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

The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats... don’t want America to see

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

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The defense is quite a bit stronger than that:

    - No witnesses actually heard Trump say aid was conditioned on an announcement
    - Sondland testified under oath that the President told him directly that there was to be no quid pro quo
    - The transcript of the phone call shows that there was no explicit or implicit quid pro quo
    -Members of the Ukrainian government, including President Zelinsky, say there was no pressure from the Trump administration
    - There is zero evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government was even aware that military aid had been temporarily suspended
    - Military aid was eventually released to Ukraine without them ever agreeing to any investigations

    Those are the basic facts of the case, and all the water-cooler gossip, presumption, guesswork, and feelings aren't going to change that.

    So, yes, unless the Democrats have much better witnesses who can speak directly to the facts, or have hard evidence like documents to prove their accusations, then they have no case, and certainly we should expect at least that much when their aim is to remove a duly elected president from office.
    The better defense is to argue that what Trump did was ok or else not worthy of impeachment and/or removal. When the White House Chief of Staff directly, in a press conference, admits to the facts at issue -- there's no point arguing further.
    "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

    Comment


    • Originally posted by myth View Post
      The better defense is to argue that what Trump did was ok or else not worthy of impeachment and/or removal. When the White House Chief of Staff directly, in a press conference, admits to the facts at issue -- there's no point arguing further.
      Yeah, I think it was pretty much explained by one of the talking heads that EVERY foreign policy issue is a "quid pro quo" of sorts, because we don't just give out aid willy-nilly, and we're always attempting to bring about a change in the behavior of both our friends and our enemies.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by myth View Post
        The better defense is to argue that what Trump did was ok or else not worthy of impeachment and/or removal. When the White House Chief of Staff directly, in a press conference, admits to the facts at issue -- there's no point arguing further.
        People can say whatever they want in a press conference. It's not admissible as evidence. What we do know is that Sondland while under oath quoted the President as saying clearly and emphatically, "There is to be no quid pro quo."
        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
          Like I said, I'm still trying to figure out who it was that came up with the notion that innocent men are obligated to submit themselves or compel their subordinates to submit themselves to an interrogation by a hostile panel in order to prove their innocence. That flies in the face of common sense and basic jurisprudence.

          I've given this example before, but it bears repeating: If the police come to you and say, "You're not under arrest, and we don't have a warrant, but we'd like you to come down to the station to answer a few questions, you know, just to clear your name," the correct answer is no, no matter how innocent you really are!
          As the police, I can tell you that if you are truly innocent -- this is an excellent way to get yourself arrested, charged, and probably found not guilty while saddling yourself with a ton of lawyer debt, simply because you were too paranoid to talk to the police. It's stupid to do if you have nothing to hide. As I tell people all the time: I can't make you talk to me. But if you choose not to, the case doesn't magically go away. I have to make a decision about what to do based on only one side of the story. If you choose not to clear things up, then the consequences are also on you.
          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            People can say whatever they want in a press conference. It's not admissible as evidence. What we do know is that Sondland while under oath quoted the President as saying clearly and emphatically, "There is to be no quid pro quo."
            If withholding the aid for personal political reasons is is illegal -- then the statement is also documented evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Stop just dismissing it because you don't like it. If someone walked out in front of the press conference and said "I just murdered my wife"....you imagine that statement would not be admissible in court? lol
            "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              The Quid pro quo is in the transcript, but not in a form that in isolation it shows the quid pro quo beyond a shadow of a doubt.
              It doesn't even show it beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, it's not in the transcript at all without twisting things beyond any semblance of reality. Vindman tried to make the case with the absurd claim that President Zelensky is somehow subordinate to President Trump, and therefore whatever Trump said was a demand rather than a request.
              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 oxmixmudd View Post
                I'm going to ask you not to reply to me if you don't have anything of substance to say.
                I'll point out that RTT responded to a post similarly lacking in substance by noting the irony of you accusing others of what you so frequently do yourself. If you don't want personal attacks, then don't perpetrate them yourself.
                I know you'll ignore me. I just want to be on record as to your abuse of power as a moderator to badger members of the community to whom your only posted content is belligerence and who would otherwise put you on ignore.
                Woah there, big fella. You sort of missed the step where she ignored your request to stop responding to you before leveling your scurrilous accusation.
                I would also like to request a change in TWEB rules. As moderators (oxymoron in this case) a person should serve to reduce the hostile interactions and maintain site decorum. Implicit in that, I would think, is a responsibility not to use or engage in ad hominem or personal attacks on individual members.
                Duly noted. Your actions lately are not likely to generate much sympathy toward your point of view, for which you have only yourself to blame. It is YOUR choice to interpret nearly any opposition to your point of view as an attack and YOUR choice to respond in kind. Those who cannot tolerate "attacks" should not be picking fights.

                Would you like me to no longer respond to you? That can be arranged.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Yeah, I think it was pretty much explained by one of the talking heads that EVERY foreign policy issue is a "quid pro quo" of sorts, because we don't just give out aid willy-nilly, and we're always attempting to bring about a change in the behavior of both our friends and our enemies.
                  True, but it's also morally and ethically wrong for Trump to do this for personal reasons (and potentially illegal, haven't really researched federal law on this). If he did it for some tangible benefit to the country as a whole, I'd have no problem with it. Trump toyed with the national security of both the USA and Ukraine to extort help to win an election. He's completely morally bankrupt.

                  I'm honestly concerned that American evangelicals are allowing our moral authority in the eyes of our secular countrymen to be eroded by staunchly supporting someone like Trump. I don't always think Christians should care what the lost think of us....but it's hard to engage in witnessing and apologetics to people who think you are morally bankrupt compared to themselves.

                  It's totally possible for us to vote for him for strategic political reasons and still cry fowl when he does wrong.
                  Last edited by myth; 11-25-2019, 12:26 PM.
                  "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by myth View Post
                    If withholding the aid for personal political reasons is is illegal -- then the statement is also documented evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Stop just dismissing it because you don't like it. If someone walked out in front of the press conference and said "I just murdered my wife"....you imagine that statement would not be admissible in court? lol
                    By that same logic, a killer protesting his innocence in front of the news cameras is also admissible.
                    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
                      By that same logic, a killer protesting his innocence in front of the news cameras is also admissible.
                      Potentially. But people always claim innocence -- so what weight would a jury give the statement?

                      On the other hand, people rarely (rarely, not never) admit to crimes they didn't do. So how much weight would a jury give that statement?
                      "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by myth View Post
                        True, but it's also morally and ethically wrong for Trump to do this for personal reasons....
                        Not ignoring the rest of your post - you often make great points, and I'm glad you're around. On this point, though, if it were ONLY for personal reasons, there's be a problem. If the 'quid pro quo' was in the national interest, AND happened to be a personal benefit -- sometimes that happens.

                        IF (for example) I'm calling for an investigation of an abuse of previous funding or appropriation of military materiel to or by a foreign government, and that investigation happens to expose misdeeds of a campaign rival, so be it.
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Da!
                          Yes, try not get pwned by Putin. You are hanging by a thread.
                          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                          “not all there” - you know who you are

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by myth View Post
                            As the police, I can tell you that if you are truly innocent -- this is an excellent way to get yourself arrested, charged, and probably found not guilty while saddling yourself with a ton of lawyer debt, simply because you were too paranoid to talk to the police. It's stupid to do if you have nothing to hide. As I tell people all the time: I can't make you talk to me. But if you choose not to, the case doesn't magically go away. I have to make a decision about what to do based on only one side of the story. If you choose not to clear things up, then the consequences are also on you.
                            In that case, the police better come with something better than "We just want to talk." And you'll want a lawyer at your side regardless so that you don't inadvertently talk yourself into trouble.
                            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 Cow Poke View Post
                              Not ignoring the rest of your post - you often make great points, and I'm glad you're around. On this point, though, if it were ONLY for personal reasons, there's be a problem. If the 'quid pro quo' was in the national interest, AND happened to be a personal benefit -- sometimes that happens.

                              IF (for example) I'm calling for an investigation of an abuse of previous funding or appropriation of military materiel to or by a foreign government, and that investigation happens to expose misdeeds of a campaign rival, so be it.
                              This scenario is getting flipped around to the point that it is being implied that Biden is immune to investigation for prior acts simply because he is a potential opponent to Trump in 2020.
                              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
                                It doesn't even show it beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, it's not in the transcript at all without twisting things beyond any semblance of reality. Vindman tried to make the case with the absurd claim that President Zelensky is somehow subordinate to President Trump, and therefore whatever Trump said was a demand rather than a request.
                                Given what we know, it most certainly does. Trump was clearly pinning Zelensky down over the investigations holding the aid until such time as Zelensky committed publicly to the investigations. To deny that is to deny reality. As was said I think by myth, at this point, your argument should tack some tack along the lines there was nothing wrong with him doing it. But a shakedown over aid is EXACTLY what he was doing.
                                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 whag, Yesterday, 04:54 PM
                                10 responses
                                57 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                                11 responses
                                60 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by seer, 01-25-2021, 09:49 AM
                                16 responses
                                109 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 01-25-2021, 08:47 AM
                                52 responses
                                427 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by Starlight, 01-25-2021, 01:07 AM
                                49 responses
                                372 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Working...
                                X