trump Inpeachment...............

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

If trumpettes like it, it must be shit.

There's the (lack of) critical thinking skills I always expect from you.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

There's the (lack of) critical thinking skills I always expect from you.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Considering the post I was responding to , I expect nothing less from you.You don't disappoint.

[CRedskinsRule]

The post was funny because it rang so true, if Trump were to say apples are good for you, you would go to the nth degree to prove apples are harmful in some way.

Your over the top sky is falling response to the whole impeachment boondoggle is examplary of that.

Trump will or won't be stripped of office by the senate. If he is, I support that action because it is the senate's call to make. If he isn't then I support that action too, because it is the Senate's call to make. I am sure you cannot make the same statement and mean it honestly.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The post was funny because it rang so true, if Trump were to say apples are good for you, you would go to the nth degree to prove apples are harmful in some way.

Your over the top sky is falling response to the whole impeachment boondoggle is examplary of that.

Trump will or won't be stripped of office by the senate. If he is, I support that action because it is the senate's call to make. If he isn't then I support that action too, because it is the Senate's call to make. I am sure you cannot make the same statement and mean it honestly.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

LOL, way to cover your ass. Again typical trump supporter BS. Your past posts show your true colors and that if they do remove trump you will basically have a melt down and scream it was lies and a witch hunt . Never once have you come out and said trump deserves this and that he brought it on himself.trump has disgraced this country and the Office of the President of the United States . According to you it's all a conspiracy to get him ......to get trump but never once would you admit he is an ignorant man when it comes to running a country . He blackmale the republicans into backing him and now they are in it deep and can not come out of this looking any other way but covering for trump. The fact that you call the Impeachment a "boondoggle" shows that your post about supporting the outcome is a lie . Unlike you and chico I have never wavered on my stance on trump.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, way to cover your ass. Again typical trump supporter BS. Your past posts show your true colors and that if the remove trump you will basically have a melt down and scream it was lies and a witch hunt . Never once have you come out and said trump deserves this and that he brought it on himself.trump has disgraced this country and the Office of the President of the United States . According to you it's all a conspiracy to get him ......to get trump but never once would you admit he is an ignorant man when it comes to running a country . He blackmale the republicans into backing him and now they are in it deep and can not come out of this looking any other way but covering for trump. The fact that you call the Impeachment a "boondoggle" shows that your post about supporting the outcome is a lie . Unlike you and chico I have never wavered on my stance on trump.

I have said all along if the Senate impeaches him then I will support that choice. Further you haven't seen one post from me complaining about the House's conduct because they also have acted within their constitutional authority. you can scroll thru if you want to take the time.

As for calling it a boondoggle, maybe you and I have different definitions of it, but having a partisan vote in the house, and likely a partisan vote in the Senate is a boondoggle to me, not a clear and overwhelming national effort to remove a president guilty of high crimes and misdemeanor like Nixon faced.

I would add that the only people I have seen screaming and having melt downs are the liberal media every time Trump scores another victory.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/docs-show...015330076.html

Docs Show Parnas Helping Nunes Aide Set Up Interviews With Ex-Ukrainian Officials


New documents turned over to the House Judiciary Committee on Friday night include messages between Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and Derek Harvey, an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA). The Daily Beast was first to report that Parnas helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Harvey in 2018 to help the lawmaker's investigative work, and it appears the practice continued into 2019.

The exchanges between Parnas and Harvey, which span several months in early 2019, show the two arranging several meetings and phone calls to discuss two claims that have been central to Trumpworld’s dirt-digging mission in Ukraine and the president’s subsequent impeachment: supposed corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and a plot against Trump by Ukrainian officials during the 2016 election.




In addition to setting up interviews and arranging meetings, the messages between Parnas and Harvey also show the two exchanging several news articles critical of Biden and his son Hunter.

In another message in March, Harvey appeared to task Parnas with doing research on claims the Ukrainian government worked with Hillary Clinton’s allies in 2016 to find compromising information on then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a conspiracy theory frequently espoused by Trump and his allies.

Harvey also mentioned Parnas “working through (John) Solomon,” a former columnist at The Hill who had been in contact with Nunes, Giuliani, and Parnas. The Daily Beast reported that Solomon sent a version of his article last year to Parnas and Trumpworld lawyers Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing before it was published on the The Hill's website.

A lawyer for Parnas, Ed MacMahon, told The Daily Beast previously that his client aided Nunes in arranging meetings and calls in Europe in 2018. Congressional records show Nunes, Harvey, and two of Nunes' other aides went to Europe in late 2018 for four days, using over $63,000 of government funds for the trip.

[Giantone]

Putin coming to trumps defense...........go figure!


https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9ffd32e...closer-to.html


Giuliani would get the Justice Department to drop its attempt to extradite the oligarch on bribery charges. In return, according to Parnas, the oligarch promised to pass along evidence that would supposedly discredit both Joe Biden and Robert Mueller. Parnas's account, of course, is hardly definitive

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The post was funny because it rang so true, if Trump were to say apples are good for you, you would go to the nth degree to prove apples are harmful in some way.

Your over the top sky is falling response to the whole impeachment boondoggle is examplary of that.

Trump will or won't be stripped of office by the senate. If he is, I support that action because it is the senate's call to make. If he isn't then I support that action too, because it is the Senate's call to make. I am sure you cannot make the same statement and mean it honestly.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

That's a god damn lie Cred! Trump wouldn't say apples are good for you because they aren't deep fried or cooked in grease.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also apologies for typing this out in your quote Cred, I don't lump you in with people like sdskins or Chico, who this post is meant for.

I can't figure out the mental gymnastics it takes to think Trump has broken no laws when you have 8 different witnesses who all heard the call interpret his message as "we are withholding Congressionally authorized funds until you declare an investigation into my political rival."

I've taken the time to find the GAO report in which they clearly state the President broke the law.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

Let me quote relevant parts:

Originally Posted by Government Accountability Office

For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019. Id.

....

On July 25, 2019, OMB issued the first of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes withholding USAI funds from obligation. OMB Response, 1–2. This footnote read: “Amounts apportioned, but not yet obligated as of the date of this reapportionment, for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (Initiative) are not available for obligation until August 5, 2019, to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds. Based on OMB’s communication with DOD on July 25, 2019, OMB understands from the Department that this brief pause in obligations
will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction.
DOD may continue its planning and casework for the Initiative during
this period.”

....

DISCUSSION
At issue in this decision is whether OMB had authority to withhold the USAI funds from obligation.


...

The Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress and sets forth the procedures of bicameralism and presentment, through which the President may accept or veto a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and Congress may subsequently override a presidential veto. Id., art. I, § 7, cl. 2, 3. The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”). Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3.

...

An appropriations act is a law like any other; therefore, unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017 (the ICA operates on the premise that the President is required to obligate funds appropriated by Congress, unless otherwise authorized to withhold). In fact, Congress was concerned about the failure to prudently obligate according to its Congressional prerogatives when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See generally, H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).

...

The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation. See B-135564, July 26, 1973. Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the ICA. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 681–688. The ICA separates impoundments into two exclusive categories—deferrals and rescissions. The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”4 2 U.S.C. § 684. The President may also seek the permanent cancellation of funds for fiscal policy or other reasons, including the termination of programs for which Congress has provided budget authority, by proposing a “rescission.”5 2 U.S.C. § 683.

In either case, the ICA requires that the President transmit a special message to Congress that includes the amount of budget authority proposed for deferral or

4 Budget authority proposed for deferral must be prudently obligated before the end of its period of availability. 2 U.S.C. § 684; B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017.
5 Budget authority proposed for rescission must be made available for obligation unless, within 45 calendar days of continuous congressional session, Congress has completed action on a rescission bill rescinding all or part of the amount proposed for rescission. 2 U.S.C. § 683.

rescission and the reason for the proposal. 2 U.S.C. §§ 683–684. These special messages must provide detailed and specific reasoning to justify the withholding, as set out in the ICA. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 683–684; B-237297.4, Feb. 20, 1990 (vague or general assertions are insufficient to justify the withholding of budget authority). The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch.


There is no assertion or other indication here that OMB intended to propose a rescission. Not only did OMB not submit a special message with such a proposal, the footnotes in the apportionment schedules, by their very terms, established dates for the release of amounts withheld. The only other authority, then, for withholding amounts would have been a deferral.

The ICA authorizes the deferral of budget authority in a limited range of circumstances: to provide for contingencies; to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or as specifically provided by law. 2 U.S.C. § 684(b). No officer or employee of the United States may defer budget authority for any other purpose. Id.

Here, OMB did not identify—in either the apportionment schedules themselves or in its response to us—any contingencies as recognized by the ICA, savings or efficiencies that would result from a withholding, or any law specifically authorizing the withholding. Instead, the footnote in the apportionment schedules described the withholding as necessary “to determine the best use of such funds.” See OMB Response, at 2; Attachment. In its response to us, OMB described the withholding as necessary to ensure that the funds were not spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.” OMB Response, at 9.

The ICA does not permit deferrals for policy reasons. See B-237297.3, Mar. 6, 1990; B-224882, Apr. 1, 1987. OMB’s justification for the withholding falls squarely within the scope of an impermissible policy deferral. Thus, the deferral of USAI funds was improper under the ICA.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).

OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9.

OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition
explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.

Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.

The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden. We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for a policy reason.

You have 8 witnesses all saying the same thing about his phone call with the Ukrainian president. You have the OMB withholding Congressionally authorized funds from the Ukraine in the same time frame for a legally impermissible reason. In any court of law where the POTUS isn't on trial it would more than meet the amount of evidence needed for a conviction. The only thing stopping the POTUS from being removed from office is the two Republican leaders of the Senate announcing they are going to ignore the oath they just took to act as jurors and instead they will be leading the President's defense team. And any Republican who wants to keep their seat in the Senate will be joining them.

TL;DR: The Constitution never took into account the fact that Republicans would prioritize protecting the party and the President over their Constitutionally obligated duty to act as an impartial juror. And if the Constitution means that little to you guys, rip that shit up and let's go to war.

[httr198020]

Originally Posted by mooby

That's a god damn lie Cred! Trump wouldn't say apples are good for you because they aren't deep fried or cooked in grease.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also apologies for typing this out in your quote Cred, I don't lump you in with people like sdskins or Chico, who this post is meant for.

I can't figure out the mental gymnastics it takes to think Trump has broken no laws when you have 8 different witnesses who all heard the call interpret his message as "we are withholding Congressionally authorized funds until you declare an investigation into my political rival."

I've taken the time to find the GAO report in which they clearly state the President broke the law.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

Let me quote relevant parts:



You have 8 witnesses all saying the same thing about his phone call with the Ukrainian president. You have the OMB withholding Congressionally authorized funds from the Ukraine in the same time frame for a legally impermissible reason. In any court of law where the POTUS isn't on trial it would more than meet the amount of evidence needed for a conviction. The only thing stopping the POTUS from being removed from office is the two Republican leaders of the Senate announcing they are going to ignore the oath they just took to act as jurors and instead they will be leading the President's defense team. And any Republican who wants to keep their seat in the Senate will be joining them.

TL;DR: The Constitution never took into account the fact that Republicans would prioritize protecting the party and the President over their Constitutionally obligated duty to act as an impartial juror. And if the Constitution means that little to you guys, rip that shit up and let's go to war.

All because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. Modern day leftist have a problem with distinguishing reality from wishful thinking. Not one of these eight witnesses has any direct knowledge to support the accusation. I listened to the testimony of all of these so called witnesses. The only one that had any direct contact with the president was Ambassador Sondland. He said himself that President Trump, or no one in his administration told him that aid was tied to an investigation of the Bidens. It was a presumption by him. You don't believe that? Listen to what he testified too in front of congress.



Ambassador Sondland was the only fact witness out the eight. He couldn't even testify that Trump tied aid to an investigation of the Bidens. The only thing he could testify to was his own presumptions. And that does not qualify as evidence.

Trump release the transcripts of both phone calls. Not once was aide even mentioned. President Vladimir Zelensky said he didn't even know that aide was being withheld. He also stated multiple times he wasn't under any pressure. There was no quid pro quo, nor any violation of the law. President Trump has the legal authority to withhold aide. That is not against the law. Based on Joe Biden's statements about his own quid pro quo in Ukraine the president was well within his rights to ask for an investigation.

If the president broke the law like you idiots claim why wasn't his alleged crime one of the articles of impeachment? I hope you know that abuse of power is not a federal statue nor is obstruction of congress. Let's see the mental gymnastics you will have to go through to explain that.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

That's a god damn lie Cred! Trump wouldn't say apples are good for you because they aren't deep fried or cooked in grease.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also apologies for typing this out in your quote Cred, I don't lump you in with people like sdskins or Chico, who this post is meant for.







TL;DR: The Constitution never took into account the fact that Republicans would prioritize protecting the party and the President over their Constitutionally obligated duty to act as an impartial juror. And if the Constitution means that little to you guys, rip that shit up and let's go to war.

My preview tldr: an impartial juror who presumes innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt would by all merits acquit trump

It is ok to lump me in with Chico and sdskins, I said I won't have a melt down if the Senate voted to strip Trump, not that I agree that all these trumped up claims have anything close to what the founders had in mind for impeachment of a duly elcted President. It isn't mental gymnastics to read posts like that of G1, who started an impeachment thread("when is enough enough") in the first few months of Trump's term, or punch's tirades, to understand that the dems (and faux republicans) have been wanting some way to get Trump out of office, and that they will blow out of proportion any action in order to make that happen.

On the other hand if Reagan was the teflon president, because nothing the dems threw at him stuck (iran contra would have been impeachment fodder nowadays) Trump is the static cling president because whatever he rubs up against is sure to leaves him looking dirty. He hasn't done anything togive people reason to presume he is innocent even that is where all our justice is supposed to stem from.

You said that any court in the land would convict him because of the 8 witness testimonials and some circumstantial funds management. BUT I say that in a real court, a competent defense attorney would get the 8 witnesses testimony thrown out as hearsay, the gao report would be refuted by the equally valid finding of the omb report and if the presumption of innocence is applied, non-biased jurors would find that there is reasonable doubt and acquit.

The senate is likely going to acquit, or not strip, him because you aren't going to get 20 republican senators to change. And the framers chose to set it at 2/3s because removing a sitting president isnt supposed to be easy, it should be based on strong national consensus. If there is one thing this country does NOT have, it is a strong national consensus on anything in the political realm.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My preview tldr: an impartial juror who presumes innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt would by all merits acquit trump

It is ok to lump me in with Chico and sdskins, I said I won't have a melt down if the Senate voted to strip Trump, not that I agree that all these trumped up claims have anything close to what the founders had in mind for impeachment of a duly elcted President. It isn't mental gymnastics to read posts like that of G1, who started an impeachment thread("when is enough enough") in the first few months of Trump's term, or punch's tirades, to understand that the dems (and faux republicans) have been wanting some way to get Trump out of office, and that they will blow out of proportion any action in order to make that happen.

On the other hand if Reagan was the teflon president, because nothing the dems threw at him stuck (iran contra would have been impeachment fodder nowadays) Trump is the static cling president because whatever he rubs up against is sure to leaves him looking dirty. He hasn't done anything togive people reason to presume he is innocent even that is where all our justice is supposed to stem from.

You said that any court in the land would convict him because of the 8 witness testimonials and some circumstantial funds management. BUT I say that in a real court, a competent defense attorney would get the 8 witnesses testimony thrown out as hearsay, the gao report would be refuted by the equally valid finding of the omb report and if the presumption of innocence is applied, non-biased jurors would find that there is reasonable doubt and acquit.

The senate is likely going to acquit, or not strip, him because you aren't going to get 20 republican senators to change. And the framers chose to set it at 2/3s because removing a sitting president isnt supposed to be easy, it should be based on strong national consensus. If there is one thing this country does NOT have, it is a strong national consensus on anything in the political realm.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I completely agree that impeachment is impossible because there will never be a strong national consensus. But just so I'm reading this right, it's ok to lump you in with the other Trumpers here who think it's acceptable to solicit foreign help to win a domestic presidential election? I'd like to get it on the record so I can use this as a defense when the next democratic president does it.

The evidence that would take this from "hearsay" to "no doubter" territory in my mind would be the actual word-for-word transcript Trump has hidden behind the top secret clearance level, not the one released to the public. If it matched exactly what the 8 witnesses said under penalty of perjury, I'm not really sure how you could keep denying it any more.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I completely agree that impeachment is impossible because there will never be a strong national consensus. But just so I'm reading this right, it's ok to lump you in with the other Trumpers here who think it's acceptable to solicit foreign help to win a domestic presidential election? I'd like to get it on the record so I can use this as a defense when the next democratic president does it.



The evidence that would take this from "hearsay" to "no doubter" territory in my mind would be the actual word-for-word transcript Trump has hidden behind the top secret clearance level, not the one released to the public. If it matched exactly what the 8 witnesses said under penalty of perjury, I'm not really sure how you could keep denying it any more.

Do you discount the Ukraine's president's denials? And if so why?

You can put it down that Lincoln sought foreign aid to force the south to capitualte, Jefferson used his French ties during his election, Barack Obama asked Putin on tape to wait till after an election so he could give them more favorable terms. And that Trump used his influence to have Ukraine expose nepotistic corruption by a senior american official.


Tldr: yes but mostly i doubt that the way the dems present it is the reality of it

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

I completely agree that impeachment is impossible because there will never be a strong national consensus. But just so I'm reading this right, it's ok to lump you in with the other Trumpers here who think it's acceptable to solicit foreign help to win a domestic presidential election? I'd like to get it on the record so I can use this as a defense when the next democratic president does it.

The evidence that would take this from "hearsay" to "no doubter" territory in my mind would be the actual word-for-word transcript Trump has hidden behind the top secret clearance level, not the one released to the public. If it matched exactly what the 8 witnesses said under penalty of perjury, I'm not really sure how you could keep denying it any more.

It has nothing to do with strong national consensus. High crime and misdemeanors threshold could not be met.

When the articles failed to include bribery, the impeachment lost all credibility. Everyone realized this was complete bullshit...this is when they pushed bullshit like “you don’t need a crime to impeach”

What you really need to be concerned about is this lays a foundation impeachment simply based on one side hating the president. Because this is exactly what’s happened.

Look up dems talking impeachment immediately after trump won...you don’t have a problem with this?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

I completely agree that impeachment is impossible because there will never be a strong national consensus. But just so I'm reading this right, it's ok to lump you in with the other Trumpers here who think it's acceptable to solicit foreign help to win a domestic presidential election? I'd like to get it on the record so I can use this as a defense when the next democratic president does it.

The evidence that would take this from "hearsay" to "no doubter" territory in my mind would be the actual word-for-word transcript Trump has hidden behind the top secret clearance level, not the one released to the public. If it matched exactly what the 8 witnesses said under penalty of perjury, I'm not really sure how you could keep denying it any more.

I said it before he will walk away screaming set up and claiming he is innocent but he will always bare the scare of being an "Impeached president" convicted or not. The result has been predetermined and will fall on the political side of the republicans. It will scar the republicans for a long time.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

I completely agree that impeachment is impossible because there will never be a strong national consensus. But just so I'm reading this right, it's ok to lump you in with the other Trumpers here who think it's acceptable to solicit foreign help to win a domestic presidential election? I'd like to get it on the record so I can use this as a defense when the next democratic president does it.

The evidence that would take this from "hearsay" to "no doubter" territory in my mind would be the actual word-for-word transcript Trump has hidden behind the top secret clearance level, not the one released to the public. If it matched exactly what the 8 witnesses said under penalty of perjury, I'm not really sure how you could keep denying it any more.

And so after 2+ years of the investigation that proved absolutely nothing, it's still a fact that it happened anyways. Sadly, not surprised. He was innocent until proven guilty, unless it didn't go your way, then he still did it. I hope you're never on a jury.