Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[hadit]

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

And that's for the courts to decide, something Schiff refused to get clarified. Thus, it's untenable to claim Trump is obstructing.

 

[Mac-7]

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

ISo you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

Not very likely, but you can always hope. By same thing, obviously, I expect the president's popularity to increase, which likely will ensure victory next year, as the democrats have yet to find a coherent candidate, much less a message. Running on "We failed to get rid of him" just doesn't sound like a winning message.

But that's what you said. You said, "the same is likely to happen this time as well," and Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton.

My prediction is no change of hands at the white house or senate and house in 2020

So?

Such predictions are meaningless. Especially this far out. I understand you're looking for some glimmer of hope following Trump getting impeached but the reality is, no one knows yet how this is going to play out.

I agree

NO one knows

but I’m more confident every day

 

[MAGAman]

What's the point here anyway? Why WOULDN'T* such a trial be limited to what's presented? Where have you ever seen a trial that ventures off into shit not presented?

(* And no "would" still does not mean "wouldn't".)

You mean a trial where the defense can't call witnesses?

No. I've never seen a trial like that.

But I live in America. Where are you?

 

[MAGAman]

Wants the Senate trial to be limited to only what the House presented. He says that’s only fair. He’s an idiot.



it was just on TV. I will add link as soon as it becomes available.



here is link.

I agree with him.

FMTA

Fascist
Minds
Think
Alike

 

[AntonToo]

Do you seriously not get why pointing to the release of aid AFTER THE DRUG DEAL WAS ALREADY BUSTED is not a rational defense?

At that point there was NO OPTION for Trump to keep the illegal hold on the aid and all Trump would be doing is burying himself deeper by not releasing it ASAP!

You don't need to be a lefty to understand this simple concept, it has nothing to do with partisanship, it has to with having a head on your shoulders.

You keep claiming the "hold" was illegal, you have yet to SHOW that it is illegal. Many Presidents have done this many times in American history, which is why I doubt your claim.

It is obvious.

We have OMB staff quitting over this hold up and administration still has not provided any valid reason.

If there actually was one they OF COURSE would be providing it instead of defying congressional requests for documents and letting Trump get impeached.

Just use your head.

Then you have no case, since you didn't answer my request for backing up your claim that it was illegal.

You are blowing a lot of B.S. here.

I made plenty of case. But if you are asking specifically about statutory restrictions on a President holding up aid:


Impoundment Control Act, passed after Nixon held up apropriated funds, states:

That a deferral of funds is only allowable in a few limited circumstances

Deferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies; - NOPE

(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or - NOPE

(3) as specifically provided by law. - NOPE

No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal

Bwahahahahaha, just as I expected, you have no idea how messed up your argument is, temporary holding of aid is a common practive as even Obama did that too.

OMB: Ukraine aid delay was consistent with law, past practice

Excerpt:

In the letter, OMB General Counsel Mark R. Paoletta said even with the temporary withholding, the Department of Defense was able to obligate about 84 percent of the $250 million before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

That’s more than the 79 percent of appropriated security funds for Ukraine that were obligated in fiscal 2016 in the last year of the Obama administration, the letter said. More recently, 83 percent of Ukraine security assistance was obligated in fiscal 2018 and 91 percent in fiscal 2017.

===========================

There was NO deferral, just a temporary hold is all it was.

It is your irrational partisan hate is why you and other historically TDS infected ignorant leftists are wrong.

Stop laughing dupe, holding up aid for the purpose of pressuring foreign government to investigate your political rivals IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OR PAST PRACTICE.

Congress has FOR MONTHS had questions why 400 million aid was held up

Stalled Ukraine military aid concerned members of Congress for months - CNNPolitics

Whistleblower complaint surfaced and Congress opened investigations in the middle of September, so you saying that most of the aid was released by Sept 30th is not any sort of reasonable defense. The drug deal was ALREADY BUST at that point and Trump illegaly holding up aid further would do nothing but incriminate him even further.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Schumer Declared If the GOP Plays By Same Rules The House Dems Did, They're 'Engaged In A Cover Up'

Pure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.

Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.

You first name one relevant witness at the inquiry? GO__________

I already did.

Mulveney who held up the money at Trump’s direction and was at the meetings with Sondland that laid out quid-pro-quo to Ukrainians and even more crucially Jiuliani who Trump referred everyone to deal with, from Sondland to Zelensky.

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

 

[colfax_m]

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

And that's for the courts to decide, something Schiff refused to get clarified. Thus, it's untenable to claim Trump is obstructing.

No, it’s not for the courts to decide. Judges don’t decide if obstruction occurred. Trials do.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

He's claiming executive privilege. If Congress doesn't contest that, then he's perfectly within his rights to refuse these subpoenas.

 

[Nostra]

Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.

5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019

• 

12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes

1. 1. 
      New conversation
   2. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
      Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
      
      3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
      
   3. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
      What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
      
      2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
      
   4. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 2h2 hours ago
      Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
      
      1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
      

 

[AntonToo]

Schumer Declared If the GOP Plays By Same Rules The House Dems Did, They're 'Engaged In A Cover Up'

Pure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.

Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.

You first name one relevant witness at the inquiry? GO__________

I already did.

Mulveney who held up the money at Trump’s direction and was at the meetings with Sondland that laid out quid-pro-quo to Ukrainians and even more crucially Jiuliani who Trump referred everyone to deal with, from Sondland to Zelensky.

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

You seriously think that Trump's pointman on Ukraine was running a rogue operation in Ukraine, misrepresenting what POTUS wanted?

Why doesn't administration want Jiuliani come to congress and say that? Oh thats right, because it's bullshit, thats why.

 

[hadit]

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

And that's for the courts to decide, something Schiff refused to get clarified. Thus, it's untenable to claim Trump is obstructing.

No, it’s not for the courts to decide. Judges don’t decide if obstruction occurred. Trials do.

And who presides over a trial? A judge. And we've come full circle. Yes, the courts do decide if the executive branch has a strong enough argument why it should not have to comply with a demand from the legislative. They've been doing it for a long time.

 

[colfax_m]

Thats fair

But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

Tainted evidence? The whistleblower complaint isn’t even being used as evidence. It was used as a map of where to find the evidence.

Evidence gathered illegally, for example, is tainted. The WB was being touted as a critical witness, and as such, needs to testify. We need to know what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint for him, who he coordinated with, etc. Defense attorneys frequently get their clients off the hook by getting evidence thrown out because it was gathered illegally. And, if you want to complain that this isn't a criminal proceeding but a political one, then Trump and the Republicans also have more leeway to conduct business as they wish, and your complaining that he's obstructing goes nowhere until a court says he is.

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.

Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.

1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.

2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.

Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.

Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.

There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.

 

[easyt65]

Pure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.

Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.

You first name one relevant witness at the inquiry? GO__________

I already did.

Mulveney who held up the money at Trump’s direction and was at the meetings with Sondland that laid out quid-pro-quo to Ukrainians and even more crucially Jiuliani who Trump referred everyone to deal with, from Sondland to Zelensky.

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

Dupe, you seriously think that Sondland was running rogue operation in Ukraine, misrepresenting what POTUS wanted?

Why doesn't administration want Jiuliani come to congress say that? Oh tyhats right, because it's bullshit, thats why.

We keep circling around to the same conclusion:

The Democrats have no crime, no evidence of crime, and no witnesses. Sondland admitted under oath that his beliefs were based on hearsay, that he personally had witnessed and could attest personally to NOTHING. Democrats admitted that the House Impeachment was PARTISAN. (I love when snowflakes inadvertently call Democrats liars after Democrats admit things like this. )

 

[AntonToo]

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

Dumbass, Ukraine got ZERO dollars of the 400 million apropriated untill Congress opened investigations into this matter.

While maybe you were ignorant of that fact before, by now I'm pretty sure you are just straight up fucking lying or completely checked out your brain.

 

[colfax_m]

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

And that's for the courts to decide, something Schiff refused to get clarified. Thus, it's untenable to claim Trump is obstructing.

No, it’s not for the courts to decide. Judges don’t decide if obstruction occurred. Trials do.

And who presides over a trial? A judge. And we've come full circle. Yes, the courts do decide if the executive branch has a strong enough argument why it should not have to comply with a demand from the legislative. They've been doing it for a long time.

A judge merely presides over trial. They do not make determinations of guilt. The president can only be put on trial by the Senate after impeachment of the House. The court cannot decide if what Trump is doing constitutes obstruction.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Pure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.

Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.

You first name one relevant witness at the inquiry? GO__________

I already did.

Mulveney who held up the money at Trump’s direction and was at the meetings with Sondland that laid out quid-pro-quo to Ukrainians and even more crucially Jiuliani who Trump referred everyone to deal with, from Sondland to Zelensky.

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

Good catch since just 30 days later on September 30, Ukraine already got 84% of the money, which means Sondland was probably lying, and the the TWO top leaders of Ukraine have stated publicly that there was NO quid pro quo.

From the TIME LINK:

"The most crucial point at which Yermak’s recollection contradicts the testimony of the inquiry’s witnesses relates to a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence.

One of the American diplomats who attended that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified before the inquiry last month that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and delivered an important message: U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

In an interview with TIME and three European publications on Nov. 30, President Zelensky denied ever talking to Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” “That’s not my thing,” he said during that interview."

bolding and sizing mine

Give it up leftists, you are running on TDS and partisan hate.

Dupe, you seriously think that Sondland was running rogue operation in Ukraine, misrepresenting what POTUS wanted?

Why doesn't administration want Jiuliani come to congress say that? Oh tyhats right, because it's bullshit, thats why.

You have been conned so badly because you NEVER understood that the Ukraine aid being temporarily held up had NOTHING to do with quid pro quo at all, quoting Yermak again:

"The new interview with Yermak is likely to revive that debate. When TIME asked him whether he had ever felt there was a connection between the U.S. military aid and the requests for investigations, Yermak was adamant: “We never had that feeling,” he says. “We had a clear understanding that the aid has been frozen. We honestly said, ‘Okay, that’s bad, what’s going on here.’ We were told that they would figure it out. And after a certain amount of time the aid was unfrozen. We did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”

bolding mine

No go away and take your TDS with you....

 

[Cellblock2429]

Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
The Senate Democratic leader wants to seek testimony from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and other White House officials, and subpoena documents the White House has withheld.
Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON — As the House prepared to make President Trump only the third president in American history to be impeached, the Senate’s top Democrat on Sunday laid out a detailed proposal for a Senate trial “in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly” — including subpoenas for documents the White House has withheld and witnesses it has prevented from testifying.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, presented the proposal in a letter to his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell, in an opening move to force Republicans to negotiate over the shape and scope of the proceedings. Mr. McConnell had said last week that he was “taking my cues” from the White House, prompting Democrats to accuse him of abandoning his duty to render “impartial justice” in the trial.

In the letter, Mr. Schumer proposed a trial beginning Jan. 7 that would give each side a fixed amount of time to present its case, and called for four top White House officials who have not previously testified — including Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser — to appear as witnesses.

Mr. Schumer also called for the Senate to subpoena documents that could shed light on the events at the heart of the charges against Mr. Trump: his campaign to enlist Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. And he set forth a specific timetable for each side to present its case, modeled on the one used when President Bill Clinton was tried in 1999. Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
.....................................................................................................................................
Chuck should know better by now than to think McTurtle has an interest in anything approximating the kind of deliberative trial the Senate is obligated conduct. This is why it was so important for Trump's specious narrative of an unfair process in the House to have been spewed (just as it was equally important to make the similarly, objectively false accusations about the Mueller probe). All the trained seals repeat the sham process lie endlessly and will keep doing so all through the phony process Mitch is about to orchestrate in close consultation with the WH (Mitch has adopted the Trumpian strategy of violating rules, ethics, and law right out in the open). Why does McTreason think he can get away with it? Because he knows from experience The Following will swallow any ball of shit he feeds them. They rather like it.

/-----/ What happened to all of Adam Shytface's hard evidence he had last Spring? Why don't the democRATs use that? Are they just chicken?

 

[hadit]

My opinion on why Pelosi doesn't want to send over the articles.

1. She wants to put off the inevitable acquittal as long as possible, to savor the feeling now.
2. She wants to control the calendar. Once the Senate gets the articles, they can keep democrats from campaigning for a long time.
3. She wants to coordinate with Senate democrats. You know, that horrible thing they're accusing Republicans of doing with the White House.

 

[MAGAman]

Stop laughing dupe, holding up aid for the purpose of pressuring foreign government to investigate your political rivals IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OR PAST PRACTICE.

Congress has FOR MONTHS had questions why 400 million aid was held up

Stalled Ukraine military aid concerned members of Congress for months - CNNPolitics

Whistleblower complaint surfaced and Congress opened investigations in the middle of September, so you saying that most of the aid was released by Sept 30th is not any sort of reasonable defense. The drug deal was ALREADY BUST at that point and Trump illegaly holding up aid further would do nothing but incriminate him even further.

Nice faux outrage.

Since that never happened try pretending to care about something that did happen.

 

[AntonToo]

Stop laughing dupe, holding up aid for the purpose of pressuring foreign government to investigate your political rivals IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OR PAST PRACTICE.

Congress has FOR MONTHS had questions why 400 million aid was held up

Stalled Ukraine military aid concerned members of Congress for months - CNNPolitics

Whistleblower complaint surfaced and Congress opened investigations in the middle of September, so you saying that most of the aid was released by Sept 30th is not any sort of reasonable defense. The drug deal was ALREADY BUST at that point and Trump illegaly holding up aid further would do nothing but incriminate him even further.

Nice faux outrage.

Since that never happened try pretending to care about something that did happen.

What never happened?

The thing that Sondland testified to happening?

Lets have Jiuliani and other Trump people stop hiding, come to Congress and say it.

Why are you swampers and Republcians so against that? Too scared of the truth?