Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump has faced one trial. The only one in 250 years with no witnesses. General Kelly called it a half a trial. It’s illegitimacy was based upon the Republican refusal to meet the basics of what a trial is.
Trump was impeached once. With one trial.
 
The Trump Biden strategy was testified to by Sondland.
A TV ACCUSATION against his political rival.
Guilt by accusation.
Accordingly all activity in this regard is intended to confirm rumor, innuendo and guilt by accusation.
 
drcube said:
Yep, because normal Presidential administrations don’t want even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Which eluded the Obama administration in Biden/Ukraine/Burisma.
drcube said:
That ‘fake’ whistleblower, that was factually correct?
Click to expand...
Nobody knows because Schiff has sequestered the IG report on it.
drcube said:
Of course, the prosecutor wasn’t really investigated as much as eliciting bribes
Click to expand...
No charges have been filed against him.
drcube said:
I think the reason that the Democrats don’t want Biden investigated is because there is nothing there.
Click to expand...
So they’re assuming their premise. He’s guilty of nothing because we think he’s guilty of nothing.
drcube said:
Or that Clinton did nothing criminal with emails and, three years later, she has never been charged
Click to expand...
Nor investigated either.
drcube said:
Democrats wouldn’t think that Republicans would lie about some fake story about Biden.
Click to expand...
When a high official brags about using the threat of withdrawing American aid in order to get a prosecutor fired who is investigating his son’s company, an investigation should be had. The Dems don’t want that because they don’t want people to know the possible negative outcome.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The Dems don’t want that because they don’t want people to know the possible negative outcome.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t want it because a) there is nothing there and b) they know the Republicans will lie endlessly about it. Well, b) has already started. Much like Clinton’s email, which you claim
Ridgerunner said:
Nor investigated either.
Click to expand...
Well, golly, what is the Trump AG waiting for? Oh, wait, that’s not true you say. The Trump AG did investigate it and it’s been a big bust

www.vanityfair.com

Surprise, Surprise: The DOJ’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Has Been a Bust

After more than two years, an inquiry into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton's tenure at State is nearly done—and there's reportedly absolutely nothing to show for it.
www.vanityfair.com www.vanityfair.com

And you avoided my comments that the Republicans attacked John Kerry who was a Vietnam veteran who had seen combat during the Bush-Kerry campaign while Bush was MIA from his National Guard unit. You also avoided the Republican lies about Obama being born in Kenya.

So the Republicans are going to the same playbook again. Create a scandal that Biden has done something wrong so they can talk endlessly about it while supporting the most corrupt Presidential administration of my lifetime. And the false narrative will be pushed over and over again on sites like this by those claiming to be good Christians. It’s really sad to watch.
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
No, they don’t want it because a) there is nothing there
Click to expand...
Can’t be known until it’s investigated. Dems don’t want investigation.
drcube said:
Well, golly, what is the Trump AG waiting for? Oh, wait, that’s not true you say. The Trump AG did investigate it and it’s been a big bust
Click to expand...
Not investigated, but hopefully it will be.

Clinton was never investigated during the Comey directorship. There might be investigation going on now. I don’t know, and neither do you. And what’s unchristian about wanting it looked into?

I don’t care anything about the war records of Kerry or Bush, or whether Obama’s birth record was questionable. People could debate those still, and probably always will. To me the question is and was how they governed.
drcube said:
Create a scandal that Biden has done something wrong so they can talk endlessly about it while supporting the most corrupt Presidential
Click to expand...
It’s 180 degrees the other way. The possible Biden wrongdoing coming to light triggered the phony impeachment move. Dems always do that; accuse the opposition of what they, themselves, are doing.

As soon as you want to tell us what corruption has occurred under the Trump administration, we’ll look at it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Can’t be known until it’s investigated. Dems don’t want investigation.
Click to expand...
We also can’t know that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist until it’s investigated. But we are darn sure that Trump didn’t extort Ukraine because he blocked all testimony from White House officials. Except for Mitt Romney who somehow saw the truth and blew up the ‘it’s all partisan’ narrative.
Ridgerunner said:
Not investigated, but hopefully it will be.

Clinton was never investigated during the Comey directorship. There might be investigation going on now. I don’t know, and neither do you. And what’s unchristian about wanting it looked into?
Click to expand...
And I put in a link for the investigation failing and you somehow ignore it. You must have missed it.
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t care anything about the war records of Kerry or Bush, or whether Obama’s birth record was questionable. People could debate those still, and probably always will. To me the question is and was how they governed.
Click to expand...
Sure, you didn’t care, but a lot of Republicans spread the lies and it was major issues of the campaign. Much like Clinton’s emails which have been investigated and are turning up nothing. So, for 2020, the Republicans are trying to create another fake scandal and their supporters will happily lap it up.
Ridgerunner said:
It’s 180 degrees the other way. The possible Biden wrongdoing coming to light triggered the phony impeachment move. Dems always do that; accuse the opposition of what they, themselves, are doing.

As soon as you want to tell us what corruption has occurred under the Trump administration, we’ll look at it.
Click to expand...
You mean, besides the Russian election interference (no, the Mueller report was not an exoneration), the extortion of Ukraine to announce an investigation of Trump’s political opponent (which Romney say clearly enough to vote for removal), the emoluments violations, etc. You really need to find some news sources that aren’t totally biased.
 
drcube said:
And I put in a link for the investigation failing and you somehow ignore it. You must have missed it.
Click to expand...
No. A hearsay on hearsay on hearsay account by a liberal publication does not impress me. What did concern me, however, is the assertion that Huber never took the investigation seriously. We’ll see what happens from here in reality.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention the biggest first-source journalism on YouTube: Project Veritas.
 
It is time to consider it for what it was.
A half trial, as General Kelly said. A fixo trial that excluded material witnesses to protect Republicans from the truth America heard proffered.
It is locked in as that by choice of the GOP. YOU DONT EVER forget it.
To forget it is to embrace fixing trials.
 
You Indict the trial as invalid with that argument. You have to accept the implication of the Bolton testimony as completely true and harmful to the president before you attempt to argue exoneration. Otherwized the true nature of the concealment becomes clear
 
Nonsense. I don’t have to accept your argument any more than you have to accept mine.
 
You don’t have to accept anything.
When witnesses are not called there are negative presumptions that their testimony would have been harmful. When hidden, similar evidentiary presumptions are instructed to the jury.
Concealed evidence, the same.
In Civil Law there is the Doctrine of Spoliation and an actual cause of action for damages.
All Doctrines that address hiding and withholding material witnesses and evidence. Because we don’t make concealment ever represent a winning strategy.
 
Maximus1 said:
When witnesses are not called there are negative presumptions that their testimony would have been harmful.
Click to expand...
Well, counselor, the Dems did not call Bolton during the impeachment hearings though they could have, and called 13 other witnesses, deposed them in secret then had them testify publicly. But I’m guessing you’re not invoking the “presumption” in that situation.

You’re an advocate by trade, and a Dem political one in here. But you can’t condemn the senate for not calling witnesses and simultaneously excuse the House’s failure to do the same thing when the Dems had the burden of proof in the whole farce.
 
Last edited:
Trump was invited to call witnesses and cross examine them at the Judiciary hearing.
In previous Impeachments, like Clinton, investigation was done before a grand jury. Only the prosecutor was present( not 100 congressmen) as in this case.
Those are the facts without the rancor. And a second chance at the Senate hearing.
Problem was Trump said no to the Judiciary hearing and the Senate.
Also, the Senate calls witnesses has nothing to do with the house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top