Disproving the Democratic Case for Impeachment. Part #1: The Aid.

The Democrats have submitted two articles of Impeachment on President Donald J. Trump. One is Abuse of Power, Second is Obstruction of Congress.

Both counts will have defenses raised by the administration and its lawyers. We are far from done these proceedings, but the easiest one we can tackle is the "Abuse of Power" which is the little bow they've decided to wrap around the charge that Trump "sought a foreign power to elicit dirt on a "political rival"(Joe Biden.).

I mentioned before, and I'll mention briefly again that Joe Biden is no political rival to Donald Trump, or if he is one, he was one of now eight standing Democrats. What was Donald Trump going to do about the other seven? The only rival of Trump's, would be the presumptive nominee/or the actual democratic nominee. Leading in a poll in April, does not make one the presumptive nominee. By that time, established names like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz were still the frontrunners in 2016.

But one of the ways to undercut the impeachment argument surrounds the aid. Democrats argue that the President withheld the aid for the investigations. The most recent argument surrounding this(given all else has failed) has been to claim that the President gave the aid to the Ukrainians upon knowledge of the whistleblower's complaint.

If we prove this to be untrue, we directly undercut the Democratic argument and they'll have to find a new argument.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/the-whistleblower-complaint-timeline/

So according to Factcheck, the WB complaint was filed on Aug. 12 of this year, but it wasn't released until Sept.25th. Meanwhile the aid was released on Sept 11th of this year.

This doesn't bode well at all for the Democratic theory that Trump only released the money because of the whistleblower complaint. If it were about the complaint, he would have released it on the 12th. If it were about it reaching Congress, it would have been released on the 25th, 14 days after it was actually released on the 11th.

What becomes apparent, just from a timing standpoint is that the whistleblower complaint had zero visible impact on Trump's decision. Because the ideal timing for releasing the information would have been either of those two dates, if he were reacting to a circumstance surrounding the complaint.

The other problem for Democrats, is that we can't accept their argument on blind faith.(Actually, we're not supposed to accept any argument on blind faith), that is to say Democrats are essentially arguing that they see it as a 'abuse of power' to elicit dirt for a political rival.

But Trump has countered with his own justification of looking into Burisma/Biden. Even if we accepted the idea that Trump's reasons were unfounded, if Trump himself believed these reasons to be credible, that belief is what dictated his actions, not a corrupt purpose.

Basically, we go back to intent. Intent is the hardest part of the Democratic argument. Democrats would have to prove a corrupt intent, not just suggest a corrupt intent. No matter how much Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler believe it so, their belief does not make it so. Their vote does not make it any more sound.

This isn't a theoretical argument, this is an accusation to be proven or disproven. A Senate Trial should hopefully have the same standards of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Not only have Democrats not made a sufficient argument to prove that Trump had corrupt intent in withholding the aid, they've failed to make a sufficient argument of beyond reasonable doubt.

At best, accepting the Democratic argument elevates it to a "probable". It's likely. But it's not "beyond" a reasonable doubt. Meaning that there's no reason for a reasonable person to doubt it.

But there's every reason for a reasonable person to doubt it: Biden's statements on strong arming the former prosecutor, the sworn statements given by the former prosecutor to Giuliani and the utter lack of any physical evidence showing a quid pro quo.

Not a video tape, not a recording, not a physical letter. Nothing.

Would the Democratic argument be strengthened by testimony of Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc?
Perhaps. But Democrats aren't considering that their testimony might actually undercut their arguments.

What's clear right now, is that the theory that Trump only gave aid to avoid suspicion is laughably thin with evidence at best, and at worst is something that I can easily argue against in favor of the defense.

There's no conclusive evidence either for or against, and usually in prosecuting cases that works out in the defense. The defense doesn't need a win, it just needs a tie.

I think I've shown clearly that it's quite simple for the defense to force a tie. And who knows, maybe the Pompeo and Mulavaney testimonies might actually allow a win. Of course, it could go the other way around to and I'm prepared for that.

 

The Democrats combination lawyer/witness implied under oath the other day that Trump's denial and the fact that Trump did not actually mention any quid pro quo let alone bribery on the phone call is proof of his guilt and intent.

The Democrats' case would not stand under the lower civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It would not stand even the basic level of possibility required before a a judge would dismiss for lack of credible evidence. The House is wishfully hoping that the Senate will follow their lead and simply trash any quaint due process rules.

 

Here’s the problem with your defense. White House lawyers briefed Trump at the end of August about the whistleblower complaint, before it was released to the public, and before the money was released.

 

I believe Aug. 25th or so was the date right? So Sept 11th was 16 days, or a little over 2 weeks since he was briefed. What happened in that time span of 16 days? For the Democrats to seriously prove their charge, they would need to ask questions about the WH's activity during those 16 days. If the Democrats were serious about proving their theory.

This is why a Minority Day should've been given, this is why all requested witnesses should've been given their say. This is why if this was a serious theory it needed to be tested during those open or even closed door hearings.

 

What happened was that on September 9 Congress was informed about the whistleblower complaint.

 

But why wait so long(Until the 11th), is the argument now going to be that he waited to see if in fact Congress would receive the complaint? This conspiracy theory by Democrats is a conspiracy theory to cover up the lack of evidence of bribery, or extortion or a quid pro quo.

There is nothing criminally actionable, much less politically punishable here.

 

The witness testimony all said that Trump did not want an investigation, just a public statement. Why hold up military aid, just for a statement that does nothing more than help Trump's campaign narrative? That is what is at issue.

John Bolton was fired/quit on the 10th. He was the one who told everyone to talk to the lawyers, that got the whole whistle blower thing going. The movie, years from now, is sure to be more exciting than the slow drip we are seeing now.

 

Two days????

That's "long"?

Actually, looks to me like the argument is going to be that he is innocent because he waited ... two days!

You know what... I'm convinced that it's moot to discuss the first Article of Impeachment. Republicans only need an excuse. And "he waited two days, therefore he's innocent" is as good as any of the other stupid arguments they have tried. "Spinning" is easy for those who won't be held back by any patriotic impulsed.

What I have no idea is how in the world are they going to justify exonerating him on Article 2.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...u-twist-them-will-not-exonerate-trump.565568/

 

That's easy, the House had no legal authority to issue the subponeas. No legal authority means no obstruction happened.

 

So, John Bolton is going to be the new key star witness after Sondland perjured himself in Congress? I hope that unlike Sondland, Bolton can give us a straight story.

 

There will never be enough evidence, direct or indirect, that will convince Trump subjects of anything factual surrounding their leader god. The problem goes further. Within the Trump bubble, fed by the FOX and Breitbart propaganda media, those sources can feed anything to the loyal base and it will be believed. One conspiracy after another, many formed by Trump himself, undergo and endless cycle of launch, angry reaction, promotion, debunk and disprove. The base never progresses beyond stage three. The end result is a cult like response to anything outside the bubble, the equivalent of which would be an RPG launch on the Vatican.

America has evolved into a post literate era, its main practitioner being president Trump. In this era, nobody reads, grows intellectually, or engages in independent thought. "Facts" or "Alternate Facts" are spoon fed to the loyalists by the Internet. Thinking beyond the headlines has become a rarity. For Trump and his followers, this would be an act elitist intellectualism. If allowed to continue, within a few decades America will assume its role as irrelevant bully isolated by its own boarders with a bloated military and roads filled with potholes.

Trump's assertion that until he arrived on the scene, America was an international laughing stock. Now he has us back on track and America is respected again. It's more than a little difficult to reconcile that with the derisive laughter at Trump's claims of his great leadership during his speech to the UN. Then are those huddled meeting at the NATO meetings deriding Trump and his policies. After reneging on agreements, alliances, and allies (the Kurds) American reliability internationally is, at best, questionable. Trump's constant complaining that his good friend Vladimir Putin remains uninvited at G-7 meets strongly suggests something much darker is afoot.

There is little doubt that Trump is connected to and somehow reliant on the largess of Vladimir Putin. Thoughtful Americans and the rest of the world thinks about this frequently. That Trump dissed our own intelligence agencies in support of Putin at an international press conference is on video. What lurks within his voluminous tax returns will soon be revealed and if the suspected becomes reality, the public reaction is unpredictable.












x

 

Don't you mean CNN/MSNBC propaganda channels? For 2 1/2 years, you believed the President was a Russian Agent. In the age of the internet, inquiring minds do not and did not follow BS. Unfortunately for those who lied, this isn't 1932.

 

No one believes that nonsensical parsing. Not even you.

The WB complaint was filed on Aug 12. Correct...and the White House HID it. By law they were supposed to present it to Congress within 7 days. That didn't happen did it? No. In fact it didn't reach Congress until Sept 9. And only THEN because the existence of it became known due to the ICIG alerting Congress to it.

TWO DAYS after it finally got to Congress...the aid was released.

Your narrative is a complete fiction and a complete failure

 

Get a grip. Try checking your source of "facts." Also, telling me what I believe is a mistake not often repeated.

 

I believe he is trying to say with the straightest of faces that trump supporters will back trump no matter what. Meanwhile sayin trump supportes dont care about rules, laws or the constitution . Trying to say that dems have the high ground so they can get away with anything to get rid of trump. Even though nobody would belive any of that BS if they just looked at the evidence . These guys literally live in opposite world or something .

 

The only first hand knowledge by a witness that they have, is Sondland being told by Trump "I want nothing..."

 

Trump had to release the aid with enough time for it to be delivered. Waiting past Sept 12 would make it difficult.

Besides, we have been informed that all foreign aid was on hold in the first week of August, so Ukraine was not singled out.

 

No, I'm pretty confident you did. To quote Barr "an irresponsible" media fanned those flames.

 

Watched some of the questioning of Horowitz on the IG report the other day. This was a scathing indictment of the FBI agents with respect to abuse of the FISA process - abuse which included not revealing exculpatory evidence of Carter Page.

USA Today puts it this way "In a bombshell report yesterday, the Justice Department Inspector General found that the Federal Bureau of Investigation made “fundamental errors” and persistently deceived a secret court to authorize surveilling a 2016 Trump presidential campaign official."https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ecret-court-trump-campaign-column/4383722002/

Not only did these agents deceive the FISA court once - as time passed - and more exculpatory evidence came to light with respect to the Steel Dossier - the Agents deceived the court a second time.

It is claimed that the investigation as a whole was not based on the Steel dossier but from Australian Intelligence - with respect to Papadopolous supposedly having knowledge of dirt that the Russians had on Hillary. At the time perhaps Mueller did not know that this information was related to a CIA/FBI set-up - an effort to basically plant this info on Papadopolous.

The problem here is that the Mueller investigation was premised on this information - so why did the CIA/FBI not inform Mueller - or someone - that this investigation was based on a false premise ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43488581

And on this basis ... the investigation was premised.

 

And the Misfud link is what they're investigating as we speak right now. We've yet to get the full story, but enough is out there, confirmed by the DOJ that unless one is anti-Trump so much, they should realize that all of the scary things we said are true: The FBI gives next to **** about our rights, and unless this is nipped in the bud it'll continue.

Looking for Barr/Durham to bring home the bacon.

 

Put it this way - if you had CIA operatives engaging in the kind of activities - against some of your staff - trying to frame them in making it look like they were involved in dealings with Russian Operatives - so they could fabricate a false story against you - would you not be upset.

Is this not the "deep state" in action. If not - then what is ? I want to know who ordered this - and I am sure Trump does as well.

I also want to know why we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an investigation premised on such fabrications - fabrication by our own people ?

Every time we turn around in the Russiagate investigation - more dirty deeds crop up - not by Trump - but buy the FBI/CIA and others.