The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Thomkal]

So remember last year when there that column in the NYT about an organized resistance in the White House, and then we heard almost nothing more? Well whoever it was is writing a book about it due next month:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5ce_story.html

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Trump dangles the keys once more.

He's not playing 8 dimensional chess. He's playing chicken shit bingo.

[JediKooter]

If we were in the Prime Timeline, there would be no question trump would have been impeached and removed from office by now, but, since we are clearly not...I highly doubt there will be enough republican senators that can be counted on to do the right thing.

Diplomat says he was told U.S. aid for Ukraine tied to request for probes

[Izulde]

After reading Taylor's opening statement... holy (expletive). Sondlund looks like he'll be jailed for perjury IMO and though I'm sure the Trumpistas will deny it, it's even more clear that there was quid pro quo and everyone involved knew it.

[JediKooter]

"I'm not ordering you to kill Mr. So and So, I'm just saying it would be nice if, perhaps there's an accident or something that makes Mr. So and So no longer alive and if you happen to help with that...wellll, sucks to be him."

...President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a "quid pro quo." But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself...

...if President Zelenskyy did not "clear things up" in public, we would be at a "stalemate." I understood a "stalemate" to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

After reading Taylor's opening statement... holy (expletive). Sondlund looks like he'll be jailed for perjury IMO and though I'm sure the Trumpistas will deny it, it's even more clear that there was quid pro quo and everyone involved knew it.

Just finished reading it. I mean, in a court of law, that evidence and testimony is completely damning. What detail and incredible documentation. I'm not sure what 'smoking gun' Edward is still looking for. When you stack all that up, along with what we know about trump's decision making and the history of what has already been laid bare the picture is pretty clear.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Just finished reading it. I mean, in a court of law, that evidence and testimony is completely damning. What detail and incredible documentation. I'm not sure what 'smoking gun' Edward is still looking for. When you stack all that up, along with what we know about trump's decision making and the history of what has already been laid bare the picture is pretty clear.

Not a legal scholar so here's my 2c

1) Quid pro quo is nothing new and I am sure is used in all the past administrations. Quid pro quo to investigate DNC server hack, don't have a problem there but gets close to the line. Quid pro quo to investigate a political rival does cross the line

2) Taylor very clearly believes (a) Ukraine aid was tied to investigating Biden & Son and (b) it came at Trump's direction. Sondland said it was not (albeit giving himself wiggle room).

3) There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to believe this was US policy. We can hypothesize this came at the direction of Trump. I don't think there is evidence for this yet.

4) In any other administration, I can believe it may have been an over zealous private Presidential attorney, brown nosing EU ambassador etc. that over/mis interpreted what was asked (e.g. Reagan and Iran-Contra)

5) Do I believe quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Co came from Trump? Yes

6) Do I believe we have enough evidence to convict in a court of law? No. Let's find other testimonies to corroborate or some additional evidence (e.g. wonder what Sondland has from Guiliani/Trump). I think it is easy enough for the committee to follow-up on those that Taylor named and bring them in for questioning or, in Sondland's case, requestioning

7) Do we have enough to impeach in House? Yes. Do we have enough to convince the Senate to confirm? No. If we did have a smoking gun email/text (e.g. Trump to Guiliani to Sondland) that would probably be enough for Senate to confirm the impeachment.

8) So my prediction is Trump survives through all this. To get rid of him, its going to be done at the polls in 2020

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

"I'm not ordering you to kill Mr. So and So, I'm just saying it would be nice if, perhaps there's an accident or something that makes Mr. So and So no longer alive and if you happen to help with that...wellll, sucks to be him."

...President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a "quid pro quo." But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself...

...if President Zelenskyy did not "clear things up" in public, we would be at a "stalemate." I understood a "stalemate" to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.

It honestly makes me wonder if Trump doesn't actually know what Quid Pro Quo is.

[cartman]

I have no idea why the White House photoshopped Bolton out of this May 2018 photo and replaced him with AG Barr. But they sure did.

The original photo is from May 2018, and credited to the DoD. pic.twitter.com/uRzqREfKpx

— Strictly �� �� (@christoq) October 22, 2019

[Lathum]

1) Quid pro quo is nothing new and I am sure is used in all the past administrations. Quid pro quo to investigate DNC server hack, don't have a problem there but gets close to the line. Quid pro quo to investigate a political rival does cross the line

Can we please get past the whole " all politicians do this?" If you can't tell Trump is different and an outlier you are willfully ignorant.

2) Taylor very clearly believes (a) Ukraine aid was tied to investigating Biden & Son and (b) it came at Trump's direction. Sondland said it was not (albeit giving himself wiggle room).

I read the whole thing, and maybe I missed it, but Sondland actually said TRUMP says it isn't. I do not see where his own opinion is interjected bu admittedly I may have missed it. Regardless, I could point at a dog, and tell you it is a cat, doesn't make it a cat just because I say so.

3) There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to believe this was US policy. We can hypothesize this came at the direction of Trump. I don't think there is evidence for this yet.

So you are completely discounting not only this testimony, but Trump actually admitting to it?

4) In any other administration, I can believe it may have been an over zealous private Presidential attorney, brown nosing EU ambassador etc. that over/mis interpreted what was asked (e.g. Reagan and Iran-Contra)

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying Rudy was trying to impress Trump or something? Go above and beyond?

5) Do I believe quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Co came from Trump? Yes

Doesn't this kind of invalidate your earlier statements?

6) Do I believe we have enough evidence to convict in a court of law? No. Let's find other testimonies to corroborate or some additional evidence (e.g. wonder what Sondland has from Guiliani/Trump). I think it is easy enough for the committee to follow-up on those that Taylor named and bring them in for questioning or, in Sondland's case, requestioning

I'm not really sure what else we need. We have testimony, proof aid was withheld, Trump admitting to why, the phone call showing he did it.

7) Do we have enough to impeach in House? Yes. Do we have enough to convince the Senate to confirm? No. If we did have a smoking gun email/text (e.g. Trump to Guiliani to Sondland) that would probably be enough for Senate to confirm the impeachment.

The Senate is NEVER going to confirm, which is why Pelosi was so against it. The party is the party of Trump. Do you honestly think the average Trump supporter will ready that statement? Do you think they would honestly care?

8) So my prediction is Trump survives through all this. To get rid of him, its going to be done at the polls in 2020

See above. He survives not because there isn't enough evidence, but because the Republican party would rather be concerned with reelection than rule of law.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not a legal scholar so here's my 2c

1) Quid pro quo is nothing new and I am sure is used in all the past administrations. Quid pro quo to investigate DNC server hack, don't have a problem there but gets close to the line. Quid pro quo to investigate a political rival does cross the line

2) Taylor very clearly believes (a) Ukraine aid was tied to investigating Biden & Son and (b) it came at Trump's direction. Sondland said it was not (albeit giving himself wiggle room).

3) There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to believe this was US policy. We can hypothesize this came at the direction of Trump. I don't think there is evidence for this yet.

4) In any other administration, I can believe it may have been an over zealous private Presidential attorney, brown nosing EU ambassador etc. that over/mis interpreted what was asked (e.g. Reagan and Iran-Contra)

5) Do I believe quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Co came from Trump? Yes

6) Do I believe we have enough evidence to convict in a court of law? No. Let's find other testimonies to corroborate or some additional evidence (e.g. wonder what Sondland has from Guiliani/Trump). I think it is easy enough for the committee to follow-up on those that Taylor named and bring them in for questioning or, in Sondland's case, requestioning

7) Do we have enough to impeach in House? Yes. Do we have enough to convince the Senate to confirm? No. If we did have a smoking gun email/text (e.g. Trump to Guiliani to Sondland) that would probably be enough for Senate to confirm the impeachment.

8) So my prediction is Trump survives through all this. To get rid of him, its going to be done at the polls in 2020

and this folks is how someone gets shot on 5th ave and he still gets elected. If this were any other president in any other times there's no way this would fly. I mean shit, they wanted to hang HRC over the server which panned out to be some crappy decisions but nothing of ill intent AND his frickin' daughter did the same dang thing. It's unreal the pretzels the RNC are twisting themselves into along with the die-hard faithful that'll never see that a non-politician slimy real Estate guy ACTS like a non-politician slimy real estate guy and might break the law when he literally admits it and/or says the law is phony. Forget it, there's no way the Senate confirms impeachment... I mean Lindsay Graham defended the use of the word lynching today. It's an easy out for him to say what any of the other R's said and be done with it but Trump calls him and he whistles dixie to defend it. Crazy.

So yeah, Senate lets it go. I just pray that all the Evangelicals and RNC die-hards remember what they turned a blind eye to when the pendulum swings the other way. They won't but I have hope.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by cartman

I have no idea why the White House photoshopped Bolton out of this May 2018 photo and replaced him with AG Barr. But they sure did.

The original photo is from May 2018, and credited to the DoD. pic.twitter.com/uRzqREfKpx
— Strictly �� �� (@christoq) October 22, 2019

I saw this tweet (which now has been taken down?) and someone in the comments was saying that they did a Photostop on the pic and it wasn't real. I don't know how accurate that comment was though. I certainly wouldn't put it past Trump though to do something like this. I think we will find that a lot of evidence of Trump's Presidency has been destroyed, altered, and/or hidden away

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Can we please get past the whole " all politicians do this?" If you can't tell Trump is different and an outlier you are willfully ignorant.

My quote is below. Are you disagreeing that past administrations have done quid pro quos before with other governments? I can tell that Trump is different hence my last sentence.

Quid pro quo is nothing new and I am sure is used in all the past administrations. Quid pro quo to investigate DNC server hack, don't have a problem there but gets close to the line. Quid pro quo to investigate a political rival does cross the line

I read the whole thing, and maybe I missed it, but Sondland actually said TRUMP says it isn't. I do not see where his own opinion is interjected bu admittedly I may have missed it. Regardless, I could point at a dog, and tell you it is a cat, doesn't make it a cat just because I say so.

Don't understand your point? I agree that Sondland said it wasn't quid pro quo because Trump told him it wasn't. He gave himself some wiggle room by saying this is what Trump told him but he did not know if it was for real.

So you are completely discounting not only this testimony, but Trump actually admitting to it?

I actually have not seen this. Quote please on where Trump "actually admitted to" quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son?

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying Rudy was trying to impress Trump or something? Go above and beyond?

I started that point by saying "In any other administration, I can believe ..." which implies I do not think that is the case here. However, I toss out Iran-Contra as an example of where some folks because over zealous and overly creative in getting things done.

Doesn't this kind of invalidate your earlier statements?

No. I am clearly stating that I believe Trump did do quid pro quo for investigation into Biden & Son. However, i do not believe there is enough evidence that links him to it yet

I'm not really sure what else we need. We have testimony, proof aid was withheld, Trump admitting to why, the phone call showing he did it.

Again, quote on Trump "admitting to why" re: investigation on Biden & Son. I may have missed this.

The Senate is NEVER going to confirm, which is why Pelosi was so against it. The party is the party of Trump. Do you honestly think the average Trump supporter will ready that statement? Do you think they would honestly care?

I do think if there was clear evidence that directly tied Trump to a quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son that there will be a chance GOP will turn on him. Our debate confusion right now is because you think Trump has already admitted to this whereas I have not seen this admission.

See above. He survives not because there isn't enough evidence, but because the Republican party would rather be concerned with reelection than rule of law.

Won't disagree

[JPhillips]

You're giving way too much credence to the server investigation. There is no Ukrainian server. There never has been. Everybody in our intelligence agencies have told Trump this. Asking for an investigation into it is another form of holding aid for political purposes.

All of it is about smearing the Dems and helping Trump win in 2020.

And to that, Trump admits it. Mulvaney admits it. Giuliani admits it. The transcript confirms it. Sondland confirms it. Taylor confirms it. Yovanovitch confirms it.

The evidence is overwhelming.

[Lathum]

Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "Trump again basically cops to asking Ukraine about Biden: "We're supporting a country. We want to make sure that country is honest...it's very important to talk about corruption. if you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?"… https://t.co/DhrZ5EwI0i"

He admitted to pressuring Ukraine about the Biden’s. The aid being held back was proven to happen. Mulvaney admitted it was Quid pro quo. We now have testimony from a very credible source. I mean m, seriously, what more could you want.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're giving way too much credence to the server investigation. There is no Ukrainian server. There never has been. Everybody in our intelligence agencies have told Trump this. Asking for an investigation into it is another form of holding aid for political purposes.

All of it is about smearing the Dems and helping Trump win in 2020.

And to that, Trump admits it. Mulvaney admits it. Giuliani admits it. The transcript confirms it. Sondland confirms it. Taylor confirms it. Yovanovitch confirms it.

The evidence is overwhelming.

So maybe that is where the confusion is.

I am not giving much thought on the server connection (assuming you mean Trump quid pro quo on investigating the DNC hack). Trump doing quid pro quo by asking Ukraine investigate DNC hack doesn't rise to level of impeachment for me (regardless if it existed or not).

Its the Trump quid pro quo on investigating Biden & Son (a political rival) that IMO is the crux of this impeachment case. Other than for Taylor today, if there have been admissions that Trump did do quid pro quo for Biden & Son investigation, please provide the links.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "Trump again basically cops to asking Ukraine about Biden: "We're supporting a country. We want to make sure that country is honest...it's very important to talk about corruption. if you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?"… https://t.co/DhrZ5EwI0i"

He admitted to pressuring Ukraine about the Biden’s. The aid being held back was proven to happen. Mulvaney admitted it was Quid pro quo. We now have testimony from a very credible source. I mean m, seriously, what more could you want.

Sorry, I didn't see anything on the twitter post that indicated Trump admitted to pressuring Ukraine about the Biden's. The twitter post referenced a quote which doesn't say anything much other than his own opinion.

Can you provide a quote/link from a news article?

[PilotMan]

Two paragraphs:

"Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if "we are now saying that security assistance and a WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?" Amb Sondland reponded by asking me to call him, which I did. During that phone call, Amb. Sondland told me that Pres trump had told him that he wants Pres Zel to state publicly that Ukrainie will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukranian interference in the 2016 US election.



Amb Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a WH meeting with Pres Zel was dependent on a public announcement of investigations - in fact, Amb Sondland said, "everything" was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that Pres trump wanted Pres Zel "in a public box" by making a public statemetn about ordering such investigations.

then you get this:

He said he (Sondland) had talked to Pres trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that the Pres was adamant that Pres Zel, himself, had to "clear things up and do it in public." Pres trump said it was not a QPQ.

You don't withhold previously appropriated funds for an ally for SIX WEEKS that they need for military and economic support and say it's because you need the pres to publicly say what you want them to say as in:


During the CNN interview Pres Zel was to respond to announce the investigations and respond to the question about them with "we will leave no stone unturned." Those were the key words that would signal to trump that they were playing so they could get paid.



I'm not sure how else you're supposed to say that there was anything other than a QPQ here.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Two paragraphs:

then you get this:

You don't withhold previously appropriated funds for an ally for SIX WEEKS that they need for military and economic support and say it's because you need the pres to publicly say what you want them to say as in:

During the CNN interview Pres Zel was to respond to announce the investigations and respond to the question about them with "we will leave no stone unturned." Those were the key words that would signal to trump that they were playing so they could get paid.

I'm not sure how else you're supposed to say that there was anything other than a QPQ here.

Assume your quotes are from Taylor's opening statement.

In my post above which started this discussion I said the below quote.

I don't disagree Taylor said there was quid pro quo for investigation into Biden & Son. I'm saying there needs to be some other corroborating evidence/testimony that ties Trump to this. Then Lathum indicated that Trump fessed up to this (which would definitely be the corroborating evidence/testimony) and I asked for a link.

Would be nice if there was corroborating testimony by a couple others (doubt there is a smoking gun email e.g. from Trump).

[PilotMan]

The Whistleblower statement isn't enough to corroborate? It's right in line with everything else that has been said already. Or are they part of the lynching?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and this folks is how someone gets shot on 5th ave and he still gets elected. If this were any other president in any other times there's no way this would fly. I mean shit, they wanted to hang HRC over the server which panned out to be some crappy decisions but nothing of ill intent AND his frickin' daughter did the same dang thing. It's unreal the pretzels the RNC are twisting themselves into along with the die-hard faithful that'll never see that a non-politician slimy real Estate guy ACTS like a non-politician slimy real estate guy and might break the law when he literally admits it and/or says the law is phony. Forget it, there's no way the Senate confirms impeachment... I mean Lindsay Graham defended the use of the word lynching today. It's an easy out for him to say what any of the other R's said and be done with it but Trump calls him and he whistles dixie to defend it. Crazy.

So yeah, Senate lets it go. I just pray that all the Evangelicals and RNC die-hards remember what they turned a blind eye to when the pendulum swings the other way. They won't but I have hope.

I personally believe the Republican Party should never hold power in Washington again, and if possible, be disbanded.

This is coming from someone who is technically still a registered Republican. I'm lazy.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The Whistleblower statement isn't enough to corroborate? It's right in line with everything else that has been said already. Or are they part of the lynching?

Maybe but I lean towards not enough "right now". Some quotes are below.

The whistleblower complaint, annotated

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals.:
:
:
Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business.
:
:
I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.
:
:
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.

My caution is the whistle blower is reporting what others have told him/her (and who knows the degree of separation) and none of them are named (for obvious reasons).

I assume the investigative committee already has (or soon will have) the names of officials that the whistle blower references? Let's see how that plays out, sounds as if there are many people that can corroborate Taylor's testimony.

[PilotMan]

Do you believe Edward, that the detail with which everything was laid out, with names, dates, quotes, and that he is essentially putting his career on the line as a servant of the State, who is trying to help a foreign ally against an aggressor, that he just made this stuff up, and he should not be counted as a reliable witness?

[Chief Rum]

What bothers me most is how important the Ukraine is to.our interests in an area so close to Russia.

For the President to withhold seriously needed military aid from an ally whose country is currently split between themselves and a Russian occupying force tells me everything I need to know about the man. As in his life, so in this adminsitration: Trump is only interested in his own personal gain. He does not care about the interests of this country.

Of course, Syria. This is nothing new.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Do you believe Edward, that the detail with which everything was laid out, with names, dates, quotes, and that he is essentially putting his career on the line as a servant of the State, who is trying to help a foreign ally against an aggressor, that he just made this stuff up, and he should not be counted as a reliable witness?

Assume you are talking about Taylor. Sure I find him credible.

However, when we are talking about impeaching and confirming the impeachment of the President, I don't think its unreasonable to ask for corroborating evidence.

Re: the whistle blower ... I don't view "I heard from X who heard from Y" as sufficient corroborating evidence. Ideally it would be "I was in the room when I heard Z" or "I got this email from Trump/Chief of Staff/Guiliani". If persons X and Y exist (and they should based on Taylor's and whistle blower statements), lets have the committee talk to them and see what we have.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Assume you are talking about Taylor. Sure I find him credible.

However, when we are talking about impeaching and confirming the impeachment of the President, I don't think its unreasonable to ask for corroborating evidence.

Re: the whistle blower ... I don't view "I heard from X who heard from Y" as sufficient corroborating evidence. Ideally it would be "I was in the room when I heard Z" or "I got this email from Trump/Chief of Staff/Guiliani". If persons X and Y exist (and they should based on Taylor's and whistle blower statements), lets have the committee talk to them and see what we have.

So if there was a murder trial, and there was one eyewitness who was standing there and watched the knife go up and down but didn't see it enter the body. Then there was a policeman that came 5 minutes later and took a bloody body out from behind the obstruction. If that witness came to trial, you would say "sure, it's nice that you saw all that, but we need somebody who was actually THERE."

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sorry, I didn't see anything on the twitter post that indicated Trump admitted to pressuring Ukraine about the Biden's. The twitter post referenced a quote which doesn't say anything much other than his own opinion.

Can you provide a quote/link from a news article?

He literally says it in the transcript of the phone call we all saw. As others have also pointed out there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. By your standards there would be almost zero convictions in court. If I am ever on trial I hope you are in the jury.


We have the call log showing he said it, we have the testimony from Taylor, we have proof aid was withheld, Trumps own words "I want [Zelensky] to do whatever he can. Biden's son walks out of Ukraine with millions and millions of dollars. I think it's a horrible thing." We have Mulvany saying it was quid pro quo.

It is blatantly obvious you don't want to admit he is guilty as sin short of Trump coming out and saying " I am guilty of Quid Pro Quo" which will not happen. There really is no further point to discussing it, and sadly millions of Americans think the same way.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So maybe that is where the confusion is.

I am not giving much thought on the server connection (assuming you mean Trump quid pro quo on investigating the DNC hack). Trump doing quid pro quo by asking Ukraine investigate DNC hack doesn't rise to level of impeachment for me (regardless if it existed or not).

Its the Trump quid pro quo on investigating Biden & Son (a political rival) that IMO is the crux of this impeachment case. Other than for Taylor today, if there have been admissions that Trump did do quid pro quo for Biden & Son investigation, please provide the links.

The server investigation is the same story. Both Biden and the server requests are about fabricating evidence to damage political opponents. There can't be an investigation because the Ukraine server literally doesn't exist.

[albionmoonlight]

Honestly, as a public defender, I feel stupid for not realizing that this was a defense for my clients:

"I will give you these drugs in exchange for money. But I am not going to use the words 'drug deal,' so I cannot be found guilty of drug dealing."

[GrantDawg]

And as for the DNC server not being an impeachable offense, exactly how is it not? The FBI and intelligence services have already investigated and said this didn't happen. Common sense will tell you it did not happen (The DNC emails where on a cloud base system. There is no such thing as a single DNC server). Trump and his goons knows there is not a server. He wants the president of Ukraine to lie about this server and say Ukraine was the ones that meddled with the last election. This is to further the President's political prospects, nothing else. How exactly is that not impeachable?

[GrantDawg]

In other news, Matt Whitaker went on tv last night to let us know that abuse of power is not a crime. Yes, a former acting Attorney General says that President has every right to abuse his power of office.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Lathum

He literally says it in the transcript of the phone call we all saw. As others have also pointed out there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. By your standards there would be almost zero convictions in court. If I am ever on trial I hope you are in the jury.


We have the call log showing he said it, we have the testimony from Taylor, we have proof aid was withheld, Trumps own words "I want [Zelensky] to do whatever he can. Biden's son walks out of Ukraine with millions and millions of dollars. I think it's a horrible thing." We have Mulvany saying it was quid pro quo.

It is blatantly obvious you don't want to admit he is guilty as sin short of Trump coming out and saying " I am guilty of Quid Pro Quo" which will not happen. There really is no further point to discussing it, and sadly millions of Americans think the same way.

Yes I agree. It is on moderate R’s and right leaning conservatives like him that after Trump gets reelected the expected atrocities he causes are on them. Like they say “when there is blood on the street, buy property.”

[Bee]

Yep, saying there was no quid pro quo doesn’t make it so. Just like some people saying they don’t support Trump but then twist themselves into a pretzel defending 99% of what he does, doesn't mean they don’t support Trump.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Like they say “when there is blood on the street, buy property.”

I have never heard that before.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It honestly makes me wonder if Trump doesn't actually know what Quid Pro Quo is.

I wouldn't be surprised. He's shown in the past that when a specific word or term has been thrown at him, next thing you know, he's using it like when a little kid learns a new swear word. On the other hand, I'm sure he has practiced Quid Pro Quo for decades, but, didn't know the term for what he was actually doing.

For example, from a tweet of his yesterday, "Since day one, the left has been on a mission to dispute, deny, and re-litigate the results of the 2016 election. They aren't just trying to penalize a political outsider for taking office. They’re trying to penalize the American people for choosing President @realDonaldTrump." 22 Oct 2019

I HIGHLY doubt he knows about the word re-litigate and to how to properly use it in a sentence. This tweet appears to be written by someone else, plus it doesn't even follow his normal cadence and I highly doubt he would now how to properly use a comma before the word 'and', like it was in the tweet.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Assume you are talking about Taylor. Sure I find him credible.

However, when we are talking about impeaching and confirming the impeachment of the President, I don't think its unreasonable to ask for corroborating evidence.

Re: the whistle blower ... I don't view "I heard from X who heard from Y" as sufficient corroborating evidence. Ideally it would be "I was in the room when I heard Z" or "I got this email from Trump/Chief of Staff/Guiliani". If persons X and Y exist (and they should based on Taylor's and whistle blower statements), lets have the committee talk to them and see what we have.

So wait...are you saying that all these people that work for trump are doing this while keeping trump completely in the dark about it? Like they have no orders from trump to withhold the aid from Ukraine until they investigate the Bidens (aka Quid Pro Quo). Like trump was sitting on the toilet, lamenting about how much he hates the Bidens and his people (trumps) got together and said, "Hey, we should really do something to cheer up the boss. I know! Let's withhold financial aid to Ukraine in exchange for some dirt on the Biden's!! But don't tell him, we want it to be a surprise."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Butter

So if there was a murder trial, and there was one eyewitness who was standing there and watched the knife go up and down but didn't see it enter the body.

Then there was a policeman that came 5 minutes later and took a bloody body out from behind the obstruction. If that witness came to trial, you would say "sure, it's nice that you saw all that, but we need somebody who was actually THERE."

Per my quote below, this isn't "I heard from X who heard from Y". This is "I was in the room when I heard (or saw) Z". So yeah, that is a pretty good witness.

Re: the whistle blower ... I don't view "I heard from X who heard from Y" as sufficient corroborating evidence. Ideally it would be "I was in the room when I heard Z" or "I got this email from Trump/Chief of Staff/Guiliani". If persons X and Y exist (and they should based on Taylor's and whistle blower statements), lets have the committee talk to them and see what we have.

Was the whistle blower in the room? No.

Was Taylor in the room? or did he hear from X who heard from Y (in this case Y is Trump/Guiliani/Chief of Staff)? From what I've read, he heard it from X.

Originally Posted by Lathum

We have the call log showing he said it, we have the testimony from Taylor, we have proof aid was withheld, Trumps own words "I want [Zelensky] to do whatever he can. Biden's son walks out of Ukraine with millions and millions of dollars. I think it's a horrible thing." We have Mulvany saying it was quid pro quo.

In the call log, Trump did ask Ukraine to investigate Biden & Son, no doubt. Was there quid pro quo for that is what I am questioning.

We do have Taylor's testimony which says he believes it was quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son.

We know aid was withheld.

We do not have Mulvany saying it was quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son. If I am wrong here, please provide link or quote.

It is blatantly obvious you don't want to admit he is guilty as sin short of Trump coming out and saying " I am guilty of Quid Pro Quo" which will not happen. There really is no further point to discussing it, and sadly millions of Americans think the same way.

I'm all for impeachment (see prior posts). I do believe Trump withheld aid as quid pro quo for Ukraine to investigate Biden & Son. I do believe as the committee further investigates and talks to X and Y persons there will be corroborating testimony. I just don't think we are there yet.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In the call log, Trump did ask Ukraine to investigate Biden & Son, no doubt. Was there quid pro quo for that is what I am questioning.
.

Then why was the aid withheld? You think it is a coincidence? All you have to do is connect the dots. Trump asks them to investigate, aid withheld, Taylors testimony states aid was withheld for that reason. I mean FFS what else do you need. For real? what would be good enough for you?

[Lathum]

Mick Mulvaney admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - YouTube

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The server investigation is the same story. Both Biden and the server requests are about fabricating evidence to damage political opponents. There can't be an investigation because the Ukraine server literally doesn't exist.

I don't understand this point. An investigation to DNC hack can still occur regardless of whether the server/cloud exists or not? Your point may be it didn't happen because there was no server. Sure I get this. Don't see why an investigation still can't happen to confirm this or come out with details.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And as for the DNC server not being an impeachable offense, exactly how is it not? The FBI and intelligence services have already investigated and said this didn't happen. Common sense will tell you it did not happen (The DNC emails where on a cloud base system. There is no such thing as a single DNC server). Trump and his goons knows there is not a server. He wants the president of Ukraine to lie about this server and say Ukraine was the ones that meddled with the last election. This is to further the President's political prospects, nothing else. How exactly is that not impeachable?

Again not a legal scholar but will try to provide my reasoning why asking Ukraine for quid pro quo to investigate DNC hack is not on the same level as asking quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son.

The ask for DNC hack is in the past and doubtful to impact 2020 elections. It is to help Trump rationalize his 2016 tainted win (e.g. Trump can say it wasn't the Russians that help him win).

The ask for Biden & Son is much more egregious because it can impact the 2020 elections.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Mick Mulvaney admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - YouTube

It's pretty clear Mulvaney said quid pro quo with Ukraine for Democratic hack investigation.

He didn't say Biden & Son.

Mick Mulvaney Briefing Transcript: "Get Over It" Regarding Ukraine Quid Pro Quo - Rev

So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:34)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

Reporter (M): (22:25)
But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into into the Democratic server happened as well.

Mick Mulvaney: (22:35)
We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for what was it? The Northern triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration. By the way, and this speaks to an important … I’m sorry? This speaks to important point because I heard this yesterday and I can never remember the gentleman who … Was it McKinney? Is that his name? I don’t know him. He testified yesterday. And if you go and if you believe the news reports, because we’ve not seen any transcripts of this. The only transcript I’ve seen was Sondland’s testimony this morning.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So wait...are you saying that all these people that work for trump are doing this while keeping trump completely in the dark about it? Like they have no orders from trump to withhold the aid from Ukraine until they investigate the Bidens (aka Quid Pro Quo). Like trump was sitting on the toilet, lamenting about how much he hates the Bidens and his people (trumps) got together and said, "Hey, we should really do something to cheer up the boss. I know! Let's withhold financial aid to Ukraine in exchange for some dirt on the Biden's!! But don't tell him, we want it to be a surprise."

No, I am saying Trump very likely did tell his team quid pro quo for Biden & Son. Taylor said it directly (but he did not hear it first hand from Trump/Guiliani/Chief of Staff ... or at least we don't know that right now) but lets have the corroborating testimonies from X and Y (up the food chain).

I am not saying this is the same example or level but there is at least one significant example of not keeping President entirely in the loop and things got out of hand. See Iran-Contra.

[JPhillips]

Any investigation by Ukraine into the DNC hack is by default a quest to fabricate evidence to blame Dems. How do I know this? Because there is no Ukraine server. There's nothing to investigate in Ukraine. It's literally the same thing as demanding a Japanese investigation into the origins of 9/11. It's inherently corrupt.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It's pretty clear Mulvaney said quid pro quo with Ukraine for Democratic hack investigation.

He didn't say Biden & Son.

Mick Mulvaney Briefing Transcript: "Get Over It" Regarding Ukraine Quid Pro Quo - Rev

Trump in the phone call specifically mentioned Biden. Are we to believe the quid pro quo was just for the DNC server but investigating Biden wasn't attached?

Give me a break.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

No, I am saying Trump very likely did tell his team quid pro quo for Biden & Son. Taylor said it directly (but he did not hear it first hand from Trump/Guiliani/Chief of Staff ... or at least we don't know that right now) but lets have the corroborating testimonies from X and Y (up the food chain).

I am not saying this is the same example or level but there is at least one significant example of not keeping President entirely in the loop and things got out of hand. See Iran-Contra.

Ah ok, I think I see what you are saying, but, it seems like you are nittin' picks though. I admit, I could be wrong and we are actually agreeing, but, just coming from different angles.

A couple of things to keep in mind:
1. This isn't a court of law (when talking about impeachment) so to expect the same scrutiny of evidence as in a real criminal trial, is misguided for the lack of a better word. It's also the same conservative talking point they used for Kavanaugh after he perjured himself during his confirmation hearings.

2. Were talking about a person (trump) who has decades of documented proof of him being a cheat and liar, so any benefit of the doubt, just does not exist here.

3. I agree that the minutia of the Iran-Contra stuff were probably not something that Reagan was kept up to date on. He was still no less culpable in his guilt though as with trump in this case.

Keeping score: Whistleblower complaint, memo of phone call, trump admitting to quid pro quo, President Zelensky confirming it, and now yesterday's testimony. I'm not sure what more you would need here.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Keeping score: Whistleblower complaint, memo of phone call, trump admitting to quid pro quo, President Zelensky confirming it, and now yesterday's testimony. I'm not sure what more you would need here.

In a perfect world, I want Mulvaney or Guiliani to turn and say yes, Trump told me to communicate quid pro quo for Biden & Son investigation (or some sort of email/text exchange from Trump). That would be fantastic and do believe that will turn a lot of Republicans where a Senate confirmation of impeachment is a real possibility.

Question to you:

1) Do you believe quid pro quo for DNC hack investigation by itself rises to level of impeachment? I don't think so and would like your thoughts?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In a perfect world, I want Mulvaney or Guiliani to turn and say yes, Trump told me to communicate quid pro quo for Biden & Son investigation (or some sort of email/text exchange from Trump). That would be fantastic and do believe that will turn a lot of Republicans where a Senate confirmation of impeachment is a real possibility.

Both already have I think before walking it back

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Both already have I think before walking it back

Specific to quid pro quo on Biden & Son ...

Re: Mulvaney, agree or disagree, see my above posts.

On Guiliani, I honestly don't remember this happening?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Question to you:

1) Do you believe quid pro quo for DNC hack investigation by itself rises to level of impeachment? I don't think so and would like your thoughts?

Are you OK with the President working with foreign governments to undermine the agencies he's sworn to defend?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Are you OK with the President working with foreign governments to undermine the agencies he's sworn to defend?

I've been answering a lot of questions lately (not from you). How about you answer mine and then I'll answer yours?