The Impeachment Trial

[seer]

Alexander Vindman Fired and Escorted From the White House


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...use/ar-BBZLmMx

[Mountain Man]

Alexander Vindman Fired and Escorted From the White House

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...use/ar-BBZLmMx

[firstfloor]

No, that's leftist propaganda, ff - don't buy into their subterfuge.

Now he is going to purge his ‘enemies’. All tyrants behave this way.

[JimL]

Alexander Vindman Fired and Escorted From the White House


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...use/ar-BBZLmMx

He was leaving next month anyway, Trump just had to fire him for show, or as warning to others who dare speak truth to power. As we have seen, that tactic works well with this group of fearful republicans.

[Cow Poke]

He was leaving next month anyway, Trump just had to fire him for show, or as warning to others who dare speak truth to power. As we have seen, that tactic works well with this group of fearful republicans.

Jim, when somebody's not loyal to you, you don't want them in your house.

[Cow Poke]

Now he is going to purge his ‘enemies’. All tyrants behave this way.

When I find somebody in my employ who is disloyal to me (hardly EVER happens ) I show them the door. It's standard business practice.

[Cow Poke]

Not if the majority Senate he has is an unprincipled political Senate, such as we have presently. They just proved it!

WAAAAAAaaaahnhhhhhh.... the partisan Democrats impeached Trump and the partisan Republicans didn't play along! WAAAAaaaannnnhhhhh!

[Mountain Man]

Now he is going to purge his ‘enemies’. All tyrants behave this way.

Because tyrants are known for peaceably firing people from their jobs.

Vindmann had a good run as an undercover operative in the White House. He thought he saw an opening, took his shot, and missed. Now it's time to face the consequences.

I don't know why Trump doesn't just fire every single Obama holdover and start with a clean slate.

[firstfloor]

Because tyrants are known for peaceably firing people from their jobs.

Vindmann had a good run as an undercover operative in the White House. He thought he saw an opening, took his shot, and missed. Now it's time to have the consequences.

I don't know why Trump doesn't just fire every single Obama holdover and start with a clean slate.

I don’t know if Trump would strangle him with his bare hands, but he would get you to do it, if he could. Barr and his other henchmen would politely turn their backs while you did it.

I’m sad it got to this point, but here we are.

[Cow Poke]

I don’t know if Trump would strangle him with his bare hands, but he would get you to do it, if he could. Barr and his other henchmen would politely turn their backs while you did it.

I’m sad it got to this point, but here we are.

Come on, ff, you're egging on people like JimL who actually believe this crap is true.

[firstfloor]

Come on, ff, you're egging on people like JimL who actually believe this crap is true.

There’s an evil spirit that dwells in Trump’s heart. Some can see it and others cannot. It uses charm to seduce you, it plays the victim and offers gifts. It demands not service, but loyalty, and judges people according to their loyalty. It lies constantly.

[JimL]

When I find somebody in my employ who is disloyal to me (hardly EVER happens ) I show them the door. It's standard business practice.

Trump isn't your King just yet, CP. Vindman and everyone else in the Administration's first loyalty is to Constitution and Country, not to the King.

[JimL]

There’s an evil spirit that dwells in Trump’s heart. Some can see it and others cannot. It uses charm to seduce you, it plays the victim and offers gifts. It demands not service, but loyalty, and judges people according to their loyalty. It lies constantly.

Narcissism and an immoral nature is a really bad combination.

[Watermelon]

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
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.

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.

What makes you think abuse of power requires an underlying crime?

The actus reus in this case isn’t a question of fact, it’s already an established fact. It doesn’t need to be proven.

Did you know that circumstantial evidence is valid in a real court? The witnesses provided circumstantial evidence. There hasn’t been that many witnesses independently putting together a clear and consistent narrative of events since the New Testament.

Your analogy is severely misunderstanding the situation. You don’t go to jail because killing him benefited you, you go to jail because you murdered him. If however, the killing was in self defense, then it’s not murder and you won’t go to jail no matter how much the killing benefited you.

Apply that to Trumps abuse of power by replacing jail with impeached, killing with withholding aid, murder with abuse of power and self defense with national interest.

If the striking of the minor was legally justified then it’s not an assault.

‘Mixed motives’ isn’t actually a thing. A valid defence is all you need to establish. For murder the defence is self defence. For abuse of power the defence would be ‘done in the National interest’ which is why Dershowitz tried so hard to argue a politicians re-election is in the National interest. If that statement is true then there is no abuse of power.

In Bidens case the removal of shokin was in the National interest. It really is that simple. It wouldn’t even have mattered if it came out that Shokin had been investigating Burisma at the time. A legal action is legal regardless of motive.

[Mountain Man]

What makes you think abuse of power requires an underlying crime?

Because "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself, it's the description of a crime. It would be like charging someone with a traffic violation but never specifying what law was actually broken. A judge would throw that nonsense out in no time flat.