Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ALF said:

2021

March 31: By this date, the Census Bureau will send redistricting counts to states. This information is used to redraw legislative districts based on population changes.

 

https://2020census.gov/en/important-dates.html

Some states have had states courts redraw the districts, like PA, where Dems saw big gains in fairness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2020 at 11:34 AM, John Adams said:

 

 

I'm not asking whether you think this is impeachable, but which of these statements do you think is false:

 

1) Trump withheld aid to influence Zelensky to investigate at least one of the Bidens.

 

2) Trump withheld a personal meeting until Zelensky announced that he would investigate at least one of the Bidens. 

 

 

 

On 1/15/2020 at 12:13 PM, Foxx said:

both are patently false.

 

there was a deadline for the aid to be released. it was released before said deadline and anything said and/or done in the interim is a non-starter. the President is the last arbiter of our justice system. if he thought there was potential criminal actions with regard to past actions on behalf of certain people, it is well within his purview to investigate it. period. 

https://twitter.com/Nigel22222/status/1218040929195634688

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Republicans swore an oath  to be impartial. What a joke. The bible was used. Why? Obviously these people are there to aid in the cover up, nothing more 

right. and the Democrats are impartial. :rolleyes:

 

this is a political exercise, not a judicial one.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Biden fighting corruption, no problem. 


Fine. Let him and Hunter testify. If they have nothing to hide, there should be nothing wrong with calling them as witnesses.

Edited by Doc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken Starr, Dershowitz join Trump’s impeachment defense team

By Adam Shaw, John Roberts | Fox News

 

Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who led the Whitewater investigation into then-President Bill Clinton, and attorney Alan Dershowitz will join President Trump’s impeachment defense team, Fox News has learned.

The prominent lawyers were among several attorneys added to the team as the president's impeachment trial gets underway, with proceedings kicking off a day earlier and moving into full swing next Tuesday.

The team will also include former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, former federal prosecutor Robert Ray and Jane Raskin -- who was part of the president's legal team during former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Both Starr and Dershowitz are former Fox News contributors.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ken-starr-dershowitz-join-trumps-impeachment-defense-team

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

Ken Starr, Dershowitz join Trump’s impeachment defense team

By Adam Shaw, John Roberts | Fox News

 

Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who led the Whitewater investigation into then-President Bill Clinton, and attorney Alan Dershowitz will join President Trump’s impeachment defense team, Fox News has learned.

The prominent lawyers were among several attorneys added to the team as the president's impeachment trial gets underway, with proceedings kicking off a day earlier and moving into full swing next Tuesday.

The team will also include former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, former federal prosecutor Robert Ray and Jane Raskin -- who was part of the president's legal team during former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Both Starr and Dershowitz are former Fox News contributors.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ken-starr-dershowitz-join-trumps-impeachment-defense-team

 

Just shut it down now... Starr and Dershowitiz NEVER lose a case! 

 

edit to add this quote form the article ?

The inclusion of Starr drew an immediate reaction from Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern whose affair with Clinton eventually led to his impeachment before he was acquitted in a Senate trial. "This is definitely an 'are you f----ng kidding me?' kinda day," she tweeted.

Edited by Cinga
  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2020 at 12:04 PM, Kemp said:

1. So, do you think that one of the major players in the Ukraine story (Parnas) should testify in the inquiry as to what happened in this whole story?

2. Do you deny he has been interacting with Rudy in regards to Ukraine on behalf of Trump? 

Rudy has already said he has operated solely as a personal representative for Trump, pro bono, which by the way is illegal because it's a donation violation. I wonder who is paying Rudy for all his trips and expenses. We know he isn't.

2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses? 

3. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want someone who could prove your innocence to testify?  


I await your well thought out answers, but am aware that I'm more likely to get responses that evade the questions and instead bring in the usual side-steps. But why should you act differently when your lapdogs will cheer whatever you write?

 

Sorry, I'm a couple days late on this response.

I will give your questions a go.  Then I've got a couple for you.

 

1. So, do you think that one of the major players in the Ukraine story (Parnas) should testify in the inquiry as to what happened in this whole story?

Yes and no. He should have testified at the "investigation" level, in the House Committees.  However, and probably because he's got serious credibility issues, Neither Schiff nor Nadler chose to have him testify.  Parnas did give materials to the House, so it isn't like he was a stranger to them.  Now, AFTER the Articles of Impeachment were deliberated and voted upon you want to hear from Parnas and you think he's important to the prosecution of the trial against the President.  You do realize that Parnas cane forward before the House Managers walked the Articles to the Senate.  They could have taken his testimony during Pelosi's delay.  I think they really don't want to hear from Parnas.

 

2. Do you deny he has been interacting with Rudy in regards to Ukraine on behalf of Trump? 

It seems as though he may have been. However, who cares?  The Aid was released to Ukraine. There was no abuse of power vis a vis the aid to Ukraine. There's no requirement that the President host anyone at the White House.  There's nothing preventing any President from wanting to root out an appearance of impropriety of a former V.P. who now is seeking to become President. Don't you want to know if Joe Biden is a crook?

 

2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses?

I can't say for sure (I think some Republicans DO want witnesses -- but Democrats better be careful what they wish for) but I do believe that after hearing nearly all the witnesses that the House put on, there's nothing to rebut with witnesses.  There's no case and no proof. 

 

3. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want someone who could prove your innocence to testify?

(A) "prove your innocence"?  There are a lot of countries in our world that require Defendants to prove their innocence.  Thank God we don't live in one of those countries. (B) nobody has proved any guilt. (C) don't forget that this is a political process, not a judicial proceeding.

 

Questions for you:

(A) Why do you presume that Parnas is more credible than Trump? You responding "Trump lies all the time" won't cut it as an answer. 

(B) Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? You don't find it odd that the whistleblower won't come forward?

(C) Do you want to hear from Schiff's staff -- or Schiff for that matter? It is pretty clear that there was a bit of coordination between the whistleblower and Schiff.

(D) Do you discount the several times that Zelensky said that he wasn't pressured by Trump?

(E) Impeachment is a purely political exercise.  It seems that a great number of Politicians are staking their political futures on successfully being the ones to "bring down" the President for using hos power for political gain.  Their official actions are blatantly undertaken for "political gain".  There's no "high crime" here.  There's no "misdemeanor" here.  Why isn't this hypocritical bahavior on the part of Congressional Democrats?

(F) Because of the flimsy nature of the two charges levied against the President, don't you find it uncomfortable that Congress is trying to disenfranchise the voters that put this President in office -- in an election year?  Why not wait and see what the voters have to say?

(G) Why do you only appear in PPP when you think someone's finally "got" the President?

(H) Why did you call anyone who's questioning the House Democrats "stupid" or "evil" of both?  WTF is wrong with you?

(I) Why are you so sure of yourself?  Shouldn't you be more skeptical since you've bitten on all the other "gotcha bait" in the past and nothing has come of any of them?

 

 

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...