Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Jan 9, 2020.
Yeah, like Trump is dumb enough to walk into that trap.
Offering a defense is a trap?????????????? OMG. This is surreal. He didn't offer a defense because there is no defense.
Oh yeh, right, I understand. "the President does have the right to make Congress go through the courts to enforce their subpoena's because Congress does not get to decide whether their subpoena's are enforceable or not" WTF kind of pure BALDERDASH is that, A subpoena is a ****** subpoena, the literal meaning is "under penalty". If you can issue one, it is 'enforceable' on the face of it.
Trumpers are bullshit on bullshit with this. Had the Congress waited for the courts the pubs would have said they were dragging their heels for political reasons.
This kind of Philadelphia lawyer bullshit in the face of obvious and blatant guilt is a major reason I hate Republicans, they do this **** all the time and don't seem to regard it as wrong at all. Dems do it too, no doubt, but it's not SOP with them, they rarely pull this kind of thing and then say "oh, well, that's politics" when they're called on it.
And finally; if he is innocent WHY is Trump being so non-cooperative? Why isn't he anxious to have more witnesses testify to exonerate him? Can just one conservative answer that? Or will I just get crickets?
It was an absolute perjury trap. Any lawyer with half a functioning brain would've told Trump to avoid it like it was radioactive Ebola.
Just like those same lawyers are now telling Biden and his kid to avoid the Senate's trap like it's flaming radioactive Ebola.
If the Bidens don't offer the Senate a defense, they MUST be guilty though, right?
C'mon man, not that bullshyte again. He was invited to have his legal team offer a defense. He chose not to. So cut the crap with the "he wasn't given a chance to defend himself."
You're comparing apples with oranges. I'm talking about the secret meetings which Schiff held in the basement of the Capitol...before public hearings began.
If someone made up a bunch of bogus charges against you, then "invited" you to go defend yourself, you might also be motivated to ignore them and not give any legitimacy to their fake claims against you. That's what any smart person would be advised to do.
Anything he offered to the House would've been twisted, and used against him. A first-day law student would've advised Trump against cooperating. It's Law 101.
You're doing the "Any defendant who doesn't take the stand and testify in his own defense is obviously GUILTY!" thing.
Yeah, that's not how it works in the real world, and even the lowliest ambulance-chasing lawyer will tell you so.
Given that the result is was and will be a forgone conclusion because the hose did a half assed job, not that there was any reason for this in the first place, but they should've at least brought charges more substantial than ' he really pisses us off, digging into our graft like that.
They weren't secret for god's sake. They were closed door depositions to which Repubs were invited to attend and ask questions of any witness who was called. Transcripts of those depositions were made public and those same witnesses testified in public after they gave their depositions.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bullshyte. You're just making stuff up. Repubs would have been present during any presentation of a defense by Don's legal team. Face it.................he has no defense as to the facts of the matter.
Only Democrats have become so un-American and opposed to due process as to think people are guilty unless proven innocent, based on nothing but mere accuastions.
This is still America where a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Before Nancy got her formal vote to impeach, there was nothing but talk and grasping for shreds of anything to "investigate" and find some sort of bogus allegations. There was no reason for Trump to try to "exonerate" himself from anything because he wasn't charged with anything.
Now that the impeachment is official, he doesn't need witnesses to exonerate him because the burden of proof is still on the accusers and Trump is still presumed innocent until/unless the Senate votes him out of office. The charges against him are based on Democrats' assumptions of his intentions, not on anything his did which broke any criminal code. He only has to defend that their assumptions about his motivations are dead wrong.
He doesn't need witnesses for that, he needs a good defense team, which he has.
These are the people who will help exonerate him...
The Dem's were too scared to take it to the courts and force Trump to defend himself, so I guess we'll never know, right?
The House didn't base much of the entire investigation on facts....just hearsay, presumption, and "feelings".
The Senate trial should go fairly quickly and put to bed the national embarrassment the House has just put the country through.
That's just another total falsehood wrapped in a different package. The narrative of an unfair House inquiry is a gigantic steaming pile of crap. Trump was invited to offer a defense, Repubs were allowed to ask witnesses questions just like the Dems. Repubs were invited to present witnesses with information pertinent to the investigation.......with the exception of the WB (who would have offered nothing of help to Trump).........whose identity the Dems were trying to protect.
1. Trump empowered Giuliani to employ the help of various members of the US diplomatic contingent to Ukraine, and some who were not part of that contingent, to put pressure on Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Joe Biden. A campaign that began in the spring of 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50492438
2. Leverage was used, at Trump's direction, as a means to get Ukraine to acquiesce to Trump's requests in the form of the withholding of military aid authorized by Congress.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue hold."
3. Resulting from the WB complaint, a summary of the transcript of the Zelensky call was released revealing Trump speaking to Zelensky about the investigations he wanted Ukraine to announce. A transcript WH officials tried to hide from other members of the government and the public by placing it in a code level secret server typically used for keeping national security matters secret. https://apnews.com/817c0c285bc9485d88608635e0fef3e3
4. Trump and Sondland were overheard discussing the efforts to get Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Biden.
5. Officials in the admin and the Pentagon expressed concern the hold was illegal.
A GAO analysis of the laws pertaining to the hold found it was, in their opinion, illegal.
6. Ukrainian officials asked about the aid on the day Trump called Zelensky when he said, "I need you to do us a favor though," prior to asking Ukraine to investigate Biden (and the server).
7. Part time, acting Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney publicly acknowledged the quid pro quo.
So did EU ambassador Sondland.
Sondland acknowledges Ukraine quid pro quo, implicates Trump, Pence, Pompeo and others
8. US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was relieved of her post by Trump as a result of a smear campaign launched against her by Giuliani because she posed on obstacle to carrying out the scheme to extort Ukraine. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-yovanovitch-impeachment-070988
Lev Parnas recently stated her removal was directed as a payoff to get a Ukrainian official to produce dirt on Biden. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...risma-biden-dirt-fire-ukraine-ambassador.html
9. All of the 17 witnesses who testified during the House inquiry corroborate 1-8.
10. If any of the witnesses or documentary evidence Trump has blocked as part of his obstruction of the investigation can offer a refutation of the evidence above it is his prerogative to present it.
11. The solicitation of help in a US election from a foreign person or government is illegal.
Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses? It's the bromance of the century.
The Senate should actually have a trial, one with witnesses and documents, that should take as long as it needs to in order to present all the relevant facts. The national embarrassment is that Don made impeachment a necessity by abusing his power and obstructing the investigation.
The silver lining in that now it's the Senate's turn to try the House's allegations. Short and sweet hopefully.
Do you acknowledge your factual inaccuracies regarding the House inquiry?
Why short and sweet? Why not long and arduous? What is the problem with getting as much factual material out in the open as possible?
The House should've had an actual trial, one with witnesses and documents, that should've taken as long as was needed in order to present all relevant facts.
Why does the Senate now need to do what the House failed to do?
If it were any ole court subpoenaing any other joe schmoe then you would be right. But you are not taking into consideration that the Legislative and the Executive Branch are equal in power. Each has something that can override the other. In this case its Executive Privilege vs Congressional subpoena's. Executive Privilege is a power that the President has that is exclusively directed towards Congress. The courts recognize that there are times when a President may deny congress information in the cases of foreign affairs and counsel among his staff. Even in the face of a subpoena. They recognize this power because of two reasons. 1: No foreign country would trust a President that would be forced to give information at the drop of a hat by the demand of Congress...who can't keep anything secret worth crap. 2: If his staff could be subpoena'd at the drop of a hat then they would not be free to counsel the President in the most effective way. Again, because Congress can't keep a secret worth crap. (ex: the whistle blower is well known despite Congress trying to keep a lid on it and even with the Major Media and social networks helping them out). Secrecy is a necessary part of the Presidency in order to further foreign affairs. And that is why a Congressional subpoena is not all powerful.
The case that decided this was US vs Nixon. In that case is where you will also find why I stated "Now if the Courts had ruled in Congresses favor (a likely situation)". Executive Privilege is not all powerful any more than Congressional Subpoena's are all powerful. There are limits to both. I recognize that the courts more than likely would have sided with Congress. But on how much we don't know. The Courts could have given them everything that they asked for, or they could only grant parts. But in the end, it is the courts that decide whether Congressional subpoena's are valid or if Executive Privilege overrules them. Not Congress.
As for why is Trump being non-cooperative? More than likely a couple of reasons. My bet is that Trump has been in court lots of times so he knows better than to willingly give over information to those investigating him. Any lawyer will tell a defendant to "shut up" and only give information when absolutely necessary. And they will tell any person that regardless of innocence or guilt. If you wish I can point to you a video that explains it perfectly. Both a lawyer and a cop explain it. And it was made LONG before Trump became President or even ran so it won't be some "trumpettes". Another reason is that Dems have treated him like lower than trash....and no one wants to co-operate with anyone that treats them like that. Of course you can say that he is being non-cooperative simply because he's trying to hide his guilt. And that might be true. But it also might not be. WE DON'T KNOW. But as an American who believes in our Country's motto of "innocent until proven guilty" I'm not going to assume the worst, instead I'm going to afford him the same basic Rights that every American has.
You may disagree with Republican's affording such basic Rights to a man that you despise so much. But even though I'm not a Republican, I stand with them on this. Affording people Rights regardless of how much we may despise someone is what makes us one of the Best Countries in the World.
It did, to the extent it could.
Why is the House being blamed for Trump's obstruction? You've turned reality upside down. Repubs make specious claims about a lack of first hand evidence WHILE TRUMP OBSTRUCTS PEOPLE WITH A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED. Can't you see how absurd that is?????????????????????????????????????
Do you want all the evidence to be presented or not? Clearly, the answer is no.
No, nothing inaccurate.
If the House wanted factual material, they shouldn't have spent their time dredged up their "best witnesses" who testified mostly about how they "felt" about Trump's foreign policy.
The Senate doesn't need to do any work for the House to make up for a sloppy impeachment process. If they want additional witnesses, they'll vote for them at Phase II.
The House ran the investigation and resulting accusations on feelings. Now you want facts? Perhaps the Senate will be generous.
Sources, close to rep Schiff (CA D) disclosed that Adam had been to the wax shop in preparation for his debut in the senate later this month...
Separate names with a comma.