Impeachment; the gift that keeps on giving.

shmogie said:

Does the president of the United States Have the right to ask for an investigation of a former vice president who was in charge of Ukraine policy, who's son made huge amounts of money from a corrupt Ukrainian company, for apparently nothing ?

Click to expand...

I did not mean to dodge this, I thought you were asking this rhetorically. To answer your question: yes I think he has the right to ask for that generally speaking. I do not think he has the right to ask for that in ANY manner he feels like. I can expound on what I mean by this if you would like me to.

shmogie said:

Why are the democrats so perturbed, ? if they did nothing wrong, they will be absolved.

Click to expand...

Well I think the Democrats are perturbed for many reasons. The most important one is that the incumbent Republican is re-purposing the powers of US foreign policy to gain an inappropriate political advantage in an election against the Democrats. Digging up dirt on a political opponent is allowed. But not in exchange for carrying out the duties of the office, not by inviting a foreign state to help, not with taxpayer money, not by mixing the the President’s personal agents involved in campaign matters with official US agents involved in official matters, and not but subsuming the interests of the United States and the constitutional powers of Congress. It creates inappropriate conflicts of interest that Trump’s own staff was very alarmed by.

In short I think the Democrats are perturbed by the sworn testimony of Bill Taylor, Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, Lt. Col Vindman, and others all of whom have loyally served Republican administrations. All of whom were greatly perturbed. They are perturbed the same reason such disparate Republican figures as Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina, George F. Will, former Senator Jeff Flake and some Republicans in private are perturbed.

There are other reasons the Dems are perturbed too, I am sure. But that would be the main reason.

shmogie said:

Does a candidate for president have presumed immunity from being investigated ? Trump had no immunity, why the double standard ?

Click to expand...

No a candidate for president does not have immunity from being investigated. For example, Trump’s campaign was investigated when he was a candidate and that was appropriate. Because Obama didn’t call Putin and ask his corrupt government to talk to his personal lawyer about investigating candidate Trump in return for foreign policy favors, in defiance of acts of Congress, and then obstruct Congressional inquiries to learn about it. That would have been odd, to say the least. It would create myriad conflicts of interest an inappropriate uses of power, which should be obvious, but let me know if they are not.

shmogie said:

How would you know what Trump was focused on and how does that relate to his ability as the ultimate head of the justice department ?

Click to expand...

We can’t, of course, read someone’s mind. This is particularly impossible with Trump because he constantly contradicts himself, uses vague language, and just plain lies, and his lies are often not even serving his own rational self-interest. Like when he lied that voter fraud is the reason he lost the popular vote, or when he lied that his inauguration was bigger than Obama’s - unnecessary, easily disproved, and not even very useful lies. He just makes it up as he goes along.

But we can’t ignore the evidence either. The evidence we have is that on Trump’s first congratulatory call with Zelensky, his advisors gave him notes asking him to bring up how the US is concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Trump did not bring this up. In the second call, Trump also did not bring up corruption in Ukraine, in fact the word “corruption” does not appear in the transcript. What he does bring up is how NATO doesn’t chip in enough in Ukraine aid - which could reasonably be interpreted as a threat that Trump doesn’t want to give the aid. And he brings up the investigations into the Bidens, and he makes it clear that’s something he wants to see happen.

Since this issue exploded, Trump has tweeted and spoken extensively on how his interactions with Zelensky were “perfect”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Trump cited prior to or after things exploded “corruption in Ukraine” - as opposed to the specific investigations Trump wanted relate to the Bidens - as a major concern. Maybe Trump released something more recently that pivoted to this position - please correct me if that’s the case.

His Chief of Staff admitted (then walked back) that the aid was tied to the investigations (not general “corruption”) and Trump sort of admitted it too on Fox and Friends - albeit it’s hard to say given how vague and self-contradictory his language is.

Additionally, Trump released the aid two days after an inquiry was publicly announced. It’s hard to understand how “corruption in Ukraine” just happened to no longer be a concern two days after an inquiry was announced into why Trump was holding up the aid.

In short, we can’t ever “know” what this man is focused on - to the extent he focuses on things. But the evidence strongly suggests what he was focused on, and there is a lack of evidence for alternatives he was focused on. And the people closest to him, who have the least motivation to misconstrue this, say it was made clear. Their testimony would be a lot more convincing if we had documentation to back it up - documentation which, naturally, the WH is obstructing.

shmogie said:

Where is the motive established that Trump announced investigations into the Biden's to effect the 2020 elections ?

Click to expand...

Well, I don’t know that the motive has been completely established beyond reasonable doubt. I think the standard of evidence to go to trial is lower than the standard of evidence to convict at trial, thus I am not sure we need to “establish intent” to impeach him and move to trial. I think he forfeits the presumption of innocence when he obstructs an investigation and withholds evidence / key witnesses. It is the Republic, not his innocence, which must be protected and it is his duty to explain his actions - with the full documentary and witness record - not Congress’ duty to speculate and read his mind and forfeit their Constitutional powers (the purse, investigating and impeaching the executive). I also think a President, when using his immense power to potentially damage a political rival, even if his intentions are pure, should still be expected to wield that power with extreme care so as not to call into question foreign or US official interference in an election or the legitimacy of an investigation. Trump did not do that here, not even close (for reasons I can expand on if you want) - which is exactly why his staff was so worried.

Having made all those caveats ... I think Trump’s motive is partially revealed by the fact that the evidence suggests he wanted a public announcement of investigations. Furthermore, when this all became public, Trump released the aid without explanation. This suggests that both the withholding of the aid and the release of it were correlated to public announcements fo things, rather than the actual legitimate process of investigating. It’s also well known that Biden is his top (or one of his top 1 or 2) potential rivals in the election and I think it’s unarguable that Trump is trying to win that election and is aware such a public announcement would help him do that (whether Biden is innocent or guilty). It’s also unclear why Ukraine and Guiliani, and not Trump’s own DOJ, would be carrying out such an investigation into a US citizen ... unless the goal was to leverage US power over corrupt Ukraine, and side-step the normal processes of transparency of the not-corrupt US DOJ.

shmogie said:

In the entire democrat impeachment deal, where has motive for anything been properly established ?

Click to expand...

See above. Obviously you will not agree but let me know if I did not answer.

Mr Spinkles said:

We can’t, of course, read someone’s mind. This is particularly impossible with Trump because he constantly contradicts himself, uses vague language, and just plain lies, and his lies are often not even serving his own rational self-interest. Like when he lied that voter fraud is the reason he lost the popular vote, or when he lied that his inauguration was bigger than Obama’s - unnecessary, easily disproved, and not even very useful lies. He just makes it up as he goes along.

But we can’t ignore the evidence either. The evidence we have is that on Trump’s first congratulatory call with Zelensky, his advisors gave him notes asking him to bring up how the US is concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Trump did not bring this up. In the second call, Trump also did not bring up corruption in Ukraine, in fact the word “corruption” does not appear in the transcript. What he does bring up is how NATO doesn’t chip in enough in Ukraine aid - which could reasonably be interpreted as a threat that Trump doesn’t want to give the aid. And he brings up the investigations into the Bidens, and he makes it clear that’s something he wants to see happen.

Since this issue exploded, Trump has tweeted and spoken extensively on how his interactions with Zelensky were “perfect”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Trump cited prior to or after things exploded “corruption in Ukraine” - as opposed to the specific investigations Trump wanted relate to the Bidens - as a major concern. Maybe Trump released something more recently that pivoted to this position - please correct me if that’s the case.

His Chief of Staff admitted (then walked back) that the aid was tied to the investigations (not general “corruption”) and Trump sort of admitted it too on Fox and Friends - albeit it’s hard to say given how vague and self-contradictory his language is.

Additionally, Trump released the aid two days after an inquiry was publicly announced. It’s hard to understand how “corruption in Ukraine” just happened to no longer be a concern two days after an inquiry was announced into why Trump was holding up the aid.

In short, we can’t ever “know” what this man is focused on - to the extent he focuses on things. But the evidence strongly suggests what he was focused on, and there is a lack of evidence for alternatives he was focused on. And the people closest to him, who have the least motivation to misconstrue this, say it was made clear. Their testimony would be a lot more convincing if we had documentation to back it up - documentation which, naturally, the WH is obstructing.

Well, I don’t know that the motive has been completely established beyond reasonable doubt. I think the standard of evidence to go to trial is lower than the standard of evidence to convict at trial, thus I am not sure we need to “establish intent” to impeach him and move to trial. I think he forfeits the presumption of innocence when he obstructs an investigation and withholds evidence / key witnesses. It is the Republic, not his innocence, which must be protected and it is his duty to explain his actions - with the full documentary and witness record - not Congress’ duty to speculate and read his mind and forfeit their Constitutional powers (the purse, investigating and impeaching the executive). I also think a President, when using his immense power to potentially damage a political rival, even if his intentions are pure, should still be expected to wield that power with extreme care so as not to call into question foreign or US official interference in an election or the legitimacy of an investigation. Trump did not do that here, not even close (for reasons I can expand on if you want) - which is exactly why his staff was so worried.

Having made all those caveats ... I think Trump’s motive is partially revealed by the fact that the evidence suggests he wanted a public announcement of investigations. Furthermore, when this all became public, Trump released the aid without explanation. This suggests that both the withholding of the aid and the release of it were correlated to public announcements fo things, rather than the actual legitimate process of investigating. It’s also well known that Biden is his top (or one of his top 1 or 2) potential rivals in the election and I think it’s unarguable that Trump is trying to win that election and is aware such a public announcement would help him do that (whether Biden is innocent or guilty). It’s also unclear why Ukraine and Guiliani, and not Trump’s own DOJ, would be carrying out such an investigation into a US citizen ... unless the goal was to leverage US power over corrupt Ukraine, and side-step the normal processes of transparency of the not-corrupt US DOJ.

See above. Obviously you will not agree but let me know if I did not answer.

Click to expand...

He HAS NOT obstructed Congress, that is nonsense. He has the RIGHT to executive privilege, and he can apply it to anyone or anything in the executive branch.

If the democrats had a problem with any or all invoked privilege, the remedy is to go to court and try to get it lifted.

It is like a suspect I have arrested who, under the fifth amendment does not have to respond to any question I ask, not responding, then me arresting him for not answering !!!

EXACTLY what the house did with their obstruction nonsense. You cannot obstruct when you have the right to not respond.

You are flailing around with guesses and opinions. From hearsay witnesses you think that Trump intended to do xyz, by the acts of a,b,c., yet the acts in themselves are not illegal, or they would be cited as such.

You actually have a balloon filled with hot air.

In law, motive is proved by documentary evidence ( a written document declaring intent) by Testimony ( a person HEARING the subject say he intended to do x,y,z.)

So, Trumps motive cannot be established.

You infer the motive, because you believe by using aductive or inductive reasoning, that concurrent acts( not criminal acts) can be seen as establishing motive.

I don't buy it. Whether I say Trumps motives were pure as the driven snow, or you say his motives were as dark as the bowels of the earth, we are expressing an opinion not based in fact.

The fact is that no one objectively knows why he said what he said or did what he did. They opine that they do.

We know that he did not commit bribery, or conspiracy, or blackmail, else he would have been charged with one or all of these. He wasn't.

He was impeached based upon legal acts that someone thought he did because he wanted to do something wrong.

Amazing

shmogie said:

He HAS NOT obstructed Congress, that is nonsense. He has the RIGHT to executive privilege, and he can apply it to anyone or anything in the executive branch.

If the democrats had a problem with any or all invoked privilege, the remedy is to go to court and try to get it lifted.

It is like a suspect I have arrested who, under the fifth amendment does not have to respond to any question I ask, not responding, then me arresting him for not answering !!!

EXACTLY what the house did with their obstruction nonsense. You cannot obstruct when you have the right to not respond.

You are flailing around with guesses and opinions. From hearsay witnesses you think that Trump intended to do xyz, by the acts of a,b,c., yet the acts in themselves are not illegal, or they would be cited as such.

You actually have a balloon filled with hot air.

In law, motive is proved by documentary evidence ( a written document declaring intent) by Testimony ( a person HEARING the subject say he intended to do x,y,z.)

So, Trumps motive cannot be established.

You infer the motive, because you believe by using aductive or inductive reasoning, that concurrent acts( not criminal acts) can be seen as establishing motive.

I don't buy it. Whether I say Trumps motives were pure as the driven snow, or you say his motives were as dark as the bowels of the earth, we are expressing an opinion not based in fact.

The fact is that no one objectively knows why he said what he said or did what he did. They opine that they do.

We know that he did not commit bribery, or conspiracy, or blackmail, else he would have been charged with one or all of these. He wasn't.

He was impeached based upon legal acts that someone thought he did because he wanted to do something wrong.

Amazing

Click to expand...

Oh shmogie. Such a poor understanding of executive privilege and the rights of Congress. Congress has the right to investigate the President and the courts have always found that executive privilege does not apply here. The Democrats found enough for any rational person to convict. They knew that the abuse of executive privilege was a delaying game. They would have won in court but it could have taken years. And your fifth amendment analogy is atrocious. A person arrested has the right to not incriminate himself. He can't tell his friends not to talk to you. In fact if he does and you hear that that would be obstruction.

Mr Spinkles said:

No idea how to make sense of this. Does it take a lot of effort to talk nonsense and in circles, or does it just come naturally?

Click to expand...

I said it was hearsay. You responded with babble about trials. There is currently no trial. Your point is moot.

Shad said:

I said it was hearsay. You responded with babble about trials. There is currently no trial. Your point is moot.

Click to expand...

Every other sentence above is wrong, starting with the second one.

Please familiarize yourself with the definition of the word hearsay and try again.

Definition of HEARSAY

shmogie said:

He HAS NOT obstructed Congress, that is nonsense. He has the RIGHT to executive privilege, and he can apply it to anyone or anything in the executive branch.

If the democrats had a problem with any or all invoked privilege, the remedy is to go to court and try to get it lifted.

It is like a suspect I have arrested who, under the fifth amendment does not have to respond to any question I ask, not responding, then me arresting him for not answering !!!

EXACTLY what the house did with their obstruction nonsense. You cannot obstruct when you have the right to not respond.

You are flailing around with guesses and opinions. From hearsay witnesses you think that Trump intended to do xyz, by the acts of a,b,c., yet the acts in themselves are not illegal, or they would be cited as such.

You actually have a balloon filled with hot air.

In law, motive is proved by documentary evidence ( a written document declaring intent) by Testimony ( a person HEARING the subject say he intended to do x,y,z.)

So, Trumps motive cannot be established.

You infer the motive, because you believe by using aductive or inductive reasoning, that concurrent acts( not criminal acts) can be seen as establishing motive.

I don't buy it. Whether I say Trumps motives were pure as the driven snow, or you say his motives were as dark as the bowels of the earth, we are expressing an opinion not based in fact.

The fact is that no one objectively knows why he said what he said or did what he did. They opine that they do.

We know that he did not commit bribery, or conspiracy, or blackmail, else he would have been charged with one or all of these. He wasn't.

He was impeached based upon legal acts that someone thought he did because he wanted to do something wrong.

Amazing

Click to expand...

Thanks. I take it from this that I answered your questions - which is not to say I convinced you, just that I provided my view in response to what you asked.

We have very different views of executive privilege.

In addition to the excellent points made by Subduction Zone, I would add that it’s interesting that the President’s own argument has almost nothing to do with asserting executive privilege, i.e., the need to keep things confidential to protect US foreign policy interests.

For example, the White House letter to Congress that it would blanket non-comply with any and all requests for testimony or documents related to the inquiry, is NOT based on asserting executive privilege. Quite the contrary, the letter asserts that they will not cooperate because the inquiry is unfair, not because of national security concerns.

I’m fact it was Trump who released the call transcripts, which if anything, would be the most likely cause of compromising national security or executive functions. Trump wasn’t the least concerned about it.

Furthermore it’s clearly an obstruction tactic to blanket non-comply with Congress. If national security was the concern they would allow some WH officials to testify but not others; allow some of Sondlands written opening statement but redact parts that are sensitive; or request that certain testimony occur behind closed doors. What happened was the opposite: they DIDNT want testimony behind closed doors because they WERENT focused on / concerned about protecting national security.

So on this executive privilege argument once again, shmogie, you are doing something that Trump apologists do a lot, which is to disregard what the President says in his own defense, and substitute your own (presumably better) defense on his behalf. Again I can’t help be reminded by the analogy of parent of a spoiled child, who finds excuses that the child hadn’t even thought of.

The other piece you are ignoring is timing. Trump is accused of potentially inviting a foreign power - again - to meddle in a US election. For reasons that should be obvious, it is therefore in the interest of the US - but not Trump, if he’s guilty - to resolve this before the election. If he wants to play rope a dope and fight it in courts he can, and the courts have already started to call the WH arguments absurd, but by the time that is resolved (it may take several months) we should be at the trial stage so this can get resolved.

And, I would add, the court decisions will only make official what is already obvious to any thinking person: that he’s obstructing the investigation, not trying to protect US national security or state secrets (again, an excise that he didn’t even use at the outset - his doting parents came up with it).

Mr Spinkles said:

Every other sentence above is wrong, starting with the second one.

Please familiarize yourself with the definition of the word hearsay and try again.

Definition of HEARSAY

Click to expand...

Hearsay evidence in law simply means," Joe told me he heard Bill say ". The testimony given at the impeachment hearings was mostly hearsay, and would not be accepted in a court.

Mr Spinkles said:

Thanks. I take it from this that I answered your questions - which is not to say I convinced you, just that I provided my view in response to what you asked.

We have very different views of executive privilege.

In addition to the excellent points made by Subduction Zone, I would add that it’s interesting that the President’s own argument has almost nothing to do with asserting executive privilege, i.e., the need to keep things confidential to protect US foreign policy interests.

For example, the White House letter to Congress that it would blanket non-comply with any and all requests for testimony or documents related to the inquiry, is NOT based on asserting executive privilege. Quite the contrary, the letter asserts that they will not cooperate because the inquiry is unfair, not because of national security concerns.

I’m fact it was Trump who released the call transcripts, which if anything, would be the most likely cause of compromising national security or executive functions. Trump wasn’t the least concerned about it.

Furthermore it’s clearly an obstruction tactic to blanket non-comply with Congress. If national security was the concern they would allow some WH officials to testify but not others; allow some of Sondlands written opening statement but redact parts that are sensitive; or request that certain testimony occur behind closed doors. What happened was the opposite: they DIDNT want testimony behind closed doors because they WERENT focused on / concerned about protecting national security.

So on this executive privilege argument once again, shmogie, you are doing something that Trump apologists do a lot, which is to disregard what the President says in his own defense, and substitute your own (presumably better) defense on his behalf. Again I can’t help be reminded by the analogy of parent of a spoiled child, who finds excuses that the child hadn’t even thought of.

The other piece you are ignoring is timing. Trump is accused of potentially inviting a foreign power - again - to meddle in a US election. For reasons that should be obvious, it is therefore in the interest of the US - but not Trump, if he’s guilty - to resolve this before the election. If he wants to play rope a dope and fight it in courts he can, and the courts have already started to call the WH arguments absurd, but by the time that is resolved (it may take several months) we should be at the trial stage so this can get resolved.

And, I would add, the court decisions will only make official what is already obvious to any thinking person: that he’s obstructing the investigation, not trying to protect US national security or state secrets (again, an excise that he didn’t even use at the outset - his doting parents came up with it).

Click to expand...

A president may assert executive privilege at will. It is up the courts to decide if it's invocation is incorrect.

Any thinking person may conclude that attorney client privilege is protecting a guilty person, yet the privilege is a right, and cannot be used as any indication of guilt.

I still ask, where is there a crime meeting the standard of the Constitution ? Nowhere.

Here is the bottom line. You, like the democrats in congress hate you Trump and disagree with his policies.

Like you, they are unable to articulate a crime as specified in the Constitution. Instead, we get endless recitations of what you don't like and what you suspect, yet, no statutory crime.

That s why the senate will dispose of this quickly, and why Nancy is sitting on it.

shmogie said:

Hearsay evidence in law simply means," Joe told me he heard Bill say ". The testimony given at the impeachment hearings was mostly hearsay, and would not be accepted in a court.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are trying to say but it’s not applicable in this particular instance. Please bear with me so I can explain.

I was asking you a simple question, if the reason the aid was released was because Zelensky “made the grade”, as you claimed, then why was the aid released on Sept 11. I noted this was 50 days after the call, two days after the issue blew up publicly for the President, and about a week before Zelensky canceled a planned CNN interview, which WH officials were concerned he was going to use to announce the investigations.

In addition, I mentioned it was incidentally a day after John Bolton resigned. It was here that I mentioned Bolton called Rudy’s a “hand grenade” and the whole thing a “drug deal”.

Shad, in his typical flippant manner, parachuted in to question whether Bolton used those words. Ignoring, for obvious reasons, the thrust of my question (which wasn’t about Bolton) and even the thrust of my side comment (which doesn’t depend on which phrase Bolton used). I said, ok, whether Bolton used those words or not Fiona Hill testified that Bolton was so alarmed he instructed her to report it to the NSC lawyers, which she did.

Shad’s response, naturally, is not to engage his intellect with that information or accept the clarification I made and circle back to the thrust of my question; but simply to dismiss the information it as “more hearsay”.

It is not, not the way I’m using it in this conversation. Because this isn’t a court of law and I’m not using Bolton’s statement via Fiona Hill as evidence of Trumps guilt; rather, I’m asking YOU what you think about the timing of the aid release - Bolton’s resignation as part of that. I’m using Fiona’s sworn testimony of what BOLTON told her directly as evidence of how BOLTON felt - which involves two parties, not three, as in your example. Obviously if we had Bolton’s testimony directly that would be even better but this is a far cry from hearsay the way I’m using it in the conversation we are having at this moment.

shmogie said:

A president may assert executive privilege at will. It is up the courts to decide if it's invocation is incorrect.

Click to expand...

I think you’re missing the point entirely, but I accept that is your view. We are far apart and have both said our pieces here.

I have a follow up question on obstruction but there’s something I’d like to ask first.

You claim that we don’t know why Trump held up the aid and what his intent was. In fact you go as far as claiming reasons that are not consistent with the reasons Trump himself has given, and you can’t explain why he held up the aid (that is, releasing it 50 days after Zelensky supposedly “made the grade”). Given this, don’t you think the WH has some obligation, and Congress has some right, to testify / provide documents that could clear this up and settle the matter?

I realize you disagree with the inquiry as put into practice by the Democrats - I’m just asking at a high level here.

shmogie said:

I still ask, where is there a crime meeting the standard of the Constitution ? Nowhere.

Click to expand...

shmogie let me know if you wanted me to answer this, I don’t want to dodge it. I assumed you were being rhetorical.

shmogie said:

He HAS NOT obstructed Congress, that is nonsense. He has the RIGHT to executive privilege, and he can apply it to anyone or anything in the executive branch.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Some of the key documents being withheld relate to the OMB and the hold on the Ukraine funds. Those are federal records, internal to an agency, and have nothing to do with any sort of executive privilege. They are the people's records..they belong to us, the US taxpayers. Other records being sought are things like the notes and emails of government officials, all of which are again....federal records.

Further, any and all testimony from Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, and Giuliani is being blocked, not just that which would fall under executive privilege. If the WH wants to assert such privilege for some of what they might testify to, then they can still allow those gov't officials to testify and when questions come up that touch on privileged conversations, they can assert it right then and there, specific to that question. But the WH is prohibiting all of them from testifying at all, about anything and everything.

That's obstruction.

Jose Fly said:

Absolutely not. Some of the key documents being withheld relate to the OMB and the hold on the Ukraine funds. Those are federal records, internal to an agency, and have nothing to do with any sort of executive privilege. They are the people's records..they belong to us, the US taxpayers. Other records being sought are things like the notes and emails of government officials, all of which are again....federal records.

Further, any and all testimony from Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, and Giuliani is being blocked, not just that which would fall under executive privilege. If the WH wants to assert such privilege for some of what they might testify to, then they can still allow those gov't officials to testify and when questions come up that touch on privileged conversations, they can assert it right then and there, specific to that question. But the WH is prohibiting all of them from testifying at all, about anything and everything.

That's obstruction.

Click to expand...

OMB is an executive branch department. Therefore executive privilege applies there as well.

Executive privilege covers the act of testifying, not the subjects of testimony.

The democrats in the house refused to use the only remedy available to eliminate privilege. the courts. Then they whine because they refused.

They blocked themselves.

The senate will not correct their malpractice. The senate will not litigate re the wanted witnesses for them. The senate will not save their bacon.

If you think these witnesses, or any other witnesses or records should have been provided to house democrats, blame them for cutting corners.

If a right is questioned, like executive privilege in this case, it is not wrong till litigated and declared so, according to the rules and the law.

The Adam and Jerry show did produce. Bam !! It's over.

shmogie said:

OMB is an executive branch department. Therefore executive privilege applies there as well.

Executive privilege covers the act of testifying, not the subjects of testimony.

The democrats in the house refused to use the only remedy available to eliminate privilege. the courts. Then they whine because they refused.

They blocked themselves.

The senate will not correct their malpractice. The senate will not litigate re the wanted witnesses for them. The senate will not save their bacon.

If you think these witnesses, or any other witnesses or records should have been provided to house democrats, blame them for cutting corners.

If a right is questioned, like executive privilege in this case, it is not wrong till litigated and declared so, according to the rules and the law.

The Adam and Jerry show did produce. Bam !! It's over.

Click to expand...

Your argument is absurd on its face. You're basically saying that everything that goes on in every federal agency is privileged and neither the public nor Congress has any right to see any documents or hear from any officials in any agency regarding anything that goes on in those agencies.

I'd think making such a stupid argument would give you pause and make you take stock of where you're at, but here we are.

Jose Fly said:

Your argument is absurd on its face. You're basically saying that everything that goes on in every federal agency is privileged and neither the public nor Congress has any right to see any documents or hear from any officials in any agency regarding anything that goes on in those agencies.

I'd think making such a stupid argument would give you pause and make you take stock of where you're at, but here we are.

Click to expand...

I am saying that every EXECUTIVE branch department can be under invoked executive privilege.

Disputes about invoked privilege are to be litigated in court.

So simple, so established by precedent and the law.

So misunderstood by corner cutters and their acolytes, who hop around like grasshoppers on a cocaine jag with the physically restricted number of brain cells to grasp anything but their hatred of Trump.

No case for impeachment, no evidence to support impeachment, a total failure of democrats in the house. Which will result in Trump's acquittal in the senate. Live with it.

shmogie said:

I am saying that every EXECUTIVE branch department can be under invoked executive privilege.

Click to expand...

As I said, that you're taking the position that the public and Congress have no right to see any records from any federal agency, or hear from any officials in those agencies, should give you pause.

It seems there's no limit to what positions you won't put forth to defend and protect Trump.

Mr Spinkles said:

I understand what you are trying to say but it’s not applicable in this particular instance. Please bear with me so I can explain.

I was asking you a simple question, if the reason the aid was released was because Zelensky “made the grade”, as you claimed, then why was the aid released on Sept 11. I noted this was 50 days after the call, two days after the issue blew up publicly for the President, and about a week before Zelensky canceled a planned CNN interview, which WH officials were concerned he was going to use to announce the investigations.

In addition, I mentioned it was incidentally a day after John Bolton resigned. It was here that I mentioned Bolton called Rudy’s a “hand grenade” and the whole thing a “drug deal”.

Shad, in his typical flippant manner, parachuted in to question whether Bolton used those words. Ignoring, for obvious reasons, the thrust of my question (which wasn’t about Bolton) and even the thrust of my side comment (which doesn’t depend on which phrase Bolton used). I said, ok, whether Bolton used those words or not Fiona Hill testified that Bolton was so alarmed he instructed her to report it to the NSC lawyers, which she did.

Shad’s response, naturally, is not to engage his intellect with that information or accept the clarification I made and circle back to the thrust of my question; but simply to dismiss the information it as “more hearsay”.

It is not, not the way I’m using it in this conversation. Because this isn’t a court of law and I’m not using Bolton’s statement via Fiona Hill as evidence of Trumps guilt; rather, I’m asking YOU what you think about the timing of the aid release - Bolton’s resignation as part of that. I’m using Fiona’s sworn testimony of what BOLTON told her directly as evidence of how BOLTON felt - which involves two parties, not three, as in your example. Obviously if we had Bolton’s testimony directly that would be even better but this is a far cry from hearsay the way I’m using it in the conversation we are having at this moment.

Click to expand...

I do not know why the aid was released at the time it was. I am a big believer in the presumption of innocence and an even bigger believer in the firmly established principle of the accused not having to prove innocence, but rather that the accuser must prove guilt.

I have seen 0 evidence that establishes that the aid was released because it became known it had been held up.

Contrary to popular opinion, circumstantial evidence can be very powerful evidence. However it has be so plentiful, all pieces pointing to one specific conclusion, that no other explanation is reasonably possible.

I don't think the other possibilities are unreasonable in this case. Coincidence being just one of the possibilities.

So, we are back to intent and direct evidence of intent, which I do not see.

As to Bolton, if he was quoted right, what did his statement mean ? What was he trying to say ? Both statements, the hand grenade and the drug deal could mean all kinds of things. Bolton testifying would clear these up, yet the democrats in the house made no effort to follow the prescribed steps to obtain his testimony. It must have been unimportant to them. So, it is unimportant to me.

Jose Fly said:

As I said, that you're taking the position that the public and Congress have no right to see any records from any federal agency, or hear from any officials in those agencies, should give you pause.

It seems there's no limit to what positions you won't put forth to defend and protect Trump.

Click to expand...

I am not defending Trump. I am defending how the law works. You don't throw out rights because someone doesn't deserve them. You don't throw out the only way to get the evidence you want because it takes too long, or you don't want to fill out the forms, or appear before a judge. You cannot impeach a president because he invoked an inherent right of the office, and you chose not to challenge it which is your right.
Simply, there is a right way to go about getting legal relief.
Denying yourself the benefits of this right can only be on you. No one forced you to do nothing.

shmogie said:

I am not defending Trump. I am defending how the law works. You don't throw out rights because someone doesn't deserve them.

Click to expand...

Executive privilege is not a blanket, universal right that applies to everything in every federal agency.

You don't throw out the only way to get the evidence you want because it takes too long, or you don't want to fill out the forms, or appear before a judge.

Click to expand...

As noted previously, the Trump administration has already shown it will defy direct court orders to turn over federal records. Trump's administration has deliberately stonewalled Congress and the impeachment inquiry by refusing to hand over any documents and banning all executive branch employees from testifying. If that's not obstruction, then the word "obstruction" has no meaning.