MetoliusAg said:

---

Not at all. What *I* said was: read the twitter thread because it contains useful information. I didn't say Wittes' statement and the other tweets supporting it were my opinion.

If you're asking my opinion, I think Joyce Vance is correct: the actions of Trump, Giuliani, and Sondland meet the statutory definitions in the federal code.

---

Ug. For that position to be any more than nonsensical, you have to 1st, show that the Biden comments were predicted on the aid. Very shakey ground. Then you have to assume an investigation into corruption was something of personal value to Trump, and not of value at all to the American people.

It's kind of like you are assuming that all investigations into political corruption are a sham that are only pursued for political points, and not at all something that could be used to reduce political corruption, which has value to the country. Pretty jaded view.

I would rather that the use of corruption investigations for personal political points would just go away, and we could start really locking up people swimming in the DC cesspool.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Ag00Ag said:

---

Oh Boy! MetoliusAg law with Hawg.... This aught to be good.

---

It was fun for me (dunno if it was for her) the previous two times she and I tangled on legal stuff. I schooled her on the case facts of the FBI's search warrant for Manafort's rented storage unit, and I cleared up some of her misunderstandings about FISA warrants.

---

I've come to realize you're stealing my oxygen MetoliusAg, but I'll allow since I enjoy the fact you're going to have to spend the next 5 years depressed.

MetoliusAg said:

---

titan said:

---

On reflection, you answered my question actually.

Actually we can reach an agreement. My main basis for scorn is the behavior of the Left Democrats since Inauguration 2017 (nay, even election day) as really abnormal and beyond the usual partisanship. With things like undermining attempts to secure the border by any means necessary skating pretty close to having nefarious goals. Then you have trumped up Mueller matter, and the already built-in undermining set up by the prior admin. The Democrats have been trying to come up with a way to remove him since Jan 2017. Even the Bill Clinton one wasn't quite that flaky. So this latest effort to remove carries no gravitas - no weight -- is bogus.

However, you think the same behavior since Inauguration Day is sufficiently `normal' and with precedent as to think there is no grounds for concern. Nor does the Mueller thing look shady to you. Hence, the Schiff impeachment looks legitimate to you as much as it does not to me and using the same reference point, and by that belief about 2017, it holds up.

That difference is something we can agree on. How one sees the impeachment depends on how one sees the Left DNC-MSM "resistance" all the dossier and Mueller stuff, fighting securing the border, and actions since Jan 2017.

Okay. Perfect grounds to agree to disagree. The starting lens of how 2017 is viewed is too different. Simple. Has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anything else-- just how those actions are differently seen.

---

I think it is ludicrous for Barr and other R's to label political rhetoric and political opposition -- both which are longstanding norms in American politics and American democracy -- as some kind of nefarious undemocratic action. Freedom of association and freedom of speech are protected by the 1A and two of the cornerstones of our system.

---

I think you are way downplaying just what the Democrats and their allies have been doing since even Election Day, but so be it. You are drawing a shaky comparison to a more standard (and also kind of stupid) automatic political opposition.

But this dug in aspect and whole "scorched earth" mentality, goes way beyond the examples you have in mind. (The Clinton impeachment is at least in the zip code--but didn't begin out of the gate) Remember, talking party and use of institutional tools --not talking heads. Republican opposition to Obama in 2010 had as much to do with the non-transparency and shutting out from process that he practiced when he essentially turned over the govt to Pelosi. ("I won" didn't help) A genuine bipartisan attempt -- without resort to fake doctors (dermdoc doubtless remembers posting on that) might have found ground. And speaking of bipartisan, the Democrats were so unhinged about Trump beating Hillary they didn't even try to work with him. And he is someone Republican conservatives rightly feared would BE willing to work with you, on various things, if met half-way. But they basically declared "scored earth" on him from the outset. This of course sank much of Trump's initial goodwill that you still see flash up now and then--a desire to compromise that irritates the right. All for Hillary, who likely would have been an American Merkel.

But having pinpointed this disconnect, it is useful, for it shows where the pivot lies. I don't see any way to put good face on the 2017-to-present Democrat behavior but if there is a way, that's the key. Likewise, maybe you will come to see the utter deranged derailment of a narrative that has gone as far as to accuse other Democratic Presidential candidates of the Russia business.

Oh, addressing AG Barr's statement. There can be disagreement about his take on the executive (found part of it pretty surprising but persuasive) without obscuring his overall point about the behavior. He sure backed up what he was saying with a lot of exposition, and the term "resistance" is not his doing, but coined by the Democrat side before Inauguration. Its not on Barr.

Great to have you back Titan.

Titan:

Volker and Morrison did a lot of damage to Trump and Sondland today. Volker threw Sondland and Giuliani under the bus. Morrison verified Sondland said he was getting his directions on the Ukraine demands direct from Trump.

There are texts, emails, the phone call, and witnesses. And there are the self-incrimating statements from Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Sondland.

When Trump was asked what he was trying to get Zelensky to do in the July 25 phone call, Trump replied he was trying to get Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. It's on videotape. Giuliani admitted his objective was the same. Mulvaney admitted he held the aid up and it was a quid pro quo. Several witnesses have verified Sondland told Yermak that the aid and state visit were conditioned on Zelensky giving a statement that Ukraine was opening investigations into the Bidens & Buresma and also into Trump's Crowdstrike conspiracy theory.

By the end of this Trump will confess but his testimony will be dismissed because he's a never-Trumper.

The only conspiracy theory is the one you believed: Donald Trump was a Russian asset.

When are you going to hold the Democrats to the same standard? Call for Obama and Hillary to be tried for the Russian hoax and Biden be prosecuted for his Ukrainian corruption?

C@LAg said:

---

So he had no knowledge, but has amended his statement saying he had no knowledge, but he NOW knows it is based on hearsay he heard after the fact (so since it is hearsay, it can only be opinion.

So in other words. He is a liar. He either lied then or is lying now.

---

Porque no los dos, guey?!

C@LAg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

When are you going to hold the Democrats to the same standard? Call for Obama and Hillary to be tried for the Russian hoax and Biden be prosecuted for his Ukrainian corruption?

---

who cares. he is literally the dumbest, most partisan person posting on forum 16, and I welcome every single one of his responses.

---

Just want one of these hypocrites to admit they don't care about corruption in the Democrat party.

I believe that Adam Schiff's mental problems are due to bullying by his classmates during elementary and high school.

Any child that had such a large head and bug eyes had to be a prime target for bullies, especially with a last name of Schiff.

It has been well documented that victims of bullying have a strong tendency to become bullies themselves. Schiff fits that profile like a glove.

BuddysBud said:

---

In what world were you watching the testimony? The entire Dem fraud was exposed today.
1. We pretty much know who leaked information to the supposed whistleblower. A loyal officer to everyone except his directE supervisor and his commander and chief. And that Schiff knows the WB identity.
2. We learned that delivery of the missiles were never in question or held up.
3. Volker said that although he didn't believe the 2016 election interference he thought that it should be investigated.
4. Volker, the only one who communicated with all parties in question, did not believe there was any wrongdoing, quid pro quo, bribery, or extortion.
5. Morrison and a Lt General who heard The Call did not see that Trump said anything wrong.
6. Edit to add that when directly asked about the report Met is citing, Volker said that it is false.
7. Volker said that Giuliani was acting as a private citizen, not as an official representative of the U.S. government (which would be the Trump administration). But he did take his concerns seriously.
8. Morrison and Volker said that Trump did not trust the Ukrainian government initially. It was after they made significant changes to their laws that Trump felt comfortable with the new Ukrainian administration. At that point the aid was released.

It was a bad day for Schiff & Co.

---

1) Yes it appears Vindeman did share information with the WB, or at least someone connected to the WB. What information from the WB complaint has been proven wrong so far?

2) Explicitly the missiles or aid in general? I'm not sure the missiles were delayed but it sure sounds like the aid was... Sounds like the Ukrainians were schiffing a few proverbial bricks over it.

3) So he doesn't believe that there's any truth to the Ukrainian interference but he's open to it being investigated? Cool, so am I.

4) I must have missed the part where he said this. Also he's not only one at the party, it's not even clear he was involved in the conversations in question. Also, it's not his judgement that determines if it was a crime...

5) So the LT General was Vindeman, right? He reported this? He presumably communicated with the whistleblower per your first point. Sounds like he saw something wrong. Again, it's not their judgement call if something was wrong. They're just giving us facts.

6) whatever, I'm tired and don't want to track this one down

7) Giuliani was representing Trump. Not a private citizen. HOW THE FRENCH IS THIS RELEVANT? THAT'S not how this works. He can't be both acting as an attorney for a private citizen and acting as the representative of POTUS when they are the same person! you have to pick one...

8) Trump didn't trust the Ukranians because Putin told him "they are so corrupt" and nothing more... If he had any interest in corruption rather than political gain I'd be on his side

MetoliusAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The bribery stuff is nonsensical. The reason GOP keeps bringing it up is because they know how stupid it makes the democrats look.

---

It isn't nonsensical, and the Dems and ex-DOJ prosecutors keep bringing it up because it is what Trump, Giuliani and Sondland did. In this impeachment, both the statutory and the Constitution's meaning of bribery apply and are material.

Here's a short but interesting thread worth clicking and reading. You might not agree with what it says, but at least we'll have some common context for future reference in discussions:

---

there's really nothing interesting in that tweet.

Heres what LawFare says about constitutional bribery, from Blackstone:

"when a judge, or other person concerned in the administration of justice, takes any undue reward to influence his behavior in his office....in England this offense of taking bribes is punished, in inferior officers, with fine and imprisonment; and in those who offer a bribe, though not taken, the same"

Trump did not take anything, so no bribe. The "offer" of a bribe would have to come from someone to Trump and that never occurred.

from Jacob's Law Dictionary:

Receiving, or Offering, any undue Reward, to or by any Person concerned in the Administration of publick [sic] Justice.

Trump didn't receive anything or offer any undue reward.

LawFare conclusion:

At the time the Constitution was drafted, when people thought of bribery, they thought in broad terms of the corrupt use of an official's public power to achieve private ends."

incredibly bad take. Corrupt use of an official power to achieve private ends may very well be a high crime, but its not bribery.

As a wise man once said:

Quote:

---

The bribery stuff is nonsensical. The reason GOP keeps bringing it up is because they know how stupid it makes the democrats look.

---

Womp womp

Anyone else get the feeling that Sondland is going to sell Trump out today and make himself the hero for the left? CNN and ABC et al keep pointing to his testimony today calling it must see tv. I get the feeling that they know he is going to roll over on POTUS. Really hope that I am wrong.

Ratings in the trash, public doesnt care and losing independents.

Buddy was right. I don't care to rebutt your claims, but they aren't exactly right.

You mean purger himself on national TV to make friends with the media?

oneeyedag said:

---

Ratings in the trash, public doesnt care and losing independents.

---

Fox News had its best daytime ratings since the midterms.

13 million people across all networks watching during the day is not "in the trash "

aggiearcher06 said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

In what world were you watching the testimony? The entire Dem fraud was exposed today.
1. We pretty much know who leaked information to the supposed whistleblower. A loyal officer to everyone except his directE supervisor and his commander and chief. And that Schiff knows the WB identity.
2. We learned that delivery of the missiles were never in question or held up.
3. Volker said that although he didn't believe the 2016 election interference he thought that it should be investigated.
4. Volker, the only one who communicated with all parties in question, did not believe there was any wrongdoing, quid pro quo, bribery, or extortion.
5. Morrison and a Lt General who heard The Call did not see that Trump said anything wrong.
6. Edit to add that when directly asked about the report Met is citing, Volker said that it is false.
7. Volker said that Giuliani was acting as a private citizen, not as an official representative of the U.S. government (which would be the Trump administration). But he did take his concerns seriously.
8. Morrison and Volker said that Trump did not trust the Ukrainian government initially. It was after they made significant changes to their laws that Trump felt comfortable with the new Ukrainian administration. At that point the aid was released.

It was a bad day for Schiff & Co.

---

1) Yes it appears Vindeman did share information with the WB, or at least someone connected to the WB. What information from the WB complaint has been proven wrong so far?

2) Explicitly the missiles or aid in general? I'm not sure the missiles were delayed but it sure sounds like the aid was... Sounds like the Ukrainians were schiffing a few proverbial bricks over it.

3) So he doesn't believe that there's any truth to the Ukrainian interference but he's open to it being investigated? Cool, so am I.

4) I must have missed the part where he said this. Also he's not only one at the party, it's not even clear he was involved in the conversations in question. Also, it's not his judgement that determines if it was a crime...

5) So the LT General was Vindeman, right? He reported this? He presumably communicated with the whistleblower per your first point. Sounds like he saw something wrong. Again, it's not their judgement call if something was wrong. They're just giving us facts.

6) whatever, I'm tired and don't want to track this one down

7) Giuliani was representing Trump. Not a private citizen. HOW THE FRENCH IS THIS RELEVANT? THAT'S not how this works. He can't be both acting as an attorney for a private citizen and acting as the representative of POTUS when they are the same person! you have to pick one...

8) Trump didn't trust the Ukranians because Putin told him "they are so corrupt" and nothing more... If he had any interest in corruption rather than political gain I'd be on his side

---

Was your last handle banned?

1. Everything. From Morrison and Volker Trump was just doing his job. The only thing that they found odd was Trump asking about the Bidens. They agreed that requests by the U.S. government to investigate U.S. citizens have certain procedures and Trump was not following the procedure. Of course with people like Vindman in the loop, can you blame him for not trusting diplomatic channels?

2. The Ukrainians were concerned about the aid. We don't know if they were Shiffing bricks. The Anti-tank missiles seem to be what the Dems were Schiffing bricks over. According to Morrison, they were never held up. Also if the Dems didn't leak that aid was being held up, it was a nonissue.

3. Apparently it is an issue for Vindman who ran to the lawyers and his secret friend in the CIA and to the Dems who are waisting time over this. If nothing happened the Dems should want Ukraine to investigate to show that nothing happened. Likewise, if Biden didn't do anything illegal, inappropriate, or perceived to be a conflict of interest, he should welcome an investigation. I thought that is what the Dems were saying for the past three years.

4. EVERY person who heard from a friend who heard from a friend and others interviewed has said that they did not witness a crime. There is no crime. Just hearsay and Schiff making up BS

5. The Lt General has not been called but issued a statement yesterday that he saw nothing improper with the call. You can see the posts above. Vindman is the only one who whined about the call. He had time to tell the lawyers and his CIA secret buddy but apparently didn't have time to go through the proper chain of command (Morrison). Vindman shows that he has no credibility and likely belongs in prison for leaking classified information.

7. Giuliani was representing Trump as his personal lawyer, looking for evidence of Ukrainian interference in 2016. Above you said that you welcome such an investigation. From all the testimony, he was taking only to persons associated with the old regime, not anyone in the Zelensky government. Thus he was not doing government business. Even the President has the right to a private attorney, especially if your political opponents continually come up with false accusations against you and have been making it clear from the election that they plan to find something for impeachment.

8. Nobody trusted the Ukrainians. Even I don't trust emails originating from Ukraine. From yesterday's testimony, Trump especially didn't trust the Ukrainians because he believes that they were actively campaigning against him during the 2016 election. At a minimum, based upon articles published by Ukrainian officials during the time of the 2016 election, Ukrainian individuals publicly were against Trump winning the election. Putin has nothing to do with it.

MousepadMarauder said:

---

Anyone else get the feeling that Sondland is going to sell Trump out today and make himself the hero for the left? CNN and ABC et al keep pointing to his testimony today calling it must see tv. I get the feeling that they know he is going to roll over on POTUS. Really hope that I am wrong.

---

By sell out you mean tell the truth because he doesn't want to go to jail. Yes there's a good chance. The prospect of jail time and witnesses contradicting his early testimony did a good job refreshing his memory.

So when are we going to start hearing the evidence of Trump committing a crime?

I remember in the Clinton mess, it was proven that he committed perjury. And three was bipartisan support for his impeachment.

Seen enough..No need to watch any more.

Will make another Trump donation

IMnAg79 said:

---

Seen enough..No need to watch any more.

Will make another Trump donation

---

Seems like A LOT are doing the same thing.

He can "sell out" trump all he wants. No crime occurred.

That's a blatant mischaracterization of what has transpired.

He was not asked about what he allegedly omitted so there was nothing to contradict.

The only perjurer we currently have on record is Vindman.

hbtheduce said:

---

He can "sell out" trump all he wants. No crime occurred.

---

The liberals on here are hoping against hope that somebody will be nuts enough to lie against Trump under oath. Not gonna happen lol.

It doesn't matter. As we saw yesterday the media will just lie.