Impeachment Witnesses

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
You can add more words, but it doesn't make Mulvaney's statement any less damning for Trump.

Actually, it absolutely does, since it demolishes your claim of what was actually said.

Said in another way... he did not say what you claimed he said.

In other words, you lied about what he actually said.

I then posted what he actually said as proof.

Then all you have as a comeback is another lie?

Sookie, sookie, sookie... I pity you. Your whole world is collapsed into a blackhole called #TDS/OrangeManBad.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
and they impeached Trump for defying congressional subpoenas,

Which is not an impeachable offense...

he refuses to acknowledge Congress' constitutional power to subpoena and impeach, and ordered his staff to defy congressional subpoenas.

You mean like Obama and Holder did repeatedly all throughout his Presidency?

Trump obstructed Congress' efforts to perform their duty of checks and balances regarding the whistleblower's complaint.

There is no whistleblower. There is a whistle-leaker (Ciaramella) and his source (Vindman), disguised as a whistleblower.

Since the indictment involves accusations of foreign meddling in the upcoming election,

For which there is ZERO evidence.

the House leaders thought this case was too urgent to let Trump delay accountability by using the courts to buy time and distraction.

For those deluded into believing that there is actually a threat of some kind to the 2020 election, there is (was) plenty of time to do this in the courts, force (if the courts agreed, which they likely wouldn't) Trump to comply with the subpoenas.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Mick Mulvaney's presser was absolutely devestating for Trump. He confirmed the money was hald back because Trump wanted investigations into the Democrats, his political rivals.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Which is not an impeachable offense...

Obstruction of Congress is.

You mean like Obama and Holder did repeatedly all throughout his Presidency?

Sigh...

Trump refused to acknowledge congressional subpoenas as valid, and ordered his staff to ignore/defy them. The Obama administration acknowledged the congressional subpoenas, but claimed executive privilege. If Trump had acknowledged the congressional subpoenas in question, and claimed executive privilege over the content they demanded, we would be having a different conversation.

There is no whistleblower.

Desperate much? Who's making up lies now?

For which there is ZERO evidence.

More rambling desperate lies.

there is (was) plenty of time to do this in the courts, force (if the courts agreed, which they likely wouldn't) Trump to comply with the subpoenas.

Two courts already ruled against Trump, and ruled the congressional subpoenas are valid, and that recipients must comply, but Trump is appealing to SCOTUS. No word yet whether or not they will actually hear the case.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Mulvaney: "(Trump’s) like, 'Look, this is a corrupt place. I don’t want to send them a bunch of money and have them waste it, have them spend it, have them use it to line their own pockets. Plus, I’m not sure that the other European countries are helping them out either.’

"So we actually looked at that, during that time, before — when we cut the money off, before the money actually flowed, because the money flowed by the end of the fiscal year — we actually did an analysis of what other countries were doing in terms of supporting Ukraine. And what we found out was that — and I can’t remember if it’s zero or near zero dollars from any European countries for lethal aid. And you’ve heard the president say this: that we give them tanks and other countries give them pillows. That’s absolutely right, that the — as vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine, they are really, really stingy when it comes to lethal aid. And they weren’t helping Ukraine, and then still to this day are not. And the president did not like that. I know it’s a long answer to your question, but I’m still going.

"So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." Now, there was a report —"

Thank you for sharing that additional context. It definitely is a statement more in favor of Trump's legitimately doing his job with concerns regarding the lethal aid.

I do remember from the phone transcript that the mention of Bidens and the rumours, seemed rather a passing comment in their conversation, more on an afterthought level, that is taken out of context and twisted too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
Mick Mulvaney's presser was absolutely devestating for Trump.

No. It wasn't.

He confirmed the money was hald back because Trump wanted investigations into the Democrats, his political rivals.

No. He didn't. You apparently didn't read the full unedited transcript of what he actually said that I linked to.

CNN/MSNBC, etc lied to you, and by parroting their lies, you yourself are lying.

"Which is not an impeachable offense... "

Obstruction of Congress is.

No. It isn't. Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches. Congress does not have unilateral authority over the Executive, as much as you want it to.

"You mean like Obama and Holder did repeatedly all throughout his Presidency? "

Sigh...

I know, it is frustrating being exposed for a liar repeatedly...

Trump refused to acknowledge congressional subpoenas as valid, and ordered his staff to ignore/defy them. The Obama administration acknowledged the congressional subpoenas, but claimed executive privilege. If Trump had acknowledged the congressional subpoenas in question, and claimed executive privilege over the content they demanded, we would be having a different conversation.

No, there is no law that says that Trump must use some magical incantation to invoke Exec Priv. He invoked it by his actions.

"There is no whistleblower."

Desperate much? Who's making up lies now?

Still you...

"For which there is ZERO evidence."

More rambling desperate lies.

I know, I wish you'd stop it.

"there is (was) plenty of time to do this in the courts, force (if the courts agreed, which they likely wouldn't) Trump to comply with the subpoenas."

Two courts already ruled against Trump, and ruled the congressional subpoenas are valid, and that recipients must comply, but Trump is appealing to SCOTUS. No word yet whether or not they will actually hear the case.

Exactly. It is still being litigated.

The demwits decided to bypass the courts and engage in abuse of power.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Thank you for sharing that additional context. It definitely is a statement more in favor of Trump's legitimately doing his job with concerns regarding the lethal aid.

You're welcome, and thank you for actually taking the time to read it.

I do remember from the phone transcript that the mention of Bidens and the rumours, seemed rather a passing comment in their conversation, more on an afterthought level, that is taken out of context and twisted too.

Exactly... and there was certainly no mention, and no way to infer from the context, that Trump was talking about anything but the 2016 election, not the upcoming 2020 election - and he certainly never used words that could even remotely be understood as 'dig up dirt on my political opponent'. CNN/MSNBC/Democrat talking points using those made up words are just pure fiction.

a reply to: tanstaafl

What you don't understand, is that those excuses don't justify Trump's actions.

This was congressionally appropriated aide that Trump already signed into law and the Pentagon signed off on, guaranteeing that Ukraine had met US policy anti-corruption standards.

If Trump was legitimately concerned about releasing the aid, he must have alerted congress to the delay. He didn't. When Senators got wind of the delay, they petitioned the White House for the reason, and even Mitch Mc Connell and Lyndsey Graham could not get an answer.

John Bolton was informed by the White House Counsel that the State Department were illegally holding up the aid, and Bolton had $1.42 million of the aid released to Ukraine.

When the Trump administration finally did release the aid, they still withheld $35 million, which Congress had to re-appropriate, because the fiscal year had ended. Ukraine still has not gotten that $35 million, although the Pentagon says "it's in the mail".

In the meantime, we have Rudy waving his phone around and naming the State Department, and bragging about meddling in investigations. There's still mountains of evidence from the witnesses, like Sondland, Vindman and Hill.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
What you don't understand, is that those excuses don't justify Trump's actions.

What you don't understand is that Trump is in charge of Foreign Policy, and yes, he actually does have not only a duty as the CE, the statute allocating the funds itself requires that Trump make sure the money is not going to corrupt targets.

PERIOD. Trumps authority in this regard is not subject to Congressional oversight.

This was congressionally appropriated aide that Trump already signed into law and the Pentagon signed off on, guaranteeing that Ukraine had met US policy anti-corruption standards.

Meaningless. He was still well within his authority to withhold it for a certain amount of time, and released the funds within that time limit.

PERIOD.

None of your remaining blathering changes anything.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
What you don't understand,

Still waiting on an apology for your lies about what Mulvaney said.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I didn't lie, I quoted directly from the source I cited and linked. But you have lied. You said that there was evidence, when there most certainly is, for example.

The fact that Mulvaney admitted that Trump ordered that aide held up to get a foreign government to announce and investigation into his political enemies is damning to Trump's case.

a reply to: pavil

He could have.... he chose not to.

a reply to: Zelun

I am not certain but I know that the rules, the witnesses and evidence are all decided on and given to the floor managers before the trial begins AND that any of it can be changed at any time by a simple majority vote.
Could be very interesting.

a reply to: pavil

It says they sent letters.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
I didn't lie, I quoted directly from the source I cited and linked.

You stated it as fact. And the source was a well known and totally debunked lie. Hence, you lied.

But you have lied. You said that there was evidence,

I said there is ZERO evidence.

The fact that Mulvaney admitted that Trump ordered that aide held up to get a foreign government to announce and investigation into his political enemies is damning to Trump's case.

There you go lying again.

That is not what Mulvaney said, and that was the entire point of my rebuttal to your LIE.

So... sookie... stop lying already!!!

a reply to: tanstaafl

Waaaa! "I'm not the liar! You're the liar!"

Typical Trumpette tactic. Lie you ass off and them call those who call you out and challenge your lies a liar! Because lies are all you have. You can't argue the evidence, so you say it doesn't exist. You can't argue that Trump didn't do what he and Mulvaney confessed, so you say he was justified in breaking the law.

Pitiful and desperate.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: pavil

He could have.... he chose not to.

... And the House chose not to Supeona.

They could have.....

And then they closed and went to vote.

BTW, did the Republicans get to call all their witnesses and have their Minority hearing Day before the vote?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: pavil

It says they sent letters.

Who is the source for that that is on the record saying that? Or is it a sources say......

a reply to: Zelun

Telling people to defy subpoenas is obstructing congress.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Waaaa! "I'm not the liar! You're the liar!"

Calm down sookie, it'll be alright, it'll all be over soon, just keep the faith, Trump will be gone and you won't have to worry about him taking over the world or being mean to children any more.

You have a problem. I posted the entirety of Mulvaneys remarks, which included the cherry picked remarks you provided, but in proper context, completely and totally blowing your lie up in y our face...

Yet you ignore it, and continue to spew the lie.

That makes you, not the source you cited, the liar.

a reply to: Zelun

It was congress who took trump to court not the other way around.