The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[snafu]

29 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The answer is, I want to know the truth.  What other investigations have you seen where people lobbied to not learn the truth?  Aside from not wanting to hear grisly details of violent attacks or accidents, I can't think where folks want to turn away from available case facts.  I suppose there are various legal issues with concealing facts from juries, but that is not what we have here.  In this case we have Bolton, a key player, that has information and claims to be willing to tell us all what he knows.

 

Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Benghasi.

Fast and Furious. 

 

But thats not not even the issue. What you fail to see is that the Hiuse Democrats had every opportunity to get to the “truth” and they puked on themselves. And then when they realized that they screwed up, they began to crow about more witnesses in the Senate. This came after holding the Articles for a month and after Bolton said he’d comply with a Senate Subpoena. Bolton was being disingenuous. If he’d comply with a Senate Suppbpoena don’t you think he’d show up for a House Subpoena? There’s nothing preventing the House from gathering more witnesses. They said so themselves. Perhaps they don’t want the “truth” like you do. Perhaps they just want to score political points against Senate Republicans by making them look like obstructionists. That ploy has worked on a lot of people. 

 

 

 

Quote

I want all of us to agree on what actually happened and whether or not that behavior is now legal going forward.  Right now, without any further evidence or witnesses, can we agree on what happened?  I don't think we can at this point.  And, can we now determine whether that behavior is legal going forward?   Well, once we know the actual truth, we maybe can but certainly we can't at this time.

 

 

You’re never going to get the full story.  And I’d add to that you’ve been presented with enough. So have I. 

 

 

 

Quote

I see Trump as trying to tilt the 2020 election playing field by soliciting help from foreign countries.  He continues to fall into this.  Told by George Stephanopoulos that the FBI says he shouldn't accept election aid from foreign countries, he clams the FBI is wrong.  There is no doubt in my mind that if the Ukraine scheme worked out for Trump, he would replay the scheme with other countries and with future opponents.

 

See. You’ve apparently seen enough.

I think all you want is irrefutable confirmation about what you suspect.  As for your speculation about Trump doing this over and over with other countries, I can’t help you. Just don’t vote for him. Democrats’ mission accomplished.  

 

 

Quote

Who in the Republican Congress can control Trump's actions if and when he starts to get out of line or when he goes too far with his tweets?  Which Republicans consistently stand up to Trump?  I will tell you.....I can't think of any.  Sure, on various issues some have voiced occasional squeaky protestations but by and large, the Repubs in Congress have been bullied and clearly fear crossing Trump.

 

This happens with both parties. 

But I will give you an example in Trump’s Presidency: the Congressional Freedom Caucus killed Trump’s first attempt to re-do ADA if I recall correctly. 

 

 

Quote

So, how do you think, if not by using impeachment inquiry, could the Dems keep Trump from repeating this scheme with future countries/candidates?  Nearly everyone blames House Dems for this impeachment saga.  I would suggest that if Congressional Republicans showed any ability to stand up to Trump's shady inclinations, there would be no impeachment happening right now.

 

Your last sentence doesn’t make sense.

I blame the House Democrats for this nonsense, yes.  It is a thinly veiled (latest attempt) to “get him”. 

 

I’ll answer your question with some questions of my own: how do you feel about Trump and Netanyahu having a major press conference/announcement regarding an Israeli/Palestinian peace plan?  Perfectly normal Presidential activity, right? He’s going to use that with his campaign, yes? Can you think of any other President that has used foreign relations and international policy as campaign points?

 

Yes, of course Trump is ham-handed and a narcissistic ass. No, the phone call wasn’t “perfect”, but it wasn’t impeachable either. To me, there should be no doubt about the fact that the President committed a crime.  In this case, the House Democrats have run with a weak case and haven’t come up with any crime. Then while doing so, they’ve tripped over themselves. And when they realized that there isn’t much to the case, they manipulated the entire process to extend the dog and pony show to impress people who already hate the President.

 

[Bob in Mich]

3 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Did you think hiding was ok when the house ran there impeachment trial? Did you think that was wrong as well?

 

You would have to describe the hiding you are referring to.

 

Generally speaking, I didn't have a problem with the 'process' in the House.  Repubs were going to jump up and down and scream bloody murder about process, whatever it was.  As an example, they have screamed that the Dems were trying to drag it out to hurt Trump's campaign while at the same time screaming that they have rushed through the process.  They were going to complain about the process.

 

Many people, believing the House phase was the trial, agreed with the Repubs that the WH wasn't getting a fair shot.  Truth was, the House actions were not the trial phase.  It was closer to a determination as to whether or not to press charges.

[Warren Zevon]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

Hillary Clinton’s emails.

 

Hillary has been cleared by Huber.

[GG]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Hillary has been cleared by Huber.

 

She was?

[Bob in Mich]

10 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I dont think hiding the truth is appropriate then, now or in the future. 

 

To keep things contemporary are the Dems currently hiding the truth by sealing the testimony of Michael Atkinson? Is your position on Bolton AND Atkinson consistent?

Unlike others here, I don't claim to know everything.  I don't know Atkinson or his role

[GG]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

Unlike others here, I don't claim to know everything.  I don't know Atkinson or his role

 

You have posted this line of thinking before.  Which always prompts the same question, "Why jump into a discussion with a definitive opinion, when you don't know all the particulars surrounding that story?"

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

He was the Repub nominee.  Just asking but did it ever strike you as odd that so many formerly 'deemed reasonable folks' become a-holes once they speak against Trump?  In fact immediately upon talking against Trump the transformation seems to take place.  Odd to me

Fair question.  No, I don't find it odd.  I think many politicians enjoy the status quo, enjoy the prestige if being in power, operate in their own self-interest first and in the interests of their constituents when the heavy lifting is kept to a minimum. I also think President Trump works best in an environment akin to Thunderdome, and on top of that, he certainly can be a first rate douche to boot. 

 

Willard Romney began to lose my respect when he revealed himself to be weak and unprepared against the Obama/Dem/media assault team.  He was unable to deliver the conservative (even middle of the road moderate message points) against an admin that badly managed a crisis where an ambassador and other Americans were left to die, then created a fictional narrative that was designed to influence the outcome of the election.  (I never blamed Obama for screwing up Benghazi and losing people--that happens--but the cover-up and lie thereafter were unforgivable and makes this little Ukraine issue look like a day at Chuckie Cheese.)   Romney was weak, allowed allowed himself to be cuckholded and four more years of Barry from the Block followed. 

 

Move forward to the Trump years.  Willard tries to jockey for secretary of state, in spite of his harsh words about Trump, and fails to get the job.  Politics make strange bedfellows, but this is where I lose all respect for him.

 

Now, as the dems are in the 4th year of an attempt to unseat the president I voted for, having watched Mueller fail, having watched Kavanaugh be humiliated in front of his wife and children (and geesh, while I admire Kobe's commitment to his family and his children and recognize the horrible tragedy that befell them, good old Brett was #girldad all along the way and those honoring Kobe lined up to stab Kavanaugh in the stomach with a pencil in an effort to end him slowly and painfully on CSPAN),  I see dopey old Mitch as weak yet again as he wrings his hands over witnesses. 

 

Here's my statement Bobby Flay:

 

Adam Schiff and the house Democrats are attempting to have Trump removed from office.  Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the rest of those in control of the house used political majority in the house to frame a story in the manner they wanted it presented.  There was no call for harmony, they did not consider the feelings of the Rs, defer to their requests for a "fair hearing", nor attempt to meet somewhere in the middle so we could all get to the truth. Schiff in particular made statements to the public that were false and misleading along the way, and in that regard, did so for maximum political effect. 

 

True or False? 

 

Assuming you are willing to at least recognize the TRUTH that old LS has laid out, back to Romney.

 

From the eyes of a conservative with liberal leanings on social issues: 

 

Enough capitulation.  Enough hand wringing. We're in a death match over our political process, and we need strong, steady hands on the wheel. One of the leading contenders on the dem side is an avowed socialist phony who wants the ability for great personal wealth and power for himself while tearing down and blowing up opportunities for the middle class. Another seeks to buy her way into the White House with promises to enrich people who chose a course of action in college at the expense of those who didnt. A third is Joe Biden, a guy on tape bragging about strongarming Ukraine to get what he wanted to protect his son. 

 

I would love to see a guy like Romney sack up and try and win something for a change instead of wandering around like a grinning dimwitted bobblehead when so much is at stake. 

 

Willard Romney is a rat. 

 

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Hillary has been cleared by Huber.

 

The question didn’t have anything to do with whether an investigation was performed or a conclusion was made.

Go back and read Bob’s question.  It had to to with lobbying not to see the truth.

 

[Orlando Tim]

51 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Bolton now being smeared across the dummy right wing media 

 

“John Bolton Took Money From Banks Tied To Cartels, Terrorists, Iran,” 

 I googled it and found they quoted some tiny website who is begging for hits who claim to be independent. How are they right wing?

[Tiberius]

Hillary sent emails! 

 

My God! The stark level of disparity between accountability is unbelievable. Hillary sent emails and erased a few.

Just now, Buffalo Timmy said:

 I googled it and found they quoted some tiny website who is begging for hits who claim to be independent. How are they right wing?

It's running through the right wing media sphere 

[Bob in Mich]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You have posted this line of thinking before.  Which always prompts the same question, "Why jump into a discussion with a definitive opinion, when you don't know all the particulars surrounding that story?"

For a discussion.  For a distraction.  Oh, and I apparently crave insults.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Hillary sent emails! 

 

My God! The stark level of disparity between accountability is unbelievable. Hillary sent emails and erased a few.

She obviously had something to hide. Come on now, be consistent. 

[Orlando Tim]

The impeachment question has to start with whether it is a legitimate question that Hunter was being paid for access to the White House. Since according to his own words his only qualifications were his name and his Amtrak time I would say that is a legitimate question. Especially when you consider the Ukraine is famous for corruption and Burisma is well known for it also. 

[Chef Jim]

10 hours ago, Just Joshin' said:

I find it interesting that the lefties here never post on football.  Why then come to PPP other then to stir things up?

I’m a “righty” who never posts on football.  I come here because I like politics and don’t like football. 

[Orlando Tim]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

It's running through the right wing media sphere 

Which right wing media? I could only find the one website- where are you looking? If I went to democratic underground I can find plenty of people calling Trump a dictator but normal people don't believe that.

[BillsFanNC]

10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Unlike others here, I don't claim to know everything.  I don't know Atkinson or his role

 

Seems like he might add some much needed context to the truth. Should we hear his already given testimony? Hiding of the truth going on here perhaps?

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/23/michael-atkinson-testimony-concealed-adam-schiff/

 

Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, and other impeachment managers repeatedly talk about the 17 witnesses interviewed during the House’s secretive depositions. But they do not mention an 18th witness, Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general who has firsthand knowledge of the origins of the whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment.

 

 

The potentially exculpatory evidence for Mr. Trump has remained classified and is not part of the record for the impeachment trial.

Because it remains classified, only members of the intelligence committee have seen it and Mr. Trump’s legal team is denied a copy.

[Foxx]

21 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You would have to describe the hiding you are referring to.

 

Generally speaking, I didn't have a problem with the 'process' in the House.  Repubs were going to jump up and down and scream bloody murder about process, whatever it was.  As an example, they have screamed that the Dems were trying to drag it out to hurt Trump's campaign while at the same time screaming that they have rushed through the process.  They were going to complain about the process.

 

Many people, believing the House phase was the trial, agreed with the Repubs that the WH wasn't getting a fair shot.  Truth was, the House actions were not the trial phase.  It was closer to a determination as to whether or not to press charges.

Bob, they have dragged out investigations of Trump since before he was elected. it is still going on. yes, the House rushed the impeachment. this isn't hard, Bob.

[Bob in Mich]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The impeachment question has to start with whether it is a legitimate question that Hunter was being paid for access to the White House. Since according to his own words his only qualifications were his name and his Amtrak time I would say that is a legitimate question. Especially when you consider the Ukraine is famous for corruption and Burisma is well known for it also. 

What beyond getting a cushy job because of the name Biden, do you think happened?  The firing of the prosecutor that Joe Biden urged was aligned with our national policy then, right?  The quid pro quo was not, as in Trump's case, done in direct opposition with policy.  The firing may have helped Burisma and Hunter, that is a point of contention, but if JoeB was following national policy, it doesn't seem illegal to me. 

 

If you were in your mid forties and out of work and had questionable judgement, would you take a job that paid $83k monthly even if it made your Dad look bad?  Lots of folks would and Hunter is apparently one.  Aside from taking the job and it looking bad, what do you think Hunter will tell us if he testifies?

[Gavin in Va Beach]

7 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Seems like he might add some much needed context to the truth. Should we hear his already given testimony? Hiding of the truth going on here perhaps?

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/23/michael-atkinson-testimony-concealed-adam-schiff/

 

Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, and other impeachment managers repeatedly talk about the 17 witnesses interviewed during the House’s secretive depositions. But they do not mention an 18th witness, Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general who has firsthand knowledge of the origins of the whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment.

 

 

The potentially exculpatory evidence for Mr. Trump has remained classified and is not part of the record for the impeachment trial.

Because it remains classified, only members of the intelligence committee have seen it and Mr. Trump’s legal team is denied a copy.

 

It's outrageous, and if it were the other way round the media would be pounding the drum 24-7 about it, demanding to release the transcript. But since it's Schiff /The Dems and #Orangemanbad, we get crickets.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

What beyond getting a cushy job because of the name Biden, do you think happened?  The firing of the prosecutor that Joe Biden urged was aligned with our national policy then, right?  The quid pro quo was not, as in Trump's case, done in direct opposition with policy.  The firing may have helped Burisma and Hunter, that is a point of contention, but if JoeB was following national policy, it doesn't seem illegal to me. 

 

If you were in your mid forties and out of work and had questionable judgement, would you take a job that paid $83k monthly even if it made your Dad look bad?  Lots of folks would and Hunter is apparently one.  Aside from taking the job and it looking bad, what do you think Hunter will tell us if he testifies?

 

Stunning display of cynicism right here.