Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243822]Maybe the senate should vote to send it back to the house to do more investigation. I do believe it sets a terrible precedent for the House to fast track impeachment hearings.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

That’s gonna be a no from me dawg

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

The questions and answer session is a more interesting framework but I will admit to fast forwarding through a LOT of the softball questions.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243821]The question about Hunter Biden is relevant because the house managers claim that there was 0 justification for a request to investigate, which goes to motive.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

The question is "Did Trump commit an impeachable offense or not?" His motives don't matter when it comes to answering that question. His actions were an abuse of power, regardless of whether his suspicions about Biden being shady AF were correct or not.

If there is legitimate reason to believe the Biden's were doing something shady, Trump is completely within his right to commission an investigation into that. There are legitimate, constitutional channels to carry out such an investigation. But Trump didn't do that, instead he tried to pressure a foreign government to do the investigation for him and he blocked congressionally approved funds to use as leverage.

We are in this mess now because Trump decided not to follow the rules and not use official channels. The whole country is distracted by this mess when everyone has better things they could be doing.

Ultimately Trump has proven beyond any doubt that he was 100% truthful about one claim - he really could murder someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would stand by him.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=BigHairedAristocrat;1243826]The question is "Did Trump commit an impeachable offense or not?" His motives don't matter when it comes to answering that question. His actions were an abuse of power, regardless of whether his suspicions about Biden being shady AF were correct or not.



If there is legitimate reason to believe the Biden's were doing something shady, Trump is completely within his right to commission an investigation into that. There are legitimate, constitutional channels to carry out such an investigation. But Trump didn't do that, instead he tried to pressure a foreign government to do the investigation for him and he blocked congressionally approved funds to use as leverage.



We are in this mess now because Trump decided not to follow the rules and not use official channels. The whole country is distracted by this mess when everyone has better things they could be doing.



Ultimately Trump has proven beyond any doubt that he was 100% truthful about one claim - he really could murder someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would stand by him.[/QUOTE]We are in this mess because for 3 years the democrats have tried every way possible to remove this president. And before that the Republicans tried to pull off their own equivalent investigations they just never took it too an impeachment level. Certainly the next president that says "I have a pen and phone" will, if the House is a different party or large enogh subset of a different party will face an expedited impeachment hearing


Personally I do not want to go to a European parliament system where the legislative can bring down the executive branch, which this impeachment process pushes us toward.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

Today has also shown me i hate adam schiff's voice.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-impeachment-investigators-wont-subpoena-john-bolton-11573147474[/url]

Bolton went to the courts...the Democrats in the house decided not to subpoena him? Oh that’s right they were in a hurry...but then held the articles in house for as long as they did?

Bad move by dems...

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

So Bolton got a form letter review that might hold up his book on the 23rd and on the 26th information leaks thst increases demamd for the book. Hmmm. But hey his word is strong enough to contradict the president, Ukraine's president, the vice president and Ukraine's security apparatus.

This whole thing is such a anti trumper wet dream farce.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243828]We are in this mess because for 3 years the democrats have tried every way possible to remove this president. And before that the Republicans tried to pull off their own equivalent investigations they just never took it too an impeachment level. Certainly the next president that says "I have a pen and phone" will, if the House is a different party or large enogh subset of a different party will face an expedited impeachment hearing


Personally I do not want to go to a European parliament system where the legislative can bring down the executive branch, which this impeachment process pushes us toward.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

No, no it doesn't. For three years this president has wanted to be a dictator and the Dems doing their due diligence are trying to stop him from turning this country into Russia or North Korea.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1243845]No, no it doesn't. For three years this president has wanted to be a dictator and the Dems doing their due diligence are trying to stop him from turning this country into Russia or North Korea.[/QUOTE]That's idiotic

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Giantone;1243845]No, no it doesn't. For three years this president has wanted to be a dictator and the Dems doing their due diligence are trying to stop him from turning this country into Russia or North Korea.[/quote]

Trump has broken G1.

Add him to the list

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

My prediction is the final vote will be 47 for removal, 53 against with 2 of each party voting opposite. I think Romney and Collins vote for removal while Munchin and Brown from Alabama vote for acquittal

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243846]That's idiotic

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

yes, trump is.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243854]Trump has broken G1.

Add him to the list[/quote]

.......and trump has made you his bitch.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

Rumor is trump's defense team fired Dershowitz. LOL...........................he's been awol since his screwed up speech.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Giantone;1243947]Rumor is trump's defense team fired Dershowitz. LOL...........................he's been awol since his screwed up speech.[/quote]

He replied to questions yesterday.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Giantone;1243945]yes, trump is.[/quote]

I know you are being specious but to be clear I meant your statement, not you, and I meant the statement about Trump being a dictator, or monarch.

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

I will make a guarantee now. If the Republicans don't close this circus down before this weekend, there will be a "BOMBSHELL" leak every 24 hour cycle just like the Kavanaugh trial and all of it will be the Democrats favorite method unnamed and unverifiable sources.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243949]I know you are being specious but to be clear I meant your statement, not you, and I meant the statement about Trump being a dictator, or monarch.[/quote]

Yes, trump admires Kim and Putin and wish's to be more like them .

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

Another article, by Turley, describing the real reason the Trump is still in office.

[url]https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/481015-how-the-house-lost-the-witness-battle-along-with-impeachment[/url]

[Quote]
This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. This very series of events was expressly laid out before the vote, and House Democrats made a decision to choose certain failure over completing their impeachment case. There was no reason to expect Senate Republicans to assist House managers in making their case, particularly in calling witnesses not subpoenaed by the House. Democrats had opposed any witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Clinton and voted as a bloc for a summary acquittal. There was no reason to expect Republicans to adopt an entirely different approach.
We will never know how this impeachment trial would have unfolded if the House had waited to secure additional testimony and court orders. One thing, however, is certain. The case against the president could only have become stronger. The vote for witnesses failed by one for a tie and by two for a majority. A more complete record could well have tipped the balance and certainly would have made the vote against witnesses more difficult for some senators. Instead, the House submitted an incomplete record and failed to subpoena important witnesses like Bolton, making it quite easy for the Senate to refuse to do what the House had never even tried.
[/Quote]

If the Democrats in the House had pushed through and offered even a semi fair process, and they got a judge to order the release of documents or witness testimony to the House like in the Nixon case, I think it isn't a stretch to say they could have gotten Trump to step down vis a vis the Nixon precedent. But by rushing a slip shod case through and turning that task over to your opponent's control, the House ceded control and the result was predictable from the outset.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243988]Another article, by Turley, describing the real reason the Trump is still in office.

[url]https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/481015-how-the-house-lost-the-witness-battle-along-with-impeachment[/url]



If the Democrats in the House had pushed through and offered even a semi fair process, and they got a judge to order the release of documents or witness testimony to the House like in the Nixon case, I think it isn't a stretch to say they could have gotten Trump to step down vis a vis the Nixon precedent. But by rushing a slip shod case through and turning that task over to your opponent's control, the House ceded control and the result was predictable from the outset.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]
Yup Monday morning QB alright. To sit there and say the Dems screwed up is pure spin . The senate was never going to find trump guilty Moscow Mitch said as much. To blame Dems is a cover up for the republicans.

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1243989]Yup Monday morning QB alright. To sit there and say the Dems screwed up is pure spin . The senate was never going to find trump guilty Moscow Mitch said as much. To blame Dems is a cover up for the republicans.[/QUOTE]Turley said this at the time (I included it in the quote). It isn't Monday Morning qb'ing if you are told beforehand. If the Dems knew or assumed that the Senate would acquit, they should have gone to every possible avenue to make it politically impossible but they didn't.


I really don't understand why the House rushed it like they did. With their majority, they could have forced the testimony they say now that so badly wanted and had most of it well before the 2020 election. They spoon fed the Senate an easy way out.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243994]Turley said this at the time (I included it in the quote). It isn't Monday Morning qb'ing if you are told beforehand. If the Dems knew or assumed that the Senate would acquit, they should have gone to every possible avenue to make it politically impossible but they didn't.


I really don't understand why the House rushed it like they did. With their majority, they could have forced the testimony they say now that so badly wanted and had most of it well before the 2020 election. They spoon fed the Senate an easy way out.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

LOL, ..."rushed it" after the republicans bitched about Pelosi not sending them right away and holding on to them, yes spin.

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1244006]LOL, ..."rushed it" after the republicans bitched about Pelosi not sending them right away and holding on to them, yes spin.[/QUOTE]It isn't spin, the House pushed the impeachment thru in 48 days then held the Articles of Impeachment 33 days. That should be something that we all can agree since it is purely by the calendar.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

Dems should have issued subpoenas to witnesses. Then taken it to Court. In an ideal world, the House indicts and the Senate tries it. But in this political world, Pelosi knew or should have known that the Senate would block any attempt at actually putting on a trial or doing their legislative duty.

Now the Legislative branch completely works for the Executive branch. Now every sitting president will be "impeached" if the other political party controls the House.

They should have issued subpoenas and forced the Court's to rule on testimony.

Our political system is broken and there is no going back imo. Our democracy and republic isnt dying, its dead.

C'est la vie.

this is Idiocracy in real time.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

They did issue subpoenas they didn't show because of executive privilege. They go to court that would drag all they way to the supreme court how long would that take?

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1244080]Dems should have issued subpoenas to witnesses. Then taken it to Court. In an ideal world, the House indicts and the Senate tries it. But in this political world, Pelosi knew or should have known that the Senate would block any attempt at actually putting on a trial or doing their legislative duty.



Now the Legislative branch completely works for the Executive branch. Now every sitting president will be "impeached" if the other political party controls the House.



They should have issued subpoenas and forced the Court's to rule on testimony.



Our political system is broken and there is no going back imo. Our democracy and republic isnt dying, its dead.



C'est la vie.

[B]

this is Idiocracy in real time.[/B][/QUOTE]

This is the truth honestly.

Trump is an idiotic president, and everyone knows I support him, but the whole body politic has left the realm of what the framers intended.

Washington warned of foreign entanglements and political division. He was right too.

They had the Senate not democratically elected but sent feom the states. Thus giving our country's government structure four separate and independent paths to judge the will of the people. We have already removed the Senate check, and likely soon, in this divisive time, we will see the electoral college check be removed as well. And then we will be a "pure" democracy, followed shortly after that our childrens children won't even understand what was special about the United States of America.





Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=BaltimoreSkins;1244082]They did issue subpoenas they didn't show because of executive privilege. They go to court that would drag all they way to the supreme court how long would that take?[/QUOTE]In the Nixon House hearings it was expedited within about 3 months. But again why does the House not following the due process mean that the Accused should lose the ability to exercise those court challenges.

In Nixon's impeachment, the Republicans were united behind a President who had been overwhelmingly elected, but then the House took the appropriate path through the courts, and some condemning facts changed Republican hearts enough to have a bipartisan impeachment(410-4) which led to Nixon's resignation. I believe that, had the House done the right thing, and had they found a smoking gun, they would have swayed some of the republicans. Not all, because the dems have gone to the nth degree to impeach him, but likely beyond the 67 percent threshold. Likewise, had they gone the right path, and the evidence exonerated Trump i would hope that a reasonable portion of the moderate democratic population would have turned against impeaxhment.

The dems in the house didnt want to take the chance the released documents would show enough valid concern that Trump's guilt could not be pushed and the r's in the senate fear there is enough there that his guilt would be inferred.

Both parties in there particular role acted in bad faith to the constitution. It is unfair to judge ONLY the senate republicans or ONLY the house democrats, for BOTH groups failed the constitution.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

I guess I am questioning whether the courts would be any better?

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=BaltimoreSkins;1244085]I guess I am questioning whether the courts would be any better?[/QUOTE]I believe that IF the House made a case that there was an urgency around the elections then the Courts would have acted with expedience. The House implicitly argues that it was not worth their time to even try to find out, and that to me is wrong.

In other words, I believe the courts would find, with reasonable evidence, that protection of our election process was worthy of expediting. Heck they expedited the NFL NFLPA lawsuits in 2010 over the CBA because of a football season.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1244083]we will see the electoral college check be removed as well. And then we will be a "pure" democracy, followed shortly after that our childrens children won't even understand what was special about the United States of America.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

2 senators represent 760k people (North Dakota)
2 senators represent 882k people (South Dakota)
2 senators represent 39M (California)
2 senators represent 28M (Texas)
2 senators represent 19M (NY)

^^ that is so unbalanced and I dont want to hear about how the House number of reps per State takes into account citizens etc.

But it is what it is.

Electoral College - That would take a constitutional amendment and I dont see that happenning in our life time. While it would mean an automatic D president, I wouldnt want that.

As a D, I dont think Id want to see what an AOC left president, house and senate would do. We are seeing what the worst of the R can and will do now. Thankfully the D took the house to pump the brakes a bit.

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

Subpoenas - the whole point in issuing them is so you can enforce them. Im typing one up now as we speak. if you dont enforce a subpoena, its not a subpoena .... its a request with a "pretty please" at the end.

Pelosi should have absolutely sought to enforce the subpoenas vs this shit show of now wanting to re-open things etc.

It is what it is.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1244095]2 senators represent 760k people (North Dakota)

2 senators represent 882k people (South Dakota)

2 senators represent 39M (California)

2 senators represent 28M (Texas)

2 senators represent 19M (NY)



^^ that is so unbalanced and I dont want to hear about how the House number of reps per State takes into account citizens etc.



But it is what it is.



Electoral College - That would take a constitutional amendment and I dont see that happenning in our life time. While it would mean an automatic D president, I wouldnt want that.



As a D, I dont think Id want to see what an AOC left president, house and senate would do. We are seeing what the worst of the R can and will do now. Thankfully the D took the house to pump the brakes a bit.



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



Subpoenas - the whole point in issuing them is so you can enforce them. Im typing one up now as we speak. if you dont enforce a subpoena, its not a subpoena .... its a request with a "pretty please" at the end.



Pelosi should have absolutely sought to enforce the subpoenas vs this shit show of now wanting to re-open things etc.



It is what it is.[/QUOTE]Not trying to pick, but you know the Senate specifically was designed to balance the interests of big population states with the interests of small population states. It was designed from the beginning to be a check against pure democracy.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

I guarantee that Doug Jones, senator from Alabama, voted party line versus constituency. He will be voted out of office this November.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=SunnySide;1244080]Dems should have issued subpoenas to witnesses. Then taken it to Court. In an ideal world, the House indicts and the Senate tries it. But in this political world, Pelosi knew or should have known that the Senate would block any attempt at actually putting on a trial or doing their legislative duty.

Now the Legislative branch completely works for the Executive branch. Now every sitting president will be "impeached" if the other political party controls the House.

They should have issued subpoenas and forced the Court's to rule on testimony.

Our political system is broken and there is no going back imo. Our democracy and republic isnt dying, its dead.

C'est la vie.

this is Idiocracy in real time.[/quote]

+1

I don't have much to add, this outcome isn't unexpected. Congratulations President Trump, your strategy of dividing and conquering Americans is succeeding.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=mooby;1244204]+1

I don't have much to add, this outcome isn't unexpected. Congratulations President Trump, your strategy of dividing and conquering Americans is succeeding.[/quote]

So you agree with impeachment without meeting the threshold of a crime?

Sunnyside argument is so full of shit it’s not worth addressing.

“They shoulda”? Why didn’t they? Because they never had the evidence of a crime and they would never want the president to face a crime where he was given due process.

So the system is broken because of what, the constitution? Do you seriously want partisan impeachments based because you don’t like person, not based on meeting threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors?

So let’s list the bullshit events found to be without any substantial fact or merit: Russian collusion and obstruction, Brett Kavenaugh conspiracy smear and a partisan impeachment without meeting criminal threshold.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=mooby;1244204]+1

I don't have much to add, this outcome isn't unexpected. Congratulations President Trump, your strategy of dividing and conquering Americans is succeeding.[/quote]

We knew the outcome when it started , the senate made fools of themselves. Your right on the money about trump dividing the country.It's a sin but at least chico will be happy.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1244207]So you agree with impeachment without meeting the threshold of a crime?

Sunnyside argument is so full of shit it’s not worth addressing.

“They shoulda”? Why didn’t they? Because they never had the evidence of a crime and they would never want the president to face a crime where he was given due process.

So the system is broken because of what, the constitution? Do you seriously want partisan impeachments based because you don’t like person, not based on meeting threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors?

So let’s list the bullshit events found to be without any substantial fact or merit: Russian collusion and obstruction, Brett Kavenaugh conspiracy smear and a partisan impeachment without meeting criminal threshold.[/quote]

I enjoy how your threshold is "did he commit a crime" when the DOJ explicitly argued as recently as last week that one of the tools the House of Reps has at their disposal is [URL="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/you-cant-make-this-stuff-up-doj-says-trump-can-be-impeached-for-defying-congressional-subpoenas/"]using impeachment when the EO ignores a subpoena[/URL].

I agree with Sunny and Cred. The Dems screwed up by not sending subpoenas to Bolton/Mulvaney/etc. from the House, and then going the judicial route when they would eventually be ignored. They have nobody to blame but their selves for the outcome.

Lets go through the list of Trump defenses since this thing has started.

"The whistleblower is fake news." Right, except the DNI and his Deputy both resigned immediately after the phone call in protest. In fact, the DNI interrupted a meeting [URL="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/politics/sue-gordon-resignation-coats-interrupts-meeting/index.html"]to tell Sue Gordon to resign[/URL], that's how urgent it was. A Trump appointee (Intelligence Community Inspector General) literally reaffirmed the whistleblower complaint was credible. The complaint in question was "Trump solicited foreign interference to help win the 2020 election."

Trump's next defense was that he didn't ask the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. But of course, Trump had to literally tell reporters firsthand just before restarting trade talks with China that [URL="https://www.npr.org/2019/10/03/766801353/trump-publicly-calls-for-china-and-ukraine-to-investigate-bidens"]he thinks the Ukraine and China should start investigating Biden.[/URL]. And then his acting Chief of Staff [URL="https://youtu.be/5brFcfOXjVo?t=72"]held a press conference[/URL] and admitted it was a quid pro quo. And then the Chair of the Federal Elections Commission [I]literally[/I] [URL="https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768/photo/1"]posted a letter[/URL] saying it was absolutely illegal for anybody to solicit help from any foreign national to interfere in a U.S. election. And of course, who can forget if Trump really was concerned about the Bidens being corrupt, he could order any number of official US departments he controls to investigate them. I'm sure it was just a coincidence he decided his biggest threat (at the time) to his reelection was the one who needed to be investigated too.

So then Trump switched it up and said the phone call was about investigating corruption in the Ukraine. Riiiiight. Even though [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/10/23/trump-administration-sought-billions-dollars-cuts-programs-aimed-fighting-corruption-ukraine-abroad/"]he has repeatedly tried to cut foreign aid programs[/URL] designed to combat corruption.

[quote=WaPo]
In another example, the administration sought to streamline a number of overseas democracy assistance and foreign aid accounts under one larger umbrella called the Economic Support and Development Fund. The White House believed that consolidation would cut those programs by more than $2 billion. This fund, too, is aimed at fighting corruption in countries around the world, among other goals, according to White House budget documents. [B]Spending in Ukraine for the accounts in question was $250 million in 2018; the White House has asked for $145 million in 2020 under the new iteration of the program.[/B]
[/quote]

Speaking of the phone call, according to [URL="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf"]the transcript released by the EO[/URL], our President told Zelensky he was going to have his personal lawyer reach out along with Barr and he should work with them. Why is Trump's personal lawyer working with the Attorney General on official US matters? Speaking of the transcript, my [I][B]literal[/B][/I] favorite part of that transcript is on the front page where it explicitly reads:

[quote=President Trump's transcript]
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.
[/quote]

So then the defense changed to "well you have no firsthand witnesses." Conveniently ignoring testimony from [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/extremely-disturbing-top-dems-alarmed-over-vindman-s-testimony-trump-n1073371"]Col. Vindman[/URL], [URL="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/who-is-fiona-hill/index.html"]Fiona Hill[/URL], Ambassadors [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/6-things-we-learned-gordon-sondland-s-impeachment-testimony-so-n1086841"]Sondland[/URL] and [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-testimony.html"]Taylor[/URL] (one a Trump donor who got EU ambassador b/c of his donations, the other a 50 year public servant).

Then after the witnesses argument was debunked, his defense moved onto "this trial is a sham."[URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/no-executive-privilege-in-impeachment/602044/"] All the subpoenas Congress did deliver were ignored[/URL], and yes the Dems screwed up not taking it to the courts for enforcement. Sure it would've dragged it out longer, but it was absolutely necessary considering they already knew the Republican strategy.

TL;DR: Presidential defense strategy...
DOJ: [URL="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/barr-trump-ukraine-doj-whistleblower-complaint.html"]The complaint is not an urgent matter[/URL]
"The complaint isn't credible..."
"He didn't do that"
"Yeah, he just did that on live tv but it's not quid pro quo"
"Okay, everyone involved says its quid pro quo but there are no witnesses or evidence"
"Okay, they have witnesses with firsthand testimony, but he was investigating corruption. It wasn't about personal gain"
"Okay, Pelosi won't send the articles because she has no case"
"Now we have to defend the President, uhhh, the President has the authority to do whatever he wants"
"We don't need to call witnesses because the House already did that"

In conclusion, Donald Trump withheld 400+ million in Congressionally approved assistance to the Ukraine until he could no longer justify it because he wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation into the Bidens. What did he stand to gain from that? It weakens what he thought stood a good chance at being his primary opponent in the 2020 election. Why has Zelensky stood in Trump's defense through all this? Because he stood to gain political legitimacy in his own country when Trump will eventually invite him to the White House, recognizing his authority. We have multiple witnesses who confirmed all of this, including people who listened in on the phone call, and people who worked directly with Trump to handle his back-channel diplomacy with the Ukraine. The only thing we don't have is witnesses or documents from the Executive Office, which Trump should have absolutely no problem supplying if they would've confirmed his innocence. We have motive, witnesses, documents, testimony, which would absolutely be more than enough to convict in any court. But a sitting president cannot be subject to the courts, which is why impeachment was the only option.

Fuck your argument Chico.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

The bar is higher for removal. That is why no sitting president has ever been removed. I think it is laughable for a president to be impeached/removed for the actions alleged but I will say it again, if the House had done it the right way, and gotten the courts to open up most (but not all) the contested witnesses/documents, and there was evidence there was more there than asking for corruption investigations - ie evidence that Trump limited the corruption investigation to being tied solely to Joe Biden, which I don't believe is the case, or some direct mafia style intimidation, then I believe that Trump would have taken Nixon's way out. But, by playing politics with it, the House opened the door for the Senate to do the same.

Mooby, you say in any court of the land he would have been convicted, and I call BS on that. Because in a real court, with the evidence they had, the hearsay and NYT leaks would never have been allowed in, and the defense would have had a chance to cross examine the witnesses (I realize that would have happened mostly in the Senate), and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard would have been applied. I don't think you can say - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Trump's motive was primarily corrupt. Of course, that is the main difference in our politics, I look suspiciously at nearly every democrat's motive, at least the power brokers -not rank and file, and you, G1, Punch et al think Trump is corrupt. G1 didn't like the meme, but it is true, if Trump said air was good, some people would ascribe a motive of trying to sell the air for his gain...

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

Bribery and extortion is the charge....then fucking prosecute it in the articles?!??!!!!!! Why wasn’t it prosecuted?

Your open/shut hypothetical is brilliant, but once again for the hundred fucking time..:DUE PROCESS. Do you understand what this is? Do you understand that public information is great but Your copy/paste info doesn’t mean shit...you understand that right...

When you say fuck my argument, you are saying fuck the constitution. But carry on with the conspiracy as you tell me what trump really meant or thought with evidence.

Hey, I know your mad...but jeez. A partisan impeachment without a crime...cool

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1244220]The bar is higher for removal. That is why no sitting president has ever been removed. I think it is laughable for a president to be impeached/removed for the actions alleged but I will say it again, if the House had done it the right way, and gotten the courts to open up most (but not all) the contested witnesses/documents, and there was evidence there was more there than asking for corruption investigations - ie evidence that Trump limited the corruption investigation to being tied solely to Joe Biden, which I don't believe is the case, or some direct mafia style intimidation, then I believe that Trump would have taken Nixon's way out. But, by playing politics with it, the House opened the door for the Senate to do the same.

Mooby, you say in any court of the land he would have been convicted, and I call BS on that. Because in a real court, with the evidence they had, the hearsay and NYT leaks would never have been allowed in, and the defense would have had a chance to cross examine the witnesses (I realize that would have happened mostly in the Senate), and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard would have been applied. I don't think you can say - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Trump's motive was primarily corrupt. Of course, that is the main difference in our politics, I look suspiciously at nearly every democrat's motive, at least the power brokers -not rank and file, and you, G1, Punch et al think Trump is corrupt. G1 didn't like the meme, but it is true, if Trump said air was good, some people would ascribe a motive of trying to sell the air for his gain...[/quote]

Your last paragraph is spot on. Leaks and opinions from so called experts in the public space isn’t not evidence under oath and until you actually face an accuser under cross examination it’s a one sided opinion.

Jeez, people hate for the constitution, freedom of speech, free markets, due process.....it’s really amazing we have come to this. Maybe folks should travel abroad and see how others live.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1244221]Bribery and extortion is the charge....then fucking prosecute it in the articles?!??!!!!!! Why wasn’t it prosecuted?

Your open/shut hypothetical is brilliant, but once again for the hundred fucking time..:DUE PROCESS. Do you understand what this is? Do you understand that public information is great but Your copy/paste info doesn’t mean shit...you understand that right...

When you say fuck my argument, you are saying fuck the constitution. But carry on with the conspiracy as you tell me what trump really meant or thought with evidence.

Hey, I know your mad...but jeez. A partisan impeachment without a crime...cool[/quote]

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

You broke me Chico.

For the last time.

A sitting president cannot be indicted. That's straight from the Mueller report, and also backed up by Attorney General Barr.

"The only tool is impeachment."

FFS.

Due process? Trump was happily invited to testify in his own defense. Produce documents, or witnesses, in his own defense. He did none of the above, instead relying on Senators much smarter than himself to provide his defense. And they did. Congratulations.