The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Bob in Mich]

12 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

What was the question?

 

Does it matter?   My take is derived from a preponderance of evidence from the totality of his postings.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Does it matter?   My take is derived from a preponderance of evidence from the totality of his postings.

 

False. You literally just advocated for a reversal of our standard of justice because you know that you have no evidence.

[Rob's House]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Does it matter?   My take is derived from a preponderance of evidence from the totality of his postings.

 

I like to answer questions posed to others. From your response, however, I take it this was personal in nature.

[Bob in Mich]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Possibly one of the reasons Trump called his phone call perfect.  Perhaps he thought his plan so good because he had a great defensible position that would be all but impossible to disprove.....unless the prosecution got their hands on all the emails, texts, and witnesses.  He had just the answer to that problem too with absolute immunity.

[B-Man]

 

 

GOP staffers eating their free cake after Trumps acquittal

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only bipartisan vote in the House in this whole process was AGAINST impeachment.

 

Everything else has been partisan.

 

Never forget that.

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

 

Possibly one of the reasons Trump called his phone call perfect.  Perhaps he thought his plan so good because he had a great defensible position that would be all but impossible to disprove.....unless the prosecution got their hands on all the emails, texts, and witnesses.  He had just the answer to that problem too with absolute immunity.

 

So you're basing your opinion that Trump is "absolutely guilty" on mystery evidence in the form of emails, texts and witnesses you haven't seen, read, or heard from? 

 

And here I thought you couldn't get any more foolish.  

[Foxx]

?

 

https://twitter.com/thebradfordfile/status/1179523279117324288

 

[snafu]

33 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I believe what Dershowitz was saying is not that the President could never be removed for any abuse of power, but that simply meeting a bare abuse of power threshold is not necessarily sufficient criteria and lacks the requisite specificity.

 

I believe what Dershowitz said is that you'd need an underlying crime to attach to the "abuse of power" accusation.  Something like "the President abused his power because he committed bribery, treason or some other high crime and misdemeanor" (he particularly stressed the word other).  What Schiff argued is that the underlying "crime" is extortion/bribery.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Lucky Strike, thanks for the reply and the replying to my OJ analogy.  It is a work in progress I admit, but the salient similar points:

 

- OJ underwent a massive investigation that cost taxpayers $Millions

- Same for Trump

-OJ was acquitted of charges but a lot of suspicion of his possible guilt remained

-Similar for Trump

-The investigations and eventual trial put OJ through a very difficult process personally that damaged his reputation

-Same for Trump

-OJ and his supporters claim now that those that still investigate/watch him are harassing him even though he was acquitted

- Same for Trump

-OJ's detractors claim the guy is a criminal who needs to be watched closely for future crimes

- Similar for Trump detractors

 

The point then that I was making is that you claim that Trump should not be investigated by Congress going forward just because Mueller did not charge him after that massive previous investigation. 

 

Try to follow here, but that logic put to OJ would be like saying OJ should not be investigated if there are any new allegations because he was already acquitted after a massive investigation that has put him through hell. 

 

Regarding closing out the trial without witnesses, it appears you will get your wish.  As I posted before, the impact on Trump is obvious and immediate.  Remains to be seen the future impact on the campaigns of the deaf and blind Repub Senators.  Americans have short memories though so maybe none.

 

Kavanaugh...we talked about this issue previously and I gave you my honest though limited take.  I recall I had a question for you on that that you never answered.  I will look for that but probably enough for one posting anyway

No recollection on an unanswered Kavvie question.  I'm not sure what question would cause me to rethink my feelings on that but have at it if you can.

 

I follow your explanation on OJ. I'd accept the comparison if OJ was tried by football players only, in two separate  trials with rules developed by his enemies in one case and his allies on the other, entirely unrelated to those set forth in your ypical criminal trial..

 

Peace out. 

[snafu]

35 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I have maintained that without more documents or witnesses Trump defenders can find a defensible position which will be near impossible to disprove.  Claiming his motivation was not for political purposes but was for the national good, is the story and they are sticking to it. 

 

Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence.

The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty.  If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun.  There's also no smoking gun on the horizon.  You mind won't be changed.  My mind won't be changed.  This is over.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence.

The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty.  If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun.  There's also no smoking gun on the horizon.  You mind won't be changed.  My mind won't be changed.  This is over.

 

 

 

 

@Bob in Mich does not believe in nor value 100s of years of western jurisprudence or our rule of law. He is advocating, knowingly or not (likely not, because he's dim) for a complete reversal of our system of justice just because Trump is mean. 

 

He's a mental midget. 

****************************

It's over. 

 

 

[Foxx]

19 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Maybe you can help me understand the Repub motivation on this.  If so, please take a minute if you would.

 

Agree or disagree?

The whistle blower program in general is useful in uncovering possible misdeeds by government employees.  Agree or disagree?

 

Outing this guy/girl's identity will put his and his family's lives in greater danger from some possibly unstable Trump supporter.  Agree or disagree?

 

Outing him/her too would have a chilling affect on future possible whistle blowing due to the outing of this whistle blower.  agree or disagree?

 

The whistle blower's statement has been, if not exactly, largely supported by the House witnesses who were under oath.  agree or disagree?

 

Couldn't whatever questions the Repub Sens have be answered by the whistle blower either on paper or in secret hearings?  Why is it so important to Repubs (if it is to you) to publicly out this guy/woman given the concerns?

agree.

disagree.

disagree.

agree.

probably. invalid concerns.

 

pointedly.

 

the whistle blower is an important component in helping hold accountability within the governmental hierarchy.  however, there is nothing that explicitly grants the whistle blower immunity and or protection from exposure. lastly, there is a reasonable question as to whether or not the supposed whistle blower is actually, technically a whistle blower. whistle blowers are afforded certain protections but, and i could be wrong here, i don't believe protection from identity reveal is one of them.   

 

you opine whether the supposed whistle blower would come under duress from a fanatic. i would venture that the statistical likely hood of them coming under attack from a conservative is below any statistical norm of anyone else for anything else. yes sure the danger exists but so does the chance of getting a hangnail.

 

this whistle blower (if he can even be legally called that) is politically driven and quite possibly a political tool from the left. are others going to be discouraged from coming forward of their own volition, or better yet, probably better termed... brought forward by nefarious political forces, definitely not. 

 

yes, his contention is well supported by testimony. in that there were policy differences. nothing more.

 

if he is subpoenaed, he will be deposed in private before any public (if any) testimony, as will all 'new witnesses'. the import of the outing of the supposed whistle blower it multifaceted, with the main question surrounding his bias (remember the IG reported an obvious bias), his connections and the coordination of it all.

 

 

 

remember, i took the time here so please, if you wish to continue, be respectful and be cordial and honest in response. otherwise we will resort to the form yesterdays ended with.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Tiberius]

20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

So you're basing your opinion that Trump is "absolutely guilty" on mystery evidence in the form of emails, texts and witnesses you haven't seen, read, or heard from? 

 

And here I thought you couldn't get any more foolish.  

Witnesses, his own transcript, Mulvaney, and heck, even Alan Derssh is basically saying he did it, but its ok. The cover up is even more obvious. Just like OJ though, some people won't see the obvious. You are a partisan blind monkey. 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

 

John "How Will I Look" Roberts has always been more concerned with his image than the law.

There is a “John Roberts” on the Epstein flight logs.

[Tiberius]

18 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence.

The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty.  If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun.  There's also no smoking gun on the horizon.  You mind won't be changed.  My mind won't be changed.  This is over.

 

 

 

They have. Trump just has a partisan jury. That's it 

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

There is a “John Roberts” on the Epstein flight logs.

?No Bolton?

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

agree.

disagree.

disagree.

agree.

probably. invalid concerns.

 

pointedly.

 

the whistle blower is an important component in helping hold accountability within the governmental hierarchy.  however, there is nothing that explicitly grants the whistle blower immunity and or protection from exposure. lastly, there is a reasonable question as to whether or not the supposed whistle blower is actually, technically a whistle blower. whistle blowers are afforded certain protections but, and i could be wrong here, i don't believe protection from identity reveal is one of them.   

 

you opine whether the supposed whistle blower would come under duress from a fanatic. i would venture that the statistical likely hood of them coming under attack from a conservative is below any statistical norm of anyone else for anything else. yes sure the danger exists but so does the chance of getting a hangnail.

 

this whistle blower (if he can even be legally called that) is politically driven and quite possibly a political tool from the left. are others going to be discouraged from coming forward of their own volition, or better yet, probably better termed... brought forward by nefarious political forces, definitely not. 

 

yes, his contention is well supported by testimony. in that there were policy differences. nothing more.

 

if he is subpoenaed, he will be deposed in private before any public (if any) testimony, as will all 'new witnesses'. the import of the outing of the supposed whistle blower it multifaceted, with the main question surrounding his bias (remember the IG reported an obvious bias), his connections and the coordination of it all.

 

 

 

remember, i took the time here so please, if you wish to continue, be respectful and be cordial and honest in response. otherwise we will resort to the form yesterdays ended with.

 

Bob's nonsense list aside (ridiculous list), in this country the accused has the right to face his or her accuser. 

 

And considering how the Trump/Russia hoax was crafted, pushed, and weaponized by anonymous CIA sources -- just like this "scandal" -- NOT calling the whistleblower, or taking Bob's line of reasoning, is to condone unelected CIA officers and personnel undoing an election from the shadows. 

 

*****. That. 

 

Then again, Bob wants to subvert our entire rule of law and flip it on its head. So of course he sees no issue here. 

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence.

The people who accuse him need to prove he's guilty.  If those people do a slipshod job or an incomplete job it isn't up to the accused to help them. So far there has been no smoking gun.  There's also no smoking gun on the horizon.  You mind won't be changed.  My mind won't be changed.  This is over.

 

 

 

it's smocking damnitall! smocking!!!!!!

[TakeYouToTasker]

32 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Possibly one of the reasons Trump called his phone call perfect.  Perhaps he thought his plan so good because he had a great defensible position that would be all but impossible to disprove.....unless the prosecution got their hands on all the emails, texts, and witnesses.  He had just the answer to that problem too with absolute immunity.

Is this an argument that the President cannot take any policy position, no matter how good it is for the health of the country, if doing so would benefit his re-election?

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

i agree 100% with Dersh here. no one, and i mean no one (the possible exception here being our one celled mentally challenged amoeba, tibsey), makes any decision based solely upon the basis of just one point of information.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Cares about protecting whistleblowers -- until they don't. 

 

Don't forget, Nunes himself was a huge whistleblower against the IC and he was smeared for three years, doxxed, and attacked by Schiff. The same guy who claims to care about "the lives of whistleblowers". 

 

Dishonest argument from dishonest people. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Is this an argument that the President cannot take any policy position, no matter how good it is for the health of the country, if doing so would benefit his re-election?

How is having an announcement being made that Biden is under investigation in a foreign country, good for the US? That's is such a dishonest and anti-libertarian argument. 

 

You are such a fraud. Claiming you are against too much government power, except when you like the racist president we have. ####### 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Cares about protecting whistleblowers -- until they don't. 

 

Don't forget, Nunes himself was a huge whistleblower against the IC and he was smeared for three years, doxxed, and attacked by Schiff. The same guy who claims to care about "the lives of whistleblowers". 

 

Dishonest argument from dishonest people. 

 

 

But Nunes was making false claims, and was dishonest. Still is. You guys are a cesspool of lies and garbage 

[Bob in Mich]

17 minutes ago, Foxx said:

agree.

disagree.

disagree.

agree.

probably. invalid concerns.

 

pointedly.

 

the whistle blower is an important component in helping hold accountability within the governmental hierarchy.  however, there is nothing that explicitly grants the whistle blower immunity and or protection from exposure. lastly, there is a reasonable question as to whether or not the supposed whistle blower is actually, technically a whistle blower. whistle blowers are afforded certain protections but, and i could be wrong here, i don't believe protection from identity reveal is one of them.   

 

you opine whether the supposed whistle blower would come under duress from a fanatic. i would venture that the statistical likely hood of them coming under attack from a conservative is below any statistical norm of anyone else for anything else. yes sure the danger exists but so does the chance of getting a hangnail.

 

this whistle blower (if he can even be legally called that) is politically driven and quite possibly a political tool from the left. are others going to be discouraged from coming forward of their own volition, or better yet, probably better termed... brought forward by nefarious political forces, definitely not. 

 

yes, his contention is well supported by testimony. in that there were policy differences. nothing more.

 

if he is subpoenaed, he will be deposed in private before any public (if any) testimony, as will all 'new witnesses'. the import of the outing of the supposed whistle blower it multifaceted, with the main question surrounding his bias (remember the IG reported an obvious bias), his connections and the coordination of it all.

 

 

 

remember, i took the time here so please, if you wish to continue, be respectful and be cordial and honest in response. otherwise we will resort to the form yesterdays ended with.

Thank you.  I appreciate it.   Lunch plans today so I will likely get back to you later...or maybe tomorrow.

 

In brief it seems that people want to punish this guy.  If all the political suspicions and nefarious actions are true, that take is understandable.  it just seems that so far, I have only seen suspicions without any other proof, though I may have missed it.  Anyway, thx again.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

In brief it seems that people want to punish this guy.  If all the political suspicions and nefarious actions are true, that take is understandable.  it just seems that so far, I have only seen suspicions without any other proof, though I may have missed it.  Anyway, thx again.

 

Just yesterday you admitted you did not know the relevance of the IC-IG. 

 

You should research it, because it speaks directly to this point. 

[Bob in Mich]

14 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Is this an argument that the President cannot take any policy position, no matter how good it is for the health of the country, if doing so would benefit his re-election?

Sort of implies all just a coincidence that Bidens were going to be involved in his requested investigation? 

 

I have to leave shortly but thought I would ask a question to you.  Check back later...or tomorrow

 

Do you honestly believe that he was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

Sort of implies all just a coincidence that Bidens were going to be involved in his requested investigation? 

 

I have to leave shortly but thought I would ask a question to you.  Check back later...or tomorrow

 

Do you honestly believe that he was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

 

Not only is this a poorly worded question, it's stupid. 

 

All Trump needed to prove, to make the entire case moot, is that there was the POSSIBILITY that Biden's dealings in Ukraine weren't on the up and up. If there is even a hint of doubt on that matter, then Trump asking Ukraine to look into it cannot be attributed to solely political motivations. 

 

You lost. 

 

Again. 

 

It's over. 

 

5 more years of your torment to go...

[Bob in Mich]

DR, just a reminder.  You are on ignore.  You will remain on ignore meaning I don't read your posts or follow any links.

 

I will not engage with you based solely on your repeated horrible posting behavior towards me.    Out

Edited January 30, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Rob's House]

39 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Possibly one of the reasons Trump called his phone call perfect.  Perhaps he thought his plan so good because he had a great defensible position that would be all but impossible to disprove.....unless the prosecution got their hands on all the emails, texts, and witnesses.  He had just the answer to that problem too with absolute immunity.

 

You're missing the point, which is twofold:

 

1. Persuing something because you believe it is in your own personal best interest does not preclude you from also believing it is in the best interest of the country.

 

2. Subjective intent is irrelevant when the underlying act is not improper.

 

For example, say a cop pulls over a driver who's going 10 over, has a busted tail light, and is borderline DUI. The cop intends to let him off with a warning, but the guy gets belligerent and mouths of to him.

 

Because he's personally offended the cop charges him w/ DUI, Speeding, & Defective Equipment. The cop's subjective intent is irrelevant because there was a legitimate basis for charging the man.

 

Establishing that the cop charged him for his own personal satisfaction rather than to fulfill his official duties does not render his actions improper in the eyes of the law.

[Nanker]

2 hours ago, Albwan said:

   Why don't they bring Bolton and the Bidens criminal family on...Bolton has already 

agreed with Trump by stating it was a good phone call on tape...back pedaling will make him a liar...

Do it !!!

 

That's not their end game. They'd grill him as hard as they could to get any kind of dirt possible on Trump.

They're scum. They're driven by hatred and their lust for power. 

[keepthefaith]

35 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

There is a “John Roberts” on the Epstein flight logs.

 

Yeah, have seen it.  Wonder about its authenticity. 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

That's not their end game. They'd grill him as hard as they could to get any kind of dirt possible on Trump.

They're scum. They're driven by hatred and their lust for power. 

Lol, like Trump pressuring foreign countries? 

 

The scum is on the right. It's scum, ignorance and lies. A garbage party. 

 

Seriously, the right wing is just a lie machine of conspiracy theories and fantastic nonsense that you guys lick up. Go live in Russia, please, it would make our country better 

[keepthefaith]

Is it me or does Justice Roberts seem very unimpressive during the impeachment?  His role is very administrative so it's not a great chance to show off his work but from what I've seen he's a bit of a namby pamby.

Edited January 30, 2020 by keepthefaith

[snafu]

41 minutes ago, Foxx said:

it's smocking damnitall! smocking!!!!!!

 

I almost did it!

[US Egg]

7 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

Is it me or does Justice Roberts seem very unimpressive during the impeachment?  His role is very administrative so it's not a great chance to show off his work but from what I've seen he's a bit of a namby pamby.

Wouldn't trust him for anything. 

[snafu]

34 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

How is having an announcement being made that Biden is under investigation in a foreign country, good for the US? That's is such a dishonest and anti-libertarian argument. 

 

You are such a fraud. Claiming you are against too much government power, except when you like the racist president we have. ####### 

But Nunes was making false claims, and was dishonest. Still is. You guys are a cesspool of lies and garbage 

 

You really have a pattern here.

When things aren't going your way, you lash out with accusations against posters that you *wish* were true.

Sucks to be you.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

20 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

DR, just a reminder.  You are on ignore.  You will remain on ignore meaning I don't read your posts or follow any links.

 

I will not engage with you based solely on your repeated horrible posting behavior towards me.    Out

 

As a reminder -- I don't care if you have me on ignore. I'll keep pointing out your flawed, shortsighted, and dangerous arguments for the bunk they are. If you responded to them, you'd only end up learning something new, and you've proven that you're HIGHLY against that.  

 

[snafu]

On 1/21/2020 at 11:47 AM, snafu said:

Cue Ethel Merman:

 

There's no business like show business and I tell you it's so
Traveling through the country is so thrilling, standing out in front on opening nights
Smiling as you watch the theater filling, and there's your billing out there in lights

There's no people like show people, they smile when they are low
Angels come from everywhere with lots of jack, and when you lose it, there's no attack
Where could you get money that you don't give back? Let's go on with the show

 

 

^^^^^ Indeed...

Let's go, on with the show.

 

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

Is it me or does Justice Roberts seem very unimpressive during the impeachment?  His role is very administrative so it's not a great chance to show off his work but from what I've seen he's a bit of a namby pamby.

You don't like him being fair, maybe? You guys are just so arrogant and spoiled you think everyone should just take to your corrupt side and proclaim the man child a king? You guys really are a disgrace 

[snafu]

Yes, yes,... let the hate flow through you!!!

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

You really have a pattern here.

When things aren't going your way, you lash out with accusations against posters that you *wish* were true.

Sucks to be you.

 

 

 

Yes, people acting corruptly, abusing power and ignoring the basic values of our republic--"our republic" does indeed suck 

 

You guys are openly corrupt and think its great. There will be a price to pay.