Jump to content
Nanker

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

Recommended Posts

On 1/15/2020 at 12:04 PM, Kemp said:

1. So, do you think that one of the major players in the Ukraine story (Parnas) should testify in the inquiry as to what happened in this whole story?

2. Do you deny he has been interacting with Rudy in regards to Ukraine on behalf of Trump? 

Rudy has already said he has operated solely as a personal representative for Trump, pro bono, which by the way is illegal because it's a donation violation. I wonder who is paying Rudy for all his trips and expenses. We know he isn't.

2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses? 

3. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want someone who could prove your innocence to testify?  


I await your well thought out answers, but am aware that I'm more likely to get responses that evade the questions and instead bring in the usual side-steps. But why should you act differently when your lapdogs will cheer whatever you write?

 

Sorry, I'm a couple days late on this response.

I will give your questions a go.  Then I've got a couple for you.

 

1. So, do you think that one of the major players in the Ukraine story (Parnas) should testify in the inquiry as to what happened in this whole story?

Yes and no. He should have testified at the "investigation" level, in the House Committees.  However, and probably because he's got serious credibility issues, Neither Schiff nor Nadler chose to have him testify.  Parnas did give materials to the House, so it isn't like he was a stranger to them.  Now, AFTER the Articles of Impeachment were deliberated and voted upon you want to hear from Parnas and you think he's important to the prosecution of the trial against the President.  You do realize that Parnas cane forward before the House Managers walked the Articles to the Senate.  They could have taken his testimony during Pelosi's delay.  I think they really don't want to hear from Parnas.

 

2. Do you deny he has been interacting with Rudy in regards to Ukraine on behalf of Trump? 

It seems as though he may have been. However, who cares?  The Aid was released to Ukraine. There was no abuse of power vis a vis the aid to Ukraine. There's no requirement that the President host anyone at the White House.  There's nothing preventing any President from wanting to root out an appearance of impropriety of a former V.P. who now is seeking to become President. Don't you want to know if Joe Biden is a crook?

 

2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses?

I can't say for sure (I think some Republicans DO want witnesses -- but Democrats better be careful what they wish for) but I do believe that after hearing nearly all the witnesses that the House put on, there's nothing to rebut with witnesses.  There's no case and no proof. 

 

3. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want someone who could prove your innocence to testify?

(A) "prove your innocence"?  There are a lot of countries in our world that require Defendants to prove their innocence.  Thank God we don't live in one of those countries. (B) nobody has proved any guilt. (C) don't forget that this is a political process, not a judicial proceeding.

 

Questions for you:

(A) Why do you presume that Parnas is more credible than Trump? You responding "Trump lies all the time" won't cut it as an answer. 

(B) Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? You don't find it odd that the whistleblower won't come forward?

(C) Do you want to hear from Schiff's staff -- or Schiff for that matter? It is pretty clear that there was a bit of coordination between the whistleblower and Schiff.

(D) Do you discount the several times that Zelensky said that he wasn't pressured by Trump?

(E) Impeachment is a purely political exercise.  It seems that a great number of Politicians are staking their political futures on successfully being the ones to "bring down" the President for using hos power for political gain.  Their official actions are blatantly undertaken for "political gain".  There's no "high crime" here.  There's no "misdemeanor" here.  Why isn't this hypocritical bahavior on the part of Congressional Democrats?

(F) Because of the flimsy nature of the two charges levied against the President, don't you find it uncomfortable that Congress is trying to disenfranchise the voters that put this President in office -- in an election year?  Why not wait and see what the voters have to say?

(G) Why do you only appear in PPP when you think someone's finally "got" the President?

(H) Why did you call anyone who's questioning the House Democrats "stupid" or "evil" of both?  WTF is wrong with you?

(I) Why are you so sure of yourself?  Shouldn't you be more skeptical since you've bitten on all the other "gotcha bait" in the past and nothing has come of any of them?

 

 

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

... 2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses?

I can't say for sure (I think some Republicans DO want witnesses -- but Democrats better be careful what they wish for) but I do believe that after hearing nearly all the witnesses that the House put on, there's nothing to rebut with witnesses.  There's no case and no proof. ...

i keep hearing a lot about witnesses here. you hear the Dems screaming that even during Clinton's Impeachment they had witnesses. this is somewhat disingenuous in that, yes they had witnesses during the Clinton Impeachment but what they aren't telling you is that the only witnesses allowed were ones who testified during the Star investigation. no new witnesses were called. being as precedent is huge, i think this is what the Senate is going to try and adhere to.

 

if there are new witnesses, the House can hear them and if warranted, vote new articles. that is not going to happen though, they merely want to 'Kavanaugh' Trump here. they think we're stupid.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i keep hearing a lot about witnesses here. you hear the Dems screaming that even during Clinton's Impeachment they had witnesses. this is somewhat disingenuous in that, yes they had witnesses during the Clinton Impeachment but what they aren't telling you is that the only witnesses allowed were ones who testified during the Star investigation. no new witnesses were called. being as precedent is huge, i think this is what the Senate is going to try and adhere to.

 

if there are new witnesses, the House can hear them and if warranted, vote new articles. that is not going to happen though, they merely want to 'Kavanaugh' Trump here. they think we're stupid.

 

Yes, and you also get the Rand Paul, or the Ted Cruz response, which amounts to:  If there will be witnesses (new or old) then don't expect Democrats to be calling the shots. 

 

Just because Schiff is a manager doesn't make him immune from being questioned.  We are in weird world here.  This isn't normal court procedure.  It is a true blend.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

Sorry, I'm a couple days late on this response.

I will give your questions a go.  Then I've got a couple for you.

 

1. So, do you think that one of the major players in the Ukraine story (Parnas) should testify in the inquiry as to what happened in this whole story?

Yes and no. He should have testified at the "investigation" level, in the House Committees.  However, and probably because he's got serious credibility issues, Neither Schiff nor Nadler chose to have him testify.  Parnas did give materials to the House, so it isn't like he was a stranger to them.  Now, AFTER the Articles of Impeachment were deliberated and voted upon you want to hear from Parnas and you think he's important to the prosecution of the trial against the President.  You do realize that Parnas cane forward before the House Managers walked the Articles to the Senate.  They could have taken his testimony during Pelosi's delay.  I think they really don't want to hear from Parnas.

 

2. Do you deny he has been interacting with Rudy in regards to Ukraine on behalf of Trump? 

It seems as though he may have been. However, who cares?  The Aid was released to Ukraine. There was no abuse of power vis a vis the aid to Ukraine. There's no requirement that the President host anyone at the White House.  There's nothing preventing any President from wanting to root out an appearance of impropriety of a former V.P. who now is seeking to become President. Don't you want to know if Joe Biden is a crook?

 

2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses?

I can't say for sure (I think some Republicans DO want witnesses -- but Democrats better be careful what they wish for) but I do believe that after hearing nearly all the witnesses that the House put on, there's nothing to rebut with witnesses.  There's no case and no proof. 

 

3. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want someone who could prove your innocence to testify?

(A) "prove your innocence"?  There are a lot of countries in our world that require Defendants to prove their innocence.  Thank God we don't live in one of those countries. (B) nobody has proved any guilt. (C) don't forget that this is a political process, not a judicial proceeding.

 

Questions for you:

(A) Why do you presume that Parnas is more credible than Trump? You responding "Trump lies all the time" won't cut it as an answer. 

(B) Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? You don't find it odd that the whistleblower won't come forward?

(C) Do you want to hear from Schiff's staff -- or Schiff for that matter? It is pretty clear that there was a bit of coordination between the whistleblower and Schiff.

(D) Do you discount the several times that Zelensky said that he wasn't pressured by Trump?

(E) Impeachment is a purely political exercise.  It seems that a great number of Politicians are staking their political futures on successfully being the ones to "bring down" the President for using hos power for political gain.  Their official actions are blatantly undertaken for "political gain".  There's no "high crime" here.  There's no "misdemeanor" here.  Why isn't this hypocritical bahavior on the part of Congressional Democrats?

(F) Because of the flimsy nature of the two charges levied against the President, don't you find it uncomfortable that Congress is trying to disenfranchise the voters that put this President in office -- in an election year?  Why not wait and see what the voters have to say?

(G) Why do you only appear in PPP when you think someone's finally "got" the President?

(H) Why did you call anyone who's questioning the House Democrats "stupid" or "evil" of both?  WTF is wrong with you?

(I) Why are you so sure of yourself?  Shouldn't you be more skeptical since you've bitten on all the other "gotcha bait" in the past and nothing has come of any of them?

 

WRT to the underlined part, no, they don't.  He's their best shot at unseating Trump and all they care about is that he's protected from scrutiny over his corruption so that he can be the nominee and possibly oust him.  Because the fact of the matter is that what he said (about withholding funds to Ukraine until they fired Shokin) is far worse than anything Trump has said.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dershowitz seems like an odd choice by Trump after allegations have been made against him by some victims of Jeffrey Epstein. IMO.

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wnyguy said:

Dershowitz seems like an odd choice by Trump after allegations have been made against him by some victims of Jeffrey Epstein. IMO.

He's going to address constitutional issues only. That allows both Trump and him to stay arms distance from each other. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1218675524874059777

 

 

from the article:

... House Democrats issued a series of unconstitutional subpoenas for documents and testimony. They issued their subpoenas without a congressional vote and, therefore, without constitutional authority.”

 

“They sought testimony from a number of the President’s closest advisors despite the fact that, under longstanding, bipartisan practice of prior administrations of both political parties and similarly longstanding guidance from the Department of Justice, those advisors are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress related to their official duties,” the letter continued. “And they sought testimony disclosing the Executive Branch’s confidential communications and internal decision-making processes on matters of foreign relations and national security, despite the well-established constitutional privileges and immunities protecting such information.”

 

“As the Supreme Court has recognized, the President’s constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch information is at its apex in the field of foreign relations and national security,” the letter continued. “House Democrats also barred the attendance of Executive Branch counsel at witness proceedings, thereby preventing the President from protecting important Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”

 

Trump’s legal defense team said that the administration “replied appropriately to these subpoenas and identified their constitutional defects.”

 

“Tellingly, House Democrats did not seek to enforce these constitutionally defective subpoenas in court,” the letter concluded in its attack on the second Article of Impeachment. “To the contrary, when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling. The House may not usurp Executive Branch authority and may not bypass our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Asserting valid constitutional privileges and immunities cannot be an impeachable offense. The second Article is therefore invalid and must be rejected.” ...

Edited by Foxx
  • Thanks! (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Sunday Clarice................

 

CLARICE FELDMAN: The “Trump Grabbed Schrodinger’s *****” Theory. 

 

“He is not only the cause of all known phenomena in the universe but the cause of all potential phenomena as well.”

 

As you may recall Schrodinger’s cat is a quantum physics paradox in which hypothetically a cat may be both alive and dead at the same time. My online friend “The Infamous Ignatz” offers up, quite rightly in my opinion, there is “The Universal Quantum Trump-Grabbed Schrodinger’s ***** Theory. He is not only the cause of all known phenomena in the universe but the cause of all potential phenomena as well.”

 

Last week the theory was offered up as an explanation for the Iranian shootdown of a Ukrainian passenger plane. This week the Pelosi House sent up a grab bag of ridiculous claims to support their articles of impeachment, and in a tacit recognition that they are weak, kept adding to the charges with claims as dead on arrival as the articles themselves. This ploy served them ill in their effort to block Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation and will not help them now.

 

{snip}

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemingly concedes that the articles of impeachment are just a low opening bid to get the game going. 

“It’s not a question of proof, it says what allegations have been made and that has to be subjected to scrutiny as to how we go forward, but it should not be ignored in the context of other events that could substantiate some of that,” said Pelosi.

That’s not how it works. The House is supposed to pass such a serious matter upon proof, not wishful thinking by those followers of the Schrodinger’s ***** theory. 

 

How will the Senate now handle this? Will it dismiss these deficient articles out of hand or allow this game to continue? Arguing for impeachment will be Congressional “stars” Jerrold Nadler, Adam Schiff, Hakeem Jeffries, and Zoe Lofgren. Arguing against will be White House Counsel Pat Cippalone, Jay Sekulow, Ken Starr, Pam Bondi, Robert Ray, and Alan Dershowitz. (Dershowitz has stated he will confine his role to arguing the constitutional issues involved in proceeding on impeachment under the circumstances presented.)

 

More at the link:

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatever..."

 
"... let alone 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness. Nothing in these Articles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected President or warrant nullifying the election and subverting the will of the American people."

So reads the second paragraph of the "Answer of President Donald J. Trump" "In Proceedings Before the United States Senate." 
 
 
.
  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...