America Needs A Fully Good Resolution To These Impeachment Legal Issues!

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by JimfromPennsylvania, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:52 PM.

  1. JimfromPennsylvania

    JimfromPennsylvania Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    There are several important legal questions that the American people need to be answered in regard to this effort on impeachment of President Trump by the Democrats.
    First, almost all Democrats and almost all their media allies when they talk about the facts of the case they construe the facts or make assumptions to the detriment of the President and I wonder if the law legitimizes this legal analysis. By this I mean let us say for the moment that the Democrats can prove that President Trump conditioned the release of the $400 million dollars of Congressional authorized aid to President of Ukraine , President Zelenski, publicly announcing investigations into Ukrainian interference in America's 2016 election vis-à-vis the hacking of the Democratic National Committee server and former Vice-President Joe Biden's interference in the corruption investigation of the company Burisma where his son was a Director. Let us say they got the proof of this connection dead to rights, beyond all doubt, it still doesn't seem fair to conclude that the essentially entire purpose of these corruption investigations was to personally politically benefit the President. Even if the truth is seventy-five percent of President Trump's motives in this condition effort was to vindicate him in his 2016 election win and hurt his likely political opponent in the 2020 election and only twenty-five percent of his motive was to fight corruption a known and serious historic problem in Ukraine. It seems unfair to me to disregard legitimate motives for an action I would think that the law probably common or case law would have a legal principle to resolve this issue when there is several motives for an action does the defendant get to avail him or herself of the non-incriminating motive?


    Another legal question I have is do the facts support a legal determination of extortion, let us assume that withholding something of value can be the subject matter of the crime of extortion. When is the burden of proof of the "withholding" element met. By this I mean it is widespread known that President Trump is big into bluster, making provocative, over the top statements and then he backs down with budgets, with issuing of tariffs, closing the southern border, denying visas to all Muslims, etc. etc. etc.; as the late Senator John McCain used to say watch what President Trump does not what he says! Take the scenario where a Small Business Administration loan officer goes to a loan applicant and says my friend here needs a job he is a real good worker you have a job opening in his field you give him this job and I will feel really good about approving your loan application I will feel really good that you have the good character to repay the loan and you know my office is flooded with loan applications this year and there is a lot of good loan applications it is really hard to determine who deserves approval and who doesn't. The loan applicant doesn't hire the friend and the loan application sits in the undecided status for what can be considered in loan application process standards for a longer than usual time but then the loan officer reviews the application and has a change of heart and decides to approve the loan because it is going to create a lot of good paying jobs and it is the right thing to do. Did the loan office commit extortion he eventually approved the loan and there was no harm done. In President Trump's case he lifted the hold on the $400 million in aid on September 11, no weapon delivery to Ukraine was missed and the scheduling of future deliveries was not impaired where is the harm to supposed victim?

    What does the law in America say about all this conclusion finding by many of the members of the pro-impeachment collective that are not substantiated by the facts that make too many logical jumps. The one that seems really unfair and just a smear campaign is the conclusion these proponents perpetuate where they claim it is proven that President Trump doesn't want or doesn't care that actual investigations in Ukraine take place to ferry out corruption President Trump is just after a public announcement that these corruption investigations will take place he doesn't care that they start or conclude. The pro-impeachment campaign is setting a new standard here in criminal prosecutions in America it is called the "make stuff up" standard and it should make the founding Fathers of our nation be turning in their graves!
     
  2. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's plenty of evidence that Trump may very well have abused his office; extorted an ally; obstructed justice, and contempt of congress.

    No president before him has so richly deserved impeachment as he.

    In any case, the Republicans in the Senate are so fearful of their base, that probably every one of them will vote to acquit.

    So calm down.
     
  3. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    34,822
    Likes Received:
    6,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of that is, of course, partisn garbage as Turkeys testimony made clear.
     
  4. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    2,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    America Needs A Fully Good Resolution To These Impeachment Legal Issues!

    There are no legal issues that prevent impeachment. It is a political process, not a judicial one.
     
    Sleep Monster and Golem like this.
  5. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    44,270
    Likes Received:
    11,793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem here is that folks are even humoring the dems in congress. This is clearly a witch hunt. No wrongdoing has been shown to justify this impeachment.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15,099
    Likes Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I completely agree with that. However, from today's proceeding, it looks like that is going to be one of the main points of defense that they will use for Trump. And the argument is not that the Constitution requires illegal acts. The argument appears to be, as stated today by the Republicans' legal witness, that the Constitution should require illegal acts for Impeachment.

    Which might be a proposal worth considering if we were discussing a Constitutional amendment. But not an argument that will save Trump.
     
    Marcotic, Bowerbird and Sleep Monster like this.
  7. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    34,822
    Likes Received:
    6,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you have no illegal acts then this is indeed a pure blind political witch hunt which will be well within the Senate's purview to punt in the Potomac with even doing more than a vote for immediate dismissal.
     
  8. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    4,909
    Likes Received:
    2,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Someone is going to figure out that Al Green already explained that the reason for this hoax is the absence of anyone electable in the Democratic Party. They are trying to steal something of value from the American people and use it to win in 2020. This has to be criminal.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019 at 6:11 PM
    HB Surfer likes this.
  9. pol meister

    pol meister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,325
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    High crimes and misdemeanors are a prerequisite for impeachment, are they not? Or do you want to give every congressional majority from here to eternity the power to impeach by a mere majority vote?
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  10. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    4,909
    Likes Received:
    2,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama spied on millions of Americans without a warrant. No President has ever abused his power in that manner.

    Obama sent Lois Lerner to deny opponents access to paid media. No President has ever abused his power in that manner.

    Obama weaponized the IRS to attack opponents. No President has ever abused his power in that manner.

    Obama attempted to undermine the campaign of an opponent. No President has ever abused his power in that manner.

    Obama's fascist tendencies were recognized by the Supreme Court ,,, having amassed the worst win-lose record since Zachary Taylor.

    We can go on.
     
    HB Surfer likes this.
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    56,744
    Likes Received:
    36,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You lot are lucky

    Try living under a “prime minister” who basically can be sacked by the party anytime
     
    ronv likes this.
  12. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    56,744
    Likes Received:
    36,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Let’s bypass the underpinning conspiracy theory thinking here and ask

    “Who championed the patriot act into being in the first place”

    “Obama weaponized the IRS to attack opponents. No President has ever abused his power in that manner.”

    Okay a bit true but also a lot false

    “Obama attempted to undermine the campaign of an opponent. No President has ever abused his power in that manner.”

    Que???

    Obama's fascist tendencies were recognized by the Supreme Court ,,, having amassed the worst win-lose record since Zachary Taylor.

    We can go on.[/QUOTE]
    Now this one deserves a WTF!!!!!!
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15,099
    Likes Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We don't need illegal acts but... we have them. There is so much to choose from.
     
  14. EyesWideOpen

    EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cite the facts and evidence that Trump just wanted to have Ukraine dig up political dirt on Joe Biden. Just assuming Trump did it for a reason that you have assumed, does not mean this was the reason Trump did it.

    It's very likely Trump heard Biden boast about blackmailing Ukraine to fire the prosecutor in Ukraine, and asked his advisors for some backgraond information concerning the firing. If Trump learned that:

    1) President Obama appointed Joe Biden as the lead person in charge of US foreign relations for two countries, China and Ukraine.

    2) Amazingly, Hunter Biden wrangled sweet positions as a member of the board of directors with companies in both China and Ukraine

    3) He sat on the board of the Chinese investment firm BHR, with tens of millions in equity that he would receive tens of million in his equity stakes

    4) Hunter Biden had zero experience in either energy or finance, and yet was got hired.

    5) Trump may have thought all of this smelled like Joe Biden was using his power and influence to enrich his know-nothing son, in the areas Joe was given a lead US roll in

    Isn't it possible Trump sought a legitimate investigation into possible corruption, and this was not about simply trying to dig up dirt on Biden?

    BTW, this seems like a Freudian slip on the part of the dems. The only way this would be bad for Biden is if criminal behavior was uncovered. If no criminal activity occurred, then there is no "dirt." So any way you slice it, this was our DOJ in search for possible criminal behavior.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019 at 7:40 PM
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  15. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The "garbage" is in the attempts to justify his conduct.
     
  16. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you can't see it...it is because you do not want to see it.

    Go ask someone else to jump through your hoops.
     
  17. opion8d

    opion8d Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    4,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Facts are indelible things. The Republicans have no facts to support their defense of Trump therefore they have chosen to deny the facts presented by multiple witnesses. They have even attempted to discredit witnesses by labeling them unelected bureaucrats. That label would apply to all of their staffs, the Supreme Court, and the entire United State military chain of command. The facts of the case are clear. Trump did attempt to engage in attempting to get a foreign government to invade our election process then engaged in a massive coverup involving perhaps a dozen high ranking accomplices.

    The Republican attempts to fight the obvious using an array of diversions and excuses defies the imagination. There are only two reasons that seem to make sense of this behavior -- either they fear Trump and his base or they are complicit in the coverup. Given the recent revelations about Congressman Nunes potential involvement in the scandal, either case seems believable. One thing, however, is abundantly clear, Republicans place no value in their oath of office, the Constitution, or law. It's all about their reelection.
     
    Frank likes this.
  18. PPark66

    PPark66 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Simple resolution here. Roughly a baker’s dozen could raise their right hands, swear an oath, provide their testimony, and this would all be over.

    I suspect they’d invoke their 5th Amendment right so we’re talking 25-30 minutes tops.
     
    Marcotic likes this.
  19. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    28,165
    Likes Received:
    10,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a ridiculous post.

    (1) The onus is on the Democrats to prove Trump committed High Crimes.... Trump has to prove NOTHING... This is NOT Soviet Russia.
    (2) Those were NOT witnesses. They witnessed NOTHING save Sondland, and he completely exonerated Trump.



    (3) You, nor Schiff, nor any Democrat get to decide Trump's intent. You only have your opinion. You have no hard facts or evidence and the onus again is on those looking to remove him from office.
    (4) The "facts of the case are clear"... you have NO FACTS that hurt Trump.
    (5) Trump shows complete value in his Oath of Office by protecting the Office from a corrupt Legislative Branch and Media. The last thing he should ever do is comply with their wicked requests, unless the Judicial Branch compels the President, and the Democrats have refused to take it to the courts, because they know they will get smoked, but Leftists like you don't see the obvious.
    (6) You got one thing right. It is all about reelection. The Democrats know they can't beat Trump in the election, so here they are abusing the process to subvert the elections.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019 at 2:20 AM
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  20. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    34,822
    Likes Received:
    6,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope the garbage is in assuming that second third and fourth hand information and assumptions constitute reliable information.
     
  21. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    34,822
    Likes Received:
    6,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do not you have assumptions and rumors. Neither is sufficient to convict anyone of anything unless your still living in cotton Mather's Salem Massachusetts.
     
  22. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anyone who looks at the testimony given thus far...by the witnesses and by Trump, Mulveney, and Giuliani...would come away CONVINCED that Trump was shaking down Zelensky misusing the power of his office.

    I am totally convinced.

    And if the president doing it were named Clinton or Obama...

    ...you would be also.

    There is a sham going on here...and that sham is being perpetrated by the Trump supporters.

    As he bragged, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a one of you.
     
    Marcotic likes this.
  23. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    2,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sacking a prime minister is also a political activity.
     
  24. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    2,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They already have the power to impeach by a mere majority vote. Have you not been paying attention?
     
  25. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    2,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At least it requires both houses of congress and a super majority in the Senate. Impeachment is charge, not a conviction.
     
    Marcotic likes this.

Share This Page