Schiff lost his marbles

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This is what was said when Mulvaney admitted to the ask.
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding 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."

Geez . . . I already covered that above. I didn't expect that would satisfy you. But I'm not about to go round and round repeating the same chit.

Claim that only direct evidence counts and ignore as much other evidence as you want,

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I've argued actual evidence with you. But I don't consider conjecture, assumption, speculation, to be evidence.

if this was in a court of law with proper discovery, witnesses and documents, Floridaman would be convicted.

If this was in a court of law, it would be dismissed for lack of an actual crime to adjudicate. The obstruction of Congress charge is a joke. There has been a long accepted, including some adjudication, that the President has executive privilege in protecting conversations with his staff. The abuse of power charge that Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election has not been even closely shown to exist in any pre-trial preparation and discovery. Every thing Trump requested was legitimate under current treaty law. There is no smidgen of FACT that what he did was to effect a future election. That is pure conjecture. That is pure speculation on the President's state of mind. A judge should expect something more solid than a prosecutor's opinion that Trump was doing this for something other than what he would normally do in his office of President in instances where corruption existed.

If he was not president the FBI would have been at the door at 2am and taken the evidence.

The Horowitz investigation has shown that the FBI was quite willing to falsely concoct evidence to spy on Trump. And, anyway, if Trump were not President, he wouldn't have the duties which he was fulfilling and for which he has executive privilege to protect internal communications, for security reasons among others, which I'm sure the FBI would appreciate since it routinely redacts or withholds information for similar reasons.

Cases are concluded with convictions all the time based on indirect, demonstrative and other types of evidence.

When there is direct exculpatory evidence, as in this case, versus a lack of direct evidence of guilt, as in this case, and the prosecution consists of conjecture, assumption, second, third, and fourth hand opinion, conviction would be a breach of justice.

You don't honestly think that Teflon Don II didn't learn anything from Roy Cohn. Keeping the witnesses with direct evidence out will only work if the crime is well hidden. The corrupt behavior affected several branches of the administration, ‘Everyone was in the loop’.
Obstructing congress is only temporary, the truth always finds the light of day and when it does the enablers will be done.
Perhaps they will wish they had chosen to take the risk of having their heads on a pike.

OK. I like that finish. It was an artfully, (slightly but appropriately demented sounding) rant that would do very well for the closing summation of a prosecutor who had a very weak, totally circumstantial and conjectural case which had been demolished by direct exculpatory evidence--or as well as it could.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK. I like that finish. It was an artfully, (slightly but appropriately demented sounding) rant that would do very well for the closing summation of a prosecutor who had a very weak, totally circumstantial and conjectural case which had been demolished by direct exculpatory evidence--or as well as it could.

What exculpatory evidence?

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election? How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What exculpatory evidence?

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election? How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do I feel like you are crying into a towel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What exculpatory evidence?

The most obvious one is that Zelensky said there was no pressure, no quid pro quo arrangement. The money was delivered. No special quid pro quo was fulfilled to get the money. And Sondman, the only witness who got direct input from Trump re q pro q, said Trump told him no q pro q and tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election?

Who is it, exactly, that would NEVER cheat in an election, and how would you know? This is frivolous postulation, not rational argument.

How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?

Since you ask for the speculation, someone would dare to in order to influence the 2020 election.