U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[Chiphigh]

13 hours ago, candide said:

What did he post? That the WB and Chalupa were together at the Ukrainian embassy to conspire against Trump. Unless I overlooked something. I did not see that in your sources. You showed one source stating there was a meeting between the DOJ and embassy officials, which is part of their job. Then you show another source citing a private meeting between Chalupa and Ukrainian embassy officials. The link between the two is your imagination.

 

I posted the politico article by Vogel where he's on the record that the push for dirt on manafort and trump was the as well. Go to anreii's Twitter feed, look for yourself. 

 

Pretend that the effort didn't happen if that makes you satisfied. It's on you. 

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

Not while engaged in unlawful activity

What unlawful activities are you referencing here?

[Chiphigh]

13 hours ago, candide said:

 

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

There is nothing over-the-top about the drama in Ukraine.  The country is at war with a much more powerful neighbor.  Part of the country has been annexed by Russia.  Part is in open rebellion, with rebels supported by Russia.  Putin clearly wants a pro-Russia government in Kiev that will turn the country into a puppet state.

 

Ukrainian officials learned the funds were being held up two weeks after the Trump-Zelensky phone call:

 

"The report in the Times said the documents and interviews indicated that Ukrainian officials were alerted to the existence of the aid freeze by the end of the first week of August."

"Trump spoke on July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about a potential investigation of Biden as well as the aid package."   https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/467125-documents-show-ukraine-knew-by-august-that-aid-was-being-withheld

 

Before then they knew they didn't have the funds and didn't have the meeting with Trump that Zelensky needed for credibility before negotiating with Russia. 

 

Zelensky definitely knew that Trump is a vindictive man-child who lashes out at anyone who annoys him when the question of whether he felt pressure was asked.  Zelensky also knew that Trump has a lot of influence over foreign policy even if there is bi-partisan support for Ukraine in the US Congress.  Zelensky doesn't know if the bi-partisan support he has in Congress would last if he confirmed the quid-pro-quo.  Finally, Zelensky knows that Trump is unlikely to be removed from office.  It would have been idiotic for him to antagonize the man-child in Chief.

Answer this question:  What could Zelensky possibly have gained by answering honestly and stating that of course he knew Trump was pressuring him?

 

Well Bruce, at least you had a good venting of your personal animosity and feelings about the president here. 

 

So now you have the amazing ability to know what the Ukraine pm was thinking, while also knowing that the insults you personally think are true about the president you hate are also his thoughts as well. 

 

That is an immensely valuable talent, this mind reading thing. Are you available for hire so I can use your skills in some business meetings? 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Chiphigh

[Chiphigh]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Andrey Telinzhenko posted what?  Don't give us what you imagined he stated, and don't give us what Fox pundits told you to believe.  Give us a credible source and let us read what happened.

Bruce, it's on his Twitter page, look for yourself. 

 

Disregard this as you certainly will and just assume he is lying. It is your choice. If you don't regard it as credible, then so be it. 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Well Bruce, at least you had a good venting of your personal animosity and feelings about the president here. 

 

So now you have the amazing ability to know what the Ukraine pm was thinking, while also knowing that the insults you personally think are true about the president you hate are also his thoughts as well. 

 

That is an immensely valuable talent, this mind reading thing. Are you available for hire so I can use your skills in some business meetings? 

 

Maybe you might consider focusing on the issues at hand rather than sarcastic ad hominem attacks which I consider worthless. 

 

Considering Zelinski's vulnerable situation and considering that in the context of the motivations for his public statements is entirely legitimate. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Jingthing

[Chiphigh]

13 hours ago, candide said:

Z did not said that. He never said "no pressure". It's Trump who put words in his mouth.

 

He's a smart guy. What he said was that he did not act according to a QPQ. So he does not confirm nor contradict anything. Look at the exact quote, he never said there was no pressure.

He did say he did not feel pressured. He has said that more than once. 

[Chiphigh]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Maybe you might consider focusing on the issues at hand rather than sarcastic ad hominem attacks which I consider worthless. 

 

Considering Zelinski's vulnerable situation and considering that in the context of the motivations for his public statements is entirely legitimate. 

Bruce, 

 

I find many things posted here worthless, but I would not be so inclined to take the leap to assume that I know what other people think and feel inside to feed my own opinions.

 

You can't call that legitimate. It is your opinion. 

 

Let's get back to the topic. 

 

Time will be the judge. 

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Bruce, 

 

I find many things posted here worthless, but I would not be so inclined to take the leap to assume that I know what other people think and feel inside to feed my own opinions.

 

You can't call that legitimate. It is your opinion. 

 

Let's get back to the topic. 

 

Time will be the judge. 

I never said it wasn't opinion. 

In that case opinion backed up with a logical theory. 

Sir please desist from trying to order me about what I can say. 

Also I am not Bruce. 

[Eric Loh]

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Some people just have no concept of how foreign relations work. Nor why huge amounts of money are paid to dodgy dumps like Pakistan and Ukraine across the globe. I'll give you a hint. It ain't charity. 

It is call quid pro quo. Aid to Pakistan to fight the Taliban so they will not be menacing US. Ukraine need aids to stop Russian aggressive land grab as part of US foreign policy to contain their influence in Europe. 

 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

One more time, there is a bi-partisan consensus in the USA in support of Ukraine. If even today  Zelensky were to say he had an issue he could say so, but the fact of the matter is he has said the opposite, and this is a ludicrous conversation we are having.

 

It does not cut muster, obviously, as a legal argument, nor does is it held up by the facts of the matter. It is a made up fiction, a conjecture aimed to support what is not supported.

Futher, it dishonors Zelensky, as some kind of weak coward unable of having an honest conversation with the President of the United States  or his own people.

 

Trump had this conversation in plain sight of staff, and if not for Democrat attempt to turn the call into something it isnt, none of this would ever have been known. And I don't understand frankly, why Democrats are under the assumption that it is THEY and not Zelensky himself, who speaks for President Zelensky, even to the point that they claim to know his thoughts and motivations better then he does.

 

As for your hypothetical question. You claim in your question that in the phonecall Zelensky was dishonest, then you pose your hypothetical as being truth, meaning the real truth must be that President Zelensky was in fact lying on the call (as he never indicated any problem on the call), and he has been lying after the call in statements saying nothing was wrong with the call. 

 

But this is NOT in fact the truth. The truth is as has been exhibited by Zelensky during and after the call. There was nothing wrong with the call.

 

The reason Democrats cannot accept the truth, is that the truth must be turned into a lie. Without this lie, this fabrication that turns reality on its head, the Democrat case falls to pieces.

 

To summarize:

 

You assume Zelensky would never lie, not even to save his country.

 

You maintain that if Zelensky did confirm  a quid-pro-quo, there is nothing Trump could do to exact revenge on him and Trump could not turn any of the cowed Republicans in the Senate to abandon the bipartisan support for aid to Ukraine.

 

I disagree with both of your assumptions.

 

I will now pose my last question as a hypothetical, which I'm sure you will dodge again.  Hypothetically, if Zelensky had felt pressure to initiate the nonsensical investigations Trump asked for, what possible benefit would there be for him to admit it?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Some people just have no concept of how foreign relations work. Nor why huge amounts of money are paid to dodgy dumps like Pakistan and Ukraine across the globe. I'll give you a hint. It ain't charity. 

I know that legal foreign aid from the US does not involve asking for illegal investigations and illegal foreign assistance in a US election. 

 

BTW; the biggest recipients of US foreign aid are Afghanistan, Israel and Egypt.  Egypt and Afghanistan are notoriously corrupt, and Israel has an on and off (depending on the latest elections and 'coalition building') Prime Minister charged with corruption.  Why is it that Trump hasn't expressed a keen interest in corruption in these countries?

 

I'll give you a hint about Trump's alleged fixation with corruption in Ukraine; it isn't really a fixation with corruption.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

And this is exactly why Bolton's book doesn't matter and why conversations with advisers are protected by executive privilege.

 

Whatever Trump may have said about withholding aid to Ukraine in any conversations with Bolton, preconditions were NEVER communicated to the Ukraine. Leaders in the Ukraine have said as much and didn't even know that a decision had been made by Trump to delay the aid.

 

It is common to discuss all issues before making decisions, which is why executive privilege protects these conversations.

 

 

So Trump supporters are abandoning the hope that Bolton's book doesn't incriminate Trump, and are now saying it doesn't matter.  I guess when you defend the indefensible you have to be flexible.

 

All the rest of your nonsense has been addressed, repeatedly.  But you can't education those who refuse to learn.

[heybruce]

58 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Bruce, it's on his Twitter page, look for yourself. 

 

Disregard this as you certainly will and just assume he is lying. It is your choice. If you don't regard it as credible, then so be it. 

There is more than enough idiocy on the internet, why should I do twitter as well.

 

You are the one who posts outlandish claims and links that don't support the claims.  I've asked you repeatedly to properly reference your links and you have declined, no doubt because you can't.  I'm not going on a wild goose chase trying to support your claims for you.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Well Bruce, at least you had a good venting of your personal animosity and feelings about the president here. 

 

So now you have the amazing ability to know what the Ukraine pm was thinking, while also knowing that the insults you personally think are true about the president you hate are also his thoughts as well. 

 

That is an immensely valuable talent, this mind reading thing. Are you available for hire so I can use your skills in some business meetings? 

 

I can grasp the obvious, unlike some people.

 

You couldn't afford me.  Also, I know from experience that presenting the obvious to people who don't want to accept it is a waste of time.

Edited January 28, 2020 by heybruce

[JHolmesJr]

Dershowitz nailed the Dems to the wall with his arguments today.

"Bribery, treason and OTHER high crimes and misdemeanours"

For those who say high crimes are not required, you know nothing.

None of the articles bring any of the prescribed crime charges....just vague

subjective feelings of hurt and impropriety.

 

Time for these charges to be dismissed with stern warning to dems

not to waste the country's time any longer.

 

Dems should be very careful with putting Bolton on the stand....as that will

mean Schiff, Bidens and the whistleblower being requested as well.

This won't end well for Dems.

 

 

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I never said it wasn't opinion. 

In that case opinion backed up with a logical theory. 

Sir please desist from trying to order me about what I can say. 

Also I am not Bruce. 

I agree you are not Bruce. 

 

I never said anything about what you can say. You obviously have thousands of posts that prove you are able to say whatever you want. 

 

I just said that it is impossible to prescribe irrefutable knowledge of another person's thoughts as if it was a fact. 

 

Your theory and logic is not better because it is yours. 

 

Have a good day and let's get back on track. 

[Chiphigh]

42 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I can grasp the obvious, unlike some people.

 

You couldn't afford me.  Also, I know from experience that presenting the obvious to people who don't want to accept it is a waste of time.

OK Bruce. 

 

I would like to think that you are objective enough to realize that what you determine as "obvious" is also subject to your obvious bias and political leanings. 

 

To think otherwise would be disingenuous. 

 

But I fear this may not be the case. 

 

We can disagree with each other and the world will still be ok. 

 

Let's get back to the topic. 

[Chiphigh]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

No no no...It's not a quid-pro-quo.  It's just a perfect phone call in which one person is talking about military aid and the other person is talking about investigations into silly conspiracy theories.

 

Lovely phone call.  Beautiful plumage.

Monty python is hilarious. 

 

Dems remind me of a rabid mob foaming at the mouth intent on getting their scalp regardless of what happens. 

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I know that legal foreign aid from the US does not involve asking for illegal investigations and illegal foreign assistance in a US election. 

 

BTW; the biggest recipients of US foreign aid are Afghanistan, Israel and Egypt.  Egypt and Afghanistan are notoriously corrupt, and Israel has an on and off (depending on the latest elections and 'coalition building') Prime Minister charged with corruption.  Why is it that Trump hasn't expressed a keen interest in corruption in these countries?

 

I'll give you a hint about Trump's alleged fixation with corruption in Ukraine; it isn't really a fixation with corruption.

More than anything, it is that he is not a fan of foreign aid at all, especially given the fact that the EU do not live up to the obligations to share the burdens. 

 

There is no crime, there is nothing impeachable. 

 

The dems lost this one, again. 

 

I'm sure they will keep trying no matter what. 

 

That should concern everyone, if you are objective enough. 

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You assume Zelensky would never lie, not even to save his country.

Yes I do assume Zelensky is not lying. You on the other hand assume he is, and on your assumption believe a President should be impeached. Incredible.

 

God give strength to the USA and prevent these lunatics from ever taking power. Amen

[WalkingOrders]

48 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Dershowitz nailed the Dems to the wall with his arguments today.

"Bribery, treason and OTHER high crimes and misdemeanours"

For those who say high crimes are not required, you know nothing.

None of the articles bring any of the prescribed crime charges....just vague

subjective feelings of hurt and impropriety.

 

Time for these charges to be dismissed with stern warning to dems

not to waste the country's time any longer.

 

Dems should be very careful with putting Bolton on the stand....as that will

mean Schiff, Bidens and the whistleblower being requested as well.

This won't end well for Dems.

 

 

John Bolton -  One thing for damn sure. This is a man who will NOT want to go down in history as the man who caused Communist Bernie Sanders to become the next President of the United States, no matter what animosity he may feel about Trump. 

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Yes I do assume Zelensky is not lying. You on the other hand assume he is, and on your assumption believe a President should be impeached. Incredible.

 

God give strength to the USA and prevent these lunatics from ever taking power. Amen

I think Zelensky is lying for very good reasons.  However even if Zelensky doesn't think he was being pressured, testimony made it clear that Trump wanted an illegal investigation to hurt a political rival.  That is an impeachable offense, as is Trump's obstruction of justice.

 

As predicted, you once again failed to answer my question, even when phrased as a hypothetical.  Once again, if Zelensky thought he was being pressured by Trump, why would he admit it?  What could he or his country gain from it?

Edited January 28, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

More than anything, it is that he is not a fan of foreign aid at all, especially given the fact that the EU do not live up to the obligations to share the burdens. 

 

There is no crime, there is nothing impeachable. 

 

The dems lost this one, again. 

 

I'm sure they will keep trying no matter what. 

 

That should concern everyone, if you are objective enough. 

There is an obvious crime, but as I posted earlier, some people don't want to accept the obvious.

[rabas]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I think Zelensky is lying for very good reasons.  However even if Zelensky doesn't think he was being pressured, testimony made it clear that Trump wanted an illegal investigation to hurt a political rival.  That is an impeachable offense, as is Trump's obstruction of justice.

What makes an investigation by Ukraine illegal? It wouldn't be by Ukraine law and US law would not apply on Ukrainian soil.

[Chiphigh]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There is an obvious crime, but as I posted earlier, some people don't want to accept the obvious.

Again, what is obvious to a person who is severely biased is not the standard for impeachment. 

 

That is what is obvious. 

 

This is a political issue and it is a failure. 

 

You can either accept it, or you can cheer for constant use of the house majority to keep doing more investigation. 

[heybruce]

Just now, rabas said:

What makes an investigation by Ukraine illegal? It wouldn't be by Ukraine law and US law would not apply on Ukrainian soil.

It is illegal to ask for a foreign government for anything of value to assist an election campaign.  It is probably legal, but definitely unusual and suspicious, to ask for an announcement of an investigation as a pre-condition for a meeting with the US President.

[riclag]

4 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

Not while engaged in unlawful activity

No crime, nothing wrong ! It has been explained to you before. Presumption is not a fact! If anything it is the Dem house who is obstructing Congress by not following the constitution ,by not following what suppose to happen when the two the branches can't come to agreement (executive branch not giving into the subpoena  power),almost 250 years of this procedure! The courts decide ,no matter how long and how many repeals. The impeachment is unconstitutional. Executive privilege is not nonsense its constitutional!

Edited January 28, 2020 by riclag

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

There is more than enough idiocy on the internet, why should I do twitter as well.

 

You are the one who posts outlandish claims and links that don't support the claims.  I've asked you repeatedly to properly reference your links and you have declined, no doubt because you can't.  I'm not going on a wild goose chase trying to support your claims for you.

The claims were referenced with links. You can call them outlandish if you choose. 

Then you ask for another reference, I tell you precisely where to find it and you whine about it. 

 

I get it, he's guilty and there is no need to discuss it with anyone. Welcome to the lefts world of open minded big tent wokeness. 

 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Again, what is obvious to a person who is severely biased is not the standard for impeachment. 

 

That is what is obvious. 

 

This is a political issue and it is a failure. 

 

You can either accept it, or you can cheer for constant use of the house majority to keep doing more investigation. 

You think asking for foreign interference in US elections is not an impeachable offense.  I disagree.

[Chiphigh]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It is illegal to ask for a foreign government for anything of value to assist an election campaign.  It is probably legal, but definitely unusual and suspicious, to ask for an announcement of an investigation as a pre-condition for a meeting with the US President.

Does that include the Obama administration too? Or is this just for the Republicans?