Trump Defense Rests

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

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.

Clinton was guilty as sin.

Hearsay. 

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.

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. 

Hearsay

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

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.

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. 

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.  onenewsnow

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

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

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. 

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.  

"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.

“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

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.

Still upset the EC worked as designed?

tRump defense rests.

What defense?

What a sham of a trial.  

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. 

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

What does that have to do with the article? 

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.

onenewsnow

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.

You mean tRumps defense team

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

msn

Nope, tRumps defense team

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?

Pretty much.

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.

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? 

when did the republicans propose  that Constitutional amendment?

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

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

Pretty weird, huh?

Now the R's want to constitutionally abolish the impeachment process

OK that's totally made up.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Not sure Norm's comment needs any correction

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

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. 

There was never any extortion and no rigging ever happened.

When did Biden confess?

Where in my comment did I even bring up Biden? 

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.

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. 

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?

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?

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.

[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. 

[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.

“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.

mediaite

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. 

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.

“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. 

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

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

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?

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.

I wasn't talking to you and don't care to be stalked.

Yeah, good luck with THAT!

He wasn't talking to you Tex. 

He wasn't talking to you Tex. 

Well, DUH!

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

My statement stands.

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. 

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. 

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.

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?

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

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?

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.  

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?

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