Patrick Philbin "Blows Apart" House Manager's Central Argument for Abuse of Power.

OscarLevant said:

Philbin's argument is on par with any defense attorney's, noting that defense attorney's will do anything they can to get their client off the hook, cherry picking and twisting facts to create a counter narrative, and truth by greater context be damned.

His argument completely glosses over the testimonies, given in great detail, of some 13 FSO's, and we've not even heard from those in the inner circle, yet.

7 moves ahead? Not from where I sit.

Click to expand...

Please provide a single example of his cherry picking or twisting of facts.

I guess you missed his argument completely glossing over the testimonies while he was actually using the Democrat witnesses testimonies.

Maybe this can help you

Democrats Own Witnesses Shoot Down Impeachment Dreams

NeverTrump said:

Vindman? You're worried about the wrong snowflake... Hint: this one's got a big mustache.

Click to expand...

I never did like Bolton the warmonger. Whaddya wanna bet that he was the one that wanted Trump to kill Iranians for the downing of our drone and Trump said no??

People have to realize most dems are either distracted with other things or annoyed that the GOP defense doesn't concentrate on proving Trump's innocence with the charge that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens for future pollical gain.

IMO, the GOP defense needs to concentrate more on the facts...The summary of the phone call... and concentrate less on the fact that the impeachment is 'illegal'.

I can't believe that neither the prosecution dems side or the defense GOPs side are mentioning the phone call summary much, at all.

Condor060 said:

Did someone learn some knew words> There is no such thing a congressionally mandated aid. They don't mandate anything, they just authorize it. Presidents have broad authority to condition aid to a foreign nation, even to delay it if he has concerns. The President sets foreign policy, not Congress. Sorry.

And before any impeachment committee is authorized to submit subpoenas, the House must vote for an impeachment inquiry and if successful, then must vote to delegate their authority to the committee to send subpoenas for the power of the House. Sorry, they never did that.

And your 13 witnesses testified that Ukraine didn't even know about any hold on aid until Politico ran their report more than a month later. If they don't know there is a hold, how can they be involved in a bribery? Another huge fail outed in the trial.

Trump isn't going to be removed. Get used to it.

Click to expand...

Bullseye said:

First off, it's NOT Congressionally mandated, Congress appropriated the money for use by the executive branch in fulfilling its foreign diplomacy duties. Trump is in charge of diplomacy, and as Mulvaney said they were aware the money had to be used by the end of the fiscal year or it would be reclaimed.

Click to expand...

No, its not his money to withhold. He broke the law in doing so. G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid - The New York Times

There was no diplomacy happening here. Only a feeble attempt at a defense that inconsistent with all testimony and all other behaviors of Trump. Only a fool buys this one. When money has been delayed for legitimate reasons in the past, Congress was duly notified as to the reason of the delay and all things were done through normal channels.

As to subpoenas, the House has sole power to impeach and therefore sole power to define its rules regarding issuing of subpoenas. Congress also has the power to subpoena and the power of executive oversight and can implement that power by its ownn rules. The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives. The Executive Branch has no power to tell how Congress how its subpoenas much be authorized in connection with an impeachment investigation.

Sorry, but Trump committed an abuse of power here. It is actually as described by the 13 witnesses and House Managers and not consistently refuted or explained by the White House. Tell me it doesn't rise to an offense worthy of removal, but it happened as described and is certainly impeachable. Don't appear to be an intellectual lightweight or simply disingenuous by perpetuating the lies of the defense

Condor060 said:

One of the most impressive litigators I have ever seen. He adds no emotion and just relies of his facts. I would be scared to death if this guy was sitting across from me in a trial. You can tell he is thinking about 7 moves ahead of everything you say.

He would be a deposition nightmare if he was sitting across from you. Totally unreadable.

Click to expand...

Did he miss the transcript? Because that's not very impressive litigation.

Captain Adverse said:

Patrick Philbin makes a valid argument against the House manager's "rationale" for abuse of authority."



Schiff and the other's have been arguing that evidence of Abuse of Power is demonstrated by Trump's penchant for ignoring advisers and Agency bureaucrat's "advice" on foreign policy.

This allegedly exemplified by his actions vis a vis Ukraine.

However, Mr. Philbin points out accurately that Agency heads and other staffing personal of whatever stripe, serve to advise the President, and then carry out his policy decisions. NOT the other way round.

The Constitution rests the power of our military (except that of declaring war) and foreign affairs (except that of ratifying treaties) in the office of the Presidency.

Therefore, simply because he decides not to accept policy advice, that does not mean he is "abusing his power."

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

wait what now??
When did the "central argument" become "the president deciding not to accept policy advice means he is abusing his power"

opcorn2:

Click to expand...

CRICKETS!!!! LMAO

Gotta love when false narratives instantly fail.

upsideguy said:

No, its not his money to withhold. He broke the law in doing so. G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid - The New York TimesThere was no diplomacy happening here. Only a feeble attempt at a defense that inconsistent with all testimony and all other behaviors of Trump. Only a fool buys this one. When money has been delayed for legitimate reasons in the past, Congress was duly notified as to the reason of the delay and all things were done through normal channels.

Click to expand...

And the OMB disagreed. And, yes, it was HIS money to DELAY. Congress appropriates it, he spends it.

upsideguy said:

As to subpoenas, the House has sole power to impeach and therefore sole power to define its rules regarding issuing of subpoenas.

Click to expand...

Sorry, no. The Constitution defines how subpoenas are issued. AND the subpoenas in question would have been issued BEFORE the impeachment articles were voted on. The House decided it would take to long, and didn't bother.

upsideguy said:

Congress also has the power to subpoena and the power of executive oversight and can implement that power by its ownn rules. The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives. The Executive Branch has no power to tell how Congress how its subpoenas much be authorized in connection with an impeachment investigation.

Click to expand...

Congressional oversight is not a blanket authorization. And yes Congress CAN issue subpoenas, however as a co-equal branch of government the executive branch has the right to challenge them.

upsideguy said:

Sorry, but Trump committed an abuse of power here. It is actually as described by the 13 witnesses and House Managers and not consistently refuted or explained by the White House. Tell me it doesn't rise to an offense worthy of removal, but it happened as described and is certainly impeachable. Don't appear to be an intellectual lightweight or simply disingenuous by perpetuating the lies of the defense

Click to expand...

Sorry, no. None of the witnesses testified to Trump doing anything not within his Constitutional power. The witnesses might not like it, or the may disagree with it, or may be butthurt that he ignored their advice, but the President is the boss, not them.

Condor060 said:

I loved watching the Democrat Managers on the video screen all screaming for improper impeachment and how we should never have a partisan impeachment.
I laughed my ass off.

Click to expand...

If it weren't for double standards the Democrats wouldn't have any standards at all. :roll:

The follow on logic that always is coupled with the display of Democrat double standards is that Democrats always accuse other of what they themselves are guilty of.

Following these two multiply proven true 'rules of thumb', the next question a reasonable and critically thinking person would ask, 'Who really was trafficking in Ukrainian corruption and (foreign) influence in US elections?'

I leave that question for the reader research and answer for themselves.