Impeaching Donald Trump

[Alan Klein]

You don't need a violation of a criminal statute. Abuse of power is sufficient for impeachment.

You've been watching CNN or MSNBC too much.   The Democrats have been trying to impeach for  years.   So now they claim abuse of power is enough.   But there is no crime as abuse of power.   The crime must be Treason,  Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  A Crime.  And it must be a High Crime similar in seriousness to Treason or Bribery.   
It can't be for holding up funds to a foreign Nation or spitting on the street or spending too much time at the golf course. 

[Craig Lamson]

No quid pro quo is required to prove abuse of power. The ask is enough.

You have to prove his ask was in fact it dependant on a Quid Pro Quo.  Then you need to prove That the Quid Pro Quo , if it happened , was only for personal gain and had no national interest. Asking for a Quid Pro Que is perfectly  legal

[faberryman]

You've been watching CNN or MSNBC too much.   The Democrats have been trying to impeach for  years.   So now they claim abuse of power is enough.   But there is no crime as abuse of power.   The crime must be Treason,  Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  A Crime.  And it must be a High Crime similar in seriousness to Treason or Bribery.   
It can't be for holding up funds to a foreign Nation or spitting on the street or spending too much time at the golf course.

You are not up on your constitutional law. It's understandable because neither is Fox News.

[faberryman]

You have to prove his ask was in fact it dependant on a Quid Pro Quo.  Then you need to prove That the Quid Pro Quo , if it happened , was only for personal gain and had no national interest. Asking for a Quid Pro Que is perfectly  legal.

Nope. No quid pro quo required.

[Craig Lamson]

Nope. No quid pro quo required.

Ok.  So where does that leave you ?  You are still left with trying to prove the ask was only for personal gain and has no national interest.

[Alan Klein]

Has anyone asked any of the Democratic candidates for president if they think it would be fair to ask Biden to testify to swear his innocence so Trump has a better possibility of being convicted in the Senate?

[Robert Roaldi]

Ok.  So where does that leave you ?  You are still left with trying to prove the ask was only for personal gain and has no national interest.

I understand your point but it's not really that much of a reach in this case, is it?

[Robert Roaldi]

Has anyone asked any of the Democratic candidates for president if they think it would be fair to ask Biden to testify to swear his innocence so Trump has a better possibility of being convicted in the Senate?

Have there been any moves toward investigating Biden(s) by either the White House or the Senate? Seems like they've had ample time to start one.

[Alan Klein]

I understand your point but it's not really that much of a reach in this case, is it?

Trump can walk and chew gum at the same time just like the Democrats.  The Dems are trying to personally destroy Trump's chances for re-election.  But they have to find some nexus to a crime so they can justify the impeachment.  Trump is doing the same thing.  Biden gave him an opening by acting stupidly and getting involved firing the prosecutor who was investigating his son;s company.  So Trump can claim it's perfectly legal, and it is, while at the same time getting personal political benefit from the appearance Biden commited a crime.  Both sides are doing the same thing.  Democrats don't care about the constitution and Trump doesn't care about Biden's guilt.  It's all about power politics. 

[Craig Lamson]

I understand your point but it's not really that much of a reach in this case, is it?

Sure it is.  2016 election interference is a slam dunk for Trump.  Binet is not a hard case to make for Trump either.  Imagine the Dems trying to pretend they can get inside Trumps thinking to prove his intentions.  In any case it would not be that hard to argue the Ukraine corruption including the Bidens is in the national interest.  Why do you think the Dem have tried so hard to push the qpq aspect?

[Craig Lamson]

Have there been any moves toward investigating Biden(s) by either the White House or the Senate? Seems like they've had ample time to start one.

Graham has stated he will be bring the Bidens before the Judicial  committee after impeachment is finished in the Senate

I’ve also read but have not confirmed that five members of the former Ukraine government have been trying to come to the US to talk about corruption.  They were supposedly denied visas by Amb Yovanovitch and Amb Taylor.

I can’t prove beyond a doubt but there is lots of talk and evidence that covers members of both parties in high places here with major connections to the Ukraine corruption.  Lots and lots of billions have gone missing and a lot of folks may have help with laundering it or fond ways to take it for themselves.   Again you gotta look outside the main stream news to find this stuff and of course it needs to be taken with the appropriate caution.

[BernardLanguillier]

This shows the complete intellectual dishonest of your position.  Sondland got the “blessing” from no one.  He received no order to carry out a Quid Pro Quo. In fact he was told point blank there was no Quid Pro Quo.  Who cares?  Sheesh. This is a trial to convict and remove the duly elected … sitting…. President of the United States.  It’s the most severe form of punishment that can be inflicted on a sitting President. As such it requires well founded charges backed by unimpeachable evidence.   Evidence that proves unequivocally that the President is guilty of committing the specifics of the charge.

I apologize, you have also failed to convince me of your honesty on this matter.

Because Sunderland clearly did get a blessing from the first line of Trump, without the shadow of a doubt. And the logic linking an pre-existing view about a quid pro quo and it's non denial by key aids of Trump isn't convoluted at all, it is crystal clear.

Anyway, I have lost hope for a frank conversation on this, you are obviously entranched in your position for whatever political motive.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

I apologize, you have also failed to convince me of your honesty on this matter.

Because Sunderland clearly did get a blessing from the first line of Trump, without the shadow of a doubt. And the logic linking an pre-existing view about a quid pro quo and it's non denial by key aids of Trump isn't convoluted at all, it is crystal clear.

Anyway, I have lost hope for a frank conversation on this, you are obviously entranched in your position for whatever political motive.

Cheers,
Bernard

Oh my, you really are grasping at straws.  Your logic is flawed, your deductions are faulty and your worldview is warping your opinions.

Yes, it’s best you move along.  This is not going well for you.  Maybe you will have better luck trying to convince anyone who will listen that Nikon rules the roost.

[BernardLanguillier]

Oh my, you really are grasping at straws.  Your logic is flawed, your deductions are faulty and your worldview is warping your opinions.

Yes, it’s best you move along.  This is not going well for you.  Maybe you will have better luck trying to convince anyone who will listen that Nikon rules the roost.

Whatever works for you Craig.

Cheers,
Bernard

[James Clark]

Imagine the Dems trying to pretend they can get inside Trumps thinking to prove his intentions.

You keep insisting that [prosecutor] can never establish [motive] without [defendant] confessing to [witness] the exact shady reason why he/she committed the act under examination. 

That’s not how it works, and this pretty much never happens.

[Craig Lamson]

You keep insisting that [prosecutor] can never establish [motive] without [defendant] confessing to [witness] the exact shady reason why he/she committed the act under examination. 

That’s not how it works, and this pretty much never happens.

 Sorry but you gotta have proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  In this case you can’t read Trumps mind,   And inference surely is not going to cut it for at least 34 Senators.  The “prosecutor” in this case..the House...has already made its case.  Unless they somehow convince the Senate to allow them to call more witnesses ( don’t bet the farm on that happening ) their case is set.  Needless to say they have a pretty poor case to present as it pertains to Trumps mindset.  And that of course is why they are seemingly in a state. Of panic over a trial in the Senate.  The defense is going to cut them to ribbons. 

[Craig Lamson]

Whatever works for you Craig.

Cheers,
Bernard

It appears your logic is once again faulty...it’s not about me Bernard, it’s about you.   I’m still here, ready to continue.  But I do understand why you prefer to disengage.  This is going very poorly for you.

[BernardLanguillier]

You keep insisting that [prosecutor] can never establish [motive] without [defendant] confessing to [witness] the exact shady reason why he/she committed the act under examination. 

That’s not how it works, and this pretty much never happens.

Indeed, this is another example of the flawed logic that Trump supporters need to deploy to stay afloat.

What's unclear is whether he is convinced that he is making sense or whether he is fully aware of the wickedness of his thinking. Unfortunately I lean towards the latter based on his latest comments. Which would mean that conversing with him is simply a waste of time.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

This is going very poorly for you.

Keep writing it Craig, you may at least convince yourself.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Sorry but you gotta have proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  In this case you can’t read Trumps mind,   And inference surely is not going to cut it for at least 34 Senators.  The “prosecutor” in this case..the House...has already made its case.  Unless they somehow convince the Senate to allow them to call more witnesses ( don’t bet the farm on that happening ) their case is set.  Needless to say they have a pretty poor case to present as it pertains to Trumps mindset.  And that of course is why they are seemingly in a state. Of panic over a trial in the Senate.  The defense is going to cut them to ribbons.

Would you agree Craig that having testimony from the first line of Trump is becoming absolutely essential now?

We know from Sonderland testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.

I share your view that we don't have direct proof that Trump requested Sonderland to support the Quid Pro Quo.

Anyone truly seeking the truth should therefore want Bolton and his friends to testify, right?

Cheers,
Bernard