The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[B-Man]

 

 

The Left on PPP

 

........but, but, Trump's a liar, everyone knows it.

 

 

 

.

 

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

watching this last night, when he got up, i said to myself, 'here we go, he is going to side step this question like all others he responds to'. i laughed myself hard into a tizzy at his response about it being okay because it was purchased, whereby he then went off into the weeds because they have nothing. i think they opened themselves big time here with regard.

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, Margarita said:

SMH please this discourse has nothing to do with impeachment more personal insults and innuendo against me and a person that noone here even knows. Please stop.

nah, it goes to your character. is anything i have said been a lie? did you claim to have blocked me because of a verbose posting i made in direct response to you quoting me, or is it because i mock libs there? you claimed it to be the latter, your disingenuous. 

 

here's the thing though, you lie to yourself and you believe the horseshit that you make up in your head. and you expect everyone else to believe it too. then you get upset when someone points out your idiocy. you have even done it to the point that you have maligned certain administrators on said site to the point that they have to avoid you. you got banned for a good reason, you can't even get out of your own way because your idiocy is so great. and that is a problem.

 

horseshit.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Foxx

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Are you this stupid? Paid opposition research is different that extorting a foreign government to launch fake investigations. Duh! 

 

You level of dishonesty knows no bounds. But you are no different that the rest of the Trump cult. 

[muppy]

43 minutes ago, Foxx said:

nah, it goes to your character. is anything i have said been a lie? did you claim to have blocked me because of a verbose posting i made in direct response to you quoting me, or is it because i mock libs there? you claimed it to be the latter, your disingenuous. 

 

here's the thing though, you lie to yourself and you believe the ***** that you make up in your head. and you expect everyone else believe it too. then you get upset when someone points out your idiocy. you have even done it to the point that you have maligned certain administrators on said site to the point that they have to avoid you. you got banned for a good reason, you can't even get out of your own way because your idiocy is so great. and that is a problem.

 

horseshit.

Im reporting this post as abusive and irrelevant and uncalled for. Shame on you. Just for the record  the ban I received was overturned after a matter of days and a new moderating system implemented to prevent such an action from happening again there  that's the truth of it. To bring up a different board  to slander me here is okay? I don't think so.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Margarita

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

 

Again, Larry, nice guy with a highly partisan, short sighted, inaccurate take that includes lots of assumptions on unknown matters.  You seem to buy every accusation against the left while discounting every accusation on Trump.  Given Trump's penchant for lying, is that really a reasonable course?  Do you watch Hannity on Fox by any chance?  Ever watch PBS NewsHour?

 

The House presented their case.  Imo, to an impartial jury and given the WH investigation obstruction, he would be convicted.  As you say, to the Repubs, it was never going to be proven enough to convict.  The goal at this point is twofold.  Get the President's illegal election interference to stop.  Also, they want to get the Repub Senators on record as giving up oversight and ignoring available evidence.

 

The Nixon tapes changed minds in that hearing.  Similar Trump tapes today would not.  We have WH lawn video claiming with Trump doing what he denies doing and even that is not convincing enough.  Without the skies opening and God himself telling them on TV to '***** listen', the Repub Sens don't want to know more.  The more they know, the harder it is to say, 'No problem'.

We've come too far in this anonymous relationship of ours for you to toss out 'Fox News/Hannity', as a means of buttressing your argument.   It's unnecessary, and if the Hanman was my source for intel, I'm not sure why that would be an issue anyways.  Are we only to screen certain government-approved news sources, Das Komrade Bobinovitch?

 

I try to gather news from a variety of sources, most certainly skew to those that match my worldview as does every other human in the country.  I stomach, barely, NPR on a fairly regular basis. I pay attention to what the networks are reporting, I review NYT and WaPo articles of interest as time permits.  I do not represent myself as a person with intimate familiarity on every nuance and social issue, I understand that while I think Barrack Obama was a bad president, others did not and regardless of what he did, my primary role in life was to be a good son/husband/father.  I'm frail of spirit at times, but on the whole, I'm ok.  I'm reasonably intelligent, I'm open-minded within reason, I can learn and evolve.  I've seen nothing the compels me to evolve in this case. 

 

I know, with certainty, that the process as it is playing out in the senate is 100% appropriate given the issues, the stakes, the votes of in excess of 60m deplorable trump voters, the house process, what's been said and alleged, the holes in what has been said and alleged, and the totality of the liberal attempt to destroy Trump.  

 

I know you want to see him hauled off Guantanamo, I understand your perspective and recognize what you say about the highly partisan political attack by the dems to sully the Rs.  We agree on that.  You see it as them doing The Lord's Work, I see it as dangerous political wrangling.  I'm torn between wanting it to happen to 'your guy' in the future, of using impeachment as a means of further eroding what little confidence is left in our system, and realizing that's just going to make me feel dirty, like a New England Patriot's fan. 

 

Tell you what though, if we want to debate thought crimes, motivation, feelings, and kicking all the doors in in the relentless pursuit of the adversary, let's get that done when your guy is in power, and your vote is impacted.  I didn't like it when Mueller did it, I don't like it now.  

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Are you this stupid? Paid opposition research is different that extorting a foreign government to launch fake investigations. Duh! 

 

You level of dishonesty knows no bounds. But you are no different that the rest of the Trump cult. 

and once again, you are moving the goalposts because that was not the context. the context was any foreign information.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Margarita said:

Im reporting this post as abusive and irrelevant and uncalled for. Shame on you

hahahahahahaa

 

par for your course.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Foxx

[B-Man]

 

 

Update: Here’s WaPo  reporting, that the endgame may still be days away.

A senior administration official and two congressional officials said Friday it was unlikely that senators would rush immediately to a verdict after the witness vote fails. They requested anonymity to speak candidly about internal discussions.

 

The administration official and a congressional official raised the possibility that the Senate could take up a new procedural resolution laying out rules for the trial’s endgame — which could include time for closing arguments, private deliberations and public speeches by senators.

 

The Senate passed such a supplemental resolution in the middle of the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

Even passing that resolution could be a lengthy process: When senators debated the initial rules resolution last week, it took more than 12 hours of floor time to process debate on Democratic amendments to the GOP proposal, which ultimately passed unamended just before 2 a.m. on Jan. 22.

 

It could take until Wednesday, per one of WaPo’s sources, but that’s highly, highly unlikely. 

[RochesterRob]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Are you this stupid? Paid opposition research is different that extorting a foreign government to launch fake investigations. Duh! 

 

You level of dishonesty knows no bounds. But you are no different that the rest of the Trump cult. 

  Tiberius at straight jacket level of hysteria now.

[Doc]

Heads need to roll over that Steele dossier. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Doc

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 Anything blah blah, does not need to make sense 

 

. 

[muppy]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

and once again, you are moving the goalposts because that was not the context. the context was any foreign information.

 

 

hahahahahahaa

 

par for your course.

you are whom felt it necessary to attack me, my character and bring up other boards while here. Again shame on you Foxx this is a new LOW. waaaay below the belt. Im not going to go tit for tat which would be engaging you further.  SMH I hope the report reaps benefit you went way too far and completely out of line.Now you are ignored here also. Have a nice life.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Margarita

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Tiberius at straight jacket level of hysteria now.

And you are still a stupid idiot. You seem really slow. Do you have to take heavy medication or something? 

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Margarita said:

you are whom felt it necessary to attack me, my character and bring up other boards while here. Again shame on you Foxx this is a new LOW. waaaay below the belt. Im not going to go tit for tat which would be engaging you further.  SMH I hope the report reaps benefit you went way too far and completely out of line.Now you are ignored here also. Have a nice life.

you attacked me there. you brought up the other board, here. you opened the bottle, i'm just capping it.

 

it's okay, snowflake. i promise you won't melt (literally anyways).

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Dem leaders signal they won’t accept Trump acquittal as legitimate

By Marisa Schultz | Fox News

 

Democrats signaled in the runup to the looming conclusion of President Trump's impeachment proceedings that they'll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his "sham" trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.

Signaling how they will message the saga in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.

"The president's acquittal will be meaningless," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declared Friday, "because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink."

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. said Republicans may get what they want -- a speedy end to the trial -- but it won't have any value.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-leaders-signal-they-wont-accept-trump-acquittal-as-legitimate

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !

 

MORE BOLTON DETAILS SHAKE TRIAL

 

The smell of desperation in the air.

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

Last attempt at a surprise: 

 

 

(Won't work)

[RochesterRob]

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And you are still a stupid idiot. You seem really slow. Do you have to take heavy medication or something? 

  That's YOUR medication which is making the world seem slow and stupid.  Have some borscht, comrade.

Edited January 31, 2020 by RochesterRob

[Deranged Rhino]

Rudy denial: 

(second tweet)

 

[Bray Wyatt]

19 minutes ago, Foxx said:

and once again, you are moving the goalposts because that was not the context. the context was any foreign information.

 

 

hahahahahahaa

 

par for your course.

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Sort of demanding there for someone that doesn't really deserve that right.  But, I have nothing else to do so...

 

There have been a lot of questions and posts.  If you are talking about the one where you said we don't know motivations and I can't assume guilt and should assume innocence?  I will run with that for a bit and hope that is what you were talking about.

 

I did answer that I thought we have the ability to learn motivations with documents and witnesses that the President is blocking.  That fact in conjunction with what we do know from House proceedings, FOIA docs, past behavior, comments by Trump and his people on TV, and common sense, I have been convinced that Trump had primarily personal, political, election cheating motivations.

Again, this is a complete perversion of justice.

 

You are making demands that the defense prove their innocence against a backdrop of the assumption of guilt.

 

It is the same thing that happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and it is wrong, dangerous, and illiberal.

 

Individuals do not have to prove to the government, in any capacity, that they haven’t done what the government alleges. But rather, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused has done what they say he has.  Full stop.  That’s how it works.

[US Egg]

Another Lib loses it:

https://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-contributor-if-trump-is-acquitted-he-will-shut-down-voting-in-california/

 

.....it's only the beginning of their insanity.

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

With all due respect, were drinking even more than me?   Motivations are not material?  The truth is too vague?  Sorry, that seems plain silly to me.  The primary reason we can't get to the bottom of the motive question is due to the WH blocking.  That should enter into your thinking, imo

 

Honestly, do you really think if Trump had all sorts of emails and texts and witnesses that could easily exonerate him, that he would really hold them back from Congress to protect future Presidents?  When has he done something like that before, as opposed to what is best for Donnie ?

 

I used a football analogy before.  If there is strong suspicion that one team is paying off the officials, does it make sense to ignore that possibility, not investigate, and say, let it be decided on the field?

 

 

You’re being obtuse. Whether on purpose or not, I don’t know. I’m not going to go into your motives because it is irrelevant. 

 

To your second paragraph — the President has the right to do nothing. Just like you do if someone accuses you of something. Silence can not be used to imply guilt. This is as simple a Constitutional right as one can have. 

 

To your third paragraph — yes of course I’d want an investigation. And I’d want that investigation to be done by people who have the authority to investigate.  And I’d want those people to respect my right to not be required to help them out. 

 

By the way, your third paragraph completely disproves your entire premise about motives when looking at the predicate for impeachment. If Trump thought Biden was corrupt, wouldn’t you want him to investigate that? Isn’t that a good motive?  This is the problem with weighing motives when there’s more than one reason to do anything. This is why inquiring into motives isn’t really as important as you make them out to be. 

 

 

 

 

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Again, this is a complete perversion of justice.

 

You are making demands that the defense prove their innocence against a backdrop of the assumption of guilt.

 

It is the same thing that happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and it is wrong, dangerous, and illiberal.

 

Individuals do not have to prove to the government, in any capacity, that they haven’t done what the government alleges. But rather, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused has done what they say he has.  Full stop.  That’s how it works.

my only qualm with this post is that it is not illiberal but rather a very liberal thing.

[123719bwiqrb]

3 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Another Lib loses it:

https://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-contributor-if-trump-is-acquitted-he-will-shut-down-voting-in-california/

 

.....it's only the beginning of their insanity.

What a time to be alive.  

[Foxx]

what's it? day 11?

[keepthefaith]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Honest question, do you think Trump University was a scam business? I mean once a corrupt person, always a corrupt person. 

 

Trump University is a worse scam than anything Hunter Biden did. 

 

Any issues with Trump U have been settled.  Litigated and settled.  How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? 

[123719bwiqrb]

Just now, keepthefaith said:

 

Any issues with Trump U have been settled.  Litigated and settled.  How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? 

But CNN says the Biden story is a tinfoil hat thingy, like the moon landing.  Oh wait, CNN still believes in that one.

[B-Man]

 

 

ROGER SIMON: Misuse of Whistleblower Law Created the Impeachment Farce.

 

 

 

 

[Golden Goat]

49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Again, this is a complete perversion of justice.

 

You are making demands that the defense prove their innocence against a backdrop of the assumption of guilt.

 

It is the same thing that happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and it is wrong, dangerous, and illiberal.

 

Individuals do not have to prove to the government, in any capacity, that they haven’t done what the government alleges. But rather, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused has done what they say he has.  Full stop.  That’s how it works.

 

See though, there are a few differences from a court trial.  One, the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that.  A normal defendant would not have that right. How can that blocking of all possible witnesses and evidence not be considered by you? 

 

And two, 'corrupt purposes' are key when it comes to a number actions by politicians.  Determining of motivations is important here.

 

And three, we have all the accusations from the House proceedings and clues from FOIA documents.  There is precious little to counter accounts of his actions, so what is to be believed?

 

And four, unlike a trial, part of the audience is the public.  If they don't apply any pressure to Repub Sens, those Sens can skate out of this.  So, not all arguments made by Dems would occur in a courtroom but may be said here in order to influence the public.

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Any issues with Trump U have been settled.  Litigated and settled.  How about the Bidens going through a similar process so we can get to a just outcome on that matter? 

Sure, you are right. But it does show his bad character. Republican Senator Alexander admits Trump abused his power, and both these things are consistant with a person who is corrupt. As are many other things he has done. 

 

Hunter Biden is not his father. Trump is just totally corrupt. Joe Biden, no 

 

[Bob in Mich]

57 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Tell you what though, if we want to debate thought crimes, motivation, feelings, and kicking all the doors in in the relentless pursuit of the adversary, let's get that done when your guy is in power, and your vote is impacted.  I didn't like it when Mueller did it, I don't like it now.  

 

 

There is no worry for Presidents in any party.  There will be even longer legal battles to get executive branch evidence now than ever before, if Congress wishes to investigate.  It will take years now going forward. 

 

The King thanks you for your support.

[US Egg]

58 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Kamala is probably high again. 

 

https://www.civilized.life/articles/kamala-harris-father-criticizes-daughter-jamaica-marijuana/

"Senator and 2020 Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris recently made headlines for admitting to smoking marijuana" 

[BillsFanNC]

8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

See though, there are a few differences from a court trial.  One, the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that.  A normal defendant would not have that right. How can that blocking of all possible witnesses and evidence not be considered by you? 

 

 

 

Have you fully looked into who Michael Atkinson is yet?  If you have and are worried about no more witnesses being heard in the Senate trial, then you must be equally aghast at Schiff's hiding of his testimony, right?

[Golden Goat]

6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

the President can block the evidence from being seen and he is doing precisely that.  A normal defendant would not have that right.

A normal defendant would, however, have the right to face his accuser in court. Normal rules don't apply anywhere in this case.

[Foxx]

hahahahahahaaa. 

 

where is Nadler? nowhere to be found is the House Judiciary Chair.

 

?

Edited January 31, 2020 by Foxx

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Have you fully looked into who Michael Atkinson is yet?  If you have and are worried about no more witnesses being heard in the Senate trial, then you must be equally aghast at Schiff's hiding of his testimony, right?

 

Call him in the Senate then.  Just don't do it just to out the whistle blower.  Imo, if not to punish, all that needs to be learned on that issue can be done without putting a target on the guy and his family.  I know his name is out there but there is no need to open the guy up to even more crazies that could attack him or his family.

[Wacka]

Like I said in a previous thread, on Tuesday, Trump should come  to the podium with a rap song playing n sunglasses, just look at Pelosi and say  " Four years, beoch", drop the mic and leave.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Wacka