What Trump's "defense" will be is starting to become clear...

Both! Trump supporters' actual arguments are all strawman arguments. No reference to the facts. Nothing of substance.

 

If they're strawmen then why pretend to have responses for them? You're not making any sense, but I supposed that is a normal day for you.

 

I know no such thing. Why in the world would you assume that?

But, of course, Obama didn't do that. And I doubt he would. Because if he were actually concerned about corruption he would have followed procedure. Any President of any Party who actually had that concern, and not just looking for the political benefit would have followed the procedure

Up to this point, you are probably questioning my response to your hypothetical. But here is one thing that nobody can question: Obama would never obstruct the investigation like Trump has. Because such obstruction, in and of itself, is an impeachable High Crime.

Having said all that, here is the question: How does that exonerate Trump? I understand that you believe that Democrats are as partisan as Republicans are. They are not but, leaving that aside, what does that have to do with this?

The fact that maybe another President could have done it (though you know they didn't) and that some of the supporters of that President you believe would have tried to excuse the behavior... what does it mean to you? Does it mean that, from now on, Presidents should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want? Even perpetuate themselves in power against the will of the people... ? Or by manipulating the will of the people (which is the same thing)?

Could you be more explicit on what it is that you conclude from all this? I mean, I understand that you would be upset. But this is not about upsetting or not upsetting you. It's about keeping the rule of law, following the constitution, and keeping the Republic in place.

 

As I read through your respectful answer to me, two things crossed my mind. Here they are ...

"Following procedure" - Is that like expressing your concerns to the State Department and/or the Attorney General and having them look into it? Perhaps that would be "following procedure." My question is, (at the risk of sounding like Hillary) "What difference does it make?" What difference is there between a peer to peer request from our president to their president versus "following procedure" and having your underlings do it? So if the President contacted the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State contacted the American ambassador to Ukraine, and the American ambassador contacted the Ukrainian ambassador, and the Ukrainian ambassador contacted the Ukrainian Secretary of State, who in turn contacted the President of Ukraine - what difference does it make? And it strikes me that Trump likes direct engagement (think of N. Korea). I think he believes it is more effective to directly engage people rather than using his surrogates.

The second thing ... The point of the hypothetical was to show my belief that all this outrage by the Democrats is driven by partisan politics. If the situation were in reverse politically, they would be saying that America deserved to know everything, including dirt, about a candidate before making a decision as important as choosing a president. They would be saying that President Obama was saving America from making the mistake of electing someone who had engaged in corrupt activities in a foreign country - especially a country as sensitive as Ukraine. I can just hear the narrative now, in all its "righteousness and sincerity."

Do you really, sincerely, think the Democrats would be trying to impeach Obama for this? Or would they be defending him as having done what was necessary to protect America from electing a corrupt president? I think they would be saying it was his duty to do what he did, and they would defend him unconditionally.

And this is what bothers me about the whole impeachment thing. It's the hypocrisy. And additionally, it's wasting years trying to unseat this president one way or the other. And in those years, getting nothing done for the American people. I honestly think these Democrats in Congress have stolen their pay from us and they should pay it back because they have done absolutely nothing.

 

Why wouldn't I have responses to them? You're the one not making any sense?

Do you actually know what a strawman is? Just in case, a strawman is an argument used to draw attention from the main argument. For example, the question is not how long it takes Democrats to impeach, or if they "hate" Trump, or if the judicial has weighed in or not, or who accuses him.... and so on. The only question is if Trump committed the actions that he's being accused of or not... And not a single one of their arguments addresses that. Not that they deny it... they simply don't address it.

A strawman argument is an attack on a peripheral aspect to draw attention away from the main question. But being peripheral doesn't mean that they can't be responded to.

That is what "strawman argument" means.

 

Is this a question?

As far as I'm aware, there are plenty of arguments addressing these concerns. There is not a single citation or source in your OP. You're merely pretending that others have created the strawman, in an attempt to cover your own fallacious reasoning.

 

The difference is that the latter is legal. The former is a High Crime when it relates to a political opponent.

Great. I understand. So long as you understand that that fact doesn't make Trump less guilty.

The Democrats in Congress? I doubt it. Not proactively. But the Republicans would. Is that what upsets you? Why? The Republicans would, and they would be right to do so. But that's an immensely hypothetical scenario. In reality, at the present moment in History, Democrats would not elect somebody like Trump. Even if they did their ideological bidding.

I'm trying to deal with your hypothetical in a serious manner. But it's not reasonable. I mean, who are you talking about? Again, if you mean Democrats in Congress... they would look for an alternative explanation until the point where such an explanation would lead to ridicule. Which is the point where Republicans in Congress are today. But, at that point, there would be very little support for that President among Democrats in general, and it just wouldn't make much sense to defend him.

It's not. But, what is it you're trying to say? That you believe Trump is guilty and think he should be removed because you are not a hypocrite like you believe they are?

What "years" are you talking about? Democrats have held the House only since the start of this year. They have been completely out of power to "try" anything whatsoever until less than a year ago.

Look.. Impeachment is necessary when a President becomes Inebriated with power, like this one is. But when they try to perpetuate themselves by abusing their power... at that point Impeachment is an urgent obligation.

 

Absolutely! What in the world did you get this idea that I shouldn't respond to them?

What the f... hell? The first words on my post are

"From today's hearings..."

 

No it isn't. Who says that corruption cannot be uncovered by a political opponent? Isn't that exactly what the Democrats have tried to do furiously ever since before Trump was elected? As a voter, I want to know everything Joe Biden did with regard to Ukraine, Burisma, and his son. As voters, we deserve to know. No?

Yes, it does actually. A finding of guilt based upon partisan politics and visceral hatred is a sham finding. It has no credibility.

I would remind you that the Democrats almost elected Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most blatantly corrupt and incompetent politician in recent history.

And in the hypothetical, if you don't think the Democrats would impeach Obama for the exact same thing, then they have no credibility in impeaching Trump for it. And no, in my opinion, the Republicans wouldn't. Do you know what would be more like the Republicans? It would be to drop that candidate like a hot potato when his corruption was exposed and not complain about how it was found out. Meanwhile, the Democrats would have supported Obama's actions in lock step.

No. I don't believe Trump did anything that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and it would be the same if Obama had done it. As I said earlier, we all deserve to know everything we can find out about a leading candidate for the presidency.

Please ....

Well if impeachment is necessary when a President becomes inebriated with power, then you would have had to impeach Hillary on Day One.

Since when is it "abusing their power" when a politician asks for an investigation? Isn't that what virtually every Democratic member of Congress did with regard to the Russian collusion hoax?



Here's the thing, Golem. Whenever some president does something so bad that it warrants impeachment, the Republicans and Democrats will cross the party lines. So will the public. But my whole point - the reason for the hypothetical - is to point out that we don't have that level of evil conduct by the president with regard to Ukraine.

All we have is a partisan prosecution - an abuse of power on their part - over something they wouldn't prosecute if the president was from their own party. I don't think that's even debatable. Hell, Joe Biden bragged about withholding foreign aid from Ukraine until he got what he wanted from them. Where is the Democratic outrage over that?

Seth

 

You are basing your entire argument on something that never happened.

Please provide a documented case where a President other than Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in our Presidential election for that President's benefit. Please provide a documented case where a President other than Trump asked a foreign power to investigate an American, who just happened to be that President's main rival, and withheld Congressionally approved military aid as an incentive to investigate the American.

Now, if you can do that then you have established a precedent for an impeachable offense that Trump copied.

 

Who the electorate votes for is purely up to the electorate. Trump did not ask the Ukranian president to interfere in our elections. He asked for an investigation of corruption.

If the Bidens were involved in corruption in a foreign country, we the voters deserve to know everything about it, and therefore, Trump did nothing wrong in asking for it. It would be the same if Obama asked for an investigation of Trump's corrupt activities in a foreign country, something I'm sure you would support wholeheartedly.

Don't deny it. Don't deny your hypocrisy. I'm right and you know it.

 

The constitution. It's bribery. It's a way of perpetuating himself in power in a manner different from the Will of the People.

Nope. When have Democrats ever extorted a foreign President to obtain dirt on a Political opponent?

If it were based solely on partisan politics maybe. But there is so much evidence that to deny reality simply would make the denier look foolish.

And, if that were true, how would it save Trump from Impeachment? Maybe one day you'll understand how desperate Trump defenders look when they bring up strawman arguments like that one.

Hillary could be the greatest criminal in history, but that doesn't justify Trump extorting the President of Ukraine to obtain dirt on his opponent.

Who cares? How is any of that going to save Trump? Strawman arguments are not going to exonerate Trump.

This is not about convincing you, or any Trump loyalist. It's not about convincing me either. This is about convincing the American People. And the evidence is overwhelming. And not even a whiff of evidence that would exonerate him.

See Point 7 here (OP)

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-will-be-is-starting-to-become-clear.565241/

There is no need for evil conduct to impeach. We just need impeachable acts.

See point 8 from the above link.

 

As expected, Trump will not challenge the evidence against him.

The Post writes, "Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, indicated to the House Judiciary Committee on Friday that Trump would not be sending attorneys to its hearing on Monday, when the panel charged with drafting articles of impeachment will hear evidence from Intelligence Committee lawyers on the investigation into the president’s conduct toward Ukraine.

"The scathing, two-paragraph letter reiterated the White House’s protests that the Democrats’ impeachment investigation violated Trump’s due process rights. Cipollone did not explicitly say the White House would not participate in the House process going forward, but gave no indication that it would."

The letter is typically Trumpian. Trump makes accusations, but never explains them. In this case, the White House has made the claim that the "impeachment investigation violated Trump’s due process rights," but the two paragraph letter does not explain how the impeachment investigation is violating Trump's due process. In the case of the Judiciary Committee, they have invited Trump's lawyers and his witnesses. Schiff did the same in the open hearings of the Intelligence Committee. In both cases, Trump has refused then he turns around and says he is being denied due process while calling the Constitutionally mandated impeachment proceedings a hoax.

Trump is relying on lies and attempted deception. Those are the actions of a very guilty President.

 

This is why Democrats are so eager to impeach Trump. As you will see, so should Republicans.

“I would like you to do us a favor, though.”

This is from the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. It was provided by the White House. The following is a quote from Trump.

Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who· was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,· the woman., was bad news and the people she was dealing with in.the Ukraine.were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of.talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

“What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted the reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied [Trump's chief of staff] Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/mulvaney-ukraine-get-over-it.html

After the July 25 phone call with Zelensky, as he usually does, Trump doubled down on the Biden investigation. On Oct. 3, in a news conference on the White House lawn, he called on Ukraine and China to look into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump said when asked what he wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the former veep and his son.

“They should investigate the Bidens,” Trump said. “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-calls-for-ukraine-china-to-investigate-the-bidens.html

There is no getting around it. It is all well and good that Republicans can say Trump did nothing to cause his removal from office, but if the Republicans in the Senate exonerate Trump, if Trump's fans continue to insist impeachment is a sham, then the Republican Party and Trump's fans are saying:

A) The President is permitted to ask for foreign interference in our elections to improve his chances of winning.

B) The President is permitted to use military aid approved by Congress to a country fighting Russian aggression as a means of extortion to compel a foreign leader to comply with his wishes.

C) To cover up his deeds, the President is permitted to use obstruction of justice.

D) The President is permitted to ignore Congressional oversight as mandated by our Constitution.

Is this what the Republican Party wants to be remember for?

 

First, you base your premise on something that never happened.

Next you base an argument on an "if." This has been going on for nearly three months. In all that time, not Trump, not Republicans in Congress, not Trump's fans on PF have been able to find any corruption involving the Bidens.

Trump did not use the word, "corruption," in either his April 21 call to Zelensky nor his July 25 call.

 

No. The will of the people is going to be expressed in the voting booth in less than a year. You as much as admitted that if Obama had done the same thing, the Democrats would not have impeached him, and I pointed out that neither would the Republicans. This means that the impeachment has no real credibility. When a president does something bad enough to warrant impeachment, members of Congress and the public will cross over party lines and support impeachment. If and when we see that crossover, then we'll know we've got something that rises to the level where we have to remove a president. Obviously, that has not happened, and it is not going to happen in this case.

The American electorate deserves to know everything about Joe Biden's involvement with Ukraine, including the appointment of his son to a high paying job that he was not qualified for in Ukraine. To that end, President Trump has done the American electorate a favor by bringing all of this corruption to light.

Blinded by hatred, the Democrats, ironically, have helped bring the Biden corruption to the fore for all to see. The public wasn't even thinking about that before the Democrats went off on their Ukraine obsession. But when you're acting on hatred, you do dumb things.

 

It's a hypothetical, Sandy. And the point of it was to cast light on the hypocrisy of the impeachers - people like you.

When we have a good reason to remove a president by impeachment, there will be no need for hypocrisy, and the overwhelming majority of Americans will agree with it.

 

So biased, it's not just that there is no crime, there is no impeachable act. Who even needs to talk about crime, when there isn't even anything slightly morally, ethnically, wrong in any sense.

Trump's call was excellent, he didn't say anything wrong. Trump has one motive, and that's to catch corruption. And Biden is head to toe full of corruption.

Democrats just want Biden to be immune from investigation. Just because you are running for president, doesn't mean you are immune from investigation.

 

If Biden were not running for President, I think all would agree (except the most rabid Trump haters, like the people here) that the phone call would be non controversial, even uninteresting.

But the Bidens can't insulate themselves from investigations by running for office! That is perverse. If anything, they should be more accepting of scrutiny, yes, even if Trump is the one calling for it.

They'd have a better argument if there were nothing fishy on its face about the Burisma deal with young Biden. That would be arguably muckraking. But if no mud materialized, it would be embarrassing to the investigators.

What if Don Jr. were to get a consulting job in, say, the lumber or the cosmetics manufacturing business in Russia, at $50,000 per month. I will not hear anyone say that that would not raise eyebrows and merit investigation.

This is a transparent diversion by Democrats.

 

Say it again.

 

He has not asked for "interference." If he had asked the Ukranians to tamper with machines or invent a story about bribery of Biden's son, ir invent a story about prostitutes urinating to entertain Biden, it would be one thing. But he didn't. We all know who did that, I hope, since we are all so well informed and all.

The phone call did not constitute extortion (notice that the poster has eased away from bribery)

Obstruction is prohibited, but it involves more than mere non cooperation, especially if the non cooperation is arguably based in a legal privilege. It requires corrupt intent to interfere with or attempt to interfere with an official proceeding.

I don't know what "permitted to ignore oversight" is supposed to mean. Congress certainly has powers that cannot be affirmatively interfered with (obstruction of justice), but passively ignoring a bloviating congressman pretending to be the reincarnation of Nathan Hale, to the applause of a fawning media, is not interference, and therefore not a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

The people does not express their will when they are fooled and manipulated by the sitting President who abuses their powers of office. This was explicitly discussed by the framers, as was explained on Wednesday's deposition.

The rest of your post is just the repetition of the strawman arguments already addressed on the OP.

 

Every single fact we have says that there was. Not a single one points to the contrary.

See point 8 on the OP. Denial is not going to help Trump or Republicans who would blindly vote to protect him.

Ok... now we understand that you are just repeating wingnut media talking points. Because not even the Republican's own legal counsel says that . If they try to use that as defense, they will be blown out of the water.

Look to hearing that over and over from Trump and on your wingnut media. But definitely not from anybody who is serious. Least of all Republicans in Congress or Trump's legal team during the Impeachment Trial.

 

One isn't required to put on a defense if the offense is deficient (and it is, as I have repeatedly demonstrated). We left that notion behind hundreds of years ago.

And even if that weren't the case, you'd have to convince at least 20 Republicans, all Democrats (45) , and all Independents(2) in the Senate to agree with you legally, and then, if they were to do so, which they won't, to also agree that it is prudent to convict and remove (it's not like a jury who has sworn an oath to convict). Liberal law professors Turley and Dershowitz disagree with you publicly. You think there aren't other Democrats with private reservations to scared to say so? There is a black female Democratic representative in Michigan who's expressed concern about the prudence of these proceedings. Liberal Medicare for all proponent Andrew Yang has prudential concerns. So given all that, it is ... cough ... unrealistic, is a nice way to put it, LOL ... to expect conviction in the senate.

It is also possible that there won't even be a senate trial, not because the House won't impeach --they will -- but because one senator will make a motion to dismiss because this phone call doesn't pass the LOL test. Fizzle ....

To be clear, I am not guaranteeing acquittal. New facts may emerge today or tomorrow that help your case. But if this is all you got ....

 

"Fooled and manipulated" is just an expression of your political bias. Trump supporters could just as easily argue that Democrats are "fooled and manipulated" by their side.