House to vote on impeachment

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Says who? That doesn't happen in politics every single day? Votes are paid for by favors every single day.

guess you never heard of the casting couch

A POTUS asking a foreign leader to provide dirt on an opponent Via his personal lawyer (non elected or appointed ) or you wont get your Aid sure that happens every day in US politics

PS everyone on the planet says its a crime unless your a Trump supporter... then its no big deal

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

guess you never heard of the casting couch

A POTUS asking a foreign leader to provide dirt on an opponent Via his personal lawyer (non elected or appointed ) or you wont get your Aid sure that happens every day in US politics

PS everyone on the planet says its a crime unless your a Trump supporter... then its no big deal

OK, casting couch is illegal.

But it's not illegal in politics, for one politician to tell anther, "I'll vote for your bill if you vote for my bill." That's also a quid pro quo, happens every single day.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

guess you never heard of the casting couch

A POTUS asking a foreign leader to provide dirt on an opponent Via his personal lawyer (non elected or appointed ) or you wont get your Aid sure that happens every day in US politics

PS everyone on the planet says its a crime unless your a Trump supporter... then its no big deal

you are mischaracterizing the call as schiff did to suit your agenda...he was looking for evidence of crimes...as the democrats now claim to be doing...they won't find any but Barr and Durham will have a LONG list

[Pete F.]

Does that mean if the Dems can get a witness to say “the President committed impeachable offenses” then Trump is out because that’s basically your argument at this point. Try and keep up

The call is about 1% of the issue. Don’t lose sight of that, the Trumplicans will want you to. It’s ALL the pressure — by Rudy, Sondland, etc. for months and months. It’s Mulvaney. It’s the withholding of the $. It’s the firing of the Ambassador. It’s all of it. It’s all part of the quid pro quo aka conspiracy.
And: the issue IS NOT whether Ukraine felt “pressured” (although clearly they did). A politician can be guilty of attempted bribery by trying to bribe an undercover FBI agent who of course could never feel actually pressured. The intent that matters of the BRIBER not the BRIBEE.
And: Start to focus on the fact that Mitch McConnell kept asking the White House why the aid to Ukraine was being withheld and Mitch McConnell said that the White House would not tell him. Ummmmm ... if it was being withheld for a legit reason ... um ... why wouldn't they tell him?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Does that mean if the Dems can get a witness to say “the President committed impeachable offenses” then Trump is out because that’s basically your argument at this point. Try and keep up

The call is about 1% of the issue. Don’t lose sight of that, the Trumplicans will want you to. It’s ALL the pressure — by Rudy, Sondland, etc. for months and months. It’s Mulvaney. It’s the withholding of the $. It’s the firing of the Ambassador. It’s all of it. It’s all part of the quid pro quo.
And: the issue IS NOT whether Ukraine felt “pressured” (although clearly they did). A politician can be guilty of attempted bribery by trying to bribe an undercover FBI agent who of course could never feel actually pressured. The intent that matters of the BRIBER not the BRIBEE.
And: Start to focus on the fact that Mitch McConnell kept asking the White House why the aid to Ukraine was being withheld and Mitch McConnell said that the White House would not tell him. Ummmmm ... if it was being withheld for a legit reason ... um ... why wouldn't they tell him?

hang in there

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

hang in there

Mitch McConnell kept asking the White House why the aid to Ukraine was being withheld and Mitch McConnell said that the White House would not tell him. Ummmmm ... if it was being withheld for a legit reason ... um ... why wouldn't they tell him?

[Sea Dangles]

🍔
Nothing burger
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

My judgment is that those House Republicans open to voting for impeachment simply decided to stick with the party yesterday, and to save their dissent for the real vote. No point telegraphing the jail break to the prison guards ahead of time.

[Sea Dangles]

Good for you PeteF, but as we have seen demonstrated in the past you have terrible judgement. Next...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Rudy spilled the beans back in May about him and his client and who was receiving benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/u...ine-trump.html

May 9: Giuliani tells The New York Times he will travel to Ukraine "in the coming days" to push for investigations that could help Trump. Giuliani says he hopes to meet with President-elect Zelenskiy to push for inquiries into the origins of the Russia investigation and the Bidens' involvement with Burisma.

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Giuliani tells the Times.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he says. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy — I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Rudy spilled the beans back in May about him and his client and who was receiving benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/u...ine-trump.html

May 9: Giuliani tells The New York Times he will travel to Ukraine "in the coming days" to push for investigations that could help Trump. Giuliani says he hopes to meet with President-elect Zelenskiy to push for inquiries into the origins of the Russia investigation and the Bidens' involvement with Burisma.

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Giuliani tells the Times.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he says. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy — I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

So Rudy is trying to help Trump do his job to the best of his ability, which in turn, if the investigation turns up sufficient evidence, could be helpful to our government in rooting out corruption, which could go a long way to preventing it in the future.

Good to know that Rudy is being helpful in such a good cause.

[Pete F.]

If they didn’t hold the funding hostage it would have been just sleazy.
But they did
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If they didn’t hold the funding hostage it would have been just sleazy.
But they did
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They didn't.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They didn't.

shhhhh...he's on a roll

[Pete F.]

They did, you can be incompetent and still be guilty
Given the breaking news about govt lawyers John Eisenberg & maybe Michael Ellis allegedly helping cover up Trump's crimes...
it's a good time to remember both of Nixon's AGs and 6 other govt lawyers were convicted of crimes related to cover-ups:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They did, you can be incompetent and still be guilty
Given the breaking news about govt lawyers John Eisenberg & maybe Michael Ellis allegedly helping cover up Trump's crimes...
it's a good time to remember both of Nixon's AGs and 6 other govt lawyers were convicted of crimes related to cover-ups:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I they withheld the aid, what was the trigger that incentivized them to release the aid? Did the investigate Biden?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I they withheld the aid, what was the trigger that incentivized them to release the aid? Did the investigate Biden?

You could try that after you offered a cop a bribe, wouldn’t work in that case either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could try that after you offered a cop a bribe, wouldn’t work in that case either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No bribe was offered.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could try that after you offered a cop a bribe, wouldn’t work in that case either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m asking a question. if the aid was originally withheld, what made them eventually hand over the aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m asking a question. if the aid was originally withheld, what made them eventually hand over the aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn’t matter, crime was already committed.
That’s the reason you have people testifying, even though the WH told them not to
They don’t want to be part of the conspiracy.
Two choices
A. Try and convince the electorate that it’s perfectly acceptable to withhold authorized funds for a personal benefit.
B. Show that you objected to the abuse of power or didn’t know about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I they withheld the aid, what was the trigger that incentivized them to release the aid?

Likely all the people rushing to legal council with what they were witnessing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Likely all the people rushing to legal council with what they were witnessing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“likely”. so you don’t know, but know he should be removed from office for it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They did, you can be incompetent and still be guilty
Given the breaking news about govt lawyers John Eisenberg & maybe Michael Ellis allegedly helping cover up Trump's crimes...
it's a good time to remember both of Nixon's AGs and 6 other govt lawyers were convicted of crimes related to cover-ups:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We been having "breaking news" allegations about Trump for four years. Is this the big one?

And no, they didn't.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We been having "breaking news" allegations about Trump for four years. Is this the big one?

And no, they didn't.

breaking news! Rachael Maddow has his tax return!

breaking news! buzzfeed says trump told Cohen to lie under oath!

now, impeach the motherf*cker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A prosecutors explanation

Conspiracies are often caught and punished severely before they are completed. And interestingly, to be liable for a conspiracy, one need only have been part of the agreement to commit a crime and committed an overt act (however small) in furtherance of it.
In other words, the question that the law looks to isn’t “What was the outcome?” (though that might be relevant in sentencing), it’s “What was your state of mind/intent?” and “What actions did you undertake that manifest this intent?”
This is the right approach, because otherwise criminals who had the most nefarious goals would get off lightly simply because law enforcement was good at their job, or because someone helped thwart it, or simply because they were too dumb to get away with it!
The question for Trump, therefore, isn’t whether his plan “worked.” It’s what he hoped to achieve (coerce a country for election assistance; generate propaganda about a sham investigation; use money appropriated by Congress as personal leverage)
He also took numerous steps to achieve this goal, beyond the phone call: ordered aid withheld; made it clear to subordinates that he wanted “deliverables”; directed Ukraine to deal with his personal lawyer; had his team draft a statement for Zelensky to deliver.
Minimizing the severity of Trump’s actions is an attempt to 1) narrow the focus to *only* the phone call (ignoring everything before and after); and 2) looking at the results, rather than commission, of the crime(s). Doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A prosecutors explanation

Conspiracies are often caught and punished severely before they are completed. And interestingly, to be liable for a conspiracy, one need only have been part of the agreement to commit a crime and committed an overt act (however small) in furtherance of it.
In other words, the question that the law looks to isn’t “What was the outcome?” (though that might be relevant in sentencing), it’s “What was your state of mind/intent?” and “What actions did you undertake that manifest this intent?”
This is the right approach, because otherwise criminals who had the most nefarious goals would get off lightly simply because law enforcement was good at their job, or because someone helped thwart it, or simply because they were too dumb to get away with it!
The question for Trump, therefore, isn’t whether his plan “worked.” It’s what he hoped to achieve (coerce a country for election assistance; generate propaganda about a sham investigation; use money appropriated by Congress as personal leverage)
He also took numerous steps to achieve this goal, beyond the phone call: ordered aid withheld; made it clear to subordinates that he wanted “deliverables”; directed Ukraine to deal with his personal lawyer; had his team draft a statement for Zelensky to deliver.
Minimizing the severity of Trump’s actions is an attempt to 1) narrow the focus to *only* the phone call (ignoring everything before and after); and 2) looking at the results, rather than commission, of the crime(s). Doesn’t work that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said before re the Mueller report wherein he did not state that there was sufficient evidence to indict for obstruction. Nothing was proven to be obstructed. And the investigation showed that there was no underlying crime. So an intent to commit an illegal act would have to be proved. But if Trump's state of mind was that he knew he didn't commit conspiracy, then it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to show intent to commit a crime.

Same would apply here. If Trump believed that asking Ukraine to investigate (which he had a legal right to do) would help to expose corruption, and no underlying crime was proven to have occurred, (remember as well That Zelensky said he was not pressured and didn't know about the aid being withheld at the time of the call and that Trump said it was for other reasons), then it would be very difficult to prove an intent to commit a criminal act.

[Pete F.]

the "smoking gun" tape ensuring Nixon's impeachment was an order by him to have the CIA impede the FBI investigation into Watergate burglaries. The CIA didn't follow through; the FBI investigation continued. RN's request alone was (rightly) deemed corrupt enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the "smoking gun" tape ensuring Nixon's impeachment was an order by him to have the CIA impede the FBI investigation into Watergate burglaries. The CIA didn't follow through; the FBI investigation continued. RN's request alone was (rightly) corrupt enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a switch from criminal prosecution to which your "prosecutor's explanation" referred, to impeachment. Criminal standards and impeachment "standards" (if there are any), as they are currently practiced, are not the same.

And Trump wasn't asking Ukraine to impede an investigation, but to conduct one.

[Pete F.]

CHRIS WALLACE: Aid was released 2 days after the IG informed the House about the whistleblower. It wasn't released until the story was out

KELLYANNE CONWAY: You're trying to make that causation. It may be coincidence

CW: You really think that's a coincidence?

KC: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

CHRIS WALLACE: Aid was released 2 days after the IG informed the House about the whistleblower. It wasn't released until the story was out

KELLYANNE CONWAY: You're trying to make that causation. It may be coincidence

CW: You really think that's a coincidence?

KC: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Consciousness of guilty.

Sleaziest admin. in our lifetime.