Great post. Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming. Not simply “some” evidence.Words like the bold and your claim that the allegations were clearly "unproven" suggest that you like the objectivity to provide any sort of meaningful input on this issue. I mean, you can't even admit that maybe Trump's actions were at the very least unwise given the potential optics?
For comparison's sake, I probably hold a minority opinion that the jury in the OJ trial issued the correct verdict. In other words, I firmly believe that there was reasonable doubt to his guilt. That said, do I think it was a conspiracy? That the defense clearly disproved the allegations? That the initial charges were baseless/lacked probable cause? That it was somehow an injustice for him to go through the time, energy and expense of defending himself? Absolutely not to all those questions. I'd have to be intentionally obtuse to refuse to acknowledge that there wasn't at least some evidence to suggest he may have committed the murder.
It's worrisome that you, and others that share your extreme opinion, appear entirely unable to view issues via multiple lenses (and certainly not through an objective lens). By any objective measurement Trump's call wasn't perfect. By an objective measurement this wasn't a damned conspiracy. I think it is debatable from a legal perspective whether this was a high crime and whether it warranted removal. But by taking your extreme stance and using such absolute hyperbole you lose all credibility.
Nah. They'll just start another thread and call it "Mitt Romney is my new BFF" or something.Pack it up guys. Show is over.
:IBTL:
Most importantly there was no crime. The President has a legal right to request an investigation, the President has probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed by the previous administration and the President had a duty to make sure that the facts were discovered and that our international relationship with Ukraine was not harmed by the previous administration. When the VP brags about a crime, he can’t look the other way. The actions were a proper and obligatory use of his office.
the actions of Schiff and his hiding of the Atkinson testimony is a clear abuse of power and an attempt to influence the election
The OJ defense was able to chip away at the credibility of the witnesses and the process and the chain of custody of the primary evidence....the prosecution team was not particularly strong either IIRCGreat post. Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming. Not simply “some” evidence.
He delivered aid within the time required by lawSo your argument is 1) from my earlier list - he did not withhold aid to Ukraine until they investigated (or announced an investigation into) a political rival for his own benefit.
Ok.
So that isn’t what happened. At all. Good lord. The information is everywhere. Take a stroll outside of your bubble.He said if you don’t fire the prosecutor Investigating the company giving my son millions of dollars for free you aren’t getting the aid. That looks like probable cause to me and reason for an investigation the clear things up.
He delivered aid within the time required by law
The Ukraine did not initiate the investigation
the Ukraine has said they did not feel pressured to do so
if there is no exchange there is no quid pro quo. The phone call and the public statements from Ukraine indicate that quid pro quo was not even offered.
The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for. He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ. It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.That’s one way of looking at it, if you ignore the evidence that he was soliciting a personal favor related to an American election, which is a high crime.
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." - Donald Trump, 11/06/12Dems lose the election: Let's Change the electoral college.
Even if there was a quid pro quo, it doesn't matter. It's not a "High Crime".He delivered aid within the time required by law
The Ukraine did not initiate the investigation
the Ukraine has said they did not feel pressured to do so
if there is no exchange there is no quid pro quo. The phone call and the public statements from Ukraine indicate that quid pro quo was not even offered.
Agree. But he did it. The civil trial proved that beyond any reasonable doubtThe OJ defense was able to chip away at the credibility of the witnesses and the process and the chain of custody of the primary evidence....the prosecution team was not particularly strong either IIRC
Which part is untrue?So that isn’t what happened. At all. Good lord. The information is everywhere. Take a stroll outside of your bubble.
This post shows great ignorance of history, and should be clarified.USA, now 0-3 all time for impeachments, maybe time to alter or get rid of this clearly useless measure.
He, along with many western allies, called for Shokin to be fired because he was corrupt. And doing nothing. It never had anything to do with protecting his son from investigation. In fact, by calling for a real prosecutor Biden arguably exposes his son to real investigation. Of course, there is no evidence that Biden Jr. was corrupt beyond your run of the mill nepotism that happens all the time in Washington and, specifically, in Trump’s own administration (see Kushner for example).Which part is untrue?
did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did?
was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep
was Burisma paying Hunter millions of dollars - yes again
these three facts alone are enough probable cause
Which part is untrue?So that isn’t what happened. At all. Good lord. The information is everywhere. Take a stroll outside of your bubble.
did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did...
was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep
No.He said if you don’t fire the prosecutor Investigating the company giving my son millions of dollars for free you aren’t getting the aid. That looks like probable cause to me and reason for an investigation the clear things up.
I love when people yell "probable cause"! but then can't explain what specific crime they think was committed.Which part is untrue?
did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did...
was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep
was Burisma paying Hunter millions of dollars - yes again
these three facts alone are enough probable cause
Maybe not change it, but they can and will certainly ignore it.
Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. He had stalled all investigations into alleged corruption.
That's why Obama and Biden wanted him gone.
There's just no way for Trump supporters to change this fact.
It's a shame that you think her vote was completely incomprehensible, Brunell4MVP.This topic can be closed. Start a new one with Pelosi’s next most important idea. Impeaching Trump again. She’s killed the party. Congrats Nancy.
Does Rudy work for Barr now?The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for. He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ. It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.
So, what he asked for was within the bounds of his legal authority, in the interests of the country, properly delegated to the DOJ and of no consequence to the election per DOJ policy.
Her and Perez are doing quite the double team to end the DNC.This topic can be closed. Start a new one with Pelosi’s next most important idea. Impeaching Trump again. She’s killed the party. Congrats Nancy.
if Bernie is smart he'll join in and make sure it goes bye bye.Her and Perez are doing quite the double team to end the DNC.
Shokin’s sworn statement says otherwise.
Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. He had stalled all investigations into alleged corruption.
That's why Obama and Biden wanted him gone.
There's just no way for Trump supporters to change this fact.
Or Biden could just pay Ukraine off with campaign money, make them sign a NDA, and go about his business.Shokin’s sworn statement says otherwise.
we also know that the money laundering allegations against Burisma were reduced to tax evasion under the new prosecutor.
the only way to know for sure is to get the facts from an investigation.
Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to mostI love when people yell "probable cause"! but then can't explain what specific crime they think was committed.
I mean, you may as well yell "Erie doctrine!"
Which is why there was an impeachment trial.Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most
What’s your theory on: who was bribed, who was blackmailed and what laundering was done?Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most
This fantastic new definition of "money laundering" -- i.e., receiving money from shady entities for services rendered -- is not considered to be a crime by Republicans. We know this to be the case because they have endorsed the President and his company receiving money from all kinds of shady entities (private foreign companies, foreign dictatorships, etc.). That's just capitalism.Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to mostI love when people yell "probable cause"! but then can't explain what specific crime they think was committed.
I mean, you may as well yell "Erie doctrine!"
I'm still kinda curious why Trump was directing Parnas and Furman to fire (and/or "get rid of") Yovanovitch. Seems odd to tell those 2 goons to do it and not Pompeo. Seems the world may never know.What’s your theory on: who was bribed, who was blackmailed and what laundering was done?Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most
What do you think Hunter Biden’s role was in that?
If the investigation was legit, and trump is truly concerned, why:
1. did he wait until 2019 right after Biden announced his candidacy to apply pressure?
2. Hasn’t anything happened since the WB came forward? If legit, why did trump abandon the entire thing?
Nobody is having a worse week than Nancy Pelosi and it is absolutely fabulous to see.This topic can be closed. Start a new one with Pelosi’s next most important idea. Impeaching Trump again. She’s killed the party. Congrats Nancy.
Sorry, but actions in 2015 speak louder than a hastily-written piece of paper in 2019.Shokin’s sworn statement says otherwise.
Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. He had stalled all investigations into alleged corruption.
That's why Obama and Biden wanted him gone.
There's just no way for Trump supporters to change this fact.
Is it safe to say AOC is the momentary titular head of the Democratic Party after this? Just until Bernie becomes the candidate obviously.Her and Perez are doing quite the double team to end the DNC.
First off, we know this is all a lie because Trump dropped it the moment he was caught.The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for. He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ. It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.
So, what he asked for was within the bounds of his legal authority, in the interests of the country, properly delegated to the DOJ and of no consequence to the election per DOJ policy.
Im a fair guy. I'm always up for discussions on altering terms. My dm is always open.I knew you’d do it.
Ok, we'll announce we're opening an investigation if you just give us the money.Im a fair guy. I'm always up for discussions on altering terms. My dm is always open.
It just goes with his catchphrase. You know, "You're gotten rid of!"I'm still kinda curious why Trump was directing Parnas and Furman to fire (and/or "get rid of") Yovanovitch. Seems odd to tell those 2 goons to do it and not Pompeo. Seems the world may never know.
Well, I was using the definition of probable cause in my jurisdiction. I'd certainly agree that there was a preponderance of evidence as well (and therefore I agree with the civil verdict).Great post. Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming. Not simply “some” evidence.
Yet it's happened in every impeachment ever in this country's history (even if I disagree with their "verdict").....until now. Weird.I agree that it’s silly to expect senators, who are political, to fairly judge a process.
I still have time...@mr robotoyou may want to start saying your good byes.
Just listed as top 100 players of all time by the NFL.Just like O.J.