Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump did willfully ignore the subpoena he was served even his base understands this but they are under the misconception that the subpoenas were illegal. Hence Trump DID and WILLFULLY did abuse his power. The president isn’t above the law Clinton wasn’t either Trump broke the law time to play the piper.
And I have never actually heard a cogent argument as to why the subpoenas were purportedly illegal. I do recall at first that Pat Cippollone sent correspondence indicating that they would not comply with any subpoenas until the House held a formal vote opening an formal impeachment inquiry, even though I thought the argument was legally dubious the vote was subsequently held. The only claim I've heard since then is the specious "blanket" executive privilege, which has no basis in law whatsoever.
Prosecutor: Was the money delivered before the deadline?
Witness: yes, but....
Prosecutor: yes or no answer. Was the money delivered before the deadline?
Witness: yes.
Prosecutor: In fact, wasn't it delivered 19 days before the deadline?
Witness: yes.
Prosecutor: so if it was delivered, it could not have been delayed, could it?
Witness: well...no....
Prosecutor: no further questions, your Honor.
It's that simple, and after the Democrats vote to give up control of the entire circus to Mitch McConnell, that's about how it expects to play out, given the whole "must prove guilt" standard we use in the US..
Where do you get "if it was delivered, it could not have been delayed"? Things that are ultimately delivered cannot have been delayed?
Prosecutor: Was the money delivered before the deadline?
Witness: yes, but....
Prosecutor: yes or no answer. Was the money delivered before the deadline?
Witness: yes.
Prosecutor: In fact, wasn't it delivered 19 days before the deadline?
Witness: yes.
Prosecutor: so if it was delivered early, it could not have been delayed, could it?
Witness: well...no....
Prosecutor: no further questions, your Honor.
It's that simple, and after the Democrats vote to give up control of the entire circus to Mitch McConnell, that's about how it expects to play out, given the whole "must prove guilt" standard we use in the US..
Doesn't matter that they eventually got the money. It was the abuse of power and the holding the money hostage after it had been designated by Congress and approved for release by the DOD. The only reason it was released was because Trump found out about the whistleblower. Nice try though.
Where do you get "if it was delivered, it could not have been delayed"? Things that are ultimately delivered cannot have been delayed?
any time prior to deadline = early.
arriving exactly at deadline = on time.
any time after deadline = delayed.
Which of those three definitions fits delivering aid on Sep 11 when the deadline for that delivery is Sep 30?
I left out "early" in my earlier post. Typo.
The aid, was, in fact, delivered 19 days PRIOR to the deadline. That makes it early. What you and the Dem narrative seek to prove is that "early" could have been "earlier" and therefore...CRIME!!! That might work for the purely political articles of impeachment and the straightline Dem party vote, but it won't hold up in a Senate trial. That is, in fact, why the charge isn't bribery or quid pro quo, but te nebulous, ridiculous, no_possible_way_to_prove_or_disprove "abuse of power."
They know no bribery took place, at least none they could prove.
Doesn't matter that they eventually got the money. It was the abuse of power and the holding the money hostage after it had been designated by Congress and approved for release by the DOD. The only reason it was released was because Trump found out about the whistleblower. Nice try though.
Which is the thought crime they are trying to prove, and won't.
Well, he did release it, but because HE THOUGHT this or that because of working backwards from this timeline or that.
Again, that may work for the purely political House circus, but won't fly in the Senate, at least not to the satisfaction of 67 senators.
any time prior to deadline = early.
arriving exactly at deadline = on time.
any time after deadline = delayed.
Which of those three definitions fits delivering aid on Sep 11 when the deadline for that delivery is Sep 30?
I left out "early" in my earlier post. Typo.
The aid, was, in fact, delivered 19 days PRIOR to the deadline. That makes it early. What you and the Dem narrative seek to prove is that "early" could have been "earlier" and therefore...CRIME!!! That might work for the purely political articles of impeachment and the straightline Dem party vote, but it won't hold up in a Senate trial. That is, in fact, why the charge isn't bribery or quid pro quo, but te nebulous, ridiculous, no_possible_way_to_prove_or_disprove "abuse of power."
They know no bribery took place, at least none they could prove.
You are mistakenly conflating "delayed" with "late". They are not the same thing. Is English your primary language?
Example: Joe tells President Zelensky that he will arrive at President Zelensky's house between 1 and 3pm. It is a 30 minute drive and Joe leaves at 12:45pm, but because of traffic, Joe does not arrive until 2:45pm. Joe is not late, but was delayed by 1.5 hours due to traffic.
Now substitute "Joe" with "strategic aid" and "traffic" with "Trumps demands that Ukraine announce an investigation into his political rival" and you will start to get the picture.
He delayed the release to Sept 11, he had to release the money or lose it for FY2019. He had no choice and some of the funding was lost because they didn't have time to obligate.
Why is it so difficult for Mulvaney or Trump to explain the delay, why the mystery.
Almost the same percentage of funds were given as any other funds to other countries. Other countries have funds held up all the time. Thee is no " mystery" . There isn't an obligation to divulge any reasons unless the deadline wasn't meant.
Why weren't the Dems interested in the reasons that any other countries aid was being held? It is done all the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
