The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[B-Man]

 

 

“VINDICTIVE LOSER” IS A BAD LOOK FOR THE DEMOCRATS, BUT IT’S THE ONE THEY’VE CHOSEN SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2016: 

 

Gerhardt: The Entire White House Defense Team Will Face Bar Charges.

 

Two points: First, if this were coming from the GOP we’d hear that it was a threat to the Rule Of Law.

 

And second, if you want to delegitimize the bar associations, go right ahead. It’s fine with me, since I want the bar associations’ power reduced.

 

 

 

.

[Bob in Mich]

18 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

In your example you used bribery to make your point, which is fine - I get what you're saying. However, bribery is a crime. If Trump is actually charged with anything criminal, then not only is impeachment just, but his rights as an American citizen would afford him all the same rights that anyone else would have, one of which is his 6th amendment right to directly confront his accuser. The whistle-blower would be compelled to appear at the trial.

 

Whether being tried in the senate or in criminal court, all American citizens are entitled to their constitutional rights, be they president, regular schmoe, and everything in between.

 

The fact that there have been no criminal charges against Trump is proof that the impeachment vote in the House was 100% purely political. I'd wager that many, if not most right-leaning posters here will admit that the Clinton impeachment was BS ( in that it began with Whitewater and went on and on until they finally caught him lying to a grand jury under oath in a sexual harassment case ), but at least with Clinton they actually had him dead to rights on a legitimate criminal charge. Not so with Trump.

 

I believe one mistake that's being made is the assumption on the part of anti-Trumpers that opposition to this impeachment is due to a cult-like devotion to this president. Speaking for myself ( and likely more than a few others ), my opposition to impeachment is like Harry Reid did when he did away with the filibuster, House democrats have lowered the bar for impeachment and have set a precedent for weaponizing the entire process.

 

Who wins in a situation like that?

 

Some of this was discussed by now I guess but a few points.....

Abuse of Power is a super valid reason to impeach, as far as I know.  It has been used before, if I recall.  There is no requirement that says impeachment must contain a judicial law crime.

 

Regarding the' face the accuser' question, there are two different 'trials'.  One in the senate and if impeached and removed, possibly followed by the judicial trial if criminal offense was involved.   My point about possibly using the other House witnesses was that there are now a lot of accusers.  Is there any requirement that the FIRST accuser be involved?  I don't know.  Maybe someone does.

 

Your point about no criminal charges being The proof of political House proceedings does not really follow.  That logic seems flawed to me.  There are reasons to impeach that involve behavior we can not tolerate in the President that is not strictly criminal.  Say he starts downing a quart of vodka with breakfast every day and cannot be counted on to be sober or conscious, ever.  IDK, just off the top of the head but that seems intolerable and non criminal.

 

 

[CoudyBills]

I'm so excited.  Already talk of impeaching Joe should he win.  Can't wait.  Make ***** sandwich, eat ***** sandwich.  

[B-Man]

 

 

LIVE: Trump’s Team, House Managers Give Final Closing Arguments Followed by Floor Speeches

 

Then the senators will have about 10 minutes for floor speeches, which will last until Wednesday afternoon.

 

 

President Donald Trump’s defense team and House managers will give their closing arguments on the Senate floor for the impeachment trial.

It starts at 11 a.m. ET and will last four hours. Senators will then have an opportunity to speak on the floor on why or why not the chamber should convict Trump.

 

 

.

[Bob in Mich]

On 2/2/2020 at 10:30 AM, Rob's House said:

 

I actually did break down in detail why the "increased danger" argument is baseless. You haven't given any reason why you believe it, you just restated that you do.

 

As far as honesty goes, were you nearly as concerned about protecting the identity of Nick Sandman? 

 

Have you ever given this much thought to concealing the identity of anyone prior to this story?

 

If so, who?

 

If not, why?

Well, I thought you would see that point with what I wrote but I can spell it out further. 

 

Your point about most everyone knowing the accused whistle blower's name is agreed to.   Good point.  To say NOT ONE MORE unstable person could be notified by you and others shouting on the internet is incorrect, right.  That number is admittedly small but it is non zero.  The more shouting, the more tiny increments in the possible number of attackers to the whistle blower.  Maybe some fool has been plotting his attack on the Mosque for the last 6 months and your shouting caught his ill informed, deranged ears.  While certainly  unlikely, I view it as possible.  To a small degree you have increased threat odds for reasons that are questionable.

 

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, I thought you would see that point with what I wrote but I can spell it out further. 

 

Your point about most everyone knowing the accused whistle blower's name is agreed to.   Good point.  To say NOT ONE MORE unstable person could be notified by you and others shouting on the internet is incorrect, right.  That number is admittedly small but it is non zero.  The more shouting, the more tiny increments in the possible number of attackers to the whistle blower.  Maybe some fool has been plotting his attack on the Mosque for the last 6 months and your shouting caught his ill informed, deranged ears.  While certainly  unlikely, I view it as possible.  To a small degree you have increased threat odds for reasons that are questionable.

 

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

Shirley you can't be serious.

[Westside]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

Good Lord you're nothing but a parrot. You don't have an original thought in that pea brain head of yours. Keep up the good work, only 5 more years to go.

[BillsFanNC]

12 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

 

Have you heard about this whistleblower and how he has been treated?  What are your thoughts on protecting his rights as a whistleblower?  

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/18/stefan-halpers-pentagon-contracts-investigation-sh/

 

Quote

 

The Department of Defense inspector general’s report exposes loose contracting practices at the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA) — the same kinds of problems reported by analyst Adam S. Lovinger. ONA later accused him of mishandling sensitive data, and he has been suspended without pay.

“The results of this audit only begin to scratch the surface of Mr. Lovinger’s whistleblower complaints about ONA contracting practices,” said his attorney, Sean Bigley. “DoD destroyed Mr. Lovinger because he had the audacity to point out the obvious.”

 

 

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, I thought you would see that point with what I wrote but I can spell it out further. 

 

Your point about most everyone knowing the accused whistle blower's name is agreed to.   Good point.  To say NOT ONE MORE unstable person could be notified by you and others shouting on the internet is incorrect, right.  That number is admittedly small but it is non zero.  The more shouting, the more tiny increments in the possible number of attackers to the whistle blower.  Maybe some fool has been plotting his attack on the Mosque for the last 6 months and your shouting caught his ill informed, deranged ears.  While certainly  unlikely, I view it as possible.  To a small degree you have increased threat odds for reasons that are questionable.

 

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

This coupled with your not knowing IG Atkinson tells everyone how up to date you are. I'm sure there's a lot of people here who will have very sheepish grins knowing that they've been debating a person for days who lives under a rock. 

[Uncle Joe]

Don't know Sandman?
 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

19 hours ago, Foxx said:

to my way of thinking, there is only one fix that would correct the problem. the problem is that it would require a constitutional convention to get it implemented. i think the only way you could remove partisanship from a impeachment inquiry like that that the Libs initiated, would be to require much the same that is required to remove a President. let's make it so that in order to even begin an inquiry, you need to have 2/3rd's of the House. that would put an end the baloney.

Like our founding fathers your plan assumes enough integrity to put country ahead of party.  That level of integrity is not apparent in Congress.

 

Say things are flipped and we have a large Repub majority in the House - just one under the 2/3's, as mentioned in your solution.  Assume too we have a Dem President that in the minds of all Repubs is waaaaay out of line and needs to be checked. 

 

The just under 2/3s In the House might want to impeach but in a super partisan environment, perhaps those Dems in the House will never vote to convict.  Couldn't that allow a vast minority too much control by allowing them to block even charges of wrongdoing, the impeachment? 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Foxx]

54 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

... Say he starts downing a quart of vodka with breakfast every day and cannot be counted on to be sober or conscious, ever.  IDK, just off the top of the head but that seems intolerable and non criminal.

 

 

that is not impeachable, more 25th amendment material.

[Tiberius]

22 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Good Lord you're nothing but a parrot. You don't have an original thought in that pea brain head of yours. Keep up the good work, only 5 more years to go.

Good morning Westy! How was your weekend? 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Bob in Mich]

20 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Have you heard about this whistleblower and how he has been treated?  What are your thoughts on protecting his rights as a whistleblower?  

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/18/stefan-halpers-pentagon-contracts-investigation-sh/

 

 

 

If you think it important to uncover government misdeeds, I think whistle blowers are an important tool.  Generally, abusing the people that come forward will surely impact the decisions of potential whistle blowers down the road and so abuse should be discouraged.

 

I have not followed Halpern's case.  My above statements apply I would have to guess. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Foxx]

10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Like our founding fathers your plan assumes enough integrity to put country ahead of party.  That level of integrity is not apparent in Congress.

 

Say things are flipped and we have a large Repub majority in the House - just one under the 2/3's, as mentioned in your solution.  Assume too we have a Dem President that in the minds of all Repubs is waaaaay out of line and needs to be checked. 

 

The just under 2/3s In the House might want to impeach but in a super partisan environment, perhaps those Dems in the House will never vote to convict.  Couldn't that allow a vast minority too much control by allowing them to block even charges of wrongdoing, the impeachment? 

i seriously doubt we will have a House, or Senate for that matter made up of 2/3rd's of one party (unless of course the Democrat Party actually ceases to exist), so your argument is null and void on it's premise.

[Westside]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Good morning Westy! How was your weekend? 

My weekend was great. How was yours?