List of Trump's crimes?

[Mountain Man]

no - it's not 'idle speculation' ... but you saying that does appear to make clear you did not read the article itself.

I did read the article. It's just more hearsay. Is this Zerkal gal speaking based on direct knowledge from statements made to her by Zelensky himself, or is she pulling a Sondland and making claims based on presumption?

[JimL]

Or maybe, the Democrats made up false information to try to take down Trump, and Trump was actually trying to investigate a crime that Biden admitted to on camera that they are now trying to accuse Trump of!

First of all it is not a crime to communicate ones president and boss's message to Ukraine when that message has to do with government policy. Second, you know as well as I do that a President asking another government to investigate an American citizen is illegal. Third, asking a foreign government to interfere with a U.S. election is illegal, an abuse of power, a high crime and misdemeaner. Fourth, the withholding of appropriated military aid to an ally trying to repel the agression of a common adversary, and in fact aids that adversary, is not only a crime, it's immoral, unpatriotic, risk of national security, and in my opinion, treason. Fifth, the extraordinary lengths to which Trump went to cover-up the conspiracy, his continued obstruction of congress, his withholding of documents, and blocking of witness testimony are all crimes that fit the category as set forth in the Constitution.

[Cow Poke]

First of all it is not a crime to communicate ones president and boss's message to Ukraine. Second, you know as well as I do that a President asking another government to investigate an American citizen is illegal. Third, asking a foreign government to interfere with a U.S. election is illegal, an abuse of power, a high crime and misdemeaner.

[Teallaura]

Teal is aware of this narrative because I responded to your post about it in another thread, and she amen'd my post. Here is my previous response:

Seen.

[Teallaura]

Ukraine did know about the hold on the military aid so stop echoing the right wing propaganda that "they didn't even know." Even if no one told them, they still knew, they knew it was appropriated and they weren't getting it. They can put two and two together. But they didn't need to speculate, they already knew long before the call to Zelensky, they knew in August. And the only reason that they, i.e. Ukraine, didn't comply with the demand was because the whistle was blown, the plot was uncovered, so the scheduled public announcement was cancelled.

1) No one told them
2) They'd have asked why - but didn't.
3) Most politicians worldwide aren't insane like the Dems, so no.
4) OMB begs to differ.

[JimL]

1) No one told them

They knew in August, Tea, long before Trumps call to Zelensky.

2) They'd have asked why - but didn't.

They already knew, so didn't have to ask. And how would you know if they asked or not anyway?

3) Most politicians worldwide aren't insane like the Dems, so no.

I gotta tell ya Tea, that's a real laugher coming from a Trumpster.

4) OMB begs to differ.

Begs to differ about what?

[Watermelon]

Being fair, no, he wasn't. Confronted by hamstrung questioners, yes; thoroughly examined under oath, no.

You guys are hacking weeds - the Dems had the opportunity but didn't pursue it (precious little wonder - Sondland's the kind of witness you hope the other side calls) and the Republicans don't care so Sondland's assertion he acted under his own presumption will likely stand unless the Republicans try to drive it home and the Dems get a freaking clue at trial. OR his credibility is shredded for lying which is probably going to be the first line of attack.

Watermelon is overstating the strength of the case in my opinion but you're underestimating it. There is evidence - it's not strong or good and the case depends on following the bouncing ball but there is evidence. Water is correct that some of the hearsay may be allowed in (looooong story but it is possible to shoehorn stuff in) and the case is circumstantial. It's foolish to ignore a case just because you don't like its construction.

That said, Water seems to mistakenly believe there has been an opportunity for defense in the proceedings - maybe that's why he sees the case as stronger because it isn't yet shot to pieces. Dunno, but I think he's way overconfident about how much of the hearsay will be admitted and I'm dubious about at least one witness being recalled at all. None of the witnesses, public or private, have yet faced serious cross examination, nor has the premise of Trump being concerned about Biden as a political rival been explored.

Anyway, the symposium evidently failed because we have a new round of hearings Monday - oh, and we're back to Russia. Pelosi has gone completely AOC level nutty. It's a lovely day at Congress!

Admittedly I was wrong to assume that the US legal system would be near identical to the Australian one. There are slight differences in how certain things are applied but since they are based on the same underlying legal principles it’s not difficult to understand.

The difficulty in discussing this matter is due to everyone arguing from whichever evidentiary standard is convenient.

Abuse of power comes down to whether the aid was withheld in order to make Zelensky announce the investigation and on this I think the case is strong. The fact that aid was withheld and the fact Sonderland communicated that it was conditioned on the announcements to the Ukrainians is enough to make it more likely than not especially considering the absence of a valid defence.

If we go by the elements it would be something along the lines of:

- use of a power
Executive power used to hold aid
- contrary to purpose
Evidence power used as bribe incentive
- intention to personally benefit
Intention for Ukraine to announce investigations into political rival. Benefit by increasing chance of re-election.

Prima facie a case is established.

The easy thing for Trump is that all he has to show is that the aid was withheld for legitimate reasons. Power used legitimately can’t be abused and it’s precisely because we are talking about a power that arguments such as ‘presumption of innocence’ or ‘right to silence’ do not apply.

[Watermelon]

Or maybe, the Democrats made up false information to try to take down Trump, and Trump was actually trying to investigate a crime that Biden admitted to on camera that they are now trying to accuse Trump of!

The only thing that’s stopping Trump from investigating Biden seems to be the lack of evidence.

Unless Zelensky announcing investigations into Biden was somehow critical for the investigation to progress.

[Watermelon]

It doesn't work like that at all. Otherwise you turn the presumption of innocence on its head. Prosecutors have to prove their accusations; it's not up to the defendant to disprove them.

Besides, legal precedent says that a president can withhold funds without alerting Congress if he is in the process of considering whether to defer or rescind those funds provided they are not held beyond the end of the fiscal year, and at least two reasons why Trump might take such an action were revealed during the hearings: 1) That Trump was concerned about ongoing corruption in the Ukraine; and 2) That he was concerned that other countries weren't offering equitable support.

You’re killing me Mountain Man! People actually pay me money to do the thing you just dismissed! The jurisprudence behind presumption of innocence is clear on basing its application on the severity of the remedy at stake. Basically if you’re going to kill someone for a crime then just make sure they really did it.

That’s why it’s not always applicable in civil cases because there are situations where people need to explain themselves. If the reason behind the use of a special power (authority to do certain acts, not available to general public)is the allegation then it can only be weighed against their defense otherwise it would be impossible to prove to any standard.

It’s like if you ask someone why they drove a car and they didn’t answer. They fact finder knows why people drive cars and whether the allegations are credible. If you ask a director why certain funds were transferred in a certain way and they didn’t answer then the fact finder can only assume the allegations as true because they don’t know what the other options are.

[Watermelon]

There's no way to benefit, personal or otherwise, by doing something to directly influence the actions of another without the other in some way knowing about it. Ukraine didn't know the aid was withheld so it could not have had any bearing on their actions had they complied with the request, which they didn't. The presumption itself is logically incoherent and shouldn't be held at all without substantiation.

They don’t have to actually benefit, just have the intention to benefit. If the aid was withheld with the intention of using it as leverage for personal gain then the power has been abused the moment aid was withheld. It doesn’t make it ok if they don’t get around to using it or if they don’t actually benefit from it.

[firstfloor]

Being a “dotard”.

[NorrinRadd]

You might enjoy Turley's review of the impeachment circus where they had the three liberal hacks pushing hard for impeachment, under the guise of being there as constitutional experts.

Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment

Assuming he's actually literate, this would be a good one for JimL to visit. It addresses the dishonest talking points about Turley contradicting his prior positions.

[oxmixmudd]

I did read the article. It's just more hearsay. Is this Zerkal gal speaking based on direct knowledge from statements made to her by Zelensky himself, or is she pulling a Sondland and making claims based on presumption?

MM dictionary: hearsay, anything anyone witnessed that implicates Donald Trump.

If you in fact read that article and are dismissing the clear implications as regards the inanity of placing any sort of credence on Zekenski's claims of 'no pressure', then you show yourself incapable of objective thought regarding this Presidents actions as they relate to the situation with Ukraine that has led to this impeachment inquiry.

[Cow Poke]

Assuming he's actually literate, this would be a good one for JimL to visit. It addresses the dishonest talking points about Turley contradicting his prior positions.

He was there to get beat up - the other three were there to push full speed ahead for impeachment.

[Mountain Man]

Abuse of power comes down to whether the aid was withheld in order to make Zelensky announce the investigation and on this I think the case is strong. The fact that aid was withheld and the fact Sonderland communicated that it was conditioned on the announcements to the Ukrainians is enough to make it more likely than not especially considering the absence of a valid defence.

The two facts against are that Sondland admitted that he was acting on his own presumption, and that when he spoke to the President directly was emphatically told there was to be no quid pro quo.