WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 2)

Yeah...Nadler just quoted one. Barr believes impeachment is the remedy to the DoJ policy of not indicting a sitting president and that such impeachment may be for the misuse of the office - i.e. an abuse of power. It's not certain...but rumor is that Alan Dershowitz will argue for the Trump side, there is no such thing as an abuse of power.

 

I didn't hear it so I have no idea if he took it out of context or just outright told more lies. I did hear Alan argue "Abuse of Power" and I agreed with him that nothing President Trump did was an abuse of power or rose to that level.

I think the impeachment hearings are a shame that was perpetrated because the Russian Hoax nonsensne fell through.

 

What about Russian interference in the 2016 election to help Bonespurs was a "hoax"?

 

That is the system though isn’t it? He was elected fairly by a system which is constitutional right? I am not sure that America would survive very long without the electoral college. The differences are vast and without a voice, it would only lead to one thing.

I actually think Trump is pretty close to the middle. I certainly wouldn’t call him right wing, he's very liberal for a so called ‘conservative’.

 

IMO, that's why we have a simple majority, in the House, necessary for impeachment, which is basically an indictment based on "probable cause," coupled to a higher bar in the Senate of a 2/3rds majority needed for conviction. Note that the 2/3rds Senate majority is the same necessary for treaties and to overcome a Presidential veto. Also...my personal theory is that House impeachment will become increasingly similar to a "vote of no confidence" in the parliamentary system, primarily because of the change in the electorate due to the widening of the "right to vote." Remember, in 1787, when this process was initially written down, the electorate excluded just about everyone other than adult males who owned property...i.e. there was less polarization.
So...just as an indictment requires "probable cause," and does NOT require the certainty of "beyond a reasonable doubt," so may a President be impeached on a lower standard than that required for conviction and removal from office.

 

So how can anyone claim that the will of the people is to remove Trump through impeachment?

 

I believe he took it from Barr's memo to the White House, which he wrote before he was named AG...to explain his legal philosophy in regard to the presidency. Actually, the Russian Hoax didn't fall through. The Mueller Report confirmed that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to hold "beyond a reasonable doubt" - the higher standard DoJ voluntarily abides by to enhance their conviction rate - that there was a conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign. The only reason I can think of for Trump to reopen the investigation, within days, via Rudy his personal attorney, would be to try and disprove the Mueller Report's conclusion of Russian election interference. Why would he want to do that? Again, possibly to eliminate the reason for many of the Obama sanctions against the Russians for their interference.

 

Trump didn't engage in any corruption. No matter how many times you tell yourself that, and no matter how many times your friends agree with you, Trump still didn't engage in corruption when he joked about Russia hacking Clinton's emails.

 

The "Russian interference in the 2016 election to help Trump" part.

 

I don't know. Maybe you should find someone who's made that claim and ask them.

 

In that case, I am guessing anyone saying anything on impeachment anywhere could be contradicted. "Abuse of Power" would be in the eyes of those that claim the office is being abused. So basically, you could make up anything you want and call it abuse of power.

 

Except that all of the intelligence entities have said that. You know more about it than they do? Are you some sort of super spy, like James Bond?

 

shhhh, he still thinks that is true. lol

Criminal investigation still underway by Durham.

 

Of course not! Why, that's just silly! HAWHAWHAW!

He was only fightin' corruption by withholding aid in return for a public announcement of an "investigation" into the Bidens so that he could cheat in the next election! That's perfectly fine! Yay!!

 

Durham is investigating whether the Russians did interfere in the 2016 election?

You can't even get your own phony narrative right. Jesus.

 

The phony narrative you just made up? lol

Wait until the Mueller report comes out. You got him for sure, then. ROFL

 

You haven't read the Mueller Report. So, it's amusing to me that you act like an expert on what's in that report.

Is there anything else that you haven't read that you're an expert on?

"Err, like, Durham is gonna show us that the Russians are nice and didn't interfere in the 2016 election!" *LOL* That's not even what he's investigating.

 

Oh, look here! The eeeeeevil "Deep State" is at it again!

You guys need to assess your goofy slogans against the facts.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/d...russian-interference-in-the-us-election/2433/

From the report:

Key Judgments
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression
of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these
activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
in this judgment

 

Basically - if you have sufficient votes - yes. And, various people have argued that, including former President Ford (when he was Speaker of the House). IMO, there should be some additional legal basis, although that basis need not be limited to statutory crimes. When we get into abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, we are to a great degree discussing political theory and the separation of powers doctrine, and where the "sovereignty of the people" lies. I do not believe in the unitary presidency theory, which I saw once as an expansion of presidential powers to justify foreign interventions, such as the Iraq invasion. I see this to be a similar intervention (into Ukrainian), based on an expansion of presidential powers. I also see the GOP stance so far, as a rejection of traditional American conservatism favoring limited government. But, then, many true conservatives have already left the GOP.
Paradoxically, IMO, the Trump base consists primarily of those people who have a problem with authority and have often wanted to tell their bosses to "go and shove it." Trump, IMO, plays to those who have not been successful and are looking for someone...such as illegal immigrants, globalization, NATO, China, the "establishment," or the Deep State, to blame that lack of success upon. I also think once his "contradictions" catch up with him and are rejected by his base, he'll fall flat. All of that is NOT to say we don't need political reform...just that he's not the answer to the problem.

 

He is a witness in the trial.

 

So just opinion.

 

You don't even trust Trump's intelligence appointees on that point, huh?

 

There are witnesses? Is there a list?

 

I'm going to guess that you are also incapable or unwilling to tell us a hypothetical example of a fact which would lead you to agree with the Intelligence Assessment on Russian Hacking.

 

WTF ? "Targeted Hit" ?

If someone is "trying to remove Trump" they have to have FACTS to do that. You act sas tho they can just make an accusation, and then remove him.

They ARE trying to prove their case, but the POTUS has the power to literally deny them access to any evidence or testimony. So they are charging him with abusing his power, and obstructing their investigation. Its a pretty simple timeline