The Impeachment Trial

[JimL]

No, he isn’t, keep telling yourself that lie because Obama stonewalled Congress too. I wait for you to condemn the Obama administration for doing that...

The Obama Administration provided hundreds of thousands of documents requested of by congress with respect to investigations. So you'll have to be specific as to what it is you've been told.

[lilpixieofterror]

The Obama Administration provided hundreds of thousands of documents requested of by congress with respect to investigations. So you'll have to be specific as to what it is you've been told.

While stonewalling and blocking others, just as any other president does.

[JimL]

While stonewalling and blocking others, just as any other president does.

Specifics, Lilpix, specifics!

[lilpixieofterror]

Specifics, Lilpix, specifics!

Haven’t had your talking points downloaded yet?

[Mountain Man]

Not only did the unprincipled republican majority determine that Trump was not guilty, they determined as well that he can do whatever he wants and withhold the evidence. So much for 3 equal branches and oversight of a tyranical executive. You wanted a dictator, and you are now well on your way to getting one.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "acquitted forever".

[Mountain Man]

“How dare people defend themselves, in court!”

Irony, sweet sweet irony.

Exactly. The Democrats tried to push the idea that using the courts to legally challenge an investigation is somehow illegal.

[Cow Poke]

It’s pretty funny. Trump would be a Democrat, in policies and politics, not too long ago.

Yeah, the WHOLE political landscape is shifting.

[Cow Poke]

Specifics, Lilpix, specifics!

Jim, you kinda remind me of Hiroo Onoda.

[JimL]

Jim, you kinda remind me of Hiroo Onoda.

So, do you mean to say I'm a Hiroo to you?

[Cow Poke]

So, do you mean to say I'm a Hiroo to you?

Onodo.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, the WHOLE political landscape is shifting.

It’s a sign of the leftward shift, for sure.

[The Pendragon]

One word to JimL, Tass, and Watermelon,
On High Crimes and Misdemeanors, there has been a lot of talk about this in this thread, but whether you believe that you need actual crimes or not here is a definition:


High Crimes and Misdemeanors are wrong doings done by the President so bad that 67 (2/3) Senators believe that the sitting President should be removed. The House Managers did not have evidence strong enough to meet the definition so the crimes are a mote point.

In Nixons case the House had enough evidence that it was a good bet that they had the votes in the Senate so Nixon resigned. In the case of Clinton the House did not have the evidence to convince the Senate that his crimes where bad enough to remove him from office.

Without actual statutes to prove the case and only hearsay and assumptions to prove the case it was to weak to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors and turned into a complete political exercise on the Dems part, this is against what the founders wanted. As Nancy said Impeachment is a somber process and should not be done by just one party, it's to bad that she did not heed her own advice and started an Impeachment for partisan political purposes.

In the end Nancy can say that Trump is Impeached forever but that Impeachment is a failed impotent Impeachment to weak to convince even a simple majority of the Senate to vote for removal and that failure is forever over Nancy and her Dems.

As for Romney I don't see his vote as a brave act he did, he was not alone in he's dissection, he had All the liberal press and the Dems to cheer him on. It take a lot more guts to switch parties because you did not believe that your party was doing the right thing (and that Dem got blasted in the press).

[Cow Poke]

High Crimes and Misdemeanors are wrong doings done by the President so bad that 67 (2/3) Senators believe that the sitting President should be removed....

That, in itself, is an excellent point, and much more concise than what I've been trying to say --- namely that, unless the House is convinced that it's highly likely that the POTUS will be removed by the Senate, then the House's impeachment efforts are a waste of time and money. The ONLY thing they could achieve was gaining the ability to, like Nutty Nancy, smirk that "he will be impeached forever".

In this case, however, I think the Democrats were so bloodthirsty that they were actually deluded by their own scam that they believed that, not only would their "overwhelming evidence" cause the Senate to remove, but that an OVERWHELMING percent of Americans would back them.

Obviously, neither happened.

[The Pendragon]

First let me say, Watermelon you keep defending the Bidens and telling me they did nothing wrong (Without any real evidence). Your argument is wrong because I have never asserted that Bidens have done anything wrong just that there is probable cause for an investigation. So stop trying to use that as a defense. Your defending the wrong motive.

I've given you my citation as to probable cause. I have yet to see any real evidence that proves Trumps motives where to "Dig up dirt on Biden".

Please put forth you evidence that would stand up in a real court. You still have not in this post. What I see is just that is that you are taking probable cause and elevating it to Fact (Biden is Running for President). This is a probable motive (probable cause) but it does not prove that this is the primary motive.

Still waiting for evidence.
No Evidence = No Proof of Corrupt Motive = No Corrupt Intent = No Crime = No article of Impeachment.

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.

I'll let MM's answer stand. I've said this before and Watermelon never really gave any defense.

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.

What is your evidence that actus reus isn't in question. The coincidence that Biden is running for president? What you are doing is taking Probable Cause and elevating it to true motive Probable Cause is enough to start an Investigation but is not valid in a real court of law.

So again, What real evidence do you have? (Read my next answer before you give your evidence)

Remember Biden running for president is Probable Cause, not factual evidence. It is just a possible motive until you prove that it was the primary motive.

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.

Circumstantial evidence needs to be strong and needs to be backup with actual evidence. Biden running for President is probable cause to motive, not fact, not even credible circumstantial evidence in a real court. Most cases based on circumstantial evidence fail if it's used as the primary evidence.

If you are telling me that hearsay and assumption are valid because they are circumstantial evidence, please don't demeaned yourself. I'll start with assumption, assumption is never allowed as evidence in a real trial. You can destroy even an expert witnesses testimony by establishing that his testimony is based on assumption. Now let's get to Hearsay, Hearsay is only allowed in a real trial in two instances: The first is death bed confessions, i.e. if the principle is dead and the person giving the hearsay was present at time of death to hear what was said. It is also allowed if non-hearsay evidence i.e. some one that has first hand information.

Now let that the evidence of what Bolton's Book has to say about this. The reports are hearsay Bolton has not verified that it's true and the News Papers are relaying on an anonymous informant that gave them information, defintly not allowed in court.

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 defense is all you need to establish. For murder the defense is self defense. For abuse of power the defense 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.

Murder - Self Defense, striking of the minor - justified use of force. In both cases the motive determines what the crime is. Motive is one of the things that needs to be established by evidence.

You say that Trump's motive was to dig up dirt on an opponent, but to date you have not given any evidence to put forth your presumption of motive.

My contention was that Trump was bound by law to make sure that Biden's motives where not corrupt (I have never said that Biden did anything just that it needed to be looked into, in the words of the Dems what does Biden have to hide?). As I have said Trump only needs to prove that there was Probable Cause to start an investigation, and that is what he did. This is a prime example of 'Mixed Motives'. The national interest in Trump asking is simple. If VP Biden did have the altered motive to stop the investigation of Burisma to save his son from investigation. The fact that a Vice President of the USA would use the power of his position to save his son from investigation, the investigation is in the national interest. Again like Trump I'm not saying that Joe or Hunter Biden did something wrong, just that it needs to be looked into. If The Bidens are innocent then they will be vindicated, But the Dems words keep ringing in my ears what are the Bidens hiding, innocent people would welcome an investigation.

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.

Thank you for making my case for Trump, everything in this statement applies to Trumps motives. Looking into a Vice President that is stopping an investigation into his son by withholding aid is in the national interest. forgive the slight paraphrasing of the call, but you can't fault on that because you and the Dems have be saying that Trump asked to dig up dirt his opponent (Never even asserted on the call). Trump said there was a lot of talk about it in the US and that it looked like a bad situation (Probable Cause for investigation). Under your Motive Trump needed to ask for a specific outcome otherwise what good is the investigation.

I have done my Job and proved Probable Cause (Even citing Pam Bondie's proof of Probable Cause) which is what Trump needed to ask to have the Bidens to be looked into.

Sorry, that what I needed was easier the what you needed. But I have not seen anyone in this forum give real evidence of a corrupt motive. All I have heard was heresay, assumption. and now probable cause, Can any one give me conclusive evidence that Trumps motives where to dig up dirt on Biden, because the call proves otherwise, and no one is above the law even if you are running for President (that does not make you immune from investigation, just ask the Dems about Russia, Russia, Russia).

Remind me again isn't Trump running for office against the Dems?
If Trump can't ask to have Biden investigated, doesn't it seem to reason that The Dems are only investigating Trump to dig up dirt on him?
Should we censure all the Dems that voted to investigate Trump because the fact is that he is running against all of them?

[JimL]

One word to JimL, Tass, and Watermelon,
On High Crimes and Misdemeanors, there has been a lot of talk about this in this thread, but whether you believe that you need actual crimes or not here is a definition:


High Crimes and Misdemeanors are wrong doings done by the President so bad that 67 (2/3) Senators believe that the sitting President should be removed. The House Managers did not have evidence strong enough to meet the definition so the crimes are a mote point.

In Nixons case the House had enough evidence that it was a good bet that they had the votes in the Senate so Nixon resigned. In the case of Clinton the House did not have the evidence to convince the Senate that his crimes where bad enough to remove him from office.

Without actual statutes to prove the case and only hearsay and assumptions to prove the case it was to weak to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors and turned into a complete political exercise on the Dems part, this is against what the founders wanted. As Nancy said Impeachment is a somber process and should not be done by just one party, it's to bad that she did not heed her own advice and started an Impeachment for partisan political purposes.

In the end Nancy can say that Trump is Impeached forever but that Impeachment is a failed impotent Impeachment to weak to convince even a simple majority of the Senate to vote for removal and that failure is forever over Nancy and her Dems.

As for Romney I don't see his vote as a brave act he did, he was not alone in he's dissection, he had All the liberal press and the Dems to cheer him on. It take a lot more guts to switch parties because you did not believe that your party was doing the right thing (and that Dem got blasted in the press).

You're confusing the republican party of today with the republican party of the 70's. The evidence presented in this case was every bit as inculpatory as it was in the Nixon case. In this case they Republican Congess, House and Senate, made it known from the outset that they were going to cover-up and protect the President no matter what. And that's exactly what they did. Trump got away with it the first time with the help of his corrupt consiglieri, I mean Atty Gen., and so he immediately went about doing the same thing again. This time the unprincipled republican party executed the cover-up, so he got away with it again, and then, immediately after being aquited, he went about exacting revenge on all those who were true to their oath, answered to subpoena's and told what they knew. Trump wants absolute loyalty to himself and is calculatingly inspiring fear in all those he has power over including the DOJ, the DOD, the NSA etc etc. Trump isn't cleaning the swamp, he's clearing out all those whose loyalty is to the country rather than to him. If it's a dictator you want, then you are well on your way to getting one.