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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

From the trump network................



https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/fox..._notifications





Fox News poll delivers devastating news to Trump on impeachment





According to a new Fox News poll released on Sunday morning, a clear majority of respondents — beyond the margin of error — believe Donald Trump should be convicted by the U.S. Senate for impeachable crimes and removed from office.



According to the poll, “On impeachment, by a 50-44 percent margin, voters think the Senate should vote to convict Trump and remove him from office. Most Democrats say remove (81 percent) and most Republicans disagree (84 percent). Among independents, more say Trump should be removed by a 19-point margin (53-34 percent).”

So you agree Trump should not be removed, since it is not a simple majority decision but requires 2/3s.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am just curious how many of you guys that hold Trump guilty have actually read the transcript of the call.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...ied09.2019.pdf

I admittedly had not until today, and it struck me that the Ukrainian President sounded on the same page throughout the conversation. Not exactly what I expected, or would expect, from some one who was acting under a form of compulsion. Specifically, he mirrored words and ideas Trump has used in his election. Clearly that serves as flattery which we know Trump responds to. Some examples:


Zelenskvy went on to compare the old Ukraine govt to a swamp.



and


There is a lot more, but again what struck me was the back and forth flow, often with Zelensvky taking the lead, and Trump encouraging the discussion.

I just thought the transcript would be far more damning then it was when I read through it, and yes I realize I have a confirmation bias towards supporting Trump.

I don't want to read the publicly available transcript, I want to read the one that requires top secret security clearance to see it. You know, because a perfectly normal conversation between two world leaders that their entire staff probably needs to be in the loop on should require a top secret clearance.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I don't want to read the publicly available transcript, I want to read the one that requires top secret security clearance to see it. You know, because a perfectly normal conversation between two world leaders that their entire staff probably needs to be in the loop on should require a top secret clearance.

My understanding, from an article in The Atlantic on it, is that the difference between the two is likely in the 3 spots ellipses are used. While those 3 spots may show more discussion on investigations, they would not change the overall tone that I am talking about particularly in the lead in portions before any of the ellipses were used. The conversation was cordail and the Ukranian President seemed truly appreciative of the US and Trump in particular.

I know we aren't changing minds and the distrust on both sides of the aisle has left a gaping chasm that makes building that bridge nearly impossible.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

One more question for everyone, suppose the Senate vote is 51 49 for no witnesses, but then 55 45 for removal, in other words the swing votes don't vote in block to add witnesses but then vote to remove knowing that Trump is unremoveable. Finally after acquittal, the senate votes 80-20 on a censure Trump for actions unbecoming a President.

My question is given that hypothetical outcome, would anyone support that as a valid outcome for the facts as they are, including the fact that removal is nearly impossible regardless of the evidence/witness vote.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

Also on witnesses/evidence.

Lets look at what outcomes are possible based on seeing more of both -

1) the evidence actually convinces moderate democrats that the actions didn't rise to removal, final vote 62-38 in favor of acquittal

2) the evidence convinces moderates on both sides, final vote 51-49 in favor of acquittal

3) the evidence convinces more republican moderates. Final vote 55-45 in favor of removal

4) the evidence convinces some other than moderates, but not enough, final vote 65-35 in favor of removal

5) the evidence convinces 20+ senators currently against removal to change, final vote 80-20 for removal

6) the evidence convinces 10+ senators currently against acquittal to change, final vote 80-20 for acquittal.

In scenarios 1-4, which are the most likely to me, the outcome is extended dirt thrown on both sides, lies and half truths + media distortions all the way up to the 2020 election and no value added to our country in any form.

If scenarios 5 or 6, both of which are nearly impossible to see happening, the hardcores on both sides likely would not accept the outcome, but also considering the extended dirt and mud that all parties involved would be dragged through, it seems the outcome doesn't support the costs to our federal system.

So unless you believe there is a smoking gun worthy of destroying this upcoming election cycle it seems to me there is no political calculus that favors subpoenas.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Replace hunter Biden with don trump jr...and Biden with Trump and now tell me if this is an issue.

[CRedskinsRule]

Is it weird that there has been a "significant" leak or newsbreak that benefits the defense each day since Thursday, one for Schiff's closing argument for Friday from CBS, one supposedly about Bolton from NYTimes, Pompeo interview by NPR on Saturday, Lev Parmas video on Friday to ABC.

A cynical citizen might see a trial by innuendo and media smear.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Lol conspiracies abound. Maybe Schiff should ask the russians to look into it

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

LOL.................

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-bo...004225755.html


Report: Bolton says Trump tied Ukraine funds to Biden probe



WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump told his national security adviser he wanted to maintain a freeze on military assistance to Ukraine until it launched political investigations into his Democratic rivals, according to a report in The New York Times on Sunday.

The newspaper said John Bolton's description of his exchange with Trump appears in drafts of his forthcoming book. The revelation challenges the defense offered up by Trump and his attorneys in his Senate impeachment trial and raises the stakes as the chamber decided this week whether to seek sworn testimony from Bolton and other witnesses.

Bolton, who acrimoniously left the White House a day before Trump ultimately released the Ukraine aid on Sept. 11, has already told lawmakers that he is willing to testify, despite the president's order barring aides from cooperating in the probe.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment Sunday night.

Democrats need at least four Republicans to vote with them to seek witness testimony. Those prospects looked unlikely in recent days and it's unclear if the new revelations about Bolton's book will sway any GOP senators.

Democrats quickly sought to ramp up the pressure on their Republican counterparts.

“John Bolton has the evidence,” tweeted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “It’s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump’s actions testify in the Senate trial.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had no immediate comment, according to his office.

The Associated Press has not confirmed the content of Bolton's draft book. A person familiar with the matter told the AP the book had been submitted to the White House for pre-publication review, which is standard for the work of former officials with security clearances. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject.

The book's publisher, Simon & Schuster, declined to comment.

Sarah Tinsley, an adviser to Bolton, said: “The ambassador's manuscript was transmitted to the White House in hard copy several weeks ago for pre-publication review by the NSC. The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period.”

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Is it weird that there has been a "significant" leak or newsbreak that benefits the defense each day since Thursday, one for Schiff's closing argument for Friday from CBS, one supposedly about Bolton from NYTimes, Pompeo interview by NPR on Saturday, Lev Parmas video on Friday to ABC.

A cynical citizen might see a trial by innuendo and media smear.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Reminds me of the eight investigations into Hillary that all started the same way.Just like the investigation into Obama's birth certificate.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So you agree Trump should not be removed, since it is not a simple majority decision but requires 2/3s.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

No , I do think he should go and go to jail . I just know the senate won't do it,Moscow Mitch has them scared.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Replace hunter Biden with don trump jr...and Biden with Trump and now tell me if this is an issue.

this is the quid pro quo

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Replace hunter Biden with don trump jr...and Biden with Trump and now tell me if this is an issue.

No replace it with Ivanka trump and all her trade agreements with China!

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No replace it with Ivanka trump and all her trade agreements with China!

G1 address the timeline. Its shows a poor pattern

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

G1 address the timeline. Its shows a poor pattern

So do your posts.

[CRedskinsRule]

One more thought on witnesses. The current spin talk of a fair trial requiring additional evidence/witnesses absolutely turns american justice inside out. The concept of a fair trial is that the STATE has to provide the ACCUSED all the opportunity to show he is innocent. The STATE has to allow the ACCUSED to bring any witnesses that might be exculpatory, to bring valid evidence however tangential that might create resonable doubt. But here in this trial we have the house managers in their role as the STATE's attorney playing the aggrieved party before the public because they can't have certain evidence or witnesses, and at the same time saying the ACCUSED doesn't have the right to bring their witnesses because the STATE feels they aren't relevant.

The logic, regardless of the players, is bass ackwords to the intent of a fair trial in our legal system.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk