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.
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.
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.
scum like Bolton. — NOS4A2
Trump serves to those that give him campaign donations!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.
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).Everyone from Clinton to Bush to Obama promised to move the embassy only to break their promises. — NOS4A2
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
So is Trump's blocking of subpoenas and obstruction of justice with the Mueller investigation. — Benkei
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? — Michael
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 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. — Hanover
The point being, he didn't commit any crime and Congress never made an effort to enforce its own subpoena..He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. — Hanover
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.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
I didn't say it "established" a connection, but it circumstantially contributes to there being one, and it eradicates its exculpatory value.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
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.In my defense no evidence shows trump was engaged in wrong doing, and evidence shows the opposite: good-doing. — 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.I truly believe this, because why the hell are we sending hundreds of million in aid to Ukraine? — NOS4A2
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
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
In contrast with Trump legal team, Justice Department lawyer says House can impeach over defied subpoenas — Michael
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
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
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
All that, (and other things that have transpired thus far) my question is, do you think he's hiding something? — 3017amen
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. — Hanover
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
No. I think we all know very clearly what happened in the phone call. — Hanover
Why were the slaves freed? The people demanded it. — Hanover
Last ditch deep-state effort to influence the Senate trial.
Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says — NOS4A2
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.