The Impeachment Trial

[Cow Poke]

A non-binding opinion from a group that regularly accuses US presidents of breaking the law. So what?


This looks suspiciously like another case of "guilty until proven innocent".

This is also a case of --- the whole impeachment thing imploded like the Russian thing, and the Collusion thing, and so many other things, but I still have to rant and rant and rant ---- It's all part of the TDS.

[JimL]

A non-binding opinion from a group that regularly accuses US presidents of breaking the law. So what?

So what? That's about the gist of your argument.

This looks suspiciously like another case of "guilty until proven innocent".

No, it's a question which you apparently have no answer for.

[rogue06]

When you boil it down their case amounted to disagreeing with how Trump was doing things.

[rogue06]

A non-binding opinion from a group that regularly accuses US presidents of breaking the law. So what?


This looks suspiciously like another case of "guilty until proven innocent".

Not to mention that politicians on both sides learned long ago how to manipulate the GAO into giving them the response they wanted simply by strictly limiting what they were to look into.

[demi-conservative]

No, it's a question which you apparently have no answer for.

Jim, you should still have some neurons left. When was Zelensky elected?

[firstfloor]

When you boil it down their case amounted to disagreeing with how Trump was doing things.

Tweb should be renamed; The Dishonourable Society of Brothers and Sisters in Trump.

[Cow Poke]

Tweb should be renamed; The Dishonourable Society of Brothers and Sisters in Trump.

Naw, Trump will pass, Tweb remains forever! (Until the next crash)

[Mountain Man]

Untitled.jpg
https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/12...r-democrats%2F

[One Bad Pig]

Tweb should be renamed; The Dishonourable Society of Brothers and Sisters in Trump.

I nominate Brother firstfloor for DSBST President.

[The Pendragon]

Ill try to explain it like a criminal charge.

To prove a crime the prosecution has to establish the actus reus (action) and the mens rea (the mental state or motive).

Actus reus - abuse of power

Abuse of power in this case is the improper freezing of aid using the authority of the presidential office.

So there’s an abuse of power regardless of whether Biden is running for president or not.

Mens rea - to put Bidens reputation into question

Biden not running for president - amounts to the improper use of power for personal benefit. The benefit here is only personal in the satisfaction of hurting someone he doesn’t like.

Biden running for president - amounts to improper use of power for political benefit. The benefit here is the same as above however, as Biden is now a political opponent, it also provides a political advantage.

It's the same concept in criminal law where the circumstances around the action or victim affects the seriousness of the crime like an assault on a minor is automatically considered aggravated or on a police officer is an upgraded charge if the police officer is on duty.

Ok lets, explain this like a Criminal Law, first no statutes where stated under the Abuse of Power, with out statutes no High Crimes or Misdemeanors, No legitimate Impeachment. But I digress.

Let's look ate Trump asking to look into Hunter Biden, Trump has a valid case to look into Hunter because of probable cause (Does not matter the fact that his father is running for Presadent). This has been established by Pam Bondies presentation at the Impeachment Trial. In order to establish the actus reus (action) you need to present evidence that will hold up in a court of law, I'm still waiting for you or the Impeachment Managers to present this evidence.

And before you tell me that the Impeachment Managers have 17 witnesses that gave evidence, I need to remind you that that evidence is All hear say and assumption, none of which is would be valid in a Real Court of Law.

Also as for additional witnesses Impeachment Manager have clamed that they had all the evidence they needed prove their case many times, but now they can't prove it without more witnesses (The contradiction in their statement is glairing). If the House had all the evidence needed to vote for Impeachment they have all the evidence to make a case for removal in the Senate, If they needed more witnesses in the Senate to remove the President than they should not have voted to Impeachment and called the witnesses they needed (Catch 22).

I have ask you before for evidence that proves that Trumps Motive was purely political and you have not produced it. Oh and your Statement

Abuse of power in this case is the improper freezing of aid using the authority of the presidential office.

This Is supposition Not evidence of a crime, and Abuse of power requires an under lying crime.

Hear is an extreme analogy for you, Say you are found in your house holding a gun over the dead body of some one that you have been fighting with for years. I could say that you murdered that person and need to go to jail because killing him benefited you. But another explanation was that this person broke into your house and threatened you with a gun. If what your accession is right you still go to jail for murder because your enemy's death benefited you personally and the fact that the other person has a gun on the floor next to him and the door is broken, don't count for anything because you benefited personally. This is not a perfect but analogy but it shows the problem with your accession.

It's the same concept in criminal law where the circumstances around the action or victim affects the seriousness of the crime like an assault on a minor is automatically considered aggravated or on a police officer is an upgraded charge if the police officer is on duty.

The flaw in this is that it the it the minor was committing a crime that justified eminent danger to the accused the your analogy fails.

Your analogy does not address mixed motives. Trumps case is a case of mixed motive and you want to ignore any motive other then the one you assert without providing the evidence to prove your case.


True Evidence Please !!! Your argument is mote without it.

[Tassman]

1) In fact, the president has some discretion when it comes to releasing funds even when they've been allocated by Congress. In fact, he can choose to not release them at all so long as he informs Congress before the deadline. In Trump's case, he did release the funds before the deadline, so it's ultimately a moot point.

The president's team basically has admitted that Donald Trump acted corruptly, withheld this money, tried to cheat in the next election, use the money to coerce or extort the leader of Ukraine into doing his political dirty work. And so, all they can fall back on now is, So what?" - House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff.

2) Trump never said one word to Ukraine about the 2020 election. His focus was on past wrongs committed by Quid Pro Joe Biden.

[Mountain Man]

The president's team basically has admitted that Donald Trump acted corruptly, withheld this money, tried to cheat in the next election, use the money to coerce or extort the leader of Ukraine into doing his political dirty work. And so, all they can fall back on now is, So what?" - House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff.

Adam Schiff is a proven liar. The President's defense team admitted nothing of the sort, "basically" or otherwise.

We have no idea what Bolton's book says, we only know what the disreputable New York Times says anonymous people claim the draft manuscript says. The "reporter" who wrote the story went on CNN and admitted that she never saw the manuscript herself and so couldn't even verify if her sources were telling the truth.

But we know for a fact that Ultraman officials have said on the record that they were never pressured, and that they were never told that the release of military aid was in anyway tied to their willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden's dirty deals. So whatever Trump might have said to Bolton in a high level brainstorming session, it seems nobody down the chain of command was ever given orders to carry that message to Ukraine. On the contrary, witness after witness testified before the House that they never heard anything directly from the President, and Gordan Sondland testified under oath that he was explicitly and clearly told "no quid pro quo".

[firstfloor]

I nominate Brother firstfloor for DSBST President.

[JimL]

Adam Schiff is a proven liar. The President's defense team admitted nothing of the sort, "basically" or otherwise.

The jury, that is the Senators themselves who support Trump, admitted to Trumps corruption, a fact which they've known all along but were forced to admit to it only after the trial revealed it to the public. Their new tact is to say yeah, okay he did it, but we're not going to convict anyway because we know that many of our constituents are very gullible, we can fool them, and quite a few are deplorable, and we have to placate them, so rather than abide by our oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, we're going to do what's in our own personal best interests, not the countries

We have no idea what Bolton's book says, we only know what the disreputable New York Times says anonymous people claim the draft manuscript says. The "reporter" who wrote the story went on CNN and admitted that she never saw the manuscript herself and so couldn't even verify if her sources were telling the truth.

If witnesses were allowed to testify, then you would know. Wouldn't that be nice?

But we know for a fact that Ultraman officials have said on the record that they were never pressured, and that they were never told that the release of military aid was in anyway tied to their willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden's dirty deals.

But we have evidence to the contrary. Zelensky is concerned about his country, so he's not going to rat on the person his country is dependent upon for support. But of course that's already been explained to you many times.

So whatever Trump might have said to Bolton in a high level brainstorming session, it seems nobody down the chain of command was ever given orders to carry that message to Ukraine. On the contrary, witness after witness testified before the House that they never heard anything directly from the President, and Gordan Sondland testified under oath that he was explicitly and clearly told "no quid pro quo".

You are incapable of hearing anything you don't want to hear.

[Mountain Man]

I miss the days when liberals could construct a half-decent argument rather than resorting to what basically amounts to "Nuh-uh!"