ChatterBank2 mins ago
Trump Impeachment - The Defence Steam Roller
24 Answers
The first day of the senate impeachment(*) hearings begin
meanwhile our hero ( president Trump that is!) is giving the heads of state hell in Davos
here is his legal teams defence
https:/
The team start off with 'no case to answer' - he can only be impeached on a crime - oo er Mrs, that cant be right can it? and on for another 174 pages. impeachment should not involve witnesses as that bit is over.
oh Ab requires a question ..... OK
does any one want to read it ?
(*)AB one liners start here. Plenty of possibilities
who he den ? an old perennial favourite as a crushing one-liner
oh he a fruit farmer den? ( word play on impeachment) and so on and so on
meanwhile our hero ( president Trump that is!) is giving the heads of state hell in Davos
here is his legal teams defence
https:/
The team start off with 'no case to answer' - he can only be impeached on a crime - oo er Mrs, that cant be right can it? and on for another 174 pages. impeachment should not involve witnesses as that bit is over.
oh Ab requires a question ..... OK
does any one want to read it ?
(*)AB one liners start here. Plenty of possibilities
who he den ? an old perennial favourite as a crushing one-liner
oh he a fruit farmer den? ( word play on impeachment) and so on and so on
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Peter Pedant. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
lootje
The whole impeachment thing seems like a complete waste of time. Still I suppose they feel they have to go through the motions.
if this had been with a bidda thought:
The whole impeachment thing seems like a pile of crap. Still I suppose they feel they have to go through the motions.
it would be a deffo best answer..... wasted one liner opportunities (sigh)
thunberg v Trump - now running in Davos
the Beeb have filtered out virtually any response - cheers boos, throwing bits of coal etc so we cant really see how it is going
The whole impeachment thing seems like a complete waste of time. Still I suppose they feel they have to go through the motions.
if this had been with a bidda thought:
The whole impeachment thing seems like a pile of crap. Still I suppose they feel they have to go through the motions.
it would be a deffo best answer..... wasted one liner opportunities (sigh)
thunberg v Trump - now running in Davos
the Beeb have filtered out virtually any response - cheers boos, throwing bits of coal etc so we cant really see how it is going
ludwig - // The whole impeachment thing seems like a complete waste of time. Still I suppose they feel they have to go through the motions. //
The best that could be said is that the Democrats can;t let Trump run a coach and horses through the law of the land he is supposed to lead without challenge.
The worst that can be said is that the verdict is in before the proceedings have commenced - but I still applaud them for making the President stop and think.
Oh, hang on ....
The best that could be said is that the Democrats can;t let Trump run a coach and horses through the law of the land he is supposed to lead without challenge.
The worst that can be said is that the verdict is in before the proceedings have commenced - but I still applaud them for making the President stop and think.
Oh, hang on ....
Clinton (a Democrat) was impeached for a bit of hanky panky, which really was a waste of time. But at the time, republicans and conservatives couldn’t suppress their glee at the legal proceedings.
The Trump allegation is far more serious than a BJ. He withheld aid to a friendly US ally, until he got political dirt on his opponents.
The Trump allegation is far more serious than a BJ. He withheld aid to a friendly US ally, until he got political dirt on his opponents.
Trump hasn’t actually broken any laws. If he had they would have impeached him on it. But they know they can better influence people by making stuff sound like a crime rather than actually being one.
They impeached him on hearsay, rumours and a dislike of him so ingrained they were screaming impeachment the day he was elected.
He has not run roughshod through the law or the constitution. The Democrats have done that. The impeachment hearings were a sham with only one fact witness (for the prosecution) who agreed that Trump, when asked what he wanted from Ukraine was told in no uncertain terms ‘ nothing, I want nothing from them. No quid pro quo’ and that was their only fact witness. I’d think it was Sondland or something like that.
Trump did not obstruct Congress. He exercised executive privilege as is his right and as is every presidents right. Including Obama who used executive privilege a couple of hundred times. Then of course the Democrats rather than use the proper channels and seek redress in the courts (the proper way to do it) DID NOT bother to push getting testimony from the people they are now demanding to testify. They were the ones running roughshod over the law.
They impeached him on hearsay, rumours and a dislike of him so ingrained they were screaming impeachment the day he was elected.
He has not run roughshod through the law or the constitution. The Democrats have done that. The impeachment hearings were a sham with only one fact witness (for the prosecution) who agreed that Trump, when asked what he wanted from Ukraine was told in no uncertain terms ‘ nothing, I want nothing from them. No quid pro quo’ and that was their only fact witness. I’d think it was Sondland or something like that.
Trump did not obstruct Congress. He exercised executive privilege as is his right and as is every presidents right. Including Obama who used executive privilege a couple of hundred times. Then of course the Democrats rather than use the proper channels and seek redress in the courts (the proper way to do it) DID NOT bother to push getting testimony from the people they are now demanding to testify. They were the ones running roughshod over the law.
I mean, that same fact witness also said "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes." A crime doesn't stop being a crime because the accused says that it is not.
I don't doubt that Trump will be acquitted, whether or not the evidence supports an acquittal. Republicans have made it clear that they have no interest in conducting a trial impartially; cassa is also right that the Democrats do protest too much about their own impartiality, too. Things look bad to most observers, but bad enough? We'd simply need more evidence.
All the same, the stuff in the paragraph "Trump hasn’t actually broken any laws. If he had they would have impeached him on it" is not what impeachment is about. "High crimes and misdemeanours" was understood historically to refer to conduct, rather than criminal behaviour necessarily -- if a criminal offence has been committed then clearly the proper place to try that would have been a court of law if anywhere. That false premise undermines the rest of what cassa's trying to say.
I don't know personally how I'd have voted if I were on the jury for an actual trial. But what I'd want to see is a trial take place -- key witnesses, key documents, and unbiased jurors. All of these are lacking, and it has taken both sides to collaborate to make a mockery of the "checks and balances" so strongly emphasised in the US Constitution; but, above all, it has taken a president who has so little respect for the office he holds and all it represents, let alone the offices of any of his fellow world leaders.
I don't doubt that Trump will be acquitted, whether or not the evidence supports an acquittal. Republicans have made it clear that they have no interest in conducting a trial impartially; cassa is also right that the Democrats do protest too much about their own impartiality, too. Things look bad to most observers, but bad enough? We'd simply need more evidence.
All the same, the stuff in the paragraph "Trump hasn’t actually broken any laws. If he had they would have impeached him on it" is not what impeachment is about. "High crimes and misdemeanours" was understood historically to refer to conduct, rather than criminal behaviour necessarily -- if a criminal offence has been committed then clearly the proper place to try that would have been a court of law if anywhere. That false premise undermines the rest of what cassa's trying to say.
I don't know personally how I'd have voted if I were on the jury for an actual trial. But what I'd want to see is a trial take place -- key witnesses, key documents, and unbiased jurors. All of these are lacking, and it has taken both sides to collaborate to make a mockery of the "checks and balances" so strongly emphasised in the US Constitution; but, above all, it has taken a president who has so little respect for the office he holds and all it represents, let alone the offices of any of his fellow world leaders.
The house should have gathered all the evidence. They didn’t. Because they couldn’t be harrised to go to court to get it.
The trial is based on the evidence they pass up to Senate. Only if there are questions regarding that evidence will they talk about witnesses. But Nadler has said there will be no negotiations on who. It will be who they want and that’s it.
Schiff has lied for almost three years about evidence against Trump. Even going so far as to give a false account of the Ukraine phone call in an effort to influence people’s perspective. And on other redacted transcript of a call that appears to allude to an attempt by Rudie Giuliani And Paras to get a meeting with the Ukrainian President. But the un-redacted transcript shows a different name entirely. Sooo another lie by Schiff.
But oh how well it worked on all the click baiters.
The Dems have shouted about and demanded an impeachment from the very day he was elected. Before he was even sworn in. They have investigated everything they possibly could and come up with nothing and have just about managed to manufacture enough outrages to get this ball going.
Clickbaiters believe Trump is guilty even when shown what they believe to be true is actually a lie. Now I know we can all be this way. Our belief in something can be so ingrained it cannot be shaken but let’s be honest here. Even if you believe he is the devil incarnate you can only convict on real evidence and not feelings.
Sondlands only first hand knowledge was no quid pro quo. His subjective feeling was there was quid pro quo.
High crimes and misdemeanours. Which part of the impeachment is the high crime and which is the misdemeanour?
Obstruction of Congress. Not a thing if Congress doesn’t follow the law. Which they didn’t.
Abuse of power by withholding aid to the Ukraine unless the Ukraine opened and announced an investigation into Joe Biden and his only surviving son Hunter Biden. Joe Biden who boasted of using quid pr quo on Ukraine to stop an investigation of the company his son was paid millions of US dollars to ‘consult’ on.
But the aid was put on hold because as the president of the US it is his responsibility to ensure foreign aid isn’t used by corrupt officials. The aid was released when it was clear that corruption was being tackled. There was no one within the Ukraine that was even aware there should be an investigation, that aid was on hold or anything of that nature.
But let’s not allow the truth to colour the Democrats narrative shall we.
The trial is based on the evidence they pass up to Senate. Only if there are questions regarding that evidence will they talk about witnesses. But Nadler has said there will be no negotiations on who. It will be who they want and that’s it.
Schiff has lied for almost three years about evidence against Trump. Even going so far as to give a false account of the Ukraine phone call in an effort to influence people’s perspective. And on other redacted transcript of a call that appears to allude to an attempt by Rudie Giuliani And Paras to get a meeting with the Ukrainian President. But the un-redacted transcript shows a different name entirely. Sooo another lie by Schiff.
But oh how well it worked on all the click baiters.
The Dems have shouted about and demanded an impeachment from the very day he was elected. Before he was even sworn in. They have investigated everything they possibly could and come up with nothing and have just about managed to manufacture enough outrages to get this ball going.
Clickbaiters believe Trump is guilty even when shown what they believe to be true is actually a lie. Now I know we can all be this way. Our belief in something can be so ingrained it cannot be shaken but let’s be honest here. Even if you believe he is the devil incarnate you can only convict on real evidence and not feelings.
Sondlands only first hand knowledge was no quid pro quo. His subjective feeling was there was quid pro quo.
High crimes and misdemeanours. Which part of the impeachment is the high crime and which is the misdemeanour?
Obstruction of Congress. Not a thing if Congress doesn’t follow the law. Which they didn’t.
Abuse of power by withholding aid to the Ukraine unless the Ukraine opened and announced an investigation into Joe Biden and his only surviving son Hunter Biden. Joe Biden who boasted of using quid pr quo on Ukraine to stop an investigation of the company his son was paid millions of US dollars to ‘consult’ on.
But the aid was put on hold because as the president of the US it is his responsibility to ensure foreign aid isn’t used by corrupt officials. The aid was released when it was clear that corruption was being tackled. There was no one within the Ukraine that was even aware there should be an investigation, that aid was on hold or anything of that nature.
But let’s not allow the truth to colour the Democrats narrative shall we.
Trump has more respect for the constitution than any Democrat.
TDS is so ingrained people now believe, just because he is what I would describe with typically associated American traits of loud, brash, self promoting hardball, that they cannot see what he has done for the country.
TDS is alive and kicking, stomping its feet, weeping and wailing and gnashing its teeth and has been going on unremittingly for three years that people now actually believe every negative thing ever said about him.
Just think of this one thing for a moment. The MSM, left and Democrats have been going over everything he has ever done, said or intended to do. They have been doing this solidly out in the open for three years. If he were even one third as bad as they portray him, why have they taken so long to manufacture a ‘crime’? Not even he could cover so much bad up but they had nothing and still have basically nothing. Why?
TDS is so ingrained people now believe, just because he is what I would describe with typically associated American traits of loud, brash, self promoting hardball, that they cannot see what he has done for the country.
TDS is alive and kicking, stomping its feet, weeping and wailing and gnashing its teeth and has been going on unremittingly for three years that people now actually believe every negative thing ever said about him.
Just think of this one thing for a moment. The MSM, left and Democrats have been going over everything he has ever done, said or intended to do. They have been doing this solidly out in the open for three years. If he were even one third as bad as they portray him, why have they taken so long to manufacture a ‘crime’? Not even he could cover so much bad up but they had nothing and still have basically nothing. Why?
Also, none of that even remotely addresses the point that "high crimes and misdemeanours" is not about illegal activity so much as it is misconduct in office.
I agree that the HoR could and perhaps should have tried to gather more evidence, but then again a bunch of White House Officials ignored subpoenas, so it's not like they never tried. Nor was there a need to go to court because -- by definition -- impeachment is a process to be conducted in Congress rather than in the Courts. That is why the trial is in the Senate and not the Supreme Court.
I agree that the HoR could and perhaps should have tried to gather more evidence, but then again a bunch of White House Officials ignored subpoenas, so it's not like they never tried. Nor was there a need to go to court because -- by definition -- impeachment is a process to be conducted in Congress rather than in the Courts. That is why the trial is in the Senate and not the Supreme Court.
The WH staff didn’t ignore subpoenas. Executive privilege is a constitutional right. The Democrats process was so biased with virtually no ability of Trump to defend, refute, question or have witnesses that even I would have used executive privilege. They could have got all the witness statements they wanted if they had followed the law. They chose not to. If they had had a fare process he would have been more likely to have cooperated.
But why, if you have irrefutable evidence of his wrong doing, do they demand more and different witnesses now? They should have everything they need to convict now.
There is no reason the Dems should not have done their job properly. They didn’t and now cry Fowler that the senate is doing what they did. Or that they are not cow towing to the lower house.
One simply cannot take seriously people who (as previously stated) screamed from the moment of his win they were going to impeach. Three years of lies. Three years of 93% negative reporting on CNN alone. Democrats in turn demanding impeachment from day one. Newly elected congress women saying on the day they were inaugurated they were going to impeach the MF. Senators openly saying they will not stop impeaching him. Or of outright, provable lies by the Dems.
If you cannot see the brainwashing narrative that has prevailed then there is no hope.
But why, if you have irrefutable evidence of his wrong doing, do they demand more and different witnesses now? They should have everything they need to convict now.
There is no reason the Dems should not have done their job properly. They didn’t and now cry Fowler that the senate is doing what they did. Or that they are not cow towing to the lower house.
One simply cannot take seriously people who (as previously stated) screamed from the moment of his win they were going to impeach. Three years of lies. Three years of 93% negative reporting on CNN alone. Democrats in turn demanding impeachment from day one. Newly elected congress women saying on the day they were inaugurated they were going to impeach the MF. Senators openly saying they will not stop impeaching him. Or of outright, provable lies by the Dems.
If you cannot see the brainwashing narrative that has prevailed then there is no hope.
I don't deny that there are some people so ideologically opposed to Trump that they'd use any excuse to try and impeach for that reason alone. What frustrates me the most about this discussion though is, I suppose, two things. First, the hypocrisy inherent in criticising Democrat actions whilst ignoring the same from Republicans, who have been just as open about their intention to ignore the oath they have taken to conduct the trial and their constitutional duty fairly, and to therefore acquit Trump with essentially the same reasoning that some Democrats would impeach. On that, at least, it takes both sides to undermine the entire point of impeachment, and that's something I hope you can acknowledge.
Also, while I'm thinking about it, it's important to acknowledge that Pelosi, whose decision it was to impeach, was resisting impeachment at the same time as many in her Party were desperately seeking it. Maybe she went too soon but it is worth remembering. The decision to impeach came based on a whistleblower's report, supported since by statements from various other officials. Ultimately only statements from Bolton, Pompeo, and other high-ranking officials would swing it in my mind. Meanwhile, you have to acknowledge that the whistleblower made their complaint based on non-partisan considerations -- that at least has nothing to do with TDS. There's no longer any real dispute over the timeline and the main facts, the question is more about the motivation.
The second frustration is that -- well, I'm sorry, but brainwashing applies both ways if it applies at all. The US in particular is so partisan. It's frankly shocking that the perception of the case is so stark that the question of impeachment almost perfectly splits down party lines not just in Congress but also among the public -- and arrogant in the extreme to claim that only one party is aware of the truth and the other must be ignorant, brainwashed sheep. Again, both sides are guilty of that attitude, so I'm not targeting you particularly, but if that's part of your argument then take it out and find a better one.
Finally, disliking Trump's character and disagreeing with some or most of his decisions is not synonymous with TDS. The way I evaluate Trump is inevitably coloured by my own politics and experiences, but that's not the same as TDS and it too has no place in this discussion.
Also, while I'm thinking about it, it's important to acknowledge that Pelosi, whose decision it was to impeach, was resisting impeachment at the same time as many in her Party were desperately seeking it. Maybe she went too soon but it is worth remembering. The decision to impeach came based on a whistleblower's report, supported since by statements from various other officials. Ultimately only statements from Bolton, Pompeo, and other high-ranking officials would swing it in my mind. Meanwhile, you have to acknowledge that the whistleblower made their complaint based on non-partisan considerations -- that at least has nothing to do with TDS. There's no longer any real dispute over the timeline and the main facts, the question is more about the motivation.
The second frustration is that -- well, I'm sorry, but brainwashing applies both ways if it applies at all. The US in particular is so partisan. It's frankly shocking that the perception of the case is so stark that the question of impeachment almost perfectly splits down party lines not just in Congress but also among the public -- and arrogant in the extreme to claim that only one party is aware of the truth and the other must be ignorant, brainwashed sheep. Again, both sides are guilty of that attitude, so I'm not targeting you particularly, but if that's part of your argument then take it out and find a better one.
Finally, disliking Trump's character and disagreeing with some or most of his decisions is not synonymous with TDS. The way I evaluate Trump is inevitably coloured by my own politics and experiences, but that's not the same as TDS and it too has no place in this discussion.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.