Why not all? Isn’t “quid pro quo” a vague term for getting something for giving something? Hopefully we get too see more of the Mueller information! Hopefully Mulvaney testifies under oath and clears things up....
I have to say I love @FranchiseBlade's obsessions with Castor. It's awesome. @TheresTheDagger, I hear you: you don't think it became any more clear. I don't know. I didn't watch it all. From the excerpts I've read and watched, however, it's been pretty damning testimony. The basics were never really contested, about the call, but now we know the specifics and the timeline really, really well. We know how screwed up this plan really was and we've heard directly that close advisors to the president thought he cared more about a Biden investigation than about the Ukraine itself. (Aside form witnesses and evidence, that is about the most believable thing one could imagine about Trump's thinking, isn't it? It's always about what serves him or undercuts his enemies. Always.) One of the best GOP defenses of Trump was "well nothing happened! He released the aid and there was no Biden investigation!" Now the whole world sees that the aid was released only after the Whitehouse found out about the whistleblower complaint. I mean it plays out like a calendar drumbeat. Whistle-Oh-****-Release. LOL. So now the defense, if it's to make any sense at all (not a Jordan or Nunes or Gohmert requirement), just has to be "well, this just isn't impeachable" and/or "it was mainly Rudy, so not Trump's fault. He just got some bad advice... like all that advice from the various dudes going to jail, ... you know, kinda like that." Okay, those are both fine for Senators who want to support Trump I guess. But the main witnesses seemed very credible to most observers I've communicated with (liberal and conservative). I hope they just hold the obvious vote soon and just get it over with. Then the Senate can do whatever they do and vote against removal. Fine. History will be written, and the election in 2020 will be hypercharged and more consequential than normal.
Russian collusion? No, but he gladly and knowingly benefited from it. Still it isn't a crime. Obstruction of justice? Yeah, he did obstruct justice and Mueller laid out examples of obstruction of justice and the possible remedies. Quid pro quo? At a minimum he was highly unethical but I haven't seen enough to conclude one way or the other. Either way, if you add it all together, any reasonable person would conclude Donald Trump has serious ethical shortcomings and should not be re-elected as President on that basis. I understand policies and politics play into it........ and it isn't as if the democrats have been all the wonderful but where Trump has gone on the ethical meter is a low in recent memory at a minimum.
[ Like I said previously, all of the Trumpster defenses are patently absurd so explaining how to best counter them tends to give them a level of dignity that is...simply not merited. However, if they, for some reason (lack of any alternatives?) coalesce around the Matlock-viewer-friendly "HEARSAY" defense, in a world where all of the supposed sayers that were heard are illegallyl and unlawfully refusing to appear or turn over documents, I'm thinking whether or not it's worth it to just have Schiff and the committee read their unsworn testimony into the record, with empty chair/placards for the principals. And by that I mean, play Mulvaney's disastrous "get over it" press conference, read the president's various "PERFECT CALL!" tweets, all of Giuliani's self-immolating Sunday Morning press bits. Sure, that isn't in accordance with the federal rules of evidence, but the House has the sole power of impeachment here, they can do whatever the hell they want, pretty much, and the process based arguments that the GOP Johnnie Cochrans have don't really play beyond the narrow Fox crazies closed loop.
The defense I've seen so far is: 1. The transcript of the phone call is missing any overt quid pro quo offer. To infer otherwise is opinion not fact. 2. The leader of Ukraine (Zelensky) has repeatedly stated he felt no pressure. 3. The aid that was withheld was sent to the Ukraine after a short (2 month) period of evaluation of Zelensky by US leadership. They were evaluating Zelensky's sincerity in tackling corruption in Ukraine...a country with a notorious reputation for corruption. 4. The Ukraine never took steps to act on any of Trumps supposed requirements for aid. What part of the above is patently absurd?
In response to number 3, what exactly did zelensky do that warranted the release of the aid at that specific time? So it is supposedly held up to make sure that zelensky will be tough on corruption, then something must have happened to show trump that he was being tough right? What was it? In response to number 4, hasn’t it been reported that zelensky did in fact have an interview scheduled to announce the investigation, but it got cancelled after everything blew up? It’s pretty clear why the aid was held up (Trump wanted an announcement about an investigation into the Bidens, presumably to help him in his re-election campaign) and why it was released when it was (Congress found out and started an investigation).
From my understanding, several Senators, VP Pence, and Bolton had by that time had a chance to speak with Zelensky. Also, Trump had a White House meeting with Zelensky in the interim between the call and release of the funds. More conjecture. Where's the beef? It's pretty clear you're speculating. But we don't impeach Presidents based on speculation.
The rules change as we go along, it’s a trial looking for a crime. It’s really remarkable watching this play out and then you had this.
So it just happened to coincide with congress finding out about the whistleblower complaint and opening an investigation? This is a pretty terrible answer by you, and to quote you "Where's the beef?" As in where are you getting your understanding that these supposed meetings is why the aid was released? We are both engaging in conjecture but at least the timeline supports mine. Where is your evidence? Also since Trump was so concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why did it seem like he was only interested in conspiracy theories from 2016 and his biggest political rival? Moreover, why didn't he follow the proper channels to investigate that corruption? The "beef" is the report. Witness testimony and text messages have shown that Trump wanted an announcement of an investigation. Zelensky was prepared to do that. Try interacting with the actual point next time. So have you just not been paying attention to the news that's been coming out? Please tell me you aren't someone who just ignores reality and insists that the impeachment inquiry is a "sham" or "show." I'm not going to go through all of the evidence that led to this inquiry. If you think it is speculation, then it is pretty clear that you either haven't been paying attention or are simply staying willfully ignorant.
1) The transcript isn’t the only conversation. We have text messages and testimony from ambassadors under oath that speak towards the intent. If you want to say there’s no smoking gun Trump is holding , you’d be right. Maybe Mulvaney and Pompeo will take the subpoena seriously and clear things up under oath... 2) Correct. But considering the geopolitics of the Ukraine-Russian-US situation, he could just be trying to support the US-Ukraine alliance. Can you explain to me Rudy Giuliani’s role and how transparent Giuliani was a private citizen...
All of that is just All of it is wishful interpretation even as separate incidents but absurd when considered as a whole conspiracy. Several people under orders were involved in trying to make the investigation happen over a period of time.
So you're asking the defendant to prove his innocence. How Soviet of you. See, here you are again using conjecture. "Why does it seem like..." is an OPINION. To impeach a President, you need facts, not conjecture. What report? You've only stated there was a report without providing said report. Moreover, even if there was a report it was going to happen, it didn't. If it didn't happen, the WHY of that is...once again...conjecture. Reality to me is evidence. Facts. Not conjecture or wishful thinking. When I see a smoking gun, I'll believe it. Until then....it's just more politics as usual.
Oops. You got played. Turns out that she was allowed to have her turn later. The rules were explicit that during the time she was trying that bit of showmanship only the counsel, Nunes, and Schiff were to be given time. The GOP set that up for a spectacle and you bough it.
