Impeachment hearings

[_DarkHelmet]

One of the not so obvious and often unsaid things about American trials. They aren't about the truth. I know, Atticus Finch and all that romantic stuff.

?!

Did you read To Kill a Mockingbird? The truth doesn't win in that story, Mikwut.

I just want to bump this exchange to remind everyone this is what the Right looks like, and the futility of trying to baby step them into reality is sobering and depressing. We've spent dozens of pages on this topic, and we’ve gotten some form of the above or, and I have to hand it to him because the repartee was so well thought out, when subgenius brilliantly mashed his keyboard with a resounding, “That’s bs!”

- Doc

Weird that mikwut forgot how that book ends, or maybe he forgot. It's ironic that by bringing up that story he inadvertently pointed out the parallels between that fictional trial, where the outcome was predetermined regardless of the truth, and our current impeachment trial.

[Guest]

.
Therefore, to my original post on this topic, where is the shakedown? Just pointing out delays knowledge doesn't also show the shakedown itself.

By constantly invoking Zerkal’s statement, you’re tacitly admitting that a shakedown exists; it just became known by some parties at different times.

Not that this really matters:

The larger issue is not when the Ukrainians became aware of the hold or for whatever reason. This is irrelevant. What matters is that Trump attempted to extract bogus official announcements and ‘investigations’ from the Ukrainians, and demanded internally that the hold be initiated.

You don’t seem willing to address this point.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Weird that mikwut forgot how that book ends, or maybe he forgot. It's ironic that by bringing up that story he inadvertently pointed out the parallels between that fictional trial, where the outcome was predetermined regardless of the truth, and our current impeachment trial.

It’s just such a perfectly encapsulated metaphor for our current predicament, especially given mikwut’s background.

Oh, well. Back to Fox where they’re capably interpreting the trial for people who need that sort of thing.

- Doc

[Guest]

.
Therefore, to my original post on this topic, where is the shakedown? Just pointing out delays knowledge doesn't also show the shakedown itself.

By constantly invoking Zerkal’s statement, you’re tacitly admitting that a shakedown exists; it just became known by some parties at different times.

Not that this really matters:

The larger issue is not when the Ukrainians became aware of the hold or for whatever reason. This is irrelevant. What matters is that Trump attempted to extract bogus official announcements and ‘investigations’ from the Ukrainians, and demanded internally that the hold be initiated.

You don’t seem willing to address this point. ; )

I don't believe mikwut will respond to this. I think he's switched from discussing the facts to arguing about how the House has presented their case.



edit: frikin grammar

[_Morley]

Weird that mikwut forgot how that book ends, or maybe he forgot. It's ironic that by bringing up that story he inadvertently pointed out the parallels between that fictional trial, where the outcome was predetermined regardless of the truth, and our current impeachment trial.

It’s just such a perfectly encapsulated metaphor for our current predicament

This.

[_mikwut]

Canpakes and Morley,

By constantly invoking Zerkal’s statement, you’re tacitly admitting that a shakedown exists; it just became known by some parties at different times.

No I am not. Zerkal and her position doesn't talk about a shakedown, just a hold. All that became known is the hold, not the demand or terms of the hold, from Zerkal. That doesn't prove or even evidence a shakedown. And, I explained from Volker's testimony that that was explained to Ukraine at that time (end of July) as just the process and nothing to worry about. That is what the direct channels testified to. Then all of the witnesses Volker et. al. agreed that not a peep until the politico article end of August. And at the end of August the communication from the Ukrainian officials was inquiry, is there a problem? When will the funds be in? Weird communication when they know a shakedown presently was occurring and has been occurring since the July phone call and before.

I don't believe mikwut will respond to this. I think he's switched from discussing the facts to arguing about how the House has presented their case.

I don't think it is trivial or immaterial to point out that Schiff and the House managers made no mention of Zerkal. Or Laura Cooper for that matter. For two reasons, 1) the response Volker gave to those inquiries dismissed any idea of a shakedown, only bureaucratic process, (unless Volker, Morris, Kent etc.. are all in on the Ukrainian conspiracy that they know about the shakedown but are lying); 2) it was only inquiring about the hold and not receiving demands on how to get the hold released by announcements etc... i.e. a shakedown.

A shakedown requires the terms being known and it doesn't appear from the house managers own evidence that that link existed, that the Ukrainians acted in a manner where that link was know to them during that period of time. Why would the August 28 politico article spark any response of inquiry or wonderment from the Ukrainians if they know they are in the middle of being leveraged?

Weird that mikwut forgot how that book ends, or maybe he forgot. It's ironic that by bringing up that story he inadvertently pointed out the parallels between that fictional trial, where the outcome was predetermined regardless of the truth, and our current impeachment trial.

I didn't forget for the second time. I guess I post too fast streaming thoughts is all. Sorry I will try to be more careful. I was trying to use Atticus as the romantic figure of integrity and honor and truth that we all think of him as that's all. Ironically back at you, I fully agree with the metaphor I inadvertently invoked. Truth could only be an accidental byproduct in our political crap show that BOTH sides participate in making such a mess.

mikwut

[_canpakes]

mikwut -

I understand that a lawyer’s job is to distract from the true issue in the attempt to make their client look innocent, but your argument is akin to stating that no crime can exist until a victim is aware of it.

A shakedown requires the terms being known and it doesn't appear from the house managers own evidence that that link existed, that the Ukrainians acted in a manner where that link was know to them during that period of time.

You keep trying to make the issue being that of when the Ukranians were aware that they needed to meet the requirements of aid disbursement, at least until the requirements became known by the wider public. You keep ignoring the actual problem, which is:

The larger issue is not when the Ukrainians became aware of the hold or for whatever reason. This is irrelevant. What matters is that Trump attempted to extract bogus official announcements and ‘investigations’ from the Ukrainians, and demanded internally that the hold be initiated.

Are you able to address this point?

[Guest]

canpakes,

Quote:
The larger issue is not when the Ukrainians became aware of the hold or for whatever reason. This is irrelevant. What matters is that Trump attempted to extract bogus official announcements and ‘investigations’ from the Ukrainians, and demanded internally that the hold be initiated.

Are you able to address this point?

Well I am addressing that point. Your just slamming me with the entire macro universe of the case when I was pointing out a micro portion that doesn't add up in the greater narrative. Which I point out no one has addressed yet in this thread. It is rather difficult to just post refutations of every single issue. I'm happy for you to broaden what you would like me to specifically address but the manager's case took 23 hours to just orally present.

Second, you present as already proven what we are discussing and is disputed. The closest I am aware of the negotiation respecting the cloud of assumptions leading up to the July 25 phone call is when Volker discussed announcements of investigations into Ukrainians and Ukrainian businesses not Americans. The finality of those discussions never came to fruition obviously, just left with the hindsight assumptions. But we know the discussions were pointing out the inappropriate nature of the latter.

(ETA: Or maybe I am missing the distinction that your making about knowing about the hold and knowing about terms?)

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Again, I'm not sure how this argument here takes into account the fact that Ukraine did ultimately relent and was going to make the prepared announcement the Trump admin was pushing for. Suppose there was no pressure in the form of funds being withheld. Why did Ukraine buckle then? For the meeting? For mere fear of the soft power of the US? Any of these are also a gross abuse of power. Illegally withholding Congressionally appropriated funds to to get campaign assistance is just criminal extra credit. US foreign policy was manipulated to become a tool of Donald Trump to pressure foreign countries into laundering propaganda about his political opponents to give it an air of legitimacy.

[_aussieguy55]

Why did't Trump just have confidence that his economic policies get him reelected?