Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OneSheep said:
I don’t.
Click to expand...
You did, but okay.
OneSheep said:
We are discussing Trump in this thread, and here are the other reasons why impeachment should take place:

Emoluments (including that he has spent over 100 million of our taxes golfing at his own properties)
Intimidation of witnesses
Firing of Comey
Obstruction (attempted) of the Russian investigation
Attack on Iraq to appease Republican senators and possibly John Bolton (and all other AIPAC affiliates)
Requesting a foreign government to do an investigation to discredit the Mueller
Use of campaign funds to buy the silence of mistresses
Inciting violence, including the terrorist act in El Paso

The possible conflict of interest with Russian debtors I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Emoluments. So what? How much is the upkeep of Camp David? How much did Obama cost the treasury having Air Force One go to St. Louis to get him a pizza? Did Trump make a profit, or was that just the cost of it? If he had played golf in a DC public golf course would it have been any cheaper? Give us the numbers so we can make the comparisons.

What obstruction of the pointless “Russian investigation” (attempted). Please explain. As I recall, Trump made everybody available to Mueller that Mueller asked for and all documents.

Trump never attacked Iraq. He killed the killer of 600 American troops and the murderer of thousands of Arabs and Persians; a terrorist with a worse record than Bin Ladin. One man. Did you want to preserve his life? Would you bring him back if you could?

Trump is required by law to ask foreign governments to assist in investigation of illegal activities affecting this country. Just because Biden is now running for office, does not make him immune.
That has nothing to do with Mueller.

He did not use campaign funds to make a paltry settlement with anyone.

Go ahead and quote him from a reliable source when he has said anyone should engage in terrorist acts.

Go ahead and show us what he owes Russians and why. He has sanctioned Russia and its oligarchs more than Obama ever did. He has armed Ukraine where Obama wouldn’t.

Going back to your earlier list, the Comey firing was recommended by Rosenstein who said the FBI was damaged by him and “would never recover” as long as Comey was at its head. If you disagree with that assessment, tell us why.
 
Maximus1 said:
Dems didn’t call him because everything he reported has been corroborated by first hand witnesses. Those witnesses were the best evidence while the WHISLEBLOWER was redundant.
Click to expand...
In a sense, that’s true. None of the witnesses ever heard Trump say he wanted a quid pro quo, and neither did the fake whistleblower. So his speculation would add nothing to the speculation of others.
 
Maximus1 said:
Dems didn’t call him because everything he reported has been corroborated by first hand witnesses
Click to expand...
Corroboration by INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY

Best evidence is Whistleblower on stand

Why are Dems denying American people of truth?
 
Last edited:
Please don’t opine about exceptions. What is not hearsay because it is offered for a reason other than the truth etc. It is silly.
The contemporaneous notes of the witnesses Trump withheld cannot be justified under any privilege. And their content would be admissible.
Trump is obstructing Congress
 
Under the McConnell rules at present, if any evidence is made part of the record, it can only be hearsay, If he does not present live witnesses.
How can you object when you require only hearsay OVER OBJECTION.
 
you don’t know what hearsay is. Per your logic, witness trial testimony transcript at lower court would be “hearsay” at appellate court.
 
Maximus1 said:
The contemporaneous notes of the witnesses Trump withheld cannot be justified under any privilege. And their content would be admissible.
Click to expand...
What if Trump discussed some sensitive thing with Zelensky?

The contents of the notes would still be hearsay. If the Dems wanted any of the contents admitted, they had to call the writers for live testimony in the hearings or in deposition. And they could have solved their nonexistent “problem” by doing that. But they didn’t.
 
I don’t know if you watched.
I will assume you did.
Once they testified to a conversation. The participants. The content. The contemporaneous note will no longer be privileged because the content has been completely made public.
The relevancy of the note is to corroborate one version. “It says what he testified to!”
 
Maximus1 said:
Under the McConnell rules at present, if any evidence is made part of the record, it can only be hearsay, If he does not present live witnesses.
Click to expand...
Sworn testimony in one proceeding is admissible in other proceedings. So this would be incorrect.
 
Then when they vote it will all be admissible? We will see. It hasn’t happened.
 
Maximus1 said:
They were obstructed by a president hiding the evidence
Click to expand...
This really doesn’t work. What evidence was he hiding? The actual witnesses to the phone call were all known. Their notes would be hearsay, but their testimony would not be. Some other person making notes from someone else’s recount would be double hearsay.
 
Maximus1 said:
Then when they vote it will all be admissible? We will see. It hasn’t happened.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what this means.

What I was trying to say, but apparently failed, was that any witness testimony given under oath in the impeachment hearing would be admissible in the Senate hearing, as NOT being hearsay, unless it would be inadmissible for some other reason.
 
What rule do you rely on?
And remember, the President did not have opportunity to cross.
Now find a rule. Lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top