Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am waiting.
Not a word about Bob Barr’s decision of no invedtigate of the president.
Can’t charge a president.
Now Starr wants Impeachment constrained to actual crime.
He omits that he opened a grand jury while Trump completely blocked discovery.
Starts own charge aroze over Clinton’s Grand Jury lie.
Barr says you cannot have a Grand Jury at all.
In short, above the law is the direction Barr and Star brings us.no remedy. No ability to establish a crime in a presidential term due to stonewalling.
Don McGann is still years from talking.
Clinton was at 73% in the polls. That governed the votes.
Now he is ignoring that his," high court holding the first impeachment inquiry without a witness.
Now he forgets for Clinton there was a special counsel and the evidence was gathered in a grand jury. Clinton could not have his lawyer present for his own deposition
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
Back on topic. Let’s have lot’s of witnesses and documents.

Let’s just make sure the witnesses know about Trump’s behavior and aren’t just an attempt at political theater (Bidens, whistleblower, etc)
Click to expand...
I am inclined to think that if the “witnesses” would testify to first-hand knowledge of what Trump himself said or wrote, then that testimony could be relevant if one believes potential presidential candidates should not be investigated by an incumbent president, no matter what.

On the other hand, since the Democrat evidence so far is all speculation and hearsay, it’s hard for me to believe the Dems would not have presented some Bolton hearsay to bolster their claim he should testify. That failure alone would, if I was a senator, convince me that Bolton has nothing of substance to add other than to vent his spleen.

The alternative is, of course, that the NYT statement is “Clintonspeak” in its ambiguity, and the purpose is just to get Bolton on the stand to criticize Trump for other reasons and elongate the process.
 
Maximus1 said:
His clear statement that he has never done anything in 70+ years he needs to ask God’s forgiveness for. He is Christian and believes in God. His statement tells me that he likely has a radical view of right and wrong.
Click to expand...
Hi Maximus. I am going to defend the man because I know the fabric… he isn’t the only person who may find it hard to say he regrets or he is sorry. Or better say, a man can show he is sorry in different ways. He is your president, but he is a man too and a father, And a husband.And a businessman.And a negotiator…
It should not stand in the way because he may have a means to express it simply in a different way.
And again speaking about a person, just that: a person. As he is.
And God listens, even when we don’t speak…
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
I am inclined to think that if the “witnesses” would testify to first-hand knowledge of what Trump himself said or wrote, then that testimony could be relevant if one believes potential presidential candidates should not be investigated by an incumbent president, no matter what.
Click to expand...
The President should not really be involved in investigative decisions of the FBI.
Ridgerunner said:
On the other hand, since the Democrat evidence so far is all speculation and hearsay, it’s hard for me to believe the Dems would not have presented some Bolton hearsay to bolster their claim he should testify. That failure alone would, if I was a senator, convince me that Bolton has nothing of substance to add other than to vent his spleen.
Click to expand...
Well, I think the obstruction charge is stronger than the abuse article.

The real question is whether the Republicans want to push through an acquittal and than have damaging information come out later and face charges of coverup in the court of public opinion.

What’s a trial without witnesses?
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
The President should not really be involved in investigative decisions of the FBI.
Click to expand...
And the statute saying that is what? Do you really think JFK had no role in turning the FBI onto the KKK?
PaulinVA said:
What’s a trial without witnesses?
Click to expand...
When the “prosecution” puts on no witnesses with actual knowledge, then a trial based on the hearsay statements of some is a nullity as well.
 
dvdjs said:
His idea is an outlier. What Constitutional scholars are endorsing this desperate view?
Click to expand...
The Founders endorsed it and SC justices. Our Constitution endorses it in it’s text. Does that not matter? I guess it doesn’t to Democrats and only the opinions of Democratic political activist like Larry Tribe matter.
dvdjs said:
Apart from undercutting Trump’s defense massively.
And for those who think the Presidents can do whatever they want: the response from the POTUS makers it clear that he realizes that Bolton’s testimony is relevant and damaging.

How lucky we are to get this information, before the Republicans rushed to conclude the cover-up.
Good thing Nancy held off a bit.
Click to expand...
If Bolton says what you think it doesn’t matter it’s irrelevant to any crime being committed. Ample evidence to investigate Burisma/Biden, and can withhold aid over it or for many other reasons. Quid pro Quo is NOT CRIMINAL.

NEXT!
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your opinion. He was asked by Cal Thomas, a conservative commentator, in a second interview many months after the first, to clarify his Christian practice
Thomas prodded him. Something odd in terms of your statement regarding your faith. Then he asked again.
Trump gave the same strange Christian answer. ( Strange for a Christian)
I suppose Trump is unaware of the concept of repentance, contrition, or sin as part of his faith. I just don’t know.
You have “supposed” also. Maybe you are right. I cannot help but think what I wrote is reasonable also. Remember, I am only judging his suitability for a job. Nothing else
In his time in office I have witnessed bullying and a man who tends to be cruel. A man who is accused of being narcissistic , and does seem to view everything in terms of himself. He possesses no humility. He has a rude name for everyone who opposed him and threatens many. He stiffed the people I worked for years ago.
In short, I do not think his temperment and character are right for the job.
It is an important job affecting many people.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
When the “prosecution” puts on no witnesses with actual knowledge, then a trial based on the hearsay statements of some is a nullity as well.
Click to expand...
When the defendant is forbidding the witnesses with actual knowledge from testifying…
 
I understand.
Sometimes it takes time to build this personal relationship with God. Prayer, insight, examination … And so much more if one hasn’t been sort of trained as a child to do so. So I am just looking at the person, who may not just have developed that trust to open the heart to God and not be afraid to “ loose face”. And in public, much more…Some men see it as a sign of weakness, so we also have to learn to read other signs.Takes time…
In other words, be as it were, he is a person, and his relationship with God is his to build and ours as with any person is to respect that we can only be where we are at…And help patiently and prayerfully.And foster time in the quiet, within…Bear with silence and silences.
So it was that point as a person to bring some consideration upon. As it could be for you too, Maximus.Or for me.
Thank you for the conversation, Max…
 
Last edited:
I am not sure that we differ in terms of " the person".
I am not sure we differ at all.
For example, many fellow Catholics choose their candidates based on a pro life position.
Sometimes they will pepper their description of a pro choice candidate with invective and hyperbole. We can both agree with the fact that the pro choice candidate should be given the type of consideration as a person your post describes. But as a candidate, whatever causes the pro choice position, is disqualifying today.
That is roughly my position. We hope everyone continues to grow in faith. To build a " personal relationship" with God. In fact I would go a step forward, beyond what tends to be a Protestant view of relationship and emphasize a corporate relationship. Consistent with scripture. Because the Gospel makes the point that we are the Body of Christ.
Paul speaks of a hand is not seperate from the body.
Amen.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
The President should not really be involved in investigative decisions of the FBI.
Click to expand...
Where is that written? Do you think JFK had no (name removed by moderator)ut into the decision to heavily investigate the KKK? Do you think no president had any (name removed by moderator)ut into directing investigation into spying in WWI and WWII?

It does seem to have happened in the past.

Loading…

www.jstor.org

https://fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci1/ch4d.htm
 
Ridgerunner said:
Where is that written? Do you think JFK had no (name removed by moderator)ut into the decision to heavily investigate the KKK? Do you think no president had any (name removed by moderator)ut into directing investigation into spying in WWI and WWII?
Click to expand...
I think it’s a bad idea, because the President can initiate investigations of political rivals.
 
PaulinVA said:
I think it’s a bad idea, because the President can initiate investigations of political rivals.
Click to expand...
If Obama did, it doesn’t mean anyone else was motivated to do it. But the FBI is part of the Justic Department, which is part of the Executive Branch. If you don’t think Obama had anything to do with the FISC abuses, then the only reasonable conclusion is that the agency was running wild on its own.
 
Yes, I think we are separating what pertains to a personal relationship with God ( which is personal) and what a candidate as per the office,or a party’s platform says.
In other words, I don’t mind that a person “says “he has not asked for forgiveness because I may infer or suspect, that he just doesn’t want to let what is personal into the public sphere.Or may be shy about it, or have reasons not to reveal what is personal between him and God, or was caught off guard, etc., whatever between a person and the Father.
Moreover and very sincerely: it isn’t a question I would ask anyone and much less in public .Sounds like indiscretion to me.
What a platform, or a party , or candidate states about policies, or what is to be implemented or fostered or favored, well then ,as you say, that one matters. It concerns the nation as from its government.
I think we agree , yes, Max.
 
Last edited:
Swampers gonna swamp. No matter what party they belong to.

 
Last edited:
On CSPAN2 now, Alan Dershowitz, just laid out over an hour of testimony as to why the constitution does not support the conclusion a quid pro quo, even if true, and can never rise to the level of impeachable offense. It was a brilliant outline with many historical and legal citations.
So Bolton doesn’t alarm me one iota, for if the Senators were listening and taking notes, there is NO WAY Trump can be impeached, based on anything Bolton may submit. Derschowitz’s expertise also shuts down the argument of the House, as it is not fitting within the criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
Last edited:
Sirach2 said:
On CSPAN2 now, Alan Dershowitz, just laid out over an hour of testimony as to why the constitution does not support the conclusion a quid pro quo
Click to expand...
That article wasn’t about how Bolton’s claims make the president more guilty it was about how Trumps’ attorneys could be guilty of making false claims to the senate.
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton reportedly undercuts President Donald Trump’s primary legal defense against impeachment in his forthcoming book–a manuscript that is said to confirm that the hold on aid to Ukraine was ordered directly by the president and that the release of that aid was entirely dependent on investigations of the Bidens. Now lawyers are raising questions about what the president’s lawyers knew about this and if they could be liable for making false statements to the Senate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top