While it's true Mulvaney tried to deny saying what he said, his motivation for doing so is obvious. This his statements aren't dispositive, it's suggestive coming from the man who is both head of OMB and acting chief of staff.

That’s the problem with contextomy because all one has to do is look at what was left out to see the truth of the matter, and to notice the bad faith intentions of those who took it out of context. Much of that press conference was spent explaining why the aid was held up.

We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for what was it? The Northern triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration.

Clearly by “We do that all the time” he was speaking about holding up aid for reasons of foreign policy. Why did they hold up aid according to Mulvaney in the same press conference?

Reporter (F): (25:44)
And you’re drawing the distinction. You’re saying that it would be wrong to hold up money for the Bidens?

Mick Mulvaney: (25:46)
There were three factors. Again, I was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. Okay. Three issues for that. The corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in the support of the Ukraine, and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department Of Justice. That’s completely legitimate. Yes, sir.

On investigating the Bidens

Reporter (F): (25:30)
No. No. On the call the president did ask about investigating the Bidens. Are you saying that the money that was held up, that that had nothing to do with the Bidens?

Mick Mulvaney: (25:40)
No. The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden. There’s no question. That was the point I made to you.

It’s clear how was quoted out of context, and the intentions for doing that are obvious.

The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.

A rooster crows before sunrise therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise. The timing of these events is not enough to establish a connection. In terms of likelihood, it is more likely that the bipartisan demands of Congress to release the funds was a contributing factor. Not only that but the explicit reasons given by all those involved suggests otherwise, that the Whitehouse wanted to know about burden-sharing. Is this so out of the realm of possibility and invalid that the mere accusation and presumption of some nefarious scheme suffices to impeach a sitting president? Who has the burden of proof here? How is this not a conspiracy theory?

If Bolton's testimony is consistent with reporting from the leaked manuscript, it will show that Trump's guilty of wrongdoing. It's another matter as to whether of not that wrongdoing constitutes a crime or whether or not it is adequate reason to remove him from office. My complaint with you is that you refuse to acknowledge that the evidence shows it likely Trump engaged in wrongdoing.

Bolton lying? Who has better credibility - Bolton (particularly if testifying under oath) or Trump, who has uttered thousands of falsehoods since taking office. John Kelly, who knows them both, believes Bolton. Testimony has already established that Bolton strongly disagreed at the time with what was going on - terming it a "drug deal", whereas the President has taken extreme measures to avoid letting the facts get out.

In my defense no evidence shows trump was engaged in wrong doing, and evidence shows the opposite: good-doing. In fact I don’t think he did enough. I truly believe this, because why the hell are we sending hundreds of million in aid to Ukraine? This behavior is exactly why I want him as president. I want someone to question the useless spending of money. I want to know someone is making sure that the weapons are being made by American companies. I want to know if our allies are helping. I want to know that we are not just handing tax-payer dollars to a corrupt s-hole. As an added bonus I get to see career bureaucrats, globalists and technocrats watch their failures get defunded, go down the tubes along with their jobs, especially scum like Bolton.

scum like Bolton. — NOS4A2

Trump appointed "scum" to the office of National Security Advisor. What does that tell us about Trump?

Trump appointed "scum" to the office of National Security Advisor. What does that tell us about Trump? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Trump serves to those that give him campaign donations!

It was the idea of the same guy that purposed to Trump that moving the Embassy to Jerusalem would be a great idea (which Trump obediently did). But hey! He gave Trump over 80 million campaign donations!

Give money to Trump, Trump does what you want. :blush:

Glad to be such an inspiration...

:wink:

Give money to a whore and...

Trump serves to those that give him campaign donations!

It was the idea of the same guy that purposed to Trump that moving the Embassy to Jerusalem would be a great idea (which Trump obediently did). But hey! He gave Trump over 80 million campaign donations!

Give money to Trump, Trump does what you want.

Everyone from Clinton to Bush to Obama promised to move the embassy only to break their promises. Not Trump. He finally moved the embassy after senate reaffirmed the Jerusalem Embassy Act. :up: :ok:

Everyone from Clinton to Bush to Obama promised to move the embassy only to break their promises. — NOS4A2

And all those Presidents understood that it was a good carrot to use with Israel to get them to seriously negotiate with the Palestinians. They understood that the move (without any agreement or solution in the conflict) would appear to put the US squarely on the side of Israel (hence basically given an OK for Israeli annexation done in the Six Day War).

Of course there isn't much credibility in the argument that the US is a neutral party in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

But here Trump wasn't actually appeasing Israel (with the Embassy move). He was first and foremost appeasing one of his most important campaign financiers.

Looks like they're not going to call any witnesses. Partisan crap fest obviously. I'm wondering whether things would've been different if Clinton had been impeached, which was another partisan crap fest. Perjury was a crime. So is Trump's blocking of subpoenas and obstruction of justice with the Mueller investigation.

One wonders what the US is the leader of today. It isn't the West because that implies a respect for the rule of law.

Looks like they're not going to call any witnesses. Partisan crap fest obviously. I'm wondering whether things would've been different if Clinton had been impeached, which was another partisan crap fest. Perjury was a crime. So is Trump's blocking of subpoenas and obstruction of justice with the Mueller investigation.

One wonders what the US is the leader of today. It isn't the West because that implies a respect for the rule of law. — Benkei

What happens if it's 50/50? Does Roberts break the tie?

So is Trump's blocking of subpoenas and obstruction of justice with the Mueller investigation. — Benkei

He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. The Articles of Impeachment charged him with obstructing Congress during the impeachment proceeding when he refused to honor subpoenas. There are methods of enforcing subpoenas, which first require that Congress first find him in contempt of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress They never did that, and it's hasn't been done since the 1930s. The point being, he didn't commit any crime and Congress never made an effort to enforce its own subpoena, but instead just decided to try to throw him out of office because they think he's disgusting and they want to damage his ability to get re-elected.

One wonders what the US is the leader of today. It isn't the West because that implies a respect for the rule of law. — Benkei

The rule of law requires (1) there actually be a law that is broken (the prohibition against ex post facto laws) and (2) that an accused not be required to participate in any way in the investigation against him (the right to remain silent).

If the US doesn't lead in anything, then why all the academic interest in the goings on in Washington?

What happens if it's 50/50? Does Roberts break the tie? — Michael

I think he said he wouldn't do that. There aren't going to be any witnesses. The theater is going to come to a close, but everyone knew how this movie ended anyway, regardless of what plot twists might have happened along the way.

The theater is going to come to a close, but everyone knew how this movie ended anyway, regardless of what plot twists might have happened along the way. — Hanover

I want my money back. :roll:
The movie is never better than the book. Close this chapter, put it on the shelf and wait for the next one.

"Another turning point, a fork stuck in the road, time grabs you by the wrist, directs you where to go..."
Good Riddance

I think all this stuff is decreasing confidence in the government, which might be a good thing.

I think all this stuff is decreasing confidence in the government, which might be a good thing. — frank

The Republican platform is in having limited confidence in the government. I think there's a case to be made that American ideology is founded in distrust of government. The idea that the government can be relied upon to cure all or even most societal ills is liberalism at its worst.

Carter reject Trump's Peace Plan


The statement issued Thursday by the Carter Center in Atlanta describes Trump’s offer as "fragmented statehood” which leaves Palestinians “without control of their borders ... and undercuts prospects for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

https://www.ajc.com/news/former-president-carter-blasts-trump-mideast-peace-plan/u0Dpy6ph9m9roRb4p6mHgL/

The Republican platform is in having limited confidence in the government. I think there's a case to be made that American ideology is founded in distrust of government. The idea that the government can be relied upon to cure all or even most societal ills is liberalism at its worst. — Hanover

True. But the revolution was fueled by a breakdown in trust in the righteousness of the British government. See Patrick Henry's words about how it happened.

There's a naive belief embedded in American culture that good should prevail.

Take your lawyer goggles off for a second and look at it with that naivety.

He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. — Hanover

The point being, he didn't commit any crime and Congress never made an effort to enforce its own subpoena..

Hanover,

I don't believe your telling the truth there. The Mueller report found numerous instances of obstruction, he just punted the ball to Congress on that. If you need to be refreshed, I'll be happy to post a fact-check.

And you are only partially correct on the subpoena thing. Congress is still pursuing one that Trump probably will take to the supreme court. Accordingly, they figured it would be a waste of time to pursue any more in that way since Trump will block all the requests thru the court system/supreme court, which in turn will take up to a year or so to adjudicate. And that's what Trump prefers anyway.

And as far as 'crime' goes. Impeachment is not a civil law process, it's a constitutional one. And therefore abuse of power is an interpretation from the constitution.

All that, (and other things that have transpired thus far) my question is, do you think he's hiding something?

That’s the problem with contextomy because all one has to do is look at what was left out to see the truth of the matter, and to notice the bad faith intentions of those who took it out of context. — NOS4A2

Your quotes do not dispute what I asserted, which is that there was a tie to investigating the Democratic server. I agree this should not be conflated with a tie to investigating Biden, although Trump himself made that tie on his call with Zelensky.

The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.

A rooster crows before sunrise therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise. The timing of these events is not enough to establish a connection. — NOS4A2

I didn't say it "established" a connection, but it circumstantially contributes to there being one, and it eradicates its exculpatory value.

In my defense no evidence shows trump was engaged in wrong doing, and evidence shows the opposite: good-doing. — NOS4A2

There isn't a shred of evidence that Trump was doing good. You have ignored the fact there was no identified crime to be investigated (Ukraine had previously announced that it was aware of no crimes having been violated), anti-corruption benchmarks had already been met, he wanted a PERSON investigated (violating due process and a failure to adhere to faithfully execute the law), and such an investigation would clearly benefit Trump politically. Even had there been a crime to investigate, the political benefit constituted a conflict of interest (contrary to the ethics standards of the federal government) that could and should have been addressed by personally recusing himself from involvement and letting the departments of State and Justice deal with it.

I truly believe this, because why the hell are we sending hundreds of million in aid to Ukraine? — NOS4A2

You can't be that ignorant. Ukraine is an ally, a weak one, and they are at active war with Russia. We have a long term commitment to assist them, and even if Trump disagreed with it - he was legally bound to provide the aid. If he was uncomfortable with it, he was at liberty to work with Congress at changing this.

He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. The Articles of Impeachment charged him with obstructing Congress during the impeachment proceeding when he refused to honor subpoenas. There are methods of enforcing subpoenas, which first require that Congress first find him in contempt of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress They never did that, and it's hasn't been done since the 1930s. — Hanover

This is timely.

In contrast with Trump legal team, Justice Department lawyer says House can impeach over defied subpoenas

A Justice Department lawyer said Thursday in federal court that the House can impeach a president over ignored subpoenas, a noted contrast to what lawyers for President Donald Trump are arguing at his Senate impeachment trial this week.

Asked by a federal judge what the House can do to enforce its subpoenas, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham said without hesitation that the House can use its impeachment powers, among other options, like withholding appropriations.

The rule of law requires (1) there actually be a law that is broken (the prohibition against ex post facto laws) ... — Hanover

Your link does contain a section on statutory proceedings, stating that contempt of congress is a crime, referencing Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure which in turn references (among others) 18 U.S.C. §1505 (obstruction of committee proceedings).

Last ditch deep-state effort to influence the Senate trial.

Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says

In contrast with Trump legal team, Justice Department lawyer says House can impeach over defied subpoenas — Michael

Of course you can. You can impeach over anything. That has been proven.

Your link does contain a section on statutory proceedings, stating that contempt of congress is a crime, referencing Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure which in turn references (among others) 18 U.S.C. §1505 (obstruction of committee proceedings). — Michael

There was never a citation of contempt issued by Congress. He wasn't in contempt of Congress.

I don't believe your telling the truth there. The Mueller report found numerous instances of obstruction, he just punted the ball to Congress on that. If you need to be refreshed, I'll be happy to post a fact-check. — 3017amen

My point was that the articles of impeachment under which Trump stands trial before the Senate relate only to obstruction of the Ukrainian investigation and not of the issues in the Mueller report. The Mueller report was inconclusive as to whether a crime had been committed, but even had it specifically and correctly stated he committed a crime, it would be irrelevant because this impeachment has nothing to do with that.

And as far as 'crime' goes. Impeachment is not a civil law process, it's a constitutional one. And therefore abuse of power is an interpretation from the constitution. — 3017amen

I understand what is is, but the reference was whether the US was showing itself as a nation that honored the rule of law, and I believe it does if it interprets the Constitution in a way that requires an actual law be violated in order for there to be removal from office.

All that, (and other things that have transpired thus far) my question is, do you think he's hiding something? — 3017amen

No. I think we all know very clearly what happened in the phone call.

There's a naive belief embedded in American culture that good should prevail. — frank

This has to do with believing that the highest determinant of truth in a democracy is the direct voice of the people and the refusal to over-rule the outcome of an election on vague references to abuse and obstruction.

This has to do with believing that the highest determinant of truth in a democracy is the direct voice of the people and the refusal to over-rule the outcome of an election on vague references to abuse and obstruction. — Hanover

I don't think so. Lauding the will of the people never stopped an Adolph Hitler from launching a holocaust. I think that's mainly because the mob is a bloodthirsty beast when it's frustrated and hurt.

Realizing that, the framers let the Constitution provide the means to remove the asshole before it gets too far.

Not that either of us really cares...

Lauding the will of the people never stopped an Adolph Hitler from launching a holocaust. I think that's mainly because the mob is a bloodthirsty beast when it's frustrated and hurt. — frank

The American experience has been that the democracy has been the great protector of the people. Take civil rights, for example. It was the democracy that elected Lincoln, that took up arms for the cause, that passed Constitutional Amendments by super-majorities, and that passed civil rights legislation. The Courts reliance upon the Constitution (in particular the 14th Amendment) to protect minorities is a reliance upon law passed by the super-majorities. The idea that the Courts save us is false. We save ourselves, and I'm thankful for a Constitution that keeps this angry group of Democrats from undoing the will of the people.

Why were the slaves freed? The people demanded it.

No. I think we all know very clearly what happened in the phone call. — Hanover

Hanover,

I find that odd. If you don't think he's hiding anything, then why resist witnesses, subpoenas, intimidating Gov employees, witnesses and senators, hiring attorney's (Giuliani) and nefarious associates (just like he did in the Mueller case where at least 6 people from his campaign plead guilty/in jail) instead of letting gov. agencies investigate Barisma, on and on.

Any clues there? Using logic, is it reasonable to assume he's guilty? I'm a bit confused. Please share your detailed thoughts if you could.

As far as the phone call, he asked for a favor, no?

Why were the slaves freed? The people demanded it. — Hanover

Lincoln used the Constitutional War Power of the President to free the slaves. That was clearly not what War Power was meant for (to make a decision that was not arrived at democratically), and so Lincoln became a temporary dictator in that case. And it's just bizarre that you would lay that out as an example of the benefits of democracy.

But I've argued history with you before and it sucks. Let's stop.

Anyway, I do understand the temptation to shove the reality of the present situation down the throats of people who growl and snarl like their opinions are supposed to mean something to somebody. But there's another part of me that understands why doing that is a really bad idea. I hope you gather the same wisdom from somewhere.

There was never a citation of contempt issued by Congress. He wasn't in contempt of Congress. — Hanover

The statute I referred to was obstruction of committee proceedings and the second impeachment article is obstruction of Congress.

Watching the Senate Trial. The House managers are arguing testimony and documents are still required. Is this a tacit admission that they lack the evidence to prove their case?

Last ditch deep-state effort to influence the Senate trial.

Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says — NOS4A2

Yeah, it would be outrageous for the trial to be influenced by facts.

Trump in 2016: "I love Wikileaks!". I know, that's different; the Wikileaks info was a product of Russia's efforts to help him.