Thoughts - Day one of the Impeachment hearings

hislegacy said:

You know what is missing?

Anything that says I will with hold funding until you do. That missing part is what would make the conversation a quid pro quo - with out that there is no quid pro quo.

Click to expand...

Sorry but this is wildly simplistic. The president had his proxies like Sondland talking to Ukrainian officials spelling out what needed to happen for aid to be resumed. Just because Trump didn’t say the explicit words on one call (according to the summary of the conversation he himself chose to reveal) is entirely irrelevant.

Sparagmos said:

If your whole dispute with the case against Trump is that the evidence presented thus far is heresay, what are you going to do when Sondland and other witnesses with first hand knowledge testify?

Click to expand...

when Sondland testifies and explains why he first stated “The President made is crystal clear, there is no Quid Pro Quo” and is now saying something the exact opposite, I’ll listen and then make a judgement.

See, you can make judgements, right or wrong, when there is fact witnesses, but not hearsay.

That is why hearsay is not allowed in a court of law.

Kentonio said:

Sorry but this is wildly simplistic.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is really simple.

Either the President said you do this to get that or he did not.

hislegacy said:

Yes, it is really simple.

Either the President said you do this to get that or he did not.

Click to expand...

Firstly it’s wildly naive because you’re demanding a level of proof that no-one in an actual criminal trial could expect. If it was a mob boss asking for a ‘favor’ from someone in their debt, there would be no expectation that they had to spell out the consequences for it to be a crime. The very idea is farcical quite frankly.

Secondly I have no idea why you think the call is the only thing that matters here. We have a whole list of testimonies now from people involved saying this bribery happened. Even if Trump hadn’t made that call, there’s still more than enough evidence of his guilt.

hislegacy said:

You know what is missing?

Anything that says I will with hold funding until you do. That missing part is what would make the conversation a quid pro quo - with out that there is no quid pro quo.

Click to expand...

Come on now. Even the dumbest criminals know better than to outright state the crime they intend to commit.

You ever sit on a jury, where hearsay evidence is presented and the jury is instructed to disregard?

even the dumbest prosecutor in the world knows hearsay evidence is non admissible

hislegacy said:

You ever sit on a jury, where hearsay evidence is presented and the jury is instructed to disregard?

even the dumbest prosecutor in the world knows hearsay evidence is non admissible

Click to expand...

This is palpably untrue. If you’re on trial for murder and there’s a witness who says you told them on a phone call you were going to murder someone that day, it’s technically ‘hearsay’ but would absolutely be admissible (and damning).

hislegacy said:

That is why hearsay is not allowed in a court of law.

Click to expand...

These hearings are not a court of law.
The SCOTUS ruled that hearsay evidence is allowed in a grand jury indict proceeding where evidence is gathered to determine if a trial should move forward. That is what these hearings are about.
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S. Ct. 406, 100 L. Ed. 397 [1956]).
Justice Hugo L. Black noted in his majority opinion, "neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act."

Aldebaran said:

Last two? Does that include the one in 2016?

Click to expand...

There was literally elections a week ago. It's obvious that's what was meant.

Bobber said:

One observation I have and it seems in both these witnesses had in their opening speeches is talking about the traditional policies the U.S. has had in regard to the Ukraine file and the impression they leave is what a surprising disturbing thing it is for President Trump to be doing things somewhat different in things he may or may not do. I was thinking when I was listening to this, hold on, hold on, hold on! Neither of you two gentlemen are the President of the United States! Well they might consider Trump might be doing something crazy. Yes maybe so. So what! It's THE PEOPLE and ONLY THE PEOPLE as in an election which have given him leadership. If THE PEOPLE have said YES for four years than that's what they mean.

Click to expand...

...doing things differently?

Daniel Goldman: (00:44)
What did you mean when you said you thought it was crazy?

Bill Taylor: (00:48)
Mr.Goldman, I meant that because of the importance of security assistance that we had just described and had a conversation with the chairman, because that was so important. That security system was so important for Ukraine, as well as our own national interest, to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with the political campaign made no sense. It was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy.

Bill Taylor: (02:23)
Finally, as the Committee is aware, I wrote that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be crazy. I believe that then, and I believe it now. Let me tell you why. On May 28th of this year, I met with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who asked me to rejoin the State Department and return to Kyiv to lead our embassy in Ukraine. It was and is a critical time for US-Ukraine relations. I had served as ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009 having been nominated by George W. Bush, and in the intervening 10 years, had stayed engaged with Ukraine.

Bill Taylor: (33:58)
Ambassador Sondland responded about five hours later that I was incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear. No quid pro quos of any kind. During our meeting, during our call on September 8th, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador Volker used the same language several days later while we were together at the Yalta European Strategy Conference. I argued to both that the explanation made no sense. Ukrainians did not owe President Trump anything and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was crazy. As I had said in my text message to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9th. Finally on September 11th, I learned that the hold had been lifted and security assistance would be provided. I was not told the reason why the hold had been lifted.



.

hislegacy said:

You know what is missing?

Anything that says I will with hold funding until you do. That missing part is what would make the conversation a quid pro quo - with out that there is no quid pro quo.

Click to expand...

It’s the implication, and immediately caused alarm bells to go off by people who heard the call. And the call is not the sole communication with Ukraine about the quid pro quo - there are multiple witnesses to the communication with Ukraine about it, who have and/or will be testifying.

hislegacy said:

You know what is missing?

Anything that says I will withhold funding until you do. That missing part is what would make the conversation a quid pro quo - with out that there is no quid pro quo.

Click to expand...

Did you even read my note about the ellipses? We know they represent text being removed so only White House staff can see the most harmful statements because of their relative locations. You can't look at the trigger phrases and think they mean nothing.

NightHawkeye said:

Maybe, maybe not. It kind of depends on the point at which the robbery is called off.

For example, shoplifting generally isn't a crime until one has actually left the store without paying for the merchandise. The state of mind, whether intentional or not, doesn't really matter.

Click to expand...

This is a very bad anology.

A more appropriate analogy would be having a police officer in the store while the store is being robbed.
A criminal stands in front of the store keeping weilding a machete. "Give me your money"
The store keeper looks at the police man and asks, "can you help me out here?"
The police officer tells the store keeper about how much the police have done for the store keeper already. He then says "I need you to do us a favour though".
Now this police officer is looking for a promotion at work, he wants to be Chief. His main opposition is another police officer, Lets call him Officer Smith.
The police officer tells the store keeper, that before he helps him out with this robbery, he needs the store keeper to call up the media, get on TV and make an accusation against Officer Smith.

Another witness comes into view, saying "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], that sounds like a shake down!"
The police officer then helps the store keeper and stops the robber.

Does this mean no harm no foul?
Or was the Police officer's attempted shakedown something that needs to be dealt with?

hislegacy said:

My favorite part of all of yesterday.

their star witness. LOL

Click to expand...

A petty performance of trolling by Jordan, allowing for Taylor to set him straight.

Aldebaran said:

Last two? Does that include the one in 2016?

Click to expand...

No, but thanks for asking.

Aldebaran said:

I didn't think so. That one was a "red wave", and a glorious one at that!

Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poll...b57972-ff5b-11e9-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html

Democrats flip Virginia Senate and House, taking control of state government for the first time in a generation