Its official, Trump broke the law

[bush_cheney2004]

Democrats worse fear coming true....America is bored with it already:

 

Quote

The Senate spectator gallery was at least half-empty throughout the first week of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial and senators serving as the jury in the marathon sessions are taking notice — some stunned that there aren’t more people watching history unfold, while others understand the public avoiding the repetitive proceedings.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/24/trump-impeachment-half-empty-spectator-gallery-puzzles-senators/

 

....that's why we have a Super Bowl instead.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Biden running for office does not preclude him from being investigated,

"Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!"

It seems smearing opponents with bullshit accusations of illegality is becoming the Republican party's  go-to standard for winning elections.

Funny how all their interest in Clinton's 'criminal behaviour' completely disappeared after the election.

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 Whether he did it partially for partisan reasons or not isn't relevant

He did it entirely for partisan purposes. No American or western police agency has shown the slightest interest in this baseless allegation.

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Lots of presidents do partisan things all the time that serve their own interests in foreign policy,

Yeah? Like who?

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The entire basis for you're belief that Trump did something wrong is that you don't trust his motives

Everyone who has testified has already shown what his motives were. The fact that not a single person has testified about Trump's pure motives ought to give anyone other than a cult member pause for thought. He couldn't find a single person to lie for him under oath because they all know that any court case would make his motives crystal clear and get them arrested for perjury.

Not. One. Person.

 

 

 

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Everyone who has testified has already shown what his motives were.

They don't his motives were most didn't even talk to Trump about it, and those that did said Trump said his motives were different than what the witness thought they were. Mindreading by people who don't know what Trump motives are isn't proof of a crime, that's grasping at straws to pretend you have any relevant evidence.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Rue]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They don't his motives were most didn't even talk to Trump about it, and those that did said Trump said his motives were different than what the witness thought they were. Mindreading by people who don't know what Trump motives are isn't proof of a crime, that's grasping at straws to pretend you have any relevant evidence.

Its not mind reading. He told everyone publically what his motives were-to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden for suspected crimes.

 

[Rue]

16 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Democrats worse fear coming true....America is bored with it already:

 

 

....that's why we have a Super Bowl instead.

You just insulted football fans and all Americans. I suspect some in both categories care about what has happened to the state of Potus.

[Rue]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 11:31 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

He released the aid long before the deadline. Also even if he had violated that law, that's not an impeachable offense, as the law lays out the remedy and it does not include impeachment. Many Presidents have violated it, including Obama and Clinton, they weren't impeached over it, and no one even tried, only the TDS crowd is reaching for this straw. If it goes to SCOTUS, they tend to side with legislative branch on this one, not the executive branch, but this example doesn't have to go there, because Trump released the aid.

 The determination of his acting in a conflicted manner was his  own words -he publically bragged that he did and could  ask Ukraine and other foreign governments  to investigate Joe Biden for suspected crimes. He has never hidden his intent to investigate someone he knows is a political candidate running against  him through foreign governments. You Trump supporters agree with this because Biden is a Democrat and you think any challenge to this action is only because Biden is a Democrat being defended by Democrats. You suspend any other consideration as to what acting in a conflicted manner means and why it should not be allowed.

 A standing US President in a conflicted position of interest can not and should not use his office of Presidency regardless of his reasons, to order anyone let alone a foreign government to investigate an American citizen who is running against him in an election. That is a direct conflict of interest. He must recuse himself from any such role and have a non conflicted individual decide whether an investigation is warranted.  That applies whether he is a Republican President targetting a Democratic opponent or Republican opponent running against him and it would equally apply to a Democrat President targeting a Republican opponent running against him for office of even a fellow Democrat running against him.

This is the issue you and Trump supporters won't address. Because you think Biden is a Democrat, you believe the US President can ask foreign governments to investigate Americans. You don't address the conflict of interest. You don't address the issue that Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate Biden because Trump said his own enforcement agencies could not be trusted. This is a standing US President saying he would trust foreign investigators more than his own investigators to investigate his fellow Americans. You refuse to acknowledge the implications of that. You ignore his dismissals of his Attorney Generals, Deputy Attorney Generals, FBI heads, other FBI executives, fights with his own CIA, Homeland Security. Trump has declared his entire US government partisan against him, justifying him doing whatever he feels like in an unchallenged manner. He can be unaccountable and a dictator on the grounds everyone is out to get him. This belief also is applied to Republicans he disagrees with and attacks personally. His attacks on the reputation of John McCain and Mitt Romney and other people who disagreed with him including the former candidates who ran against him are there on the Twitter for all to read.

You have a President who uses his Twitter as a raving and ranting communication device evidencing his state of hatred for anyone who challenges him and you ignore this.

His legal counsel argued to prevent proper disclosure of evidence and the summonsing of witnesses to prevent a trial from properly being conducted.

This counsel argued that if the President wasn't allowed to use privilege to prevent investigation of himself,  the common American would have their constitutional rights ignored.

The counsel argued privilege is a constitutional right that is absolute and is good for the public and if not allowed makes it easy to abuse the public's constitutional rights. Come again?  What constitutional rights? No American has a constitutional right holding them above the law? No American can ignore a supeona, a  summons, or obstruct justice by refusing to hand over evidence directly related to a criminal proceeding under their control as Trump demands. Why would creating a double standard and giving Trump rights under the constitution no American has protect them. How is giving the President unlimited powers to do what he likes in aid or support of the constitutional rights of Americans?

The US constitution was created to safeguard the use of powers so that no one could and can abuse American citizens.

Isn't it ironic the very country created an rebelling against a King having absolute powers and created a legal system from preventing this from happening, now has Trump partisans in the name of American democracy demanding Trump have the very same powers as the King they created their country to rebel against.

Very ironic and sad. The US now sees Republicans in the Senate abandoning their role and responsibility to the people to hold all politicians accountable. Some blatantly do not attend and is it any wonder. Their  house leader Mitch McConnell said he would never allow them to conduct an impeachment trial in any manner that would find Trump guilty of anything.

Bottom line is Americans must decide in their next federal election whether to keep Trump in and their next congressional and senate elections to decide who to vote in.

Bottom line is Americans have seen if the President has enough control in either the Senate or House of Representatives, he can break any law he wants act like a complete dictator.  It will all come down to a partisan process to determine his power not legal principles.

Using this reasoning Nixon would have walked and for that matter President Johnson the last President to be impeached.

 

 

 

 

[Yzermandius19]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

Its not mind reading. He told everyone publically what his motives were-to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden for suspected crimes.

 

He mentioned reasons that weren't solely to his political benefit as well. It is not a crime to want Biden investigated. There is nothing wrong with it, Biden running for office does not make him immune from Trump wanting him investigated. If running for office prevented investigation of the candidate, than investigating Trump would have been illegal, that's not how it works. You don't have him publicly telling everyone he wanted Biden investigated only because he was running against him in 2020, and for no other reason, you are mindreading and twisting his words to believe what you want to believe.

Funny how you only believe Trump when he says something that you think makes him look bad, then there is no reason to interpret what he said to not be what you thought he said, and if he says something that you think makes him look good, then we shouldn't believe a word he says because he's a notorious liar. Cherrypicking Partisan Hackery.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[godzilla]

10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

It is not a crime to want Biden investigated.

No, but it a crime to use the public purse and office to make it happen, irrespective of ANY reason according to law.

And everybody knew this, everybody was told, lots of knowing participants "talked to the lawyers". Its farcical to imply anything else. Let the lawyers speak! Lets clear this up. But of course there isn't anything to clear up. Its already clear. Trump fucked up again.

Edited January 27, 2020 by godzilla

[godzilla]

Bolton account of Ukraine aid could reignite call for impeachment witnesses

"former national security adviser John Bolton wrote in an initial draft of his forthcoming book that Trump told him that critical military aid to Ukraine would remain suspended until the country’s government helped with Trump’s desired investigations targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats."

And there you go... Yet another smoking gun.

This might get interesting real fast.

Edited January 27, 2020 by godzilla

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

No, but it a crime to use the public purse and office to make it happen, irrespective of ANY reason according to law.

And everybody knew this, everybody was told, lots of knowing participants "talked to the lawyers". Its farcical to imply anything else. Let the lawyers speak! Lets clear this up. But of course there isn't anything to clear up. Its already clear. Trump fucked up again.

Trump holding up funds a little longer than usual is no crime worthy of impeachment, many POTUS's have done the same and not been impeached for it, and no one tried to impeach them for it. The law that says it shouldn't be done has remedies for when the situation occurs, and impeachment is not listed as one of those remedies. The Democrats are grasping at straws because they have no way of beating Trump at the ballot box.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Rue]

19 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

He mentioned reasons that weren't solely to his political benefit as well.

Y that is called a self serving statement in the law of evidence which is why its deemed inadmissable. if we left it to an individual to tell us if he was a criminal of course he'll say no. More to the point what does it mean to be "solely to his political benefit". Does that mean if it was only a little bit to his benefit its ok? Yah yah, I get it you can be a little bit pregnant?  Uh no. Y, the test for knowing when you are in a conflict of interest in law does not test the degree of conflict-and even more the point the test is not just whether there is ANY kind of conflict (any degree of conflict) but not even an actual conflict, just the appearance of one is enough.

The point you miss is Trump is justifying acting in a conflicted manner because his argument is his being privileged under the constitution allows him to do anything without challenge. That is what he said. More to the point he has further argued and is supported on this forum by Trump followers who believe anything to do with politics is partisan so anyone can act at any time in a partisan way as President and does not need to follow the law.

The legal principles involved in what Trump did have implications whether the President was a Democrat or Republican. What you may not understand is Trump is setting the grounds for a Democrat President one day to do what he is doing now and it will be equally as wrong. Trump is part of a process of the US allowing its most fundamental principles for safeguarding against dictatorship and tyranny be stripped to enable the President to become a dictator no different than the despots we have seen in history that had absolute power.

People who cheer on Trump cheer on a system of centralized power in just once office and one person, the very type of rule the US was founded upon to prevent. His lawyers forgot to mention that when defending his right of privilege before the Senate.

The founding fathers of the US in writing the Constitution never intended a King with absolute powers to rule.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Rue

[Yzermandius19]

The Founding Fathers intended the executive branch to have control over the enforcement of foreign policy. Something that benefits the nation can also benefit the chances of re-election, if that is the case, then benefiting the nation is not a bad thing just because doing it helps the President get re-elected. You seem under the false impression that POTUS is not allowed to bolster his chances of getting re-elected with foreign policy decisions that benefit the nation, if he realizes it will help him get re-elected, but literally every single president has done that and no one tried to impeach them for it, until Trump.

Basically the whole thing comes down to people viewing Trump as having interests that are diametrically opposed to the interests of America itself in all cases, and therefore they view any action he takes that benefits himself as hurting America, but there is no proof of that. The standard Trump should be held to is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent, and not having proof of his innocence is not proof of his guilt, though you seem to think it is Rue.

Speculation, rumors and hearsay as to Trump's motive is not evidence that Trump's motives are exactly as the speculation, rumors and hearsay claim they are, without actual hard evidence of his motive, you can't prove any crime worthy of impeachment was committed, since the crimes you are claiming he committed are only crimes if he had a specific motive. What some witness thinks he was thinking doesn't count as proof of his motive, it counts as proof of what that witness thinks his motive is, which may or may not be accurate, you're going to need more than that, to remove a POTUS from office via impeachment.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[godzilla]

Then demand the transparency that will show Trump absolutely innocent. If Trump is innocent then he himself is the cause of all of this fuss by not providing the documentation and witnesses that proves it. But of course its just common sense why the guilty attempt to hide their guilt. What strange excuse can you come up with for that? In fact, what is the official reason and the reason promoted by his supporters? Farcically, they make up all kinds of reasons why what happened, happened. But they are unable to provide any even imaginary reason for not supplying supporting documentation and witnesses.

Edited January 27, 2020 by godzilla

[godzilla]

"How can we set up a system which encourages individuals to strive and excel, and yet which shows some compassion to the weak, and weeds out madmen and tyrants?"

The equal branches of government are there to protect against the tyrant.

"It is the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." - Ben Franklin

[Rue]

5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The Founding Fathers intended the executive branch to have control over the enforcement of foreign policy. Something that benefits the nation can also benefit the chances of re-election, if that is the case, then benefiting the nation is not a bad thing just because doing it helps the President get re-elected. You seem under the false impression that POTUS is not allowed to bolster his chances of getting re-elected with foreign policy decisions that benefit the nation, if he realizes it will help him get re-elected, but literally every single president has done that and no one tried to impeach them for it, until Trump.

Basically the whole thing comes down to people viewing Trump as having interests that are diametrically opposed to the interests of America itself in all cases, and therefore they view any action he takes that benefits himself as hurting America, but there is no proof of that. The standard Trump should be held to is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent, and not having proof of his innocence is not proof of his guilt, though you seem to think it is Rue.

Speculation, rumors and hearsay as to Trump's motive is not evidence that Trump's motives are exactly as the speculation, rumors and hearsay claim they are, without actual hard evidence of his motive, you can't prove any crime worthy of impeachment was committed, since the crimes you are claiming he committed are only crimes if he had a specific motive. What some witness thinks he was thinking doesn't count as proof of his motive, it counts as proof of what that witness thinks his motive is, which may or may not be accurate, you're going to need more than that, to remove a POTUS from office via impeachment.

Y your criticism is true in the sense that there is a strong presumption with the test for conflict of interest.Yes.  With the law concerning conflict of interest it does assume any appearance of conflict of interest let alone any kind or degree of conflict of interest precludes the use of the power its associated with. It does as you say reverse the presumption. You are right. Is that unfair? When it comes to protecting the public from conflicts of interest by those in power or who MAY be or who are abusing power you bet its supposed to be strict because it gives the benefit of the doubt to the public, not the person claiming to rule them or exercise the power.

I agree with you Y that you can argue what Trump did was no "worse" than any other partisanship, but the point is if its used as he has it taints the entire legal system meaning a President is above the law and could do what he wants, when he wants. That is the point. It sets a precedent for Presidents of any partisan persuasion to do what Trump does as well.

Thank you for your always respectful debate. Always appreciated.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, godzilla said:

Then demand the transparency that will show Trump absolutely innocent. If Trump is innocent then he himself is the cause of all of this fuss by not providing the documentation and witnesses that proves it. But of course its just common sense why the guilty attempt to hide their guilt. What strange excuse can you come up with for that? In fact, what is the official reason and the reason promoted by his supporters? Farcically, they make up all kinds of reasons why what happened, happened. But they are unable to provide any even imaginary reason for not supplying supporting documentation and witnesses.

The people who demand transparency with Trump are dead certain that no light ever shines on Biden's obvious crimes. Period.

Schiff and Hunter are both important witnesses in this case because Schiff made the key distinction that Trump was "digging up dirt", which is only true if there was no actual crime that was worthy of investigation - even though the appearance of a crime is overwhelming.

Go ahead and ask for fairness all around or stop complaining. No one likes a hypocrite.

[godzilla]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The people who demand transparency with Trump are dead certain that no light ever shines on Biden's obvious crimes. Period.

Schiff and Hunter are both important witnesses in this case because Schiff made the key distinction that Trump was "digging up dirt", which is only true if there was no actual crime that was worthy of investigation - even though the appearance of a crime is overwhelming.

Go ahead and ask for fairness all around or stop complaining. No one likes a hypocrite.

no end of chat seems to convince you that they are different matters. if a bank cheats then the bank robber doesn't get to blame the bank. they are different cases. and again, we have R controlled everything except for the House. start the investigations! not happening? funny that...

the Ukrainians were told they didn't even have to perform the investigations... just announce them.

Sondland: Zelensky Only Had to Announce Biden Investigations, ‘Didn’t Actually Have to Do Them’

in any case, are you arguing that Trump shouldn't be transparent? whats the excuse then? "the Bidens aren't being transparent" is... pretty weak!

Edited January 28, 2020 by godzilla

[godzilla]

Bolton said that Giuliani was a human hand grenade. now its Boltons turn to be the hand grenade! haha!

Trump team braces for deeper impeachment drama after Bolton surprise

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, godzilla said:

no end of chat seems to convince you that they are different matters. if a bank cheats then the bank robber doesn't get to blame the bank. they are different cases. and again, we have R controlled everything except for the House. start the investigations! not happening? funny that...

the Ukrainians were told they didn't even have to perform the investigations... just announce them.

Sondland: Zelensky Only Had to Announce Biden Investigations, ‘Didn’t Actually Have to Do Them’

They are not different matters at all.

In Schiff's own opening remarks, at the very beginning of the latest impeachment process, Schiff said that "Trump asked the Ukrainians to dig up dirt" on Joe Biden. So this whole impeachment proceeding is predicated on the notion that Trump wanted to coerce the Ukrainians into starting a Russian collusion v 2.0 scam against Joe Biden when there was actually no reason at all to investigate him. 

Are you dumb enough to believe that there's no reason to investigate what the Bidens did, or are you too dumb to see why the Bidens' testimony is relevant to this proceeding? 

[godzilla]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

They are not different matters at all.

In Schiff's own opening remarks, at the very beginning of the latest impeachment process, Schiff said that "Trump asked the Ukrainians to dig up dirt" on Joe Biden. So this whole impeachment proceeding is predicated on the notion that Trump wanted to coerce the Ukrainians into starting a Russian collusion v 2.0 scam against Joe Biden when there was actually no reason at all to investigate him. 

Are you dumb enough to believe that there's no reason to investigate what the Bidens did, or are you too dumb to see why the Bidens' testimony is relevant to this proceeding? 

again... again.... again... you are wrong. the bank robber does not get to blame the cheating bank. thats how the law works. Trump is on trial, not the Bidens. R's have all the power to start investigating the Bidens. they do not do so.

now, please address my question that you seem to have no answer for. why does Trump not release the documents?

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, godzilla said:

 if a bank cheats then the bank robber doesn't get to blame the bank.

That's plain idiocy. Trump didn't do anything even remotely similar to 'robbing a bank'. He asked someone to get to the bottom of something that is at the very least wholly inappropriate, and which has all the markings of a crime that's more serious than what Trump is accused of by orders of magnitude.

It's more like:

A guy with a mask on bragged about robbing a series of banks and then couldn't account for their mysterious piles of loot, and then someone with bad hair asked for an investigation into the crime that the masked man bragged about but they were both competing for a job with an armoured car company so.... bad hair guy is the one who needs to be investigated by the police. 

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, godzilla said:

again... again.... again... you are wrong. the bank robber does not get to blame the cheating bank. thats how the law works. Trump is on trial, not the Bidens.

A guy with a mask on bragged about robbing a series of banks and then couldn't account for their mysterious piles of loot, and then someone with bad hair asked for an investigation into the crime that the masked man bragged about but they were both competing for a job with an armoured car company so.... bad hair guy is the one who needs to be investigated by the police. 

[godzilla]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

"asked for an investigation"

he didn't "ask" you idiot!! he wasn't asking! he was hanging desperately needed military aide over the head of a small country at war with a large country run by ruthless thugs that the american people already decided that they were going to help!

and he doesn't give a fuck about corruption! what other "corruption" issue has Trump pursued during his time in office?! provide one! you can't!

Edited January 28, 2020 by godzilla

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, godzilla said:

he didn't "ask" you idiot!! he wasn't asking! he was hanging desperately needed military aide over the head of a small country at war with a large country run by ruthless thugs that the american people already decided that they were going to help!

 

The "american people" decided no such thing.  

The "american people" didn't care to fight for  Ukraine against Russia even after Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons.

Maybe Chrystia Freeland will save Ukraine....not the "american people".

 

[godzilla]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The "american people" decided no such thing.  

The "american people" didn't care to fight for  Ukraine against Russia even after Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons.

Maybe Chrystia Freeland will save Ukraine....not the "american people".

 

Oh no, they just successively voted in both D and R law makers who did so overwhelmingly and who continue to to support it. Name a Senate or House R who insists on pulling Ukraine support... Can you do it? Is there not one? Not even Donald Trump has advertised letting Ukraine go... You're watching too much Fox opinion TV.