Right. So he cannot just threaten anyone.

Who's going to fire him?

That's conveniently vague and also wrong. Nothing about that sentence suggests anything about the severity of high crimes and misdemeanors. The penal code contains murder and other crimes and misdemeanours. Are they all as severe as murder?

I gave you a list of British precedents on which the discussion of the founding fathers were based. That discussion is relatively well documented as well.

"Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses

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?

No you're right. I was specifically speaking of the smear campaign involving Giuliani. I imagine smear campaigns against American diplomats is par for the course in Ukraine.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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?

Yeah, I imagine they would come out and say: "Yeah sure, the sitting US President Trump, who will likely be President at least for one year if not longer, pressured us".

Trump wouldn't mind that, or what?

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

I'm not presuming guilt either. I'm only telling you the arguments you raise about the mindset of the Ukrainians and Trump's comments about the same are irrelevant. Nowhere have I said that he therefore must be guilty. You're jumping to conclusions and are attributing statements to me that I haven't made.

Then why is it irrelevant if the argument is central to their entire case?

You presumed guilt here:"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!". Your use of the word “criminal” presumes both a crime has been committed and that Trump has committed it. Both are untrue.

By the way you’re right I don’t know fallacies, apparently. I didn’t mean begging the question. I meant presumption of guilt.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm only telling you your arguments don't work.

That’s false. You’ve begged the question in all of your false analogies. Not only that but the argument that Trump pressured Zelensky is entirely relevant. In fact it’s one of the premises of the House managers.

Now you're just repeating yourself. Cute but not an argument. Trump's comments on the matter are even less relevant and he certainly cannot testify as to the mindset of others.

"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!"

You just assume that Trump pressured Zelensky. All parties involved say the opposite. So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? Is there any evidence? Or are you question begging?

Retreat into your equations all you want. You’re assuming Trump pressured Zelensky without being able to prove it. All parties involved say there was no pressure.

Irrelevant. A defrauder isn't excused merely because his attempt at fraud fails.

Begging the question. Unless you can point to some other reason, the mere accusation of Schiff’s that Trump pressured Zelensky is all you have.

Distraction. It is not the reason Trump pressured Ukraine.

There was no pressure according to Ukrainian president and other officials.

Don’t take my word for it.

OK, you're correct - I do not know what's going on in his mind. I'll rephrase.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements on pretty much a daily basis. I.e., the words coming out of his mouth - or his tweets - do not correspond to reality.

I can think of at least 3 possible explanations. Maybe you have a 4th (or 5th)

1) He is lying
2) He believes what he is saying
3) He is just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't think about it afterwards
4) ???

It's possible that it's some combination of the above.

In either case, I think this behavior is unacceptable for any human being - let alone the POTUS. Maybe you're OK with this, and maybe I'm stupid & naive, but I expect better.

I accept that. That’s at least fair. But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken?

Either way, this is the politics of words. Anyone can talk. Any trained actor can read a script or recite a list of facts. But I think we’re done hiring people who can only talk and sing lullabies to their electorate. Those days are over.

Pam Bondi’s case against Hunter, complete with documents and congressional testimony, was pretty damning. I wouldn’t mind hearing the house Manager’s rebuttal, however,

Trump’s personal lawyer continues: House managers claim Biden story is “debunked”, “discredited”, even though the issue has never been investigated.

There has been zero investigations into Biden’s conflict of interest to this day.

Biden’s conflict of interest was brought up to Biden’s office by George Kent, according to Kent’s testimony to Congress.

According to documents presented to the senate Burisma payed Hunter Biden $83,333 a month without experience in natural gas, the energy sector, and without being able to speak Ukrainian.

Your speculation is modeled on a biased framework.

It’s a shame I don’t respect your opinions. I suspect them.

When it suits your lights it's fine to speculate about intention.

Check your bias.

I’m clearly speculating and not pretending otherwise.

Pam Bondi is now laying out the case against the Bidens in front of the senate. This is getting good.

He took it seriously enough to react as he did ("get rid of her"). That doesn't seem like a reasonable reaction to a comment made by a casual acquaintance.

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.

It's certainly possible Trump doesn't remember meeting Parnas, but it's also possible he is lying about it. In support of this being a lie: he's met Parnas at least 11 times; Parnas had a give and take with Trump about Ukraine (it's wasn't merely a photo op); sinceTrump was asking him questions he had to have some expectation that he could answer; Parna's claim about Yovanovitch was sufficient to induce Trump to say "get rid of her."

In support of it being the truth: Trump's word. I know you don't care about the number of untruths that come out of the guy, but surely you realize that it has an impact on his credibility. This certainly doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying, but Trump looks bad either way. Why would he take a stranger's claim about Yovanovitch seriously?

That’s fair. Trump could definitely be lying. But given that she wasn’t fired for over a year later until after allegations from Ukrainian prosecutors, it appears he didn’t take it serious at all.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

Me:

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive.

You:

A ridiculous statement.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

Ridiculous.

Merriam-Webster:

lie noun (2)
\ ˈlī \
Definition of lie (Entry 4 of 6)
1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
He told a lie to avoid punishment.
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
the lies we tell ourselves to feel better
historical records containing numerous lies
2 : something that misleads or deceives

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

Funny you should mention that, because some Republican Senators have argued that Trump's (stupid) belief in the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory constitutes justifiable reason for him to ask Ukraine to investigate it.

Perhaps Trump doesn't remember telling Bolton he was tying release of the funds to the Biden investigation, so he's' not lying. That's certainly an example where it doesn't matter.

He does seem to have a poor memory, since he doesn't remember meeting Lev Parnas. It's interesting that he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch simply after hearing Parnas (the guy he doesn't know) tell him she'd been bad-mouthing him.

The idea that Trump should remember every conversation and every name with everyone he meets is a little silly. Maybe you can remember every name and every conversation you had wit people in 2018, but I wager Trump has had many more conversations and with many more people than you have. Yovanovitch was fired over a year after the Parnas conversation. During this time many allegations against Yovanovitch, whether true or false, were raised by former Ukrainian prosecutors.

I agree with Clinton on this one. His personal sex life should not have been aired in public. Privacy is important, even for the most public of figures.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

That’s a blatant mischaracterization of what I said. But I wouldn’t accuse you of lying for doing so. Sure, you could be lying, acting in bad faith and harbor malicious intent for your sophistry, but for all I know you might have misread or simply do not understand the premise. This is because only you know your motives, only you know whether you are intending to deceive others, and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt rather than resort to pretending that I can be sure of your motives.

I expect politicians to spin facts to make events seem less or more favorable to therm.

But -- Call me naive but I expect politicians to avoid telling factually verifiable lies on a daily basis.

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. But given that knowledge of those intentions are completely absent from our knowledge, the use of the term “lies” is itself a mistruth or falsity. Add on that the claim that the “lie” is “factually verifiable”, implying you do know the intention as a matter of fact, we have two mistruths and falsities in your use of the phrase “factually verifiable lies”.

I could be equally as critical of you as Trump’s critics are of his bluster, hyperbole and falsities, but then again I don’t really care to hold others to inhuman standards.

Kenneth's history lesson...well, 22 hours to go. :yawn:

At least the last presidential impeachment had the added bonus of sordid details and sexual deviancy.

The Senate trial begins for the day. The defense has 22 hours remaining to make their case.



Kenneth Starr of Clinton impeachment fame begins first.