The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Bray Wyatt]

19 minutes ago, Foxx said:

and once again, you are moving the goalposts because that was not the context. the context was any foreign information.

 

 

hahahahahahaa

 

par for your course.

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Sort of demanding there for someone that doesn't really deserve that right.  But, I have nothing else to do so...

 

There have been a lot of questions and posts.  If you are talking about the one where you said we don't know motivations and I can't assume guilt and should assume innocence?  I will run with that for a bit and hope that is what you were talking about.

 

I did answer that I thought we have the ability to learn motivations with documents and witnesses that the President is blocking.  That fact in conjunction with what we do know from House proceedings, FOIA docs, past behavior, comments by Trump and his people on TV, and common sense, I have been convinced that Trump had primarily personal, political, election cheating motivations.

Again, this is a complete perversion of justice.

 

You are making demands that the defense prove their innocence against a backdrop of the assumption of guilt.

 

It is the same thing that happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and it is wrong, dangerous, and illiberal.

 

Individuals do not have to prove to the government, in any capacity, that they haven’t done what the government alleges. But rather, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused has done what they say he has.  Full stop.  That’s how it works.

[US Egg]

Another Lib loses it:

https://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-contributor-if-trump-is-acquitted-he-will-shut-down-voting-in-california/

 

.....it's only the beginning of their insanity.

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

With all due respect, were drinking even more than me?   Motivations are not material?  The truth is too vague?  Sorry, that seems plain silly to me.  The primary reason we can't get to the bottom of the motive question is due to the WH blocking.  That should enter into your thinking, imo

 

Honestly, do you really think if Trump had all sorts of emails and texts and witnesses that could easily exonerate him, that he would really hold them back from Congress to protect future Presidents?  When has he done something like that before, as opposed to what is best for Donnie ?

 

I used a football analogy before.  If there is strong suspicion that one team is paying off the officials, does it make sense to ignore that possibility, not investigate, and say, let it be decided on the field?

 

 

You’re being obtuse. Whether on purpose or not, I don’t know. I’m not going to go into your motives because it is irrelevant. 

 

To your second paragraph — the President has the right to do nothing. Just like you do if someone accuses you of something. Silence can not be used to imply guilt. This is as simple a Constitutional right as one can have. 

 

To your third paragraph — yes of course I’d want an investigation. And I’d want that investigation to be done by people who have the authority to investigate.  And I’d want those people to respect my right to not be required to help them out. 

 

By the way, your third paragraph completely disproves your entire premise about motives when looking at the predicate for impeachment. If Trump thought Biden was corrupt, wouldn’t you want him to investigate that? Isn’t that a good motive?  This is the problem with weighing motives when there’s more than one reason to do anything. This is why inquiring into motives isn’t really as important as you make them out to be. 

 

 

 

 

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Again, this is a complete perversion of justice.

 

You are making demands that the defense prove their innocence against a backdrop of the assumption of guilt.

 

It is the same thing that happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and it is wrong, dangerous, and illiberal.

 

Individuals do not have to prove to the government, in any capacity, that they haven’t done what the government alleges. But rather, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused has done what they say he has.  Full stop.  That’s how it works.

my only qualm with this post is that it is not illiberal but rather a very liberal thing.

[123719bwiqrb]

3 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Another Lib loses it:

https://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-contributor-if-trump-is-acquitted-he-will-shut-down-voting-in-california/

 

.....it's only the beginning of their insanity.

What a time to be alive.  

[Foxx]

what's it? day 11?

[keepthefaith]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Honest question, do you think Trump University was a scam business? I mean once a corrupt person, always a corrupt person. 

 

Trump University is a worse scam than anything Hunter Biden did. 

 

Any issues with Trump U have been settled.  Litigated and settled.  How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? 

[123719bwiqrb]

Just now, keepthefaith said:

 

Any issues with Trump U have been settled.  Litigated and settled.  How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? 

But CNN says the Biden story is a tinfoil hat thingy, like the moon landing.  Oh wait, CNN still believes in that one.

[B-Man]

 

 

ROGER SIMON: Misuse of Whistleblower Law Created the Impeachment Farce.

 

 

 

 

[Golden Goat]

49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Again, this is a complete perversion of justice.

 

You are making demands that the defense prove their innocence against a backdrop of the assumption of guilt.

 

It is the same thing that happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and it is wrong, dangerous, and illiberal.

 

Individuals do not have to prove to the government, in any capacity, that they haven’t done what the government alleges. But rather, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused has done what they say he has.  Full stop.  That’s how it works.

 

See though, there are a few differences from a court trial.  One, the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that.  A normal defendant would not have that right. How can that blocking of all possible witnesses and evidence not be considered by you? 

 

And two, 'corrupt purposes' are key when it comes to a number actions by politicians.  Determining of motivations is important here.

 

And three, we have all the accusations from the House proceedings and clues from FOIA documents.  There is precious little to counter accounts of his actions, so what is to be believed?

 

And four, unlike a trial, part of the audience is the public.  If they don't apply any pressure to Repub Sens, those Sens can skate out of this.  So, not all arguments made by Dems would occur in a courtroom but may be said here in order to influence the public.

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Any issues with Trump U have been settled.  Litigated and settled.  How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? 

Sure, you are right. But it does show his bad character. Republican Senator Alexander admits Trump abused his power, and both these things are consistant with a person who is corrupt. As are many other things he has done. 

 

Hunter Biden is not his father. Trump is just totally corrupt. Joe Biden, no 

 

[Bob in Mich]

57 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Tell you what though, if we want to debate thought crimes, motivation, feelings, and kicking all the doors in in the relentless pursuit of the adversary, let's get that done when your guy is in power, and your vote is impacted.  I didn't like it when Mueller did it, I don't like it now.  

 

 

There is no worry for Presidents in any party.  There will be even longer legal battles to get executive branch evidence now than ever before, if Congress wishes to investigate.  It will take years now going forward. 

 

The King thanks you for your support.

[US Egg]

58 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Kamala is probably high again. 

 

https://www.civilized.life/articles/kamala-harris-father-criticizes-daughter-jamaica-marijuana/

"Senator and 2020 Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris recently made headlines for admitting to smoking marijuana" 

[BillsFanNC]

8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

See though, there are a few differences from a court trial.  One, the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that.  A normal defendant would not have that right. How can that blocking of all possible witnesses and evidence not be considered by you? 

 

 

 

Have you fully looked into who Michael Atkinson is yet?  If you have and are worried about no more witnesses being heard in the Senate trial, then you must be equally aghast at Schiff's hiding of his testimony, right?

[Golden Goat]

6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that.  A normal defendant would not have that right.

A normal defendant would, however, have the right to face his accuser in court. Normal rules don't apply anywhere in this case.

[Foxx]

hahahahahahaaa. 

 

where is Nadler? nowhere to be found is the House Judiciary Chair.

 

?

Edited January 31, 2020 by Foxx

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Have you fully looked into who Michael Atkinson is yet?  If you have and are worried about no more witnesses being heard in the Senate trial, then you must be equally aghast at Schiff's hiding of his testimony, right?

 

Call him in the Senate then.  Just don't do it just to out the whistle blower.  Imo, if not to punish, all that needs to be learned on that issue can be done without putting a target on the guy and his family.  I know his name is out there but there is no need to open the guy up to even more crazies that could attack him or his family.

[Wacka]

Like I said in a previous thread, on Tuesday, Trump should come  to the podium with a rap song playing n sunglasses, just look at Pelosi and say  " Four years, beoch", drop the mic and leave.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Wacka