Setting the stage for a summary judgment

The Empire strikes back

If you’re listening to the President’s response to the Democrat Managers case, get ready to hear “Ask yourself why you are only hearing this now” a lot.

Schiff and Nadler built their case using out of context portions of testimony for their witnesses, not including in their case exculpatory portions of the testimony and entirely omitting witnesses that contradicted their case. That probably works well in the press,  but it is clearly dishonest and when called on it, it looks very much like they were pulling a scam on the Senate. I expect to hear that a lot more Monday.

By the time they are done, they will have completely destroyed the Democrat’s case and all trust in Schiff and Nadler. Based on just the evidence the Democrats tried to hide, I doubt there will be any support for more witnesses and the trial will be over by Wednesday.

Sadly, that might keep Biden and his son out of prison, but as a candidate, Biden will be toast.

56 thoughts on “Setting the stage for a summary judgment

  1. Bullshit.

    The dishonesty is almost exclusively on the side of Mr. Trump and his sycophants. The Democrats case is honest and well documented in spite of Trump’s efforts to cover up.

    There are no exculpatory witnesses. Somebody’s opinion that what Trump did was A-OK does not change the facts of what he did. The facts are not really in dispute. The defense is name-calling and process whining. Telling the Senators that Adam Schiff is baaaaad man does not change a single fact.

    And, of course, none of you have an answer for the question – Does an innocent man block testimony and evidence? But that does not stop this lawyer from complaining that there is not enough evidence. LOL!

    Kudos for the title you gave this link. Trump acts like and even looks a little like Sheev Palpatine – at least when his make-up wears thin.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. “We know there was no quid pro quo on the call, we know that from the transcript,” Mr. Purpura said. “There couldn’t possibly have been a quid pro quo because the Ukrainians didn’t know the security assistance was on hold” until a Politico article reported that, he said.

        “There can’t be a threat without the person knowing he’s being threatened,” Mr. Purpura said. He played testimony from the House hearings where administration officials testified they did not learn of the freeze until the article published in late August.

        But a former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister later said she learned of the aid hold on July 30, and one Defense Department official said in congressional testimony that Ukrainian diplomats knew about it by July 25.”

        Fact check by NYT

        So whose lying?

        Liked by 3 people

          1. To be honest, I have listened to virtually nothing from either side. So what is the context I am missing? Either the a House or Trump is lying in this case. Either the Ukrainians knew before July 25 or they didn’t.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “ Trump didn’t say do ME a favor.”

            I know, that is why I quoted “US”.

            This argument didn’t even arise until weeks or months later when excuses were being rolled out. Suddenly it “hey, look, he said “us”, not “me”. A BS argument if there ever was one. Who was benefiting from investigating Biden or touting the Russian story about a server hidden in a gas station restroom outside of Kiev?

            It requires an incredible suspension of disbelief to argue that it was important to investigate Biden over all the other supposed corruption. And the Pentagon had cleared the “corruption” hurdles for the aid. And this was not long after Biden was a front runner.

            Toss in the lies that we were the only ones giving aid to Ukraine. When in fact our amounts paled to European monies.

            That is why the Trump legal team is attacking process, the facts are against them.

            Their boss is the biggest (expletive deleted) liar we have ever seen in politics, and that is a high standard. So his legal team is just doing more of the same.

            But not to worry. Mitch has got it all arranged, nice and neat. He got money from his wife at DOT, and waivers of Russian sanctions for the one oligarch that wants a factory in Kentucky. And at a 23% approval rating, Mitch needs to cover for his “boss” at the White House.

            Gee, I wonder if Mitch asked Trump “can you do “us” a favor though…?”.

            At least you can show some appreciation that the senate will keep Trump in power even if he is astoundingly guilty of everything the founders feared most: a president whose loyalties were for sale to the highest bidders overseas.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “But a former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister later said she learned of the aid hold on July 30, and one Defense Department official said in congressional testimony that Ukrainian diplomats knew about it by July 25.”

          The aid package was originally scheduled for release in mid to late September. So while some bureaucratic statuses may have been communicated to the Ukrainians along the way, they had no reason to be concerned until the Political article said delivery would be delayed.

          Your NYT “fact check” is less than it appears.

          But apart from that, it doesn’t change the demonstration of the failures of the prosecution case. Those failures are based on the evidentiary record at trial, which the prosecution misrepresents in the matter of the quid pro quo.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Your opinion, of course.

            “Do us a favor, though…” says it all. Followed by specifically demanding the investigation of Biden and the server conspiracy theory. Mulvaney “helped” by dismissively telling Americans to just “get over it” because it was “quid pro Trump”…business as usual.

            Any other explanation other than the case laid out by the House requires a pharmaceutical boost from illicit medications to grasp.

            But the acquittal has been assured well in advance. The monies have gone to a Kentucky as promised.

            So let’s at least hear from Bolton, et.al., so Trump can be found innocent.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @Len

            You’re doing the same thing as Schiff, quoting out of context to change clear meaning. Trump didn’t say do ME a favor.

            ” I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. ”

            The ‘us’ in the context of the sentence is clearly THE COUNTRY, not Trump.

            The only military aid mentioned in the call was the sale of Javelin Missiles, which was entirely separate form the aid temporarily held . That sale was not delayed.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “The ‘us’ in the context of the sentence is clearly THE COUNTRY, not Trump.”

            Trump has equated himself as the country since he was elected. Every time he has said “us” he really means “me”. “This is bad for the country” has always indicated “This is bad for ME”.

            I know that the supporters will say I can’t prove it, but if they are honest with themselves, they will acknowledge his speech patterns. But they won’t be.

            Like

          4. RE: “‘Do us a favor, though…’ says it all.”

            Do you really think so? This is one of the very points the president’s defense team eviscerated. To wit:

            • The president could not have been talking about himself or his private motives because the transcript makes clear he is talking about our national interest.
            • The aid package Trump and Zelinsky were discussing was not the aid package some (wrongly ) say was delayed. It was a completely different transaction involving Javelin missiles.

            • The president clearly asked for help investigating “The whole situation” in Ukraine, not just the Bidens.

            Perhaps you should go back and read the transcript of the call. You appear to be misinformed about what it says.

            Like

          5. @Roberts
            @Tabor

            So, now you Trumpkins want us to believe that a country fighting for its life with soldiers in the field dying because of lack of equipment were not aware that vital help promised and approved by Congress was not being delivered? Just not paying attention, eh?

            Not gonna happen especially since Sondland testified UNDER OATH that he personally informed Yermak – a Zelensky staffer – that the aid would be held until the announcement of an investigation was made. They new what the quid was and they knew what the quo was.

            A favor for “us?”

            You can play around all you want with who “us” might be but the fact is that announcing these political investigations of Joe Biden is NOT a favor for the United States. It is a favor for Trump.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. RE: “So, now you Trumpkins want us to believe…”

            You can believe whatever you want. Clearly, however, you are misinformed:

            • The aid you are referring to was never delayed. It was delivered as originally scheduled.

            • Sondland testified that all his aid-related deal making was based on “presumptions” not facts. John Bolton, in fact, called Sondland’s actions a “drug deal,” indicating that they had no support above Sondland in the chain of command.

            • Investigating the Bidens, when it finally occurs, will indeed be good for “us,” the United States. Your insistance that personal gain was uppermost in Trump’s mind only shows that you, like Schiff, imagine yourself to be capable of mind reading. The record doesn’t support it.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. @Roberts

            Laughable but typical mis-representation of the facts.

            1. Military aid WAS held up.
            2. The “drug deal” involved TWO of Trump’s direct reports Mulvaney and Perry. Not just Sondland. Had the “Three Amigos” gone rogue and were dirty dealing behind the Presidents back? Sure they were! LOL!

            3. Your claim that forcing Ukraine to announce investigations of the Bidens without ANY evidence of wrong-doing and to announce investigations of the already debunked Ukraine-has-the-DNC-server conspiracy theory is for the benefit of the country and not of Trump’s campaign doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

            The inaneness of your assertions is matched only by the uncritical certainty that you attach to them.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. “Held up” or not, according to you, no military aid was delayed, and the aid you are referring to could never have been part of a Trump threat because it wasn’t mentioned in the Zelinsky call.

            2. John Bolton, quoted in testimony by Fiona Hill: “You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up…”

            3. Your claim that Trump tried to force Ukraine to do anything is what’s truly laughable.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. As I wrote before, the answer to your question is in the GOP presentation.

          The House demanded that White House Staff testify without White House lawyers present, making point-by-point assertion of executive privilege impossible. Only the President or his lawyers can invoke executive privilege, the staffer being questioned cannot. Absent the presence of council, the only way to assert privilege was in total.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @Tabor

            That is not an answer. It is an excuse. The correct answer is NO. An innocent man does not block the evidence that would exculpate him.

            Executive Privilege has not been asserted by Trump or his lawyers on ANY point on ANYTHING because it is bogus and would not be affirmed in court. It is a very, very narrow privilege that covers almost none of these matters.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Clearly you don’t understand how executive privilege works.

            Imagine Bolton on the stand under the House Democrats rules(no White House lawyer present)

            Bolton is asked “What was your advice to the President on aid to the Ukraine?”

            The answer to that question is clearly protected by executive privilege.

            But executive privilege belongs to the President, not Bolton. Bolton cannot assert it. With no Attorney for the President there, privilege cannot be asserted to refuse to answer.

            So, the President’s only option is to refuse to allow Bolton to testify at all UNLESS the White House is represented, otherwise he is giving up executive privilege not only for himself but for all future Presidents.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. This talk of “Executive Privilege” is a complete Red Herring. It is not an answer to the question. The answer is that an innocent man wants the evidence on the table. A guilty man doesn’t. Period.

            Besides that, you are simply wrong about the need for the President to be present or represented. In your example, John Bolton could simply say “I cannot answer that question pursuant to the assertion of Executive Privilege made by the President in his letter to Adam Schiff of such and such a date.” If there were such a letter, they could not punish the witness for that answer.

            The process of the investigative committees was analogous to a Grand Jury proceeding. The person investigated by a Grand Jury is not represented not party to testimony and depositions. Having Trump’s lawyers sit in would be a close analogy to having a crime boss’s lawyer monitor Grand Jury testimony against him. It would suppress the truth and put the witness at risk for telling it.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Considering that pretty much anything Bolton would say, or hear, from the President after “Good Morning” would be subject to executive privilege, how would such a letter be different from telling him not to testify under those conditions?

            I’m leaving for a family function, so figure it out for yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. @Tabor

            There is PLENTY that John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney or others could be asked and could answer that has nothing to do with Executive Privilege. For example,

            “Mr. Bolton, to you knowledge was the government of Ukraine aware that the approved military aid had been blocked?” That is a factual matter in dispute. He could and should answer.

            In fact outside of direct discussions he may have had with the President, matters of FACT of which he has knowledge are not subject to Executive Privilege. And if what he learned in discussions with the President involved criminal behavior, that is not protected either. Look it up.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. @Murphy

      Those on “dark side” cannot be reasoned with nor dissuaded from their chosen path. Reason, logic and facts have been rejected as their application would reveal that the alternative reality they’ve bought into Is a fantasy and lie.

      Our Republic is being tested at a fundamental and visceral level. I continue to hope that clear minded patriots take a stand and repudiate the cancer in the Oval Office and allow us to begin the healing process.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. “Parroting” is an art form for those in the cult as thinking on their own appears to not come naturally.

          Even the unbiased fact checkers threw the BS flag on the WH defense (?).

          Liked by 2 people

    2. @ Paul

      As much as I’d like President Trump to be a one-term President?

      You detest Donald Trump as much as I detest Hillary Clinton.

      IMHO? The House screwed the pooch when it comes to their impeachment proceedings. They went too fast due to 2020 being an election year.

      Like it or not…President Trump’s attorneys raised some very salient points Saturday. I’m not well versed in “the rule of law” but I have been a grand juror and been a juror (civilian trials) and a courts martial panelist several times.

      The difference between me (civilian/active duty) and these politicians? My continued employment would not be in question…let lone having to experience months of (opposing) media attention based upon my decision.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @Craig
        Unless you are completely demented, I detest Donald Trump far more than you detest Hillary Clinton. There are PLENTY of very rational reasons to detest Mr. Trump and far fewer to feel that way about Ms. Clinton.

        Those “salient points” come from the Trump universe of “alternate facts.” Here are just a few of the “alternate facts” that they relied on to make those points . . .

        1. Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. They didn’t.
        2. America provides the bulk of aid to Ukraine. We don’t
        3. Blocking military aid was routine. It wasn’t.
        4. FBI and intelligence agencies are disreputable. They aren’t.
        5. There was no quid pro quo. There was.
        6. The notes of the call are a transcript. They aren’t
        7. Ukraine officials did not know aid was stopped. They did.
        8. GOP and Trump were denied access to House proceedings. Complete lie.
        9. Mueller report found no “collusion.” Irrelevant and Mueller said they were not looking for collusion.

        I could go on, but you get the idea.

        Cheers.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Yes, you could go on, and every point you made is absolutely correct.

          I know that some of us on this forum see the obvious mis-direction and lies being presented to the American public as facts, but the WH and GOP have used State TV effectively to confuse even fair minded people about the fraud being perpetrated on them.

          The time and effort it takes to back check the onslaught of crap spewed on a daily basis is something most people don’t have time for.Thankfully the reputable news sites are doing the heavy lifting, but again trump/GOP have done all they can to breed mis-trust in them as well.

          Bottom line; if we’re not interested in the truth, and/or smart enough to do something about it we’ll deserve our fate….

          Liked by 2 people

          1. If you rely on the “reputable news sites” you get the same thing as the Democrat’s case, out-of-context quotes and lies of omission.

            The only way to honestly evaluate the GOP response is to listen to it in full.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Yes, you could go on, and every point you made is absolutely correct.”

            Nope. Most of Murphy’s musings have been tested here in the Forum before and utterly disproved.

            If your belief in falsehoods is reflective of the news sites you frequent, then I’d say you are poorly served by them.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @Tabor

            I listen to it ALL, both sides, and understand exactly what the facts and arguments are.

            I find your perspective and interpretation to be extremely slanted and fallacious.

            Liked by 2 people

          1. @Tabor

            Because I say so? Yeah, that and mountains of compelling evidence on each point. Your problem on this one is there is virtually ZERO exculpatory evidence for you to cherry pick. So, off we go into a fantasy land of “alternative facts.”

            Liked by 2 people

    3. RE: “And, of course, none of you have an answer for the question – Does an innocent man block testimony and evidence?”

      I have answered this question before. I believe I said it is a stupid question, because an innocent man is not required to prove his innocence.

      It is also an unethical and un-American question that you shouldn’t even be asking.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. @Roberts

          So, your answer is . . . “Yes, an innocent man hides the evidence that will exculpate him.”

          That is a good example of your famous GCO – Goofy Counterfactual Obtuseness. And, it is a good example of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that it takes in the Trump universe of “alternative facts.”

          Intellectual dishonesty. I say that because I do not believe that you are so stupid that that is your final answer. We both know that an innocent man does everything in his power to get the evidence that will clear him on the table. A guilty man does his best to hide evidence that will convict him. That is just a fact of life.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “So, your answer is . . . ‘Yes, an innocent man hides the evidence that will exculpate him.'”

          I didn’t say so, and for that reason it is you who is constructing counterfactuals.

          I said that a defendant is not required to prove his innocence. Your attempt to make Trump do so is the real intellectual dishonesty here.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @Roberts

            “I didn’t say so.”

            It was a Yes or No question. If you say the answer is not “No,” then the answer is “Yes.” Duh!!!

            “Trump is not required to prove his innocence.” Of course not. But if he could, he would. It is therefore very logical to believe that he can’t.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “It was a Yes or No question. If you say the answer is not ‘No,’ then the answer is ‘Yes.’ Duh!!!”

            Your Humpty Dumpty act is tiresome.

            The correct answer to some yes-or-no questions is neither, or, as I already said, the question you have asked is stupid and unethical.

            How many times will you fall off your wall before you realize you are broken?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @Roberts

            Your lame Humpty Dumpty jibes are a poor substitute for simply admitting the obvious truth . . .

            An innocent man accused of a crime wants all the evidence on the table. A guilty man doesn’t. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Excellent video. As I watched the original broadcast today, I was struck by how easily, casually and thoroughly the president’s defense team eviscerated the prosecution. If it is true that the facts are not really in dispute, then it is doubly true that the facts support the defense. You just have to cite the full record the Democrats produced to see it.

    Schiff, Nadler, et al, were made fools of today. More soon, I expect.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Why not just call a spade a spade and be honest about what this is? It is a hyper partisan effort to rig the 2020 election by claiming, through filtered “evidence” of their opinion and Schiff deceit of the president’s intent, that some crime has been committed. This is based solely on left wing opinion of policy decisions and not on law. If a law had been broken it would clearly have been in an article. To keep on regurgitating the same non-evidence with parodies of left wing opinion proves nothing but bring to light the true hyper partisan attempt to rig elections. If there was ever a more compelling case for the electoral college, this is it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. In addition to this abysmal charade, DOJ has had to admit, after judicial decision, that they, under Obama, illegally obtained warrants to surveil Gates and the Trump campaign. The big blow up of Democrat election conspiracy is about to be broadcast. Stay tuned, that is if MSM cares to be honest and impartial.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You mean the way Fox didn’t air the Impeachment trial during prime time so their Trump head’s could continue to spread the lies of Trump and beat the drums of “We love Donald yes we do”. ? Seems to me they were too afraid to have their viewers hear the case. “Nothing to see here”.

      And I love the way you parrot you play parrot. Very entertaining. Complete bulkshit, but entertaining, nonetheless.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The Fox News shows in prime time were more interesting than the prosecution in the impeachment trial. Besides, you get tired of listening to lie after lie for hours on end.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. TV is about ratings. The audience wanting to hear Schiff repeat the same lies over and over for 24 hours was very small compared to the audience for Sean Hannity.

            There were plenty of places for those who wanted to listen the Schiff prattle on to go to. so why should FOX preempt a program that gets ten times the ratings?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Tabor

            I guess you missed my point. It was not about that particular decision. It was about the fact that Fox News is the mother lode of alternative facts that is polluting our political life.

            But, about that programming decision. Pretending that it was about ratings is just another “alternative fact.” Boring or not, there is no bigger news than the case against the President. A news organization would cover it.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “It was about the fact that Fox News is the mother lode of alternative facts that is polluting our political life.”

            In other words, your point was superfluous due to irrelevance. It was also illogical (non sequitur) since I observed only that The Fox shows were more interesting than the impeachment prosecution, which I found boring.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “hear Schiff repeat the same lies over and over‘

            SAD that you’ve abdicated all reason in your “us against them” fixation.

            Mark 8:36

            Liked by 2 people

  5. Good choice on the link title… The reference to “The Empire” is not totally inaccurate, but they were far more intelligent and less slimy.

    Three things I have learned about Trump:
    1) When he says, “I know more about it than…,” it really means he knows nothing about it,
    2) When he says, “I don’t know the man…, ” it means he’s probably one of his kid’s godparents, and
    3) When he says, “Good morning…,” it means you’re late for your afternoon appointments, or he stole your watch.

    Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s