Impeachment Hearings

[jj22]

(01-28-2020, 05:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They don't have to cover for him if they don't know.  So do you think it's possible Trump has done other things this serious that you don't know about?

I think we know pretty much everything Trump has done. It's just a matter of people not caring. I don't think there is anything this serious we don't know about.

I also don't believe all Presidents would have done something this serious that would have never come out.

People love their country. Especially those who dedicate their service to America though the Government.

Leaks have always come out during Administrations.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: I think we know pretty much everything Trump has done. It's just a matter of people not caring. I don't think there is anything this serious we don't know about.

I also don't believe all Presidents would have done something this serious that would have never come out.

People love their country. Especially those who dedicate their service to America though the Government.

Leaks have always come out during Administrations.

You think he got caught on the only thing he's done that was serious enough to be deemed impeachable by Democrats? See I think there is probably plenty more he has done that we don't know about.  I think there's probably plenty that other presidents have done as well.  Some of it maybe even with good intentions.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2020, 04:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: To be honest we have no idea what Presidents have done.  Most never comes to light i imagine.  

Has a foreign country ever announced a corruption investigation into a US presidential candidate?

Not that I can recall. So I think we can say none of them has ever done it before Trump tried?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Has a foreign country ever announced a corruption investigation into a US presidential candidate?

Not that I can recall. So I think we can say none of them has ever done it before Trump tried?

Well in my next post I said "equally serious" as this is a pretty specific thing.  

Edit: If JJs point was no other President has done literally this exact thing, then I'll concede there is a good chance he is right.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2020, 05:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/john-kelly-believe-john-bolton-107739?fbclid=IwAR0OJT2CGe_qO_9vazMpUT4R7d2_lOlY3fEb4mdeAZBOW9hLWoJfKugrkZM

John Kelly says that if Bolton put it in his book, he believes it.

John Kelly needs to put up or shut up. If he is a patriot he believes he should speak out, then do it. If he believes he owes the president his silence then STFU with the thinly veiled comments. In for a penny, in for a pound. Make a damn decision, John because the waffling is irritating and unbecoming of a retired general.

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2020, 05:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I gotta say, watching the left embrace Bolton kinds of makes it all worth it. 

Why?

This has nothing to do with his hawkish policies.  No one on the left is embracing those.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why?

This has nothing to do with his hawkish policies.  No one on the left is embracing those.

Because I find it humorous.  Cool if you don't.

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2020, 03:36 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: If that's the case how thorough could the initial investigation been ? The one where it was all supposedly de-bunked ? 

 Honest question... I asked this the other day in another thread. Who did the investigating ? And how thorough was it ? 

Not sure what you are talking about.

There was nothing to "de-bunk".  There were no allegations to investigate.  You can not de-bunk a theory that does not exist.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2020, 05:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well in my next post I said "equally serious" as this is a pretty specific thing.  

Edit: If JJs point was no other President has done literally this exact thing, then I'll concede there is a good chance he is right.

On the flip side of that is just because we don’t know everything a past president has or hasn’t done, doesn’t lessen the seriousness of colluding with a foreign government to interfere in a presidential election for the incumbent’s benefit.

I’d put it up there with Reagan colluding with the Iranians not to release the US embassy hostages until after the election in exchange for weapons.

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2020, 05:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  I never said Trump did it so everyone must have, I said you don't know everything they've done.  If not this exact scenario then something different but equally serious.  

Please explain what point you are trying to make here because I just don't get it.

Are you really trying to shit on every President just because Trump is a piece of shit.

Does that really make you feel better?


Every President in history has lived under a microscope while surrounded by people from the other party trying to find something to attack him for.  I don't know who has gotten away with anything, but I know everyone of them has been accused (and usually investigated) for allegations of improper behavior.


So what does this have to do with Trump getting busted asking a foreign leader to interfere with a US election?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: On the flip side of that is just because we don’t know everything a past president has or hasn’t done, doesn’t lessen the seriousness of colluding with a foreign government to interfere in a presidential election for the incumbent’s benefit.

I’d put it up there with Reagan colluding with the Iranians not to release the US embassy hostages until after the election in exchange for weapons.

I didn't attempt to lessen it.  

[masonbengals fan]

How ironic is it that Schiff just stated we aren't in an investigative stage all the while pandering for the cameras to get Boldens testimony.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Please explain what point you are trying to make here because I just don't get it.

Are you really trying to shit on every President just because Trump is a piece of shit.

Does that really make you feel better?


Every President in history has lived under a microscope while surrounded by people from the other party trying to find something to attack him for.  I don't know who has gotten away with anything, but I know everyone of them has been accused (and usually investigated) for allegations of improper behavior.


So what does this have to do with Trump getting busted asking a foreign leader to interfere with a US election?

JJ asked, "When has any other President done this."  I said we don't really know what every other President has done. We are one guy away from not knowing Trump did this. It's very possible presidents have done something equally serious or worse and I think Trump has probably done things as bad or worse that we may never know about.   

I've just always assumed presidents do shit they aren't supposed to and get away with it more times than not.

[GMDino]

https://apnews.com/4f2eac395c94a7ade29fc6e32c71a872

Quote:AP FACT CHECK: Trump wrong on Bolton; more claims from trial


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump stated falsely Monday that House Democrats never called his former national security adviser to testify in their impeachment inquiry. Actually they did.

Trump’s tweet about John Bolton came as the Senate entered the second week of the impeachment trial, where his defense team stretched the facts on Trump’s effort to get Ukraine to investigate Democrats.

Senators were grappling with a fresh disclosure that Bolton claims to have been told directly by the president that aid to Ukraine should be held up until the country agreed to cooperate in an investigation of Trump’s political rivals. Trump’s lawyers portrayed the delay in aid as a routine matter despite the findings of a nonpartisan federal agency that the freeze was illegal.

Here’s a look at some recent statements where truth came up short:

TRUMP: “The Democrat controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. It is up to them, not up to the Senate!” — tweet.

THE FACTS: That’s false in its entirety. House Democrats did ask Bolton to testify, and he declined. He did not show up for his deposition. Trump is also incorrect in suggesting impeachment witnesses are the sole province of the House.

House Democrats decided not to pursue a subpoena compelling Bolton to testify in the House proceedings because he threatened to sue, which could have meant an extended court fight. Afterward, however, Bolton signaled his willingness to testify at the Senate trial if he’s subpoenaed.

Youtube video thumbnail
The Senate trial has yet to resolve if any witnesses will be called, much less who. It is empowered to do so if it chooses, contrary to Trump’s suggestion that “it is up to” the House only.

Bolton’s behind-the-scenes account is in the manuscript of his coming book. It intensified calls from Democrats to make him a witness because it contradicts key assertions by Trump and his defense team’s argument that there is no evidence the president conditioned aid to Ukraine on an investigation of his political rivals.

___

TRUMP LAWYER JAY SEKULOW, referring to Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s leader: “Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of issues of corruption is not a violation of an oath.” — Monday’s trial argument.

THE FACTS: Trump made no such request in the phone call. And beyond the phone call, there’s scant if any evidence that Trump cared about Ukraine’s history of systemic corruption unless it might involve Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden. Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company when his father was vice president.

MORE FACT CHECKS:
– AP FACT CHECK: Trump's impeachment defense and the facts
– AP FACT CHECK: Trump's fusillade of misfires on fateful week

In the call, according to the rough transcript released by the White House, Trump repeatedly pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens and a groundless conspiracy theory that Ukrainians tried to help Democrats win the 2016 election. He didn’t mention Ukrainian corruption.

Trump delayed military aid to Ukraine despite a Pentagon review that found the country had made sufficient progress in cleaning up its legacy of corruption to merit the aid that Congress had approved.

___

SEKULOW: “It was President Zelenskiy who said no pressure.” — Monday’s trial argument.

THE FACTS: True, but the statement skirts important context.

In and around the July 25 phone call, Zelenskiy was deferential to Trump as his country, menaced by Russia, tried to keep U.S. military aid flowing. Even so, Ukrainian officials felt pressure for months to do Trump’s bidding, and Zelenskiy himself eventually complained about Trump’s dealings with him.

The Associated Press reported that in May, even before taking office, Zelenskiy knew that vital military support might depend on whether he agreed to investigate Democrats as Trump was demanding.

After the July 25 call, Zelenskiy said he had no problem with Trump’s comments on the call. But by then, Ukrainian officials were wondering why the aid was being held up. And in October, while insisting “there was no pressure or blackmail from the U.S.,” he criticized Trump for blocking the aid and for casting his country as corrupt.

“If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us,” he told Time. “I think that’s just about fairness.”

___

TRUMP LAWYER MIKE PURPURA, dismissing the idea that military aid was released because Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine had been exposed: “On Sept. 11, based on the information collected and presented to President Trump, the president lifted the pause on the security assistance. ... Our process gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance. ... The president’s concerns were addressed in the ordinary course; the president wasn’t ‘caught’ as the House managers allege.”

THE FACTS: The “pause” in Ukraine’s military aid was hardly routine, according to testimony heard by House investigators. Moreover, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found the aid freeze to be illegal.

House investigators heard about confusion and frustration among senior State Department and Pentagon officials when they learned the congressionally approved aid was being held.

“I was embarrassed that I could not give (Ukraine) any explanation for why it was withheld,” said William Taylor, who was the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine.

The Defense Department’s Laura Cooper said she and other national security aides unsuccessfully tried to get an explanation for the hold and expressed concern about the White House’s legal authority. The Pentagon had already certified to congressional committees in May that Ukraine had made enough progress on reducing corruption to receive the military assistance.

Catherine Croft, special adviser for Ukraine at the State Department, said national security agencies were unified in support of the aid, and she had never before encountered a time when the White House budget office had injected itself into such a matter.

Top advisers scrambled to get Trump to release the aid through August. Ultimately, on Sept. 11, the funds were suddenly released, after Trump learned of the whistleblower’s complaint and a few days after Democrats opened a congressional investigation of the episode. The Government Accountability Office later found that the White House budget office “withheld the funds for an unauthorized reason in violation” of the law that requires the executive branch to spend money that is appropriated by Congress.

Full Coverage: AP Fact Check
___

Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

___

EDITOR’S NOTE — A look at the veracity of claims by political figures.

___

Find AP Fact Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck[/url]

[url=https://twitter.com/APFactCheck]

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://apnews.com/4f2eac395c94a7ade29fc6e32c71a872


[url=https://twitter.com/APFactCheck][/url]

Yeah I think this was posted a few pages back.  Not this exact story, but Trump's statement was pretty much debunked immediately. Oops I see there's more than just the headline.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2020, 05:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: JJ asked, "When has any other President done this."  I said we don't really know what every other President has done. We are one guy away from not knowing Trump did this. It's very possible presidents have done something equally serious or worse and I think Trump has probably done things as bad or worse that we may never know about.   

But, we’re not one guy away from knowing about this because guys like LTC Vindman, with first hand knowledge, also reported what occurred.

But, even if we were one guy away from knowing; so?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 06:09 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, we’re not one guy away from knowing about this because guys like LTC Vindman, with first hand knowledge, also reported what occurred.  

But, even if we were one guy away from knowing; so?

So I'm saying sometimes,  most times,  that one guy doesn't exist.  I think most presidents do some shit that would get them in trouble if it were known.  I think I read too much into JJ's statement, but yeah I've always believed this about presidents.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2020, 06:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So I'm saying sometimes,  most times,  that one guy doesn't exist.  I think most presidents do some shit that would get them in trouble if it were known.  I think I read too much into JJ's statement, but yeah I've always believed this about presidents.  

So isn’t that true about most criminals and their criminal activity?

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2020, 06:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  I think most presidents do some shit that would get them in trouble if it were known. 

I think you are just trying to make yourself feel better about supporting a total crook like Trump.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 06:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So isn’t that true about most criminals and their criminal activity?

Yeah, but I’m not sure what you are getting at.