List of Trump's crimes?

[Watermelon]

Where was Biden cleared? Stopping an investigation is not "clearing". It's kinda like Trump declaring he was "exonerated" because the Mueller report didn't charge him.



I don't know that they were, or are, and you don't know that they're not. Remember that "presumption of innocence" thing? Somebody has to actually prove Trump's motive.

Here's another factor -- President Zelensky still claims he felt no pressure - no QPQ.

Let's say that you and I have a phone call, and others overhear parts of it, or find out second or third hand that we talked. Word gets out that I threatened I was blackmailing you -- an illegal act.

You voluntarily state there was no blackmail at all - that we were talking, and I made some suggestions, but you never considered it demands or threats or blackmail.....

who do we believe? You and me? Or people who kinda sorta heard the call, or parts of it, or reports of it.

[Mountain Man]

Again, what preponderance of evidence are you referring to? Second, third, and fourth hand hearsay are not evidence. Neither are presumptions and guesses. The only witness who spoke directly to Trump testified that the President told him clearly he didn't want quid quo pro. President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have said repeatedly that they felt no pressure from the Trump administration. The transcript of the phone call does not show any evidence of Trump pressuring the Ukraine government to do anything. As Turley pointed out today, impeaching a president requires clear and direct evidence of a crime. It can't simply be inferred.

[lilpixieofterror]

You called Clinton a rapist because of the accusations. Is it fair to call Trump a rapist and a serial sexual abuser too?

[JimL]

And yet not a single witness has testified to hearing anything of that nature directly from the President, and Sondland testified that the President explicitly told him the exact opposite of what was being passed around the rumour mill.

Of course not, even the president isn't that dumb. Looks to me like if push comes to shove Trumps going to pin the whole thing on the head of the OMB, Mick Mulvaney. But, even without the testimony of all the witnesses, including Mulvaney, that Trump blocked from testifying, there is still plenty of circumstantial evidence, not to mention Trumps own words on the phone to Zelenski "I need you to do us a favor though."
You're willing to believe the stupidest stuff, MM, in order to protect your belief in the wannabe dictator.

[JimL]

Accomodating? How so? !9 women accused Trump of sexual crimes. Would you say the media was harder on Trump?

[Watermelon]

Again, what preponderance of evidence are you referring to? Second, third, and fourth hand hearsay are not evidence. Neither are presumptions and guesses. The only witness who spoke directly to Trump testified that the President told him clearly he didn't want quid quo pro. President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have said repeatedly that they felt no pressure from the Trump administration. The transcript of the phone call does not show any evidence of Trump pressuring the Ukraine government to do anything. As Turley pointed out today, impeaching a president requires clear and direct evidence of a crime. It can't simply be inferred.

[JimL]

I explained it in my previous post. You are stating the same thing over and over again, they have been taken into account.

Wheres the second, third or fourth hand hearsay evidence I’m using?

And the other 3 disagreed. It seems like it’s the job of congress to determine the threshold for burden of proof but even if it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, preponderance of evidence shifts the burden of proof over to the defendant in similar situations. They just have to place ‘reasonable doubt’ by explaining away the evidence.

Trump should start with why the aid was withheld.

Trumps excuse for why the aid was withheld was because he was concerned about the corruption in Ukraine, yet he never once mentioned the corruption in Ukraine and he fired the Ambassador (Yovanovitch) who was was actually there for that very purpose, to root out the corruption. Trump was actually inviting corruption into Ukraine with his secret band of crooks, Giuliani and his 2 cohorts, and had to get Yovanovitch out of their way, so he fired her. Trump was concerned about only two things in Ukraine, a phoney investigation into Crowdstrike in order to shift the blame for the 2016 election interference from Russia to Ukraine, and an investigation into his political rival. That's what he asked Zelensky for. It's quite possible that after Zelensky made the public announcement of an investigation into Biden, that Trump would still withhold the aid for a few more weeks at which point, because of some Congressional rule, it could no longer be sent.

[Mountain Man]

You are stating the same thing over and over again...

Because those are the facts, and the facts haven't changed. You prefer one explanation, but the facts readily lend themselves to other explanations. The fact that they don't definitively point to a single, damning explanation provides reasonable doubt in and of itself.

You say that "Trump should start with why the aid was withheld." Actually, he doesn't have to start with anything because there is no clear or direct evidence that a crime was even committed. Even if we were to concede that every one of your "quick facts" were true, that still doesn't present any clear and direct evidence of a crime and just looks like typical foreign policy negotiations.

But let's circle back to your "quick facts":


But Sondland said he was acting on presumption, so whatever he told Ukrainian officials didn't come from the President. That straightaway takes three of your facts against Trump off the table:

Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

Trump call with Zelensky

Aid withheld with no reason given

Trump's phone call with Zelensky shows nothing criminal or even improper transpired, and Zelensky says he didn't feel pressured, so that's another strike:

Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

Trump call with Zelensky

Aid withheld with no reason given

You're right that apparently no reason was formally given for why aid was withheld, but we can't arbitrarily assume it must have been for illegitimate or illegal reasons. That would actually have to be proven, which it hasn't been, so that's another strike:

Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

Trump call with Zelensky

Aid withheld with no reason given

And the last two facts don't suggest anything criminal, so...

Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

Trump call with Zelensky

Aid withheld with no reason given

I dunno, man... your case against Trump looks pretty thin!

[Tassman]

So Sondland is not a credible witness in any way,

and all of his testimony should be tossed.

Not altogether given that the rest of his testimony is congruent with that of the other testifiers. But certainly, in this instance.

The bit Trump endlessly quotes, namely is just too convenient for Trump to be credible. Plus it uses the very same Latin phrase used by the whistle-blower and Trump is not known for inserting Latin phrases into his discourse. It's the sort of thing well-educated people do and Trump is far from that. BUT, more to the point, there is no record that this call between Soderland and Trump ever took place.

[Watermelon]

Because those are the facts, and the facts haven't changed. You prefer one explanation, but the facts readily lend themselves to other explanations. The fact that they don't definitively point to a single, damning explanation provides reasonable doubt in and of itself.

You say that "Trump should start with why the aid was withheld." Actually, he doesn't have to start with anything because there is no clear or direct evidence that a crime was even committed. Even if we were to concede that every one of your "quick facts" were true, that still doesn't present any clear and direct evidence of a crime and just looks like typical foreign policy negotiations.

But let's circle back to your "quick facts":


But Sondland said he was acting on presumption, so whatever he told Ukrainian officials didn't come from the President. That straightaway takes three of your facts against Trump off the table:

Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

Trump call with Zelensky

Aid withheld with no reason given

Trump's phone call with Zelensky shows nothing criminal or even improper transpired, and Zelensky says he didn't feel pressured, so that's another strike:

Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

Trump call with Zelensky

Aid withheld with no reason given

You're right that apparently no reason was formally given for why aid was withheld, but we can't arbitrarily assume it must have been for illegitimate or illegal reasons. That would actually have to be proven, which it hasn't been, so that's another strike:

Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

Trump call with Zelensky

Aid withheld with no reason given

And the last two facts don't suggest anything criminal, so...

Sonderland repeatedly requests Ukrainians to announce investigations

Sonderland tells Ukrainians White House meeting is conditioned on announcement

Trump call with Zelensky

Aid withheld with no reason given

I dunno, man... your case against Trump looks pretty thin!

[Cow Poke]

Forget the facts! FULL SPEED FORWARD - let's present this turkey to the Senate!!!

[Mountain Man]

1) Unless we have reason to question Sondland's credibility, then we must accept his statements as truthful and accurate. He says he acted on his own presumption. His statement was never challenged. Therefore, it's a fact that he acted on his own presumption.

2) What's in the transcript is not up for debate since we're all free to read it for ourselves, and yes, it's an undeniable fact that the transcript shows no evidence of anything criminal or improper.

3) If someone wants to claim that aid to Ukraine was withheld for illegal reasons, then this would have to be proven with direct and relevant evidence. Simply assuming it must have been illegal is not good enough.

4) Of course facts that don't suggest a crime are still evidence; they're just not evidence of a crime. I would have thought this was obvious.

Bottom line: your "quick facts" do not lead to your preferred conclusion, and you seem to be unaware of the hidden assumptions you're using to get there.

[Watermelon]

1) Unless we have reason to question Sondland's credibility, then we must accept his statements as truthful and accurate. He says he acted on his own presumption. His statement was never challenged. Therefore, it's a fact that he acted on his own presumption.

2) What's in the transcript is not up for debate since we're all free to read it for ourselves, and yes, it's an undeniable fact that the transcript shows no evidence of anything criminal or improper.

3) If someone wants to claim that aid to Ukraine was withheld for illegal reasons, then this would have to be proven with direct and relevant evidence. Simply assuming it must have been illegal is not good enough.

4) Of course facts that don't suggest a crime are still evidence; they're just not evidence of a crime. I would have thought this was obvious.

Bottom line: your "quick facts" do not lead to your preferred conclusion, and you seem to be unaware of the hidden assumptions you're using to get there.

[Watermelon]

[Mountain Man]

Sondland was grilled during the hearing, and he consistently said that he was acting on his own presumption and not on any direct orders from the President.

Regarding the aid being withheld, yes, they need something more than the mere act of the aid being withheld to prove their case that a crime was committed, because withholding aid is not a crime in and of itself. Something like a memo, or an email, or a firsthand witness who received an order directly from the President. Until you have that, then the act of aid being withheld is not evidence of a crime.