Impeachment
Comments
-
Russia Hoax, fake. Kavanaugh Accusations, fake. Trump Ukraine quid pro quo, so far, no evidence....fake.
-
@reformed posted:
Russia Hoax, fake. Kavanaugh Accusations, fake. Trump Ukraine quid pro quo, so far, no evidence....fake.
You asked for a witness who "was actually on the call." I gave you one. Still you say "no evidence" of a "Trump Ukraine quid pro quo." The impeachment inquiry has also given you Fiona Hill, William Taylor, and even Gordon Sondland. How many witnesses - people who were "actually on the call" or not - will it take before you acknowledge the existence of "some" evidence of a "Trump Ukraine quid pro quo"?
Where are all the witnesses - people who were "actually on the call" or not - who say there was no quid pro quo? Why isn't the White House offering aide after aide, NSC staffer after NSC staffer to testify under oath before the impeachment inquiry? Why are the White House, State Department, and the Defense Department ALL telling their people not to testify, if those people could attest under oath that there was no quid pro quo? Why are the people who ARE testifying under oath doing so against the advice or command of their superiors? And are ALL those people lying? risking prosecution for perjury from the Trump DOJ?
-
Well first, there is ALWAYS quid pro quo in foreign policy, that's how it works. But the quid pro quo they are trying to nail Trump on, being demand that they investigate the Biden's or else, did not happen. This has been PROVEN by both testimony and transcript.
-
@reformed posted:
Well first, there is ALWAYS quid pro quo in foreign policy, that's how it works. But the quid pro quo they are trying to nail Trump on, being demand that they investigate the Biden's or else, did not happen. This has been PROVEN by both testimony and transcript.
From Lt Colonel Vindman's opening statement before the impeachment committees today:
"The (July 10, 2019) meeting (between Ukrainian security officials and then-National Security adviser Bolton, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and others) proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner. Amb. Sondland started to speak about delivering the specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short.
"Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate."
AND A BIT LATER IN THE STATEMENT...
"On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.
"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.
Exactly WHAT has been "PROVEN by both testimony and transcript"?
-
Well here is what is proven, Vindman lied in his opening statement. There was no demand on that call. A request, yes, but not a demand.
-
The House will impeach Trump! CM
-
@reformed posted:
Well here is what is proven, Vindman lied in his opening statement. There was no demand on that call. A request, yes, but not a demand.
Vindman's opening statement's assertion that President Trump offered a demand to Zelenskky was clearly Vindman's opinion, and hence, obviously not a lie, just as you're not lying when you state your opinion that there is "no evidence" of a "Trump Ukraine quid pro quo."
And did you read the OTHER part of Vindman's statement that I quoted? the part in which he says a couple of weeks before the infamous call, Ambassador Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian leaders "about delivering the specific investigations IN ORDER TO SECURE THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, at which time Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short," and how later Sondland "emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma"? Given what Vindman heard in early July about the need for Ukrainian investigations of Trump's political rivals in order to secure a meeting with Trump, AND what he heard on the phone as Trump asked for "a favor though," OF COURSE Vindman had reason to believe a demand was involved.
You asked for a witness who was "actually on the call." You have one. That you don't like what he says doesn't change what he heard, how he's reporting it under oath, or the fact that his testimony aligns conclusively with Fiona Hill's, William Taylor's, the whistleblower's complaint, and to some extent, even Gordon Sondland's. Nor does it change the fact that no one under oath is contradicting the basic narrative those witnesses are telling. Until you find fact witnesses who testify under oath, it's almost a given that the president will be impeached, and will come closer to removal from office than Bill Clinton did... and what's more, the president's conduct will warrant such an outcome.
-
Right, because adultery in the Oval Office isn't reason for removal....
That being said, all of this is still opinion and hearsay. No actual evidence.
-
@reformed posted:
That being said, all of this is still opinion and hearsay. No actual evidence.
I'm out of ideas as to what you consider "actual evidence."
Please give me a concrete example of something - an action, a conversation, an occurrence, whatever! - that in your view would be "actual evidence" of a quid pro quo in this matter. Not absolute proof, mind you! But something that you would consider "actual evidence" of the existence of a quid pro quo. All that we've seen and heard and read to-date in your view has offered no "actual evidence." Please give me an example of something that would offer at least some such evidence.
-
Reformed,
What you fear most will become reality. Your cry for "actual evidence", is like the little boy whistling while walking by the graveyard at night to calm his fears. What appears to be, is not. Your President (Trump) has dishonored his country, the office and himself. The one who came illegitimately will be removed legitimately.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive” is a quotation by Sir Walter Scott, which I'm sure you knew. It means that when you tell lies or act in a dishonest way you create problems and complications which you cannot control. Mr. Trump has to go! CM
-
By actual evidence I mean proof. Proof that something happened. After all, in THIS country you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Even if impeachment does happen, it will die in the Senate. And it will seal the fate for the Democrats in 2020.
-
-
@reformed posted:
By actual evidence I mean proof. Proof that something happened. After all, in THIS country you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Your response moves the proverbial goal posts.
First, you claimed there was "no actual evidence" of a "Trump Ukraine quid pro quo. Now you say there's no actual "proof" of one. Though their key words are often used interchangeably, by definition, those two claims are not the same - "evidence" is NOT the same as "proof." In short, evidence is the building block of proof. There can be evidence of an assertion without there being proof of it. In criminal trials, prosecutors present "evidence" which, taken together, must "prove" the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There may be lots of "evidence" of a defendant's guilt, but it's up to the jury to decide whether that evidence "proves" it.
Your review the question I asked in my previous post will show that I stated specifically that I was asking for what you would consider "evidence" of a quid pro quo, NOT "proof" of one. So, using the dictionary's definitions of the terms, do you acknowledge that there IS "evidence" of a quid pro quo in this case, even if that "evidence," in your view, doesn't "prove" the existence of one?
And I pose my previous question to you again, this time changing the words to fit the moved goal posts: Please give me concrete examples of things - actions, conversations, occurrences, whatever! - that in your view would be "actual proof" of a quid pro quo in this matter. All that we've seen and heard and read to-date in your view has offered no "actual proof." Please give me concrete examples of things that for you would offer such proof.
-
Actual proof would be the following:
- An actual demand of Trump to investigate the Biden's in exchange for something else.
- Acknowledgement of the demand by Ukraine.
- The actual transaction or a refusal by Ukraine to comply with the demand.
-
@reformed posted:
Actual proof would be the following:
An actual demand of Trump to investigate the Biden's in exchange for something else.
Acknowledgement of the demand by Ukraine.
The actual transaction or a refusal by Ukraine to comply with the demand.
Thanks for a direct response to my request.
The problem with your standard of "proof" is that quid pro quos don't function that way in the real world:
- Participants don't use the words "quid pro quo" (I know that's not one of your items)
- If the transaction is of questionable legality or ethical stature, the parties rarely add to the risk by phrasing it, "If you do X, I'll do Y."
- If one party to the transaction is in dire need of the other party's assistance, as was the case in this instance, he/she/it is unlikely to endanger the needed assistance by overtly objecting. (Though we know from testimony before the impeachment inquiry that well before the infamous call, President Zelenskky expressed concerns about being drawn into an American election.)
As for Ukraine's acknowledging the demand, revisit the "transcript" of the Trump-Zelenskky call, particularly the way Zelenskky accepts NGO Giuliani's role in the "investigation" and asks Trump for "any additional information" he can provide for the "investigation." Given what we know, I think it's possible to read awareness of a "demand" into his response.
Bottom line on this, however, is that you're entitled to your view of whether a quid pro quo has been proven, as am I.
While you gave a direct response to my request about "proof," you didn't respond to my question about "evidence." Here it is again: Using the dictionary's definitions of the terms, do you acknowledge that there IS "evidence" of a quid pro quo in this case, even if that "evidence," in your view, doesn't "prove" the existence of one?
-
No, not a demand, a request, was made. There is a difference, though Democrats seem to not know the difference. No quid quo pro has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the statements of the Ukrainian President prove the exact opposite.
No, there is not evidence of a quid pro quo in this case. There is evidence that the Democrats are trying to use to make the claim of quid quo pro stick, but it is not evidence of quid pro quo.
-
@reformed posted:
No, not a demand, a request, was made. There is a difference, though Democrats seem to not know the difference. No quid quo pro has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the statements of the Ukrainian President prove the exact opposite.
According to two NBC News reporters, Lt. Colonel Vindman told the impeachment inquiry yesterday that "a WH meeting AND nearly $400 million in security and military aid was 'contingent' on Ukrainian officials carrying out multiple investigations, including into Burisma, the Bidens, the 2016 election and Crowd Strike."
Last week, Bill Taylor testified under oath that Gordon Sondland told him neither the military aid nor a White House meeting would go to the Ukrainians without their agreeing to investigate Crowdstrike and the Bidens.
If true, how are those two items not "evidence" of a quid pro quo?
-
First, where did Vindman hear that from? Second, Taylor is suspect anyway giving his "opinions".
-
@reformed posted:
First, where did Vindman hear that from? Second, Taylor is suspect anyway giving his "opinions".
I'll ask my question again: If true, how are those two items not "evidence" of a quid pro quo?
-
There's the key, "If true."
-
Another voice of reason: https://hannity.com/media-room/hannity-the-democratic-circus-doesnt-matter-call-transcripts-already-exonerate-the-president/
Witnesses don't matter, anonymous sources don't matter, we have the TRANSCRIPT. We already know what did or did not happen on that call.
-
@reformed posted:
There's the key, "If true."
Because I didn't ask you to identify "the key," I must ask my question a third time: If true, how are those two items not "evidence" of a quid pro quo?
Witnesses don't matter, anonymous sources don't matter, we have the TRANSCRIPT. We already know what did or did not happen on that call.
- You're surely aware that Col Vindman testified yesterday that he found at least two consequential pieces of information were left out of the "transcript," and that his efforts to amend the "transcript" were turned away (though some of the corrections he submitted were made to the final document). So it's not at all clear that we know everything that was said during that conversation.
- Witnesses don't matter? Anonymous sources don't matter? Your argument, logically extended says this: "Witnesses don't matter! Anonymous sources don't matter! We have a transcribed statement from the defendant in which he didn't admit to committing the crime, so we already know he didn't do it! Those other people who want to testify about their knowledge of how the crime was planned and carried out don't matter since we have a transcript of one statement made on one day when the defendant didn't confess to the crime. Who cares what others know about what happened before that one day? If the defendant didn't confess on that one day, then he did not commit the crime!"
- Hannity is dead wrong in his analysis of the transcript.
-
- No, not evidence. Because evidence would indicate something is actually true. This "evidence" doesn't rise to that level. It's hearsay and opinion.
- The NYTIMES article has buried in it the following: "The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call, which was first reported by the C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry." In other words, nothing to see here, move on.
- We have the transcript. Even if what Vindman says is true, what was left out doesn't change anything. So no, witnesses in this case do not matter. We already know what did, or did not happen on the call.
- That is your wrong opinion and you are welcome to it.
-
@reformed posted:
No, not evidence. Because evidence would indicate something is actually true. This "evidence" doesn't rise to that level. It's hearsay and opinion.
Because I didn't ask you whether the two facts I asserted in THIS POST are "actually true," or whether they rise to "that level," or whether they're "hearsay and opinion," I must ask my question a fourth time: If true [i.e. to answer my question, you MUST assume both statements are "actually true"] how are those two items not "evidence" of a quid pro quo?
The NYTIMES article has buried in it the following: "The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call, which was first reported by the C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry." In other words, nothing to see here, move on.
The phrases don't fundamentally change lawmakers' understanding of the call because they all know what happened in it: The president of the United States asked a foreign head of state to investigate his domestic political rivals as a "favor" at the same time he was holding up needed military aid to that country and his foreign service people were making clear that a White House meeting for that foreign head of state was contingent on his willingness to carry out those investigations. The presence or absence of the reported redactions indeed changes nothing about those facts.
We have the transcript. Even if what Vindman says is true, what was left out doesn't change anything. So no, witnesses in this case do not matter. We already know what did, or did not happen on the call.
My question that asked you to assume the truth of statements had NOTHING to do with Vindman's testimony about redactions from the call's "transcript." As you would say, try to keep up.
My question had to do with two witnesses' testimony regarding the connection between a White House meeting and the release of the military aid and the Ukrainians' investigating the president's domestic political rivals. That is, not so much "what did, did not happen on the call," but what was happening before, around the time of, and then after the call.
-
Let's not get lost...
The U. S. Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached. The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.
The four legal reasons for impeachment:
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Mr. Trump needs to resign!!! CM
-
And which one of those 4 legal reasons are in play here @C_M_ ??
-
Sorry, I don't assume the truth of claims.
-
@reformed posted:
Sorry, I don't assume the truth of claims.
I assumed you wouldn't answer my question.
-
The answer to your question is they are not evidence because they are nothing but opinion and hearsay. That's not evidence.
-
@reformed posted:
The answer to your question is they are not evidence because they are nothing but opinion and hearsay. That's not evidence.
Because I didn't you whether those two assertions of fact were "nothing but opinion and hearsay" and therefore "not evidence," I must ask my question a fifth time: If true [i.e. to answer my question, you MUST assume that the "opinions" and "hearsay" expressed in those statements are "actually true," that they accurately report what "actually" happened] how are those two items not "evidence" of a quid pro quo?
