Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

List of Trump's crimes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    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.
    I can only assume based on this tap dance of an answer that you recognize that Zerkal is not speaking based on direct knowledge of statements made by Zelinsky.

    And there's still the hole in you theory that Zelinsky is so afraid of Trump he's willing to lie about not being pressured, but not so afraid that he would agree to investigate Quid Pro Joe's dirty deal.

    I think, then, that when Zelinsky says he wasn't pressured, he is more than likely telling the truth.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
      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.
      The thing is, the President does have some flexibility when it comes to the timing of the dispersement of funds, and he is under no obligation to explain himself so long as the funds are dispersed prior to the fiscal year's end. It's not like a company accountant who refuses to explain the improper withdrawal of money. Everything Trump did with regards to the military aid is perfectly legal. The burden of proof, then, is on those making the accusation that it was somehow improper even if it wasn't illegal.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        I can only assume based on this tap dance of an answer that you recognize that Zerkal is not speaking based on direct knowledge of statements made by Zelinsky.

        And there's still the hole in you theory that Zelinsky is so afraid of Trump he's willing to lie about not being pressured, but not so afraid that he would agree to investigate Quid Pro Joe's dirty deal.

        I think, then, that when Zelinsky says he wasn't pressured, he is more than likely telling the truth.
        There was no tap dance. You dismiss evidence out of hand if they are telling what they saw and heard by calling it hearsay. You're the one dancing.

        As for 'the hole in my theory', she is a first hand witness as to the tightrope they are walking and how measures were taken to avoid falling off said tightrope. Specifically regarding what she could and could not discuss regarding what she knew.
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-07-2019, 01:16 PM.
        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          There was no tap dance. You dismiss evidence out of hand if they are telling what they saw and heard by calling it hearsay. You're the one dancing.

          As for 'the hole in my theory', she is a first hand witness as to the tightrope they are walking and how measures were taken to avoid falling off said tightrope. Specifically regarding what she could and could not discuss regarding what she knew.
          I didn't dismiss the evidence. I asked if Zerkal was speaking based on direct knowledge, or if she's the Ukrainian version of Gordan Sondland. Apparently you don't know either, but you're quick to pretend that it doesn't matter. On the contrary, I think it does matter.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            I didn't dismiss the evidence. I asked if Zerkal was speaking based on direct knowledge, or if she's the Ukrainian version of Gordan Sondland. Apparently you don't know either, but you're quick to pretend that it doesn't matter. On the contrary, I think it does matter.
            The direct quotes of what she said are what I'm going on mm. She is telling what she witnessed and saw. And that is sufficient to establish they knew at the time of the call the aid was being held and that they were engaged in a very careful tightrope walk trying to get the hold removed and avoiding angering either side in the us politics that held the purse strings.
            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              She is telling what she witnessed and saw.
              Or what she presumed she was seeing.

              As for the "tightrope", you're still stuck with needing to explain why Zelensky is supposedly so afraid of Trump that he's willing to lie about not feeling pressured, but not so afraid that he would immediately agree to begin an investigation into Biden's Dirty Deal.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                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.
                Do you think it’s important to know why or how Sonderland made that presumption?

                Im curious to know what made you so certain Schiff was lying about having no contact with the whistle blower.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Or what she presumed she was seeing.

                  As for the "tightrope", you're still stuck with needing to explain why Zelensky is supposedly so afraid of Trump that he's willing to lie about not feeling pressured, but not so afraid that he would immediately agree to begin an investigation into Biden's Dirty Deal.
                  The unfortunate thing for you here (if we want to go by legal principles) is that the vulnerable situation of Ukraine and their dependence on the US means it will be claimed to be a relationship under undue influence. I know you hate this but the burden of proof falls on you to prove that Zelenskys responses are not the result of undue influence before you can request an answer for your question.

                  What evidence has you convinced that Bidens deal was dirty anyway?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                    The unfortunate thing for you here (if we want to go by legal principles) is that the vulnerable situation of Ukraine and their dependence on the US means it will be claimed to be a relationship under undue influence. I know you hate this but the burden of proof falls on you to prove that Zelenskys responses are not the result of undue influence before you can request an answer for your question.

                    What evidence has you convinced that Bidens deal was dirty anyway?
                    The counterargument is that if Ukraine was so vulnerable, and Zelensky so scared of Trump, then why didn't he immediately agree to begin an investigation in order to get the military aide flowing as quickly as possible?

                    As for what Joe Biden was up to, John Solomon has done the most in-depth reporting on this. What we do know is that Burisma was being actively and aggressively investigated when Hunter Biden and other board members contacted Obama's State Department and asked them to get the prosecutor off their back, and then Joe Biden shows up and essentially says, "If you want this money then you'll leave my boy alone."

                    https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunte...ns-memos-show/
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      They knew in August, Tea, long before Trumps call to Zelensky.
                      Nope.
                      They already knew, so didn't have to ask. And how would you know if they asked or not anyway?
                      Did not.
                      Would be all over the news by now but since the Ukrainian government is denying knowledge I think it's sufficient proof.
                      I gotta tell ya Tea, that's a real laugher coming from a Trumpster.
                      Not sure I care what someone who supports the overthrow of the US government finds humorous.
                      Begs to differ about what?
                      Keep up.
                      OMB has been refuting that Dem canard. Turns out Trump isn't big on sending our tax dollars to foreign governments for no good reason.

                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Nope.
                        Yep. Documents, and testimony by DoD official Laura Cooper. They knew in Early August and the aid wasn't released until Sept. 11th just after the whistleblower complaint.

                        Did not.
                        Did too. Look it up.

                        Would be all over the news by now but since the Ukrainian government is denying knowledge I think it's sufficient proof.
                        No, not necessarily, because the facts are in and it was held up, the Ukrainians knew it was held up, and it was not all over the news.
                        Not sure I care what someone who supports the overthrow of the US government finds humorous.
                        Supporting the Impeachment of a president for trampling the Constitution is not supporting the overthow of the U.S. government, but supporting a president who tramples the Constitution and aids our adversary over our allies is supporting the overthrow of the U.S. government whether you're aware you're doing it or not.

                        Keep up.
                        OMB has been refuting that Dem canard. Turns out Trump isn't big on sending our tax dollars to foreign governments for no good reason.
                        Defending an ally, a fledgling democracy, who wants to join NATO, from the agression of a common adversary is a very good reason to spend our tax dollars.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          The counterargument is that if Ukraine was so vulnerable, and Zelensky so scared of Trump, then why didn't he immediately agree to begin an investigation in order to get the military aide flowing as quickly as possible?

                          As for what Joe Biden was up to, John Solomon has done the most in-depth reporting on this. What we do know is that Burisma was being actively and aggressively investigated when Hunter Biden and other board members contacted Obama's State Department and asked them to get the prosecutor off their back, and then Joe Biden shows up and essentially says, "If you want this money then you'll leave my boy alone."

                          https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunte...ns-memos-show/
                          And this evidence is sufficient for you? Where’s the direct evidence for Hunter requesting removal of prosecutor or that Joe did what he did to protect Hunter? Surely you’re not making presumptions here?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                            And this evidence is sufficient for you? Where’s the direct evidence for Hunter requesting removal of prosecutor or that Joe did what he did to protect Hunter? Surely you’re not making presumptions here?
                            Did you not read the article?
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              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.
                              So you are saying Obama was the one who was blackmailing the Ukraine to stop them from investigating Hunter Biden?



                              Second, you know as well as I do that a President asking another government to investigate an American citizen is illegal.
                              Is it? Why? Where does it say that in the constitution? Show me.

                              Third, asking a foreign government to interfere with a U.S. election is illegal, an abuse of power, a high crime and misdemeaner.
                              He didn't to that. They haven't even chosen a candidate yet. The only person who asked a foreign national to interfere with an election and investigate a US citizen was Hillary when she PAID Steele, a British citizen, to investigate Trump and write a phony report that she then used to try to influence the investigation.


                              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.
                              Treason is an act against your own country. The US routinely puts conditions on foreign aid. It happens all the time.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                So you are saying Obama was the one who was blackmailing the Ukraine to stop them from investigating Hunter Biden?


                                Is it? Why? Where does it say that in the constitution? Show me.

                                He didn't to that. They haven't even chosen a candidate yet. The only person who asked a foreign national to interfere with an election and investigate a US citizen was Hillary when she PAID Steele, a British citizen, to investigate Trump and write a phony report that she then used to try to influence the investigation.




                                Treason is an act against your own country. The US routinely puts conditions on foreign aid. It happens all the time.
                                It is no wonder no-one will answer this simple question:

                                Do you acknowledge there is a difference between quid pro quo when the exchange is in the US national interests and when the only beneficiary is the individual engaged in the quid pro quo?

                                If you answer that question yes, then the error present in your comment:

                                The US routinely puts conditions on foreign aid. It happens all the time.

                                Is instantly obvious.

                                The issue here is not 'quid pro quo' on behalf of the national interests of the US.

                                The issue here is Trump engaging in 'quid pro quo' for his own personal gain, and not only that, AGAINST THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE US.

                                To not argue with an overt consciousness of the difference is beneath you Sparko, not to mention misleading.


                                Jim
                                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 11:11 AM
                                9 responses
                                53 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Watermelon  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 08:02 AM
                                7 responses
                                51 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 09:17 AM
                                29 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Mountain Man, 01-22-2021, 10:00 AM
                                20 responses
                                137 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-22-2021, 06:45 AM
                                75 responses
                                472 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post EvoUK
                                by EvoUK
                                 
                                Working...
                                X