Give him time to re-watch the last 20 Rachel Madcow shows.  He didn't take notes the first time.

You almost cost me
a laptop keyboard!

Please give examples of facts instead of general opinions.

Have you been following the trial?

There is no smoking gun if that is what you are looking for. What does exist is lots of circumstantial evidence which paints a real strong picture.

1. The timing. The issue with Biden's son happened years ago but Trump only wants it investigated now while Biden is the front runner
2. The withholding of the money right after the phone call but suddenly releasing it when the word got out. Then they never justified the delay.
3. The emphasis placed on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden
4. The refusal to let anyone from the whitehouse testify or release documents
5. The firing of the ambassador without justification
6. Statements by Mulvaney that it was quid pro quo for investigations into the Bidens
7. Giuliani's saying he is Trump's personal attorney but asking for a meeting with the Ukranian president for a specific request.
8. Republicans now don't want to call any witnesses
9. Trump tried to suggest Ukraine interefered in 2016 election without any evidence (FBI testified no evidence of such a scheme)
10. All the little bits of communications from people including Sonland, Hill, Bolton, Taylor, Vindman, etc. which show Trump was interested in inappropriate requests to Ukraine

And now Parnas appears to be flipping on the president with more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.

This list isn't even all of it. I cannot recall every bit of evidence that was covered but I have heard a fair amount in the live coverage.

Perhaps you could enlighten us?
Did he violate US title 18 sect 242 or 241?
You are a smart well read guy,
I'm just a dumb engineer.
Educate me and the other readers with
facts and data.

I looked up those 2 sections. Why would they be relevant here?

Have you been following the trial?

There is no smoking gun if that is what you are looking for. What does exist is lots of circumstantial evidence which paints a real strong picture.

1. The timing. The issue with Biden's son happened years ago but Trump only wants it investigated now while Biden is the front runner
2. The withholding of the money right after the phone call but suddenly releasing it when the word got out. Then they never justified the delay.
3. The emphasis placed on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden
4. The refusal to let anyone from the whitehouse testify or release documents
5. The firing of the ambassador without justification
6. Statements by Mulvaney that it was quid pro quo for investigations into the Bidens
7. Giuliani's saying he is Trump's personal attorney but asking for a meeting with the Ukranian president for a specific request.
8. Republicans now don't want to call any witnesses
9. Trump tried to suggest Ukraine interefered in 2016 election without any evidence (FBI testified no evidence of such a scheme)
10. All the little bits of communications from people including Sonland, Hill, Bolton, Taylor, Vindman, etc. which show Trump was interested in inappropriate requests to Ukraine

And now Parnas appears to be flipping on the president with more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.

This list isn't even all of it. I cannot recall every bit of evidence that was covered but I have heard a fair amount in the live coverage.

Nothing in all your points is even close to an impeachable offense.

Schiff and the Dems in the House are impeaching Trump based on one thing:  They think they can read his mind.  His motive for asking the Ukrainian president to look into the Bidens is what they claim is abuse of power.  There is no evidence Trump was  afraid Biden would even win the nomination, much less be a threat to reelection.

As for timing, Zelensky was elected on a reform platform in Apr.  The parliament in Ukraine won a majority which aligns it with Zelensky now.  That was the reason for the 2nd call.  Both calls were congratulatory.  Timing was based on elections in Ukraine.  Nothing more.

Most of your points are debunked as ideas held by certain people but never attributed to Trump directly.  In fact, there are facts and direct comments that completely destroy those beliefs.

You need to watch the 2 hours from Saturday's opening statement.

Ukraine tried to interfere in the 2016 election by opposing the Trump campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-york-times-finally-comes-back-to-admitting-ukraine-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election

A point made on a Sunday program:

Even if we concede Trump was motivated by his reelection to request dirt on Biden, that's not illegal.  An American asking a foreign entity to perform opposition research for them is not "foreign interference."  The American citizen is allowed to research opponents -- the source of which is not limited to US sources.

Don't believe me?  Ask the DNC and Hildabeast who paid for the Steele dossier from a former British spy and supposedly sourced through Russians.

There's an alternate theory to Trump's request to investigate:  he wanted to know who in Ukraine was interfering in our 2016 election, and what the Bidens' relationship to corrupt oligarchies there were.  Completely legitimate justifications.

Listening to Ken Starr. What he is saying is interesting and true. But he is not a convincing speaker IMHO. He is sounding like an emotional snowflake. And speaking a little too slow. I'm starting to nod off.....

MORE COFFEE 

Listening to Ken Starr. What he is saying is interesting and true. But he is not a convincing speaker IMHO. He is sounding like an emotional snowflake. And speaking a little too slow. I'm starting to nod off.....

MORE COFFEE 

Ken Starr on news channels is also boring.  His opinions are credible given his experience investigating and prosecuting Slick Willy, so it motivates me more to listen when talking impeachment.

Gotta take the bad with the good.

Ken Starr on news channels is also boring.  His opinions are credible given his experience investigating and prosecuting Slick Willy, so it motivates me more to listen when talking impeachment.

Gotta take the bad with the good.

Been listening all morning. Everyone has been terrific! Especially this last woman (Pam Bondi). She went right after Joe and Hunter Biden. She laid out the case to the point that I don't see how anyone couldn't at least want the matter investigated. I am listening to the last speaker (had to take my headphones off when he was introduced) before the dinner break. This guy is going after the House Managers. They caught them in a bunch of lies. Now he is going after Joe and Hunter as well. He is also going after Schiff right now. This defense team is terrific. Discredit the House managers as being inadequate in their duties to bring forth a complete case.

Been listening all morning. Everyone has been terrific! Especially this last woman (Pam Bondi). She went right after Joe and Hunter Biden. She laid out the case to the point that I don't see how anyone couldn't at least want the matter investigated. I am listening to the last speaker (had to take my headphones off when he was introduced) before the dinner break. This guy is going after the House Managers. They caught them in a bunch of lies. Now he is going after Joe and Hunter as well. He is also going after Schiff right now. This defense team is terrific. Discredit the House managers as being inadequate in their duties to bring forth a complete case.

Gonna have to watch when I get home.  Been trying to login to watch at lunch, but couldn't get connection.  I'll look for the Pam Bondi part.

Now there's more news of Hunter Biden and his paternity suit thing. 

Then there's Bolden, the "leak" and book recently released on Amazon. . .

Gonna have to watch when I get home.  Been trying to login to watch at lunch, but couldn't get connection.  I'll look for the Pam Bondi part.

Now there's more news of Hunter Biden and his paternity suit thing. 

Then there's Bolden, the "leak" and book recently released on Amazon. . .

This goes deep.  Ask yourself:

1) Why is a 42 year old allowed to join the Navy with no prior XP and a drug habbit
2) Why was he allowed to be an officer
3) What kind of blackberry's do officers get issued in his MOS
4) What kind of encryption do these blackberry's have
5) What other 3 letter agency decides on the issuing of encrypted devices

Gonna have to watch when I get home.  Been trying to login to watch at lunch, but couldn't get connection.  I'll look for the Pam Bondi part.

Now there's more news of Hunter Biden and his paternity suit thing. 

Then there's Bolden, the "leak" and book recently released on Amazon. . .

So, someone told the New York Times that Bolton wrote in a draft manuscript that Trump said Ukrainian aid was tied to a political investigation into the Bidens.

This sounds a lot like "A third woman now claims she witnessed Kavanaugh participating in a gang rape parties ... that she attended several times."

Bolton didn't want to respond to the House's supposedly invalid subpoena, and Schiff withdrew the subpoena rather than appear in court to have it enforced. (we never seem to hear the last part of that situation)

Now, the Senate needs to evaluate the House's case AS PRESENTED FOR 21+ HOURS.  Only then, if the Senate decides they need to go forward with a trial, will new evidence and testimony be allowed.

Having said that, previous Senate impeachment trials only heard testimony from witnesses who testified in the House hearings.  Since Bolton did not appear in the House, it's unlikely the Senate will consider having him appear now.

These are the last minute, panicked attempts by the Left to further extend and confuse the trial.  Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was delayed over and over to investigate the various accusers' stories one after another, with Dems calling for a long, drawn-out FBI investigation before voting.  Their delay tactics are obvious and tiresome.  Right now, Schiff and Pelosi would do anything to avoid a vote to acquit Trump. 

Unless Bolton makes a personal statement under oath that materially impacts the actual facts of the case presented, the New York Times story is nothing more than a wrench being thrown into the works.

Have you been following the trial?

There is no smoking gun if that is what you are looking for. What does exist is lots of circumstantial evidence which paints a real strong picture.

1. The timing. The issue with Biden's son happened years ago but Trump only wants it investigated now while Biden is the front runner
2. The withholding of the money right after the phone call but suddenly releasing it when the word got out. Then they never justified the delay.
3. The emphasis placed on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Biden
4. The refusal to let anyone from the whitehouse testify or release documents
5. The firing of the ambassador without justification
6. Statements by Mulvaney that it was quid pro quo for investigations into the Bidens
7. Giuliani's saying he is Trump's personal attorney but asking for a meeting with the Ukranian president for a specific request.
8. Republicans now don't want to call any witnesses
9. Trump tried to suggest Ukraine interefered in 2016 election without any evidence (FBI testified no evidence of such a scheme)
10. All the little bits of communications from people including Sonland, Hill, Bolton, Taylor, Vindman, etc. which show Trump was interested in inappropriate requests to Ukraine

And now Parnas appears to be flipping on the president with more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.

This list isn't even all of it. I cannot recall every bit of evidence that was covered but I have heard a fair amount in the live coverage.

PRetty much every number you listed is from the Maddow or like shows.  And all have no meaning or have been found to be untrue in which they way they were reported by the fake news.

I'll try and indulge via from what I remember. Don't got time to look into all this again:

1)Biden is not the front runner.  They're all equally shitty

2) POTUS can withhold funds for what ever reason he sees fit.  And there was no QPQ, Ukraine was going to get the funds anyways (read transcript)

3) Is there something wrong with investigating corruption?  No one else had the balls to bring it up, but POTUS does. Who else's kids for for Ukraine power companies (Pelosi, Kerry, 1 more but I forget)

4) No one was legally required to testify.  So why would they?  The DNC would just do a General Flynn.  So unless legally required, there is no need to show up. IF they were legally required and didn't show up, they would be in jail right now.  But they're not.

5) POTUS can fire an ambassador for any reason, or lack there of a reason.  But in her case, now you know why he did.

6) See #2, no QPQ

7) IDK much about this one, never looked into it.  But is it illegal?  If the answer is no, then Rudy can meet with who ever he wants to. 

GOP was not allowed to call witnesses when in the house impeachment, not that they don't want to.  There also is no point to calling any additional witnesses because the foundation of the impeachment is a moo point anyways.  IIRC, flap posted that once the docs are in the senate, no more new info can be added.  It all has to be done by the DNC controlled house.  Secret meetings with Schiff which GOP was not allowed to attend.

9) Not sure if Ukraine tried or didn't try to interfere.  But I know Russia didn't.  Ask yourself, why would Ukraine want to keep Clinton in power and not Trump?  See #3.  So there is a motive for them to interfere and other countries who benefited from Barry's/Clintons corruption.  We interfere with other countries elections all the time.  So is it illegal?  How come the DNC is so concerned about another countries (Russia) interfierence, but not concerned about illegal aliens voting?  If 60,000 Russians came into the US illegally, would the DNC would be singing a different tune?  Illegal voters, that's interference.

10) POTUS can ask questions and does all the time in other matters.  He needs to know what's legal and what's not.  So him asking inappropriate questions are good.  They need to be asked so he makes sure he doesn't break the law.  Can't know an answer if you don't ask. 

So, someone told the New York Times that Bolton wrote in a draft manuscript that Trump said Ukrainian aid was tied to a political investigation into the Bidens.

This sounds a lot like "A third woman now claims she witnessed Kavanaugh participating in a gang rape parties ... that she attended several times."

Bolton didn't want to respond to the House's supposedly invalid subpoena, and Schiff withdrew the subpoena rather than appear in court to have it enforced. (we never seem to hear the last part of that situation)

Now, the Senate needs to evaluate the House's case AS PRESENTED FOR 21+ HOURS.  Only then, if the Senate decides they need to go forward with a trial, will new evidence and testimony be allowed.

Having said that, previous Senate impeachment trials only heard testimony from witnesses who testified in the House hearings.  Since Bolton did not appear in the House, it's unlikely the Senate will consider having him appear now.

These are the last minute, panicked attempts by the Left to further extend and confuse the trial.  Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was delayed over and over to investigate the various accusers' stories one after another, with Dems calling for a long, drawn-out FBI investigation before voting.  Their delay tactics are obvious and tiresome.  Right now, Schiff and Pelosi would do anything to avoid a vote to acquit Trump. 

Unless Bolton makes a personal statement under oath that materially impacts the actual facts of the case presented, the New York Times story is nothing more than a wrench being thrown into the works.

Guess who's brother is on the NSC counsel who reviewed Bolton's info...

So, someone told the New York Times that Bolton wrote in a draft manuscript that Trump said Ukrainian aid was tied to a political investigation into the Bidens.

This sounds a lot like "A third woman now claims she witnessed Kavanaugh participating in a gang rape parties ... that she attended several times."

Bolton didn't want to respond to the House's supposedly invalid subpoena, and Schiff withdrew the subpoena rather than appear in court to have it enforced. (we never seem to hear the last part of that situation)

Now, the Senate needs to evaluate the House's case AS PRESENTED FOR 21+ HOURS.  Only then, if the Senate decides they need to go forward with a trial, will new evidence and testimony be allowed.

Having said that, previous Senate impeachment trials only heard testimony from witnesses who testified in the House hearings.  Since Bolton did not appear in the House, it's unlikely the Senate will consider having him appear now.

These are the last minute, panicked attempts by the Left to further extend and confuse the trial.  Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was delayed over and over to investigate the various accusers' stories one after another, with Dems calling for a long, drawn-out FBI investigation before voting.  Their delay tactics are obvious and tiresome.  Right now, Schiff and Pelosi would do anything to avoid a vote to acquit Trump. 

Unless Bolton makes a personal statement under oath that materially impacts the actual facts of the case presented, the New York Times story is nothing more than a wrench being thrown into the works.

The NYT is trying to help Bolton sell books on the eve of his book release. Sad.

The NYT is trying to help Bolton sell books on the eve of his book release. Sad.

- The Les Parnas interview

- OMB email about withholding funds

- GAO saying withholding funds was illegal

- The Bolton manuscript

Obviously coordinated stunts.

Think about this.  If Trump was trying to get Bolton and the fired US Ambassador to Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma when they say, HOW COULD THE INVESTIGATION BE MOTIVATED TO HURT A POLITICAL OPPONENT WHEN BIDEN HAD NOT ANNOUNCED HE WAS RUNNING THEN?

Trump has been consistent about trying to find out what happened in Ukraine regarding 2016 election interfering since long before Biden was a candidate for 2020.  So, any accusations Trump is using this to unfairly dig up dirt on a political opponent is totally false.  It's logically impossible based on the info reported over the last week.

In trying to resuscitate their impeachment case, the Dems have proven their theory of Trump's motivations completely false.

The NYT is trying to help Bolton sell books on the eve of his book release. Sad.

Guess who in the WH reviews the info NYT got, same guy who reviews Bolton's release.

Guess who in the WH reviews the info NYT got, same guy who reviews Bolton's release.

Let me guess, Santa Claus? 

Gonna have to watch when I get home.  Been trying to login to watch at lunch, but couldn't get connection.  I'll look for the Pam Bondi part.

Now there's more news of Hunter Biden and his paternity suit thing. 

Then there's Bolden, the "leak" and book recently released on Amazon. . .

Tune into NPR if you can get to a radio, or stream it off the web. They had live coverage and I listened to much of today's coverage that way.

PRetty much every number you listed is from the Maddow or like shows.  And all have no meaning or have been found to be untrue in which they way they were reported by the fake news.

I'll try and indulge via from what I remember. Don't got time to look into all this again:

1)Biden is not the front runner.  They're all equally shitty

2) POTUS can withhold funds for what ever reason he sees fit.  And there was no QPQ, Ukraine was going to get the funds anyways (read transcript)

3) Is there something wrong with investigating corruption?  No one else had the balls to bring it up, but POTUS does. Who else's kids for for Ukraine power companies (Pelosi, Kerry, 1 more but I forget)

4) No one was legally required to testify.  So why would they?  The DNC would just do a General Flynn.  So unless legally required, there is no need to show up. IF they were legally required and didn't show up, they would be in jail right now.  But they're not.

5) POTUS can fire an ambassador for any reason, or lack there of a reason.  But in her case, now you know why he did.

6) See #2, no QPQ

7) IDK much about this one, never looked into it.  But is it illegal?  If the answer is no, then Rudy can meet with who ever he wants to. 

GOP was not allowed to call witnesses when in the house impeachment, not that they don't want to.  There also is no point to calling any additional witnesses because the foundation of the impeachment is a moo point anyways.  IIRC, flap posted that once the docs are in the senate, no more new info can be added.  It all has to be done by the DNC controlled house.  Secret meetings with Schiff which GOP was not allowed to attend.

9) Not sure if Ukraine tried or didn't try to interfere.  But I know Russia didn't.  Ask yourself, why would Ukraine want to keep Clinton in power and not Trump?  See #3.  So there is a motive for them to interfere and other countries who benefited from Barry's/Clintons corruption.  We interfere with other countries elections all the time.  So is it illegal?  How come the DNC is so concerned about another countries (Russia) interfierence, but not concerned about illegal aliens voting?  If 60,000 Russians came into the US illegally, would the DNC would be singing a different tune?  Illegal voters, that's interference.

10) POTUS can ask questions and does all the time in other matters.  He needs to know what's legal and what's not.  So him asking inappropriate questions are good.  They need to be asked so he makes sure he doesn't break the law.  Can't know an answer if you don't ask.

I don't watch Maddow or MSNBC, much of what I got was from the arguments made by the prosecution side that I listened to live.

I am very hesitant to believe claims that it is all a bunch of lies. If they were so easily dismissed as lies then why has Trump's defense team attacked the process and the Biden corruption instead of attacking the democrat facts?

1. Biden was seen as the front runner and having the best chance to beat Trump for a while. He was an obvious target.

2. Trump did not have authorization to withhold funds for whatever reason he feels like it. The Government Accountability Office even said he broke the law. This is not a serious legal violation or one worth impeaching over, in my opinion, but still a violation of the law.

3. Nothing was wrong with the investigation in my opinion but the timing is very suspect.

4. White House staff were subpoenaed to testify and lass I checked a subpoena has legal authority. The reason they can get away with it is because of separation of powers which creates that complication.

5. Yes, Trump can fire for whatever reason he wants but again, the timing is very suspect.

6. And Mulvaney just didn't get the message it was not quid pro quo? I know Trump said there were no conditions but I don't treat that statement as fact just because he said it.

7. Not sure if what Rudy did was criminal but I believe he violated something there at some level whether it be some regulation or some rule for lawyers. I think there was a conflict of interest but I can't recall exactly where. Need to listen to the podcast that covered that one again to be able to cover the details.

8. There is no reason the republicans can't call new witnesses at this stage in the process. From the commentary I was listening to in the news the republicans are considering it.

9. Russia definitely did try to interfere in our elections but that is a separate story and so is illegal alien voting. As to Ukraine interfering in the election I am going to have to look into this one more based off the link Flappier shared. I know the FBI guy testified that they had no evidence of Ukrainian interference. So gotta sort through the weeds there.

10. By themselves the comments and questions are not that serious, again it is just the overall picture this whole thing paints.



To be clear, I am saying that the prosecution has made a strong case, I am not saying that therefore Trump is guilty. I am waiting to hear more of the defense side before I weigh in my personal opinion.

What I will say that it looks like so far is using the situation for a personal advantage. By that I mean sometimes the right decision for the country also happens to make the leader look good. And of course, why not undertake such a course of action, two birds with one stone. Trump doesn't really care about corruption in Ukraine but he knows that an investigation into the Bidens will help him and he knows that he can justify it because of the apparent dirtiness of Biden's son and he was trying to squeeze it for all its worth. Trump is doing a bit of a balance act trying to get as much personal advantage out of it while staying in the justified area.  Is this illegal? Nope. Is it unethical? I would say the way he went about it is. Is it impeachment worthy? Not in my opinion at this point.

Giuliani is sort of a wild card here. I don't know if he came up with the idea but he actually seems to be more dirty than Trump here.