President Trump: To Impeach or NOT to Impeach? That's the Question
Comments
-
@reformed posted:
Lev Parnas. You mean the guy facing federal charges of fraud? Oh yeah, that is credible. And awful convenient he shows up right when the impeachment trial is about to begin. This is Christine Liar Ford all over again.
If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger. You ARE consistent, @reformed.
- Have you read the text messages Parnas released?
- Have you read Giuliani's May 10, 2019, letter to Zelenskky? Do you have an interpretation of Giuliani's letter that is both consistent with the facts of the case AND exculpatory to the president?
- What was the personal attorney of the President's doing seeking foreign government investigations into his client's domestic political rival?
- Do you know that this morning on FoxNews, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, was asked FOUR TIMES whether Parnas is lying when he says Mr Trump knew about and participated in his (Parnas') actions in Ukraine, and Conway NEVER said yes? She said all manner of other things, but she never said yes, Parnas is lying. If Parnas is "Christine Liar Ford all over again," why didn't Conway simply say, "Of course Parnas is lying!"?
- Do you believe there was NO connection between the cancellation of VP Pence's trip to the Zelenskyy inauguration and the Ukrainian government's reluctance/refusal to announce investigations into the Bidens? Do you claim that Parnas' call to Giuliani in which Parnas says Giuliani said "He'll see" on the day before the trip's cancellation didn't happen? (There are phone records - which don't lie - that show the call occurred.) Or that Giuliani didn't say "He'll see"? Or that Giuliani might have said "He'll see," but he played no role in the the trip's cancellation?
It's not enough for you to beat the messenger, because this messenger has supporting evidence - phone records, text messages, emails, notes written on foreign hotel stationery, and letters written by principals. To put it another way, at some point you have to do more than claim the witness is lying about seeing person X rob the bank. You have to explain the ski mask over person X's head and the bag of money in his hand as he ran out of the bank.
-
Have a look at this interview .... a bunch of lies one after the other. but then from about 08:50 minutes some truth.
Here are real reasons presented for an impeachment ... but then, one would have to have some former residents of the White House accompany this one as they conducted the same murder business also.
-
Bill, I have not seen this so-called evidence. Do you have where I can read it? But let's be honest, it's rather fishy that this comes in the 11th hour. It's rather fishy it comes from a questionable witness who has been known to fabricate evidence and up for fraud charges.
-
@reformed posted:
Bill, I have not seen this so-called evidence. Do you have where I can read it? But let's be honest, it's rather fishy that this comes in the 11th hour. It's rather fishy it comes from a questionable witness who has been known to fabricate evidence and up for fraud charges.
I don't have the time to do the research for you, but this stuff has been ALL OVER the news in recent weeks. Almost any Internet search engine will produce information that will show:
- Parnas was arrested (along with Igor Fruman) on October 10, 2019 - THREE MONTHS AGO. Prior to his arrest, he had no reason to produce evidence because he was working for Giuliani and the president.
- It wasn't until January 3 of this year that a federal judge granted Parnas' request to share information with the impeachment inquiry. Before that ruling, as you might guess, Parnas' phone and other electronic devices were impounded by the government.
- If I remember correctly, Parnas decided to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry only after hearing President Trump deny that he even knew Parnas or Fruman, when, according to Parnas and lots of photos, Mr Trump knew him very well.
So to me, it's not at all surprising that Parnas' evidence is only coming out now. Before his arrest and the president's denial of a connection with him, Parnas had no reason to give evidence. After his arrest, his devices were impounded, and after the judge granted his request in January, they still had to cull through all the data looking for relevant material. THEN the House committee had to vet all the submissions to identify and root out any falsified records, to verify phone calls and text messages, etc. (As far as I know, they didn't find anything not genuine) That all took time.
And then there's the matter of the truth of the records, which is not dependent on when the evidence came out. If of Zelenskyy Giuliani said "He'll see," then he said "He'll see," whether Parnas released the information this week, last month, or the day after the phone call.
FYI, HERE'S A LINK to a good summary of the Parnas evidence, within which you'll find links to the information itself.
BTW, in another post today you asked what law the president broke. There is more than one to choose from, but as of today we have the non-partisan Government Accountability Office's official opinion that by withholding money Congress had appropriated to Ukraine, he and his administration broke the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
-
Ok read the evidence. Big nothingburger. As far as the GAO, well that is an opinion. They even said they can't reach a full determination because they have not received full responses yet. So, in other words, they released this without finishing their investigation. Guess they are in the Democrat pocket as well.
-
@reformed posted:
Ok read the evidence. Big nothingburger. As far as the GAO, well that is an opinion. They even said they can't reach a full determination because they have not received full responses yet. So, in other words, they released this without finishing their investigation. Guess they are in the Democrat pocket as well.
If you think the Giuliani letter from May of last year - TWO MONTHS BEFORE the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call - in which he contacted the Ukrainian president in his capacity as Mr Trump's personal attorney and with the president's full knowledge and consent is a "Big nothingburger," you affirm your status as a trumpster.
One yes or no question given that May 2019 letter, and assuming Giuliani wasn't lying when he wrote it: When last November the president told us he didn't know why Giuliani went to Ukraine, that he hadn't sent him, that Giuliani hadn't gone on his behalf, that we'd have to ask Rudy why he went, was the president lying? If you believe Mr Trump wasn't lying, does that mean you believe Giuliani lied when he wrote to Zelenskyy with what he called the full consent and knowledge of the president?
To my reading of the GSO's opinion, the failure of the State and Defense departments to respond to information requests relates to a separate matter, NOT the withholding upon which the opinion issued a decision. The GSO said the administration's withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) funds broke the Impoundment law. The State and Defense departments' lack of response has to do with what the opinion calls "foreign military financing" (FMF). We can know those aren't the same issues because the opinion dates the FMF issue to six days in August 2019, while it documents the USAI issue to July 2019. Where in the GSO opinion do you find support for your view that the two departments' reluctance to submit information had something to do with the July hold on money to Ukraine?
The GSO in the "Democrat pocket as well" because "they released this without finishing their investigation" (a claim that I contend is not true)? Please explain.
-
Reformed, you're like many of the Republicans, you're not looking for or want truth. Your mind and love is for Trump. There is pattern to so-called search for truth or proof. You like others to do your homework and pretend you knew it all alone. e.g.
Bill, I have not seen this so-called evidence. Do you have where I can read it?
Then when you're set straight, you resort to name-calling. Stop being lazy and stop watching "Fox News". There is a whole lot more, you will not see watching them. At any rate, it's nice of Bill to help you out.
Oh, in case Fox didn't report it, Trump has been impeached by the House of Representatives and the Senate Trial is in the process of removing him from office. Have you heard this before? See I didn't call you "stupid" or "an idiot", brother. CM
-
What is the letter from Rudy? I didn't see that in all the evidence.
-
With all due respect, @reformed, given how often you've described yourself as well informed on current events, I'm surprised that you don't know about the Giuliani letter (which can be found as p.28 of THIS PDF DOCUMENT) It's been all over the news since its release the other day.
And one other note: These documents are easily found through simple Web searches, whether through Google or Bing or Yahoo! Is there some reason you seem always to ask me to find things for you?
-
Thank you for the link. So I do not see the issue with the letter. What is the problem here? I don't think it is a lie that Trump did not know why Rudy went to Ukraine, specifically. And it is clear that he did not necessarily direct Rudy to go. The letter said it had the consent of the President. That is different than being directed to go. And you twisted other statements of the President so yes, this is nothing. I saw nothing that would raise an eyebrow in the letters or in the text messages.
-
@reformed posted:
Thank you for the link. So I do not see the issue with the letter. What is the problem here? I don't think it is a lie that Trump did not know why Rudy went to Ukraine, specifically. And it is clear that he did not necessarily direct Rudy to go. The letter said it had the consent of the President. That is different than being directed to go. And you twisted other statements of the President so yes, this is nothing. I saw nothing that would raise an eyebrow in the letters or in the text messages.
You claim Mr Trump didn't know why Mr Giuliani went to Ukraine, but Giuliani's letter seems to say otherwise:
"I have a more specific request. In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday, May 13th or Tuesday, May 14th."
In other words, it was with the knowledge and consent of President Trump that Giuliani asked for a meeting with Zelenskyy on May 13 or 14. So clearly Giuliani told Zelenskyy that Trump knew and consented to his asking for a meeting. If what you say is true, then you must believe Mr Trump agreed to Giuliani's asking for a meeting, but then didn't ask - and Giuliani didn't say - why he wanted to meet with Zelenskyy. I think that's almost impossible to believe. Why would Trump consent to Rudy's asking for a meeting with a foreign leader-elect and NOT ask why he wanted the meeting? Of course Trump knew why Rudy went to Ukraine.
As for Trump's directing Giuliani to go, I grant that the particular meeting might have been Rudy's idea, but we know from the public record that Mr Trump was interested in getting Ukrainian assistance against Joe Biden well before the infamous July 25 phone call, which means at best he and Mr Giuliani were co-conspirators in the meeting request - Giuliani, the attorney who had the idea; Trump, the client who consented to the meeting and its purpose.
And the larger problem with the letter is one I identified in an earlier post: What was the president's personal attorney (and acting in that personal capacity) doing asking for a meeting with the leader-elect of a foreign nation in order to seek dirt on the president's domestic political rival? First, foreign assistance in elections (things of value) is both illegal and corrosive to our democracy. Second, presidents' personal attorneys don't conduct business with heads-elect of states. That's NOT their role. Recall, as we have seen clearly in the public record over the last several months, what Trump wanted was the announcement of an official Ukrainian government investigation into the Bidens (he didn't care about an actual investigation, just the announcement of one). That's NOT something the president's personal attorney should be involved in (nor anyone else, of course).
But the fact that Giuliani did it explicitly in his personal capacity is revealing because it tells us that the request of the July 25 phone call was never about corruption in Ukraine as you and most other Trumpsters have alleged. Had it been about corruption in Ukraine, Giuliani wouldn't have addressed Zelenskyy as the president's personal attorney. That would have been official government business, handled by an authorized and official representative of the United States government.
There's no twisting of words here. The truth is abundantly clear. Trump knew about and sanctioned Giuliani's private, personal attorney efforts to get Zelenskyy to announce an investigation into the Bidens, and he did so for personal political advantage over a domestic political rival. EVERY substantial piece of evidence in this case points to that conclusion. The fact is you can't point to a single piece of substantial evidence that points to Mr Trump's innocence. If Mr Trump could - if everything was as "perfect" as he told us it was - he would have allowed all those first-hand witnesses to testify before Congress. He didn't let them testify because he couldn't let them testify for fear that they'd tell the truth, truth that would be damaging - make that damning - to Mr Trump's cause.
-
The answer is simple, and it was actually in all of the evidence. Rudy was involved because he was investigating corruption for the President as part of his counsel with all allegations coming at him about Russia et all. He was getting to the bottom of things. I see no problem with any of this. Nor is any of this against the law.
You don't have to prove innocence Bill. You have to prove guilt.
-
@reformed posted:
The answer is simple, and it was actually in all of the evidence. Rudy was involved because he was investigating corruption for the President as part of his counsel with all allegations coming at him about Russia et all. He was getting to the bottom of things. I see no problem with any of this. Nor is any of this against the law.
One recurring theme in "all of evidence" of late is that from Zelinskyy and his government (as well as Zelenskyy's predecessor Petro Poroshenko) Giuliani and company sought only an announcement of an investigation against the Bidens, not an investigation itself. If as you claim, Giuliani "was investigating corruption for the President," why did he only want an announcement? What good would an announcement of an investigation have done about corruption in Ukraine without the investigation itself?
And then you claim that Rudy's trip to Ukraine and his request for an announcement of a Ukrainian government investigation into the Bidens and their dealings in Ukraine were somehow related to "all [the] allegations coming at [President Trump] about Russia." Which specific Russia-related allegations against Mr Trump were/are related to Ukraine, its government, and/or the Bidens. [I remind you that in other threads - THIS ONE and THIS ONE - you've asked CM to "be specific" as to which laws he believes the president has broken and in what way(s) Mr Trump is a traitor. So in my view, you should be quite open to my request here that you be specific as to which Russia-related allegations have any connection to Ukraine, and would therefore justify Giuliani's personal attorney engagements with Ukrainian government officials.]
You didn't engage the other corruption issue I raised, that asking foreign heads-elect of state to investigate corruption in their countries is NOT the job of an American president's personal attorney; it's the job of authorized, official representatives of the United States government. Do you agree?
Then there's the matter that you raised, I addressed, but you didn't mention in your latest reply. You said in an earlier post that you didn't think it was a lie for Trump to say he "did not know why Rudy went to Ukraine, specifically." I then quoted from Giuliani's letter to Zelenskyy, where Rudy clearly said he was requesting the meeting with the Ukrainian leader-elect with Mr Trump's "knowledge and consent." I then asked you why Mr Trump would have given explicit consent to Giuliani's request for a meeting with Zelenskyy without also asking (or being told) why Giuliani wanted to ask for the meeting. I ask you that question again.
You don't have to prove innocence Bill. You have to prove guilt.
True, of course, but when basically ALL of the evidence gathered in the case points MUCH more toward your guilt than it does toward your innocence, you begin to have some measure of burden to explain how all that evidence means something other than what it appears to mean.
But this point is much simpler than that. If I'm the president, the LAST thing I want is to be impeached for something I KNOW I didn't do. NO WAY do I want to become the third president in American history to be impeached when I KNOW I didn't do anything impeachable. Sure, I'll be acquitted in the Senate, but I don't want that "impeached" label in the history books about me, so I would say to my associates and confidants, go testify and take all the documents they want along with you. Go tell them everything. Speak the truth and nothing but the truth because I KNOW the truth is I did nothing wrong.
What about executive privilege? If I knew I was innocent, avoiding the "impeached" label in history would be important enough for me to overlook that for this occasion. In fact, I'd enjoy watching those scoundrels from the other party go down in flames as first hand witness after first hand witness, and document after document, blew up their case and demonstrated my innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
But Mr Trump hasn't done that, and will NEVER do that. Why not? Either he doesn't care about the "impeached" label (but we know he does) or he knows if his people told the truth and nothing but the truth, and if they released all relevant documents, he'd be convicted. I think many of you Trumpsters know that's true, but your allegiance to him blocks you from saying so.
-
Brethren,
The OP objective has been reached. You no longer need to post here. Thanks for your contributions. CM
-
That's not how this works.
-
IN ANOTHER THREAD @reformed posted:
Sorry, that's not how this works. You are dodging the question. You have accused him as a traitor. That is PART of the OP. HOW is he a traitor? Be specific?
Since you raise the specter of CD posters "dodging" questions, I feel compelled to remind you, @reformed, that four days ago I asked YOU to "be specific" about a claim YOU made in one of YOUR posts, in THIS POST in this thread. Pursuant to your interest in CD posters' not "dodging" questions, I ask you my question again: You claimed that Rudy Giuliani's trip to Ukraine and his request for an announcement of a Ukrainian government investigation into the Bidens and their dealings in Ukraine were somehow related to "all [the] allegations coming at [President Trump] about Russia." Which specific Russia-related allegations against Mr Trump were/are related to Ukraine, its government, and/or the Bidens?
In full disclosure, you also haven't responded to - which perhaps means you've "dodged" - two other questions I asked you:
- I contend that asking foreign heads-elect of state to investigate corruption in their countries is NOT the job of an American president's personal attorney; it's the job of authorized, official representatives of the United States government. Do you agree?
- You said in an earlier post that you didn't think it was a lie for Trump to say he "did not know why Rudy went to Ukraine, specifically." I then quoted from Giuliani's letter to Zelenskyy, where Rudy clearly said he was requesting the meeting with the Ukrainian leader-elect with Mr Trump's "knowledge and consent." Why would Mr Trump have given explicit consent to Giuliani's request for a meeting with Zelenskyy without also asking (or being told) why Giuliani wanted to ask for the meeting?
At least twice you've asked CM to "be specific" in his response to your questions. I make the same request of you in response to my questions.
-
If you are investigating corruption related to false charges against your client it is absolutely the job of personal counsel to seek facts and investigate, even if it is foreign. So no, I do not agree.
Specifically meaning what he was going to talk about specifically. Hey may have known generally, but not specifically. If an attorney is working for me I trust their judgement and wouldn't ask for every detail. Why would this be any different?
-
Again you "dodge" my question about the specific Russia-related charges against the President that you claim had something to do with Ukraine and its government, and the Bidens. So again I ask, and again I ask you to "be specific."
@reformed posted:
If you are investigating corruption related to false charges against your client it is absolutely the job of personal counsel to seek facts and investigate, even if it is foreign. So no, I do not agree.
The point of my previous posts concerned the relevance of Ukraine and its government to what you claim are "false charges" against the president. So the question is which "false charges against the President" were related to Mr Giuliani's "investigating corruption" in Ukraine? Again, please "be specific."
Specifically meaning what he was going to talk about specifically. Hey may have known generally, but not specifically. If an attorney is working for me I trust their judgement and wouldn't ask for every detail. Why would this be any different?
So in your view, when Mr Giuliani wrote in his letter to Zelenskyy that he had Mr Trump's "knowledge and consent" to ask for a meeting, Giuliani only meant that Mr Trump "trusted" his judgment and therefore hadn't asked why he wanted to seek the meeting. That is, as you envision it, the substance of the Giuliani-Trump dialogue went something like this:
- GIULIANI: Mr. President, I'd like to ask President-elect Zelenskyy of Ukraine for a meeting.
- TRUMP: Now that I know, you have my consent.
- GIULIANI: Thank you, sir. Good bye.
The president didn't ask and the attorney didn't tell why he wanted the meeting. What attorney, what president of the United States would EVER agree to such a request without asking for or being told the reason for the meeting? This was to be a meeting with a leader-elect of a foreign nation, and the president of the United States, who's in charge of American foreign policy, didn't ask and wasn't told the reason for the meeting? I find that preposterous. IF it happened that way, the president was derelict in his duty to oversee U.S. relations with other countries.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
