This is where I thought Trump devotees would go from the beginning.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tchups-michigan-wisconsin-florida/4488735002/

 

What about his presumed innocence unless and until proven guilty in the Senate? Believe in American due process much?

 

Near as I can tell the only charges in the AOI amounted to little more than a blanket statement that Trump pisses off congressional Democrats.

 

Bad questions get bad answers the real question and the one that matters is how many democrats will show up at the polls to vote for a candidate other than their own? This is especially relevant where Bernie is concerned in both directions.

 

Yes. this will definitely be their defense. It's the only reason why they brought in Dershowitz. A great criminal attorney, but outside the mainstream on Constitutional issues. The only way in which Republicans would be able to make up an excuse for rendering a non-guilty verdict is completely departing from all constitutional precedent. They hope he can argue against the Framers and sound just convincing enough to give them some sort of excuse to get them out of the mess without losing the Trump loyalists and, at the same time, maybe appear to people who are not too informed as if he were actually making a legal case.

 

There's a good reason. There are were no impeachable crimes. #1 If abuse of power were a crime, Obama would have been impeached for DACA, violation of immigration law. Obama also bypassed Congress to draw money from the treasury to subsidize insurers. #2 44 Presidents before Trump exerted executive privilege. Pelosi chose not to pursue the witnesses or documents.

I'm going with Dershowitz. There was no impeachable offense.

 

It’s simple. If Trump can be impeached for obstruction of congress then we basically should impeach every last president and every future president who did anything Congress didn’t like. Because that’s all it is. Democrats don’t like Trump. You can NOT impeach a president simply because you don’t like what he says. He hs to actually do something that is impeachable. Making up new reasons means every future president will be impeached that has a House in the other party’s control. It’s madness.

Dems have turned our govt into a circus over pride and hurt feelings. The biggest crybabies in the history of man. Obama should have been impeached over DACA or Benghazi or Fast and Furious or completely lying about the ACA. He obstructed and lied for 8 years if we run the Democrat playbook.

Impeach Trump. Fine. But Obama needs to be sent to prison right afterwards if you have any scruples. But the Left has no scruples or honor or self respect anymore. All they have is seething hatred and no initiative to help our country anymore. They would sooner enjoy seeing mass poverty as long as they can control which mouths get fed first. How many praised Venezuela and Cuba? How many praise China for fracks sake. It’s getting more disgusting by the day.

 

The charge of "Obstruction of Congress" is particularly weak and should be summarily dismissed. Congress is two houses: the lower House of Representatives and the upper-house, the Senate. For 229 Democrats to vote "yes", 198 Republicans to vote "no" and the Senate (half of Congress) not to vote on the "Obstruction of Congress" accusation is ridiculous today and will be just as ridiculous in the future. Nancy turned her House into a Kangaroo Court.

 

"Didn't like"? Is that why you think Trump is being impeached. Because Congress "didn't like" that Trump violated the law by withholding aid for personal political benefit, by attempting to break election laws. And then completely stonewalled the legitimate investigation as no other President in history (not even Nixon) has ever done?

 

Very limited states. I do not see Biden or Sanders as a strong candidate. I disagree with virtually everything Sanders claims as a platform. When I say viable, someone that I could vote for, that has at least a couple ideas or plans that I could get behind.

I'm not a Socialist, and Biden, well, he's not strong enough to actually hold a coherent plan together even if he had some good ideas.

 

Please provide what you 'think' the reason was for each of these resolutions.

House Resolutions

tinyurl.com/r8mk2zl 115-438 07/12/2017

tinyurl.com/rtedztk 115-621 11/15/2017

tinyurl.com/t3qt2k9 115-646 12/06/2017

tinyurl.com/ukvqgha 115-705 01/19/2018

tinyurl.com/ybgz9tgu 116-13 01/03/2019

tinyurl.com/vj6hvht 116-257 03/27/2019

tinyurl.com/v2eydru 116-498 07/17/2019

tinyurl.com/qtu9crh 116-755 12/10/2019

For extra credit, tell us the reason that impeachment was in the narrative before the election and even before Trump was nominated:

When Impeachment Started


https://tinyurl.com/r6ha95c Politico 04/17/2016 Could Trump Be Impeached ,,,, ?

https://tinyurl.com/urr8w4m Vanity Fair 12/20/2016 The Evidence To Impeach Donald Trump ,,,


https://tinyurl.com/vaur7gt Fox News 01/17/2017 Jumping the Gun? Rep Waters Floats Trump Impeachment ,,,

https://tinyurl.com/yx6qd5nc Mediaite 04/17/2017 Maxine Waters leads Anti-Trump Crowd in ‘Impeach 45’ Chant

 

Keep reaching. Did he work with Russia? Did he collude? Did he take away women’s rights? Do he destroy the economy or start WWIII? Did he bribe people? .

He’s not being accused of anything illegal anymore because the story keeps changing. Obstructing Congress? Make up more reasons. Maybe they’ll get him eventually. Toss enough **** at the wall and maybe something will stick.

 

There was no violation of Federal Election Law. Trump was requesting that Zelenskyy comply with the treaty that's been in place for 20 years.
https://tinyurl.com/yyj978pw

It really gets worse. Biden fixed it so for every $1B in aid we sent Ukraine, his son got $50,000 / month. He bragged about holding back funds until the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma and corruption surrounding Hunter was fired. Sounds like obstruction.

He missed a big one. Kerry's chief of staff, David Leiter, worked for ML Strategies, LLC as a lobbyist. Burisma paid him $90,000 in 2014 ,,, no telling what they paid him in 2013 since he was not registered. Leiter turned around and bought Ed Markey who was on Anderson Cooper's show talking corruption last week, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, and several other Democrats.

So, when the Democrats donate US taxpayer money to Ukraine, Democrats and the DNC get kickbacks. It's not just a Hunter problem. It's a Democrat problem ---- all the while working under a Treaty that has the force of law to join Ukraine in fighting corruption.

 

This Is What a Legitimate Anti-Corruption Effort in Ukraine Would Look Like
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ine-corruption-rudy-giuliani-joe-biden-229828

STEP 1: Stop cutting State Department anti-corruption funding
STEP 2: Alert the Ukraine ambassador, and let him deal with it
STEP 3: Request cooperation (officially)

Trump and his team have another tool at their disposal to investigate corruption in Ukraine related to an ongoing criminal case: the United States’ Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) with the country. MLATs are international agreements that establish a formal process for one country to gather evidence in another country for a criminal investigation.

If there were an actual U.S. government investigation into alleged criminal activity by Americans in Ukraine, or foreigners suspected of violating U.S. laws, a request for cooperation could have been made through a formal process that’s run by DOJ’s Office of International Affairs. Once MLAT requests are vetted by the DOJ, they are transmitted to a foreign country’s “central authority”—in this case, Ukraine's Ministry of Justice. If granted in the foreign country, this arrangement could allow the DOJ to obtain documents, locate people, take testimony, request searches and seizures, freeze assets and more. If the United States were actually pursuing criminal investigations into corruption in Ukraine, U.S. officials would have made a request under our MLAT for cooperation.

The United States even has a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLAA) with China, the country that Trump called on last week to investigate Biden, after the whistleblower complaint was made public.

There is no shortage of official options when it comes to cooperation on criminal matters and fighting corruption with a foreign country—whether it be with the Ukrainians or the Chinese or anyone else. If the president actually cared about addressing corruption in Ukraine more broadly, he would ensure that experts like INL staffers at the State Department have the resources they need to do their jobs. The fact that Giuliani was his answer suggests that something very different is going on here.

 

Efforts to Impeach Donald Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

Various people and groups assert that U.S. president Donald Trump has engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his presidency,[1][2] and talk of impeachment began before he took office.[3][4] Formal efforts were initiated by representatives Al Green and Brad Sherman, both Democrats, in 2017, the first year of his presidency.[5][6] On September 24, 2019, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi announced that six committees would undertake formal impeachment inquiries after reports about controversial interactions between Trump and the country of Ukraine.[7]

Grounds asserted for impeachment have included possible violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign dignitaries; alleged collusion with Russia during the campaign for the 2016 United States presidential election; alleged obstruction of justice with respect to investigation of the collusion claim; and accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. Since the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during 2017 and 2018, the likelihood of impeachment during that period was considered by all to be low.[8][9] A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the House by a 58–364 margin.[10] The Democrats gained control of the House in 2019 and launched multiple investigations into Trump's actions and finances. Speaker Nancy Pelosi initially resisted calls for impeachment. In May 2019 she indicated that Trump's continued actions, which she characterized as obstruction of justice and refusal to honor congressional subpoenas, might make an impeachment inquiry necessary. An increasing number of House Democrats and one Republican were requesting such an inquiry.

 

Willing to call forth the requested subpoenas for witnesses, documents, phone/text & email records (including tax forms)?

 

Only if a court decides those witnesses and documents are not protected under Executive Privilege rights. Otherwise, the requests represent Presidential harassment by the House of Representatives.

 

On Emoluments, Trump has donated to the Treasury profits earned from foreign dignitaries saying at his properties. He makes those payments at the end of each tax year. He donates his salary less income tax each quarter to agencies of the US government It comes to about $78,000 / quarter. His kids also work for us for free. He will likely have lost money to absorb a ration of sh-t.

Trump was never a racist, White Nationalist or any of that junk before he ran against Hillary to defeat the 3rd term of Saul Alinsky.

On subpoena's, 44 Presidents exerted executive privilege before Trump. Since the Democrats indicated that they planned to shower him with frivolous subpoenas, he did what any sane person would do, defer to the courts. He never defied a court ordered subpoena ,,, he may have appealed them, but he didn't defy the courts.

 

As usual...more Trumpian fantasies...debunked.

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people
https://www.businessinsider.com/red-flags-in-trump-google-bias-millions-votes-report-2019-8

Justin Levitt, an associate dean for research and professor at Loyola Law School who focuses on constitutional law and the law of democracy, told Business Insider there were multiple points of contention with Epstein's 2017 findings, which have become the basis for the president's tweet on Monday.

For one, Epstein wrote in his report that after the study was completed, results from participants using Google's email service, Gmail, were discarded, thus changing the number of eligible participants to a lower, undisclosed number.

Epstein said Gmail users were removed because some of their search queries appeared "automated" and, overall, those using Google's email service saw results that were far less biased than non-Gmail users.

"That's a weird methodological choice to take some of your results and throw them out after you've done the experiment because they seem to not fit your designed story," Levitt said. "That's something that sets off a bunch of red flags." ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Trump wrong on Google manipulating election results
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trump-wrong-google-manipulating-election-re/

A questionable approach

We reached out to Epstein to ask if he took issue with how Trump characterized his findings.


"I sure do," said Epstein, who supported Clinton in 2016. "I have never said that Google deliberately manipulated the 2016 election."


When we asked what formula and assumptions Epstein used to reach his bottom-line conclusion, we did not hear back. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.


Experts cited several major flaws in Epstein’s paper. ...

 

He was impeached based on the evidence the House decided to secure. That evidence is either sufficient to convict or it isn't. No one can claim that Trump got a fair hearing in the basement with Schiff stepping out after the hearings and lying like a cheap toupee to attack Trump.

I have no idea what the Republicans will do, but they are in control of the Senate process and after the joke in the House, I wouldn't blame them for nixing a new witch hunt. The prosecutors had their chance.

 

So I guess that means the GOP is NOT willing to question the subpoenaed witnesses or review the necessary documents & records...and are hoping the courts will decide in their favor (if even the Dems are willing to take the time & effort to go through the courts).

As expected.

 

The House already voted to impeach. The investigation is complete. What more to you want. No doubt, Republicans would be happy to question Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

 

There has been no decision yet on witnesses. The Senate will hear from the Impeachment Managers and then from Trump's defense team. After that, Senators will submit written questions which will be read by Justice Roberts. If Senators feel they need more witnesses and documents at that point in the trial, they will vote on whether or not to have them. Both Democrat and Republican Senators will be able to make those requests. That's what a "fair process" looks like.

Pelosi should take notes, but the obsessed Speaker will probably be too busy working on plans for Trump's second impeachment.

 

Hahaha. Justin Levitt has also authored work in coordination with the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive liberal policy institute.

So a Hillary-supporting Democrat expert says that Google search-results subliminally influenced the 2016 and 2018 election outcomes, and a progressive-liberal "expert" says, "That's not true!"

The moral of the story: Maybe the internet is biased, as Epstein indicates. You can find an "expert" to back up or deny whatever you want to believe.

 

In the real world, a fair trial is fair to the defendant. I challenge anyone to find evidence that a fair trial is a trial that's fair to the witch hunter. In the end, the Democrats won't let go of this because, as they admitted, it's the only way they can win the White House. Isn't that pathetic?!