Trump openly admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry

[Go Braves]

Haha, I've never quoted myself before but doing so is better than editing the previous post after it's already been quoted. My professor is the former Ambassador to Russia. He wrote this in October:

Trump’s Gift to Putin
The President’s Privatized Foreign Policy Is a Boon for Russia

I know you're real busy but if you find time to share more insight from your professor, that'd be great!

 

[KCfromNC]

I am wondering why Trump asked the Ukrainians anything and didn’t just use his Justice Department to dig up dirt on his political opponents children.

Perhaps even Barr has limits to what he'll do? Might be worthwhile to get him to testify to be sure.

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree that it's easy to prove when the aid was withheld and when it was released. Trump himself said he released it after people complained. What is hard to prove is like you say, that the whistleblower was the trigger. In other words it's hard to prove beyond a doubt that it's not coincidental.

That's the thing, though, any defense of Donald requires believing in a lot of random coincidences instead of the sworn testimony of people involved in the events.

And it isn't like anyone's actually making those defenses in the first place, it is more a lot of guessing that there could maybe hypothetically possibly be those defenses, maybe.

Pit that against the actual facts, and it seems pretty weak.

 

[Kentonio]

No Quid Pro Quo: Ukraine Found Out About $400 Billion Withholding 1 Month After Trump Call

Some of the headlines read "$400B"... guess that would be a staggering sum, you're 100% sure "$400M" is the right figure?

Still a lot of money, and the President still has a "half-billion dollar point" (rounding slightly in his favor), no?

Yes I’m very sure it’s not $400b. For one thing that would be more than twice the amount that the US has given to Israel over its entire history.

 

[childeye 2]

The timeline makes it pretty dang obvious the whistleblower sounding the alarm prompted the aid finally being released. After prolonged wrangling to get it released it finally was after Donald became aware of the whistleblower. Sept. 9 is also the day of the conversation with Amb. Sondland when he was in a bad mood & said he didn't want anything from Ukraine. Lmbo. Sondland testified under oath, of course, that Donald absolutely wanted a quid pro quo.

Timeline: The curious release of military aid to Ukraine

As you may or may not know, I study semantics. I believe there is way more evidence showing Trump's intent to withhold the security aid to achieve his own personal political agenda found in the phone call from Sondland, than in the timeline.

It's not credible that Sondland would ask Trump something like, what do you want from Ukraine? It's not plausible to believe that he had been busy the past four to five months carrying out an agenda for the President without having known what the President wanted and therefore what his job was.

Moreover, Trump's supposed answer was quite telling of his guilt and not exculpatory at all. Why would Trump say I want nothing, I want nothing as if the question was a moot point? If Trump was perceiving that he had been legitimately asked what he wanted from Ukraine, then why would his mind jump to choose words like I want no quid pro quo? Such words only represent the response from a defensive posture.

I want Zelensky to do the right thing, is code for the investigations he wanted done. The fact is there is video of Trump telling reporters that he wants Ukraine to be honest, and then adding, you'd think if they were honest they would open an investigation into Biden and his son, and so should China.

In view of all of this, I'm sure there is more that was not said by Sondland about that phone call than was said. Because Trump presents a defensive posture in his replies, they more likely talked about Taylor's text tying security aid to a political campaign and then conspired how to respond.

When Volker released those texts, Trump tweeted about how the media doesn't want to talk about Sondland's text showing there was no quid pro Quo. The President's tweet as well as Sondlands text avoid hinting that Sondland's response could have been scripted in coordination with the President. Only later that evening was it reported that Sondland had talked to the President before posting the text.

That's why there is more hard proof that the President was withholding aid for his personal political agenda in the phone call with Sondland than in the timeline.

 

[childeye 2]

That's the thing, thought, any defense of Donald requires believing in a lot of random coincidences instead of the sworn testimony of people involved in the events.

And it isn't like anyone's actually making those defenses in the first place, it is more a lot of guessing that there could maybe hypothetically possibly be those defenses, maybe.

Pit that against the actual facts, and it seems pretty weak.

There are better facts in the timeline about the phone conversation Sondland had with the President between receiving Taylor's text and Sondland's text in response to Taylor. Please see post #65.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I agree that it's easy to prove when the aid was withheld and when it was released. Trump himself said he released it after people complained. What is hard to prove is like you say, that the whistleblower was the trigger. In other words it's hard to prove beyond a doubt that it's not coincidental.

My point was that whether or not it was technically the whistleblower's report that triggered it is irrelevant. When the whistleblower report was made public, we already knew that the aid was being withheld - it just gave a possible reason why. Trump and his supporters point to the release of aid as proof that there was "no quid pro quo." However, the aid was only released after it became public that it was being withheld and people started complaining about it. It's not proof that the aid was being whithheld to pressure Ukraine, but it certainly casts doubt on the administration's defense.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As you may or mat not know, I study semantics. I believe there is way more evidence showing Trump's intent to withhold the security aid to achieve his own personal political agenda found in the phone call from Sondland, than in the timeline.

While I agree that the semantics argument makes a compelling case, it's not really solid proof. You have to back up the words with actions.

 

[cow451]

While I agree that the semantics argument makes a compelling case, it's not really solid proof. You have to back up the words with actions.

Words are actions.

 

[mark46]

With respect, you don't understand the issue. It is NOT whether Trump pushed around and threatened the president of Ukraine.

The issue to be decided is not whether Trump was wrong, whether he violated the law, or even whether he violated terms of the Constitution.

The issue is: In the minds of a supoermajority of the Senate, is Trump's conduct "impeachable"; that is, is it sufficient to make him the first president in the history of the US to removed from office. This has never, ever happened before.

There is a very strong argument that the political removal of Trump in January or February is not needed since there is a political decision to be made in November.
===============
BOTTOM LINE
The jobs of the House and Senate are very different.

The House must decide whether there is enough evidence to try Trump on the various articles of impeachable offenses. They also must decide, politically as required by the Constitution, whether they want a trial to take place in the Senate.

The senate must decided whether Trump should be the first president ever removed by the Congress. Since this is at its heart, a political event, it is quite possible to decide that the voters can choose whether to accept Trump's conduct.

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," Trump openly admitted to holding up military aid to Ukraine to pressure the government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory about Ukrainian election interference and Democratic collusion.

In other words, Trump acknowledged doing the very thing he has repeatedly denied and will likely be impeached for. The president started off by referencing the broad outlines of the conspiracy, suggesting Ukraine is hiding a Democratic National Committee "server" that contains evidence of Ukrainian meddling.

Then, crucially, he tacked on: "We're looking for corruption, there's tremendous corruption, and why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries where there's this kind of corruption?"

Side note - If this isn't enough for you, the full interview is insane. It seems like he's cracking.

 

[mark46]

I don't see any issues of semantics, just of nitpicking. The Senate trial has its own rules, and they are not the rules of a courtroom.

IMO, there is no question that Trump committed many, many acts that can be included in article of impeachment, and approved by the House. The very simplest article could include the charge that Trump directed folks to secure help from Ukraine that would benefit his campaign. Included as support would be the charge that trump ordered his folks to pressure Ukraine to investigate a citizen of the US, a political opponent of Trump.

The open issue for the Senators, is whether, in their political judgment, Trump should be the first president in the history of the US to be removed from office by the Congress.

As you may or mat not know, I study semantics. I believe there is way more evidence showing Trump's intent to withhold the security aid to achieve his own personal political agenda found in the phone call from Sondland, than in the timeline.

It's not credible that Sondland would ask Trump something like, what do you want from Ukraine? It's not plausible to believe that he had been busy the past four to five months carrying out an agenda for the President without having known what the President wanted and therefore what his job was.

Moreover, Trump's supposed answer was quite telling of his guilt and not exculpatory at all. Why would Trump say I want nothing, I want nothing as if the question was a moot point? If Trump was perceiving that he had been legitimately asked what he wanted from Ukraine, then why would his mind jump to choose words like I want no quid pro quo? Such words only represent the response from a defensive posture.

I want Zelensky to do the right thing, is code for the investigations he wanted done. The fact is there is video of Trump telling reporters that he wants Ukraine to be honest, and then adding, you'd think if they were honest they would open an investigation into Biden and his son, and so should China.

In view of all of this, I'm sure there is more that was not said by Sondland about that phone call than was said. Because Trump presents a defensive posture in his replies, they more likely talked about Taylor's text tying security aid to a political campaign and then conspired how to respond.

When Volker released those texts, Trump tweeted about how the media doesn't want to talk about Sondland's text showing there was no quid pro Quo. The President's tweet as well as Sondlands text avoid hinting that Sondland's response could have been scripted in coordination with the President. Only later that evening was it reported that Sondland had talked to the President before posting the text.

That's why there is more hard proof that the President was withholding aid for his personal political agenda in the phone call with Sondland than in the timeline.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Words are actions.

They are, but semantics are subjective by nature, and subjective arguments are very weak in a legal sense.

 

[mark46]

Which legal case are you discussing?

They are, but semantics are subjective by nature, and subjective arguments are very weak in a legal sense.

 

[childeye 2]

While I agree that the semantics argument makes a compelling case, it's not really solid proof. You have to back up the words with actions.

The semantics argument could be furthered by better questioning of Sondland about the phone call. I believe with a proper understanding of how semantics work, a line of questioning could be pursued that would at least reveal where Sondland and Trump had a motive and an intent to script what to say in response to Taylor's text. The implication being that Trump was attempting to produce cover for something that is inappropriate revealed in Taylor's text.

There are other prior instances of this, such as Donald junior's answer about the Trump Tower meeting being dictated by Trump, and where Trump called into a talk show pretending he was someone else while talking about himself, and also trying to get Rosenstein to publicly say it was Rosenstein's idea to fire Comey. We are even again currently being presented with evidence showing Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly make a statement scripted for him as if the words were his own voluntary sentiments.

 

[jardiniere]

I am wondering why Trump asked the Ukrainians anything and didn’t just use his Justice Department to dig up dirt on his political opponents children. It is not like the Attorney General works for the United States or anything, he is Trumps personal lawyer.

I agree, it would have worked out far better for the President that way, and avoided the "appearance of impropriety" that has dogged the President for using Giuliani as the "investigator".

 

[childeye 2]

They are, but semantics are subjective by nature, and subjective arguments are very weak in a legal sense.

I respectfully disagree. It depends on the proficiency of the person doing the questioning. Semantics when applied skillfully will reveal a person is lying because the person being questioned will ultimately end up contradicting their selves. Motive and intent to deceive are proven through semantics even as much as semantics are used to hide motives and intent.

To understand how semantics work, is also to understand that they fundamentally form according to a person's subjective view of good and bad when in fact good and bad in the moral/immoral sense is never subjective. Even because it's true that they are subjective in their formation, this necessarily means that when explored objectively, they will ultimately reveal whether or not where the person is coming from on an issue is objectively right or wrong. Please note that the moral truth of treat others as yourself requires both subjective and objective points of view. This is why any reasoning based on any falsehood ends in a contradiction.

If I may point out, even the withholding of documents and preventing of witnesses testifying is considered obstruction of justice from an objective point of view in regards to intent and motive, even because it surmises that someone who is not afraid of what they will reveal would release them. It therefore hinders an investigation from getting to the Truth of a matter because they essentially are hiding something that would further that cause.

 

[Go Braves]

As you may or mat not know, I study semantics. I believe there is way more evidence showing Trump's intent to withhold the security aid to achieve his own personal political agenda found in the phone call from Sondland, than in the timeline.

It's not credible that Sondland would ask Trump something like, what do you want from Ukraine? It's not plausible to believe that he had been busy the past four to five months carrying out an agenda for the President without having known what the President wanted and therefore what his job was.

Moreover, Trump's supposed answer was quite telling of his guilt and not exculpatory at all. Why would Trump say I want nothing, I want nothing as if the question was a moot point? If Trump was perceiving that he had been legitimately asked what he wanted from Ukraine, then why would his mind jump to choose words like I want no quid pro quo? Such words only represent the response from a defensive posture.

I want Zelensky to do the right thing, is code for the investigations he wanted done. The fact is there is video of Trump telling reporters that he wants Ukraine to be honest, and then adding, you'd think if they were honest they would open an investigation into Biden and his son, and so should China.

In view of all of this, I'm sure there is more that was not said by Sondland about that phone call than was said. Because Trump presents a defensive posture in his replies, they more likely talked about Taylor's text tying security aid to a political campaign and then conspired how to respond.

When Volker released those texts, Trump tweeted about how the media doesn't want to talk about Sondland's text showing there was no quid pro Quo. The President's tweet as well as Sondlands text avoid hinting that Sondland's response could have been scripted in coordination with the President. Only later that evening was it reported that Sondland had talked to the President before posting the text.

That's why there is more hard proof that the President was withholding aid for his personal political agenda in the phone call with Sondland than in the timeline.

Thanks for your insight! I think you're probably right that what was said was more important than the timeline but I definitely think the timeline is extremely relevant & telling.

 

[childeye 2]

Words are actions.

The words reveal an attempt to cover up for wrongful actions which also is evidence of guilt.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am wondering why Trump asked the Ukrainians anything and didn’t just use his Justice Department to dig up dirt on his political opponents children.

From the evidence we have, Donald is quite sympathetic and/or susceptible to Russian propaganda about the subject. And given his past statements, about many other subjects as well.

 

[Halbhh]

That’s what having an accident of birth that means you are insulated from any consequences causes.

I'd say 100% of mankind (not 85% or 99%, etc.), needs the only true Anchor, and not to rely on just their own experience and knowledge and understanding, no matter what that experience or knowledge is. No matter how correct they feel by their real experiences, they will always go wrong if they don't look to Christ to teach them the only ultimate truth that goes past every individual amount of experience (every various situation of limited information).