Turley concluded his written testimony concerning bribery by saying, “As a criminal defense attorney, I would view such an allegation from a prosecutor to be dubious to the point of being meritless.” Funny, as a former federal prosecutor, that’s exactly how I feel about Turley’s bribery defense. This is a case I’d be very comfortable taking to a jury.
he's entitled to his opinion/interpretation
i don't know much about him but his name seemed sort of familiar
then i realized he was in a conversation with harvey silverglate (of aclu fame) and others sometime back
An aside: neither the Times' article nor Turley seems to address Mick Mulvaney (one of Turley's desired first-hand witnesses) and his comments during a press conference in which he openly admitted that there was a quid pro quo and told his audience to "get over it."
IIRC
neither the article nor Turley acknowledge that another first-hand witness, Gordon Sondland, stated under oath there was a quid pro quo.
No you do not recall correctly. If you had listened to Part 2 of Sondland's testimony in the afternoon, he clearly stated that he only assumed there was a quid pro qou. He clearly stated that no one ever told him that there was a quid pro quo underway or being attempted. In his opening prepared statement he said that there was a quid pro quo, but as he admitted in the afternoon, that was only an assumption on his part and nothing more.
Another aspect of the POLITICAL REALITY is that an impeachment trial is not a criminal prosecution. Impeachment prosecutors don't have to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. An impeachment trial is a mix of a legal action, based on the Constitution and supporting laws, and a test of popular opinion about the rightness of a president's conduct. If an impeachment inquiry or trial drags on too long, the will of voters and their representatives to engage in the impeachment process fades away âregardless of the strength of the case against the president. A complete set of evidence that included testimony of first-hand witnesses while desirable would take too long to obtain.
You are right in that an impeachment must have the support of the majority of the public to actually succeed.
However,
I think you underestimate the trial in the Senate. The Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides. This is where a political argument between the Legislative branch and the Executive branch runs into the 3rd branch of our government. There are specific rules of order and for evidence that have yet to be determined. The standards for evidence such as no hearsay allowed for starters. That sure narrows things down a whole lot and eliminates most of the testimony recorded in the Intelligence Committee hearings. Also we will likely hear from many more witnesses, some of whom where blocked from testifying by Schiff.
You have basically only heard one side of the story from one side so far. A trial will allow for a legal and proper defense.
But no worries. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your mind, and many others' are made up to Trump's guilt and necessity to remove him from office already. Didn't Pelosi order Nadler to just go ahead and write up the articles of impeachment without any further hearings in his committee ? There's an open predisposition and assumption of guilt if I have ever heard one.
Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone who has been closely following this story on any side of the aisle cannot see that this impeachment attempt openly began the afternoon of January 20, 2017. So far it has been foiled 8 ways to Sunday.
You are aware that the DOJ IG's (that is Great Pumpkin #1 to you) report finally comes out Monday ? How do you think that will impact the impeachment process ? I know, not at all, because you really do believe that there has been no wrong doing in the process of trying to take down Trump and that none will be found. And you know what ? I would agree with you, but only because I believe that the system is rotten to core with an insubordinate bureaucratic 4th branch of government that few will even acknowledge exists. Anyone remember that Alternate EPA group that went rogue and even had their own website and mission statement ? Does anyone believe that this insubordinate behavior was limited only to the EPA ? Sally Yates ?
Your commentary throughout has strongly stood up for the integrity of the system.
Once again, no worries.
Of the two of us, only you can be disappointed or surprised by what is to come.
Turley
concluded his written testimony concerning bribery by saying, âAs a
criminal defense attorney, I would view such an allegation
from a prosecutor to be dubious to the point of being meritless.â Funny,
as a former federal prosecutor, thatâs exactly how I feel about
Turleyâs bribery defense. This is a case Iâd be very comfortable taking
to a jury.
My take on Jonathan Turley's primary concernâthat the House impeachment inquiry is moving too fast and should start again to obtain the testimony of first-hand witnesses like Pompeo, Bolton and Mulvaneyâis that Turley is willfully ignoring POLITICAL REALITY and the sufficiency of EVIDENCE alreadygathered.
There is enough EVIDENCE to prove to an informed, engaged and non-partisan audience that Trump committed at least one impeachable offense by pressuring a foreign government to actively help his re-election plans. The loosely defined nature of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", I think, should also allow prosecutors to argue that Trump's desire to force Zelensky to lie in public increases the corrupt nature of Trump's plans and thus increases the need to remove Trump from office.
An aside: neither the Times' article nor Turley seems to address Mick Mulvaney (one of Turley's desired first-hand witnesses) and his comments during a press conference in which he openly admitted that there was a quid pro quo and told his audience to "get over it."
IIRC neither the article nor Turley acknowledge that another first-hand witness, Gordon Sondland, stated under oath there was a quid pro quo.
As for Turley ignoring POLITICAL REALITYâthe excerpted piece below notes that the Trump administration could use appeals and litigation to delay enforcement of a subpoena until after the 2020 presidential election:
The Trump legal teamâs claim of absolute immunity for top presidential aides has been a losing one in court. A Federal District Court judge already rejected it in a 2008 case involving a congressional subpoena to Harriet Miers, President George W. Bushâs former White House counsel. Another trial judge rejected it again late last month, in a case centering on a subpoena to Donald F. McGahn II, Mr. Trumpâs former White House counsel.
But the legal unraveling of Mr. Trumpâs argument has been a slow process. The opening stage of the fight over the subpoena to Mr. McGahn consumed nearly a third of the year before the judge completed a 120-page ruling rejecting it. The Justice Department then immediately appealed. It can repeat that process before a three-judge panel, and then again before the full appeals court and then before the Supreme Court.
And even if the Supreme Court ultimately orders such an official to show upfor testimony, he could then refuse to discuss conversations with Mr. Trump on the ground that their contents are privileged. That would start a new cycle of litigation.
That means that for the witnesses Mr. Turley identified as having potentially material additional information, the Justice Department would very likely be able to keep the subpoena tied up in court until long after the 2020 election.
...
The question facing Congress, then, is whether the available record, while imperfect, is nevertheless sufficient to fairly deduce that Mr. Trump was the architect of a quid pro quo â or whether to wait for the distant prospect of someday obtaining more facts through court.
Another aspect of the POLITICAL REALITY is that an impeachment trial is not a criminal prosecution. Impeachment prosecutors don't have to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. An impeachment trial is a mix of a legal action, based on the Constitution and supporting laws, and a test of popular opinion about the rightness of a president's conduct. If an impeachment inquiry or trial drags on too long, the will of voters and their representatives to engage in the impeachment process fades away âregardless of the strength of the case against the president. A complete set of evidence that included testimony of first-hand witnesses while desirable would take too long to obtain.
Just checking in to see if I have things straight.
1. Pelosi prays for Trump everyday ... â
2. First Trump was colluding with Russia and now Trump is colluding with Ukraine who are enemies of each other ... â
3. If you are a friend or supporter of Trump, you are the enemy ... â
4. Trump is guilty of obstructing Congress because Congress is too lazy to properly challenge his use of Executive Privilege in the Courts ... â
5. If Biden was not running for POTUS, none of this would be happening ... â
Did I miss anything ? Don't think so. ba, bye ....
1. Nancy's a big enough person that she could do that. Trump wants God to pray to Trump. God farts politely in response.
2. More or less. But hey, congrats on catching up! Russia wants Ukraine back in its political and economic orbit. I gather that Russians view Ukraine as the traditional source of Russian culture. Ukrainians would rather be free.
3. Oh honey. Have you had too much whine?
5. No, no. Trump would have found another way to get impeachedâand without even trying! That can happen when you're incredibly arrogant, stupid and corrupt.
Just checking in to see if I have things straight.
Pelosi prays for Trump everyday ... â
First Trump was colluding with Russia and now Trump is colluding with Ukraine who are enemies of each other ... â
If you are a friend or supporter of Trump, you are the enemy ... â
Trump is guilty of obstructing Congress because Congress is too lazy to properly challenge his use of Executive Privilege in the Courts ... â
If Biden was not running for POTUS, none of this would be happening ... â
Did I miss anything ? Don't think so. ba, bye ....
You forgot Trump's promises to you/us:
He built a big beautiful wall, paid for by Mexico - wait, no he didn't
He repealed and replaced Obamacare - wait, no he didn't
He canceled all funding to sanctuary cities - wait, no he didn't
He established a commission on radical Islam - wait, no he didn't
He ensured that criminal aliens convicted of illegal re-entry receive strong mandatory minimum sentences - wait, no he didn't
He ended birthright citizenship - wait, no he didn't
He got a constitutional amendment enacting term limits for Congress - wait, no he didn't
He imposed the death penalty for cop killers - wait, no he didn't
He appointed a special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton - wait, no he didn't
He eliminated Common Core - wait, no he didn't
He froze hiring of federal employees - wait, no he didn't
These all seem like pretty big unmet promises. And he still has support from the folks who elected him? Why? How much more could he let you down and you think he's doing his job well?
Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, Says Ex-Top Official in Kyiv
This is one of those topics that you almost can't tell if those supporting the President have completely sold out (and why), or if they are just that inept?
You're the President of a country that needs friends, both financially and politically to keep Russia from attacking. It would be foolish to say anything to upset the US President, as he could be there for another 5 years and you NEED his help! The Republican "Ask the Ukrainians....no quid pro quo" is literally akin to a gunpoint confession.
What's amazing is how the Ukrainians outlasted Trump, and STAYED OUT of the corruption by not going on TV and announcing an investigation they knew was purely political. The student has become the teacher.
Officials in the Ukrainian government knew of the freeze of vital US military aid to Ukraine at the time of or before the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. Ukraine has tried to suppress publication of that knowledge in order to stay out of the American impeachment inquiry and to placate Trump.
Former deputy foreign minister Olena Zerkal resigned from her position to protest Ukraine's behind-the-scenes dealings with the US about the issues surrounding the US military aid. Ukraine President Zelensky has stated that he learned of the freeze of aid only in early September, a position that now seems like a lie.
Ukraineâs government learned of the military aid freeze during the Trump administrationâs pressure campaign â and tried to keep that knowledge from going public, says an ex-deputy foreign minister.
KYIV, Ukraine â As deputy foreign minister, it was Olena Zerkalâs
job to read incoming diplomatic cables from embassies around the world.
One from Washington caught her eye back in July, she recalled: It said
the Trump administration had frozen military aid for Ukraine.
âWe had this information,â Ms. Zerkal said in an interview. âIt was definitely mentioned there were some issues.â
...
Ms. Zerkalâs account is the first public acknowledgment by a Ukrainian official that senior figures in Kyiv knew about the aid freeze during the Trump administrationâs pressure campaign â and that the Zelensky administration sought to keep that fact from surfacing to avoid getting drawn into the American impeachment debate.
She said her own government blocked a trip she had planned to Washington to meet members of Congress in October, worried she would discuss matters related to impeachment and drag its president into an inquiry he has been eager to avoid.
âThey worried bout this,â she said of Mr. Zelenskyâs advisers. âThey said, âThis is not the time for you to travel to D.C.ââ The cancellation of her trip was confirmed by Congressional aides.
Mr. Zelensky, whose government is still dependent on the Trump administration for aid and diplomatic backing, has said he did not learn of the aid freeze until before a meeting with Vice President Mike Pence on Sept. 1, though he has been vague about exactly when.
But according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry, Ukrainian diplomats in Washington knew there was a problem with the aid as early as July 25, the day Mr. Trump spoke with the Ukrainian president by phone and asked him to investigate his rivals.
...
In the interview, Ms. Zerkal, who said she resigned from her post
last week to protest her governmentâs back channel diplomacy with both
the Trump administration last summer and Russia this fall, provided an
insiderâs account of when senior officials in Kyiv learned of the
freeze, and how they tried to keep the information from becoming public.
Her account is backed by Laura K. Cooper, the American deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, who said in Congressional testimony
during the impeachment inquiry that Ukrainian diplomats knew about the
aid freeze at least by July 25, when they began to question United
States officials about it.
Ms. Zerkal says she became aware of the hold by July 30, a few days after Mr. Trumpâs phone call with Mr. Zelensky.
...
Whether senior Ukrainian officials knew
of the aid freeze before the July 25 phone call or not, the accounts of
Ms. Zerkal and Ms. Cooper show that the Ukrainian government was aware
of the hold on aid through several critical weeks in August as United
States diplomats pressed Mr. Zelensky to make a public statement on the
investigations.
Later, as the impeachment inquiry ramped up in the United States, Mr. Zelenskyâs administration tried to squelch information that could embarrass or undercut Mr. Trump, Ms. Zerkal said.
...
Ms. Zerkalâs account demonstrates just how hard, bordering on impossible, it is for Mr. Zelensky to avoid taking sides in the impeachment inquiry. If he is misleading people about his knowledge of the aid freeze, then he is damaging the Democratsâ case against Mr. Trump. If he admits knowing, he damages Mr. Trumpâs case.
The Zelensky administration, Ms. Zerkal said, is most concerned about placating Mr. Trump, having decided that the impeachment inquiry will fail in the Senate and that Mr. Trump could be re-elected.
Indications had already been stacking up that Ukrainian officials knew well before the hold became public in August, first in a blog posted by the Atlantic Council on Aug. 14 and then in an article published by Politico on Aug. 28.
An
associate of Mr. Trumpâs personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, Lev
Parnas, has said he warned of a possible aid freeze as early as May,
though others who attended the same meeting have contested his account.
Army
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine specialist in the National
Security Council, testified that he learned of a hold in early July.
More United States officials became aware during a conference call on
July 18, and the Office of Management and Budget put the hold in writing
on July 25, shortly after Mr. Trumpâs call with Mr. Zelensky.
21st Century Wire is a conspiracy and conjecture site run by Patrick Henningsen. Henningsen has ties to both Infowars and Alex Jones, also known for fake news and broad conspiracies. They also seem to have ties to, or at least to be pro-Russian in much of their content. Specifically Russian Today (RT) the state run Russian news outlet.
1. Yes, you're right. We do not have hard incontrovertible proof that Zelensky lied for Trump. We may never get such proof on the matter. I'm sure the Ukrainians want to run away from this fiasco as far and quickly as possible and won't provide such proof.
2. I've already conceded this in my post from 2 days ago. I quote myself:
"The only way we're going to know Zelensky's knowledge and state of mind is if he tells us or one of his aides tells us with evidence what was going on in Zelensky's head. That holds true with Zelensky's above claim and with Zelensky's willingness to go on Fareed Zakaria's show to announce the investigations only to cancel his appearance once the military was released. The best evidence I can give you about Zelensky's lying is to lay out the facts surrounding his statements and pointing out that the evidence doesn't show that Z could have credibly believed what he said and was about to say. That's not absolute proof but it's pretty strong; as you said the scenario that Z was likely is "highly likely." We're only going to get circumstantial evidence on this matter, but I believe that's mostly the case when dealing with lying and other states of mind. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to get a conviction in criminal trials."
3. Reasonable, informed adults willing to look at the impeachment matter should look at the evidence presented and conclude without knowing for certain that Zelensky has lied that Trump tried to use a threat and bribe to turn Zelensky into his re-election tool over the course of some months. Juries in criminal trials, dealing with a far higher bar of a preponderance of the evidence being beyond a reasonable doubt than Senators face when considering removal of an impeached official, regularly and rightly convict defendants even though the juries don't know for certain whether the defendant lied or not. Congress does not need to know whether Zelensky lied to impeach and remove Trump.
4. You need to get a life.
5. Have a great Thanksgiving and good luck tracking down more info on the P-4 crash and the Bay Bridge Hump.
1. Thank you, I'm good with this now.
2. I see that now that it is isolated. Saying it like you did now in 1 would have made it easier to ferret out and made what came after unnecessary.
3. We still disagree over your first sentence. Partisan point of view. The last sentence I agree with.
5. May you and everyone else have a great Thanksgiving. The crash and the Hump are just examples of how the Internet is an incomplete source for information. Yes, the P-4 is a trainer version of the F-4, also P is for Pursuit IIRC. I am done searching for any further information on these matters. I am not obsessed with them. They were just examples for my point that I will use again for the purpose of illustrating how the Internet is not complete. I know the P-4 crashed because I saw it happen even if there is no proof. I know the Hump existed because I rode over it many times even if there is no proof for it. They only matter to me, no one else and I have moved on.
4. I do have a life. I am at the end of it. I have experienced a full enough life in my mind and have a sufficient collection of memories to tide me over to the end. Does not mean that I am done learning.
Please enjoy the following song. It is one of my favorites by the boys, who I have had the luck to enjoy live many times. I even had the good fortune to be a local roadie for the day for the band when they played the old Kent State gym in March,1973 for the DSOTM tour.
1. Yes, you're right. We do not have hard incontrovertible proof that Zelensky lied for Trump. We may never get such proof on the matter. I'm sure the Ukrainians want to run away from this fiasco as far and quickly as possible and won't provide such proof.
2. I've already conceded this in my post from 2 days ago. I quote myself:
"The only way we're going to know Zelensky's knowledge and state of mind is if he tells us or one of his aides tells us with evidence what was going on in Zelensky's head. That holds true with Zelensky's above claim and with Zelensky's willingness to go on Fareed Zakaria's show to announce the investigations only to cancel his appearance once the military was released. The best evidence I can give you about Zelensky's lying is to lay out the facts surrounding his statements and pointing out that the evidence doesn't show that Z could have credibly believed what he said and was about to say. That's not absolute proof but it's pretty strong; as you said the scenario that Z was likely is "highly likely." We're only going to get circumstantial evidence on this matter, but I believe that's mostly the case when dealing with lying and other states of mind. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to get a conviction in criminal trials."
3. Reasonable, informed adults willing to look at the impeachment matter should look at the evidence presented and conclude without knowing for certain that Zelensky has lied that Trump tried to use a threat and bribe to turn Zelensky into his re-election tool over the course of some months. Juries in criminal trials, dealing with a far higher bar of a preponderance of the evidence being beyond a reasonable doubt than Senators face when considering removal of an impeached official, regularly and rightly convict defendants even though the juries don't know for certain whether the defendant lied or not. Congress does not need to know whether Zelensky lied to impeach and remove Trump.
4. You need to get a life.
5. Have a great Thanksgiving and good luck tracking down more info on the P-4 crash and the Bay Bridge Hump.
I wonder if you just helped kurtster hi-jack the thread. Actually I think you hi-jacked the thread and kurtster played along. <g> With little or no effort we could spin this into a sinister plot that kurtster had been planning since he witnessed his White Knight getting into trouble.
Maybe just as well, as I'm reasonably sure that most folks posting to the RP political threads â despite the range of views â are sad, morose, depressed and feeling largely frustrated and helpless in the face of the Impeachment Inquiry findings to date. What a colossal downer.
I cannot speak for kcar, but I can speak for myself. I'm just trying to make a point. The point is that kcar in particular constantly objects and chides me for presenting "barking" opinions based upon observations and dot connecting. I am stopping and calling out his doing the same with his claim that Zelensky lied because Trump forced him to do it. He refuses to admit that it is his opinion and not a fact.
He goes into great detail to point out his collection of observations to support his claim and say that his "circumstantial evidence" is proof of his claim rather than admit it is nothing more than just support for his opinion. Citing circumstantial evidence is nothing more than dot connecting. Again, his steadfast and stubborn refusal to admit that he is doing what he criticizes me for is what this whole exercise is about. I even offered an olive branch when I said that that I can understand how he and others can conclude and believe that Zelensky lied for Trump without any proof based upon simple observations and dot connecting, but that it is nothing more than just that, opinion based upon dot connecting. No one has stood up and said, I know for a fact that Zelensky lied because I was there. No testimony nor transcripts or emails or anything written has been shown as proof. Yet he conducts himself as if he has access to this proof, yet cannot produce it. No one has yet. Until then, it is all only an opinion.
He can do it, yet he will not allow others who disagree with him to do it. Worse, he refuses to admit that he is doing it. He dismisses my last comments as nothing more than "barking". Yet he barked out his opinion that Zelensky lied for Trump as a cold hard fact.
That is what this is all about. You can criticize me all you want but I draw the line when one does what they accuse me of and denies it.
If this does not make my point I do not know what will.
This is just two dogs barking at each other through a fence. Except that one dog will not admit that it is also barking because ... because of why or what I don't know or pretend to know.
I guess that I will continue to be that barking dog and he will be the complaining neighbor whose own dog barks at times too but will not admit it.
I'm done and over with all of this.
Woof, woof. Don't eat the yellow snow where the huskies go.
Start watching at 52.00 minutes. Listen and take Biden at exactly what he is saying or be obtuse and try to twist it. Whatever you want to do, it is what they do in Washington.
