Why the Senate SHOULD vote to convict

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

(1) Trump withheld crucial military aid from Ukraine;

(2) Ukraine knew it;

(3) While the aid was being withheld, Trump asked Ukraine for a “favor”—investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens;

(4) The request for investigations morphed into a demand for a public statement;

(5) Ukraine agreed to make the public announcement, was working with U.S. government officials on a script for the announcement, and was scheduled to deliver it in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria;

(6) Ukraine canceled the CNN interview only when Trump released the aid after the scheme was exposed by the whistleblower report.

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

Clearly you missed that Trump did not have the authority to freeze those funds. So he broke an existing law to do so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.

Ukraine had met all the required corruption criteria and his administration had certified it to Congress May 23, 2019 prior to Floridaman's call to Zelensky and Colludy's meeting with Yermak in Madrid.

The certification is why Congress was asking why the funds had not been transferred.

Zelensky's administration was not the corrupt actor in this case, it was Trump's that attempted to corruptly bribe Ukraine with Congressional appropriated funds in return for the investigation of his political opponent.

Testimony and documents show that the Zelensky administration knew that the funding was being withheld prior to the second Trump-Zelensky call.

Perhaps he can use the excuse that he did not know what his administration was doing, that would be believable but hardly exculpatory.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.

Dang! I thought I had a unique, facetious, twist on the over analyzed conspiracy of Trump's supposed "extortion," or is it "bribery," or is it "quid pro quo," or whatever it is. Didn't know that Trumplicans were also facetiously accusing Zelensky of extortion.

Oh well . . .

So Trump thought that he had the legal authority to hold funds upon assuring that the money would not just be funneled into a cesspool of corruption. He had expressed concerns about that corruption for some time before that. And so others think he didn't have the authority. And that he caved into releasing the money because he got "caught."

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...swer-is-simple

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Dang! I thought I had a unique, facetious, twist on the over analyzed conspiracy of Trump's supposed "extortion," or is it "bribery," or is it "quid pro quo," or whatever it is. Didn't know that Trumplicans were also facetiously accusing Zelensky of extortion.

Oh well . . .

So Trump thought that he had the legal authority to hold funds upon assuring that the money would not just be funneled into a cesspool of corruption. He had expressed concerns about that corruption for some time before that. And so others think he didn't have the authority. And that he caved into releasing the money because he got "caught."

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...swer-is-simple

But the documents and the facts contradict that theory, which interestingly enough is exactly the defense that I said the other day they will present.

"Ukraine is really corrupt and I was worried about it"

Never mind that this administration has signed off on the anti corruption markers required by Congress for the funding, eliminated funding for corruption investigation, looked right past corrupt regimes in other countries (Russia, Turkey, etc) and yet somehow the possibility of corruption in Ukraine involving the 2016 election and his opponent captures Trump's attention.

It is typical Trumplican baloney.

Now we see Pompeo claiming they need to further investigate the already disproven "Crowdstrike server" theory and together with Barr, coming up with all sorts of possibilities for why it is acceptable for this administration to obstruct investigations, withhold evidence and otherwise ignore their constitutional responsibilities while claiming to be victims.

To date this administration has stonewalled all Congressional investigations.
It will end up in court and one can only hope that the court sees Congress as a co-equal branch of government with oversight responsibility.
I am hoping we do not end up with a king and certainly not this mad prince.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But the documents and the facts contradict that theory, which interestingly enough is exactly the defense that I said the other day they will present.

There's a lot of assumptions going on with this stuff. I'm going to assume that Byron York is aware of any documents that you mention. And I trust his version over yours.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.

I'm not even sure you believe this.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not even sure you believe this.

What I "believe" is irrelevant. What in the Byron York article I posted is untrue?