Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[Maximus1]

Here is what I care about.
Trump disclosed it to Russian spies sfter it was given to us as a top secret.
It is also reported he did it spontaneously without permission of the givers of the Intel.
It doesn’t matter if it is technically legal because his blurts declassify.
He can give out nuke codes to Russia in exchange for dirt on Biden apparently. As long as he subjectively believes it is better for America to have him as president. That’s the new GOP STANDARD OF OVERSIGHT. GOD HELP US.

 

[Maximus1]

What Dems want is up to the GOP. THE GOP DECIDES.
At the same time they can vote to call their own witnesses any time they want.
When you have 100% of the power to decide let me tell you a secret. It’s always what you want.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Yes we saw evidence of that in the first phase of this sham,when the Dem controlled house called the shots

 

[Maximus1]

Fair analogy. Only this is the trial.

 

[Maximus1]

Because witnesses in a trial are fundemental. Easy to comprehend.

 

[Ender]

Horton:

There is no testimony from Mulvany, Pompeo, and Giuliani because the Democrats did not followed through with getting the testimony.

No need for it at the impeachment level. But it is proper to have it at the trial.

Then again, maybe not. (This exchange between Schiff and Sekulow)

Sekulow: “After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case… [pauses for response] That’s what you said.”

Schiff: “We did.”

Sekulow: “Well then I don’t think we need any witnesses.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Trump disclosed it to Russian spies sfter it was given to us as a top secret.

You don’t know that, of course. It was the product of intelligence, thought to have been Israeli intelligence. Beyond that, only Trump and perhaps Mossad knows.

t is also reported he did it spontaneously without permission of the givers of the Intel.

Well, the Dem media would say that, but neither they nor you know that.

It doesn’t matter if it is technically legal because his blurts declassify.

Why do you think it was an inadvertence? You have no idea what state purpose it served or was expected. He might well have thought it out and with the advice of people in the know, including Israelis. I realize the relationship with Russia has been poisoned by the Democrats in the last three years. But that does not mean there can never be a decent relationship with that country. After all, didn’t Obama promise Medvedev that after his second election “Vladimir” needed to know he could be “more flexible”? Russia is a fact, and it’s a nuclear-armed fact.

He can give out nuke codes to Russia in exchange for dirt on Biden apparently.

Evidence, please.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Because witnesses in a trial are fundemental. Easy to comprehend.

Sure. And it’s easy to comprehend that prosecutors can’t change the rules in the middle of the trial and expect the jury to go out and investigate. Indeed, in a real trial, the prosecution can’t depart from the fact it enunciates in its opening statement or discloses pursuant to discovery before trial.

 

[drcube]

I couldn’t say in this particular instance, but he probably knows it won’t pass and doesn’t want to waste senate time on it. There are probably dozens, maybe hundreds of partisan bills like that.

Why would McConnell waste time on securing an American election? And how dare anyone question McConnell’s patriotism for not fighting to secure American elections?

Why? Bolton could go on TV tonight and say whatever he has. Nothing prevents it. So you want the Senate to take up time with that and other witnesses just so Bolton can say other critical things and prolong this endlessly, and all on taxpayer’s money. At least CNN or MSNBC and their sponsors ought to have to pay for partisan utterances. But it won’t happen because Bolton wants to sell the book.

Too bad. The congress has better things to do.

Of course, Congress shouldn’t look into corruption into the highest office in America correctly. They have better things to do; like ignoring election security.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why would McConnell waste time on securing an American election?

You’re assuming your premise; that those bills would secure an American election. You have not proved your premise.

Congress shouldn’t look into corruption into the highest office in America correctly.

If Bolton could testify to corruption on Trump’s part, the Dems would have actually done its subpoenas right in the House and subpoenaed him. But they didn’t. If Bolton thought he actually had proof of corruption, nothing would prevent him from disclosing it right now.

There is no corruption other than in the imagination of the Democrats, or perhaps more properly, their propaganda. Trump, at worst, requested investigation of a case even the Obama administration was concerned about, of potential corruption at the highest level. And he asked Ukraine to investigate interference in the 2016 election; something the Ukrainian courts have said happened, and which was at least part of the sourcing of the Steele “dossier”.

If Trump hadn’t requested investigation, he would have been remiss. My only criticism is that he wasn’t insistent on it.

 

[drcube]

You’re assuming your premise; that those bills would secure an American election. You have not proved your premise.

If the Senate has some better ideas, then they should debate it and make recommendations or pass their own bill and work through the differences with the House. Blocking any discussion shows the incompetence of the Senate.

If Bolton could testify to corruption on Trump’s part, the Dems would have actually done its subpoenas right in the House and subpoenaed him. But they didn’t. If Bolton thought he actually had proof of corruption, nothing would prevent him from disclosing it right now.

What prevents him from disclosing it is Trump declaring he gave up secret and risk of legal jeopardy. But you know that. And, of course, the blanket blocking of all testimony from White House officials just reinforces why Obstruction of Congress is an impeachment charge.

There is no corruption other than in the imagination of the Democrats, or perhaps more properly, their propaganda. Trump, at worst, requested investigation of a case even the Obama administration was concerned about, of potential corruption at the highest level. And he asked Ukraine to investigate interference in the 2016 election; something the Ukrainian courts have said happened, and which was at least part of the sourcing of the Steele “dossier”.

If Trump hadn’t requested investigation, he would have been remiss. My only criticism is that he wasn’t insistent on it.

Yes, it is good to pursue imaginary charges against your opponents and use the full power of the United States government to do so, even blocking aid to a foreign country unless they assist in your political attack.

 

[MikeInVA]

Trump ordered anything he didn’t like, Top Secret.

To what end? I’m sure that many, if not most senators and congressmen hold clearances and have access to top secret information.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If the Senate has some better ideas, then they should debate it and make recommendations or pass their own bill and work through the differences with the House. Blocking any discussion shows the incompetence of the Senate.

Apparently that’s what the Repubs think. See the quote from Sen. Blunt above.

What prevents him from disclosing it is Trump declaring he gave up secret and risk of legal jeopardy. But you know that. And, of course, the blanket blocking of all testimony from White House officials just reinforces why Obstruction of Congress is an impeachment charge.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Ridgerunner:

I’m not a constitutional scholar. All I know is that everybody I have seen on television comment about it say Bolton would be taking no risk to simply say “Trump told me X” or “He didn’t tell me Y” about investigation of corrupt activity in Ukraine or interference from there in the 2016 election. I think I’ll take their opinion rather than yours.

As to the blanket blocking of testimony, Trump was right in doing it. The House never authorized subpoenas, which it has to do for them to be valid. Apparently Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler never bothered to get a vote on it and issued them without authority.

Yes, it is good to pursue imaginary charges against your opponents and use the full power of the United States government to do so, even blocking aid to a foreign country unless they assist in your political attack.

What a joke this is. Try to uncover corruption by some Democrat and the investigator is accused by the Democrats of the very same thing. And the public has to pay for it.

 

[Maximus1]

That is a specious argument when the desired testimony eliminates the defense of lack of first hand knowledge. There are all kinds of documents and emails that confirm the managers case that have been hidden.
The best point however is this is a plenary trial. The only trial. It is not an appeal from the house, with a trial record.
In every trial the ," murder weapon " might be located before the first day. It is never the case that it is excluded unless the House managers hid it. ( It can be excluded as a sanction or if it is a surprise). And only there if it cannot be remedied by giving the defense a chance to prepare for something new.
Here, Trump and his team possess all of the hidden information. There is no prejudice to them. Devestating witnesses is not legally prejudicial.

 

[dvdjs]

Yea, that cookie monster analogy works better with Biden, who bragged about his quid pro quo, to his son’s personal benefit.

His quid prop quo was policy of the US to its, and its allies benefit. It is not the least bit clear benefit to Hunter was related to that quid pro. On face value, it seems just the opposite.

Wonder what ‘discovery’ for this trial will reveal

Probably something about the Gateway pundit, primarily.

 

[mrad25]

His quid prop quo was policy of the US to its, and its allies benefit. It is not the least bit clear benefit to Hunter was related to that quid pro. On face value, it seems just the opposite.

So you are saying requesting the firing of the prosecutor investigating the Corrupt Co. that your son sits on the Board of, and who wants to question him re: illicit US monies flagged by the Lativian govt going from Burisma to Hunter Biden and Devon Archers firm doesn’t benefit Hunter? BUT instead is in US interest? And that Joe Biden threatening to withhold a billion dollars in aid mandated by Congress to a Country at war with Russia didn’t undermine US national safety and interest?

 

[Ender]

That is a specious argument when the desired testimony eliminates the defense of lack of first hand knowledge. There are all kinds of documents and emails that confirm the managers case that have been hidden.

To claim the case has been hidden is to acknowledge that the case the House made is deficient, and is in fact no case at all, otherwise you wouldn’t have to rely on the claim that if you just had more information you could prove the allegations true.

The best point however is this is a plenary trial. The only trial. It is not an appeal from the house, with a trial record.

Yes, this is a trial, and it is to take place with the evidence presented by the House. If their case is insufficient perhaps they should have made a better one before beginning the impeachment. The Senate’s job is to try the case. If it’s a bad case then they have the obligation to acquit. That’s the way trials work.

Besides, Schiff claimed to have conclusively proved his case. If that is true then there is no need for more witnesses by his own admission.

 

[Maximus1]

In this case it is. Designed as a tactic to run out the clock. Although they improperly placed the transcript there to hide it

 

[Maximus1]

Hunter Biden is a private citizen. He is a 50 year old man. Not a child and not under his father control.
But the analogy breaks down with Joe Biden. Vice presidents do not make policy!
They are agents serving at the pleasure of the president.

 

[drcube]

Apparently that’s what the Repubs think. See the quote from Sen. Blunt above.

So what is the Republican solution to this?

I’m not a constitutional scholar. All I know is that everybody I have seen on television comment about it say Bolton would be taking no risk to simply say “Trump told me X” or “He didn’t tell me Y” about investigation of corrupt activity in Ukraine or interference from there in the 2016 election. I think I’ll take their opinion rather than yours.

Well, if everyone you see on TV are Fox News pundits or Alan Dershowitz, then their opinion isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. Given that Trump has called Bolton a liar and said their conversations are classified, I would tread carefully if I were Bolton. It’s not like we’re seeing a lot of respect for the law in this country right now.

As to the blanket blocking of testimony, Trump was right in doing it. The House never authorized subpoenas, which it has to do for them to be valid. Apparently Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler never bothered to get a vote on it and issued them without authority.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) drcube:

Don’t need a full vote.

What a joke this is. Try to uncover corruption by some Democrat and the investigator is accused by the Democrats of the very same thing. And the public has to pay for it.

Oh, there are a lot of jokes in this forum, but my comments on this aren’t among them. There is nothing that suggests Biden did anything wrong except for the vivid imagination of the right-wing conspiracy theorists.