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

If it's not a trial, then what is it?

 

I'm sorry, do you somehow have me confused with a Trump supporter? I can forgive you for making that kind of mistake given how partisan this forum is.

I purposely did not comment on my personal view of the charges. I do not feel it is necessary to refute your fallacious argument that the burden of proof is on those refusing assertions.

When I say burden of proof, I am not referring to proof as in a court of law. I'm referring to how it's used more generally in philosophy. You are currently shifting the burden of proof, which is a logical fallacy no matter how much you may believe it is warranted at the moment.

Given that both Democrats and Senators have their fingers to the polls, I feel you are deluding yourself if you think for a minute any large number of Republican senators are going to vote to convict due to any amount of evidence. If you want Republican senators to vote for a conviction, you need to sway the population at large and move the polls to a point where they either feel they have to or can get away with it. Considering that polls have shown a slight plurality in favor, the burden is most definitely still on the side of those backing impeachment.

You can certainly make the argument is that you feel the burden of proof has been met. I think that is a fair position to hold. Certainly quite a few officials were of the opinion that both the aid money and the White House visit were being withheld until an announcement about these investigations took place. I am inclined to believe that was likely the case given that the alternatives would be that these people are all lying or the Ukraine policy was so poorly communicated that everyone was mistaken.

However, that is not all he is really being accused of now is it? Beyond just establishing that money / a White House visit was held up until an announcement of these investigations took place, it is also necessary to establish that these were for Trump's personal benefit and not some official act or investigation. By far the best angle for that is the request for investigating the Bidens. But the alleged 2016 election interference, that is not as directly pertinent toward a 2020 election. Its inclusion creates the question if the intention behind the investigations had more to do with assisting in a 2020 election, or with Trump's vanity.

Fundamentally I think that is the burden that Democrats still need to prove - that the investigations were intended to help a 2020 candidate Trump. Intent, as you may know, is not as easy to prove. Which is why I think they would be better served to wait for the court rulings on especially subpoenaed documents, recordings, text messages, etc that would be far less refutable than people's memories or understandings of the policy.

Given that Trump is instructing witnesses not to appear and refusing to produce subpoenaed documents, that can certainly be counted as evidence of obstruction. But I am not sure that will be sufficient to sway people. Clinton likewise engaged in obstruction, but was not removed for it. I know we are discussing Trump here. But if you think that obstruction charges alone will suffice, given how the last impeachment turned out, I think that it is unlikely.

 

And others who were involved said there was no quid pro quo. No one was forced to do anything. Nothing was exchanged or held up specifically due to Trump or anything Trump “demanded”. AND the man Trump was talking to, the ONLY person that could say if he felt pressure to act ONLY if he declined what Trump demanded, said he doesn’t know WTF you’re talking about.

For quid pro quo to happen it had to actually happen. Countries demand and negotiate all the time. The only reason this is a big deal is because we have leaking partisan hacks entrenched in govt with agendas. Guaranteed if there we people bent on Obama’s impeachment buried throughout his administration, leaking his “thoughts” and daily conversations, you would probably have an aneurism hearing the same **** we’re hearing now. But Republicans aren’t the bitter children Democrats have become.

Obama said he would be more flexible with Russia our sworn “enemy” that wants to destroy us Sounds pretty fishy. Should have impeached him.

 

You are confused. That's an erroneous concept of the "burden of proof fallacy". Shifting the burden of proof becomes a fallacy only when a person denies having the burden to prove their own arguments. You seem to believe that there is some "absolute" burden of proof. The burden of proof in any form of analysis shifts constantly. There are particular conditions regarding the "burden of proof" in a criminal trial, but they are not relevant here since we have both agree that this is not what we are discussing.

An employee who is hired by a company, for example, is expected to do his job. At lower levels, it is easy to verify if the employee is doing their job. As they climb the corporate ladder, they become more trustworthy. They are not supervised day to day, and the employer trusts that they are doing their job correctly. If there is any indication or suspicion that they are not doing their job, the burden of proof lies on the employee. Not the employer.

Trump took an Oath of Office. It is his burden of proof to show that he is carrying it out properly, honestly and abiding by the conditions in that Oath of Office.

Did you read the OP?

When you finish reading the OP of this thread, you can continue with the OP of this other thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-is-all-this-impeachment-about.564668/

A President is removed because they commit flagrant impeachable acts. Not because you sway anybody. The only reason that it's true that a significant majority needs to be swayed this time is because Republicans in the Senate are unlikely to do their Constitutional duty if that doesn't happen. Given that they place their own political interest before that of their country.

Whether or not the President is guilty of Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, is decided by the evidence. Having said that... polls do not look good for Trump at this point.

We don't know what will be in his Articles of Impeachment. There are many crimes Trump has committed for which there is definite, undeniable and verifiable proof: obstruction of justice, witness tampering, nepotism, ... just too many. But if they include them all, the trial in the Senate would take ... maybe months. So the House will need to chose wisely which they will include for removal, and which they'll leave to criminal courts once he's no longer President.

What difference would that make? Extortion for vanity or extortion to assist him in the elections is still extortion.

Not difficult at all. People understand that immediately when they learn that he was extorting a foreign government to investigate the person he perceived as his opponent in 2020. If Trump wants to argue that that was not the case, but simply "vanity" (though I don't know how that would help him), that would be his burden.

Any one of those released by the courts will help.

But look.... With all the evidence we have now, if Trump sees no consequences, then oversight is dead. Presidents from now on have absolute power and the Republic is no more. And that's the end of that...

Sorry, Dr Franklin... we couldn't keep it.

 

Did Obama get consequences with trying to go around Congress with the Paris accords?

Thinking about it , yes he did..his heir Hillary is not president

 

Who is this "Obama"? Is that somebody Republicans should have impeached and dropped the ball? Congress Republicans are so incompetent... !

Who is Hillary? And how will they save Trump from being impeached?

 

Why the deflection from facts? That's all you do.

Once precedent is established, well..no one cares Bobby Kennedy case in point.