Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump was interested in a news conference. Something a US FBI investigation could not legally Publish to the public. Any investigation, IN private, as with US LAW, WOULD remain silent until after the election. Thats why the TV STATEMENT WAS WHAT TRUMP WANTED.
Trump determining how the House issues subpoenas is a bogus argument. It is a House controlled and determined issue. And besides it was issued as part of regular oversight AND the inquiry. Not just the inquiry.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
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.
Click to expand...
So long as the defense even suggests that the prosecutions case is deficient, the prosecution has reason to call more witnesses. One of the defenses’ arguments that no one so far has directly testified that withholding aid was tied to investigations.

Concede the facts laid out in the impeachment articles and we’ll stop asking for more evidence.
 
Last edited:
When a defendant blocks discovery, let’s say a corporate defendant in a white collar crime, they don’t get to then say your case is insufficient.
If that was the case, not following subpoenas would be the main tactic to win.
“I win because I stonewalled good!”
In a criminal court there are criminal penalties. But you cannot Indict Trump. So he does it to subvert justice because his office protects him. He is immune from bad faith responses. Except an article of impeachment
In that case you can consider an inference that the witness was harmful to the concealer.
In a trial, there are witness lists and evidence is discovered till trial. That happened here when Bolton’s testimony. Parnass statements became known. The interest is justice. Not," we deserve a reward for stonewalling."
You can always make a good case better with evidence.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Trump was interested in a news conference. Something a US FBI investigation could not legally Publish to the public. Any investigation, IN private, as with US LAW, WOULD remain silent until after the election. Thats why the TV STATEMENT WAS WHAT TRUMP WANTED.
Trump determining how the House issues subpoenas is a bogus argument. It is a House controlled and determined issue. And besides it was issued as part of regular oversight AND the inquiry. Not just the inquiry.
Click to expand...
It’s the same excuses from Trump supporters and all things they would never stand for in a Democratic President. It’s actually horrible to read and realize that we’ve ended up there as a country.
 
I agree. The GOP IS actually saying it is OK for Trump to attack a political opponent in this manner. Extorting a foreign nations help.
To save Trump, they are inviting Trump to go partners with foreign leaders to help just him
 
Maximus1 said:
I agree. The GOP IS actually saying it is OK for Trump to attack a political opponent in this manner
Click to expand...
If you mean “exposing corruption”, yes that has integrity and is in line with GOP thinking.

Dems on the other hand try to manufacture the corruption, which is not OK
 
Trump didn’t expose anything. He identified Biden’s son making lots of money in a Company that had problems. Not one problem involving Biden.
Curruption out of over 100k companies. One. The one with Biden’s son his political rival. It was a political favor.
 
Theo520 said:
If you mean “exposing corruption”, yes that has integrity and is in line with GOP thinking.
Click to expand...
Of course, Trump has been in near constant violation of the emolument clause in the Constitution by allowing bribes and government funds to be gained for himself by the sale of hotel rooms that would be otherwise vacant, so I don’t really think that ‘exposing corruption’ is in line with GOP thinking.
 
Yes, I got the impression that the House Dems want the Senate to impeach since they couldn’t do it well enough…
 
but suppose he’s telling a lie (he did say previously that if it was in the best interest of the country, he would tell a lie…) should he be punished for telling a lie?
 
mrad25 said:
But again who cares if they do say it, quid pro quo is not illegal, it’s also questionable with Trump where it’s obvious is with Biden who is on tape saying he withheld billions in loan guarantees until he got the prosecutor fired.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that actually be a bribe or a threat? An actual crime???
 
You can’t lie under oath. That’s a crime.
Trump is impeached. Tomorrow they will fall in line and not call witnesses then aquit. I imagine the next day Trump will consider it liscence to enlist nation’s to help him defeat his opponents using the assets of the USA and whatever else he wishes.
 
Last edited:
What power did Biden use to threaten the prosecutor.
Answer.
Not his. Obama’s.
Right there , no comparison.
Next
What’s the quo?
Firing a prosecutor? That guy was fired for not prosecuting Barisma. And what difference did that make to Joe Biden( actually Obama because it was his policy)
The whole thing is silly.
And clearly Trump did what he is accused of. They will vote to bury the clearest first hand evidence but it will come out.
 
Last edited:
It is 70+% think witnesses should be called which I think the figure is 50% of Republicans.
I wouldn’t insult people by suggesting they disagree a trial should have witnesses
 
I was wondering, really… think about any President. He or she makes a campaign promise. Say to cut Smog emissions on electric cars. And he/she spends or suspends money to a certain company until that company complies with certain requests… His/her intended outcome is good for the country–an unintended outcome-- is that it is good for his/her re-election… Promises made promises kept, kind of thing. Is this an abuse of power because it is good for his/her next campaign??? He used government funds. Perhaps withheld government funds until compliance…?
 
Oh drcube, Nixon wasn’t always corrupt. Honest people voted for him and expected him to do what was good for the country and he did, but then he got blindsided and sent people to break laws, at least that’s what I sort of remember…
That’s why Republicans AND Democrats together voted to impeach… or were going to… So don’t be so hard on folks. Give the benefit of the doubt… God will judge you just the same way.
 
petra22 said:
Would that be 83% of Americans on the coasts agree with the Democrats? Did you forget fly-over country? Most Dems do…
Click to expand...
If the survey is done correctly, that’s 83% of all Americans, including those on the coast and in fly-over country
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top