Quote:

---

OK. So there was evidence that they asked about it. Is there evidence that they were told specifically that they had to do this to get that?

---

There is circumstantial evidence of this in testimony and the call itself, but there is no direct evidence, or smoking gun in the impeachment official record that President Trump directly told Ukraine that they had to get this for that.

Quote:

---

Also, I have heard several claims that Trump was not in a position to withold the aid for any reason. But I have also heard that he did have that right. I am speaking in generalizations, not specific to any reason why or why not. Did he have the right to hold the money?

---

Like you, I've also heard both arguments. I don't have a problem with the President placing a hold as long as it's supported legally and is consistent with US foreign policy. Since President Trump has decided not to release any documents, we don't have a full picture telling us if there was a legitimate reason for the hold.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Circumstantial evidence must be based in verifiable facts, not conjecture, opinion, or hearsay.

Admit that you're wrong, and accept that you only take issue with the appearance of impropriety of Trump's action (which should give you enough reason to vote against him, but not enough to impeach).

I'm fine with progressives until they start lying.

---

One of the most popular forms of circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial is a witness telling investigators that they saw the suspect at some place at some time. That is not a verifiable fact.

If there was video evidence of the suspect corroborating the witness, it would no longer be circumstantial evidence. It would be Demonstrative Evidence.

Oh, also, I'm not a progressive.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

brownbrick said:

---

JV would you agree House hasn't proven it's case at this point based on their completed investigation?

Yes or no will do.

---

No

---

Poor question by me. I'm not sure if you were not agreeing or saying not proven.

House has proven its case, or not proven it's case?

brownbrick said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

brownbrick said:

---

JV would you agree House hasn't proven it's case at this point based on their completed investigation?

Yes or no will do.

---

No

---

Poor question by me. I'm not sure if you were not agreeing or saying not proven.

House has proven its case, or not proven it's case?

---

I believe the House has proven their case.

Wow, there's some delusion for you!

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

OK. So there was evidence that they asked about it. Is there evidence that they were told specifically that they had to do this to get that?

---

There is circumstantial evidence of this in testimony and the call itself, but there is no direct evidence, or smoking gun in the impeachment official record that President Trump directly told Ukraine that they had to get this for that.

Quote:

---

Also, I have heard several claims that Trump was not in a position to withold the aid for any reason. But I have also heard that he did have that right. I am speaking in generalizations, not specific to any reason why or why not. Did he have the right to hold the money?

---

Like you, I've also heard both arguments. I don't have a problem with the President placing a hold as long as it's supported legally and is consistent with US foreign policy. Since President Trump has decided not to release any documents, we don't have a full picture telling us if there was a legitimate reason for the hold.

---

Now I read the 'transcript' of the call. Several times actually. And I saw zero evidence of this in the call. Can you tell me what evidence there is from the transcript?

This is where, and unlike many on here I do appreciate your resonses, but this is where I get off the impeachment train. You say that there is 'circumstantial but no direct evidence.' I have heard some of that testimony you referred to as well and a lot of what I have heard is third hand or conjecture or 'I think he meant'

How do you impeach a president on circumstantial evidence?

agsalaska said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

OK. So there was evidence that they asked about it. Is there evidence that they were told specifically that they had to do this to get that?

---

There is circumstantial evidence of this in testimony and the call itself, but there is no direct evidence, or smoking gun in the impeachment official record that President Trump directly told Ukraine that they had to get this for that.

Quote:

---

Also, I have heard several claims that Trump was not in a position to withold the aid for any reason. But I have also heard that he did have that right. I am speaking in generalizations, not specific to any reason why or why not. Did he have the right to hold the money?

---

Like you, I've also heard both arguments. I don't have a problem with the President placing a hold as long as it's supported legally and is consistent with US foreign policy. Since President Trump has decided not to release any documents, we don't have a full picture telling us if there was a legitimate reason for the hold.

---

Now I read the 'transcript' of the call. Several times actually. And I saw zero evidence of this in the call. Can you tell me what evidence there is from the transcript?

This is where, and unlike many on here I do appreciate your resonses, but this is where I get off the impeachment train. You say that there is 'circumstantial but no direct evidence.' I have heard some of that testimony you referred to as well and a lot of what I have heard is third hand or conjecture or 'I think he meant'

How do you impeach a president on circumstantial evidence?

---

It bothers me that he brought up the Bidens in the call. My personal viewpoint is that we should not tolerate any foreign interference in our elections. I don't believe there are any exceptions to that. For instance, I don't believe "the President has a right to investigate corruption" is an exception.

I don't think it's acceptable from either party, and any instance that shows Democrats did the same thing should be fully investigated and prosecuted.

After everything that we went through in the 2016 election regarding Russian interference, I can't understand why the President of the United States would take it upon himself to engage another foreign country to take an action that would impact another election.

If he truly believed there was corruption that needed to be investigated, he could have established another special counsel to explore that. That special counsel could have coordinated with Ukraine as part of their investigation.

aggiehawg said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

brownbrick said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

brownbrick said:

---

JV would you agree House hasn't proven it's case at this point based on their completed investigation?

Yes or no will do.

---

No

---

Poor question by me. I'm not sure if you were not agreeing or saying not proven.

House has proven its case, or not proven it's case?

---

I believe the House has proven their case.

---

Are you in the market for some beachfront property in Arizona, per chance?

---

No

JV, what is the House's case? That Trump (almost) improperly invoked executive privilege?

I'm truly trying to understand what you're thinking.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Does circumstantial evidence amount to Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors???

---

I think the House Managers have put together a very strong case using the evidence they collected. I also think it begs for additional testimony from people inside the circle with direct first hand knowledge.

With that said, yes, I think accusations described are an Abuse of Power that rises to the level of impeachment.

---

Sad and pathetic really. And if thats what you think then you are just doing lip service to the entire facade that your are somehow impartial and for transparency (for all) etc.....

By this same standard YOU could be convicted of attempted murder because someone thinks you intended to kill someone even if you didn't do anything and they have no evidence - and you are unable to prove that you didn't want to kill them.

If that's the America you want you're a communist at heart or a bleeding heart Liberal at worst.

It's even worse to consider this the level of proof needed to remove a President - the political firestorm that would follow will be a nightmare for any President. This makes the President (who is THE unilateral authority of the Executive branch) beholden to the whims of Congress. THAT is NOT how the balance of power works. Nor should it. The executive is equal to Congress and the Judicial. Period.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

JV, what is the House's case? That Trump (almost) improperly invoked executive privilege?

I'm truly trying to understand what you're thinking.

---

I'm not going to restate the House's case. We are both consuming the same information. If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. No hard feelings here.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Does circumstantial evidence amount to Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors???

---

I think the House Managers have put together a very strong case using the evidence they collected. I also think it begs for additional testimony from people inside the circle with direct first hand knowledge.

With that said, yes, I think accusations described are an Abuse of Power that rises to the level of impeachment.

---

Sad and pathetic really. And if thats what you think then you are just doing lip service to the entire facade that your are somehow impartial and for transparency (for all) etc.....

By this same standard YOU could be convicted of attempted murder because someone thinks you intended to kill someone even if you didn't do anything and they have no evidence - and you are unable to prove that you didn't want to kill them.

If that's the America you want you're a communist at heart or a bleeding heart Liberal at worst.

It's even worse to consider this the level of proof needed to remove a President - the political firestorm that would follow will be a nightmare for any President. This makes the President (who is THE unilateral authority of the Executive branch) beholden to the whims of Congress. THAT is NOT how the balance of power works. Nor should it. The executive is equal to Congress and the Judicial. Period.

---

Why wouldn't I be able to prove this by showing my receipts proving my alibi and then asking my friends who were all with me to confirm my alibi as well?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

JV, what is the House's case? That Trump (almost) improperly invoked executive privilege?

I'm truly trying to understand what you're thinking.

---

I'm not going to restate the House's case. We are both consuming the same information. If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. No hard feelings here.

---

But what are they trying to prove? Obstruction of Congress (which I guess is the equivalent of improperly invoking privilege??) and abuse of power (obtaining a personal benefit???)

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Does circumstantial evidence amount to Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors???

---

I think the House Managers have put together a very strong case using the evidence they collected. I also think it begs for additional testimony from people inside the circle with direct first hand knowledge.

With that said, yes, I think accusations described are an Abuse of Power that rises to the level of impeachment.

---

Sad and pathetic really. And if thats what you think then you are just doing lip service to the entire facade that your are somehow impartial and for transparency (for all) etc.....

By this same standard YOU could be convicted of attempted murder because someone thinks you intended to kill someone even if you didn't do anything and they have no evidence - and you are unable to prove that you didn't want to kill them.

If that's the America you want you're a communist at heart or a bleeding heart Liberal at worst.

It's even worse to consider this the level of proof needed to remove a President - the political firestorm that would follow will be a nightmare for any President. This makes the President (who is THE unilateral authority of the Executive branch) beholden to the whims of Congress. THAT is NOT how the balance of power works. Nor should it. The executive is equal to Congress and the Judicial. Period.

---

Why wouldn't I be able to prove this by showing my receipts proving my alibi and then asking my friends who were all with me to confirm my alibi as well?

---

Does Biden on video stating he got the Ukrainian fired count as demonstrative evidence?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Does circumstantial evidence amount to Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors???

---

I think the House Managers have put together a very strong case using the evidence they collected. I also think it begs for additional testimony from people inside the circle with direct first hand knowledge.

With that said, yes, I think accusations described are an Abuse of Power that rises to the level of impeachment.

---

Sad and pathetic really. And if thats what you think then you are just doing lip service to the entire facade that your are somehow impartial and for transparency (for all) etc.....

By this same standard YOU could be convicted of attempted murder because someone thinks you intended to kill someone even if you didn't do anything and they have no evidence - and you are unable to prove that you didn't want to kill them.

If that's the America you want you're a communist at heart or a bleeding heart Liberal at worst.

It's even worse to consider this the level of proof needed to remove a President - the political firestorm that would follow will be a nightmare for any President. This makes the President (who is THE unilateral authority of the Executive branch) beholden to the whims of Congress. THAT is NOT how the balance of power works. Nor should it. The executive is equal to Congress and the Judicial. Period.

---

Why wouldn't I be able to prove this by showing my receipts proving my alibi and then asking my friends who were all with me to confirm my alibi as well?

---

A. That's the wrong standard

B. That information is not privileged

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

JV, what is the House's case? That Trump (almost) improperly invoked executive privilege?

I'm truly trying to understand what you're thinking.

---

I'm not going to restate the House's case. We are both consuming the same information. If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. No hard feelings here.

---

But what are they trying to prove? Obstruction of Congress (which I guess is the equivalent of improperly invoking privilege??) and abuse of power (obtaining a personal benefit???)

---

To simplify it, the President used the ultimate power of his office to benefit him personally.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

JV, what is the House's case? That Trump (almost) improperly invoked executive privilege?

I'm truly trying to understand what you're thinking.

---

I'm not going to restate the House's case. We are both consuming the same information. If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. No hard feelings here.

---

But what are they trying to prove? Obstruction of Congress (which I guess is the equivalent of improperly invoking privilege??) and abuse of power (obtaining a personal benefit???)

---

To simplify it, the President used the ultimate power of his office to benefit him personally.

---

And what's the benefit, that he wins in 2020? He doesn't take a salary so what is the personal benefit?

It's almost like we've tuned in to CNN

The obstruction of Congress is debunked because: A. Schiff withdrew the subpoenas, and B. Executive privilege could have been asserted.

I still don't quite understand the abuse of power allegation.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

JV, what is the House's case? That Trump (almost) improperly invoked executive privilege?

I'm truly trying to understand what you're thinking.

---

I'm not going to restate the House's case. We are both consuming the same information. If you don't agree, I'm fine with that. No hard feelings here.

---

But what are they trying to prove? Obstruction of Congress (which I guess is the equivalent of improperly invoking privilege??) and abuse of power (obtaining a personal benefit???)

---

To simplify it, the President used the ultimate power of his office to benefit him personally.

---

And what's the benefit, that he wins in 2020? He doesn't take a salary so what is the personal benefit?

---

The personal benefit is hurting your political opponent, which helps your own campaign.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The obstruction of Congress is debunked because: A. Schiff withdrew the subpoenas, and B. Executive privilege could have been asserted.

I still don't quite understand the abuse of power allegation.

---

I agree with you on Obstruction of Congress.

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

Would it be ok if Biden wasn't a political opponent?

Pinche Abogado said:

---

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

---

It's a pretty common discussion topic here wondering how Obama got so rich after he left the White House. It's not a secret that there are personal benefits for taking the job.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

OK. So there was evidence that they asked about it. Is there evidence that they were told specifically that they had to do this to get that?

---

There is circumstantial evidence of this in testimony and the call itself, but there is no direct evidence, or smoking gun in the impeachment official record that President Trump directly told Ukraine that they had to get this for that.

Quote:

---

Also, I have heard several claims that Trump was not in a position to withold the aid for any reason. But I have also heard that he did have that right. I am speaking in generalizations, not specific to any reason why or why not. Did he have the right to hold the money?

---

Like you, I've also heard both arguments. I don't have a problem with the President placing a hold as long as it's supported legally and is consistent with US foreign policy. Since President Trump has decided not to release any documents, we don't have a full picture telling us if there was a legitimate reason for the hold.

---

Now I read the 'transcript' of the call. Several times actually. And I saw zero evidence of this in the call. Can you tell me what evidence there is from the transcript?

This is where, and unlike many on here I do appreciate your resonses, but this is where I get off the impeachment train. You say that there is 'circumstantial but no direct evidence.' I have heard some of that testimony you referred to as well and a lot of what I have heard is third hand or conjecture or 'I think he meant'

How do you impeach a president on circumstantial evidence?

---

It bothers me that he brought up the Bidens in the call. My personal viewpoint is that we should not tolerate any foreign interference in our elections. I don't believe there are any exceptions to that. For instance, I don't believe "the President has a right to investigate corruption" is an exception.

I don't think it's acceptable from either party, and any instance that shows Democrats did the same thing should be fully investigated and prosecuted.

After everything that we went through in the 2016 election regarding Russian interference, I can't understand why the President of the United States would take it upon himself to engage another foreign country to take an action that would impact another election.

If he truly believed there was corruption that needed to be investigated, he could have established another special counsel to explore that. That special counsel could have coordinated with Ukraine as part of their investigation.

---

Then you should start pushing for the censorship of news stations like the BBC, Al Jezzera, and RT. You should also be pro Voter-ID laws.

Its a stupid standard. I'm fine with countries weighing in on our elections LEGALLY. Investigating possible corruption in Ukraine is legal. Fabricating evidence would not be cool.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Does circumstantial evidence amount to Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors???

---

I think the House Managers have put together a very strong case using the evidence they collected. I also think it begs for additional testimony from people inside the circle with direct first hand knowledge.

With that said, yes, I think accusations described are an Abuse of Power that rises to the level of impeachment.

---

Sad and pathetic really. And if thats what you think then you are just doing lip service to the entire facade that your are somehow impartial and for transparency (for all) etc.....

By this same standard YOU could be convicted of attempted murder because someone thinks you intended to kill someone even if you didn't do anything and they have no evidence - and you are unable to prove that you didn't want to kill them.

If that's the America you want you're a communist at heart or a bleeding heart Liberal at worst.

It's even worse to consider this the level of proof needed to remove a President - the political firestorm that would follow will be a nightmare for any President. This makes the President (who is THE unilateral authority of the Executive branch) beholden to the whims of Congress. THAT is NOT how the balance of power works. Nor should it. The executive is equal to Congress and the Judicial. Period.

---

Why wouldn't I be able to prove this by showing my receipts proving my alibi and then asking my friends who were all with me to confirm my alibi as well?

---

Glossing over the part where I said "you are unable to prove you are innocent". And missing the point of the example entirely - nobody was killed in this scenario. But you are tried for attempted murder.

In this scenario you have no alibi, you have no receipts, you have no witnesses, etc. But you have several people who THINK you wanted to kill someone based on THEIR interpretation of either things you said or things they heard second hand. And there is no victim because nobody was killed.

But in this Libtopian future scenario you don't have to be proven to have done anything criminal. Simply someone thinking you intended it is enough.

Off to prison you go for attempted murder.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

---

It's a pretty common discussion topic here wondering how Obama got so rich after he left the White House. It's not a secret that there are personal benefits for taking the job.

---

So now the billionaire is gonna get rich off being President?

that's rich. lol

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

In all seriousness, we were told that Trump only wanted publicity in the 2016 and that he wasn't a serious candidate and that he regretted being elected.

But, now, we're being told that he's hungry to secure the presidency again. Why? He's actually performing as a president should perform (and for free).

What's the benefit?

---

It's a pretty common discussion topic here wondering how Obama got so rich after he left the White House. It's not a secret that there are personal benefits for taking the job.

---

I dont think anyone is opposed to a former president writing a memoir and getting rich. Trump could that solely on his first term. Hes already a billionaire, so a multi-million dollar deal may not move the needle.

What benefit does another four years provide?

Aggiebrewer said:

---

Why do y'all think you're gonna fix the troll?

---

Putting it to a debate is sometimes worthy to hash out details but, more importantly, go on the record.

ANSC Ag said:

---

Would it be ok if Biden wasn't a political opponent?

---

In my personal view, I think so. In that scenario there would be no personal benefit to President Trump. And there wouldn't be any foreign interference in our election.

I also wouldn't have any issues with the FBI & DOJ investigating Joe Biden and his family.

Aggiebrewer said:

---

Why do y'all think you're gonna fix the troll?

---

Believe it or not, this is the actual purpose of this forum. You know, to discuss politics?