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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

2 senators represent 760k people (North Dakota)

2 senators represent 882k people (South Dakota)

2 senators represent 39M (California)

2 senators represent 28M (Texas)

2 senators represent 19M (NY)



^^ that is so unbalanced and I dont want to hear about how the House number of reps per State takes into account citizens etc.



But it is what it is.



Electoral College - That would take a constitutional amendment and I dont see that happenning in our life time. While it would mean an automatic D president, I wouldnt want that.



As a D, I dont think Id want to see what an AOC left president, house and senate would do. We are seeing what the worst of the R can and will do now. Thankfully the D took the house to pump the brakes a bit.



---------------------



Subpoenas - the whole point in issuing them is so you can enforce them. Im typing one up now as we speak. if you dont enforce a subpoena, its not a subpoena .... its a request with a "pretty please" at the end.



Pelosi should have absolutely sought to enforce the subpoenas vs this shit show of now wanting to re-open things etc.



It is what it is.

Not trying to pick, but you know the Senate specifically was designed to balance the interests of big population states with the interests of small population states. It was designed from the beginning to be a check against pure democracy.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[mooby]

One final question before I'm done with this forever. This applies to anyone willing to speak in Trump's defense.

Do you believe the President has authority to do anything he wants?

[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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

One final question before I'm done with this forever. This applies to anyone willing to speak in Trump's defense.

Do you believe the President has authority to do anything he wants?

Of course not, and the argument by Derschowitz was poorly made, and then twisted to sound crazy.

The fact is that political gain is part of nearly every calculus. Pelosi bringing the Impeachment was a political calculus, as was fast forwarding the impeachment process to the Senate to make the Republicans the ones who didn't want witnesses.

But, when Pres Obama says I have a pen and a phone, and Dems get outraged by Republicans who took offense( like me) suddenly get offended by a President saying I have the authority to do what I want under Article 2. Well it's pot meet kettle time.

I believe that the House should have done it right, and if bribery, or other offenses were proved not by hearsay, or NYT leaks, but by testimony and documents, which obviously the court would have said turn over, then Trump should have resigned. If the Dems keep the House in 2020, I fully expect a rehash of all of this, but this time doing it right. At that point the voter choice argument is gone, and they have 4 more years to truly prove their case.

One last thing, IF the House had gotten the Courts to say turn over the [whatever] and after all appeals were exhausted and failed and Trump refused, that would be obstruction with cause for impeachment and removal.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

One final question before I'm done with this forever. This applies to anyone willing to speak in Trump's defense.

Do you believe the President has authority to do anything he wants?

Mooby, his presidency has been the ultimate reminder the office CANNOT do everything it wants. He wants the interest rates reduced...he cant, he wants funding for a wall, he cant...he tries to yank press pass away, he cant...etc. I had zero clue just how many folks listen in on his phone calls to foreign leaders...that was eye opening.

The checks in the government, the law and the constitution really damper the trump is a dictator talk. Its simply not factual.