Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
His assumption was well founded on facts. We don’t leave common sense outside of the jury room.
With the new document that Trump put a freeze on the money within hours of the call, the foundation gets even better.
 
I keep seeing this accusation:
dvdjs said:
Ukraine was informed by Sondland that public announcement of the investigation would be sufficient to get the aid released.
Click to expand...
SONDLAND: I can’t characterize why he wanted them. All I can tell you is this is what we heard from Mr. Giuliani.

The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced. … President Trump presumably, communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on-record publicly that they were going to do those investigations.

But then Rep. Turner gets Sondland to admit that:

No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:23 Yes.

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:24 So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:36 Other than my own presumption

Objectively speaking, how is someone’s presumption supposed to be considered evidence of wrong doing?
 
But, but it was such an emergency that he be removed. He is destroying the constitution and wrecking the election in 2020… we have to hurry with this impeachment.
Oh, we can wait now and celebrate the holidays. Who is fiddling while Rome burns???
 
Maximus1 said:
With the new document that Trump put a freeze on the money within hours of the call, the foundation gets even better.
Click to expand...
This is fake news narrative. OMB has stated the hold was much before the “call”. Again fake news leaving out details to allow you to think the with holding was related to the phone call. Not true… Like most of the rest of it…
 
humbleseeker said:
Objectively speaking, how is someone’s presumption supposed to be considered evidence of wrong doing?
Click to expand...
This is how the fake news media propagandizes people into false beliefs and tries to turn their narrative fiction into fact. When you see liberal sources all quoting the same narrative, beware and dig to see what they are not telling you. There you will find the truth.
 
Michael Atkinson the IG? The guy Trump threatened to fire because he handled the WHISLEBLOWER complaint by the book?
 
Intent was related. Remember, the full statutory Curruption investigation took place and was determined complete in MAY BY DOD.
SINCE that point, any claim of Trump interest in the subject ( rooting out Curruption before releasing money) should have corresponding action by him to verify or supplement what was done.( Forgetting for a moment the legality of Trump imposing requirements not contained in the legislation).
So it is always pertinent to intent to make sure that log of action( or inaction) is complete. From it one can deduct objectively the intent to investigate " Curruption" vs intent to investigate a political opponent.
And the BONUS…
If Trump released the money immediately upon obtaining knowledge of the WHISLEBLOWER complaint, that is strong circumstantial evidence in itself. But if Trump did nothing to objectively investigate Curruption preceding, you have removed Curruption investigation as a reason for his delay. You are left to suggest Trump incompetent, or inept, or lazy , or full of it).
To answer the How Question:
Circumstantial evidence testified to as a foundation is HOW. FOR example: I heard what sounded like Thunder, a guy then walked in wearing a soaking wet raincoat from the front door.
My presumption is it has been raining outside. Even if I didn’t go out, see it raining standing in the rain getting wet. The jury can use it’s common sense. It need not accept the possibility of mass hypnosis, or a rainmaking/ thunder machine just happened to be there.
 
Last edited:
The short answer is ," reason and common sense."
Juries are in fact instructed to deliberate upon " presumptions" and to weigh inferences from the evidence that their common sense, life experience, and reason provides.
We don’t check out intellect and reason at the door of the jury room.
That is the simple answer and there are millions in jail convicted on circumstantial evidence as I write. ( We would have few if a signed confession or video/ audio/ written confession was mandatory to convict.)
But it has been an outstanding disinformation campaign by the Trump team to suggest only a signed confession is evidence.
 
Well at least you’re admitting your own presumptions based upon circumstantial evidence. It’s a start…
 
Has authority? I don’t see this as the issue at all. He isn’t getting impeached if he did it without authority but TOOK CONCRETE STEPS to determine Curruption in good faith. So what did he do? I will listen.
Because if the answer is nothing, then the WHISLEBLOWER complaint became known,
Then he released the money,
And nothing objective shows that he completed a Curruption inquiry, YOU WOULD EXPECT A GOOD FAITH INQUIRY INTO CURRUPTION THAT HOLDS UP FUNDS RESULTS IN SOMETHING YOU CAN POINT AT that caused the money to then be released.
Then
The defense hangs him.
But don’t worry, Right wing media will cover their constituents eyes and tell bla bla bla in their ears when they are asked to consider" well what did Trump do to investigate Curruption after he froze the money." Right wing media will hide the bacon so to speak to keep the very idea out of the Trumpist mind.
" Well if that is what he says he froze to do, then what did he do then to accomplish his stated objective?"
Images of Winston guessing wrong at HOW MANY FINGERS is imagined on Hannity.
 
Last edited:
There is no signed confession, although Mulvany’s interview was almost in the nature of one.
 
Last edited:
The circumstantial evidence includes:
An Ambassador who Trump appointed after the guy handed Trump a million bucks.
A guy who has every conceivable motivation to not implicate Trump, except conscience and desire to not lie under oath. Who will and has paid a price already and will continue to.
In law they identify this testimony as a “statement against interest,” and it is cloaked with a presumption that it is trustworthy.
In fact there is a hearsay exception codified, by Congress in the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE allowing admission of a statement against interest, even when “hearsay,” because hundreds of years of jurisprudence and caselaw have reasoned it’s trustworthiness. SO we can add the weight of generations and their experience if we wanted to.
 
Last edited:
humbleseeker said:
I keep seeing this accusation:
Click to expand...
  1. You neglected to quote the testimony in which he recounts telling Ukraine that the announcement of the investigation would be sufficient.
  2. If you would like to create narrative in which Sondland et al were acting on their own, or under false impressionism of what their boss wanted, good luck with that. That defense is implausible, especially in light of Trump’s obstruction. It is insufficient to forestall an impeachment. I am hopeful that the details will be made undeniably clear with the testimony of Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Guilianni in the Senate.
petra22 said:
But, but it was such an emergency that he be removed. He is destroying the constitution and wrecking the election in 2020 … we have to hurry with this impeachment.
Click to expand...
What emergency are you talking about?
What hurry are you talking about?
What I had heard was an interest in moving the process forward, rather than just await the outcome of the election, since the issue is Trump’s efforts to invite the interference of foreign governments in the election. That is not an election issue; it needs to be handled through impeachment. And that is what is happening.
JButky said:
The President can delay funds and has a lot of discretion.
Click to expand...
The facts are that the US is interested in anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. It has openly tied aid to anti-corruption efforts. It has established a process to vet the progress before releasing aid. That progress was vetted by the Pentagon pursuant o the release of the aid later withheld by Trump. Evidence of Trump’s interest is limited to announcements of investigations that exculpate Russia for its interference in 2016 and cast aspersions on the Biden’s. Trump went about this without any transparency at all, but used secret and private back channels, deep-sixed evidence, and made a clumsy attempt at cover-up when the case was about to be blown open.

Whatever latitude the President may have, it does not extend to making the release fo aid contingent of favors to advance his campaign or obstruction of investigations into his wrongdoing. Those are impeachable offenses.
 
Last edited:
Correct! Obstruction is not a valid defense strategy. It is itself a subversion of the Constitutional process of impeachment
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
Well, when you look at the testimony of all the witnesses, most would say that it is a fact and it warrants impeachment. You are kind of quibbling here. Logic says that we do not criticize the talker, we assess what was said.
Click to expand...
Facts are facts. Facts are not assumptions, not presumptions, nor are the a gathering of various statements that one might say add up to something.
FACT
NOUN

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.
“he ignores some historical and economic facts” ·
  1. information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
    “even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts”
3. the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
“there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter”
Click to expand...
There is no quibbling here.
 
Maximus1 said:
His assumption was well founded on facts
Click to expand...
His assumption was based not on facts, but on his own interpretation of information he thought he knew.
Maximus1 said:
We don’t leave common sense outside of the jury room.
Click to expand...
Are you saying juries should use information not presented as evidence to make a determination as to guilt? Are you saying juries should assume what the evidence means?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top