Schiff lost his marbles

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

Sounds like this defense

“I ate him because I’m a murdering cannibal, but, in all fairness, it was also lunchtime.” - Jeffrey Dahmer

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sounds like this defense

“I ate him because I’m a murdering cannibal, but, in all fairness, it was also lunchtime.” - Jeffrey Dahmer

OK . . . now you're not merely demonstrating the irredeemable bias you regularly demonstrate re anything about Trump, but you're beginning to sound delusional . . . if not actually crazy.

BTW . . . The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK . . . now you're not merely demonstrating the irredeemable bias you regularly demonstrate re anything about Trump, but you're beginning to sound delusional . . . if not actually crazy.

BTW . . . The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

You're just missing some facts, Dahmer was hungry so he ate might be missing some also.

As deputy foreign minister of Ukraine, it was Olena Zerkal’s job to read incoming diplomatic cables from embassies around the world. One from Washington caught her eye back in July, she recalled: It said the Trump administration had frozen military aid for Ukraine.

Laura K. Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense, said in Congressional testimony that Ukrainian diplomats knew about the aid freeze at least by July 25, when they began to question United States officials about it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You're just missing some facts, Dahmer was hungry so he ate might be missing some also.

As deputy foreign minister of Ukraine, it was Olena Zerkal’s job to read incoming diplomatic cables from embassies around the world. One from Washington caught her eye back in July, she recalled: It said the Trump administration had frozen military aid for Ukraine.

Laura K. Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense, said in Congressional testimony that Ukrainian diplomats knew about the aid freeze at least by July 25, when they began to question United States officials about it.

But did they "discover" that the freeze was specified for interference with the next election?

The delay was not illegal. It is documented that Trump had for some time been concerned about corruption continuing in Ukraine. A new President had just been elected in Ukraine. Getting assurances from him that he would do what he ran on, get rid of corruption, was a valid reason, given that it was the President's duty to ensure that the money was to be spent as Congress directed and not spent on continuing corruption before the money was given.

BTW, the money was delivered on time. And Zelensky said there was no pressure.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But did they "discover" that the freeze was specified for interference with the next election?

The delay was not illegal. It is documented that Trump had for some time been concerned about corruption continuing in Ukraine. A new President had just been elected in Ukraine. Getting assurances from him that he would do what he ran on, get rid of corruption, was a valid reason, given that it was the President's duty to ensure that the money was to be spent as Congress directed and not spent on continuing corruption before the money was given.

BTW, the money was delivered on time. And Zelensky said there was no pressure.

That the rest of the evidence will show how mealy-mouthed that claim is, is the danger for the Trumplican party.

A couple of days ago it was that there was no quid prop quo.
Now Floridaman's Alan Dershowitz says "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

That assertion amounts to that even if all of the allegations are true — that Floridaman was, in fact, seeking election advantage when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponents — it would still be appropriate.

Now I'm not saying that it is not normal for presidents to make foreign policy decisions with politics in mind, but what Trump did far exceeded that. He used his power to highjack a national security issue for the purpose of benefiting personally, while clearly harming U.S. interests.

But what if Floridaman sincerely, if misguidedly, believed that killing his opponents was vital for the public interest?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That the rest of the evidence will show how mealy-mouthed that claim is, is the danger for the Trumplican party.

"will show"--speculation. It may "well show" to be the opposite. That remains to be shown one way or the other. I realize that this is just your opinion. But I do realize it is your opinion, not, at this time, a fact.

A couple of days ago it was that there was no quid prop quo.

There is still no qpq. The money was given. Zelensky says there was no pressure. Nor did he perform a quo.

Now Floridaman's Alan Dershowitz says "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

That assertion amounts to that even if all of the allegations are true — that Floridaman was, in fact, seeking election advantage when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponents — it would still be appropriate.

He said IF it happened, not that it did. Dershowitz said there were three possible motives for a quid pro quo in foreign policy: the public interest; personal political interest; and personal financial interest.

In the end, he argued, only the latter instance is corrupt.

"Every public official I know believes" their election "is in the public interest," Dershowitz added.

No one has charged, nor given evidence that Trump delayed funds because of a financial interest.

This corresponds to what Jim and I have been saying before Dershowitz said so. Our version is that everything a politician does will affect an election. So it's a ridiculous notion on which to create and impeachment, or to charge an abuse of power. Otherwise, everything a politician does would be an abuse of power.

Now I'm not saying that it is not normal for presidents to make foreign policy decisions with politics in mind, but what Trump did far exceeded that. He used his power to highjack a national security issue for the purpose of benefiting personally, while clearly harming U.S. interests.

Yeah, but you're speculating--that there was a hijacking rather than a legitimate delay and that it was for some avoidable and nefarious personal benefit.

And there is this unavoidable fact: the money was not hijacked, it was delivered. And Zelensky said their was no pressure. And there was no quo.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, but you're speculating--that there was a hijacking rather than a legitimate delay and that it was for some avoidable and nefarious personal benefit.

And there is this unavoidable fact: the money was not hijacked, it was delivered. And Zelensky said their was no pressure. And there was no quo.

Question: If Floridaman’s actions do not merit impeachment and removal then what actions do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But did they "discover" that the freeze was specified for interference with the next election?

The delay was not illegal. It is documented that Trump had for some time been concerned about corruption continuing in Ukraine. A new President had just been elected in Ukraine. Getting assurances from him that he would do what he ran on, get rid of corruption, was a valid reason, given that it was the President's duty to ensure that the money was to be spent as Congress directed and not spent on continuing corruption before the money was given.

BTW, the money was delivered on time. And Zelensky said there was no pressure.

How long before the talking points wear out? Do you have a suit? Fly to DC and join the party.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How long before the talking points wear out? Do you have a suit? Fly to DC and join the party.

I don't know how long the talking point about influencing an election will last. But it sounds so convincing that it will probably keep resurfacing even if it temporarily takes a rest.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know how long the talking point about influencing an election will last. But it sounds so convincing that it will probably keep resurfacing even if it temporarily takes a rest.

At least we can agree Trump is desperately trying to influence an election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device