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

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

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. 

 

As has been explained repeatedly, your claims were "referenced with links" that did not support your claims.

Edited January 28, 2020 by heybruce

[WalkingOrders]

7 minutes 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.

 

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?

A man here is literally with a straight face claiming to be a mind reader. He claims 1. To KNOW Zelensky, a man he has never met, is lying in front of his own Country about a matter of grave importance 2. He claims to also KNOW all of Zelensky's internal reasoning. 3. He claims to KNOW Trump's internal reasoning for wanting an investigation that is likewise opposite of what the President stated publicly. 4. He claims that his presumed mind reading of President Trump is proof of Abuse of Power. 

 

Well Ladies and Gentlemen the moment has arrived Thought Crime is now a crime. Grab your guns and hunker down! They're coming!

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Chiphigh said:

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

A bit late, but show us an example of the Obama administration requesting foreign interference in an election.  Don't provide an irrelevant link and claim it proves something, provide a credible source and quote applicable parts of the source.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

A man here is literally with a straight face claiming to be a mind reader. He claims 1. To KNOW Zelensky, a man he has never met, is lying in front of his own Country about a matter of grave importance 2. He claims to also KNOW all of Zelensky's internal reasoning. 3. He claims to KNOW Trump's internal reasoning for wanting an investigation that is likewise opposite of what the President stated publicly. 4. He claims that his presumed mind reading of President Trump is proof of Abuse of Power. 

 

Well Ladies and Gentlemen the moment has arrived Thought Crime is now a crime. Grab your guns and hunker down! They're coming!

I have explained in terms anyone can understand why Zelensky would not admit to pressure.  For that reason his denial of pressure can not be taken at face value.

 

Once again you ignore the question of what Zelensky could gain by confirming that he was pressured by Trump.

 

You ignore the question because the answer is obvious:  confirming that Trump was pressuring him presented no upside to Ukraine and plenty of downside.

Edited January 28, 2020 by heybruce

[WalkingOrders]

As they spin down the drain they want to debate the direction the water is going.

[riclag]

29 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

A man here is literally with a straight face claiming to be a mind reader. He claims 1. To KNOW Zelensky, a man he has never met, is lying in front of his own Country about a matter of grave importance 2. He claims to also KNOW all of Zelensky's internal reasoning. 3. He claims to KNOW Trump's internal reasoning for wanting an investigation that is likewise opposite of what the President stated publicly. 4. He claims that his presumed mind reading of President Trump is proof of Abuse of Power. 

 

Well Ladies and Gentlemen the moment has arrived Thought Crime is now a crime. Grab your guns and hunker down! They're coming!

 I agree .It stands to reason that Z would go through other channels ,especially the dem or gop foreign aid reps in the congress to get ukraine's aid. But no need for him cause he said no pressure, no push, no blackmail on 3 occasion 

Edited January 28, 2020 by riclag

[rabas]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A bit late, but show us an example of the Obama administration requesting foreign interference in an election.  Don't provide an irrelevant link and claim it proves something, provide a credible source and quote applicable parts of the source.

Never too late. You know that Democrat impeachment managers voted against Ukraine aid, which they say Trump's brief delay of caused grievous harm to the nation?  To me, that is the very definition of Democrat.

Edited January 28, 2020 by rabas

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

Never too late. You know that Democrat impeachment managers voted against Ukraine aid, which they say Trump's brief delay of caused grievous harm to the nation?  To me, that is the very definition of the Democratic party.

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

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. 

If the reports about the book are correct, are you assuming that John Bolton will defy a Senate subpoena after saying he was willing to testify, or that he will perjure himself in front of the Senate?

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Once again you ignore the question of what Zelensky could gain by confirming that he was pressured by Trump.

 

You ignore the question because the answer is obvious:  confirming that Trump was pressuring him presented no upside to Ukraine and plenty of downside.

I have answered your ridiculous hypothetical question twice. Here one more time, and this is the last.

 

He gains what all men gain when they tell the truth. He gained the internal strength that all men gain when they tell the truth, likewise he had nothing to gain by telling a lie because if he had reason to believe the relationship with the USA was in ANY jeopardy, it is a reasonable assumption he would have appealed to the bipartisan congressional consensus in the USA, and to American public opinion. Is that clear enough?

 

Fortunately, no Assumption is required by me as Zelensky has been quite clear with his own words on the topic. So we know what he thinks because he has told us.

[rabas]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.

Broad statement on the long term behaviour of the Democratic party that fully explains the current impeachment  nonsense. Beyond 100% relevant.

[Chiphigh]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

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

If you are going to use this standard as an example, then the Obama administration is guilty of this and they should be in jail. Agreed? 

 

 

[WalkingOrders]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If the reports about the book are correct, are you assuming that John Bolton will defy a Senate subpoena after saying he was willing to testify, or that he will perjure himself in front of the Senate?

My assumptions on John Bolton re my last post are from following the career of John Bolton from perhaps before you were born.

 

And if that isn't true, and I am wrong about your age, then shame on you for not having a better understanding of the kind of guy John Bolton is. 

 

As for witnesses, as I said before Democrats should be careful about calling witnesses whose testimony they can't control.

[candide]

10 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

This is a lie, and you should be ashamed. He is on record numerous times, as is his is foreign minister speaking on his behalf in a lengthy televised interview, arguing they believed nothing was wrong with the call. Don't do things like that just to win a point man. You are making an empty claim on a point that is now well regarded about Zelensky. Stop it.

Please quote when he said no pressure. He did not say that.

[rabas]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

Please quote when he said no pressure. He did not say that.

The word pressure was used in summary. You know that I know that you know that. In spite of any forthcoming denial.

[WalkingOrders]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

Please quote when he said no pressure. He did not say that.

For God sakes man, do a quick search on Zelensky's opinion of the phone call , gather a hundred sources for all I care, and his foreign minister speaking on his behalf..find one...just one that says he had ANY issues with the call and stop playing this deceitful game to save face.

[candide]

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

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. 

Please quote

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, rabas said:

Never too late. You know that Democrat impeachment managers voted against Ukraine aid, which they say Trump's brief delay of caused grievous harm to the nation?  To me, that is the very definition of Democrat.

Pathetic and irrelevant attempt at misleading. These Democrats did not vote  against various National Defense Authorization Act because of opposition to aiding Ukraine. Aid to Ukraine composed a minisucle part of the entire bill. They did not oppose aiding Ukraine. 

U.S. House to vote on massive defense bill Wednesday, Democrats divided

The U.S. House of Representatives is due to vote on Wednesday - and likely pass - a $738 billion defense bill setting policy on everything from family leave to fighter jets, despite opposition among some Democrats who control the chamber...

 

But the compromise NDAA does not include several policy planks the House included in the version of the bill it passed in July.

Those include a provision that would have barred Trump from using military funds to build a wall on the border with Mexico, and a measure that would have ended all support for the Saudi Arabia-led military campaign in Yemen.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-congress/u-s-house-to-vote-on-massive-defense-bill-wednesday-democrats-divided-idUSKBN1YF025

House passes ‘progressive’ defense bill, 377-48

" In a strong bipartisan vote, the House passed a compromise defense policy bill that authorizes a new Space Force and $738 billion for the Pentagon. However, a small but vocal group of Democrats voted against it because of the absence of new war powers restrictions, arms control language and border wall mandates. The vote was 377-48.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/11/house-passes-progressive-defense-bill-377-48/

 

[candide]

Just now, WalkingOrders said:

For God sakes man, do a quick search on Zelensky's opinion of the phone call , gather a hundred sources for all I care, and his foreign minister speaking on his behalf..find one...just one that says he had ANY issues with the call and stop playing this deceitful game to save face.

He said he did not FEEL pressured and also "during the call". From witnesses and text message we know the QPQ was communicated outside the call.

[bristolboy]

38 minutes ago, rabas said:

Never too late. You know that Democrat impeachment managers voted against Ukraine aid, which they say Trump's brief delay of caused grievous harm to the nation?  To me, that is the very definition of Democrat.

And even if your assertion wasn't wildly misleading, it's still utterly irrelevant. The question isn't whether a representative opposed or supported the massive defense bills, the question is whether Trump tried to withheld the funds authorized by that bill for the corrupt purpose of coercing the Ukraine into announcing an investigation of his strongest political opponent. In other words, the question is whether or not he abused the power of the presidency.

[WalkingOrders]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Pathetic and irrelevant attempt at misleading. These Democrats did not vote  against various National Defense Authorization Act because of opposition to aiding Ukraine. Aid to Ukraine composed a minisucle part of the entire bill. They did not oppose aiding Ukraine. 

U.S. House to vote on massive defense bill Wednesday, Democrats divided

The U.S. House of Representatives is due to vote on Wednesday - and likely pass - a $738 billion defense bill setting policy on everything from family leave to fighter jets, despite opposition among some Democrats who control the chamber...

 

But the compromise NDAA does not include several policy planks the House included in the version of the bill it passed in July.

Those include a provision that would have barred Trump from using military funds to build a wall on the border with Mexico, and a measure that would have ended all support for the Saudi Arabia-led military campaign in Yemen.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-congress/u-s-house-to-vote-on-massive-defense-bill-wednesday-democrats-divided-idUSKBN1YF025

House passes ‘progressive’ defense bill, 377-48

" In a strong bipartisan vote, the House passed a compromise defense policy bill that authorizes a new Space Force and $738 billion for the Pentagon. However, a small but vocal group of Democrats voted against it because of the absence of new war powers restrictions, arms control language and border wall mandates. The vote was 377-48.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/11/house-passes-progressive-defense-bill-377-48/

 

Can we refrain please from quoting full pages of article text that you are giving a link to, as if they are your own words?

[riclag]

Normal  conversation the key witness said! it was normal and no push which was  imop to mean no pressure ,which the Potus thought  he meant using English as Z's second language 

 

"Ukraine’s president, in his first public comments on the phone call that led to an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, said Wednesday that the call was “normal,” that “nobody pushed me,” and that he did not want to become entangled in American elections".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/world/europe/zelensky-trump.html

[WalkingOrders]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

He said he did not FEEL pressured and also "during the call". From witnesses and text message we know the QPQ was communicated outside the call.

This is simply becoming pathetic. Lay down your arms dude, it's over.

[riclag]

That was the first time . He went on to say it 2 more times in future interviews The key witness no push ,normal ,no blackmail. The key witness!

Edited January 28, 2020 by riclag

[heybruce]

39 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I have answered your ridiculous hypothetical question twice. Here one more time, and this is the last.

 

He gains what all men gain when they tell the truth. He gained the internal strength that all men gain when they tell the truth, likewise he had nothing to gain by telling a lie because if he had reason to believe the relationship with the USA was in ANY jeopardy, it is a reasonable assumption he would have appealed to the bipartisan congressional consensus in the USA, and to American public opinion. Is that clear enough?

 

Fortunately, no Assumption is required by me as Zelensky has been quite clear with his own words on the topic. So we know what he thinks because he has told us.

Trump is notoriously thin-skinned and vengeful.  You think Zelensky would offend him with the truth regardless of the cost to Ukraine?

 

Zelensky probably knows US politics better than you.  Trump has the means to exact retribution regardless of any "bipartisan congressional consensus".  Also, history has shown that what Trump directs his Republican congressional lapdogs to do is usually obeyed, so the continuation of the bipartisan consensus is far from assured.

 

Interesting that you think telling the truth gives internal strength.  Trump must be totally devoid of such strength, it's a wonder he doesn't deflate like a balloon.

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

My assumptions on John Bolton re my last post are from following the career of John Bolton from perhaps before you were born.

 

And if that isn't true, and I am wrong about your age, then shame on you for not having a better understanding of the kind of guy John Bolton is. 

 

As for witnesses, as I said before Democrats should be careful about calling witnesses whose testimony they can't control.

Dodged another question.

[heybruce]

20 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

If you are going to use this standard as an example, then the Obama administration is guilty of this and they should be in jail. Agreed? 

 

 

Once again, an absurd claim unsupported by any evidence.  Apparently my request that you not provide an irrelevant link resulted in no link at all.

[heybruce]

43 minutes ago, rabas said:

Broad statement on the long term behaviour of the Democratic party that fully explains the current impeachment  nonsense. Beyond 100% relevant.

Read the post that you replied to.  What did your topic have to do with evidence of the Obama administration seeking foreign interference in US elections?

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

He gains what all men gain when they tell the truth. He gained the internal strength that all men gain when they tell the truth, likewise he had nothing to gain by telling a lie because if he had reason to believe the relationship with the USA was in ANY jeopardy, it is a reasonable assumption he would have appealed to the bipartisan congressional consensus in the USA, and to American public opinion. Is that clear enough?

The only thing clear here is the absolute lack of realism behind your homily. Do you get that Ukraine is under an existential threat from Russia? That Russia has already illegally appropriated a piece of Ukrainian territory? That Donald Trump has never said an unkind about Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, who authorized the invasion of the Ukraine? The guy who is backing a separatist movement in Eastern Ukraine and has furnished not only weapons but troops toward that end? And you think Zelensky is going to publicly contradict Trump because of some Boy Scout notion about honesty? If honesty was such an important element in building character and giving strength, then Donald Trump has to be the weakest figure on the international state. And ya think Zelensky wants to publicly go against Trump because he can appeal to Congress? That's a fight he would want to get into? 

Stalin was once told by Churchill that the Pope would oppose him if he acted aggressively in Eastern Europe. Stalin's response to that was "How many divisions does the Pope have?" 

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, riclag said:

Normal  conversation the key witness said! it was normal and no push which was  imop to mean no pressure ,which the Potus thought  he meant using English as Z's second language 

 

"Ukraine’s president, in his first public comments on the phone call that led to an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, said Wednesday that the call was “normal,” that “nobody pushed me,” and that he did not want to become entangled in American elections".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/world/europe/zelensky-trump.html

Zelensky doesn't want to get involved in US politics or get on Trump's bad side.  That's obvious to everyone who isn't wearing Trump blinders.

 

As I posted repeatedly, there is no upside to Zelensky antagonizing Trump, and considerable risk to his country.  Honorable leaders will lie to protect their country.  That is why Zelensky's statements can not be taken as truthful representations of what happened. 

 

Fortunately the facts, in the form of the phone call notes ("do us a favor" is as clear as "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse") and the sworn testimony of administration officials, make it clear that Trump wanted an announcement of BS investigations that would hurt his presumed Democratic opponent in the Presidential election.  Trump was interfering with "the very sacred election process" (Trump's words), which is an impeachable offense.