[late]

As a result, it is much harder to pin TRUMP down on the allegations against him & his rhetorical responses to the impending impeachment suggest that he is mostly right- at least to those whom he speaks for.

He would be one of the easiest convictions a prosecutor ever had.

"More than 1,000 bipartisan former prosecutors have now signed their names on a petition maintaining that if Trump weren't president of the United States, he would have been indicted on multiple charges for obstruction of justice."

He's admitted many of them on national tv...

https://www.newsweek.com/former-federal-prosecutors-trump-indicted-wasnt-president-1439716

[Finfinder]

delete

[late]

He never should have been impeached in the first place.

I want them to act like the losers they are with a little class.

Next time put up a candidate that win elections have consequences.

As a number of constitutional law profs have pointed out, if Trump didn't deserve impeachment, who would? He is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted impeached.

Not the way the game works.

Hopefully we will.

[Finfinder]

I disagree. President Trump wants a speedy trial. If that's what he wants, he needs the impeachment gizmo. And that's an invitation to negotiate




Well in order to meet President Trump's demands for a trial, as i wrote above, his need for the impeachment gizmo is leverage.

Refresh me, please: what was it President Trump/ you wanted differently re the impeachment investigation

He never should have been impeached in the first place and the fact that Pelosi is not sending the article over is all the evidence needed. Like I said Democrats don't believe in election or decorum anymore. They can not accomplish anything unless they cheat or rig the system. What Pelosi is doing is unprecedented in the history of our country and its against the constitution and system of the branches of our government. If Democrat had their way they would do away with elections our processes it obvious. I want the Democrats to act like the losers they are with a little class. Next time put up a candidate that can win a presidential election these thing have consequences.

The last election was the midterms, and the Dems won big.

Didn't you make this mistake before???

Ain't rocket science...

The last election was the midterms, and the Dems won big.

Didn't you make this mistake before???

Ain't rocket science...

I meant presidential I'm sure most reading this thread understood its not brain surgery.. I'll take it you agree with the rest of that post. BTW Your Democrats have squandered the opportunity of that first win since all the lost seats from the Obama era. I don't think its going to pay off next election.

As a number of constitutional law profs have pointed out, if Trump didn't deserve impeachment, who would? He is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted impeached.

Not the way the game works.

Hopefully we will.

All but one of those law professor were discredited for their partisanship and none them had a material fact towards the allegations and they admitted it. One of them actually took a shot at Trumps child very classless. So your reply has no weight and no relevancy to a trial or conviction.

[late]

All but one of those law professor were discredited for their partisanship and none them had a material fact towards the allegations and they admitted it.

How's your pink unicorn?

[Finfinder]

How's your pink unicorn?

nice one line post


Despite their sinking poll numbers, Democrats are forging ahead with their impeachment sham with a Jerry-rigged House Judiciary Committee hearing, starring three liberal professors who have donated big money to Democrats and fantasized about impeaching President Trump for years.

Pamela Karlan is a ‘strident’ and ‘unapologetic’ liberal professor with a clear anti-Trump bias.

Karlan, a registered Democrat since 1998, served in the Obama administration and has been described as a “politically liberal law professor,” “stridently liberal,” and an “unapologetic liberal.”
Karlan has donated $1,000 to Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign this year, and donated $2,000 to Hillary Clinton.
Karlan indicated support for impeachment over two years ago.

[b]Noah Feldman is an anti-Trump left-wing professor and registered Democrat[/b] who proposed impeaching President Trump for a variety of perceived offenses.

In March 2017, Feldman wrote that a tweet from President Trump may have been an impeachable offense.
In April 2017, Feldman wrote that President Trump’s criticism of the media is grounds for impeachment.
In September 2017, Feldman actively spread the Russia collusion hoax and cited “more and more evidence of collusion.”
In January 2018, Feldman wrote that President Trump should be impeached for declaring a crisis at the southern border.

Michael Gerhardt is a registered Democrat and liberal professor who donates to Democrats and said Trump shouldn’t “get away” with avoiding impeachment.

In March 2019, Gerhardt argued Trump should be impeached.
Gerhardt donated $1,245 to Barack Obama and has donated to other Democrat candidates.
Gerhardt said in May 2019 that “not fit to be President” could be a “permissible basis for impeachment.”
With witnesses like these, the Democrats’ impeachment hearing will be nothing more than political theater. It’s all part of their transparent attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and stop President Trump in 2020.

https://colliergop.org/facts-what-to-kn ... witnesses/

[Drlee]

You know. I was just going to let this thread go. What is the point? The democrats handed the election to Trump with this nonsense. Here are the facts:

Trump is guilty of both articles of impeachment and far far more.

The democrats knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that the republicans do not care what outrageous behavior Trump exhibits, they have let him get away with far worse already. So they will vote not to remove him.

His followers are not generally smart enough to see the damage he is doing the country 'cause guuuns, 'n 'bortion, 'n lib'rals 'n stuff.

Trump will immediately embark on a stadium tour that would rival Taylor Swift's reputation tour. (I love her by the way and am sorry I mentioned her in the same sentence with Trump.)

On this Tour Trump will use this exact word. "Exonerated". He will claim that he was exonerated. It will not be true but that should surprise no one.

This will play very well with his base.

He will gain, at least momentarily from this.

There is a greater likelihood that he will be reelected now than there was a week ago.

There is a tiny chance that the democrats will actually use Trump's participation in the recent court decision to strike down the individual mandate for the PPACA. Health care is THE hottest issue and both Trump and Moscow Mitch have tried to take it away from the people; and it has overwhelming support. If the democrats run on health care they slam Trump. They will not be smart enough to do it.

The democrats will run Warren and the gay guy and they will loose. They will win the popular vote and lose.

Pelosi has one chance to make this work. She can continue to hold the articles and reopen the investigations. She can run them right up to election day and force the SCOTUS to either rule that the house has no investigative powers in impeachment or order Trumps folks to testify.

[Finfinder]

You know. I was just going to let this thread go. What is the point? The democrats handed the election to Trump with this nonsense. Here are the facts:.

In reality there is more evidence the leftist followers are not smart enough to realize Pelosi and the Democrats duped them than your mantra that Trump supporters are not smart. The Democrats cannot prove their case, it is really that simple. You can try to spin it any way you like but people are smart enough to know if they had proven their case they wouldn't have a problem sending it over. Pelosi painted herself in the corner and allowed the radicals to control her. The Democrats were bluffing the entire time and you should give people the credit for the fact they knew all along and called them on it.

[late]

nice one line post

It was more than it deserved.

You could find Republican law professors that think impeachment is warranted. You didn't bother looking.

Beyond that, you need reason, more to the point, reasons wrapped in argument to support your contention.

The problem is, if you read Madison, Hamilton, Franklin (and to a lesser degree some of the others) this is precisely why they constructed impeachment.

Trump hits nearly all the bases.

[Drlee]

...your mantra that Trump supporters are not smart.

No ambiguity in my belief. I honestly believe that Trump supporters are, by and large, not very smart. I am sorry if that insults them but I am saying nothing that Trump has said before this.

The Democrats cannot prove their case, it is really that simple.

And this is simply wrong. They already have proved their case. Trump has admitted it. Over 500 scholars have asserted it. In addition to these charges there are dozens more that could be brought. Mitch McConnell has as much as admitted it when he admitted that he was unable to be impartial and did not expect or wish his fellow senators to be impartial. This in the face of his being required to take an oath to be impartial. This is little more than a right wing coup.

Not being able to see this supports my assertion that Trump supporters are not very smart. Deliberately ignoring it just makes them traitors.

[Stormsmith]

But how do you reconcile Moscow Mitch's12, 13 years of doing sweet boom all in the senate with President Trump 's demands for a speedy trial, and whom would you speculate would be President Trump's witnesses?

What?

Moscow Mitch has spent 13 years doing sweet bugger all. He announced that President Obama would serve only one term. As we both know, President Obama served two terms. During this time McConnell did his level best to tank ObamaCare. He didn't manage that, in spite of over 50 or more attempts. Now he has 400 bills to pass and won't.

Now McConnell is supposed to organise a senatorial trial.

He has said "Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this." And in spite of having to swear an oath that this would be a fair trial, on air (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) has already made it clear that to him, that sworn oath and its promise of “impartial justice” will be nothing more than empty words.

McConnell told reporters Tuesday that the political nature of impeachment means he's not even going to pretend to be fair or impartial on impeachment, no matter what the facts dictate or the oath he swears to uphold. “I'm not an impartial juror,” McConnell said. “This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision . . . I'm not impartial about this at all.” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-senate-trial-not-impartial-juror

Meanwhile, back at the ranch President Trump's being banging on for a full trial. McConnell has also said if Speaker Pelosi wants to hang on to the impeachment gizmo that was fine with him because he doesn't want it.

Now Speaker Pelosi still has the aforementioned gizmo. What can she do? Surrender them so Moscow Mitch can break his oath, as he said he would, and not hold a valid trial, as he said he would? Or enter into negotiations so McConnell himself isnt the next one to be invested for breaking his oath, or hope this drags out til any number of the senatorial Republicans are exposed for being under investigation for financial no-no's from Russia, as Senators Graham, Rubio, and McConnell are thought to have done?

[Finfinder]

It was more than it deserved.

You could find Republican law professors that think impeachment is warranted. You didn't bother looking.

Beyond that, you need reason, more to the point, reasons wrapped in argument to support your contention.

The problem is, if you read Madison, Hamilton, Franklin (and to a lesser degree some of the others) this is precisely why they constructed impeachment.

Trump hits nearly all the bases.

Why are you complaining to me? Those were the law professors that the Democrats chose to testify, the Republicans were allowed 1 law professor Turley who hates Trump, however disagrees with impeachment. It isn't my job to make your case for you just because I have tore your assumption apart. You answered my question with something about a "unicorn" and I proved they were biased. The problem is you interpret Madison and Hamilton incorrectly ask Democrat Alan Dershowitz.

[late]

Why are you complaining to me?

Those were the law professors that the Democrats chose to testify, the Republicans were allowed

1 law professor Turley who hates Trump, however disagrees with impeachment.


The problem is you interpret Madison and Hamilton incorrectly ask Democrat Alan Dershowitz.

I was trying to help, to bring you up to speed.

I know, but the reason we have judges is the idea of impartial analysis based on law and ethical considerations. This is about finding the best legal interpretation. The game is much, much bigger than the players.

Dershowitz is a hired gun. Nothing more. The guy I have turned to for legal analysis since the 1970s is Prof Tribe. He literally wrote the textbook, American Constitutional Law.

"Tribe is a constitutional law scholar[5][6] and co-founder of the American Constitution Society. He is the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), a major treatise in that field, and has argued before the United States Supreme Court 36 times"

He's the real deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe



Turley didn't argue against impeachment, he just did process arguments.

[Drlee]

...ask Democrat Alan Dershowitz.

"However, Dershowitz said that Trump's alleged disclosure of classified information to Russia is "the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president"

Be careful which straw it is upon which you lean.

[blackjack21]

That was when the Koch brothers used the Tea Party as their hand puppet.

I'll never really look at Pelosi losing her majority as a tragedy. It was a well-deserved loss.

The next thing one needs to know is that the party in power always takes a hit in the midterms. But one does need to explain why it was such a big hit.

Probably @Drlee would agree with your analysis that follows. I don't. I think there were three big factors: first, Republicans had voted well over 40 times to repeal ObamaCare. When they finally had the votes, many of them decided to protect ObamaCare. Their action to protect ObamaCare after so many votes to repeal it was inexplicable to Republican base voters, and they knew they were going down. Second, in blue states, the tax cuts came at the expense--in part--of blue state upper income tax payers like me who faced a limitation on SALT deductions writing off state and local income taxes on our federal returns. That cost me about $6k dollars. So you saw places like Orange County, CA going blue; third, you also had just a bunch of milquetoast losers who can't stomach Trump and the Tea Party in power at the national level. People like Kellyanne Conway's husband come to mind.

But the underlying reality is that there is a ton of dissatisfaction with Republicans. Trump's crazy may not stop Trump, but Republicans have been losing or retiring in large numbers.

Many are getting older and want to hang it up, which is understandable. I don't think it's that fun a job anymore. John Boehner--who perhaps was the first orange man foretelling the coming of Trump--ended up quitting in frustration, and they more or less had to beg Paul Ryan to take the job. He ended up retiring too, but at a much younger age. Pelosi fought for the job, but I don't think she's enjoying it at all. Right now, the Republicans have a big fundraising advantage, so I think this election is tipping their way. Their is still 11 months, which is a long time in politics.

But the underlying reality is that there is a ton of dissatisfaction with Republicans. Trump's crazy may not stop Trump, but Republicans have been losing or retiring in large numbers.

You're hoping a double negative is a positive. Trump has a talking point--they denied him the right to confront his accuser, denied him a the opportunity to call witnesses, denied him the right to know the nature and cause of the charges (Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power are not recognizable laws with elements defining an offense), and now they are denying him a right to a speedy trial. Pelosi is not doing well at this at all.

And possibly, the American people will demand a fair trial with witnesses and pressure could build on McConnell.

Witnesses aren't a good idea for the Democrats, because the most obvious ones are Joe and Hunter Biden, Viktor Shokin and Erik Ciaramella. Trump can wage an affirmative defense. Prosecutorial speculation during a trial is not allowed. It will backfire almost certainly. Lindsay Graham said it best: Pelosi is the dog who caught the car.

But Pelosi has ZERO incentive to send them over and there is no pressure on her to send them to the Senate.

Charging someone with a crime and then refusing to try them looks positively absurd. The pressure builds passively, because her credibility implodes the longer she waits. If Trump is this imminent threat to humanity in the remaining 10 years we have left before global warming kills us all, then we should be moving to trial forthwith.

The democrats are fucked six ways to Sunday.

Yeah. The DNC presidential primaries are having the life sucked out of them by this whole charade, and Trump is not hunkering down in a White House bunker. He's out campaigning to record crowds, while the Democrats struggle to get viewers for their presidential debates.

The Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to work with the House.

Well, they aren't entitled to get their wish.

“The GOP, Lofgren argued in the aftermath of the debt-ceiling debacle, increasingly resembled “an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe” in which “a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.”

Democracy itself doesn't depend on increasing the national debt. The welfare state depends on it, and it will see it's demise in the next 50 years as demography kills it off.

The Democrats lost the last election and now they feel empowered to do away with any rules and decorum. Democrats don't heed to elections or rules and decorum anymore,

The bigger picture looks like this: if the Democrats lost the election, it didn't matter. They could just turn to the courts. SCOTUS is now nominally conservative, but neither Roberts or Kavanaugh will prove reliable conservatives. If Trump gets more SCOTUS picks, the left's trick of turning to the courts for legislative victories they can't win democratically is over for a generation. So it is something of an existential crisis for them.

Relax. Negotiating is not a crime.

Neither is Obstruction of Congress or Abuse of Power. No such statutes exist.

He's guilty as hell.

Of nothing. Investigating Biden's probable violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

And that's an invitation to negotiate

If his rights are determined to have been violated, it's an automatic acquittal anyway. Speedy trial is a right that belongs exclusively to the defendant.

If the democrats run on health care they slam Trump. They will not be smart enough to do it.

The only parts of PPACA that are really popular are pre-existing conditions and being on your parents health insurance plan. Otherwise, it's the mother of all hairballs. The Democrats are running on things like Medicare for all--which we cannot afford without a massive reform of the existing system.

The democrats will run Warren and the gay guy and they will loose. They will win the popular vote and lose.

If Booty Judge is on the ticket, the Democrats will lose more of the black vote than they expected. Maybe they get 75-80%, which will tank them.

She can run them right up to election day and force the SCOTUS to either rule that the house has no investigative powers in impeachment or order Trumps folks to testify.

That's not the choice. The issue is whether executive privilege applies to private conversations with the president and his staff, officers, cabinet secretaries, etc. Documentation, tapes, etc. was settled in Nixon. The problem is that they do not have any documentary evidence proving their charges, and none of the witnesses can corroborate the allegations either for "abuse of power" as none of them were actual witnesses, except the light colonel who didn't witness any criminal behavior either. In fact, that's why they invented this notion of "Abuse of Power" to begin with, which isn't a law and would violate ex-post fact if it were made into one.

[Finfinder]

[/quote]

No ambiguity in my belief. I honestly believe that Trump supporters are, by and large, not very smart. I am sorry if that insults them but I am saying nothing that Trump has said before this..

Drlee I'm really trying to understand where you come from, as someone who is proud of their intellect and political prowess. My first thought is you are sending a very confusing message because you chastised me this week for supposedly putting people in a box, but yet their is obvious ambiguity in believing that Trump supporters by and large are not very smart. Assuming you actual believe that, I can see why its been difficult for you to analyze what is really going on. I just don't see where insulting people furthers any point you are trying to make, it actually it brings you down to Trumps level. I'm surprised you don't see that.

And this is simply wrong. They already have proved their case. Trump has admitted it. Over 500 scholars have asserted it. In addition to these charges there are dozens more that could be brought. Mitch McConnell has as much as admitted it when he admitted that he was unable to be impartial and did not expect or wish his fellow senators to be impartial. This in the face of his being required to take an oath to be impartial. This is little more than a right wing coup.

Not being able to see this supports my assertion that Trump supporters are not very smart. Deliberately ignoring it just makes them traitors.

Its really hard to take your words credibly about the senate, when you obviously have supported impeaching Trump prior to his inauguration. This is a fact you cannot deny. There are mountains of quotes from congress people as well as headlines in the various liberal papers and news outlets, as well as scholars, you cannot refute this fact. So which is it Drlee, do you support the system or not? The house makes the case and then sends it to the senate for trial, your spin of the syten in this instance is really flawed. Pelosi either has a case or she doesn't, we all know why she is not sending it to the senate. I'm surprised you can't see that.

If only scholars voted for the office of president you'd have your wish but that's not how it works. Also I'm not sure you have proven your case on the intellect of the Trump supporters. Calling them traitors is about as last ditch and week as Pelosi's move. Any defense of Trump and you are a "traitor" that is some intellectual stuff right there, should they be imprisoned as well? Perhaps the biggest thing you miss is that the people you think are not so smart, are smart enough to know the scholar types you prefer to run our country have failed them badly. You are just too focused on the personality of the president to understand what is really going on. There are other reason to support a candidate Drlee, there is no perfect one. Do tell us who that perfect candidate is, Joe Biden ?

The bigger picture looks like this: if the Democrats lost the election, it didn't matter. They could just turn to the courts. SCOTUS is now nominally conservative, but neither Roberts or Kavanaugh will prove reliable conservatives. If Trump gets more SCOTUS picks, the left's trick of turning to the courts for legislative victories they can't win democratically is over for a generation. So it is something of an existential crisis for them. .

I've been saying that all along but according to Drlee we are traitors because we support a president because of his court picks and we should just pass on that because of Trumps twitter account.

[Drlee]

@blackjack21 You're hoping a double negative is a positive. Trump has a talking point--they denied him the right to confront his accuser, denied him a the opportunity to call witnesses, denied him the right to know the nature and cause of the charges (Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power are not recognizable laws with elements defining an offense), and now they are denying him a right to a speedy trial.

Very true. They should have gone with obstruction of justice and extortion. Maybe throw in his taking money from a charity and using it to pay off you know who. (Just to give the evangelicals something to chew on.)

@blackjack21Pelosi is not doing well at this at all.

I agree. This got way out of control. As I have said before they should have run this out until the primaries are over then vote to censure him. Or impeach then so that we go into an election under impeachment.

She is doing the right thing holding stuff up. She should start an investigation into McConnell or even better some prominent Tea Party dude just to play with McConnell's head.

Witnesses aren't a good idea for the Democrats, because the most obvious ones are Joe and Hunter Biden, Viktor Shokin and Erik Ciaramella. Trump can wage an affirmative defense.

Well he can certainly muddy the waters with this. But in practice I agree.

Lindsay Graham said it best: Pelosi is the dog who caught the car.

Lindsey Graham is a nice lady and this time he got it right for sure. She has a way out but I wonder if she will take it.

Charging someone with a crime and then refusing to try them looks positively absurd. The pressure builds passively, because her credibility implodes the longer she waits.

It would have if McConnell and Graham had kept their mouths shut. Now, what she ought to do is again, claim the republicans refuse a fair trial in the Senate (they do and have said it clearly) and vote to censure him.

Yeah. The DNC presidential primaries are having the life sucked out of them by this whole charade, and Trump is not hunkering down in a White House bunker. He's out campaigning to record crowds, while the Democrats struggle to get viewers for their presidential debates.

Every word of it true.

@blackjack21The bigger picture looks like this: if the Democrats lost the election, it didn't matter. They could just turn to the courts. SCOTUS is now nominally conservative, but neither Roberts or Kavanaugh will prove reliable conservatives. If Trump gets more SCOTUS picks, the left's trick of turning to the courts for legislative victories they can't win democratically is over for a generation. So it is something of an existential crisis for them.

Probably. True that Roberts can't be relied upon but Kavanaugh would do anything to black the democrat's eye. Trumps one or two choices in his second term will be very very conservative, pro business and socially conservative. Look for a nominal repeal of Roe V. Wade and same sex marriage under the guise of them being states rights issues.

If his rights are determined to have been violated, it's an automatic acquittal anyway. Speedy trial is a right that belongs exclusively to the defendant.

No such protections are available in an impeachment but they are nifty and effective talking points after the fact. Cover.
ealth care they slam Trump. They will not be smart enough to do it.

The only parts of PPACA that are really popular are pre-existing conditions and being on your parents health insurance plan. Otherwise, it's the mother of all hairballs. The Democrats are running on things like Medicare for all--which we cannot afford without a massive reform of the existing system.

It is far more popular than that.

Drlee wrote:
The democrats will run Warren and the gay guy and they will loose. They will win the popular vote and lose.

@blackjack21If Booty Judge is on the ticket, the Democrats will lose more of the black vote than they expected. Maybe they get 75-80%, which will tank them.

Yes indeed.

[Ter]

@blackjack21If Booty Judge is on the ticket, the Democrats will lose more of the black vote than they expected. Maybe they get 75-80%, which will tank them.

Is that because in general, African Americans don't like homos ?

[Stormsmith]

@Finfinder

1. He never should have been impeached in the first place and the fact that Pelosi is not sending the article over is all the evidence needed.

2. Like I said Democrats don't believe in election or decorum anymore. They can not accomplish anything unless they cheat or rig the system.

3. What Pelosi is doing is unprecedented in the history of our countryou

4. its against the constitution and system of the branches

1.That Speaker Pelosi isn't forwarding the gizmo to the Senate is not proof of anything for anyone because we're not mind readers

2. Both sides do daft things on occaion. But throwing your allies under a tank is pretty horrid, esp since Ukraine finally appears to have a straight shooter at the helm. Men died during the time the money was approved and months later, released. You have to ask, "could any of those men be alive today?" Then your president let Turkey overrun the Kurds. There is no doubt people died because of Trump's lack of knowledge. And your other aĺlies, such as those who served with you in Afghanistan might have second thoughts on how much effort they will exert next time.

3. In Clinton's case, Republicans didn't declare they were going to rig the trail, block witness and evidence.

4. No, it's not. There's no time line on this, full stop

[BigSteve]

He's guilty as hell.

Of what?

The Senate, and not idiot libs, will determine his guilt or innocence. They had their turn to make sure they handled this correctly and they fucked it all up.

As much as I'd love to see every democrat in the House spontaneously die, I want them to stay alive long enough to see Trump found not guilty...