Trump's excuses for delaying aid are destroyed

[TheLiquidGuy]

Your position throughout this entire thread has been "He SAID "A", but I know he MEANT "B". That is a dangerous and delusional way of thinking.

What is dangerous is when we mindlessly take the words of our politicians at face value.
Since when do we do that?

[hanger4]

Ok, so he is ‘smart.’ I can work with that.
First thing: I mean no offence but...

You are pretending that you believe the words a politician speaks are always forthright. You are in a political forum. You know better. It’s disingenuous. (I am tempted to end my answer right here, but uh…’brevity problem’) Also, I kinda think that you originally believed it would be too cumbersome for me to answer and so I might just concede. I used that tactic with my siblings, and then with my wife. I eventually stopped because it impedes truth. But mostly because sleeping on the couch hurts my back. I like to think I am here to get smarter, not win arguments.

The call was ‘perfect’. That’s an odd adjective to describe a phone call. When Trump first said that, It stood out to me immediately. And he kept using that word. Perfect. He executed the call perfectly. No mistakes. In other words he made the perfect presentation. Like he was performing a violin recital. Such an assessment would be fair if he had touched on most of the talking points that his staff had prepared for him beforehand. But we are told he threw out the script. What I am saying is what he is saying: The call was perfect. Because there was another script. The one in his head. During the call he pivoted to the thing he really wanted: investigations. Since we’ve established he is smart, he knew he couldn’t just ask for it outright. He knew he had to disguise it a little. And he did. It was perfect. The perfect balance between a self-serving request and plausible deniability. It was the perfect presentation. The perfect defense. The perfect call. The perfect crime. ‘Perfect’ was the only way to describe the call. Even the the word was self descriptive.

As it turns out though, it was only perfect to his mind. Several people listening on the call saw right through it. A judge would see right through it. The only ones who did not see through it are the ones predisposed to come to his defence. His party. This was a thinly veiled shake down. If courts had to wait until a recording contained the phrase “Let’s do some quid pro quo now” before they could convict, the jail cells currently allotted to criminals convicted by surveillance tapes would be nearly empty.

That said, “us” does mean “America”. After asking the favour Trump then feels the need to justify why he is asking: He explains “because…”. But the explanation is awkward. It feels like he had to stuff it in there by force. Yet he puts it in there anyway. He did it to achieve the "perfect" call. In case it’s not clear: “us” is just cover. The explanation is just cover. Awkward but necessary cover. He is smart. But not that smart.

*You are pretending that you believe the words a politician speaks are always forthright.*

You are using the President's words to impeachment him, words mean things. If you think he's lying, that's what you have to prove.

*Also, I kinda think that you originally believed it would be too cumbersome*

Nope, I believe exactly what I said and still do.

The rest of your post is you attempt at mind reading and assumptions based on you ability to read minds. You (Dems) to substantiate the Abuse of Power article will have to prove Trump's intent and then prove the President has no authority to request help from a foreign administration investigating possible malfeasance by a US citizen/s.

Your (Dems) "I want you to do us a favor though" doesn't come close.

[carolina73]

Can we vote now on if TheLiquidGuy's title should be changed to:

"TheLiquidGuy's rants about delayed aid have just been destroyed"

[Cletus]

What is dangerous is when we mindlessly take the words of our politicians at face value.
Since when do we do that?

You do it until there is actual evidence that you should not. That is something you are lacking.

You are presuming to be a mind reader and not taking into account the fact that your conclusions are being formed by your own preconceptions. His words and the words of President Zelensky are not even a little bit ambiguous. The President's words to Sondland don't require a whole lot of interpretation. When you take a statement by someone, anyone, and ask yourself... "Okay, this is what he said, but what did he really mean?", you are going down a dangerous road that is very likely going to lead you to the conclusions you wish to find, rather than the ones supported by fact.

[hanger4]

What is dangerous is when we mindlessly take the words of our politicians at face value.
Since when do we do that?

What's dangerous is to mindlessly interpret the words of a President solely for the purpose of impeachment.

[carolina73]

The laughable part of this is that the Obama administration was spying on the Trump campaign while Hillary and the DNC was trying to Frame Trump and while we are learning about this they are complaining about Trump maybe asking about something that Biden bragged about. They still refuse to admit that Hunter had nothing to offer the Ukraine or Chinese companies and something looks terribly inappropriate. They did not pay him for nothing.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/timeli...n_3156376.html

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-v...e-trump-tower/

[TheLiquidGuy]

Hanger4 says

You are using the President's words to impeachment him, words mean things. If you think he's lying, that's what you have to prove.
The problem is that your acting like only direct evidence can be considered. But here you have effectively invoked the “innocent until proven guilty” principle. You want to use judicial standards to evaluate a political crime. Fine. But you can’t just use one part of our law courts and reject the rest.

That means we are now accepting circumstantial evidence as well. Circumstantial evidence has been used to try and convict everything from pickpockets to serial killers since the first court. Circumstantial evidence is valid, usable evidence. I don’t want to hear “There is no evidence” any more. That was a lie even before we allowed circumstantial evidence. And it’s still a lie. Republicans abused that lie to lazily swat away all of the excellent circumstantial (and direct) evidence against this president.

As it turns out there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence here. In a court of law, jurors must weigh it into their decision. So what is your decision now? Oh wait. You cannot be a juror. Neither can I. We would rightfully be dismissed during jury selection for political bias, so we don’t get to decide. Unlike the Senate, courts of law must use non partisans, vetted for objectivity.

I could be a prosecutor though, and you the defense attorney.


The rest of your post is you attempt at mind reading and assumptions based on you ability to read minds. You (Dems) to substantiate the Abuse of Power article will have to prove Trump's intent...
Mind reading is the job of an objective jury, not you or I. I just presented my case. You as the defense attorney, can criticize it. But you can’t rule.


...and then prove the President has no authority to request help from a foreign administration investigating possible malfeasance by a US citizen/s.
He should have done so through the proper channels given the blazingly obvious conflict of interest. That conflict may be a violation in itself. Also, I don’t think the President can request help from a foreign power in connection with a US election according to the FEC.

But that is not even the issue. If the objective jury (i.e. not the Senate) reads his mind as self serving, then it doesn’t matter if he has authority. The issue is did he abuse his power in so doing? Did he try to use his position or the apparatus of government unfairly to corrupt what should be our most sacred custom: Free and fair elections.


Your (Dems) "I want you to do us a favor though" doesn't come close.
That’s the thing. There is other direct evidence which I have already talked about and you ignored: e.g. Trump’s lawn statement explained he wanted “a major investigation into the Bidens”. Biden was his chief political rival. Since we are now permitting circumstantial evidence, we must now take that rivalry into consideration (well not us. An objective jury). When we combine Trump’s lawn statement with the fact that Biden was his primary political rival we have a powerful argument to an objective jury. I would put my money on that any day.

Since we don't have a jury I will refer you to the Nov 18 ABC-Ipsos poll that said 70% of americans believed that the president did something wrong. 24% said he did nothing wrong. 6% no answer.

[TheLiquidGuy]

You do it until there is actual evidence that you should not. That is something you are lacking.

You are presuming to be a mind reader and not taking into account the fact that your conclusions are being formed by your own preconceptions. His words and the words of President Zelensky are not even a little bit ambiguous. The President's words to Sondland don't require a whole lot of interpretation. When you take a statement by someone, anyone, and ask yourself... "Okay, this is what he said, but what did he really mean?", you are going down a dangerous road that is very likely going to lead you to the conclusions you wish to find, rather than the ones supported by fact.

See #107

[hanger4]

Hanger4 says

You are using the President's words to impeachment him, words mean things. If you think he's lying, that's what you have to prove.
The problem is that your acting like only direct evidence can be considered. But here you have effectively invoked the “innocent until proven guilty” principle. You want to use judicial standards to evaluate a political crime. Fine. But you can’t just use one part of our law courts and reject the rest.

That means we are now accepting circumstantial evidence as well. Circumstantial evidence has been used to try and convict everything from pickpockets to serial killers since the first court. Circumstantial evidence is valid, usable evidence. I don’t want to hear “There is no evidence” any more. That was a lie even before we allowed circumstantial evidence. And it’s still a lie. Republicans abused that lie to lazily swat away all of the excellent circumstantial (and direct) evidence against this president.

As it turns out there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence here. In a court of law, jurors must weigh it into their decision. So what is your decision now? Oh wait. You cannot be a juror. Neither can I. We would rightfully be dismissed during jury selection for political bias, so we don’t get to decide. Unlike the Senate, courts of law must use non partisans, vetted for objectivity.

I could be a prosecutor though, and you the defense attorney.


The rest of your post is you attempt at mind reading and assumptions based on you ability to read minds. You (Dems) to substantiate the Abuse of Power article will have to prove Trump's intent...
Mind reading is the job of an objective jury, not you or I. I just presented my case. You as the defense attorney, can criticize it. But you can’t rule.


...and then prove the President has no authority to request help from a foreign administration investigating possible malfeasance by a US citizen/s.
He should have done so through the proper channels given the blazingly obvious conflict of interest. That conflict may be a violation in itself. Also, I don’t think the President can request help from a foreign power in connection with a US election according to the FEC.

But that is not even the issue. If the objective jury (i.e. not the Senate) reads his mind as self serving, then it doesn’t matter if he has authority. The issue is did he abuse his power in so doing? Did he try to use his position or the apparatus of government unfairly to corrupt what should be our most sacred custom: Free and fair elections.


Your (Dems) "I want you to do us a favor though" doesn't come close.
That’s the thing. There is other direct evidence which I have already talked about and you ignored: e.g. Trump’s lawn statement explained he wanted “a major investigation into the Bidens”. Biden was his chief political rival. Since we are now permitting circumstantial evidence, we must now take that rivalry into consideration (well not us. An objective jury). When we combine Trump’s lawn statement with the fact that Biden was his primary political rival we have a powerful argument to an objective jury. I would put my money on that any day.

Circumstantial evidence is fine, but there is none. Here say and assumptions by witnesses don't constitute circumstantial evidence.

I understand it's a political issue, but you need to understand the voting public, not partisans, won't/doesn't understand the impeachment of a legitimately elected President because politics. Without an underlying crime the House Majority is shooting themselves in the foot.

There is no direct evidence and the claims of here say and assumptions by witnesses being circumstantial is silly.

Jurors better be basing there decisions on the facts presented not an attempt at mind reading.

Proper channels ?? President to President isn't proper channels ?? Lordy

Joe Biden also admitted to a QPQ, why was Hunter Biden hired to a job he has absolutely no skills toward, also what's the involvement of the Ukraine and the DNC/Clinton Campaign. There's plenty of reasons to ask for an investigation that has nothing to do with Biden's candidacy.

[TheLiquidGuy]

hanger4 says:



Circumstantial evidence is fine, but there is none. Here say and assumptions by witnesses don't constitute circumstantial evidence.



You are seriously still saying that?



I googled “example of circumstantial evidence” This is from the very first result:

Examples of circumstantial evidence in murder cases include:

• The fact that the accused had an intense dislike of the victim

• The fact that the accused behaved in a bizarre and suspicious way after the offence

• The fact that the accused lied about their alibi

• The fact that the accused was in the area when the offence was committed

• The fact that the defendant's blood or DNA matches blood or DNA found on the victim's body

So here are some examples of circumstantial evidence I came up with. It’s not a comprehensive list by any means:

• The fact that Biden was Trump's main political rival.

• The fact that the Trump asked that his rival be investigated (and consequently smeared)

• The fact that that Trump ignored the blatant conflict of interest in so doing

• The fact that Trump's personal lawyer -Rudy- was in Ukraine purporting to speak for Trump

• The fact that in the call Trump built up Rudy as a very important figure

• The fact that Rudy was then and is now still pursuing more dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine

• The fact that Trump has not fired either Sondland or Rudy for pursuing QPQ without his permission and causing this impeachment

• The fact that the white house changed their reason for withholding the aid

• The fact that white house lawyers were found to be retroactively trying to justify the hold

• The fact that the white house only released the aid 2 days after the WB complaint came out (after holding it for 55 days)

• The fact that the Zelensky canceled his upcoming CNN interview right after the aid was released

I understand it's a political issue, but you need to understand the voting public, not partisans, won't/doesn't understand the impeachment of a legitimately elected President because politics. Without an underlying crime the House Majority is shooting themselves in the foot.

We're not arguing whether this is good or bad for the Democratic party. It's probably bad for them. You claimed there was no evidence, I just listed some. But to your point my previous message just showed you: 70% understood he did wrong. 51% wanted him removed. 57% wanted him impeached. Only 43% did not. But again. Thats not the issue.





There is no direct evidence and the claims of here say and assumptions by witnesses being circumstantial is silly.

There is direct evidence. Are we going in circles??? I listed a lot of stuff above that was not presumption or even witness testimony.



Jurors better be basing there decisions on the facts presented not an attempt at mind reading.

Proper channels ?? President to President isn't proper channels ?? Lordy

OMG. Normally, President to President might be fine. But as I said in my previous post, this situation is different because of the "blazingly obvious conflict of interest"

We have a cooperation agreement with Ukraine which lists specific protocols. So yes, in this case he should have followed them. Or he should have refered it to the justice department.



Joe Biden also admitted to a QPQ, why was Hunter Biden hired to a job he has absolutely no skills toward, also what's the involvement of the Ukraine and the DNC/Clinton Campaign. There's plenty of reasons to ask for an investigation that has nothing to do with Biden's candidacy.

And he could have done it at any time. Trump had been President for 2.5 years. He chose a time when Biden was surging in the polls? And of course it's not suspicious at all to you that he hasn't personally asked for an investigation into any other non-political figure anywhere in the world. And why would he bother personally getting involved in the details of law enforcement? especially with the conflict of interest? He should be handling things at a much higher level anyway or he should have ran for police chief. And isn't it a little suspicious that he also asked for an investigation into the DNC server (which is not related to corruption, but does involves the democrats)?