The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[LSHMEAB]

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

 

And I'll agree with DR. We have not been here before. This ain't even close!  The Trump impeachment began before he was even sworn in.  So seeing you are someone who followed the entire Clinton impeachment process would you care to enlighten us as to when THAT process started?  

Whitewater something or other; pretty much the moment he was elected. 

 

I visit this board to have fun and discuss the Bills so I don't want to get into a bunch of mudslinging. I read through all the responses and there are some interesting, well thought out points raised.

 

When I take a panoramic shot, I see both sides playing the exact same game, but it's unlikely we're ever gonna find common ground on this.

Edited December 20, 2019 by LSHMEAB

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

Washington (AFP) - Christianity Today, a leading US evangelical Christian publication, said Thursday that President Donald Trump is "morally lost and confused" and should be removed from office.

In an editorial, the magazine said it generally steers clear of politics but "we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear."

"The facts in this instance are unambiguous," it said.

"The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president's political opponents," Christianity Today said.

"That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral."

 

About time the people that claim to be more moral than everyone come out and call a spade a spade

 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/us-evangelical-magazine-calls-removal-grossly-immoral-trump-232802945.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca

[Buffalo_Gal]

32 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Whitewater something or other; pretty much the moment he was elected. 

 

I visit this board to have fun and discuss the Bills so I don't want to get into a bunch of mudslinging. I read through all the responses and there are some interesting, well thought out points raised.

 

When I take a panoramic shot, I see both sides playing the exact same game, but it's unlikely we're ever gonna find common ground on this.

Really? Because I recall the Rs hating Bill Clinton, but not trying to impeach him from before he was elected (actually, I recall them hating Hillary more than Bill).

While Bill Clinton was impeached over an actual crime (perjury), Trump hasn't committed a crime (well, #OrangeManBad isn't a crime no matter how the press and the Ds would like to spin it). 

I disagreed with the Clinton impeachment (and he came back stronger after it), I am incensed with the Trump impeachment. I expect President Trump to be even stronger politically than Clinton was after that debacle. 

 

[DC Tom]

13 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Electorate:

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Agree with your measured approach as well as this post, but I disagree with the bolded. He wanted Zelensky to put out a press release stating they were investigating the Biden's. I didn't even get the sense from the transcript that he wanted an actual investigation; just a press release. Honestly, I don't care, it's not a crime, and I don't like the impeachment. But the notion that Trump was rooting out corruption in this particular case; not buying it.

 

I'm not suggesting what his personal motivation was. I don't think it's terribly important. I'm just saying there was a legitimate basis for the inquiry.

 

If a cop is triggered by my "Kill Whitey" bumper sticker and because of that decides to stop me for a busted tail light, he still had a legitimate reason to pull me over.

 

It seems fairly obvious that something was amiss in Ukraine. It seems equally obvious that Biden used the power of his office to extort the President of Ukraine with the threat of withholding aid for the purpose of protecting his son. There was also information that Ukraine had a server linked to the Russian collusion story.

 

Whether President Trump decided to look into it because he wanted to get to the root of the Russian collusion story, expose Ukrainian corruption, expose the corruption of the previous administration, expose Biden to tank his candidacy, or was just concerned about wasting foreign aid doesn't really matter. There was still a legitimate basis for inquiring.

 

Just to clarify, even if it was a pure fishing expedition, asking Zelensky to look into a potential scandal isn't illegal, and it certainly isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

4 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Agree with your measured approach as well as this post, but I disagree with the bolded. He wanted Zelensky to put out a press release stating they were investigating the Biden's. I didn't even get the sense from the transcript that he wanted an actual investigation; just a press release. Honestly, I don't care, it's not a crime, and I don't like the impeachment. But the notion that Trump was rooting out corruption in this particular case; not buying it.

Trump wanted Zelensky to go on record that there would be an investigation. 

[LSHMEAB]

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Trump wanted Zelensky to go on record that there would be an investigation. 

My personal impression is that he was most concerned with an announcement, but that's merely an interpretation. 

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Right. But based on the transcript, did it sound like he wanted an investigation or an announcement? I think we all know the answer to that question. 

 

The public image of Trump would say he wanted the announcement. I understand that. But there's pre-existing policy to lend weight the other way, including an ongoing investigation into Ukraine and the 2016 election being run by the DOJ which pre-dated the call by half a year. 

 

On one hand you have the Trump ego/persona/need to win -- on the other you have Trump actually executing (at the very least the appearance of) the process of a corruption investigation in multiple countries prior to this, not to mention a full campaign run of stump speeches where he made that general fight a central plank of his platform. 

 

You can believe his intentions were pure, or corrupt as a matter of opinion of course -- no argument there. But in terms of the rule of law, in our system where you're innocent until proven guilty as a starting point, there was nowhere near the amount of needed evidence to make the case convincingly that it was corrupt. This whole thing didn't change a single mind as to their opinion on Trump the man, that was baked in. But the over-reach by the DNC definitely is a reminder to the centrists and independents that this whole thing is a subversion of the very institutions and constitution Pelosi and Schiff are swearing they're somberly upholding during this undertaking. 

 

This was doomed from the start, the longer it gets dragged out the worse it's going to get for the vulnerable House members who won in Trump country in 2018 when he wasn't on the ballot. The turnout will be massive in 2020 (on all sides), but a large chunk of Trump's base didn't turn out for the 2018 midterms. They will turn out in 2020 and go red all the way down the card. (imo of course)

Edited December 20, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

My personal impression is that he was most concerned with an announcement, but that's merely an interpretation. 

Keep in mind that Zelensky told Trump in that phone call on 7-25-19 that he was going to hire a new prosecutor. It seems reasonable to me that Zelensky wouldn't start an investigation until that prosecutor was in place. It's reasonable to assume that at that particular time Trump would have been satisfied with a promise of an investigation. This is not a hill anyone should choose to die on. 

[Tiberius]

7 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Keep in mind that Zelensky told Trump in that phone call on 7-25-19 that he was going to hire a new prosecutor. It seems reasonable to me that Zelensky wouldn't start an investigation until that prosecutor was in place. It's reasonable to assume that at that particular time Trump would have been satisfied with a promise of an investigation. This is not a hill anyone should choose to die on. 

To release the aid Congress had approved. 

 

That's abuse of power 

[snafu]

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

My personal impression is that he was most concerned with an announcement, but that's merely an interpretation. 

 

The problem with Trump is that he’s a horrible communicator. People have had to interpret what he says for years and they see what they want to see — and it has made his time in office more difficult. 

 

For example, people have pointed out that the word “corruption” never appears in the transcript. That’s a narrow approach. They forget the exchange when Trump said “you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people”. After that Zelinsky went in to say he’s got good people around him and he’d hired a new prosecutor.  Was Trump talking about corruption? Who knows. People will say yes and others will say no —and that’s just small slice of the entire situation. 

 

There’s enough doubt about this whole matter to have made these impeachment proceedings useless.  Well, useless except for being a  strictly political tool to harm Trump for 2020.  People don’t like it when politicians screw around with their vote for purely political purposes, and that’s what the Dems in the House have done.

 

 

[Foxx]

from the lefties boy, Noah Feldman... you know, their legal constitutional scholar whom they called to the Judiciary committee to layout the case for the impeachment of Trump...

 

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1207795034902474752

 

idiots, the whole lot of 'em.

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1207821584267956224

 

[Koko78]

On 12/19/2019 at 10:00 AM, Foxx said:

or...

https://twitter.com/3Days3Nights/status/1207535748607553536

 

 

That's still not an accurate interpretation of Trump's powers.

[Koko78]

23 hours ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1207692737111310339

 

 

Nothing in the Constitution actually says that the House must actually transmit the articles to the Senate for consideration. Why doesn't the Senate just vote to send someone to retrieve a publicly-available copy of the passed Articles, then give 10 minutes notice to the House of the trial's commencement?

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Nothing in the Constitution actually says that the House must actually transmit the articles to the Senate for consideration. Why doesn't the Senate just vote to send someone to retrieve a publicly-available copy of the passed Articles, then give 10 minutes notice to the House of the trial's commencement?

the Dems chosen constitutional scholar had this to say...

... Feldman noted that “according to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote,” and that while a modest delay would not pose a problem, an lengthy delay would be a “serious problem.”

 

“Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial,” Feldman wrote. “Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.”

 

Feldman continued, “If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”

 

Feldman noted that if Democrats do not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate that it would not only deviate from constitutional protocol but it would also “deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides.” ...

[Koko78]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the Dems chosen constitutional scholar had this to say...

... Feldman noted that “according to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote,” and that while a modest delay would not pose a problem, an lengthy delay would be a “serious problem.”

 

“Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial,” Feldman wrote. “Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.”

 

Feldman continued, “If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”

 

Feldman noted that if Democrats do not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate that it would not only deviate from constitutional protocol but it would also “deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides.” ...

 

Far be it from me to partially disagree with a Haavahd scholar, but he pretty well proved, a week or two ago, that he is an idiot.

 

Though he's not wrong in the last line.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Koko78

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Far be it from me to partially disagree with a Haavahd scholar, but he pretty well proved, a week or two ago, that he is an idiot.

 

Though he's not wrong in the last line.

not disagreeing with you, just pointing out what their own side had to say. as such, this is ammunition for Trump and the Repubs to say that he is not legally impeached until the Articles are transmitted.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Foxx

[Foxx]

Trump indicates White House counsel Cipollone will play lead role in Senate trial