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

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

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.

+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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

+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.

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.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

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 using impeachment when the EO ignores a subpoena.

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 to tell Sue Gordon to resign, 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 he thinks the Ukraine and China should start investigating Biden.. And then his acting Chief of Staff held a press conference and admitted it was a quid pro quo. And then the Chair of the Federal Elections Commission literally posted a letter 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 he has repeatedly tried to cut foreign aid programs designed to combat corruption.

Originally Posted by 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. 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.

Speaking of the phone call, according to the transcript released by the EO, 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 literal favorite part of that transcript is on the front page where it explicitly reads:

Originally Posted by President Trump's transcript

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.

So then the defense changed to "well you have no firsthand witnesses." Conveniently ignoring testimony from Col. Vindman, Fiona Hill, Ambassadors Sondland and Taylor (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." All the subpoenas Congress did deliver were ignored, 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: The complaint is not an urgent matter
"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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

+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.

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.

[BaltimoreSkins]

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?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

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?

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

[BaltimoreSkins]

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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

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

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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...

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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...

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.

[Chico23231]

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..UE 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

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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..UE 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

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

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.

nevermind...

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

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.

Mooby, it is a false allegation to say the only tool is impeachment. If that were the case it would have been used more than 4 times in our country's history. AND in 1 of those cases(Andrew Jackson), the Congress wrote into the law that violating the statute was a high misdemeanor (meaning impeachable), and they still didn't remove him from office. And this was after a civil war, and after the Senate passed the statute in question by a 2/3rd vote. Meaning enough Senator's passed the legislation that the President violated to guarantee his removal. The President still broke the statute, and the removal failed because not 1 of the Senators from the President's party voted against him even though they voted for the Tenure Act.

Clearly there are dozens of other remedies, including going through the full steps at the House level.