Shouldn't Trump have a defense?

Five surveys released in the past two days show that public support for Trump’s impeachment is approaching a majority — and rising.
https://news.yahoo.com/polls-trump-impeachment-support-on-the-rise-50-percent-155653413.html

Trump's initial reaction was to rage irrationally against the unknown whistleblower who exposed his caper, and try to discredit him.

That failed.

The intelligence community inspector general reported

"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both firsthand and other information," the statement said. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible."

Michael Atkinson, the inspector general, determined that the complainant had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct," and while the whistleblower noted they were not a "direct witness to the president's July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian president, the inspector general of the intelligence community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG's preliminary review supported the complainant's allegations."
​

Trump had raged,

​

"WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES
JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT?
DRAIN THE SWAMP!"​

Whistleblower rules were not changed.

Trump's handlers - those who recognized the desperate need to try the cover-up, hiding the transcript of Trump's asking his "favor" of a foreign government to contrive dirt on a political rival - may wish to restrain his hysterical nonsense about "SPIES!" and "TRAITORS!" and try to present at least a marginally credible defense.

Tantrums, mud flinging, lies, and diversions are not working.

What defense counsel would admonish his client to rave inanely and incessantly (unless seeking a dismissal due to mental incapacity.)

Putting Trump's personal attorney on tv so that he can
appear to soil himself at every question is not working.​

Isn't it time for adult supervision?

If that isn't acceptable, at least bring diGenova & Toensing out from deep cover.

​

 

Witch caught, hunt over. Burning to follow.

 

Hahaha! Trump does have a defense: he did not commit any crime.

 

The innocent do not need a defense, so why are the democrats always defending one another?

 

Impeachment 'hearings' is win/win for Dems at least until articles are scheduled for a House vote. Pelosi completely controls this process. She can use it to stir the headlines either toward this process through the committee chairs , or stall it to a snails pace so that media covers the primary issues. If polling starts looking bad, the House can quietly freeze it until after the election. It is definite advantage in any federal appellate court case on Congressional oversight v executive powers. Literally everything Trump says or does looks like either bullying, payback, dirty pool or desperation in response.

Think of it this way. If nearly half of all Americans say they are willing to have Trump removed for them a year before the election, what do you think that says about the number who will vote against him in November? If Trump promises that the next four years will look just like the last four years... Its just not a winning argument these days.

 

Don't all criminals say that?

 

Denial should keep Giuliani on camera. Huzzah!

Current Trump defense strategy:

"WHAAAA!
EVERYBODY'S BEING MEAN TO ME!
WHAAAA!"​

 

Gee, the man hasn't had a trial yet but he is already guilty. And just who is ignoring the U.S. Constitution?

 

The presumption of innocence is not mentioned directly in the constitution. It predates it as a broad legal principle first in Roman, then English law solidified in 1791 and in American law in 1895. It does not apply to discussions outside a courtroom, in the media, or online and it does not even need to apply to an impeachment hearing in the House. Donald Trump will not lose liberty or property in these impeachment hearings. He will not be in a court of law. The worst that can happen to him is that he eventually gets fired from his current job by a 100 old men and women and the Senate can apply whatever presumptions they choose in their trial. .

 

​

 

He has to have because orange man bad. You know he's racist and sexist all these ists and if you don't agree with that you are every bit as bad as he is...

So essentially he's guilty because they hate him.

 

Lol...Then why does he act like he did?

 

He's also a rabid gay basher, as are his supporters, who are now calling Schiff a gay Jew as the ultimate slur.
I hope you enjoy getting in bed with those people.

 

Yeah he's literally Hitler Satan and the black death personified.

 

The situation is basically:

44% approve of Trump
6% undecided
Everyone else wants impeachment, 25th amendment, something, anything to remove him.

 

Trump is crazy....

Donald Trump 'suggested shooting migrants in the legs ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49901878
3 hours ago · US President Donald Trump suggested shooting migrants in the legs to slow them down, according to a new book. The book, by two New York Times journalists, says Mr Trump suggested extreme methods of...

 

Some call it a reason for impeachment -- some call it a coup.

 

LOL! What is wrong with how he acted?

 

The numbers are not static, and with an inquiry to reveal the truths that some seem hellbent on hiding, lying about, or diverting from only beginning, and Trump with no coherent defense yet, it's very likely that a better-informed electorate will increasingly form fact-based conclusions.

Emotion-driven Trump worshippers will never be persuaded by rational considerations, of course. As we have been told, they would not care if their messiah shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue. They still believe that climate change is a Chinese hoax, Mexico will pay for his big, beautiful wall, Obama wasn't born in the US, Trump will release his tax returns, and millions of invisible people all voted against Trump - among many, many other crackpot notions.

 

Funny you should ask.

An inquiry to answer your question has been initiated.

In the meantime, you can share Republican Senator Mitt Romney's expectation that the significant truths will be revealed - and that's a very good thing.

“The consequences are being considered by the House, and I’m not going to give advice to Speaker Pelosi.
She’s going to do whatever she thinks is in the best interests of the country — and in the best interests of her
position in power and her party. She’s pursuing that. We’ll see where that leads.
There will be additional information that comes out as the whistleblower is heard from.”

THE OPPOSING VIEW:


"SPIES! TRAITORS! FAKE STUFF! A CHINESE HOAX!
PRAYER RUGS AND DUCT-TAPED WOMEN EVERYWHERE!"
​

 

I think that you are being premature in your verdict, and I persist in stressing the need for Trump to retain capable counsel and mount a credible defense. A congressional inquiry demands no less.

The hysterical outbursts may appeal to the fringe, but such emotional, evidence-free exudations are woefully ineffective in a fact-based venue.

No capable defense attorney would advise his client, "Be petulant, throw public tantrums, and indulge in baseless allegations and spurious attacks."

 

Invoking foreign aid to win an election is a crime

 

As Obama once said, there is no way a foreign country can influence a national election. Going after Trump is like grabbing Superman's cape. Trump takes no bull. He is now ready to unload on the democrats and their helpmates, the MSM.

 

Top lawyers won't represent Trump.. He never paid his bills and he wouldn't take their advice. Let him hang ….

 

LOLOL.. Trump's tantrums won't solve his problems.