What argument? The argument that the Ukrainians didn't feel pressured or that Trump didn't intend to pressure them ? If that is indeed central to their case it simply illustrates their lack of confidence in winning the argument they should win. If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.

No, the argument that Trump pressured Zelenski is central to the House manager’s case.Curious, but are you aware of the details of the case at all?

No, I was illustrating a point by making an argument ab adsurdum. If Trump's denials were relevant to ascertain his guilt, as you argue, the same should hold true for criminals. It clearly isn't so his denials are irrelevant and so is your argument.

If someone says you robbed a bank but the banks says they were neither robbed and you didn’t rob them, how could that be irrelevant?

I’ll give you a quick rundown because I see some confusion there.

According to the constitution, one can be impeached for committing “treason, bribery, and other high-crimes and misdemeanors”. Of course interpretation of that varies.

There are two “articles of impeachment”, or in other words, Trump is being accused of committing two “high-crimes and misdemeanours” according to the House. The two articles are “Abuse of Power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which are crimes.

Trump allegedly abused his power by pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden for the purposes of helping him in the 2020 election (this isn’t the exact language they use). Trump’s defense is that there was no pressure, that there was no investigation, that his inquiring into the Bidens had to do with corruption and not for the purpose of political dirt for the 2020 election.

Trump allegedly obstructed congress by denying congressional subpoenas for testimony. Trump’s defense for this is “executive privilege”, that he has the right as president to deny subpoenas for reasons of national security and the separation of powers. These issues are usually settled in the courts. The White House denied subpoenas because the Office of Legal counsel told them to. The office of legal counsel is a group of lawyers at the department of justice (which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, and so on).

If someone says you robbed a bank but the banks says they were neither robbed and you didn’t rob them, how could that be irrelevant? — NOS4A2

You conveniently omitted the part where a public announcement was made that you were about to rob a bank.

[quote

So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? Is there any evidence? — NOS4A2

There's a whole lot of testimony from many witnesses. I won't say eye-witness testimony, but ear-witness testimony, because the trial concerns words. When multiple witnesses say that you did what you claim not to have done, this is evidence that you are lying. Lying is consistent with Trump's past behaviour. Put two and two together, and who do you believe, the witnesses or the liar?

There are two “articles of impeachment”, or in other words, Trump is being accused of committing two “high-crimes and misdemeanours” according to the House. The two articles are “Abuse of Power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which are crimes. — NOS4A2

Do you understand the meaning of "misdemeanour"? There's a reason why "misdemeanour" is included with "high crimes". That is so that it does not require "high crimes" for an impeachment.



.

No, the argument that Trump pressured Zelenski is central to the House manager’s case.Curious, but are you aware of the details of the case at all? — NOS4A2

It's a level of intent that's preferable to arguing that strict liability or negligence should apply in this case. So it makes sense to try to prove it but it isn't necessary to the case at hand.

If someone says you robbed a bank but the banks says they were neither robbed and you didn’t rob them, how could that be irrelevant? — NOS4A2

It's not the he-said-she-said as you imagine it is. The first problem with your analogy is that robbing a bank requires a different level of intent than abuse of power (if I were to liken the latter to malfeasance in office). The second is that someone caught Trump in the act of abusing his power; so it would be a better analogy if you'd written: Someone sees you rob a bank and presses the alarm and you stop robbing it because you hear the alarm. The bank says no money is missing.

Are you suggesting an unsuccessful bank robbery shouldn't be punished?

I’ll give you a quick rundown because I see some confusion there. — NOS4A2

This should be fun.

There are two “articles of impeachment”, or in other words, Trump is being accused of committing two “high-crimes and misdemeanours” according to the House. The two articles are “Abuse of Power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which are crimes. — NOS4A2

You think "high-crimes and misdemeanours" refers to the things found in a penal code? :rofl:

Carry on...

Trump allegedly abused his power by pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden for the purposes of helping him in the 2020 election (this isn’t the exact language they use). Trump’s defense is that there was no pressure, that there was no investigation, that his inquiring into the Bidens had to do with corruption and not for the purpose of political dirt for the 2020 election. — NOS4A2

Irrelevant for the reasons I already explained earlier today. Whether a threat works or not or whether the victim felt threatened or not, doesn't mean you can conclude Trump didn't threaten to withhold payment which threat he could only issue based on the power as president, e.g. an abuse of the power vested in his office since threatening people isn't acceptable. Even if it was for the right reasons, he would still be guilty of an abuse of power but possibly excused if it served a higher purpose.

Trump allegedly obstructed congress by denying congressional subpoenas for testimony. Trump’s defense for this is “executive privilege”, that he has the right as president to deny subpoenas for reasons of national security and the separation of powers. These issues are usually settled in the courts. The White House denied subpoenas because the Office of Legal counsel told them to. The office of legal counsel is a group of lawyers at the department of justice (which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, and so on). — NOS4A2

Yes, and?

The two articles are “Abuse of Power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which are crimes. — NOS4A2

Obstruction of Congress is a crime.

18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

And despite the title of article 1, the actual act described by it is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as determined by the Government Accountability Office.

Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees Is a crime.

Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees Is a crime. — NOS4A2

Is that supposed to be a joke? It doesn't matter how they title the articles. What matters is whether or not the acts described in the articles are criminal acts. The acts described in the first article violate the Impoundment Control Act and the acts described in the second article violate 18 U.S. Code § 1505.

I saw you saying “ If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.”

Executive privilege pertains to confidential communications. I thought I’d give you a brief rundown because it does not seem you know what you’re talking about here.

Is that supposed to be a joke? It doesn't matter how they title the articles. What matters is whether or not the act(s) described by the articles are criminal acts. The act(s) described by the first article violate the Impoundment Control Act and the act(s) describe by the second article violate 18 U.S. Code § 1505.

No it’s not, because they did not accuse Trump of this crime.

I saw you saying “ If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.”

Executive privilege pertains to confidential communications. I thought I’d give you a brief rundown because it does not seem you know what you’re talking about here. — NOS4A2

Thanks, there was indeed a mixup there. The translation to Dutch would suggest it's about the scope of powers vested in an office and not narrowly defined as it is under US law.

EDIT: so to rephrase what I think is the main issue here is whether Trump's executive powers extend so far that he could withhold payment or not. If not, it's prima facie an abuse of power and it becomes a question of fact whether he indeed said what is claimed by several witnesses.

No it’s not, because didn’t they accuse Trump of this crime. — NOS4A2

So I accuse you of cutting someone's head off but don't accuse you of committing the crime of murder, and so therefore the thing I accuse you of isn't a crime? That's ridiculous.

So I accuse you of cutting someone's head off but don't accuse you of committing the crime of murder, and so therefore the thing I accuse you of isn't a crime? That's ridiculous.

All you have to do is show me where they mention this crime in their impeachment report. They do mention it, by the way, but not against Trump.

No, I’m saying you can go through their impeachment report and find 1 reference to it, and it is levied against the State Department.

All you have to do is show me where they mention this crime in their impeachment report. They do mention it, by the way, but not against Trump. — NOS4A2

The Impoundment Control Act violation, described in Article 1. Abuse of Power:

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested —

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended

The 18 U.S. Code § 1505 violations, described in Article 2. Obstruction of Congress:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Irrelevant for the reasons I already explained earlier today. Whether a threat works or not or whether the victim felt threatened or not, doesn't mean you can conclude Trump didn't threaten to withhold payment which threat he could only issue based on the power as president, e.g. an abuse of the power vested in his office since threatening people isn't acceptable. Even if it was for the right reasons, he would still be guilty of an abuse of power but possibly excused if it served a higher purpose.

Ok, I get it now. My point is the burden of proof is on the House managers (they are like prosecutors) to prove that Trump “pressured” Zelensky.

The president can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. That’s in his power. He is just not allowed to do so for political gain, which is entirely unproven. But they cannot even prove that he was “pressured” to do investigations.

He is just not allowed to do so for political gain, which is entirely unproven. — NOS4A2

Where did you hide all the witness testimony that he did?

The articles of impeachment for Trump are “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”, not “violating the ICA” and “Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees”. The articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton were actual laws: “perjury” and “obstruction of justice”, as comparison.

The articles of impeachment for Trump are “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”, not “violating the ICA” and “Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees”. — NOS4A2

I refer you again to these:

It doesn't matter how they title the articles. What matters is whether or not the acts described in the articles are criminal acts. The acts described in the first article violate the Impoundment Control Act and the acts described in the second article violate 18 U.S. Code § 1505.

So I accuse you of cutting someone's head off but don't accuse you of committing the crime of murder, and so therefore the thing I accuse you of isn't a crime? That's ridiculous.

The president can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. That’s in his power. — NOS4A2

The Supreme Court has judged that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be interpreted in accordance with what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it. — United States vs. Burr

That term was borrowed from the English that has used it since 1386. It describes offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates,threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, etc.

So, no, he can't pressure and threaten whoever he wants.

But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken? — NOS4A2

I don't know if anyone has kept a running count of what percentage of his statements are true vs. untrue. Regardless of what the precise percentage is - Trump has made so many untruthful statements that at this point you have to assume that any statement he makes is untrue until it can be independently verified - preferably by 2 sources.

Congressionally appropriated funds for Ukraine have nothing at all to do with Biden. Yet, Trump kept insisting upon tying the two together, as did Trump's proxies.

We must ask ourselves...

What sense does that make?

Then, invoking executive privilege as a means for impeding the impeachment proceedings looking into it.

There is no way that the framers meant for a president to invoke executive privilege as a means to stop direct witness testimony of an impeachment proceeding into his own behaviour.

No way.

The president can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. That’s in his power. He is just not allowed to do so for political gain, which is entirely unproven. But they cannot even prove that he was “pressured” to do investigations. — NOS4A2

Nearly a month before the July call, Ukranian officials expressed concern about the aid holdup and what to do about Giuliani, so a link was suspected by Ukraine.
(source).

Multiple witnesses testified there was an"irregular" channel to Ukraine in which Giuliani played a central role, and Rudy publicly acknowledged he was pursuing information about the Bidens and the DNC server.

Bill Taylor's testimony stated that Ambassador Sondland told Zelensky he needed to announce the investigation. Zelensky resisted, saying he didn't want to be used as a pawn in a US reelection campaign. Zelensky followed Sondland's advice on the phone call. So it was established that Ukraine was concerned about getting the aid, were concerned about Rudy' activities - recognizing it was political, they received confirmation from Sondland, Zelensky told Trump exactly what he wanted to hear, and he even scheduled an interview on CNN. After the scandal broke, Zelensky cancelled the interview and publicly expressed that he was tired of hearing about Burisma - which adds credence to the inference that he had just been telling Trump what he wanted to hear - and the only plausible explanation is that he thought it necessary.

Ukraine has publicly stated they want good relations with both Republicans and Democrats. If they were to acknowledge the pressure, it would hurt them with Republicans. It would also look bad within Ukraine, implying they were letting themselves be used for US political purposes - a bad image for someone elected for being anti-corruption.

The House’s entire case is premised on their imagination. That’s why it’s falling apart. — NOS4A2

You meant White House. I agree, it's an awkward attempt to deny the obvious what Trump has done, but who cares.

The Republicans will not do anything whatever the evidence would be. That's the reality.

I’m not convinced. The context, the joking and laughter about her comments, suggests to me he was largely kidding around and playing it up for those he was having dinner with. — NOS4A2

So you're interpretation is that Trump was just kidding about dumping Yovanovitch, and it's a mere coincidence that he eventually did so.

This much is clear: there was a smear campaign against her by corrupt former officials in Ukraine, and Trump eventually gave them what they wanted. Further, Parnas was a part of it - at least in terms of being a conduit for the smearing - certainly thru Rudy and at least possibly directly to Trump, even if you aren't convinced of the latter. My point is that you're rationalizing Trump's behavior, and this rationalization depends on assuming a series of coincidences. Examined individually , each coincidence is plausible. But multiple ones are not.

So, no, he can't pressure and threaten whoever he wants.

In the US we have the first amendment, which gives us quite a bit of room to speak freely. As a matter of law, unless the threat is a "true threat", that is unless he said it with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death, there is no problem. So yes, he can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. He just cannot threaten someone for money or personal gain (extortion).

Either way there is zero evidence he threatened or pressured anyone. Unless proven or there is sufficient evidence, one cannot say the president threatened or pressured anyone, or that he did so for personal gain.

I refer you again to these:

It doesn't matter how they title the articles. What matters is whether or not the acts described in the articles are criminal acts. The acts described in the first article violate the Impoundment Control Act and the acts described in the second article violate 18 U.S. Code § 1505.

It wasn't Trump who violated either of those laws. Like I said, the only citation to §1505 in the House Impeachment Report refers to the State Department, not the President. It was the OMB, not the president, that may have violated the Impound Control Act. It has to be the president who commits a high-crime or misdemeanor.

So you're interpretation is that Trump was just kidding about dumping Yovanovitch, and it's a mere coincidence that he eventually did so.

This much is clear: there was a smear campaign against her by corrupt former officials in Ukraine, and Trump eventually gave them what they wanted. Further, Parnas was a part of it - at least in terms of being a conduit for the smearing - certainly thru Rudy and at least possibly directly to Trump, even if you aren't convinced of the latter. My point is that you're rationalizing Trump's behavior, and this rationalization depends on assuming a series of coincidences. Examined individually , each coincidence is plausible. But multiple ones are not.

That's my speculation, yes.

Public records and testimony state that there was indeed a smear campaign. According to these same public records and testimony it was started a full year after the Trump/Parnas convo. So I think any sort connection made between the two is specious at best, conspiracy theory at worst.

You meant White House. I agree, it's an awkward attempt to deny the obvious what Trump has done, but who cares.

The Republicans will not do anything whatever the evidence would be. That's the reality.

No, I meant the House, so we disagree. It's obvious what Trump has done, and none of it rises to high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact I think he was doing his job.

In the US we have the first amendment, which gives us quite a bit of room to speak freely. As a matter of law, unless the threat is a "true threat", that is unless he said it with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death, there is no problem. So yes, he can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. He just cannot threaten someone for money or personal gain (extortion). — NOS4A2

The first amendment protection is only afforded to citizens acting in a private capacity. When acting as President that protection doesn't apply and he can be punished for it if the Senate were so inclined. Just as civil servants can be fired or disciplined for speech.

No, I meant the House, so we disagree. It's obvious what Trump has done, and none of it rises to high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact I think he was doing his job. — NOS4A2

What's "high crime or misdemeanor" according to you?

Public records and testimony state that there was indeed a smear campaign. According to these same public records and testimony it was started a full year after the Trump/Parnas convo. So I think any sort connection made between the two is specious at best, conspiracy theory at worst. — NOS4A2

The fact that Parnas was passing along the spurious information about Yovanovotch tells us the smear campaign was already in progress. How else can you explain Parnas' statements about her?

The first amendment protection is only afforded to citizens acting in a private capacity. When acting as President that protection doesn't apply and he can be punished for it if the Senate were so inclined. Just as civil servants can be fired or disciplined for speech.

The first amendment protects every citizen, even government officials. The only reason a civil servant can be fired or disciplined is if his speech violates his job duties, as it is with any job.

What's "high crime or misdemeanor" according to you?

Something that rises to the level of treason or bribery. "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"