Why no Trump impeachment thread on Paw-Litics???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detltu

Inconsequential. A public announcement can just as easily be viewed as a commitment to follow through with private promise to investigate the suspected corruption.

---

Preponderance of the evidence points the other way. Only caring about Burisma and no other corruption. Firing do-gooder corruption fighting diplomats and use of an unusual backchannel with his personal attorney. The credible testimony of accomplished state department employees with impressive records of service. Trumps own reputation for dishonesty. Mulvaneys public comments. The fact that they tied to hide the record of the conversation before the whistleblower report.

“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed,” Sondland said. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

And it is NOT true that a criminal witness gets to call their own witnesses during an indictment (which is essentially what an impeachment is).

---

Seems like a shell game to move around the standards you want to adhere to, but ok. As long as we don't try to associate impeachment with guilt the analogy is fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Constitutionality doesn’t have to be settled by courts, particularly when there isn’t an issue of Constitutional interpretation (and we don’t have that here).

The White House’s letter to the House essentially stated that they were not going to participate because they felt like the House didn’t have the right to investigate. It was essentially a clause of absolute privilege, which clearly has no constitutional basis. It doesn’t require a court decision because the power of impeachment is clearly set forth in the Constitution while there is simply no constitutional basis for an absolute privilege.

That is not an issue a court has to decide.

---

And yet the court has taken it up, almost like it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Maybe they need a legal scholar as wise as you to advise the Supreme court on these matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

That is not how it works in any case - civil or criminal.

But the evidence is already sufficient to impeach and remove on both counts.

---

That almost makes it sound like you have made a determination of guilt without any sort of due process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detltu

Seems like a shell game to move around the standards you want to adhere to, but ok. As long as we don't try to associate impeachment with guilt the analogy is fine.

---

You are the one that offered the criminal case as an example of why the other side should be entitled to call witnesses before charges are brought. It just isn’t true. You were misstating the way the process works in your example case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detltu

And yet the court has taken it up, almost like it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Maybe they need a legal scholar as wise as you to advise the Supreme court on these matters.

---

Taken what up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Preponderance of the evidence points the other way. Only caring about Burisma and no other corruption. Firing do-gooder corruption fighting diplomats and use of an unusual backchannel with his personal attorney. The credible testimony of accomplished state department employees with impressive records of service. Trumps own reputation for dishonesty. Mulvaneys public comments. The fact that they tied to hide the record of the conversation before the whistleblower report.

“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed,” Sondland said. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing.”

---

You don't think you might be exaggerating here do you? How do you figure they tried to hide the conversation when there were dozens of people on the call. Trump also released the transcript of the call shortly after it was suggested there was some impropriety. Of course he had to check with the other party on the conversation to avoid an international debacle.

Your final quote could just as easily be framed in the exact opposite way and would still be just as true. It all depends on how you prefer to spin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detltu

That almost makes it sound like you have made a determination of guilt without any sort of due process.

---

The record is good enough to support removal if Trump can’t offer evidence rebutting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detltu

Your final quote could just as easily be framed in the exact opposite way and would still be just as true. It all depends on how you prefer to spin.

---

BS! That is not a 50-50 statement. Do you REALLY believe Trump wasn’t planning on using this announcement against Biden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

You are the one that offered the criminal case as an example of why the other side should be entitled to call witnesses before charges are brought. It just isn’t true. You were misstating the way the process works in your example case.

---

I was doing so in response to your standards of guilt example, but if you are suggesting impeachment is more of an indictment than a trial, then I am fine with dropping the argument. It just seems you are trying to suggest they have proven their case which would be impossible without the opportunity to offer counter evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

BS! That is not a 50-50 statement. Do you REALLY believe Trump wasn’t planning on using this announcement against Biden?

---

Are you saying that this is not just as true of a statement:
“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations didn't have to start or didn't have to be completed,” Sondland said. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing.”

There are probably a lot of things Mr. Sondland didn't hear. All he knows is they wanted an announcement.

I would agree that Trump was most likely planning on using the announcement against Biden, but that is not the same thing as any sort of proof. Sondlands statement does nothing to support the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Taken what up?

---

Poor word choice and some reaching on my part. They haven't agreed to take anything up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The record is good enough to support removal if Trump can’t offer evidence rebutting it.

---

We will see I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detltu

You don't think you might be exaggerating here do you? How do you figure they tried to hide the conversation when there were dozens of people on the call. Trump also released the transcript of the call shortly after it was suggested there was some impropriety. Of course he had to check with the other party on the conversation to avoid an international debacle.

---

I am not referring to the decision to publicly release the call. I am talking about the original decision by White House lawyers to move the record of the call into the NSC’s top-secret codeword system (a server normally used to store highly classified material that only a small group of officials can access) after Vindman told them he thought the call was improper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detltu

Are you saying that this is not just as true of a statement:
“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations didn't have to start or didn't have to be completed,” Sondland said. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing.”

There are probably a lot of things Mr. Sondland didn't hear. All he knows is they wanted an announcement.

I would agree that Trump was most likely planning on using the announcement against Biden, but that is not the same thing as any sort of proof. Sondlands statement does nothing to support the case.

---

You aren’t required to leave logic at the door when assessing evidence. We all know what Trump was up to.

Everyone was focused on the announcement (the sentence following your bolded part). Sondland also said “everyone was in the loop” about President Donald Trump’s push for Ukraine to announce investigations into a Ukraine gas company and the 2016 U.S. election.

This is obviously consistent with Trump’s efforts to ring fence all the people involved and prevent them from testifying. Guiliani is TO THIS DAY still trying to work up the dirt on Biden and the 2016 election for Trump in Ukraine.

The Republicans aren’t interested in holding him accountable because they are scared of the political price they will pay.