they did pretty much admit to the factual problems on cross.

Not asserting a crime is not at all equivalent to asserting there was no crime.  You should be smart enough to be able to make this distinction, yet you did not. Can you figure out why?

Also... when exactly would a fact witness be expected to make a conclusion of guilt (or innocence)?  That whole meme is a pure red herring.  It's the same reason why Taylor very explicitly expressed that he would NOT make such a conclusion, and why most of the witnesses introduced themselves as "fact witnesses"... so people like you and wmLambert would not take their statements of facts as some kind of conclusion.

And you chose not to quote the cross on quid pro quo, why?

Because it was unnecessary to show that wmLambert was incorrect in making his positive assertion - both about quid pro quo, as well as about impeachment.

[Seriati]

There's not one bit of evidence proferred in the Ukranianian mess that - as of yet - actually ties Trump to a crime, or even bribery. 

Well what we *do* have is Trump making requests of a foreign leader, in a case that is possibly related to an upcoming election. I'd like to ask you, as someone knowledgeable in law, what it would take to legally connect the dots between this and coming to the conclusion 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Trump's requests were purposefully (and solely) designed to disrupt Biden's 2020 election chances?

That's a hard one Fen, as it appears to me to be counter factual.  The strongest evidence of any connection is actually Trump's phone call transcript.  In that he expressly mentions, the 2016 interference, and endemic corruption, with the specific example of Biden's bragging about getting the prosecutor fired for investigating his son.

Tying that into the 2020 election?   That's almost completely spin from the WB complaint.  In fact, that was the primary source of the 2020 claim, it's no where in the call and no where in the record.  As far as I can tell there's no attribution - at all - to the President.

As I noted some time back, it's also a very shaky theory underlying it as a crime.  It was stated as such in the WB complaint, and that was clearly building on the Special Counsel's report.  It has NEVER been found that receiving true information from a foreign person about a crime is a "thing of value" under the law.  Ergo, the oft ignored fact that the DOJ already considered that point about the phone call and said it wasn't criminal.

So how do you get there?   Don't see any way that asking for information about the 2016 election gets you there.  Nor would it be interference if the investigation turns up actual evidence of crimes by Joe Biden, it's just not supportable under our law (and yes, I am aware that there is a hold out DNC FEC Commissioner who took it upon herself to issue an "opinion" to support the idea.  That's neither official, nor was it legitimate or appropriate for her to do).

So the only way to get there, is to assert it as a bribery claim.  You'd have to connect Trump - personally - to that action.  If you were good, you could build a claim around Rudy, and a "conspiracy" but you have too many points that fail to get there based on what we've seen to date.  Unless I missed it, you didn't even have a witness that could clearly tie Rudy to the specific request that Biden appear in the announcement (that never even happened).  You'd need that with certainty, and then some way to prove that was directed by Trump or part of the furtherance of a conspiracy to do something illegal (which unfortunately HAS to be bribery because there isn't anything illegal about investigating Biden, or uncovering evidence of his crimes, or even disclosing that in a way that hurts his electoral chances). 

And then you're back to the problem that there was no bribe, nothing of value was exchanged, and the only evidence you have that this wasn't always the way it would play out is that the preemptive WB account could have prompted the aide being released.  Of course, you don't have testimony on the aide being released, because none of the witnesses were actually in the know about the aide (as each clearly testified, though that didn't stop them from making up reasons for it).  Nor do you have testimony about the veracity of the underlying potential Biden misdeeds, because the House DNC managers obstructed justice by preventing that evidence from being gathered.

So, again, not clear how you would get there.

I personally do see the argument being made: an upcoming election candidate, a front-runner as well, is being subjected to a lateral attack by someone who might end up being his opponent in an election.

You mean like say Bloomberg news announcing a policy that they won't investigate or negatively report on the candidates from one party, but will continue to attack the other side?   Interesting that no one's up in arms about what looks very much like it should be a FEC vioation, yet it was the crime of the century that Trump's campaign ran a fund raiser for a charity and he might get credit.

Or how about, politically motivated leakers being granted WB anonimity to attack the President in large part to interfere in the process that could result in him being reelected?

Of if we want to be direct, phony Russian investigations used to spy on a campaign?  Or meetings with Ukrainian prosecutors during the 2016 election run up to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort in large part because of his connection to Trump?  I mean if digging up true info there was okay (even if there are questions about whether it was faked), why would digging up true info on Biden not be?

It's not unreasonable to want to verify whether this whole thing isn't a preemptive political attack abusing Trump's power.

Trump's going to make political attacks on all these people.  That's actually legitimate.  Zero question that -even though "he's the President" - he's allowed to make political attacks.

The "abuse" has got to be about the withholding of aid, or there is nothing here.  The witnesses were suprising in that they describe Trump as not wanting to deal with the Urkraine, in believing that the new administration was bringing in bad actors from the prior administration.  And it was clear from the context that he viewed those bad actors as having been involved in the 2016 election interference (and one day after Meuller's testimony its clear why he'd see that as a concern).  That really does undercut the case that "all" Trump wanted was some kind of political payola.  Trump has been crystal  clear that he believes we shouldn't be paying out foreign aid, that Europe should be doing more and in delaying foreign aide around to many countries every year.

All of which, makes this look like it was routine if you could find the neutral observer.

Go back and re look at the transcript.  You can literally see him talk through the exact and only things that have been attributed to him (none of which were illegal or even improper).  You can't find any where that he implied there was a trade being offered, let alone an improper one.

He talks about the prior ambassador being bad, and Zelenskyy confirms it and expands on it.  Why it's not crystal clear he seems to indicate that she was connected to the prior corrupt President of the Ukraine and not a fan of Zelenskyy (even though the state department employees otherwise were gungho on him).  It's only not clear because he may have been talking about Obama for part of it (though not in any corrupt way).

But it's also possible that it really is a legitimate investigation into the 2016 election practices and is a form of draining the swamp. For it to be a bribe I presume one would have to show that it wasn't really about 2016 but was about 2020; knocking Biden out of the race. For it to be not-a-bribe I assume there would have to be some kind of evidence that Trump was legitimately concerned about the events around 2016.

Like say direct evidence that Trump expressly mentioned the 2016 election on the day after Meuller testified, in a call to Zelenskyy?  Or the fact that he's given out several hundred tweets about investigating the "witchhunt" or the 2016 election interference?

If only there were hundreds of tweets, statements and a transcript of that call......

Of course there's a third option, which is that Trump legitimately - and stupidly - thought there was malfeasance around 2016, and it just wrong about that, but wanted the investigation because he really thought there was.

Don't know how to take that, but it's not a third option it's just a variation on the second.

That would be a wasted use of his resources, but I assume not outright an abuse. Just a fruitless exercise and waste of his time if that's the case.

Investigating what doesn't turn out to be a crime is not a crime, so long as you have a reasonable predicate.  I think the one thing that is clear, is that something really off occurred around the 2016 election.

So as a lawyer how do you get from "it could have been a bribe" to "it was almost certainly a bribe" in a court of law? How do those dots get connected to separate out the 'concerns about 2016 hjinx' from the 'trying to disrupt 2020'?

I don't answer questions as a "lawyer" online.  Happy to give my thoughts generally. 

I think most people make the case by demonstrating the exchange (which didn't happen) and evidence of an agreement stipulating that for one event the other had to occur.  The second part of that seems to fail as well, as there isn't even clear evidence that Rudy had an agreement like that on the table, and nothing as of yet establishing that he had a mandate from the President to seek one.

Literally the "star" witness seems to have been Sondland, and he testified that he "presumed" there was a quid pro quo, but that no one on earth told him there was, and that Trump directly told him there wasn't.

[Seriati]

Read the transcripts.  You won't find any of them that assert a crime, and they did pretty much admit to the factual problems on cross.

Not asserting a crime is not at all equivalent to asserting there was no crime.  You should be smart enough to be able to make this distinction, yet you did not. Can you figure out why?

Because it's a prosecutors job to show a crime, not as seems to be the "new logic" of the left for an accused to "prove their innocence."

The witnesses admissions on cross flat out make the case that they did not assert any crime.  In fact, they failed to establish even the elements of the crime.

Also... when exactly would a fact witness be expected to make a conclusion of guilt (or innocence)?

They wouldn't, and I think the original comment was clear that it was a conclusion that their admissions eliminated the elements that they were there to establish, ergo the didn't testify to any crime.  Not to mention, when they were directly asked about crimes, they said they didn't see them.

That whole meme is a pure red herring.  It's the same reason why Taylor very explicitly expressed that he would NOT make such a conclusion, and why most of the witnesses introduced themselves as "fact witnesses"... so people like you and wmLambert would not take their statements of facts as some kind of conclusion.

They introduced themselves as "fact" witnesses, because saying "I'm here to assert my opinion" didn't have the same ring.  They were short on relevant facts.

I mean why even call former Ambassador Yovanavitch?  She was removed before the conduct in question even occurred, and had nothing relevant to impart.  She wasn't there for "facts."

And you chose not to quote the cross on quid pro quo, why?

Because it was unnecessary to show that wmLambert was incorrect in making his positive assertion - both about quid pro quo, as well as about impeachment.

It was necessary to make your quotes not a misrepresentation.  Which is pretty much exactly what I pointed out, your claim about what the quote implied was false and undermined.  And you left it out because it undercut the false claim you wanted to assert.

So to be clear, you seem to be trying to make a technical complaint that where a prosecutor's witnesses fail to provide facts establishing the prosecutor's claims, it's "improper" to make a positive claim?  That's literal  nonsense. 

You seem to forget that the presumption of innocence is with the accused.  And if you want to whine about this not being a court of law, that just further proves my argument that you don't have right on your side, or you wouldn't be ignoring basic American principals of justice.

[DonaldD]

Because it's a prosecutors job to show a crime, not as seems to be the "new logic" of the left for an accused to "prove their innocence."

Interesting dodge, but a complete non sequitur.  wmLambert made the claim all of the witnesses asserted there was no crime.  You then attempted to support wmLambert's position by claiming that none of the witnesses asserted there was a crime.

Those statements have completely different meanings.  By my pointing that out, I don't need to be making any claim about the necessity to "prove their innocence".  I was just pointing out that you misspoke or, as seems more and more likely, that you simply do not understand basic formal logic.

The witnesses admissions on cross flat out make the case that they did not assert any crime

Correct.  Also true during the majority's questioning.  But irrelevant to wmLambert's claim, which you seemingly still do not understand.

In fact, they failed to establish even the elements of the crime.

That is, I'm finding, more and more subjective.  Trump's words already establish strong evidence of his own crime.  The witnesses provided evidence that there was coordination in the attempts to bribe the Ukrainians in support of Trump's admitted crimes. So yes, they pretty much did establish the elements of the secondary crime, and provided corroboration for Trump's initial crime.

[Seriati]

DonaldD, I honestly don't believe you've read the transcripts.  Maybe you can convince me, but the crosses were pretty damning.  What witnesses do you think they failed to get?

Taylor said he saw no crime.  Sondland admitted he made up the quid pro quo and saw no crime.  So who do you think said they saw a crime that wasn't forced to admit they didn't?

In fact, your soft quotes of wmLambert aren't terribly accurate, he phrased it 3 different ways, all of which are more accurate that your position.

I mean, you could always demonstrate it's false by providing the "crime" quote.

Mostly, you seem to want to assert your own opinion as a fact witness, "Trump's words already establish strong evidence of his own crime."  Which is laughable, and just goes to show that lots of people like to make very strong claims based on things they can't actually establish.  Or do you think you can find the quid pro quo in there somewhere (I'll give you a hint, if you drop "no" then you can find it from Trump's quote "no quid pro quo" otherwise it's not there).

[DonaldD]

Let me just put the exact quotes side by side so there can be no claim that my "soft quotes of wmLambert aren't terribly accurate"
 
wmLambert:

All those Schiff witnesses came to the conclusion there were no crimes.

Seriati:

Read the transcripts.  You won't find any of them that assert a crime

It's very clear - these two statements are not at all equivalent.

Taylor said he saw no crime

Correct - Taylor's testimony was primarily setting up other witnesses and putting them in context.

Sondland admitted he made up the quid pro quo

A quote and link would be good, so we know from where, exactly, you are interpreting this. 

...and saw no crime

Again - not seeing a crime is not asserting that there was no crime, assuming that the answer to the question was not lawyerly in nature, as well.

[Crunch]

Sondland:

Yet Sondland noted that “we did not think we were engaging in improper behavior” — that no one expressed any concerns. And he admitted that Trump never told him of any “preconditions” for aid or a meeting.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

Sondland can make up whatever he wants - that is literally what he just admitted he was doing. Sondland is on record, under oath (for those of you that love saying that) confirming that he’s used hearsay and a alleged partially overheard phone call to fabricate a story. That is his testimony.

So far, there is not a single person that can tie Trump to making an improper demand of the Ukraine. When directly asked, every single witness agrees they didn’t see Trump didn’t do anything nor do they have any direct knowledge that he did. It’s all presumption, unfounded opinion, and outright lies without even a single shred of physical evidence to support any of these stories.

[Seriati]

Lol, DonaldD.  If you can't make a case, obfuscate and play grammar games.

How about you just walk through the testimony that establishes the crime?  And that doesn't include quotes that are undermined by the individual's own later admissions.

On the balance, wmLambert is right about what the testimony says and you are the other thing.

[DonaldD]

How about you just walk through the testimony that establishes the crime?  And that doesn't include quotes that are undermined by the individual's own later admissions.

Trump's own words are sufficient evidence.  His own words just from the July 25 call are enough.  And if they weren't the call on September 7 put the cherry on top.  The rest of the corroborating evidence, including not just the testimony, and all sorts of Giuliani's inadvertent self incriminations, those are just cream.

I get why you're running away from your misstatements - admitting mistakes can be hard.

But you aren't just running away from your misstatements; you're also now failing to support your other claims.  For instance, please do provide the detailed quotes where "Sondland admitted he made up the quid pro quo".

That should be really easy.

[Fenring]

wmLambert made the claim all of the witnesses asserted there was no crime.  You then attempted to support wmLambert's position by claiming that none of the witnesses asserted there was a crime.

Those statements have completely different meanings.

Is it possible this inability to understand each other is a legal vs ontological issue? Maybe I'm seeing this argument: if no one can assert evidence of a crime, then legally there is no crime. The presumption of innocence means that there is no crime on the table unless a witness or some other evidence presents to that effect. So in essence denying that there is evidence of a crime is equivalent to saying there is no crime. Ontologically this is different, so long as we assert that objectively a crime may or may not have happened (a tree in the forest...) regardless of whether there is any evidence to ever show it. So it is possible for there to be a situation where factually a crime was committed but where there's no evidence at all left to implicate anyone in it.

Could this be where you're speaking past each other? Maybe Seriati's position is that legally speaking if no one can show a crime then there is no crime.

Trump's words already establish strong evidence of his own crime.  The witnesses provided evidence that there was coordination in the attempts to bribe the Ukrainians in support of Trump's admitted crimes. So yes, they pretty much did establish the elements of the secondary crime, and provided corroboration for Trump's initial crime.

Hold on, what are you referring to in the bolded part? The term "quid pro quo" was already thrown around enough previously without any qualification to make me wonder whether there was any content in its use (I suspected there wasn't). Now we've migrated somewhat to "bribe", which is perhaps better but still begs the question of "what was the bribe?" As I understood it the entire case of bribery was supposedly that Trump was demanding personal favors from Ukraine in exchange for their aid package. Putting aside that this sounds more like extortion than bribery (a semantic issue) if you're going to call it a bribe then it would be Trump demanding a bribe. Now you're saying he was trying to bribe the Ukrainians? In what way??

Trump's own words are sufficient evidence.  His own words just from the July 25 call are enough.  And if they weren't the call on September 7 put the cherry on top.  The rest of the corroborating evidence, including not just the testimony, and all sorts of Giuliani's inadvertent self incriminations, those are just cream.

I hope you're not entirely serious about this, because it's spooky Orwellian stuff. A phone conversation which does not explicitly say what you're saying it implies, which is not at all obviously even implying what you think it does, is not only cause for alarm but is "sufficient evidence"? As in, evidence to prove a crime? So basically you're saying that your personal opinion - your read - on a phone call for which you don't have the context is legal evidence of criminality? We're halfway to Kafka's The Trial with that one.

[TheDeamon]

Trump's words already establish strong evidence of his own crime.  The witnesses provided evidence that there was coordination in the attempts to bribe the Ukrainians in support of Trump's admitted crimes. So yes, they pretty much did establish the elements of the secondary crime, and provided corroboration for Trump's initial crime.

Hold on, what are you referring to in the bolded part? The term "quid pro quo" was already thrown around enough previously without any qualification to make me wonder whether there was any content in its use (I suspected there wasn't). Now we've migrated somewhat to "bribe", which is perhaps better but still begs the question of "what was the bribe?" As I understood it the entire case of bribery was supposedly that Trump was demanding personal favors from Ukraine in exchange for their aid package. Putting aside that this sounds more like extortion than bribery (a semantic issue) if you're going to call it a bribe then it would be Trump demanding a bribe. Now you're saying he was trying to bribe the Ukrainians? In what way??

Trump was extorting Ukraine using the Congressionally authorized aid money, in exchange for their knuckling under his extortion attempt, they would give him("bribe") assistance in the 2020 election by giving him ammunition to attack Biden. (Announcing the investigation into the Bidens)

Never mind in everything that's been said and done, they can find plenty of evidence of Trump talking about 2016 in relation to Ukraine, but I haven't heard a single piece of evidence brought forward to indicate Trump was pursuing Ukraine in the interest of the 2020 race. (Other to possible prove he was the victim of a witch hunt in 2016 and possibly get a polling bump from that. The possibility of the Bidens getting slimed in the process was way down the list.)

Funny how they seem to fixate on the Bidens, when that wasn't the only thing Trump brought up, and for someone as Narcissistic as Trump is, I think his interest lay more in regards to chasing down the Manafort and cybercrime stuff than in the Bidens.

[TheDeamon]

In a court of law, almost all testimony heard to date would have been stricken from the record.

On what basis do you think that?  Th testimony given thus far would be pretty typical testimony for a bribery criminal trial.  I've yet to hear hardly any questions or testimony that would be disallowed.  There has been hearsay, but only as would be typical of a grand jury inquiry - to establish who other potential witnesses are and to establish who might have relevant evidence.

Here is your problem: Sure, what you have works for a Grand Jury, but the legal standard I was alluding to is an actual trial by jury. You know, the one that actually convicts the person who was being investigated. No Jury Trial would be able to convict Trump at present because virtually none of the evidence presented to date would be admissible in that court.

[Fenring]

Trump was extorting Ukraine using the Congressionally authorized aid money, in exchange for their knuckling under his extortion attempt, they would give him("bribe") assistance in the 2020 election by giving him ammunition to attack Biden. (Announcing the investigation into the Bidens)

That wouldn't explain what DonaldD meant by saying Trump was bribing the Ukrainians; what you're saying is the other way around. I'll wait for his reply on that one.

[TheDeamon]

Trump was extorting Ukraine using the Congressionally authorized aid money, in exchange for their knuckling under his extortion attempt, they would give him("bribe") assistance in the 2020 election by giving him ammunition to attack Biden. (Announcing the investigation into the Bidens)

That wouldn't explain what DonaldD meant by saying Trump was bribing the Ukrainians; what you're saying is the other way around. I'll wait for his reply on that one.

AFAIK, the "bribery" claim is that Trump is the one accepting the bribe, in the form of Foreign Assistance in his 2020 Election bid by getting the Ukranians to investigate Biden. And as that would be a foreign campaign contribution, that would make it illegal.

[Pete at Home]

Since when is intelligence on a competitor's wrongdoing considered a bribe?  Precedent?

[DonaldD]

A phone conversation which does not explicitly say what you're saying it implies, which is not at all obviously even implying what you think it does

I get it - in this situation, your partisanship precludes you from understanding the clear meaning of the.words on the call, instead inserting words into Trump's mouth that he never spoke, and in turn meaning that just isn't there.

The presumption of innocence means that there is no crime on the table unless a witness or some other evidence presents to that effect.

No, that's not at all what the presumption of innocence means - it's not that we presume no crime has been committed (although the incontrovertible existence of a crime is a prerequisite of a finding of guilt) it's that we do not attribute the crime to a particular person without achieving a defined level of certainty.

The existence of a homicide can be obvious and self-evident - but we still may not be able to convict a particular person.

So no, that really doesn't explain Seriati's logical failure.

[Fenring]

A phone conversation which does not explicitly say what you're saying it implies, which is not at all obviously even implying what you think it does

I get it - in this situation, your partisanship precludes you from understanding the clear meaning of the.words on the call, instead inserting words into Trump's mouth that he never spoke, and in turn meaning that just isn't there.

It's interesting you can only assume I'm partisan if I don't see things your way. I hope you understand that this mindset is why both sides cannot communicate on the issue. It's funny that anytime I disagree with the left-leaning posters they imply I'm a right-wing partisan, as if there can only be two sides to an issue.

Now about the phone call, I at least hope you can see the difference between Trump's remarks seeming like they might very well be demands being made, conditional on the aid mentioned previously, and between him outright saying "no investigation, no money." The latter is outright saying what you say is in the call; the former is not. The latter would be direct evidence of it; the former can lead to suspicion of it, and might indeed make you want to investigate further, but is not itself the evidence of the extortion if said extortion exists. It's at best a pointer, but only your imagination can turn it into confirmation.

The presumption of innocence means that there is no crime on the table unless a witness or some other evidence presents to that effect.

No, that's not at all what the presumption of innocence means - it's not that we presume no crime has been committed (although the incontrovertible existence of a crime is a prerequisite of a finding of guilt) it's that we do not attribute the crime to a particular person without achieving a defined level of certainty.

The existence of a homicide can be obvious and self-evident - but we still may not be able to convict a particular person.

So no, that really doesn't explain Seriati's logical failure.

I was trying to separate out the legal side from the ontological, but as you've ignored that I guess we can move on. In the matter of a crime you still seem to be implying that there definitely was a crime here, and the issue is just tying it to Trump. But unlike homocide, featuring a dead body, certain kinds of crimes actually can't exist without knowing who did them. For example, insider trading is not a crime absent knowing who did it and how. Only if you know who conducted the trade, and under which circumstances, can something be insider trading in the first place. Intent can also color whether something is a crime; for instance finding a dead body does not mean a murder has taken place. Even finding the guy who did it doesn't mean a crime has taken place, as it could have been self-defence or something else. Without the perp, and without the motive/circumstances, the crime often doesn't even exist in the first place. Matching the motive to the action can create the crime. That type of situation more closely resembles our case where, where there's only an actual crime if there's a motive and intent to extort/bribe. The same fact pattern with different motives might mean the difference between crime or no crime, so no, there is no "ontologically verifiable crime" here that simply needs a criminal to be tied to it. The crime cannot be in evidence since there is no fixed event to match to it - no extorted goods to show, and no victim. There might have been intend to do so, which would still be a crime, but then you definitely need the motive, intent and perp for that crime to exist; it cannot exist without them.

Does that make what I was saying earlier clearer?

[Fenring]

I don't answer questions as a "lawyer" online.  Happy to give my thoughts generally. 

Sorry, didn't mean to imply I was requesting expert services. I meant it more like "as someone who knows more than me about things like this..." In a way it can be hard to disentangle your professional expertise from your personal opinion, since those no doubt color each other, but I didn't mean to ask for pro bono services 

Thanks for your other answers, though.

[DonaldD]

In the matter of a crime you still seem to be implying that there definitely was a crime here, and the issue is just tying it to Trump.

No, on this topic, I was simply pointing out that Seriati misrepresented or misunderstood wmLambert's statement, and continued to do so. No assumption about Trump's guilt was implied, as we were at that point discussing wmLambert's claims concerning the evidence.

I at least hope you can see the difference between Trump's remarks seeming like they might very well be demands being made, conditional on the aid mentioned previously, and between him outright saying "no investigation, no money."

Sure - and that's the difference between absolute certainty and reasonable doubt.

[DonaldD]

I do apologize for pointing out your partisanship, though - it is not helpful

[DonaldD]

I was trying to separate out the legal side from the ontological, but as you've ignored that I guess we can move on.

I didn't ignore it - I pointed out the basis on which you constructed the argument was incorrect, and I also pointed out that your point was orthogonal to Seriati's attempts to support wmLambert's misstatements.

[Crunch]

Things must really be slipping. Today’s rationale for impeachment is <spins wheel> slavery!

Democratic Texas Rep. Al Green claimed that President Trump's impeachment was necessary to deal with the "original" sin of slavery.

During a Saturday appearance on MSNBC, the congressman cited an interest in acting on behalf of people of color. "I do believe, ma’am, that we have to deal with the original sin,” Green said to host Alex Witt. “We have to deal with slavery. Slavery was the thing that put all of what President Trump has done lately into motion.

Trump must be impeached to avenge slavery. This is a direct pander to black voters. What was the polling that said “we gotta get a black Democrat out there to drum up black support”?

[Pete at Home]

Things must really be slipping. Today’s rationale for impeachment is <spins wheel> slavery!

Democratic Texas Rep. Al Green claimed that President Trump's impeachment was necessary to deal with the "original" sin of slavery.

During a Saturday appearance on MSNBC, the congressman cited an interest in acting on behalf of people of color. "I do believe, ma’am, that we have to deal with the original sin,” Green said to host Alex Witt. “We have to deal with slavery. Slavery was the thing that put all of what President Trump has done lately into motion.

Trump must be impeached to avenge slavery. This is a direct pander to black voters. What was the polling that said “we gotta get a black Democrat out there to drum up black support”?

Fixed that for you. Read AG’s history of inflammatory lynchoholism, and clearly nothing has “slipped”— this is same old same cranky old Al Green.  like the spoiled Jewish kid who tells his mom that broccoli is “worse than the holocaust.” 

Stop the presses. Exaggeration was not invented yesterday

[Crunch]

Nice fix, not. smh

Slipping is the right framing:

small group of vulnerable House Democrats is floating the longshot idea of censuring President Donald Trump instead of impeaching him, according to multiple lawmakers familiar with the conversations.

Those Democrats, all representing districts that Trump won in 2016, huddled on Monday afternoon in an 11th-hour bid to weigh additional — though unlikely — options to punish the president for his role in the Ukraine scandal as the House speeds toward an impeachment vote next week.

The group of about 10 Trump-district lawmakers included Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), and Ben McAdams (D-Utah.).

At least 10 Democrats are looking for a way out as polls continue to show impeachment as a loser for Democrats.

[TheDeamon]

“He endangers our democracy, he endangers our national security,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said of the president.

Oh please. If getting Ukraine to announce that they're investigating the Biden family by itself was capable of endangering either the election process in general(our Democracy), or our National Security in any kind of significant way, it must be a miracle that our country is able to function at all.

If both Joe Biden's Presidential campaign could be destroyed by that as well as the Democratic Party's best hope for the winning the White House(nearly a year before they select a nominee), they really need to go back to the drawing board.

The National Security claim is likewise trying to turn an anthill into Mount Everest. Last I checked, Ukraine isn't on the verge of collapse due to funds being delayed. A delay which the Democrats haven't been able to establish the a reason for the hold-back on. Best they've had is heresy testimony from officials who had no role in that decision.

Edit: Yes, there are valid concerns about "bad precedents" if the accusations and heresy prove correct. But two wrongs don't make a right. Jumping straight to impeachment proceedings was also "bad precedent" and by doing what they did, they justified the Trump Administrations decision to fight back as they have.

[Crunch]

Alright, straight party line vote after Nadler pulled some last minute shenanigans. Now it goes to the house. It should pass, it’s the only way democrats believe they can win the 2020 election.

There have been conversations that the senate will simply hold a majority vote and dismiss the articles without trial. A quick 51 votes and it ends, no testimony, no witnesses. Nothing. This might actually be the best case scenario for Democrats.

[D.W.]

This might actually be the best case scenario for Democrats.

From a pure politics / election stand point... yes, it would be. 

It's interesting that you assume every Democrat is just taking part in this for the election.  Though, I suppose that mentality is what got people to line up behind Trump to begin with.

[Fenring]

It's interesting that you assume every Democrat is just taking part in this for the election.  Though, I suppose that mentality is what got people to line up behind Trump to begin with.

There are many issues for which the radical or fringe left take the microphone but don't actually represent the views of average liberals. On this particular topic, however, I don't believe that's the case. I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person. I don't think they base this view on a constitutional axis, or on a deep conviction in the law or on foreign policy standards, or even on the specifics of the WB's claims. I think if you asked an average person you might very well get the answer that a sexist, boorish pig like that has no place in office and should be removed. The reason in a situation like this will typically follow after the conviction, and although you are very likely to be given a nominal reason 'backing up' the belief he should be removed, I doubt it will be based on their deep concern for the law. This should not come as a surprise when calls for impeachment were being made the day it was announced that Trump won.

Now you, yourself, believe in a way that Trump is simply unfit to be in office. But the difference between you and between the average person is that you know that this belief does not translate directly into anything other than you being pissed that he won the election, whereas for probably the majority of people I don't think they would see a significant problem saying that he should be impeached because he's not fit to be President. They would probably even argue that this logic is obvious, without realizing the implications of their argument.

Now, to connect this point to your point that I quoted above, if the idea (in many voters' heads) is that Trump can't be allowed to win another election - and note I mean not be allowed to, not that the Democrats should try to beat him in the ballots - then basically an impeachment proceeding sort of becomes equivalent to a disqualification for the 2020 election.

[D.W.]

I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person.

  I know many liberals who are repelled by the fact he WAS elected, zero (nor even read of one) who believes he had no right to it. There wasn't a "birther" contingent when it came to Trump.  At all (AFAIK), let alone enough to be called "the average".

It is probably fair to say that "the average liberal" is disgusted with him as a person such that ANY excuse to reduce his power, eject him from office, or see to it he loses the next election, is cool with them.  And that's alone is a very unhealthy situation for our country to be in.  You don't need to make up crazy to portray it as worse than that.

I do think it comes down to a real test to see if our system can protect us from a man like Donald Trump or not.  This outrage is a form of patriotism even if it gets ugly at times.

[DonaldD]

I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person.

Although you don't realize it, this is just one example of how blinded by partisanship you can be, Fenring.

[Crunch]

The real follies are setting up:

During a Thursday night appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told the host that his “hope is that it will be a shorter process rather than a lengthy process.” McConnell also made clear that he was acting in lockstep with the White House.

“Everything I do during [the impeachment process], I’m coordinating with White House counsel,” McConnell said. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

Trump’s idea:

“I’ll do whatever I want. Look, there is — we did nothing wrong,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Democrats better hope McConnell really does dismiss this out of hand.

[TheDeamon]

Alright, straight party line vote after Nadler pulled some last minute shenanigans. Now it goes to the house. It should pass, it’s the only way democrats believe they can win the 2020 election.

There have been conversations that the senate will simply hold a majority vote and dismiss the articles without trial. A quick 51 votes and it ends, no testimony, no witnesses. Nothing. This might actually be the best case scenario for Democrats.

I doubt either side is going to be particularly happy with the proceedings in the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Surpreme Court will be presiding, and while he may be constrained to some degree by rules the Senate puts in place, it's likely to be more his show than anyone else's.

That said, he's going to allow the Defense its chance to make its case, and if the Senate provides rules that allows them to do so, then they will do so. The Democrats better hope the Trump Administration is unable to provide justifiable cause for holding back the funds to Ukraine without going down the road the Dems ran with in their amazing level of enthusiasm.

It also won't be a Kangaroo court like what happened in the House, legal counsel for those testifying will undoubtedly be present, among other things.

Although Trump's "I'll do anything I want" is potentially disturbing, the conciliation prize on that is Trump won't be the one on the Senate Floor working his defense, it'll be others.

[NobleHunter]

Given that McConnell isn't even pretending to give it a fair hearing, the narrative that the Senate's just a whitewash writes itself.

[TheDeamon]

Given that McConnell isn't even pretending to give it a fair hearing, the narrative that the Senate's just a whitewash writes itself.

"Fair hearing" for whom?

While what the Democrats have found to date might be enough for a Grand Jury indictment, it isn't enough for a Jury Trial, which is what the Senate Hearings would be more in line with.

If the Democrats are held to anything close to that standard of evidence, most of what they have never makes it to the Senate floor, or if it does, it gets scrubbed from the record soon after.

For the Republicans, the only it goes poorly for them is if Trump's people bungle it so badly they provide evidence for the Democrats in their attempt to defend Trump. Or Trump's legal defense drags the process out for weeks/months without providing any compelling rebuttals or counters. (IE they use it as a platform for introducing conspiracy theories that are only supported by innuendo) That it also gives them the chance to screw with the early Democratic Presidential Primaries is just an extra bonus. They'd be stupid to pass it up.

And that also isn't to mention the other matter-- with as many people as there are in the GOP who don't like Trump, giving him a chance to hang himself has to have some appeal from their point of view, so why wouldn't they want to give Trump a fair trial(hearing) in the Senate?

[Crunch]

Given that McConnell isn't even pretending to give it a fair hearing, the narrative that the Senate's just a whitewash writes itself.

Are you being serious? Really?

[Fenring]

I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person.

Although you don't realize it, this is just one example of how blinded by partisanship you can be, Fenring.

I completely understand why you would say this, and I even see you think it fits the data of my comments. The reason I know you're wrong is because I happen to know that I'm neither a Republican nor a Trump supporter. Or I should say, I know you're wrong that I'm a partisan, but that doesn't mean I'm right in my assertion; I could be wrong about that. My perception for the past few years has been a very clear trend, uninterrupted and pretty much without exception either, that Trump is the devil, a horrible rapist, and that it is a disgrace that he's President. These views are fairly standard and, if I may say, uncontroversial (in that people have them), but what I'm suggesting that *is* controversial is that the desire to have him not be President may be higher in the average liberal than is the desire to uphold the office of the President as being protected from continual attacks and distractions from the job.

But I should add one thing: my surmise is a guess on my part and in no way some kind of evidence or datum that I can take as a given. It's what I would call a logical assumption to make of the inner mindset, which would result in the actual comments I do see IRL and on social media. There is no other reasonable way to explain FB memes about impeaching Trump which occured long before his summer phone call, and about how every action of his is evil and with nefarious motive, regardless of the action. Sure, I could just say it's partisan fighting and leave it at that, but I heard plenty of partisan mudslinging in Bush 43's term and although the derision was there in spades I *never* got the sense that anyone was actually challenging his Presidency, other than of course the "he stole the election" thing. But even having asserted that he literally stole the election I still never heard anyone even intimate that he should be removed from office. With Trump it's a whole other ballgame; suddenly in this Presidency it's not only that he doesn't deserve to be there (which was said of GW Bush) but that he shouldn't be there. The tone has suggested almost unambiguously that 'something has to be done' about him. I would regularly see posts about 'how do we get rid of this guy' and so forth. So naturally when the slightest event occurs that could be used as an excuse, like the Mexican wall idea, the immigration ban on Muslims, the tariffs, and now the phone call, each has been a call to arms for possible impeachment or something to that effect. This could not happen IMO unless the desire to have him removed predated the actual events for which people are calling for his removal. And so my conclusion is that the inner idea that he should be removed existed in people a priori to any particular cause for his removal. The cause, rather, seems to have been who he is, rather than any particular thing he's done. The more I specify my thoughts in explaining them to you, the more it seems to match what I've seen.

The reason I take this seriously is *not* because I want to defend Trump, although I see how you could make that mistake. It's because, like rightleft22, I don't like where America is headed, and this notion that political sentiment is some kind of legal basis to take actions (just like how people think that being offended means they can sue and bully people) is a dangerous head space to be in, for both sides. You DO NOT want a country that is bifurcated, as yossarian mentioned in the other thread; but it's not just political bifurcation that is the threat, but linguistic bifurcation, where both sides adopt new standards for what language communicates. At that point you're in a deep hole. At the moment the left is the side pushing America into the hole, but mind you that's only because it's Trump in office. I think if there was a liberal version of Trump maybe it would be happening in the other direction.

[NobleHunter]

The foreman of the jury just announced he's going to conspire with the defendant. How can that possibly be fair?

Regardless, it's fodder for a story about the Senate acquitting Trump due to partisan bias rather than lack of evidence. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

[ScottF]

It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

Nailed it.

[DonaldD]

It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

Nailed it.

It's called avoiding a conflict of interest, real or perceived, and why not doing so is generally a bad idea, unless one is trying to avoid an even worse fallout.

Of course, McConnell knows this... But I get the impression that's not where ScottF was going with his remark...

[TheDeamon]

By that standard, nobody in either the House, or the Senate is qualified to try to President for anything. The House impeachment process is invalid, and no outcome from the Senate would be acceptable because everybody would have to recuse themselves from the proceeding.

Edit: Besides which, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one, the Judicial proceedings would come later, and wouldn't involve Congress at all.

[Crunch]

The foreman of the jury just announced he's going to conspire with the defendant. How can that possibly be fair?

Regardless, it's fodder for a story about the Senate acquitting Trump due to partisan bias rather than lack of evidence. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

Now you’re talking about fair? LMAO.  Really? It’s at this point you advocate a standard of fairness?

Do you remember when a witness finished his testimony then became a member of the democrats prosecution and led questioning of other witnesses? How about the blatant lies of Schiff? How about coaching and leading witnesses while refusing to allow questions by defenders? None of this ring a bell?

You left any standard of fairness behind months ago. Welcome to the new rules you created. You’re gonna love them.

[NobleHunter]

I'm not advocating anything, I'm just describing how the story can be told.

I've never imagined that the Senate trial would be particularly fair.

[TheDeamon]

One of the two Democrats who voted against the Impeachment proceedings the first time around has evidently decided he will be switching parties:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036

Probably a combination of threats to primary him by AOC's fan club, and numerous other issues. Like this from Politico:

The stunning move comes amid new polling commissioned by Van Drew's campaign that shows his approval ratings are under water with Democratic voters in his district. Just 24 percent of Democratic primary voters said Van Drew deserves to be reelected to Congress, and only 28 percent said he deserves to be the Democratic nominee in next year’s election.

Orange man bad! Why are you protecting the Orange Man!? Get out of my party!

[TheDeamon]

As i look at that blurb again this morning, I'm doing a double-take and wondering what is up with that statistic from his internal polling.

24% of Democratic Primary Voters feel he deserves to be re-elected to Congress, yet 28% of them feel he deserves to be the Democratic Nominee. 

So 4% of Democrats in his district think he should be their nominee for the House, but that he shouldn't win the general election? Weird.

[TheDrake]

As i look at that blurb again this morning, I'm doing a double-take and wondering what is up with that statistic from his internal polling.

24% of Democratic Primary Voters feel he deserves to be re-elected to Congress, yet 28% of them feel he deserves to be the Democratic Nominee. 

So 4% of Democrats in his district think he should be their nominee for the House, but that he shouldn't win the general election? Weird.

Reference please

[Ouija Nightmare]

The stunning move comes amid new polling commissioned by Van Drew's campaign that shows his approval ratings are under water with Democratic voters in his district. Just 24 percent of Democratic primary voters said Van Drew deserves to be reelected to Congress, and only 28 percent said he deserves to be the Democratic nominee in next year’s election.

TargetSmart conducted the survey from Dec. 7-10 of 390 likely Democratic primary voters, according to a source familiar with the polling. It also found 71 percent of voters would be less likely to support Van Drew in his reelection if he voted against impeachment. Only 22 percent said they would be more likely to support him.

If Van Drew voted to impeach Trump, 69 percent would be more likely to back him in next year's election and 22 percent would be less likely.

The numbers do seem rather odd. I wonder how the questions were worded.
I also wonder at Van Drew’s devotion to Trump. Trump is generally loathed in New Jersey by Democrats and Republicans alike.

[Pete at Home]

One can simultaneously loathe Trump and consider the impeachment case against him a fragging joke.

I think Andrew Johnson was the most loathesome son of a bitch to ever hold office, but you can’t impeach a president for dismissing his own cabinet member.