WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 4)

This moment has gotten a lot more attention and numerous reporters and Republican senators have confirmed the response on the Senate floor that I mention did take place. Several Republican Senators have also come out and called the initial reporting from CBS untrue and Schiff's reference - even while saying that he did not know if the report was true and he hoped it was not - to the report as unnecessary. I think the Republican Senators were just looking for anything about which to get the vapors.

Schiff refers to CBS 'head on pike' story, infuriating GOP: 'Every one of us knows it is not true'

 

Yeah there's a trend here with Schiff saying things half cocked like "ample evidence of collusion", his "parody", him saying "Trump thinks that only Ukraine meddled".......

For people who hate Trump for that sorta stuff they tend to emulate his behavior

 

Nobody needs CBS to tell them that...

 

Four of the impeachment managers even voted "No" or "No vote" on the aid to Ukraine.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep Zoe Lofgren, Sylvia Garcia, and Hakeem Jeffries either opposed or didn’t vote for national defense bills that included lethal aid to Ukraine.

Now they try to sell a sob story that Trump left Ukraine defenseless against Russia by freezing aid for a few weeks. Like they really care.

 

No one disputes trump's right to make a sound policy based decision on whether to provide lethal aide to a foreign government. The problem for trump is that he, unlike Obama, did not have a sound policy justification for pausing the congressionally mandated supply of lethal aid to Ukraine.

Obama held up the lethal aid because there were concerns about the corruption at the time, because it would antagonize Russia, and because he did not think it would make a big enough difference. Now - those very well could have been the wrong decisions, but they were based on sound policy that were made in the best interests of the United States and its allies.

Trump, held up the lethal aid (after granting it without a problem in 2017 and 2018 ) because he wanted to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation against his domestic political rival. That is not a sound policy in the best interests of the United States or its allies.

 

The Apologizer in Chief certainly didn't want to antagonize anyone, especially his buddy Putin and the Russia Reset plan.

Trump held up aid because Ukraine had a brand new President and he wanted to feel comfortable that the new guy was the "real deal" and not another corrupt grafter, among other legitimate reasons. Trump is no fan of handing out U.S. taxpayer dollars all over the world like we've been doing for decades. He wants to put the brakes on that and get other countries to step up to the plates. He also wanted to find out if the Biden's were innocents or part of the money laundering schemes happening regularly between Ukrainian businesses and government oligarchs. That is reasonable.

 

Please tell me what the sound policy Obama had denying Ukraine arms while Russia was attacking them? What sound policy did he have denying the others fighting ISIS arms? And allowing ISIS to grow like they did?


Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine at all

https://nypost.com › 2019/10/09 › sorry-Joe-team-obama-refused-to-arm-u...
Oct 9, 2019 - Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow. ... The aid in question is lethal military assistance that the Obama-Biden administration refused to give Ukraine. ... “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or ... And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even .


U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed ...

https://www.nytimes.com › 2013/03/17 › world › Europe › with-eye-on-nort...
Mar 17, 2013 - At one such meeting, in South Korea last March, Mr. Obama was heard ... The antimissile program provoked sharp criticism in Poland, but this ...


Obama refuses to provide the Kurds weapons to defend ...
https://reform4syria.org/obama-give-the-kurds-weapons-to-defend-themselves
Oct 03, 2014 · As Barack Obama refused to arm the Free Syrian Army for over three years and refused to arm the Ukrainian Government to defend themselves from the Assad and the Putin terrors, now comes to our attention that Obama is refusing to provide the Kurds with weapons even as ISIL besieges the town of Kobani (Also called Ayn al-Arab).


OBAMA REFUSES TO GIVE JORDAN DRONES TO BATTLE ISIS! …
https://americasfreedomfighters.com/obama-refuses-to-give-jordan-drones-to-battle-isis...
Obama and the State Dept. Have refused a request by Jordan to send unarmed Predator drones saying that 'Jordan is not a strong enough ally of the U.S.


US Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75% of ISIS Strikes
https://freebeacon.com/.../us-pilots-confirm-obama-admin-blocks-75-percent-of-isis-strikes
Nov 20, 2015 · U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes ‘We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us’ A …



CIA director Brennan admits ISIS was “decimated” under Bush, but ...
www.aei.org/.../brennan-admits-isis-was-decimated-under-bush-but-has-grown-under-...

Nov 17, 2015 - by the CIA's own estimate, ISIS has grown on President Obama's watch from just 700 fighters to between 20000 and 31500 fighters. ... Admission: The Islamic State was “decimated” under George W. Bush and had just “700-or-so adherents left” following the surge in Iraq. Said Brennan: [ISIS] was, you know

 

Those reasons are all mostly reasonable (except the Biden which is still the reason he got impeached), but here's a critical problem. If those reasonable reasons were the real justification, why not just tell Congress as required by law?

 

As an initial matter, I deleted the other three articles because they are not relevant to the topic of trump vs Obama having a legitimate policy goal for pausing or not delivering military aid to Ukraine.

Now, you asked me to tell you what was Obama's policy justification and then quoted an article that repeated one of the three reasons I already told you - i.e. to not antagonize Russia. I said (in the post you quoted) the following:

An initial point I will make about the "concerns about the corruption at the time." This is the reason quoted by Fiona Hill as the reason why she initially thought providing military aid was a bad idea. She then learned about additional controls put into place to ensure that, for example, those lethal aids would not just get turned over to Russian seperatists.

 

So basically Fiona Hill grew a 'trust' in the government to approve of the idea of military aid. How sweet. An actual pragmatist on the other hand, sees ISIS and that makes me determine that the government can brag about its 'controls' all it wants, it rarely is able to actually control the battlefield without boots on the ground. A lesson we keep running into, yet often forget and want to forget.

I find that an altogether separate issue from the case trial however, but I would love to debate the politics of it since I'm further "right" of Trump. I don't see how in anyway shape or form, the 'democratic' state of Ukraine is my interest. Anymore than Kurdistan. That's Romney's fight, not the Republic's fight or mine.

Getting back to the Case Trial, I had successfully predicted the first 20-30 minutes or so . Go me. But with additional information that was both available in public settings(IE: If I'd listened to more of the House hearings) but also a bit of the Counsel's personal material that we weren't privy too, obviously.

And Counsel absolutely knocked it out of the ball park. A trial cannot be a case of "Nuh uh" and "uh huh". Adam Schiff has, as Cippolone pointed out: "The burden of proof", which for all intents and purposes is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It doesn't matter if the doubt is agreeable or not. It just has to exist(as you know.) Not only does it exist, it's substantially stronger than first realized.

 

I'd be glad to.

He testified in front of a grand jury BECAUSE IT WAS A CRIMINAL CASE.

 

LoL sure.

 

Really.

Who are Democrats "currently in the courts challenging"?

 

As was just pointed out, Obama leveraged the power of his office in order to influence the 2012 election when he said to the Russians it was his last election, he would have more flexibility after the election. Exactly what the LW is accusing Trump of.

 

Appreciate the stab, but incredibly wrong... Obviously, I was referring to his appearance during the Senate Watergate hearings (June 1973 was your hint there)...

The answer, is the Judicial Branch wasn't required to get Dean to testify. He (and Nixon) did the patriotic thing and didn't hide behind a potential claim of EP

And as it turns out, nothing he said remotely violated EP... so it's certainly possible to have a WH lawyer testify...

 

What part of he already testified in front of a grand jury in a criminal case is hard to understand.

 

The part where you are wrong..

And the part where what you are saying isn't even relevant to the discussion..

Those parts...

 

Looks more like the part where you have no actual response because you know I'm right.

I wouldn't expect you to admit it though.