That is not an impeachment trial, it's another coverup - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15060709
One of the first things you do in a trial is Disclosure. The prosecution shows the defense the evidence they have.

Trump has been obstructing justice by keeping the most important witnesses and evidence hidden.

It gets worse.

Dems get 2 days. That's it. Which is beyond inadequate.

It gets worse.

The Repukes will tie up the trial with procedural motions as long as they can on the first day. They'll try to make it so the actual proceedings happen too late for the evening news.

It gets worse.

Dems will have to do it without evidence or witnesses. You can't have a trial without evidence and witnesses.

It gets worse.

After the arguments, then there will be a vote on admitting evidence. McConnell is already pressuring Republicans to vote against admitting evidence.

It gets worse.

He will then close the proceedings without even the appearance of conducting a trial.

It was a nice republic, while it lasted.
Last edited by late on 21 Jan 2020 20:29, edited 1 time in total.
#15060766
Schiff uses Trump's words against him at impeachment trial very effective.



Now a majority of Americans see him as convictionable and want the Senate to go ahead.

The GOP can drag its feet all it wants but the evidence is overwhelming on this crime of bribery, as well as everything else. From incitement to assassination of Hillary Clinton in one of his speeches to publicly calling for Russia to hack her computers to breaching the Emoluments clause with his businesses and his weekly golfing at his own golf courses lining his pockets with public money!!
#15060772
@late

late wrote:It was a nice republic, while it lasted.


Yup it was. I believe we have a dictatorship now and our republic is already gone. I could be wrong, but it sure looks that way. I also don't think Trump will willingly step down if he loses the upcoming election or if he wins a second term, he won't willingly step down after his second term is over. This is not a fair, even handed trial in any sense of the word. Trump is clearly guilty of crimes but the republicans aren't going to convict him despite overwhelming evidence he is guilty because Trump is one of them: wealthy rich white people and wealthy rich white people protect their own and give two shits about anybody else or the country. It's all about maintaining a white supremacist society with wealthy rich white people at the top and if that means having a dictatorship and destroying a republic based on freedom and individual rights, then so be it as far as republicans are concerned. They only care about money and power and have sold their souls and the republic out. Trump, his supporters and his enablers might as well just click both their heels together and give a Nazi salute to their fascist fuhrer Donald Trump because that's exactly what he is.
#15060859
late wrote:One of the first things you do in a trial is Disclosure.

That would be a preliminary hearing before the trial. Generally, the first thing is an arraignment. You present the defendant with the nature and cause of the charges. The defendant can respond by plea, demurrer or motion to dismiss.

late wrote:Trump has been obstructing justice by keeping the most important witnesses and evidence hidden.

Invoking a privilege is not obstruction of justice any more than exercising a right to remain silent.

late wrote:It gets worse.

It's not worse.

late wrote:Dems get 2 days. That's it. Which is beyond inadequate.

The Democrats can present all the testimony they collected in the House that they think is relevant. The Democrats claimed that the evidence was incontrovertible and the facts uncontested. They claimed the case was a slam dunk. Now, suddenly they think they don't have enough evidence.

late wrote:The Repukes will tie up the trial with procedural motions as long as they can on the first day.

That's usually what happens early in a trial.

late wrote:Dems will have to do it without evidence or witnesses.

Either they had the evidence or they didn't. If they didn't have the evidence, impeachment was an abuse of power. They called numerous witnesses in the house. Transcripts of that testimony can be entered into the Senate record.

late wrote:You can't have a trial without evidence and witnesses.

Sure you can. Most cases are disposed before trial. Demurrers, motions to dismiss, settling out of court in civil cases, and so forth are common occurrences. At any rate, if Democrats voted for impeachment on evidence they did not have in their possession, that is their problem.

redcarpet wrote:Schiff uses Trump's words against him at impeachment trial very effective.

Trump's attorneys are doing the same thing. Either they had all this incontrovertible evidence, or they didn't. They claimed that the facts spoke for themselves. They claimed the facts were uncontested. Where's the slamdunk case? Why the sudden need for even more witnesses? Could it be that they didn't have a case? It certainly seems that way.

redcarpet wrote:The GOP can drag its feet all it wants but the evidence is overwhelming on this crime of bribery, as well as everything else.

Well if there is overwhelming evidence of bribery, why wasn't he impeached for bribery? The evidence is meaningless if it doesn't meet the offense charged--which isn't defined as a crime anywhere in the United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations.

Politics_Observer wrote:I believe we have a dictatorship now and our republic is already gone. I could be wrong, but it sure looks that way.

:roll: He's running for re-election. Dictators generally don't submit to popular will.

Politics_Observer wrote:I also don't think Trump will willingly step down if he loses the upcoming election or if he wins a second term, he won't willingly step down after his second term is over.

Of course he will. He's in his seventies. After another four years of this, he'll be pretty tired of it.

Politics_Observer wrote:This is not a fair, even handed trial in any sense of the word.

It's political, and it wasn't bi-partisan. So it wasn't going to go anywhere and everybody knew this going in.

Politics_Observer wrote:Trump is clearly guilty of crimes but the republicans aren't going to convict him despite overwhelming evidence he is guilty because Trump is one of them: wealthy rich white people and wealthy rich white people protect their own and give two shits about anybody else or the country.

The articles of impeachment do not specify any crimes at all. Abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't defined crimes. They haven't even established as a matter of law what the elements of such an offense would be. Basically, the Democrats in congress are playing you people for fools. They knew this whole thing was never going to go anywhere. Basically, all they are doing is undermining Warren and Sanders and clearing the path for Biden. The whole show accomplishes nothing else.
#15060872
He is being impeached for bribery which is banned by Article II, Section 4 of the U.S Constitution. Got to the Article 1 of the impeachment articles. Pretending to be illiterate and fling one sentence assertions proves nothing

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency3, in that:
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:
(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —
(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents
within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested4 —
(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and
(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. 5
These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.6

In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
#15060908
blackjack21 wrote:
1) That would be a preliminary hearing before the trial. Generally, the first thing is an arraignment. You present the defendant with the nature and cause of the charges. The defendant can respond by plea, demurrer or motion to dismiss.


2) Invoking a privilege is not obstruction of justice any more than exercising a right to remain silent.


3)The Democrats can present all the testimony they collected in the House that they think is relevant.

4) The Democrats claimed that the evidence was incontrovertible and the facts uncontested. They claimed the case was a slam dunk. Now, suddenly they think they don't have enough evidence.


5)That's usually what happens early in a trial.


6) Sure you can. Most cases are disposed before trial.

7) At any rate, if Democrats voted for impeachment on evidence they did not have in their possession, that is their problem.


8) Trump's attorneys are doing the same thing.

9) The evidence is meaningless if it doesn't meet the offense charged--which isn't defined as a crime anywhere in the United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations.


10) He's running for re-election. Dictators generally don't submit to popular will.





1) While impeachment lacks formal disclosure, one of the first things that happens in impeachments is arguing over evidence. You didn't actually say anything.

2) Executive Privilege is quite limited in an impeachment. Common sense, and precedent, says it has to be that way.

3) They can now, but that was not the plan. McConnell is still giving Rule of Law the bums rush.

4) Suddenly? You need lies that are vaguely plausible, the House has been trying to pry evidence and witnesses out of Trump for months. Witnesses and evidence that is being unlawfully suppressed.

5) It's not a trial. If it was, it wouldn't be limited to 2 or 3 days. In a real trial, going through evidence and testimony alone would take weeks.

6) If a case is disposed, then there is no trial.

7) You have that backwards, they voted on evidence they did have. Including Trump's admission of guilt in the "perfect phone call".

8) Trumps attorneys looked like a high school debating team that somehow wound up in a courtroom.

9) Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

10) He's cheating, that's what this is all about.
#15060926
Yup it was. I believe we have a dictatorship now and our republic is already gone.


True. The Russians have so much on so many legislators that there is no way to fight them.

Democracy ended in the US a long time ago. We have been an oligarchy for many years now.
#15061080
redcarpet wrote:He is being impeached for bribery which is banned by Article II, Section 4 of the U.S Constitution. Got to the Article 1 of the impeachment articles. Pretending to be illiterate and fling one sentence assertions proves nothing

The charge is defined in the title you quoted. Watch as Trump wages an affirmative defense, as I've said for awhile he would--even well before articles of impeachment were even drawn up.


late wrote:1) While impeachment lacks formal disclosure, one of the first things that happens in impeachments is arguing over evidence.

It's basically an arbitrary system and the high bar for impeachment means you need quite a lot of agreement. Since that is lacking, the entire exercise is pointless.

late wrote:2) Executive Privilege is quite limited in an impeachment. Common sense, and precedent, says it has to be that way.

Anthropomorphisms aside, the constitution is silent on that question. The courts have ruled that the rights of an individual are the same in a Congressional hearing as any other proceeding. The Senate cannot compel the president, but they can eject him from office by two thirds (67) votes.

late wrote:3) They can now, but that was not the plan.

It sounds like a dumb plan. Not to worry. Nothing prevents the House from having more hearings and calling more witnesses and voting on new articles of impeachment.

late wrote:4) Suddenly? You need lies that are vaguely plausible, the House has been trying to pry evidence and witnesses out of Trump for months. Witnesses and evidence that is being unlawfully suppressed.

They failed to send subpoenas to the witnesses they want, because they didn't want to go through the courts to get a ruling on whether or not executive privilege applies. That means their complaints aren't ripe for consideration with respect to "Obstruction of Congress."

late wrote:5) It's not a trial. If it was, it wouldn't be limited to 2 or 3 days. In a real trial, going through evidence and testimony alone would take weeks.

If there was an actual legal accusation and more than probable cause to believe it occurred, we'd probably have a longer trial. However, that is not the case here. Again, the House can simply continue having hearings and get the witnesses they want and, when they have proof, they can file new impeachment articles. I'm sure you realize it is not unusual for complaints to be amended either.

late wrote:7) You have that backwards, they voted on evidence they did have. Including Trump's admission of guilt in the "perfect phone call".

Great. So if you think Trump admitted to wrongdoing, we have sufficient evidence for a vote. Let's move to summary judgement.

late wrote:Trumps attorneys looked like a high school debating team that somehow wound up in a courtroom.

Maybe to people who are actually watching. Just like the House hearings, CBS cut off their coverage and returned to airing soap operas so they don't lose audience share and money.

late wrote:9) You do that lie almost every day. It's still a lie, and still for the intellectually challenged that don't know what High Crime is. You know the difference, you are lying intentionally.

The constitution defined it as treason and bribery, or otherwise on par with treason or bribery. They did not define it as investigating your political adversary on the grounds that your political adversary may have committed a crime. After all, during his entire time in office, the Democrats have been calling for investigations into Trump on purely political grounds.

late wrote:10) He's cheating, that's what this is all about.

If he gets more electoral college votes than his opponent, that isn't cheating. Stuffing the ballot box would be cheating.
#15061088
@Drlee

Drlee wrote:True. The Russians have so much on so many legislators that there is no way to fight them.

Democracy ended in the US a long time ago. We have been an oligarchy for many years now.


I know it sucks. But that's life. Nobody could have predicted that things would have turned out this way. The founding fathers did their best and gave it a good go, but so did many American generations afterwards and here in the present. Sometimes life just doesn't turn out the way we want it to. The oligarchy started with Reagan's trickle down economics and especially started with his firing the PATCO air traffic controllers. When he fired those PATCO air traffic controllers, he un-intentionally and unknowingly hammered the nails into the coffin of our republic.

A lot of pro-union people voted for Reagan and didn't expect him to fire them but when he did, the private sectors employers ran with it and that's when wealth started concentrating into the hands of the few and with that, over time of decades, they used their excessive wealth that became concentrated into the hands of the few to destroy the republic by corrupting Congress and the Presidency. Our government spends more time fund raising more than any other modern western governments and our government is less efficient. That's another thing about dictatorships, they are very inefficient at governing and meeting the needs of the people.
#15061099
Politics_Observer wrote:Nobody could have predicted that things would have turned out this way.

Why not? Politicians will lie about anything. We were told free trade with China would eventually lead to democracy in China. Instead, it's leading to political radicalism in the United States as so many jobs left the United States for China. We run trade deficits with the whole world. Their lifeblood depends on the American consumer. How many German legislators do we have in our pockets? We don't even think that way, but they do. What I find bewildering about all this is that there are people who think Russia is all powerful. Russia is pathetic. China, Germany, Japan--they aren't.

What's interesting about Russia is that they have Western Europe by the balls by way of oil and gas. That's it. Without that, Russia is fucked. Utterly fucked.

Politics_Observer wrote:The oligarchy started with Reagan's trickle down economics and especially started with his firing the PATCO air traffic controllers.

The oligarchy started with industrial capitalism and the ability of an industrialist to acquire substantial wealth--none of it necessarily illegal either. Those who thought it immoral decided that an income tax was necessary, and direct election of senators. Now states have no representation in the federal government--only popular will. Now, we have graduated income taxes instead of everyone paying at the same rate and having the same political stake in taxes and spending. However, high technology produces even more powerful effects than industrialism, and it requires very high skilled workers.

I just sat in on a company conference call today and one of the topics was how do we protect ourselves from our competitors poaching our best employees. I know they like me. You wouldn't believe the bonus I'm getting on Friday. Cash too. The stock comes in a few more months. The amount of revenue a single employee can produce is similarly staggering--in high tech, that is... Making cars? Not so much. Some of that will change as 5G rolls out and self-driving cars mean automakers will be dealing much more in sensors, computation and telecommunications.

Like Drlee, I'm not asking you to agree with me. However, you have to get beyond the idea that Reagan was anti-union, and somehow the firing of PATCO workers was like some butterfly effect that destroyed unions, and that destroyed "the Republic" which was so painfully obviously not based on labor unions. For fuck sake, Jefferson not only owned slaves, he owned his own children with Sally Hemmings. Do yourself a favor and understand that the United States, or any Republic for that matter, does not depend upon labor unions.

Politics_Observer wrote:When he fired those PATCO air traffic controllers, he un-intentionally and unknowingly hammered the nails into the coffin of our republic.

Unions weren't even a concept until industrial capitalism. The waning of unions is a direct result of outsourcing industrial labor to China and other locales. If you fall for stupid propaganda like the PATCO strike, you fail to understand that unions didn't exist or even need to exist until industrialism. In a post industrial society, the purpose of unions is waning as well. I work in high tech. Probably 1/4 of my pay is stock--ownership of the means of production. It's a natural part of my business. It wasn't among low-skilled industrial workers. Capitalism cuts me in, because it has to. Employee stock ownership is the way past Marxism and the ridiculously contrived struggle between management and labor--it was once very real, but even billionaires wear jeans and t-shirts today. Where are the top hats, monocles, pince nez glasses, cigarette holders, tuxedos? Mark Zuckerberg wears jeans. Designer jeans, but they're still denim. He wears t-shirts. Maybe they're Ermenegildo Zegna, but they're still t-shirts. He wears sneakers. Maybe they're Christian Louboutin, but they're still sneakers. Bill Gates' favorite meal is a hamburger.

Politics_Observer wrote:A lot of pro-union people voted for Reagan and didn't expect him to fire them but when he did, the private sectors employers ran with it and that's when wealth started concentrating into the hands of the few and with that, over time of decades, they used their excessive wealth that became concentrated into the hands of the few to destroy the republic by corrupting Congress and the Presidency.

Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild. He was a labor union guy. He did not fire all labor union workers by any stretch of the imagination.
#15061322
late wrote:One of the first things you do in a trial is Disclosure. The prosecution shows the defense the evidence they have.

Apparently the Democrats are trying to covering up the fact that they don't have the evidence.

late wrote:Trump has been obstructing justice by keeping the most important witnesses and evidence hidden.

Actually, that is executive privilege provided in the Constitution. Surely, you must believe in following the Constitution.

late wrote:It gets worse.

Dems get 2 days. That's it. Which is beyond inadequate.

Actually the Dems got the first day for an opening statement and to argue their motions for additional witness and documents for about 12 hours. All those motions were tabled until after both sides present their documents and arguments. Then the Dems get 3 days of 8 hours each to present their evidence from their witnesses and the defense gets 3 days of 8 hours for rebuttal evidence and arguments.

late wrote:It gets worse.

After the arguments, then there will be a vote on admitting evidence. McConnell is already pressuring Republicans to vote against admitting evidence.

It gets worse.

He will then close the proceedings without even the appearance of conducting a trial.

It was a nice republic, while it lasted.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Sounds like the saving of a Republic to me.
HalleluYah
#15061500
late wrote:You would be less confused if you worked on comprehension, instead of just shoveling BS all the time.

I am trying to present truth. The BS is coming from the Democrats, especially from lying pencil neck "shifty" Adam Schiff.
#15061511
Hindsite wrote:
The BS is coming from the Democrats



Sondland, Parnas, and Cohen are Trump's suckers.

Then there all those witnesses and evidence Trump is improperly hiding. Biggest coverup, by far, in American history.

You don't do real, you do Moscow Rules.
#15061518
late wrote:Sondland, Parnas, and Cohen are Trump's suckers.

Then there all those witnesses and evidence Trump is improperly hiding. Biggest coverup, by far, in American history.

You don't do real, you do Moscow Rules.

You must be talking about the "Grim Reaper" rules of Mitch McConnell. Yes, he has turned out to be a great Republican leader in the Senate. Thank God.

@Politics_Observer Canadians soldiers(I served, […]

Election 2020

You literally justified not counting votes because[…]

Okay, and I have a small request -- could you inc[…]

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/13219872[…]