A list of what will save, may save and will not save Trump...

You’ve got it all backwards. It’s not up to Trump to find evidence to prove his innocence. It’s not up to Trump to find defenses against allegations that have no connections to evidence.

Every single allegation can be summed up simply...

“I think Trump did something wrong.”
NOT “I know he broke laws and here is the evidence...”

Thinking or feeling or presuming he did something you don’t like is NOT evidence, especially when all these thoughts are coming from the heads of partisans that benefit from his impeachment. When the man leading the charge has flat out lied about what Trump has done said or apparently feels, this whole thing is a charade.

The ONLY reason this is happening is because Democrats again have a bunch of shitty candidates and they are terrified they can’t beat him fairly. They’ve railroaded the only sane ones. So they’re trying to create doubt and invent bombshell after bombshell after bombshell. You know what? When everything is a bombshell and nothing has any basis in facts than nothing is a bombshell and any future allegations are just more crying and whining.

Boy who cried wolf is the perfect encapsulation of the Democrat position since 2016. They openly admitted they want to impeach the day he won and they have followed up in spades. Transparent is an understatement.

 

In a criminal court. This is not a criminal court.

In any case:
1- I did not say "that"
2- He has been proven already. Not by Democrats. By himself, mostly. But also by Republicans.
3- I'm amazed that so many on the right don't understand what Impeachment is. The only tactic Republicans have is to keep the people as ignorant as possible about what is going on. They haven't realized that "the people" also includes their own people. And that's not going to help Trump in a political trial either.

 

Why would I "just say" that? I don't "just say" what I believe. I show why. Including the pros and cons of all the alternatives.

It's called "reasoning"

 

I agree with some of your post one word.. id switch our Republican for Democrat

 

LOL, I have found being direct is far more effective then bloviating! Unless the objective is to try and make something sound much more convincing then it really is, or simply trying to put people to sleep ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

No I have used it as a leftist descriptive from the first day I registered on PF.. And the only thing that has changed is today it's far more accurate and intense!

 

that'd be the 'twilight zone'

 

Very much so!

 

The problem is that what you call "being direct" simply means... saying stuff... and no sign whatsoever of rational justification. That may be effective when you're "preaching to the choir" of Trump loyalists. But not very effective when talking to anybody else (except if your intention were to troll them, I guess). Certainly a tactic that, going back to the subject of this thread, won't help Trump at all.

 

Ya when you are "JUST SAYING STUFF" I never said the same useless banter couldn't be done in long form only, did I? Be direct and to the point.. Sorry, I figured you were aware of the technic, MY BAD

Have the Courage to Be Direct

 

Great post.

I would still add the "It's all a Democrat hoax/witch hunt" defense.

I listened to David Brooks (a conservative) on PBS last Friday. He said that many conservative voters in swing states, when he talked to them, actually openly admitted that they believe Trump did what was alleged in the impeachment proceedings. They just don't think that it is important, i.e. they go with the "economy is good, nothing else matters" defense.

 

ITMFA!

(Sorry, but I can't spell that out here, so you'll have to google it.)

 

Never gonna happen in the Senate. The Democrats know that, have always known that. Senate Republicans are party-before-country, defend-Trump-at-all-costs lackeys, nothing more. The GOP is lost to Trumpism.

The point of impeachment should never be political expediency, but rather congress performing their Constitutional duty when faced with a lawless president. Trump won't be ousted, but the indictments, which is what impeachment articles are, should keep him far away from winning reelection. At least I hope so.

 

In future, on this mostly right wing forum, I recommend that you include a simple dictionary description of any word you use that is three syllables or more. Just a suggestion.

 

I'm well aware of the technique you use. But I've never heard anybody call it "being direct". The PC name for it is "Red Herring". I've been asked not to use the word that I think is better suited to describe it, though. I prefer actual fact-based arguments. Thank you for the suggestion, but I pass...

Looks like you don't have a reasoned position on any of the questions I asked, There are too many interesting topics to waste time on red herrings. So... see you around...

 

I would include it in the "Kangaroo Court" Defense. But I haven't heard them express it that way in a while. Maybe because of all the Republicans coming forward to denounce Trump?

I'm sure just about every Republican, even those on this forum, knows that Trump is involved in criminal activities. But I don't think most here even care about the economy. What they care about is sticking it to immigrants.

 

Dude this crap didn't convince Hurd who isn't a Trump fan you really think you got chance any thing other than rabid anti trumpets most of whom are already gone. Oh and at the moment most of the polling data suggest that most likely will be punished for impeachment are swing state Democrats.

 

Proof works the other way around. You have to prove nefarious intentions. Trump doesn't have to prove his intentions were pure. This is America.

However, that only applies to impeachment. If he wants to establish confidence in the people prior to his next election then yes you are correct.

 

LOL, ya you are Here is another one for you, "contradiction".. It happen more frequently in those that insist on being indirect and subscribe to "Fluff filler" when corresponding with a group.. As much derogatory comments about Republicans and their low information and lack of education, I would think in mixed company that would at least would be reason enough to reduce the options or as they say "Dumb down the subject" to suit the audience ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Yes. This is America. The President of America has the obligation to prove to the people he/she serves that he/she is not a criminal whenever there are credible allegations against him or her. Otherwise, he or she is fired.

But I'm talking in general. Not about Trump. In Trump's case proof that he's guilty is so overwhelming that it doesn't matter what he does.

 

Credibile?

 

Exactly the opposite. Trump does not have to prove his innocence, you have to prove his guilt and you aren't within a mile of that as of yet.

 

For your assertion about the POTUS needing to prove their innocence against allegations, frankly I think you just have your burden of proof wrong. Credibility of the claim is largely in the eye of the beholder. Democrats largely see no credibility toward Hunter / Joe Biden committing wrongdoing in Ukraine, Obama for investigating the Trump campaign, or Hillary in doing whatever it was Republicans were obsessed with Benghazi over.

The burden of proof for positive claims must always be on those making the claim if you care at all about getting to the truth of matters.

And not really an argument that might save Trump, but I would submit it as a thing that I think will aid his defense: Democrats insistence on expediting the proceedings.

Their professions about how some things go beyond party or politics ring hollow given that they are trying to get the impeachment process over with in time for democratic primary. A real commitment toward facts would seek to compel testimony from all the major players, subpoena any relevant documents, and wait for the courts to rule on them before moving ahead with any articles.

Testimony from those directly involved with the effort to get Ukraine to engage in the investigations and who were in direct discussions with Trump would be more compelling. Moreover, any documents, recordings, transcripts, or videos that show Trump making a demand for the investigations would be especially useful for their case.

Absent these kinds of evidence, their case is not nearly as strong as it could be.

 

Nothing will save Trump from himself.

Trump continues to please Putin.

After rejecting American intelligence at Helsinki and siding with Putin over the Russian dictator's denial of Russian interference in our 2016 Presidential election, after ordering a retreat in Syria, allowing Russian troops to occupy American bases, and after blaming Ukraine, not Russia, for interfering in our 2016 Presidential election, Trump now threatens the good military order of the U.S. navy.

Trump's lackey, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer. Spencer supported the navy's leadership in the case of Navy Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher. For that, Trump ordered Esper to fire the navy secretary.

The AP reports, "Defense Secretary Mark Esper has fired the Navy’s top official, ending a stunning clash between President Donald Trump and top military leadership over the fate of a SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq.

"Esper said Sunday that he had lost confidence in Navy Secretary Richard Spencer and alleged that Spencer proposed a deal with the White House behind his back to resolve the SEAL’s case. Trump has championed the matter of Navy Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, who was acquitted of murder in the stabbing death of an Islamic State militant captive but convicted of posing with the corpse while in Iraq in 2017."

One way or the other, Trump has to be removed from office.

It is surprising to many that Republicans do not reject this foolish and incompetent President. In a note of pure irony, Republicans attacked Colonel Vindman because he was so concerned about the July 25 phone call to Zelensky that he went immediately to the NSC chief counsel, bypassing his immediate superior, former senior White House national security official Tim Morrison. Republicans claim Vindman violated the chain of command.

Trump's interference in the judgment of the navy's courts martial and high command ultimately resulted in the firing of the navy secretary. Talk about disrupting the chain of command, causing the dismissal of the navy secretary tops everything.

Republicans in Congress say little or nothing about Trump's disruption of the navy's chain of command.

The same is likely to be true of Trump's dwindling number of Trump's fans. Most will ignore this analysis. A tiny number will read the analysis but are incapable of responding. Another tiny number will read the analysis and respond with a wisecrack or place equal blame on Hillary or Bill or Barack or all three. Why they continue their support of this foolish and incompetent President is a mystery.

They don't know, either.

 

The Hill writes, "John Dean, the former White House counsel to President Nixon, on Monday mocked an assertion by President Trump's lawyer of having an "insurance" policy against Trump, calling it evidence of Trump's inner circle working as a "Mafia" crime family.

"Dean tweeted Monday that Rudy Giuliani's reference to possible compromising information related to Trump amounted to blackmail of the president of the United States."

"So Rudy owns The Donald. Blackmailing the President of the United States on Fox News is fitting! Does America really want a POTUS owned by Rudy Giuliani. Wonder if Rudy has a guaranteed pardon if Lev or Igor turn on him in the SDNY? Trump’s presidency is like a Mafia soap opera!" Dean wrote.

When not a threat to our national security as in the case of Helsinki, Syria, and a menace to good military order, the Trump administration is a joke.