I believe you mean its as relevant as any TYPE of evidence...? If so, I couldn't disagree more. It's not as relevant as direct evidence and furthermore, there is circumstantial evidence pointing to Trumps innocence as well that is compelling. Care to explain why it was "poorly framed"? It's a yes/no question that gets to the point of whether the witness has direct evidence to offer. He doesn't and even admits his testimony is his "own presumption". I have a presumption too. Should I be allowed to testify? If it REALLY was that clear, then it would be easy to convict him. It's simply NOT that clear. Well, I agree they won't vote to convict but not because they "don't care what Trump has done", but rather because they recognize the case is extremely weak and frivolous. Unless REAL evidence (not someone's presumptions or beliefs)....but REAL concrete evidence is presented then Trump's party will stick with the people's choice of the 2016 election as they should. IMHO, It should take ONE HELL a lot to Impeach a President. Something the vast majority of the country can get behind because it's so obvious. Disliking his mannerisms, policies, choices, tweets, family, or other minutia isn't what Impeachment was created for and using it as just another political weapon goes against the real intent of the founding fathers.
Like when you said repeatedly 10 years ago about all the hyperinflation that was *clearly* happening and was going to continue to happen, fresh out of the Ron Paul finishing school for associate degrees in being a goddamned idiot (which was actually about being a neo Confederate dung beetle the whole time.. it's happening!) Go away and get a new ID as a troll. You are too earnestly stupid in this one boomer, ok?
I believe what you are attempting to argue is direct evidence is more probative (i.e., should be given more weight) than circumstantial evidence (not that it is more relevant, which means it pertains to a subject). This is not a trial at the courthouse governed by the rules of evidence, but some general evidentiary principles apply here because they make sense. The probative value of someone's statement (Trump saying no quid pro quo) is impacted by many things. A non-exhaustive list includes: - the credibility of the person - the motive of the person - the veracity of the statement in light of the remainder of the body of evidence. The Republican case rests on two primary pillars: (i) Trump said no quid pro quo - the magic "direct evidence"; and (ii) trump was worried about Ukraine corruption, and his ask for the announcement of the investigation was to advance the policy of making sure Ukraine was not corrupt, and any political benefit is a side show. The Democrats have a clear response: Trump's actions belie the words: He said the words no quid pro quo. What actually happens? WH visit is withheld - fact. Aid delayed - fact. Demand/request for announcement on burisma repeatedly pushed at Trump's request - fact. Aid released only after the whistleblower complaint comes out - fact. - Trumps alleged worry about Ukranian corruption is a fabrication - all agencies agreed aid to Ukraine was appropriate and the new Ukrainian regime was not corrupt. These are bi-partisan agencies. The reality is the Republican's best defense of Trump is the intent argument - Trump was worried about corruption in Ukraine and that's why he withheld the money. The magic "direct evidence" statement of "no quid pro quo" carries little to no weight in light of the actions which actually occurred. (It's like a mob boss says "hey, we do nothing illegal ok boys?", and his goons go around to each neighborhood business and collect protection money.) What if Trump had a dual intent: He withheld aid because of worry about corruption and he wanted dirt on the Bidens. That could be true. But are we really to believe that getting dirt on the Bidens was not a motive at all? Is there a single Trump supporter who is willing to say with a straight face that Trump asking for an announcement regarding an investigation Burisma had literally nothing to do with damaging Biden's candidacy as the then-lead candidate in the Dem primary (and viewed as most likely among Dems to beat Trump). Do you Trump supporters, who regard Trump as the tough business man, really believe this tough guy wouldn't want to go get dirt on Biden? The point is this - Trump's magic "no quid pro quo" statement is absolutely belied by the specific actions taken to pressure Ukraine into an announcement of an investigation. Trump had power, means, and motive to pressure the Ukrainians by witholding WH visit and aid, and golly gee whiz, that's what exactly happened. That is the probative circumstantial evidence that dramatically outweighs trump's "no quid pro quo" statement. This is a long post, but I would dearly love for a Trump supporter to respond to this in any meaningful way. I am more than willing to engage in a civil dialogue about this. @bigtexxx @TheresTheDagger @bingsha10 edit: At no time do I cite Sondland's testimony that he thought there was a quid pro quo. It's really not even necessary.
Not true at all. The evidence goes far and beyond what would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard in a criminal case. We have first-hand evidence corroborated by multiple witnesses. How many Republicans have even said that Trump didn't do the things? They haven't because the evidence is so concrete. Every line of defense they try to put forward gets obliterated the next day.
Steve Castor is about to show Rudy that it hasn't gotten 'as outlandish as it could be.' Rudy G is about to find out just how outlandish it could be.
One of the most well reasoned posts since the ordeal began. Well said. The fact that I believe this to be the case probably won't help any Trump defenders engage in discussion with you, but even so, I am glad you posted this. Well done.
@Corrosion is not a Dumpster supporter. I've said on multiple occasions I don't care for Dumpster nor do I care for any of the Dem frontrunners. - I'm a man without a party - Fiscal conservative , social liberal and both of those are extinct in American politics. We have both parties spending like drunken teenagers with all of daddy's credit cards ever since Reagan and both parties trying to legislate how we live one way or another for as long as memory serves. I've also said that its going to be a party line vote in both houses - It'll get to the Senate on the strength of Dem votes and it'll end with Dumpster not being convicted and evicted on the backs of GOP votes. My issues with this are in the aftermath of not securing a conviction - IE: 4 more years of Dumpster.
@Corrosion - I totally screwed that up. I know you aren’t a trump guy. We have exchanged discussion before. It’s late and I was going too fast. My fault and apologies. Edit - is there s9meone else who starts with a C? Commodore? I’m
Not sure how anyone can read Sondland's testimony and not think there was a hold on both State Access and appropriated aid money with the condition (extortion) of investigating a domestic rival's family. The following question is Who Ordered it or to what degree, if any, Trump is involved in it. Ofc they gonna do all three. Not sure how you ply "reasonable doubt" by sowing confusion of whether Rudy or Donny ordered the hitjob, but it wouldn't be below the republicans to treat this like a murder trial. Sondland's testimony isn't a slam dunk if only because Rudy operates as an outside the system fixer. The doubt of whether it "came from the top" is exactly why he was put in that position in the first place. Ofc Trump defenders will obtusely look over that fact in their desperate scorekeeping.
The ultimate score is 67. Wake me when something happens that gets us to that important number …. Until then , so far so good so what , this inquiry is doing nothing but empowering Dumpster - Witch Hunt!!! Fake News!!! and without conviction and removal likely leads to 4 more years of this ridiculousness.
I wouldn't do or not do things based on what trump and his defenders will do. If trump has broken laws, then the House needs to present Articles of Impeachment to the Senate to consider and vote on. Doing less shirks the role and responsibilities specified by the Constitution. Furthermore, trump will do what trump does regardless of what the House does. If they don't present Articles of impeachment, he will say and do the same things that he will if they do. trump is a con man, and con men lie. I think its important to shine light on the individual members of the Senate. Make them stand up and put their names and reputations on the line. trump's defenders have clearly bought into what he says. The hope is enough people (voters) who honestly identify as "Independents" and even enough republicans hear the charges and decide that a criminal president isn't what they want running the country. And they go to the voting booths to express that... in the 2020 presidential race, and equally if not more important, in the senate races. Since Americans have the power of the vote, we get the government we deserve. Regardless of what happens in the House and the Senate, I have faith in the American people.
He was already saying that. Do you believe that Democrats would appear to be better candidates by not trying to expose the crimes of Donald Trump? Will that appeal to voters more? My belief is that it would greatly hurt Democrats. I don't think people are more likely to vote for those don't do their jobs and fulfill their duties.
I like the small t in trump as he is such a small man. Small in every sense of the word. I despise people like him that try to make themselves look big by picking on and making fun of others. On top of that trump is the biggest liar of any public figure in the history of the world. If I was a racist or a supremacist I would view trump as the greatest president ever. Not being either, I do not understand why roughly one third of our country continue to support him.
Like I've said all along …. You aren't going to get what you want out of this , not now and not in 2020. You want to shine the light on individual members of the Senate … Aint happening , not when Mitch McConnell heads the majority. You want a conviction …. Aint happening with a GOP majority. Now when you don't get that , those independents you are talking about look at the result and say - hell , it was a witch hunt all along , they wasted out time and money screwing around instead of getting anything done. They see no conviction , they are going to believe the entire thing was a sham and take it out on the Dems in 2020. The polls are already showing a shift among independents who no longer support this "impeachment inquiry" after hearing the first few days of testimony. Go ahead , give Dumpster wings - Witch Hunt! Fake News! Add to that a solid economy , unemployment at record lows and the opposition party wanting to raise taxes …. not to mention their talking about spending 4x the current debt on the GND and 2-3x the current debt on healthcare … and a wide open border , you really think independents want another Xxm illegals ??! Best thing that can happen here is to shut this circus sideshow down , nominate a moderate and beat Dumpster at the polls.
