Impeaching Donald Trump

[RSL]

As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia.  Ukraine is their proxy.

Absolutely, Alan, as Mueller demonstrated conclusively after two years of bumbling around and 32 million dollars of taxpayer money down the drain because of Democrat anger over the fact that Hillary lost. What BS!

Nancy knows better, Alan, and you should too.

[Alan Klein]

But the witnesses are not being indicted. 

Why would anyone trust Congressman Adam Schiff to treat them fairly?  You'd have to be out of your mind.  He'd twist anything you said into something to his and the democrats advantage not caring if he destroyed your life in the process. 


Then if they wanted to get you they'd twist what you said and try to destroy you and then you'd first have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself and watch your life savings go down the drain paying off your lawyer. 

[Alan Klein]

But the witnesses are not being indicted. 

Why would anyone trust Congressman Adam Schiff to treat them fairly?  You'd have to be out of your mind.  He'd twist anything you said into something to his and the democrats advantage not caring if he destroyed your life in the process. 


Then if they wanted to get you they'd twist what you said and try to destroy you and then you'd first have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself and watch your life savings go down the drain paying off your lawyer. 

It's not easy to formulate a simple, comprehensive, non-technical definition of the hearsay rule in U.S. federal procedure, but the basic idea is that, by default, the court will not admit as evidence the testimony of a witness regarding a statement the witness heard from a third party if the testimony is offered to prove the truth of the third-party statement.  However, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule.

It is important to remember that an impeachment is not a criminal trial.  It is not judicial proceeding.  It is a legislative process that was designed to provide a check against abuse of power by the president, vice president, and other "civil officers" of the United States (e.g., federal judges, cabinet members and other appointive officials, etc.).

If hearsay evidence is offered during a Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, the presiding officer―U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts―would need to rule on whether the evidence is admissible.  I would expect Justice Roberts to be generally guided by the federal rules of evidence in situations such as this, but also for him to exercise considerable discretion in applying the rules, especially if the White House continues to prevent knowledgeable witnesses from testifying.  And since this would only be the third removal proceeding for a U.S. president, I think any attempt to predict how he would rule on any particular proffer of evidence amounts to pure conjecture.

But Chris, most of the witness testimony so far would be considered hearsay and not admissible in a trial in the Senate. The witnesses just repeated what other people told them.  The other side cannot cross examine since the second parties never really heard or saw what happened.  That's classic hearsay testimony.  The Chief Justice would not allow that into evidence. 

That's why the so-called legal professors who claimed Trump is guilty and should be impeach are just politicians called by the Democrats.  They based their opinion on a lot of hearsay evidence.  There was no cross examination really and defense witness were not even called like the whistleblower or the Bidens, who would have to swear they didn't do anything that is corrupt.  People can argue this isn't a trial.  But they are hearings to determine someone's guilt.  That sounds like a a trial.   And the American people expect fairness in these things or they won't accept the conclusions seeing them for what they are - just politics. 

[Alan Klein]

That could be the case, I'll let lawyers decide that, but it's not in line with the oath of office, is it? To support and defend, is not the same as to frustrate the process.

The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

Bart.  You're mistaken.  You don't understand how the COnstitution works.  The founders of the constitution set up the whole process to make it frustrating.  All the checks and balances between the different branches were set in place to do exactly that. They feared governmental power.  So each branch has to be on-board to make government work.  They didn't want the process to be a roll over by any one branch.  They created an adversarial system.  Each branch, the executive (president), legislative, Congress and Judicial, are co-equal to each other.  Co-equal.  That means that each can defend its powers. Any one branch is not subservient to other branches. 

For example, Congress can make laws but the President can veto.  The president can make agreements with foreign nations.  But the Senate must agree to make it binding.  The president can pick justices for the courts.  But the Senate has to confirm.  Laws can be approved bu Congress and the president. But the Courts can declare them unconstitutional.  Judges can be impeached by COngress and removed from office.  So presidents are always defending their position and refusing to comply with Congressional demands.  President are entitled to do that.  That's not violating the constitution but rather protecting it from an overreaching Congress.

[Alan Klein]

What would it say about US democracy if this had not been uncovered and Trump had been able to use the power of office to coerce another nation into causing political harm to one of his opponents? Do you think this is good thing? Do you think he should be allowed to get away with trying to do this? Do you really believe that protecting "your" guy is that important?

Just because you win an election doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

The impression that is left is that Trump supporters don't actually want democracy. That's how it looks from the outside.

Aren't the democrats in the House of Representatives using the power of their office to go after the President politically using the appearance of Trump acting politically against the Bidens?  How is that different than what you accuse the president of?  After all, the VP isn;t above the law any more than the president is.  Shouldn't Biden be investigated for possible crimes as well considered what he and his son did in the Ukraine??  If it's OK for one side, it should be OK for the other.   

[Alan Klein]

While that is true in terms of those who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, you and others cannot ignore the damning statement of Mullvaney who admitted on television to the quid pro quo.  Of course he tried to back track this later on when he realized that he had given the game away.  How this is used in the Articles of Impeachment remains to be seen.  None of us know what the Judiciary Committee will do with this and a lot of other information.  Maybe you and others don't see this as incriminating.  Some of us do and it is clearly not "second hand" information. 

As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia.  Ukraine is their proxy.  BTW, there is still about $60M of aid to the Ukraine that still has not been delivered.

We should only give them the $60 million if they agree to investigate the Bidens and make a public statement that they intend to do just that.  The Bidens shouldn't get away with corruption.

[Peter McLennan]

Aren't the democrats in the House of Representatives using the power of their office to go after the President politically using the appearance of Trump acting politically against the Bidens?  How is that different than what you accuse the president of?

Trump involved a foreign power in his machinations, that's how.

[Alan Klein]

Trump involved a foreign power in his machinations, that's how.

Corruption doesn;t stop at our borders.  If a VP seems to be abusing his office to gain financial returns for his son, that should be investigated.  It's legal for an administration to ask a foreign power to investigate when an American commits a crime overseas that may have violated US law.   We do it all the time.  All countries do the same thing.  The fact that there may be political failout is Biden's problem no less than it was Trump's problem by making it seem to democrats in congress that he colluded with Russia. Neither the president or the VP is above the law.


Of course there are political overtones in both situations.  There's a appearance of it only being political in nature.  But there was a nexus to possible crime in both cases.  Biden should have kept his nose clean and told President Obama he had to recluse himself in dealing with corruption in the Ukraine.  After all, his son was working for one of Ukrainian companies that was being investigated for corruption.  Instead, Biden got involved and even pressed the Ukrainian government to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.  That smells.  So he can;t now claim that he's being unfairly treated by the president.  He should have told Obama he couldn't get involved in the Ukrainian situation and recused himself. 

[BernardLanguillier]

That is not how the rule of law works.  You need to prove guilt, not innocents.  As of now, there is not proof of intent, which is necessary for the bribery (or what ever they call it).  And the obstruction charges are completely non-existent since the courts have not ruled on any challenges yet. 

The case is very weak, and even the Dems know it.  That is why you have Schiff saying things like, "we cant afford to wait for the facts to come out!"  Perhaps because the facts dont back up the claims.  And then you have other Dems insisting "hearsay evidence can be much better then direct evidence."  Much better, really, who would have thought. 

Also, let's not forget exactly how unscrupulous Schiff has been.  He made up his version of the phone conversation and read it, with out explaining it was a made up, to the country during congress.  He lied about not knowing the identity of the whistleblower, and if you actually believe him I have a very nice bridge to sell you real cheap too.  He was just caught spying on the phone records of political rivals and reporters who do not cover the impeachment favorably for Dems.  It is obvious how corrupt he is; why even work with him. 

But regardless of how you feel about Trump's guilt or innocents, look at it politically. 

You are a foreigner, so you certainly are not seeing the day to day status of the Democratic party, but it is completely fractured between the progressives and the moderates, and no one has the ability to unite them like Obama did.  I have a lot of Dems in my family, moderates and progressives, and they are at each others throats more then they are with me.  So this issue is only going to break up the party more, which is already evident with moderate Dems showing 2nd thoughts.  Add to that absolutely no republican support; as a matter of fact, unlike the Dems, this issue has completely united the Republicans, even never-Trumpers in the party.  Also, according to recent polling, there is a drop in support in the purple districts, and swing states, amongst independents.  Last, when this moves to the Senate, the Dems will be giving up control to the Republicans, and Cocaine Mitch's house horrors will go into full swing, whom (let's be honest) is a master strategist.  Everyone knows how the Senate will vote at the end of it, which has some Dems out there now saying that there is no limit to how many times you can impeach a president, and they will simply find something else after this is over.  (I can see that quote being quite the effective RNC campaign ad come next year.) 

It is going to be a political disaster, especially considering the Dems have no legislation to campaign on next year.  If you cant see this, then you are simply allowing your ideology to blind your logic.  But the thing is, censure would have accomplished the direct opposite.  It would have united Dems (at least on this), fractured the Republicans, and then given the Dems some time left over to pass legislation. 

Fractured parties don't win national elections, and the rift forming in the Democratic party is immense.  It's making me think of the McGovern campaign.

You have absolutely not answered to my point.

If there is only one direct testimony it’s because the other guys who would confirm the story have refused to testify under oath.

And this further reinforces the strong suspicion that they are refusing to testify because they have major things to hide.

I am sorry, but you refusing to admit this casts a clear doubt about the honesty of your opinions.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Robert Roaldi]

Aren't the democrats in the House of Representatives using the power of their office to go after the President politically using the appearance of Trump acting politically against the Bidens?  How is that different than what you accuse the president of?  After all, the VP isn;t above the law any more than the president is.  Shouldn't Biden be investigated for possible crimes as well considered what he and his son did in the Ukraine??  If it's OK for one side, it should be OK for the other.   

Political infighting is normal. Using the power of the state to benefit you personally is not.

I know that you understand this, stop pretending that you don't.

As I (and others) have said before, if Biden did something wrong, then sure, go after him too, what do I care about Biden. But whether or not Biden did anything wrong is immaterial. If Trump really thought Biden was dirty, he had plenty of investigative power and agencies at his disposal, all he had to do was do it.


Btw, I see from his statements at the NATO talks that Trump thinks that the oil in Syria or anywhere else is his. Do you not have a problem with this? Why not?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Thanks, Barack Hussein Obama!

“Muhammad makes list of top 10 baby names in the US for the first time“

One more reason to re-elect Trump (if we ever needed more)

[faberryman]

Trump's latest conspiracy theory:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html

I guess Trump's followers believe this is a real and pressing problem for the American people. Anyone here flushing their toilet 10-15 times instead of once?

[RSL]

With low flow toilets it's usually at least twice. But the greens will tell you that every time you flush you're saving water, so that's a good deal.

[Alan Klein]

I have to keep and use a plunger once or twice a week because the toilet gets stuffed up.  These 1 gallon per flush toilets don't work right.  I have to time my flushes and flush two or three times every time I go as I use them to avoid them getting stuffed.  What a revolting situation it is.  Where I live in the northeast, we don;t have a water problem.  Maybe in the west.  But not here.  When I worked for NYC school division, they did a survey to replace all the 5 gpf toilets and urinals with 1 gpf units.  After doing a survey, we calculated hundreds of millions to be spent to replace the units.  It would have saved maybe 1% of the daily water used in NYC, not worth doing.   I retired and I'm not sure if they actually did the project or not.  They're just as stupid here in NJ where I moved.

The nearby mall have urinals that don;t use water.  Don;t ask.  What a smell. 

[faberryman]

So not 10-15 flushes instead of once.

[Alan Klein]

Political infighting is normal. Using the power of the state to benefit you personally is not.

I know that you understand this, stop pretending that you don't.

As I (and others) have said before, if Biden did something wrong, then sure, go after him too, what do I care about Biden. But whether or not Biden did anything wrong is immaterial. If Trump really thought Biden was dirty, he had plenty of investigative power and agencies at his disposal, all he had to do was do it.


Btw, I see from his statements at the NATO talks that Trump thinks that the oil in Syria or anywhere else is his. Do you not have a problem with this? Why not?

Just curious if you complained when Obama used the IRS to go after political opponents?  How about when the Democrats went after TRump for colluding with the Russians where people like you accused him of treason?

[Alan Klein]

So not 10-15 flushes instead of once.

Read my post.  It's in plain English.  Nothing fancy. 

[JoeKitchen]

You have absolutely not answered to my point.

If there is only one direct testimony it’s because the other guys who would confirm the story have refused to testify under oath.

And this further reinforces the strong suspicion that they are refusing to testify because they have major things to hide.

I am sorry, but you refusing to admit this casts a clear doubt about the honesty of your opinions.

Cheers,
Bernard

No it does not. 

Schiff has proven himself to be incredibly corrupt.  He made up his own version of the phone call and only admitted to it when he was called out outside of congress, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower after it came out his staff worked with the WB full 12 weeks before this whole thing started, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters. 

There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him.  He is running a kangaroo court that already determined the verdict.  Anything Trump would have done would have been spun by Schiff regardless of how innocent it was. 

Provide a fair arbitrator and you'll have a different opinion from me, but Schiff was far from fair.  He residing over the hearings help a lot with half the country becoming disillusioned with the inquir. 

[Alan Klein]

No it does not. 

Schiff has proven himself to incredibly corrupt.  He made up his own version of the phone call, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters. 

There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him.  He is running a kangaroo court. 

Joe, you know you'd be crazy to take legal advice from anyone here.  You'd wind up in jail quicker than Flynn.  Even Trump's own lawyer didn;t know to keep his mouth shut and wound up getting three years.  What bozos. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Trump's latest conspiracy theory:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html

I guess Trump's followers believe this is a real and pressing problem for the American people. Anyone here flushing their toilet 10-15 times instead of once?

In his signature fashion, he exhagerates. It is more like 5-6 times. I just caught myself doing it exactly that many times recently, on a toilet that had those two positions that are supposed to save water.