Trump Impeachment Thread

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It was really dumb of that Jefferies guy to say the dossier that got the fisa spy warrants was appropriate and legal, because Democrats paid money for it.

Foot in mouth.

They've been doing it all day, as TheRedneck pointed out too.

The end of the questioning will be interesting because you know the House managers are going to try to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

They can try to pull a rabbit out of their hat all they want; there's no way any thoughts are being changed now. I don't see a single Republican voting for witnesses, but there are several who have a Presidential run hinging on getting this over with. On the verdict... acquittal is anything less than 67 votes to convict. Nary a republican will vote to convict, including Romney. Two Democrats, Jones and the guy from WV, will vote to acquit as a minimum.

The House made up charges based on wishful thinking, broke every rule of fairness in existence to get someone to agree with them, distorted testimony to build up something they call evidence, pushed the impeachment through in a rush, then destroyed their own credibility by delaying what was so urgent. They showed up without realistic charges, without direct evidence, and without a prayer. Since then, they have contradicted themselves, begged for someone to help them re-do their own botched investigation, insulted the jurors, threatened the jurors, and demonized the jurors, somehow while still demanding that the jurors show their case more merit than it ever deserved.

It'll be interesting to see if the House follows through on their threats to impeach again and again after this crushing defeat. Even the most battle-hardened pundits must have a limit. I would love to see Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Greene, and Waters lose in November... and at this rate, it is actually looking possible.

TheRedneck

Wow Schiff went off the Deep End just there with yet another fantasy with Russia and Trump again.

He also said the Senators should Let the Chief Justice decide things rather than the Senate. I'm sure they loved that.

Won't be long now for this to be done.

originally posted by: pavil
Wow Schiff went off the Deep End just there with yet another fantasy with Russia and Trump again.

He also said the Senators should Let the Chief Justice decide things rather than the Senate. I'm sure they loved that.

Won't be long now for this to be done.

Schiff has run out of time to talk about 8 times today... he just loves listening to himself and telling these long emotional stories that have no basis in fact, it's all hypotheticals.

These are the closing questions coming now... designed by both sides to put a nail in it.

~Namaste

Q&A is over. I think the House put up a good fight, but not good enough.

Any political beliefs aside, if I were watching this on CourtTV, I would say the prosecution didn't have a strong case, and the evidence they presented was nearly entirely hearsay. The defense used their own witness testimony against them. I can't see this going to witnesses, I think the acquittal is coming tomorrow or Saturday at the latest.

I hope so, because we have way more important issues to address.

~Namaste

Collins yes
Alexander no
Mittens yes

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Collins yes
Alexander no
Mittens yes

The Democrats who are leaning towards voting NO for witnesses, wouldn't DARE announce that in advance. Could you imagine the things Schumer and Pelosi would do to them for the next 24 hours?

The people of UTAH feel BETRAYED by Mitt Romney. A bill is being introduced to "recall" and replace him with a real Republican.

www.washingtonexaminer.com... rs

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

They can try to pull a rabbit out of their hat all they want

Remember when Bullwinkle used to try and pull a rabbit out of a hat and never got anything? He would say "Hey, Rocky.... I think I got the wrong hat." I think that will be their only possible last words. To blame it on the hat and not themselves.

I gotta be honest, I am on the Democrats side in regards to witnesses.

Bolton, Mulvaney etc should be testifying.

In saying that.. so should the Bidens, Burisma, Chalupa, Eric CIamella

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Any political beliefs aside, if I were watching this on CourtTV, I would say the prosecution didn't have a strong case, and the evidence they presented was nearly entirely hearsay.

What facets of the prosecution's case are you unsure of, where the prosecution's case was weak? Is there a witness who you believe could close any question, one way or the other?

I mean, do you think Trump did what they're saying he did, but it wasn't an abuse of power? Or do you think that Trump was out of the loop and didn't know that Rudy was pushing the quid pro quo all along the way?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Any political beliefs aside, if I were watching this on CourtTV, I would say the prosecution didn't have a strong case, and the evidence they presented was nearly entirely hearsay.

What facets of the prosecution's case are you unsure of, where the prosecution's case was weak? Is there a witness who you believe could close any question, one way or the other?

I mean, do you think Trump did what they're saying he did, but it wasn't an abuse of power? Or do you think that Trump was out of the loop and didn't know that Rudy was pushing the quid pro quo all along the way?

It's more about omission for me more than anything else. The House omitted way too much and tried to weave and stitch together a story with hearsay testimony and used information that was taken completely out of context to fit a narrative.

I believe the President had every right to investigate corruption and to pause giving 400 million in taxpayer money to a country known for corruption. I think he had every right to test a newly elected Ukrainian President who ran on anti-corruption by asking him to look into something that was clearly corrupt and deserved more scrutiny at the very least. The House omitted key facts and testimony when presenting their case, and turned a blind eye to the fact that their candidate was involved in a pay-for-play scheme while in office. They had 18 witnesses, omitted one that wasn't favorable to their case (the IG), and didn't follow the process set forth by the Constitution in a rush to do something driven politically and not in a bipartisan manner as the Founders clearly stated was necessary for impeachment. They overstepped the separation of powers and what they presented may draw criticism from the Congress but doesn't warrant throwing a duly elected President out of office 8 months before an election. They rushed the impeachment through, held the Articles, and leveraged House rules to conduct an impartial and unjust investigation without the required vote from the House.

When you start talking quid pro quo, bring up Guliani, and speak in the same terms that have been railed by the media for months, it's clear that you are more concerned with what the party is towing rather than the rules, process and formalities that have been followed for 2 centuries. This isn't about any of that, it is clearly an abuse of power by the House to overstep the Constitution, the Judicial branch of government and the entire impeachment process in order to play double jeopardy - either oust the President or make the Senate look complicit in some type of unfair trial that favors them in either scenario.

I suggest you read up on how the Constitution works and bring those arguments forward. You are doing what every Democrat has been doing - deflecting from the real issue. They tried to impeach Trump 5 different times since 2016. This was the first impeachment in our history that did not have bipartisan support when the Articles were voted on. In fact, it was bipartisan support AGAINST the impeachment Articles. This entire thing was a political maneuver to interfere domestically with the elections.

FusionGPS is not irrelevant. The Steele dossier is not irrelevant. The faked FISA warrants have been retracted. The IG said there was wrong doing. Lisa Page and Strzok are not irrelevant. Ukrainians believing Hillary was going to win is not irrelevant. Shokin's testimony is not irrelevant. Burisma and Biden is not irrelevant. Trump had every reason to look into all of these matters, and had reason not to trust the intelligence community after they were played by Hillary and company. The House never bothered to look into a single one of these issues, even after John Kerry's step-son distanced himself from Hunter and Burisma and raised it as a huge concern to the State Department, which conveniently, removed the lead investigator. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting the President had justification to wait a little bit to see how serious a new foreign leader was about fighting corruption and being a true ally to the United States before handing over a ton of money.

The House suggesting that troops were dying when the money is an advance payment, meaning Ukraine already had money and provisions and weren't in dire need waiting day by day to get paid, was BS. The House suggesting the above mentioned was "nothing to see here" is BS. The omission of the IG witness testimony. The hypothetical Russian scenarios from Schiff.

I am not a Trump supporter, but I am a supporter of the Constitution and the process and the Founders. There are plenty of books you can read about the Founders and what they said themselves, what they debated about when it came to impeachment, why the separation of powers was critical, why Executive privilege matters, why there needed to be bipartisan support and overwhelming evidence of egregious offenses by a President to impeach them. I'm happy to provide you references for your reading enjoyment.

Between the omissions of the House and the serious warping of the Constitution and powers of the House to conduct the investigation the way they did, and attempt to put the responsibility on the Senate to finish what they didn't. I don't believe they represented or made their case honestly. The whole thing felt dishonest and manipulative. The Clinton impeachment took 5 years because it followed the process. NEW witnesses were not introduced in the Senate. Depositions were conducted openly, with both sides able to participate. A special investigator was assigned. And most importantly, he lied to Congress and clearly, and unequivocally, broke the law. Why couldn't the House follow the process? Why the urgency? Because it was all politically motivated and as partisan as can be, and the Founders were completely and utterly against that type of Democratic Republic.... and so am I.

~Namaste

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

They can try to pull a rabbit out of their hat all they want

Remember when Bullwinkle used to try and pull a rabbit out of a hat and never got anything? He would say "Hey, Rocky.... I think I got the wrong hat." I think that will be their only possible last words. To blame it on the hat and not themselves.

I had forgotten all about that show! Good analogy!

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Excellent synopsis. I learn something new from almost all your posts.

Fredo (Chirs Cuomo CNN) is going berserk on Alan Dershowitz right now. Dershowitz stays calm and confident.

I'm the TV on CNN and MSNBC until the trial is over. It's fun watching liberal Anchors, Experts and Commentators so angry and frustrated!

a reply to: carewemust

Thank you friend... I draw a lot of my inspiration from your posts as well. You're always posting things that help me fill in blanks and either round out my own conclusions, or help arrive at new ones. I rely on you and a few other folks (TheRedneck comes to mind too) to keep it real and provide some trust in the research apparatus on ATS. It's the only sense of real journalism and investigative sleuthing that works for me these days, because I only use the main media to gage my interest in a particular topic before coming here to get more honest and transparent info on it, even if it can sometimes be purely opinion or speculation.

Keep up the great work!



~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I'll second carewemust's comment. Your posts in this thread have been quite insightful and that was an excellent synopsis. It didn't cover every detail, of course, but to do so would require much more than a single post.

I am a Trump supporter, primarily because he has shown himself to be committed to following the campaign promises I was interested in seeing him implement, and because i have first-hand knowledge of him responding to an average citizen in need of assistance. I do consider the man brash, egotistical, and arrogant, but perhaps that is what is needed at this time in our history. It certainly gets more done faster than the suave, debonair, politically-correct personalities of the recent past.

The biggest problem I have with the impeachment is the overreach by the House and the hypocrisy that accompanies it. The statements made by both the House Managers and the defense during this trial have served to verify what I already knew: the House has attempted to dissolve the Separation of Powers in the Constitution by weaponizing impeachment. The impeachment process is a final fail-safe to true criminal behavior (statutory or not) and thus a critical part of our government system of checks and balances. However, to continue to be such, impeachment must not be common. It must rather be the last chance, the final option, and above and beyond the political squabbles that define our times.

To use impeachment as a means of resolving political differences, or worse, as a means of punishing a President for actions properly taken within the bounds of the Constitution, is the single largest threat to our way of life that we face. President Trump has extreme power as President, but that power is limited by the fact that he can serve at most 8 years and must get approval from the public midway through his administration to do that. The damage he (or any sitting President) can do to the republic is limited, as is proper. The House, however, is setting a dangerous precedent by their actions that can last centuries.

If this ploy succeeds in either removing the President or shifting control of Congress, there is nothing that prevents another Congress from doing the exact same thing. On a simple majority vote, without the checks of requiring Senate agreement or Presidential approval, the House can unilaterally choose to paralyze the entire government at any time for any reason. Think of it: at this time, there really is no operating Federal government! The Congress is frozen; the Senate must sit through this impeachment trial and ignore other business until it is completed, while the House can do little because their leadership is consumed with the task of representing the prosecution. The President's attention is diverted to the threat to his administration. The Supreme Court is missing its Chief Justice. The upcoming primaries are being skewed because candidates from the Senate cannot participate during the trial, placing them at an extreme disadvantage during perhaps the most important time period of their candidacy.

All because 218 people decided they wanted it. That is tyranny.

There is no check or balance to this power, and I am now considering that fact an error in our Constitution. The requirement of a 2/3 supermajority in the House to impeach would have prevented this entire trial from ever happening, but at the same time would not have prevented the previous three (I count Nixon even though his impeachment was not finished before his resignation) Presidential impeachments. Perhaps we should seriously consider such an amendment; it is clear that our Representatives cannot be trusted with such awesome power.

It is also the power to literally, as one person in the trial stated, "tear up the ballots of the American people." Impeachment, by definition in the Constitution itself, is an attempt to remove the sitting President in absolute defiance of the previous election. I realize that such may at times be necessary; it is entirely possible for a duly-elected President to thwart the will of the people after being convincing enough in their campaign to garner votes. A mechanism for correcting illegal, treasonous, or grossly immoral actions must exist to prevent this. However, the offenses must be more than simply a disagreement or even multiple disagreements... the same ability to thwart the will of the people can be exercised by Representatives as well as a President. There is nothing special about being elected as a Representative... it is actually the lowest-level national elected position. At any one time, there is only one President, only 100 Senators, but 435 Representatives. It is far easier to deceive the voters in a small district than to deceive all the voters in a state, and even harder to deceive all the voters in the country.

I have come to believe that the impeachment attempt of Richard Nixon, while likely warranted, was also likely a mistake. His actions were no more grievous than the actions of others in the Federal government at the time, and there is evidence the entire episode was actually driven by political angst. I have been steadfast in my condemnation of the impeachment of Bill Clinton; while certainly illegal, his actions were also not "high crimes and misdemeanors" and fell far short of what I would consider "impeachable." But at least, in both of those cases, there was bipartisan support for impeachment... this time there is no bipartisan support whatsoever, only partisan claims based wholly on supposition of what Trump intended to do and why he intended to do it.

The Democrats in the House should be ashamed of their obvious bias, and a fair electorate, I believe, would oust them for their actions. That likely won't happen though, and is yet another reason to tighten the restrictions for impeachment:

Amendment 28*

Impeachment of a President or Vice President shall only occur with a 2/3 or greater supermajority in the House of Representatives, and a vote on such impeachment shall only occur after diligent review of an investigation presented to the entire House of Representatives in full. No witness testimony shall be included as any part of this presentation except the President being impeached shall have enjoyed the same rights and privileges of due process of law afforded all criminal investigations, to include but not be limited to representation of competent counsel, the right to cross examine witnesses, and the right to confront witnesses against him/her. Any subpoenas issued to the Executive Branch in pursuit of an impeachment investigation must be approved by a review of the Supreme Court prior to service, during which review the President has the right to representation by competent counsel concerning such decision.

* The actual number may be 29... I think the ERA was recently ratified, making it 28, but I am not certain of this.

TheRedneck

Senator Schumer (The Minority Leader) press conference .....

He's whining and spouting like a baby !!!!!!

Keeps repeating the "Witnesses and Documents" BS 😆

originally posted by: xuenchen
Senator Schumer (The Minority Leader) press conference .....

He's whining and spouting like a baby !!!!!!

Keeps repeating the "Witnesses and Documents" BS 😆

We need to be blasting this song into his chambers:

"Too Legit, Too Legit to Aquit!"

a reply to: TheRedneck

Soul brother... epic post my friend. I 100% agree with everything you said. The way this has ground the country to a halt can't become the norm, nor weaponizing impeachment for any reason whatsoever, can never be allowed again.

I think there is enough momentum behind that sentiment to get the support needed for an amendment for 2/3 majority of the House for impeachment, officially making it nearly (and I stress nearly) impossible to do without bipartisan support. Your amendment proposal is spot on. The only thing I would add is that the Supreme Court would expedite those hearings and be the only body to hear arguments for or against them during an impeachment process.

Those small changes would prevent this from happening again. The House cannot be allowed to use or waste government resources to issue subpoenas without some type of probable cause to be heard by a body outside of themselves, otherwise they will continue to grant themselves the power to investigate anyone, at any time, in or out of government, all under the guise of "seeking the truth" for an impeachment that is politically driven. If the above process was followed, not only would the House not have gotten the votes for impeachment, they would not pass the smell test for a subpoena in the first place.

Great post! Keep it coming...

~Namaste