The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats... don�t want America to see

[oxmixmudd]

Vindman repeatedly asserted that Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate Biden. Ratcliffe asked him for a direct quote from the transcript to justify his accusation. In one of the more comical moments of the hearing, Vindman said, and I quote: "Give me a minute, and I'll see if I can find something."


I'm still trying to figure out who it was that came up with the notion that innocent men are obligated to submit themselves to an interrogation by a hostile panel in order to prove their innocence.

Presumably innocent men have no need to prevent people from telling what they saw and heard. And no one, innocent or guilty, has the right to prevent the questioning of witnesses in an investigation.

The reality is, by making the comment above, you admit to believing Trump is guilty. You are admitting these people have a story to tell that will, in fact, implicate Trump.

[Mountain Man]

Presumably innocent men have no need to prevent people from telling what they saw and heard. And no one, innocent or guilty, has the right to prevent the questioning of witnesses in an investigation.

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!

[rogue06]

Presumably innocent men have no need to prevent people from telling what they saw and heard. And no one, innocent or guilty, has the right to prevent the questioning of witnesses in an investigation.

Nothing like promoting the old Nazi adage of if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

Conversations between a president and his aides are always considered confidential for numerous reasons.

As USA Today explained in a story about Charles Kupperman, an aide to John Bolton and who was also subpoenaed filed a lawsuit in federal court requesting a judge to rule on the issue of which trumps which -- Executive Privilege or a Congressional subpoena:

The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, asked a judge to decide whether he should testify because he's worried any decision he makes "will inflict grave Constitutional injury on either the House or the President."

Kupperman noted in the 17-page filing that if he defies Trump, he could hurt the president's ability to receive confidential advice from top aides. But if he defies the House subpoena, he could impede their constitutional duty to investigate potential impeachment and could be subject to criminal penalties for contempt. Kupperman said he didn't take a position on whether the executive or legislative branch should prevail, but that the judicial branch should resolve the dispute.

This could have been resolved except Schiff, despite repeatedly proclaiming how crucial Kupperman's testimony was and issuing multiple threats against Kupperman of dire consequences if he didn't testify), folded like a cheap lawn chair and cancelled the subpoena after Kupperman turned to the courts for guidance.

I guess he knew that those shortcuts he took in issuing subpoenas would likely result in the court's ruling in favor of Trump here and he wanted to keep the illusion of subpoenas being defied intact so he dropped the subpoena.

[oxmixmudd]

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!

And I'll repeat myself. No one has a right to prevent their 'subordinates' from being questioned in a legal investigation of a crime. When people prevent the questioning of witnesses, or to influence their cooperation, it is call 'obstruction of justice'.

[RumTumTugger]

Always acting like it's the other guy. Pretty good gig - if you can make it stick.

Log eye.

[oxmixmudd]

Nothing like promoting the old Nazi adage of if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

Really - this is how you defend obstruction of justice. Scraping the bottom of the barrel I see.

Conversations between a president and his aides are always considered confidential for numerous reasons.

As USA Today explained in a story about Charles Kupperman, an aide to John Bolton and who was also subpoenaed filed a lawsuit in federal court requesting a judge to rule on the issue of which trumps which -- Executive Privilege or a Congressional subpoena:

Not as to the presidents participation in a crime. It would be quite simple to put the witness in a secure room and stipulate that the witness can only answer questions pertinent to the investigation itself. The president's actions and words as they regard his participation in a crime should not be protected by executive privilege. Again you and others advocate for the President to be above the law. And he is not.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, asked a judge to decide whether he should testify because he's worried any decision he makes "will inflict grave Constitutional injury on either the House or the President."

Kupperman noted in the 17-page filing that if he defies Trump, he could hurt the president's ability to receive confidential advice from top aides. But if he defies the House subpoena, he could impede their constitutional duty to investigate potential impeachment and could be subject to criminal penalties for contempt. Kupperman said he didn't take a position on whether the executive or legislative branch should prevail, but that the judicial branch should resolve the dispute.

This could have been resolved except Schiff, despite repeatedly proclaiming how crucial Kupperman's testimony was and issuing multiple threats against Kupperman of dire consequences if he didn't testify), folded like a cheap lawn chair and cancelled the subpoena after Kupperman turned to the courts for guidance.

Especially given the criminal nature of Trumps activities and the potential for subsequent presidents to build on that example, I do believe Schiff et al are making a mistake not clarifying this issue.

I guess he knew that those shortcuts he took in issuing subpoenas would likely result in the court's ruling in favor of Trump here and he wanted to keep the illusion of subpoenas being defied intact so he dropped the subpoena.

Speculation. It is wrong that the current law is not specific enough to ensure a president is not de-facto above the law. No person in this country should be above the law.

[rogue06]

And I'll repeat myself. No one has a right to prevent their 'subordinates' from being questioned in a legal investigation of a crime. When people prevent the questioning of witnesses, or to influence their cooperation, it is call 'obstruction of justice'.

Given your willingness to trash our laws by allowing third and fourth hand hearsay it should come as no surprise that you would also trash the constitution by willfully ignoring the president's right of Executive Privilege which is expressly spelled out in that document.

Something for you to ponder: Why then did Schiff withdrawal his subpoena for Kupperman when he asked a court to rule on its validity? If it is so evident as you insist, Schiff and his cronies should have celebrated the move and awaited the "obvious" outcome and now gain the support of the courts.

Could it be that you just don't know what you're talking about? Or is it that you do understand, but don't care what you do just as long as it might damage Trump in the end?

[Cow Poke]

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!

EGGzackly, which is why our Founding Fathers thought that principle was so important that they included it in the Bill of Rights as the Fifth Amendment....

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Naturally, this is often perverted by the prosecution to insist that, if you are truly innocent, you have nothing to hide, and if you refuse to answer questions, it shows you're really guilty.

[Mountain Man]

nd I'll repeat myself. No one has a right to prevent their 'subordinates' from being questioned in a legal investigation of a crime. When people prevent the questioning of witnesses, or to influence their cooperation, it is call 'obstruction of justice'.

And all the Democrats have to do is make their impeachment inquiry official with a House vote in order to gain the proper authorization with which to hand out legally binding subpoenas. Until then, President Trump is well within the boundaries of the Constitution to invoke executive privilege and ignore Shifty Schiff's impotent demand letters.

To put it another way, you can't charge someone with obstruction of justice if you don't have the legal authority to investigate them in the first place.

[rogue06]

Really - this is how you defend obstruction of justice. Scraping the bottom of the barrel I see.

I'm no longer surprised that you see things like Executive Privilege (which is expressly spelled out in the Constitution) as "scraping the bottom of the barrel." Your utter contempt for the law is apparent for everyone to see.

Allow three and four times removed hearsay as legitimate evidence? Sure! Why not? Just as long as Trump is the target.

Disallow any claim Executive Privilege right off the bat in spite of it being explicitly spelled out in the constitution? Sure! Why not? Just as long as Trump is the target.

What's next? Forgoing any trial as unnecessary? Because that's the next logical step on this road that you're on.

[Mountain Man]

EGGzackly, which is why our Founding Fathers thought that principle was so important that they included it in the Bill of Rights as the Fifth Amendment....

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Naturally, this is often perverted by the prosecution to insist that, if you are truly innocent, you have nothing to hide, and if you refuse to answer questions, it shows you're really guilty.

Which circles back to something I mentioned earlier (either in this thread or in another) about how the fifth amendment is there to protect the innocent, and that "I plead the fifth on the grounds that answering the question could incriminate me" is the worst possible way of invoking it because it sounds like "I can't tell the truth without admitting my guilt". Rather, you should say, "I plead the fifth on the grounds that the Constitution protects the innocent from being compelled to answer a question if the answer could give the false impression that they are guilty of a crime that they didn't commit."

[oxmixmudd]

Pot meet kettle.

I'm going to ask you not to reply to me if you don't have anything of substance to say.

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.

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.

[rogue06]

Vindman repeatedly asserted that Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate Biden. Ratcliffe asked him for a direct quote from the transcript to justify his accusation. In one of the more comical moments of the hearing, Vindman said, and I quote: "Give me a minute, and I'll see if I can find something."

Maybe ox thinks he sees something that Vindman missed, but I expect his answer will be the same as he gave when asked for what Yovanovitch said about any impeachable offense after he hand waved off the fact that there was no testimony from her about any impeachable offense implying it was "fake news" from Fox.

Silence.

[Cow Poke]

Which circles back to something I mentioned earlier (either in this thread or in another) about how the fifth amendment is there to protect the innocent, and that "I plead the fifth on the grounds that answering the question could incriminate me" is the worst possible way of invoking it because it sounds like "I can't tell the truth without admitting my guilt". Rather, you should say, "I plead the fifth on the grounds that the Constitution protects the innocent from being compelled to answer a question if the answer could give the false impression that they are guilty of a crime that they didn't commit."

I've heard it stated other ways, but yes, the prosecution will goad a defendant into "pleading the fifth" so he/she can twist that into a presumption of guilt.

[oxmixmudd]

Maybe ox thinks he sees something that Vindman missed, but I expect his answer will be the same as he gave when asked for what Yovanovitch said about any impeachable offense after he hand waved off the fact that there was no testimony from her about any impeachable offense implying it was "fake news" from Fox.

Silence.

The answer is simple. 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. And that is what the questioner understands asking that question, and that is what the answerer (Vindman in your case) understands about giving the answer.

The problem here is that only an idiot (or Nazi propagandist) would presume that the case can't be built from multiple lines of evidence that together show beyond a shadow of a doubt what the president was up to. The president asked for the favor of the investigations as a consequence of getting the aid in the call transcript.



He connected it directly to Biden in the transcript,



and other eyewitness testimony from those on the call itself indicate Burisma was also mentioned. Testimony regarding other calls and conversations show that the Presidents meetings and the aid itself where conditional on those same investigations, with eyewitness testimony that the President followed up immediately about Zelinsky's commitment to the 'requested' investigations on the call 7/26.

Unfortunately, when those in power act like the Nazi goons YOU referred to first a couple of posts ago, calvinball comes into play where you disallow the process of connecting the proverbial dots, which is exactly what this question is designed to do. There is no document (nor yet any witness of exact words to the same effect) signed by President Trump that says "I want an illegal quid pro quo with Zelensky". But then again, only people acting like participants in a Kangaroo court would assume that is a requirement.

Jim