Trump Defense Rests

  
By:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  94 comments

Trump Defense Rests
The main defense, it seems to me, is that whatever Trump did, it is not impeachable.  That is , by far, what Trump's lawyers spent the most time on. 

The Trump defense rested a few minutes ago. 

It was hard to know that it ever started. 

The main defense, it seems to me, is that whatever Trump did, it is not impeachable.  That is , by far, what Trump's lawyers spent the most time on. 

The second part of the defense would be that there is corruption in Ukraine and removing corruption is one of the major purposes of the Trump presidency. 

The third defense is that the House rushed the impeachment and therefore it should be rejected. 

Trump is lucky his party is afraid of him, and has a majority in the Senate. Otherwise they could send the movers into his private White House quarters this afternoon. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

No doubt whatsoever that he would be convicted if there were a fair jury. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

BS.

Clinton was guilty as sin. The Democrats didn't even bother denying it. Yet they voted lock step to keep Clinton in office. It was never in doubt in the Senate.  That was a biased jury.

There are more holes in the Democrat case against Trump than Swiss Cheese. Funny how simply airing the portions of the witness interviews the Democrats omitted changed everything.

Of course now they claim their shoddy work is the reason they need more witnesses to prove their case. Sorry, they violated their Constitutional oath by failing to go through the courts to compel witnesses they wanted to testify. Instead they went forward with second and third hand BS that fell apart under non TDDDDS scrutiny.

It is not the Senate's job to fix the House's mistake. Time to send them packing.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    2 months ago
Clinton was guilty as sin.

Hearsay. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    2 months ago
The Democrats didn't even bother denying it.

What they argued is that Clinton's actions didn't amount to an impeachable offense. Trump's lawyers just finished making the SAME argument...

That was a biased jury.

That included Republican votes to acquit on both Articles. 

Funny how simply airing the portions of the witness interviews the Democrats omitted changed everything.

Sad that you think so. 

Of course now they claim their shoddy work is the reason they need more witnesses to prove their case.

What they are arguing is that Trump's obstruction precluded them from getting testimony from relevant fact witnesses and they don't think that the Senate should wait for the book to come out. 

Sorry, they violated their Constitutional oath by failing to go through the courts to compel witnesses they wanted to testify.

Where the fuck is that in the Constitution OR their oath? Seriously, just stop. 

Instead they went forward with second and third hand BS that fell apart under non TDDDDS scrutiny.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif


It is not the Senate's job to fix the House's mistake. Time to send them packing.

So the House should honor their oath but the Senate can blow it off. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.1    2 months ago

Hearsay

I don’t Think you know what that word means.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    2 months ago
Clinton was guilty as sin.

Clinton was guilty of something that did not affect, and was not affected, by his position as POTUS.

There are more holes in the Democrat case against Trump than Swiss Cheese.

Then why didn't Trump's defense point out those holes?  Their defense was basically: sure he broke the rules, but he shouldn't get in trouble for it.

Of course now they claim their shoddy work is the reason they need more witnesses to prove their case.

Or it could be that Trump refused to allow any of the 1st hand witnesses to testify.

Sorry, they violated their Constitutional oath by failing to go through the courts to compel witnesses they wanted to testify.

Please provide the location in the Constitution where that is mandated.  I dare you!

Instead they went forward with second and third hand BS that fell apart under non TDDDDS scrutiny.

Not only was none of the witness addressed, they never even attempted to rebut the earlier testimony.

It is not the Senate's job to fix the House's mistake.

Apparently it is the Senate's job to acquit Trump, NO MATTER WHAT.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1.5  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    2 months ago

The Senate followed their rules and procedures in the trial, just as the House did when they impeached Trump.

Dems are digging such a big hole in their party that they will need to start using bulldozers to bury their bullshit

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.6  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @1.1.5    2 months ago
The Senate followed their rules and procedures in the trial,

Never said they didn't. 

just as the House did when they impeached Trump.

Wow, you should tell Trump's lawyers since they wasted a ton of time lying about that. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1.2  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Good fruit

In an end-of-the-year Townhall column, Grudem listed off 20 accomplishments – summarizing three years of what he describes as "fruit [that] has been overwhelmingly good" – that he argues has made Trump more than worthy of remaining in office. Among those accomplishments are:

  • Appointment of two Supreme Court justices and nearly 200 federal judges who are constitutionalists – not judicial activists;
  • "Significant" tax cuts that have resulted in "remarkable" growth in jobs and wages;
  • Elimination of "wasteful" government regulations, a move that has boosted business and job growth;
  • Strengthening of the U.S. military; and
  • Moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and in general being a strong friend of Israel.

Grudem isn't alone in his praise of President Trump's accomplishments thus far. Earlier this month, more than 140 conservatives signed a letter from the Conservative Action Project listing 34 specific achievements during his first term.  https://onenewsnow.com/church/2020/01/28/theologian-trumps-good-fruit-makes-him-worthy-to-stay-in-office

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Donald J. Trump Fan #1 @1.2    2 months ago

What conservatives think Trump has accomplished has nothing to do with the validity of impeaching him for abuse of power. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1.2.2  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 months ago

You think you are going to get 20 of those conservative senators to remove him from office?  

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  Donald J. Trump Fan #1 @1.2.2    2 months ago

You think you are going to get 20 of those conservative senators to remove him from office?  

You mean lame activist political hack senators? Either way, there is more proof that he is guilty than there is evidence he isn't guilty...of which there is none. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

The Senate process will be as fair as the House witch hunt was. The Republicans should let at least Bolton testify even though it won't change the end result of this travesty of fair play and justice. Then the Republicans could call all kinds of witless left wing witnesses, including the corrupt Bidens and perhaps Schiff. The current crop of Democrats will be looked upon as a bunch of losers and failures because they tied up the government for months, yet couldn't get rid of Trump. I don't think the voters are going to be kind to them this fall.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

"Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested she could vote to acquit him, despite serious concerns about his character.

aS6E3D32?format=jpg&name=small

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.4.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4    2 months ago

we are based on the will of the people

Really lady?  How about letting the will of the people elect a POTUS then and not a select few hundred.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.4.1    2 months ago

Still upset the EC worked as designed?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

tRump defense rests.

What defense?

What a sham of a trial.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    2 months ago

They literally presented no facts, no evidence, no proof and no witnesses. In short? All they did was spew forth bullshit, deflect, point fingers and lie. 

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @2    2 months ago

"They literally presented no facts, no evidence, no proof and no witnesses. In short? All they did was spew forth bullshit, deflect, point fingers and lie."

The House should have worked harder.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  squiggy @2.1    2 months ago

Trump blocked every witness that said he did nothing wrong, and submitted not even one piece of paper in his own defense in the House. He was invited twice, didn't show up either time. 

#impeachedforever

512

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.2  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    2 months ago

83556778_2832495133476793_77720591353522

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  squiggy @2.1.2    2 months ago

What does that have to do with the article? 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.4  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    2 months ago

Being stuck with a loss the Dems still think they are the smarter party. They were definitely not based on the outcome of the trial. No amount of hatred, TDR, spin will change that.

The voters will again elect Trump unless the dems find a candidate who is not a career politician but rather another fresh face in politics. To date they have only Bloomberg and Steyer who fit that catagory and both are already being accused by the other candidates that they are trying to buy the election. 

America needs a viable 2nd party and even 3rd party or more to compete with the Republican party.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.4    2 months ago
Dems still think they are the smarter party.

no matter how smart people are. in this country one can not be convicted by mere speculation.

smart or not? fabrication and speculation is all they had.

in other words - they lied. which is not very smart.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @2    2 months ago
They literally presented no facts, no evidence, no proof and no witnesses.

So, you're finally acknowledging that the House Democrats provided the Senate with a house of cards with NO FACTS, NO PROOF, and only disguised witnesses, except those trotted out to provide hearsay, innuendo, suppositions and emotions.

THANKS!!

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
2.3.1  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3    2 months ago

Exactly.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.3.2  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3    2 months ago
So, you're finally acknowledging that the House Democrats provided the Senate with a house of cards with NO FACTS, NO PROOF, and only disguised witnesses, except those trotted out to provide hearsay, innuendo, suppositions and emotions.

The House had actual people testifying under oath. What has the Senate provided? Nothing. Now you see the difference, you're welcome.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.3.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MrFrost @2.3.2    2 months ago

Yes, the House did have people testifying under oath. Too bad said people could not produce much of anything of substance other than hearsay, innuendo, and 3rd hand information.. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.3.3    2 months ago

What are you talking about?  They have a phone transcript, released by Trump himself, that shows Trump asking the president of a foreign country to investigate trump's election rival. 

That IS a smoking gun. That IS all they need. If we didnt have this polarized and dishonest political atmosphere this would be a done deal. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.3.5  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.4    2 months ago

No

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2.3.5    2 months ago

Yes

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.3.7  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @2.3.2    2 months ago
The House had actual people testifying under oath. What has the Senate provided? Nothing. Now you see the difference, you're welcome.

Then the House made it's case.  If their case was so weak to begin with, why did they impeach?  Hoping the Senate would do the job they wouldn't?  I mean they DID have a deadline to meet, right?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.3.8  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.4    2 months ago
What are you talking about?  They have a phone transcript, released by Trump himself, that shows Trump asking the president of a foreign country to investigate trump's election rival.

Maybe you should actually read what you're referring to.  When you do, come back and cite the SPECIFIC VERBIAGE indicating what you're claiming.  Here's a hint.  I won't wait, since you won't and better yet, can't.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.3.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.6    2 months ago
Yes

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.3.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.4    2 months ago

I guess you did not listen to Pamela Bondi today did you? You want to talk about polarized and dishonest political atmosphere? All the stuff the Dems deliberately neglected to mention in their presentations definitely falls under the category of dishonest!

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.3.11  MrFrost  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.3.3    2 months ago

Yes, the House did have people testifying under oath. Too bad said people could not produce much of anything of substance other than hearsay, innuendo, and 3rd hand information.. 

The point is that they actually had witnesses, the Senate has had nothing. All they have done is argue process and give their opinions on what a crime is. 

Over all, the House has presented far more evidence than the Senate, which has presented nothing. 

How much spin is trumps team spitting out? Ciprolo, (or however you spell it), literally said that the House refused to call any of trumps witnesses. That's the opposite of what happened. The House subpoenaed 9 of trumps people, they all refused either by choice or by trump's order. 

Trump's team has told one lie after another for days on end. Why? Because they have no evidence, no proof, no facts and no witnesses. 

The "sham" trial began the second trump's team started talking. 

 
 
 
Freewill
2.3.12  Freewill  replied to  MrFrost @2.3.11    2 months ago
How much spin is trumps team spitting out? Ciprolo, (or however you spell it), literally said that the House refused to call any of trumps witnesses . That's the opposite of what happened. The House subpoenaed 9 of trumps people , they all refused either by choice or by trump's order. 

See what you did there?  You are conflating the witnesses who Trump wanted the House to call with those working in his administration who were subpoenaed by various House committees.  Those are two very different sets of people, and I think you know that. 

While it is true that some of the administration personnel subpoenaed were instructed not to under the assertion of executive communication privilege, some actually did testify anyway and some with the President's approval.  He had actually waived his executive privilege previously as well with the repeated subpoenas of documents related to the "Russian probe" during his first two years in office.   But Trump, just as all presidents before him, has every right to invoke executive privilege particularly in the case of sensitive or confidential communications within the executive branch, which is precisely what the Democrats in congress were after in attempt to use it for political gain (i.e. the smearing and removal of the Cheeto they hate worse than Satan).  That is precisely what such Executive Privilege was designed for, to preserve the proper checks and balances between the branches of Government.

An excellent non-partisan rundown of the use and history of Executive Privilege may be found HERE .  Good read if you care to learn.

A valid assertion of executive privilege provides a lawful basis to  decline  to answer a congressional subpoena for testimony or documents. At its most basic, executive privilege is the proposition that certain confidential or sensitive communications within the executive branch are constitutionally protected from compelled disclosure to the executive’s coequal branches—Congress and the courts.

The fact that Congress has not further pursued those refusing to comply with their subpoenas is just further evidence that they know that the administration's right to executive privilege is valid as it relates to this matter and the testimony and documents they were seeking.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.3.13  dennis smith  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3    2 months ago

Spot on XD.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.3.14  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @2.3.11    2 months ago

Calling witnesses was the House job and they failed miserably to do so. They had over 3 + years to make a case and still couldn't.

Time for the Dems to get over themselves and do the bidding of the people instead of themselves. 

The Nov election will be another Trump landslide win for Trump if the Dems continue with their current strategy. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.3.15  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @2.3.2    2 months ago
 What has the Senate provided?

it is called: oversight.

people testifying with nothing but speculation and "feelings" is not evidence. not even close.

of course, today's left would argue a person must defend themselves from any bs accusation made by them. when all today's left really deserves, is to be ignored.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.16  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @2.3.12    2 months ago
See what you did there?  You are conflating the witnesses who Trump wanted the House to call with those working in his administration who were subpoenaed by various House committees.  Those are two very different sets of people, and I think you know that. 

If Trump wanted to call witnesses, he would have had to participate, through his lawyers, in the Judiciary Committee hearing. They chose not to. 

While it is true that some of the administration personnel subpoenaed were instructed not to under the assertion of executive communication privilege, some actually did testify anyway and some with the President's approval.  He had actually waived his executive privilege previously as well with the repeated subpoenas of documents related to the "Russian probe" during his first two years in office.   

See what you did there? You conflated the Impeachment Inquiry with the Russia probe. 

BTW, Trump NEVER asserted executive privilege for any of the subpoenas or requests for testimony for the Impeachment Inquiry.

Oh and NONE of the witnesses in the Intel Committee testified with Trump's 'approval'. That's false.

But Trump, just as all presidents before him, has every right to invoke executive privilege particularly in the case of sensitive or confidential communications within the executive branch, which is precisely what the Democrats in congress were after in attempt to use it for political gain (i.e. the smearing and removal of the Cheeto they hate worse than Satan).  That is precisely what such Executive Privilege was designed for, to preserve the proper checks and balances between the branches of Government. An excellent non-partisan rundown of the use and history of Executive Privilege may be found HERE .  Good read if you care to learn.

Yet you don't seem to have cared to learn. The first sentence of the quote you posted states: 

A valid assertion of executive privilege provides a lawful basis to decline to answer a congressional subpoena for testimony or documents.

Trump would have to MAKE an assertion before it could be considered valid and therefore 'a lawful basis to decline', don't ya think FW? Not a 'maybe, kinda, in the future I might' thingy...

The fact that Congress has not further pursued those refusing to comply with their subpoenas is just further evidence that they know that the administration's right to executive privilege is valid as it relates to this matter and the testimony and documents they were seeking.

Except the Congress IS pursuing McGahn FW and courts have ruled with the House so far, so 'they know' no such thing. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.3.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.4    2 months ago
asking the president of a foreign country to investigate trump's election rival.

Hunter is a rival?  When did he throw his name into the ring for election?

 
 
 
Freewill
2.3.18  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @2.3.16    2 months ago
BTW, Trump NEVER asserted executive privilege for any of the subpoenas or requests for testimony for the Impeachment Inquiry.

Really?    The legal analysis at Brookings Institute makes it clear that his order to those in his Administration who were subpoenaed most certainly did invoke executive privilege.  Otherwise they would not have been able to avoid charges of contempt.  Certainly it is this author's opinion that the courts may find cause to eventually reject the claims, but that by using tactics that many presidents before him have used, Trump will still likely prevail.

Whatever happens in the impeachment trial, the question of whether executive privilege allows a president’s close aides to ignore subpoenas is not going to go away.  McGahn , which is on appeal, arose long before the House began impeachment proceedings , and one can expect that future attempts by the House to investigate the president’s actions will also generate subpoenas to officials who will make immunity claims even if impeachment is not in issue. If current precedent holds, the courts are likely to reject immunity claims made on behalf of or by executive branch officials, but this will not mean, as Judge Jackson took pains to point out in  McGahn , that these officials will have to answer all the questions committee members ask. Two widely accepted privileges may justify refusals to answer. These are the deliberative process privilege, which protects pre-decisional deliberations involving the president, cabinet secretaries, or other executive department officials, and the presidential communications privilege, which protects communications to and from the president, even if they are not part of an identifiable decision-making process.

Huh?  Maybe I did learn a little something.  This article also discusses the waiver of such privileges which Trump most certainly did amongst earlier requests and subpoenas related to the Russian probes earlier in his presidency. 

You said,

Except the Congress IS pursuing McGahn FW and courts have ruled with the House so far, so 'they know' no such thing

The McGahn case actually arose prior to the impeachment proceedings, and unless I'm mistaken, none of the others who ignored subpoenas during the impeachment process have been brought to court.  So either they are justified in having met the accepted deliberative process privilege or the presidential communications privilege in one way or another, or the House chose not to pursue contempt charges so they could use it as partisan ammo for claims of obstruction.  In any case, Trump will play the game the same way other presidents have in these issues involving claims of executive privilege, even if they end up in court.

What is more likely is that the President Trump will prevail in a game that has been played by his predecessors with some success. This is to snatch victory from the jaws of probable defeat by using the delays built into judicial processes to forestall a controlling decision until information sought is no longer politically useful or subpoenas have lapsed with the seating of a new Congress. Thus, D.C District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s late November ruling—that Donald McGahn must testify despite the claim that he is immune from Congressional subpoena—although not stayed beyond seven days by Judge Jackson, has been temporarily stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court until January 3, when it will hear a motion not on the merits but with respect to a further stay pending appeal. Unless a further stay is denied, which seems unlikely, or the appeal process is rapidly expedited, it will be some months before a circuit court decision is handed down. If that decision goes against McGahn, a further appeal to the Supreme Court, with an accompanying stay, is almost certain, and a decision by the High Court before the end of its current term is not guaranteed. Thus, without ever breaking the law or resisting a final court ruling, McGahn is likely to be able to keep what he knows to himself until long after what he could disclose could have figured in impeachment proceedings and perhaps even past the 2020 election.
 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.19  Dulay  replied to  Freewill @2.3.18    2 months ago
Really?    The legal analysis at Brookings Institute makes it clear that his order to those in his Administration who were subpoenaed most certainly did invoke executive privilege.  Otherwise they would not have been able to avoid charges of contempt.  Certainly it is this author's opinion that the courts may find cause to eventually reject the claims, but that by using tactics that many presidents before him have used, Trump will still likely prevail.

Actually, the article does not say that Trump invoked Executive privilege, it says he claimed it. 

The McGahn case actually arose prior to the impeachment proceedings, and unless I'm mistaken, none of the others who ignored subpoenas during the impeachment process have been brought to court.  

Your own link cites the McGahn case multiple times so it sure looks like it's relevant. It also proves that the process of taking the argument to court is time consuming. It can't be emphasized enough that in the McGahn case, the DOJ is making the argument that the judiciary threatens the credibility of the court by even opining on an 'argument' between the Executive and the Legislature. 

So either they are justified in having met the accepted deliberative process privilege or the presidential communications privilege in one way or another, or the House chose not to pursue contempt charges so they could use it as partisan ammo for claims of obstruction.  

The House could pass contempt of Congress charges against any and all of the Trump minions any time they want to. They need not wait for the court. 

Secondly, this isn't an 'either or' proposition.

Could Trump be justified in INVOKING Executive privilege on specific documents and specific answers to specific questions? Sure, but he'd have to actually GIVE A REASON and that reason CANNOT be to cover up wrongdoing or a crime. That case is also in court as we speak. 

In any case, Trump will play the game the same way other presidents have in these issues involving claims of executive privilege, even if they end up in court.

No other President has failed to formally invoke Executive privilege prior to denying Congressional subpoenas. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @2    2 months ago

They literally presented no facts, no evidence, no proof and no witnesses. In short? All they did was spew forth bullshit, deflect, point fingers and lie. 

Yes....the House Democrats did that repeatedly for months....over and over and over.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4    2 months ago

You mean tRumps defense team

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.1    2 months ago

No, I'm talking about the deplorable Dems. But now some of them are starting to jump off the sinking impeachment ship.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/feinstein-leans-toward-acquitting-trump-as-his-defense-team-ends-impeachment-arguments/ar-BBZq1Q9?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4.2    2 months ago

Nope, tRumps defense team

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.4.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.3    2 months ago
Nope, tRumps defense team

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freewill
2.5  Freewill  replied to  MrFrost @2    2 months ago
They literally presented no facts, no evidence, no proof and no witnesses.

Let me get this straight.  The supposed "facts" and "evidence" used by the Democrats in Congress consisted of a transcript of a phone call that Trump himself actually provided, and then several "witnesses" who talked about the conclusions they drew regarding something they heard from somebody else.  Many of them changing their stories upon each telling.  The classic definition of hearsay.  The phone call transcript clearly shows that no quid-pro-quo was in play or discussed at all, and the other party to that phone call and his assistants all agreed that none was perceived on their end.  The aid that was supposedly being withheld for that reason was provided on schedule and without what the they claim President was "demanding". 

So how does one present "facts" or "evidence" in defense of charges that are not supported by facts or evidence in the first place?  The fact is that the case against Trump was all hearsay in the first place and that was pointed out clearly by the defense.  The only "evidence" is in the transcript of the phone call which was provided by Trump himself.  The defense did show that there was a valid legal reason for Trump to be asking about the Burisma case and the prosecutor who was fired under pressure applied by Joe Biden when he was Vice-President.   So if withholding aid is an impeachable offense, then where was/is the trial for Joe Biden who actually admitted to it and bragged about it in public, and actually got the result he was seeking from his withholding of the aid (successful quid-pro-quo)?  If even the allegation of such behavior is enough to get a sitting president impeached, then why isn't actual quid-pro-quo something we should know about the candidate running against him in 2020? 

Honestly, as unpalatable as Trump is for other reasons, overlooking facts, evidence, and the precepts that constitute a firm legal case so as to impeach him and install another career politician who has already done what Trump is being accused of sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.  Perhaps a third party candidate in 2020 is a wiser choice?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.5.1  Tacos!  replied to  Freewill @2.5    2 months ago

Pretty much.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3  Paula Bartholomew    2 months ago

Now the R's want to constitutionally abolish the impeachment process which would give free range for a POTUS, any POTUS to completely abuse their power with no repercussions.  If they manage to pull this off, it would be spitting in the faces of the founding fathers who made assurances of checks and balances of the highest position in the land.  Trump is licking his lips at this possibility so that his final step to become Putin's mini me would be complete.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3    2 months ago

Now the R's want to constitutionally abolish the impeachment process which would give free range for a POTU

when did the republicans propose  that Constitutional amendment? 

 
 
 
Freewill
3.1.1  Freewill  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    2 months ago
when did the republicans propose  that Constitutional amendment?

Can't wait to hear the answer to this....

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Freewill @3.1.1    2 months ago
Can't wait to hear the answer to this....

Don't hold your breath.   It's just more Democrat wet dreams.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    2 months ago

And yet, many Democrats want to abolish the electoral college, and nary a peep from the strict Constitutionalists.

Pretty weird, huh?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3    2 months ago
Now the R's want to constitutionally abolish the impeachment process

OK that's totally made up.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5  Nerm_L    2 months ago

The Trump defense team only stated the obvious:  Democrats pursued impeachment as a political attempt to influence the 2020 election.  Poor Joe Biden was being picked on by bully Trump.  All of this should be a violation of campaign finance laws but both sides are going to politically use impeachment on the campaign trail.

Meanwhile Jerry Nadler is still in danger of having his gerrymandered spaghetti district eliminated when New York loses a district.  And Adam Schiff still has ties to political money laundering operations.  Half of Shiff's district is public land so the gerrymandering is well hidden.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5    2 months ago
Half of Shiff's district is public land so the gerrymandering is well hidden.

I suggest you do some review of how districts are created in California. Then come back and correct your comment. 

 
 
 
Freewill
5.1.1  Freewill  replied to  Dulay @5.1    2 months ago
I suggest you do some review of how districts are created in California. Then come back and correct your comment. 

Indeed.  Start with THIS Article shall we?

How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

After decades of Democratic gerrymandering in California voters finally voted overwhelmingly for an independent commission to draw the district lines starting in 2010. Pelosi not only voted against it but raised millions to stop it. It passed anyway, so the Democrats simply figured a way around it. This article exposes the truth and how they get away with it. Not sure Norm's comment needs any correction, but perhaps some folk's view of how the masters get away with gerrymandering does.

 
 
 
Freewill
5.1.2  Freewill  replied to  Freewill @5.1.1    2 months ago

Interesting graphic of the history of gerrymandered district mapping in CA HERE :

Click on any of the redistricting plans since 1972.  Anyone see a trend there?  California Dems have put on a gerrymandering clinic for over 50 years.

 
 
 
Freewill
5.1.3  Freewill  replied to  Freewill @5.1.1    2 months ago
Not sure Norm's comment needs any correction

Oops, but my spelling of Nerm's name does.  Sorry Nerm L!

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @5    2 months ago
The Trump defense team only stated the obvious:  Democrats pursued impeachment as a political attempt to influence the 2020 election.  Poor Joe Biden was being picked on by bully Trump.  All of this should be a violation of campaign finance laws but both sides are going to politically use impeachment on the campaign trail.

The trump defense also used their time to campaign for trump's 2020 election. Sad that you didn't see that. Also, pretty sure it was trump that tried to extort the Ukraine into helping him win in 2020, which was a personal political action. 

But hey, nothing says, "Patriot" like rigging a US election by extorting a foreign country. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @5.2    2 months ago

There was never any extortion and no rigging ever happened.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @5.2    2 months ago
But hey, nothing says, "Patriot" like rigging a US election by extorting a foreign country. 

When did Biden confess?

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.2    2 months ago

When did Biden confess?

Where in my comment did I even bring up Biden? 

 
 
 
Freewill
5.2.4  Freewill  replied to  MrFrost @5.2    2 months ago
But hey, nothing says, "Patriot" like rigging a US election by extorting a foreign country.

For a moment let's pretend like you can prove that anything was actually withheld pending information on Biden's involvement in past Ukrainian corruption.  So why is it that you feel that what Trump was asking them to "take a look at" would have "rigged" the election? What are you afraid of there?  If there was something self-serving to Biden's self-admitted and very successful extortion back then, are you suggesting that should remain hidden from the public lest it taint the election?  Is Biden somehow above the same laws to which you want Trump held accountable?  So who exactly is "rigging" the election now?   

"Rigging" is what Hillary did in the primaries last election, ask Tulsi Gabbard, or Donna Brazile, hell even Elizabeth Warren . Investigation of suspicious and potentially corrupt activities by a previous vice president by a new administration who is now working with the foreign government that was impacted by those activities is not.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Freewill @5.2.4    2 months ago
For a moment let's pretend like you can prove that anything was actually withheld pending information on Biden's involvement in past Ukrainian corruption.  So why is it that you feel that what Trump was asking them to "take a look at" would have "rigged" the election? What are you afraid of there?  If there was something self-serving to Biden's self-admitted and very successful extortion back then, are you suggesting that should remain hidden from the public lest it taint the election?  Is Biden somehow above the same laws to which you want Trump held accountable?  So who exactly is "rigging" the election now?   

As has been pointed out hundreds of times.. Biden was acting in an official capacity carrying out the President's foreign policy, (which the right wing has been screaming about for days, saying that trump can do whatever he wants). That worthless bitch Bondi was screaming yesterday that Hunter went fishing in Norway in 2015....Oh, the horror, (she is the same Bondi that took a bribe from trump to drop his trump u lawsuit). So there was no corruption. The prosecutor that was FIRED refused to prosecute corruption in the Ukraine. That's why the aid was withheld. Let me say it again...Biden got a CORRUPT prosecutor in the UKRAINE fired...he was CORRUPT. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for the right wing. Did Biden do it for himself? No. He has the support of the POTUS and our allies. Biden got NOTHING for it other than helping get rid of corruption in the Ukraine. Rudy says he has TONS of evidence of corruption, never releases any of it. Trump screams that they are corrupt. No proof whatsoever. Nothing but conspiracy theories and wild claims...just like his windmills cause cancer bullshit. 

All these claims about the Bidens comes from 2015. Why did trump not investigate in 2017? 2018? No, he for some reason waited until 2019, and just weeks after Biden said he was running for president. Seriously, you don't find that the least bit suspicious? This also happened literally the day after the Mueller report came out, where trump was for the most part cleared. It's almost like he was saying, "holy shit, I got away with it, let's do it again!". Last point? Even fox news had Biden leading trump by double digits, pretty sure that a crooked fuker like trump would do ANYTHING to knock that down to protect his pathetic ego. 

No matter how you slice it, there is no way to justify an investigation into the bidens. It was debunked a long time ago. 

Back to the matter at hand. Biden got a corrupt prosecutor fired, in an effort to root out corruption in the Ukraine, which is an ally of the USA. What was trump's motivation, (who did it benefit), when trump withheld aid and asked the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens? Himself. No one else. It was done in an effort to smear Joe Biden so trump would have a better chance of winning in 2020. Before you say that's not true? Trump's legal team has all but admitted to it, now they are just trying to say it's not illegal to ask a foreign country to meddle in our elections. 

Good to know, next Dem president can ask any foreign country to hack our elections to help  them win and the right will not have a leg to stand on. 

 
 
 
Freewill
5.2.6  Freewill  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.5    2 months ago
The prosecutor that was FIRED refused to prosecute corruption in the Ukraine. That's why the aid was withheld. Let me say it again...Biden got a CORRUPT prosecutor in the UKRAINE fired...he was CORRUPT.

Perhaps, but there are some doubts to the veracity of that story as outlined HERE .  Now you may not like the source but there is enough evidence provided by Mr. Solomon to at least make it worth looking into. 

There is also the testimony of Prosecutor Shokin himself on another legal matter after his removal from office indicating that it was President Poroshenko who asked him to back off of Zlochevskyi/Burisma.  You may think his statements are simply those of a guy pissed off about being forced to resign, and you might be right.  But his timelines are more accurate than those who casually dismiss his testimony.  At least 2 cases against Zlochevskyi/Burisma were still open at the time, and perhaps not as active as some foreign players might have liked, but he explains why that was and it is at least worth a closer look.  Evidence that Shokin's office was still working the case against Zlochevskyi in 2015 and Jan 2016 is HERE .

On December 25, 2015, the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv withdrew the arrest of Zlochevsky's property.  However, on January 27, 2016, the criminal proceedings were returned to the GPU and she applied to the court to seize the property.  Then the court re-arrested Zlochevsky's property

The fact of the matter is that Shokin's replacement Lutsenko and the courts actually closed the case against Zlochevskyi completely on 9/13/2016 less than 5 months after Shokin's removal, and settled the case against Burisma shortly before Trump was inaugurated .

So it would appear that Poroshenko got what he wanted after all but not until after Shokin was removed, and we all know who claims to have seen to that do we not?.  And one has to ask oneself, if Biden was so intent on removing a guy who would not prosecute corrupt players, why did he not go after Lutsenko as well, whom they knew was as, or even more, ineffective (puppet for Poroshenko) and corrupt as Shokin within 100 days of him taking office, AND who let Zlochevskyi/Burisma completely off the hook while Biden was still in office?

All I am saying is that the case against Trump was built on the appearance of impropriety and hearsay testimony.  Here we also have what even some in the Obama Administration thought might be the appearance of impropriety, and now there are reasons to maybe look at it a little closer.  If we are to crawl up one politician's ass with a microscope, why not his opponent?

 
 
 
Freewill
5.2.7  Freewill  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.5    2 months ago
Seriously, you don't find that the least bit suspicious?

The democrats have been threatening impeachment since Trump was elected but just now come up with a rather flimsy "case" just before the primary run? 

Biden works tightly with Poroshenko in 2015 and goes front and center to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who he claims is corrupt and/or ineffective, and just 5 months later that prosecutor's replacement completely closes the cases against the oligarch and his company that just so happened to hire Biden's son for a more than tidy sum as a director on his Board, shortly after he was forced to flee the country in 2014?

Seriously, you don't find that the least bit suspicious?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    2 months ago
The main defense, it seems to me, is that whatever Trump did, it is not impeachable.

You may not want to admit this, but the Democratic Party - parts of it at least - have a long standing problem with being outraged over ordinary things. This is not something that started with Trump. It has been going on for years. I saw it over a decade ago (when I was still a registered Democrat). It's maybe the number one thing I can't stand about the party.

But the impeachment defense is more than that. The core problem is that events simply did not unfold in the way the Democrats claim they did. Ukraine received its aid within the allotted time. Trump did not condition the release of that aid on a promise from the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden. Instead, it was delayed over concerns about corruption and burden sharing. Trump did ask for an investigation into Biden, but he has the right and responsibility to do that.

The truth is Trump has been impeached because Democrats can't stand that he won and have been promising to impeach him - for something; whatever is available - since he was sworn in. Several of them campaigned on that promise long before anything happened with Ukraine. When they finally did impeach him on these feeble charges, they cheered on the House floor and when the Articles were signed, they handed out souvenir pens for the happy event. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves, but of course they aren't.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

[Deleted]  It is interesting to watch this develop over a period of months and years. 

Instead, it was delayed over concerns about corruption and burden sharing. Trump did ask for an investigation into Biden, but he has the right and responsibility to do that.

Total nonsense. 

tacos, Mick Mulvaney, Trump's closest professional aide in his presidency, admitted that the aid was with held as a quid pro quo.  

Sondland admitted that in his conversations with trump he discovered that all trump cares about are "the big things" that effect him personally. 

No, Trump is guilty as hell, the only question is what the Republicans want to do about it. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 months ago

[Removed for context.  Deleted]

The fact is you aren't seeing me endorse the man or what he has done. All I have said is that he hasn't done things he is accused of and he has the right to do the things he has done. That's not sycophancy.

Mick Mulvaney, Trump's closest professional aide in his presidency, admitted that the aid was with held as a quid pro quo

That's not really what he said.

Sondland admitted that in his conversations with trump he discovered that all trump cares about are "the big things" that effect him personally.

That might be, but at worst, it's a moral failing. It's not the same as actually doing the things he is accused of doing.

Trump is guilty as hell

Not of the things he has been impeached for.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.2    2 months ago

“So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding from Ukraine,” Karl said.

“The look back to what happened in 2016, certainly, was part of the things that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney said.

“Withholding the funding,” Karl clarified.

“Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed,” Mulvaney said, then launched into another digression.

“But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo , it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens as well,” Karl said.

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney said, then gave examples that did not involve political opponents of American presidents.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-chief-of-staff-mick-mulvaney-admits-quid-pro-quo-we-do-that-all-the-time/

Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo, or to be precise, agreed when a reporter described it that way. 

What was the basis of that quid pro quo? Numerous officials testified that the basis was an agreement by Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden and the DNC (2016).

This is not allowed. It is unethical and it IS an abuse of power.

All you do is stand there and say "no".  

You're wrong. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    2 months ago

He also walked back those comments and there are others who testified who said it didn't happen that way. You can't ignore that. When you think have conflicting testimony like that, you should be erring on the side of acquittal, not guilt.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    2 months ago
“But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo , it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens as well,” Karl said. “We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney said,

TODAY, Donald Trump said that he never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to the investigations of the Democrats (including Biden). 

TODAY.

It is so important that Trump is personally denying that he ever said it. 

Yet that is exactly what Mulvaney admitted to a couple months ago. 

And you think there is no basis to put Trump in the hot seat. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.4    2 months ago

Bolton's book says the same thing you claim Mulvaney "walked back". 

Trump's defenders just say whatever is convenient at the moment. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.4    2 months ago
He also walked back those comments and there are others who testified who said it didn't happen that way. 

You keep saying that but you still haven't backed it up with evidence. 

You can't ignore that.

Since it's just a proclamation, I sure as hell can. 

When you think have conflicting testimony like that, you should be erring on the side of acquittal, not guilt.

Conflicting testimony

Quote from a trranscript? ANYTHING?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.1.7    2 months ago
You keep saying that but you still haven't backed it up with evidence. 

I don't "keep saying" anything. I wasn't talking to you and don't care to be stalked.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    2 months ago
I wasn't talking to you and don't care to be stalked.

Yeah, good luck with THAT!

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.9    2 months ago

He wasn't talking to you Tex. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.10    2 months ago
He wasn't talking to you Tex. 

Well, DUH!

I know damn well who he was talking to, and why.

My statement stands.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    2 months ago
I don't "keep saying" anything.

You've said it twice now without posting any support for it. 

I wasn't talking to you

Tough. 

and don't care to be stalked.

Get over yourself. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.13  dennis smith  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.4    2 months ago

There will always be some who only admit there are two sides to every story but think cherry picking is all they need to do when it fits their perspective.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

You think it is "ordinary" that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to announce a criminal investigation of a person Trump is running for office against.  

Words fail. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    2 months ago
You think it is "ordinary" that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to announce a criminal investigation of a person Trump is running for office against.

In the sense that it happens every day? No. In the sense that it's a perfectly legal thing for him to do? Yes.

 
 
 
Freewill
6.2.2  Freewill  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.1    2 months ago
In the sense that it's a perfectly legal thing for him to do? Yes.

And that was the primary point of the impeachment defense.  At no point in the phone call with Zelenskyy did Trump ever condition any sort of aid on the requested "looking into the prosecutors release".  The fact that Biden DID (by his own admission) condition aid and loan guarantees on the firing of that prosecutor is the real quid-pro-quo here and the President has a right and perhaps even an obligation to seek further information on that if the Ukrainian's have it.  The fact that Biden is also running for President does not somehow shield him from the same type of investigation into potential quid-pro-quo activities of which Trump is currently accused.  The American people should know if their other choice for president has already done the same thing that Trump is being accused of, right? The difference will be, who actually did it and who didn't?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.2.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Freewill @6.2.2    2 months ago

I find it interesting how four or five? presidential candidates were allowed to vote to impeach a political rival with manufactured bs for evidence.

too funny :)

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
6.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    2 months ago
ou think it is "ordinary" that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to announce a criminal investigation of a person Trump is running for office against.

When did Hunter Biden become the Democrat nomination to run against Trump?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
6.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.2.3    2 months ago
I find it interesting how four or five? presidential candidates were allowed to vote to impeach a political rival

Never thought about it like that.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2.6  Raven Wing  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.5    2 months ago

I bet there would be no Republicans who would complain if it had been Republicans who were allowed to vote to Impeach their Dem rival. Right?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
6.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Raven Wing @6.2.6    2 months ago

I'm not entertaining "what ifs".  Its as fictional as these so called charges.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2.8  r.t..b...  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.7    2 months ago
I'm not entertaining "what ifs".

Digressing into the 'but they did it' is as equally non-entertaining if one yearns for the truth. It seems the "buts" have carried the day.

What would the GOP leadership have had to offer than to elicit the Clinton impeachment? Two separate cases, "but" a precedent to let us of the hook.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



devangelical


79 visitors