No I wouldn’t call them deplorables. They are just hard working, culturally conservative and blue collar. They have very little in common with people that live in most major metropolitan areas. People from places like major parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Southern Illinois, Missouri and Kansas are not well represented in wider culture or television/media. So their values and day to day quality of life is overlooked. Personally, having lived in Ohio (where I have a farm) and Illinois (Chicago) I find it to be the most depressing part of the country outside of the North East... but that has more to do with the relative poverty, shitty food and depressing winters and not politics.
I haven’t seen enough to reach a conclusion. I only wanted to state that circumstantial evidence is not lesser or irrelevant. Juries convict people all the time based on circumstantial evidence. For the purposes of impeachment it doesn’t even have to be a criminal act. Trump was very fortunate Mueller took the tact of not offering a judgment on the Part II of the investigation as he pointed out 3-4 cares of potentially criminal behavior and was clear in what his beliefs are.
There is also Timothy Morrison's (also on the call) testimony that stated "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." Pompeo would certainly state something similar. So there is at the VERY least conflicting opinions about a "quid pro quo". Well, I'll restate the one I know of. The aid was released after leadership in our govt (Pence, Bolton, U.S. Senators, Trump himself) had a chance to speak with Zelensky more thoroughly with the objective of assessing his sincerity in fighting corruption in his country. After several phone calls and meetings they decided to support his govt. I can't speak for you, but it sounds plausible. The constitution speaks of impeachment being utilized in the case of "High CRIMES or misdemeanors" by the President. So, I would simply state that yes....impeachment is a criminal case. Nice try. NOWHERE in any of those 3 stories does it quote Zelensky. All 3 of them quote "annonymous sources familiar with the meeting" as the ones making the claim. Funny thing about all these "annoymous sources"... I'll stick with Zelensky's own words. Thanks. From your link above: NOWHERE is there a link made specific to Biden. Instead it refers to an "anticorruption statement" being made. That's one hell of a long way from what you're claiming. Clear as mud.
Ironclad evidence and facts. Conjecture alone is not enough. And several others have disputed those claims. You believe that because it fits your world view and opinion of the President. For the purposes of impeachment (and forgive me for saying so but) So what? There's so much here to take apart but frankly, I don't have the time. It's pretty clear to you. To others, not so much.
I appreciate your rational discussion. So the constitution mentions bribery as one of the two listed offenses that warrant obstruction and bribery meant abusing the power of office to obtain something for personal gain as opposed to the public interest. For Trump who doesn't care about corruption in making deals with Israel, whose leader is undergoing corruption investigation, the Philippines, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. but just happens to care about corruption in Ukraine and only in the case of Biden doesn't really leave any doubt that he abused his power to put pressure on Zelensky. Trump's ambassador has changed his testimony to say that there was a clear quid pro quo. Witnesses have testified that investigating corruption meant that it was investigating that Bidens and that only a televised conference by Zelensky announcing that he was investigating the Bidens for corruption. Witnesses have entered sworn testimony that was the case. As for what Zelensky says, it isn't really relevant to the case. First of all, he will say whatever he needs to in order to make sure he continues to get aid from Trump. Secondly, him admitting or not admitting pressure doesn't change the facts that Trump insisted there was no aid without the public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. Zalesky not saying there was pressure doesn't really disqualify or damage the case against Trump in the slightest. The investigation into the Bidens isn't in the public interest. It is a huge personal interest for the President. So that would check all of the boxes to fulfill the constitution's label of bribery.
Other people noticed as well: https://theweek.com/articles/878784/group-therapy-capitol-hill Group therapy on Capitol Hill Matthew Walther November 15, 2019 "How did that make you feel?" I lost count of how many times Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine dismissed by President Trump, was asked this question during Friday's impeachment hearing. The implication seemed to be that the most significant information this career diplomat could impart to the American people was whether the erstwhile host of Celebrity Apprentice had ever hurt her feelings. Why were the previous witnesses, her fellow diplomats George Kent and Robert Taylor, not asked the same questions? Is the idea that gravel-voiced, bow-tied men respond with important, mahogany-scented facts, while women can only express their emotions? Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) actually began a query by likening Yovanovitch's recent appointment to a professorship at Georgetown to "a Hallmark movie." For a moment I wondered if he'd offer her a sleep mask care package and a subscription to O: The Oprah Magazine too. It is not clear what else Yovanovitch possibly could have added to what we already know beyond the usual career Foreign Service gossip. She seemed to have no new information about what Trump was allegedly overheard saying in a telephone conversation, which is unsurprising when one recalls that she was dismissed before Volodymyr Zelensky was even inaugurated as president of Ukraine. (Yovanovitch admitted as much herself when she said that she had no knowledge of the president offering bribes or other criminal activity.) The only revealing thing she shared over the course of a very long day was her opinion that when Ukrainian prime ministers and other officials (including the one who first made her aware of Rudy Giuliani's hijinks) complain on social media and write op-eds about how certain presidential candidates are bad while enjoying cozy relations with American diplomatic personnel, that does not "necessarily constitute" interference in our elections. That kind of clarity would have been useful to have during the last three years of loose talk about the danger of "ties" and "links." Otherwise she mostly talked about how she felt sad. Yovanovitch was not the only person who had her turn on the couch. Rep. Jim Hines (D-Conn.) told us more than once that he was "angry." Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.) was "very angry." He accused Trump of "bullying," and seemed to be on the verge of tears when he thanked the former ambassador for her service. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) declared Trump's tweets "disgraceful." Even the leader of the session, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), found time to say that he was "appalled." The Republicans had their turn in the sharing circle as well. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) complained about Schiff. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) complained about what Schiff said about what Stefanik said about Schiff. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) complained about everything said by everyone and suggested (not wrongly, I suspect) that television ratings for the hearing must be "plummeting." At least we know that Trump was watching. In what is almost certainly a first — and, I hope, a last — in the history of congressional proceedings, Yovanovitch was asked to respond to the president's tweets more or less in real time. Otherwise, it would be hard to say what exactly happened over the course of some five hours of testimony. Schiff obviously enjoyed his role, interrupting, rolling his eyes, exchanging condescending smiles with other Democratic members, pounding his gavel, and, after slandering his Republican colleagues during his closing remarks, turning off their microphones in the midst of an attempted rebuttal. Politicians in both parties live for this sort of thing, but I'm not sure there is much of a public audience for it — at least not absent a straightforward corruption case against the president. My guess is the Democrats will want to reconvene their focus groups. Speaking of which, how much time could have been trimmed from the last three years of Trump-adjacent hearings if members on both sides of the aisle agreed that questions did not need to begin with these canned thank-yous to witnesses? No doubt Yovanovitch was a basically competent example of the sort of naive, centrist foreign policy wonk we put in charge of American diplomacy, but viewers of Friday's hearing could have been forgiven for coming away with the impression that she single-handedly won the Cold War or raised the flag at Iwo Jima. Wednesday's impeachment hearing was an icebreaker game of telephone. Friday's was a group therapy session.
I'm really surprised Sondland has agreed to testify. Why doesn't he just refuse to show up like all the other presidents crooked men? Is he really going to be truthful? I'm guessing he's going to have a very poor memory. Won't be surprised if he backs out at the last minute.
Dems would need to step up to get to conjecture. They are still at the innuendo stage...I think on purpose, with no real plans to move beyond that. That's easy. OrangeManBad!!! Or the inclination. it's not worth it. Hasn't been since Trump was elected, really. Not like anything you might say would matter or change anyone's opinion or thoughts.
Think for a minute about what that means about how the Dems felt about the actual content of what she might say. ie, how it made her feel was apparently more important than any actual facts she might bring to bear. That the Dems felt this way, going in, is pretty damning to her testimony all by itself.
Of course, the reason the whistleblower cannot be allowed to testify is 1) he will be asked about coordination/planning of this before the complaint was filed and 2) whistleblower is likely a source of illegal anonymous leaks to the media, and he will be asked under oath about it
Of course it does! First...putting pressure on other leaders is often what POTUS's are *supposed* to do. Doing so is not an abuse of power...it's a use of power. You're aware, I presume, of the content of every other conversation Trump has had with every other leader...ever? Because if not...your statement falls on its face. You will, I presume, indicate then how you have this knowledge? See above. Let's say there was quid pro quo. Just for argument's sake. SO WHAT? Again, POTUS's ask for favors, negotiate, etc ALL T HE TIME! They wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't. So, basically, this boils down to 'he was doing his job, so we must impeach him'? That's the argument? Good grief. . Yes, by all means, what the supposed victim might say, and the only other one actually on the phone call....is irrelevant. Not like all the hearsay being brought forward...THAT is what is important. Again...good grief. . Unlike all the neverTrumpers....we MUST take what they say at face value! Getting old, but yes...good grief again! Secondly, him admitting or not admitting pressure doesn't change the facts that Trump insisted there was no aid without the public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. Zalesky not saying there was pressure doesn't really disqualify or damage the case against Trump in the slightest. Why not? I mean, I guess, if you have the mindset that only things good for Dems are in the public interest (which IS most Dems mindset), then ok, but outside of that....why not? Is it? Trump had no concern at all about running against Biden. Probably relished it. So what huge personal interest does it serve? Would it? What PERSONAL favor was Trump providing Zelensky? ie, what 'gift' did he provide him? If your thought is that providing aid is a gift...then you believe that every POTUS we've ever had is guilty of bribery? If not, then you agree that providing aid is NOT a gift, hence not a bribe. So...which is it?
I know that Trump doesn't care about the corruption about those other places based on his policy towards them, public statements about them, efforts to in some cases, cover for their corruption and murder of a journalist. The bribe isn't what personal favor Trump was giving Zelensky it was what Zalensky was giving Trump. You might be thinking of bribery in the modern sense and not in the sense of the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution. I'll put this here again. https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean If you don't think that Trump would benefit from a public investigation into his chief political rival for the 2020 election, then you should think a little harder. The investigation helped Trump in 2016. He was hoping for it to happen again. We know from the testimony that Sondland said that Trump only cared about what would help him and that he didn't give a ____ about Ukraine. All of the polls did and still do have Biden winning handily in a head to head match. That is different than the polls in 2016 when Trump was within the margin of error. Please tell me how the United States public interest would be helped by a Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens. If the Bidens had corruption an investigation could be done here provided there was ample reason for such an investigation. The reason why Zalensky saying or not saying he felt the pressure isn't relevant because that doesn't speak to what Trump intended. It is especially true since we, again, have the testimony that Zalensky would do whatever Trump wanted. So him refusing to say he was pressured isn't helpful to Trump.
If you are talking about the WB when the WB no longer matters to proving the case against Trump, you have already lost. The analogy has been used before. An anonymous tip that leads police to a drug-dealing operation where the police witness the dealers manufacturing, selling drugs, and are busted in possession of hundreds of pounds of drugs means that the person who gave that tip isn't needed to build a case against the drug-dealers. Sorry, the WB doesn't matter. It isn't a story as much as you wish it was.
It is somewhat relevant considering they were dealing with possible witness tampering. So if the witness felt threatened or intimidated, then it might be relevant. It certainly isn't the most relevant thing, but it could have some bearing.
Oh please. The entire left fell over themselves (and the right too) to insure Christine Blasey Ford was treated with kid gloves when in reality that woman's testimony had more holes than Swiss cheese.
I saw Schiff today stating that "Witness tampering/intimidation" was on the table for impeachment. I had to laugh because he used today's tweet as the "intimidation" evidence....the tweet the witness wouldn't have known about until after he testimony was complete UNLESS...Adam Schiff reads it out loud to her during the hearing. Is Schiff for Brains going to indict himself as a co-conspirator with Trump for insuring the witness heard the tweet while still testifying?
