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?

[Tiberius]

Just now, westside2 said:

My weekend was great. How was yours?

Same. Got over the cold and felt great! 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Vindman's a WW3 vet?

[Westside]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Same. Got over the cold and felt great! 

Glad to hear that. Being sick sucks.

[Bob in Mich]

On 1/30/2020 at 10:39 AM, Bob in Mich said:

 

3rd, I think I found a clip of you on the internet.  Henry, if I can call you that, never met you but this MUST be you.

 

And, as a reminder, I haven't seen yet that you replied to my 'simple question', or have you?

 

(Note, not safe for work due to the F word. About 2 minute clip of movie 'Dream Team')

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7xlkKEJak

Meant to ask, Henry, did you lose your clipboard in the mishap? 

[Deranged Rhino]

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

Meant to ask, Henry, did you lose your clipboard in the mishap? 

No, but I found your pocket protector. 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

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.

Oh Foxx,  I was just about to compliment you on your previous point about impeachable vs 25th amendment.....and then you come up with this reasoning.  Do you see that just you thinking it unlikely is not sufficient reason to say it could not happen?  You want to point out bad logic elsewhere.  Do you think it faulty here?

[Nanker]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Vindman's a WW3 vet?

Yes. He was awarded the Purple ***** with dingleberry clusters.

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Oh Foxx,  I was just about to compliment you on your previous point about impeachable vs 25th amendment.....and then you come up with this reasoning.  Do you see that just you thinking it unlikely is not sufficient reason to say it could not happen?  You want to point out bad logic elsewhere.  Do you think it faulty here?

What if the president didn't drink alcohol at all but smoked pot every morning? 25th Amendment worthy?

[Foxx]

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Oh Foxx,  I was just about to compliment you on your previous point about impeachable vs 25th amendment.....and then you come up with this reasoning.  Do you see that just you thinking it unlikely is not sufficient reason to say it could not happen?  You want to point out bad logic elsewhere.  Do you think it faulty here?

the only guide we have to go by is past history. using that as our guide, please go back through the past iterations of congress and tell me when was the last time there was a makeup of 2/3rd's of one party. 

 

i'll wait.

but you won't, your lazy....

[Gavin in Va Beach]

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

"Democrats—they are downtrodden. They are frustrated by this entire process."

 

Translation: "Before Trump, we could always count on the Republicans caving and doing whatever we wanted. If any of them even dared to disagree, our allies in the media, which let's be honest, is pretty much all the media, would hound them until they dropped sniveling into the fetal position. Now since Trump has been elected these Republicans actually have a spine and never do what we say anymore. And the power of the media doesn't seem to matter anymore. Some Republicans even have the audacity to call them Liberal Hacks. What the hell is going on? Nothing makes sense anymore! Don't people know we are their betters!?!?!"

[Bob in Mich]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

What if the president didn't drink alcohol at all but smoked pot every morning? 25th Amendment worthy?

I don't think I have a problem with either if the guy keeps to moderation and can do the job.  Certainly can't be nodding off or be unable to do a reasonable job. 

 

Safety related jobs, like pilots, should not allow either.  Does that relate to starting wars....hmmm, perhaps.

Additionally some jobs are client facing.  If, even a spectacular performer, damages the reputation of the company, they must be moved or released.

[Bob in Mich]

13 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the only guide we have to go by is past history. using that as our guide, please go back through the past iterations of congress and tell me when was the last time there was a makeup of 2/3rd's of one party. 

 

i'll wait.

but you won't, your lazy....

 

Of course I won't because, as I see from you, you like to miss the point.  Whether it has happened is not really important.  What is important when designing rules is whether it could happen.  It is that way because once it actually happens, changing the rules at that point may appear unfair to one party or the other.  if the rule has been in place, no one has a quarrel.

 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1223003113327644678

 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Of course I won't because, as I see from you, you like to miss the point.  Whether it has happened is not really important.  What is important when designing rules is whether it could happen.  It is that way because once it actually happens, changing the rules at that point may appear unfair to one party or the other.  if the rule has been in place, no one has a quarrel.

 

of course you won't because if you did, you'd find that it completely destroys your premise. and yes, it is important when one is looking to understand how improbable your premise is.  

 

please explain how raising a bar that would practically eliminate partisanship on either side be unfair to any one party, you can't because it isn't.

 

actually, don't bother. we're done. your circular logic is defeating. there is no discussing anything with you. you are not going to drag me down to your level just so you can beat me to death with your stupidity stick.

[B-Man]

 

 

HOW THE HOUSE LOST THE WITNESSES ALONG WITH THE IMPEACHMENT:

 

Prof. Jonathan Turley writes, “the case against the president could only have become stronger” if the House had taken more time to develop a stronger record, and complains that “none of the explanations offered by House Democrats [for not doing this] make any logical sense.”

 

 

.

[Bob in Mich]

59 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

"Democrats—they are downtrodden. They are frustrated by this entire process."

 

Translation: "Before Trump, we could always count on the Republicans caving and doing whatever we wanted. If any of them even dared to disagree, our allies in the media, which let's be honest, is pretty much all the media, would hound them until they dropped sniveling into the fetal position. Now since Trump has been elected these Republicans actually have a spine and never do what we say anymore. And the power of the media doesn't seem to matter anymore. Some Republicans even have the audacity to call them Liberal Hacks. What the hell is going on? Nothing makes sense anymore! Don't people know we are their betters!?!?!"

 

I think Congressional Republicans have demonstrated less spine than I recall them having, Lindsey for example.   They are thumbing their noses at Dems but no one will stand up to Trump.   I have posted before that if Repubs would push back if/when Trump strays, there would have been no need to take it to the level of impeachment. I am not aware of all the options  but if the Repubs won't check the guy, the impeachment hopefully shone enough light that it won't recur - to check him.

 

From the Dem perspective it appears that no one will check the guy's actions, proper or not.  Every action is explained away by Repubs.  From the Dem point, election interference can't be ignored.  If impeachment or even oversight can not be used to check him, then the election needs to be fair.  His abuse of power scheme was designed to tilt the election, not just to get him more money or to get Ivanka more contacts.

 

No response expected

Edited February 3, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Hedge]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is that Pierre Delecto?

[Rob's House]

2 hours 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?

 

Thank you for clarifying. I think if you're being honest with yourself you'll realize that you've formed & maintained this position because people you perceive as allies pushed and continue to push this, rather than because it makes sense to you.

 

I'm not judging. I've done it too. It's part of the reason I try to keep politics at arm's length. 

 

The reality is that there is no concern for this guy's safety. The point I was making is not just that anyone motivated enough to kill this guy already knows his name, but moreover, they could learn his identity with no problem. 

 

The idea that we need to take all precautions out of fear of the 1 in a billion shot that there's some guy out there who is so enraged at Eric Ciaramella that he's willing to trade his life for a kill, but has lacked the motivation to follow the story at all, or even done a cursory Google search, and will suddenly learn this guy's identity while perusing PPP, set his plan in motion, circumvent Ciaramella's security detail, and score the kill, is just too much.

 

By that logic no one's name should ever be disclosed in association with anything because God only knows what might trigger some unhinged lunatic out there.

 

It makes about as much sense as living in a bunker for fear of a Russian invasion. Or wearing a helmet in case a meteor falls from the sky.

 

The selective nature of protecting this guy exposes the insincerity of the media as well. We've never seen such a concerted media effort to conceal anyone's identity like this before. In fact, the media usually goes out of its way to identify people who could be put in a lot more danger by exposure than this guy.

 

And why would this guy be a bigger target than any number of political figures? No one knows.

 

A much more realistic threat for Ciaramella is the prospect of an Epstein style elimination in order to keep him from ever exposing the plot. Only instead of a staged suicide it would be pinned on a right-wing wacko - labeling conservatives as crazed killers by association would just be a bonus.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Rob's House

[snafu]

This Philbin guy has been impressive throughout the entire proceeding.