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, 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? — NOS4A2
So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? Is there any evidence? — NOS4A2
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
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
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
I’ll give you a quick rundown because I see some confusion there. — NOS4A2
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
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
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
The two articles are “Abuse of Power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which are crimes. — NOS4A2
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 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.
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
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.
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
(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
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.
He is just not allowed to do so for political gain, which is entirely unproven. — NOS4A2
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
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
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
But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken? — 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.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
You meant White House. I agree, it's an awkward attempt to deny the obvious what Trump has done, but who cares.The House’s entire case is premised on their imagination. That’s why it’s falling apart. — 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.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, no, he can't pressure and threaten whoever he wants.
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 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.
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.
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
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
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?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 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.
What's "high crime or misdemeanor" according to you?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.