Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Biden’s son took that job TWO YEARS AFTER that Oligarch left. They overpayed him and since BILLY BEER there is an issue about family cashing in.
As usual Trump throws together incongruent facts because people really don’t follow closely.
There was a currupt prosecutor who would not prosecute as part of his Curruption.
This is the guy Biden , on behalf of the Administration, wanted removed.
A guy who could NOT BE counted on to prosecute Burisma.
Replaced with a guy unfettered by Curruption.
He made prosecution of his son more likely. He didn’t pick the replacement.
I vote for that guy.
Manifort wasn’t interviewing for the 12AM attendant job at the gas station.
The Trumpies knew EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM. THEN HIRED HIM. This is the major leagues. Literally a Putin puppet maker
 
Last edited:
Why not just conclude it is a chocolate Sunday. Same analysis in either case.
It isn’t an amazing concession unless you establish why.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Has done a brilliant job of advocacy. Historic.
Click to expand...
From Max Boot:
The beginning of the impeachment trial of President Trump made clear that Democrats have not only the stronger arguments but also the stronger arguers. The House impeachment managers did a masterful job on Tuesday of marshaling the evidence to argue that the Senate needs to hold a real trial complete with witnesses — something that, as they pointed out, has occurred in every previous impeachment trial in history. But knowing they may be stymied by a Senate majority intent on holding a show trial, they made their substantive arguments from the start — and they did so in a way that is likely to convince most voters if not most senators.

The impeachment managers especially shined during impromptu rebuttals. Former assistant attorney general Walter Dellinger joined a chorus of praise for Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.): “Schiff is not just good. Today is one of the most impressive performances by a lawyer I have ever seen.”
Click to expand...
 
Maximus1 said:
Why not just conclude it is a chocolate Sunday. Same analysis in either case.
Click to expand...
Still no definition for “abuse of power”

Perjury has a definition
Bribery has a definition
Etc

Without a definition , any President can be said to be guilty of “abuse of power”
 
Let’s be intellectually honest here.If Trump had decided to run as a Dem,fulfilled and ticked off all the boxes of the Dems platform,you and everyone else who support Dems would be in Trump’s corner,overlooking his personal peccadillos .We as Conservatives wouldn’t like him ,yet I seriously doubt there would be the same irrational actions on the right,just not how we roll.
 
7_Sorrows said:
I feel sorry for Judge Roberts having to listen to
this boring and repetitive testimony.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was quite impressed with a snippet of what Nadler said yesterday. There are writings from early US history, Madison was one, and others who specifically stated that for a president to pardon members of his staff, those who could say something against him but are basically kept from speaking in order to protect the president, is in itself an impeachable offense.

This president has done the above with the entire executive branch. And with the Senate basically acting in Trump’s defense, they turn the constitution upside down.

It’s tyranny.
 
Maximus1 said:
Since his first year the news organizations have kept count.
Click to expand...
Please let us know what are the 16000 lies that you have been referencing. How do we know you are telling the truth about there being 16000 lies unless we check them? It is known that in the past the news organizations have lied about different things.
 
That makes sense. It isn’t taking sides. It is just superior advocacy. The president’s lawyers have a much weaker case. We will assess their advocacy when it comes. My feeling is it has been made outside of court primarily where advocates on shows on Fox, or Rush, are unchallenged. We will see
 
Google it. I did.
And news organizations lies are not the same as getting a story wrong.
In our law, SCOTUS describes the desire of a free people to have rapid dissemination of news. They recognise error will happen at times. They even recognise of an injustice at times. The public interest is I the free flow and balances there in favor of the occasional harmful story.
THATS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
THey Have retraction statutes that attempt to eliminate some of the harm. Since Trump, we have not been told the truth about how the press works.
 
Last edited:
Why do you keep repeating the same Brutum Fulmen assertion?
We all know what the offense is, the managers went through it twice.
 
Last edited:
Perjury is a statutory crime. That is not a ,“high crime and misdomeanors.”
Very intentionally, treason IS THE ONLY CRIME defined IN THE CONSTITUTION. This evidences the others" high crimes" was not to have a definition.
Certainly not a statute, as there were no statutes yet.
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
There was no evidence that Biden did anything wrong and there was no evidence that there was Ukrainian interference in the election according to US intelligence agencies. What do you think Trump should have done besides extorting Ukraine by withholding funds earmarked by Congress?
Click to expand...
The impeachment farce was started to deflect from the Biden scandal which was generated from Biden’s own mouth and cries for investigation both here and in Ukraine. I think Trump should have insisted that Ukraine investigate further, as the treaty requires, if it was to expect good relations with the U.S.
drcube said:
Nevermind that it was US policy that Shokin needed to be removed
Click to expand...
Shokin was charged with nothing, to this day. I guess you can quote Obama saying that removing Shokin was U.S. policy (not just that of Nuland and Pyatt and Yovanovich or perhaps the EU) so we can be sure.

Still no evidence “exonerating” Biden. But then, when an obvious conflict of interest occurs and one does not disqualify himself from it, an investigation might show that or guilt.

What Pope Benedict said about “proportionate reasons” to support an abortion-supporting politician is in the public domain. Personal insults don’t change that.

The relationship is between abortion and sex, not just outside wedlock. But you know that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top