The trial of Donald J. Trump

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

NONE! That is if you are speaking of President Trump.

(I wonder how many of these fools making bigger fools of themselves on National TV have actually read the Ukrainian funding statute AUTHORIZING the President to provide military assistance to UKraine!...since they didn't read the Affordable Care Act!)

Yes, I am referring to Trump. All these liberal assholes in here speak of some sort of crime Trump committed but they can't come up with anything other than Trump lies, lol.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And yet you keep repeating that Trump broke a law because the GAO said so. Is the GAO an impaneled jury or an elected or appointed judge? You seem to understand that you are wrong to say that but can't admit it here.


The GAO said the Obama administration broke the law 7 times. Would you now like to say that Obama should have been impeached?

You don't seem to understand that I am on the jury. In the court of public opinion. The law is clear. It has been violated.

The POTUS wasn't impeached for breaking a law, per se. He violated the Constitution.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You don't seem to understand that I am on the jury. In the court of public opinion.

No, you are not on the jury. You have absolutely no say what so ever as to whether Trump is found guilty but nice try. You do get a vote in Nov. but the Democrats want to take that right away from you and me but I'll give you C+ for pulling an answer outta your ass in hopes of making sense. You are a voter not a juror. Juror's are sworn before they give an opinion, you have not been sworn and you completely ignore the point that the GAO is not authorized to make a legal opinion since they are not a judicial authority. If you had said that the GAO gave an "opinion" as to the legality of the decision and you accept it even though it did not meet the standard of a legal decision by a judicial authority, I would have no complaint but that isn't what you did. You stated the decision as a fact that can not be disputed and is proof that it rises to the level of a High crime or misdemeanor. It is not a fact, it is an opinion no different than mine or yours which do not carry the weight of a judicial ruling.



The POTUS wasn't impeached for breaking a law, per se. He violated the Constitution.

The law is clear. It has been violated.

Now all you have to do is show us that part of the Constitution he violated. Article, section and clause, please. Where in the Constitution is "abuse of power" defined. Surely it's in the Articles of Impeachment. I'll wait


And I'd still like an opinion on the GAO saying Obama violated the law but was not impeached. Should he have been impeached? Yes or no and if no, why not? Don't try and hide behind "whataboutisms". It's a matter of being a hypocrite or not. I am not saying that what Trump did isn't wrong or even illegal for that matter if there was "precedent" you remember "precedent" don't you, the legal term for a standard set by a previous decision? If the previous decision that the 7 times Obama was accused of breaking a law was not only not impeachable but actually argued against, then the same must be applied to all following instances IMHO and if you don't, you are a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite or not? If not, why not?


Oliver is right that one should not use a "whataboutism" to excuse what the second person has done but the hypocrisy of excusing what the first person did and charging the second person screams of partisanship and hypocrisy. If you excuse one person of a crime, you must excuse all persons of that crime if one is to be called fair minded. The solution is to charge both. How would you like to be charged with a crime when a guy yesterday of a different political party, wasn't? That is the question Mr. juror.

[oeb11]

9500 is no more able to answer cogently, than are any of the House managers able to speak Facts and real truth - not Fascist DPST narrative Truth!


Trump's impeachable crime was to win in Nov 2016!

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The law is clear. It has been violated.

Now all you have to do is show us that part of the Constitution he violated.

Article, section and clause, please.

Because you asked nicely.


Oath of Office

Where in the Constitution is "abuse of power" defined. Surely it's in the Articles of Impeachment. I'll wait


You're going to wait a long time. It's not defined. It's whatever the majority in the house, the people (me), say it is.

And I'd still like an opinion on the GAO saying Obama violated the law but was not impeached. Should he have been impeached? Yes or no and if no, why not?


Apparently it's not possible to commit a crime as POTUS.
But you can violate the Constitution. Let's ask Dershowitz about . . .

Don't try and hide behind "whataboutisms". It's a matter of being a hypocrite or not.

. . . being a hypocrite. He is the Devil's Advocate. Not his defense counsel.

I am not saying that what Trump did isn't wrong or even illegal for that matter if there was "precedent" you remember "precedent" don't you, the legal term for a standard set by a previous decision? If the previous decision that the 7 times Obama was accused of breaking a law was not only not impeachable but actually argued against, then the same must be applied to all following instances IMHO and if you don't, you are a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite or not? If not, why not?

Let's ask . . . forget it.

Oliver is right that one should not use a "whataboutism" to excuse what the second person has done but the hypocrisy of excusing what the first person did and charging the second person screams of partisanship and hypocrisy. If you excuse one person of a crime, you must excuse all persons of that crime if one is to be called fair minded. The solution is to charge both. How would you like to be charged with a crime when a guy yesterday of a different political party, wasn't? That is the question Mr. juror.

You know I said I would get a laptop at least, but I'm still on a handheld device. But here goes. ^^^

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Yes, I am referring to Trump. All these liberal assholes in here speak of some sort of crime Trump committed but they can't come up with anything other than Trump lies, lol.

Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...quire-a-crime/

Hence the claim now being advanced half-heartedly by Republicans that presidents cannot be impeached for any abuse of power unless that abuse took the form of a criminal violation of a statute. The consensus of those who have studied this question is to the contrary. Jonathan Turley, the Republicans’ star witness in the House hearings about the constitutional issues raised by impeachment, has repudiated this view. Attorney General William Barr has in the past denied it. The Founding-era debates about impeachment are clear that Congress was to be able to remove a president from office if he had exercised his legal powers in an abusive way. One example that came up during those debates: What if the president tacitly encouraged a crime and then pardoned the perpetrator? The pardon power is arguably unreviewable, and certainly very nearly so. It was left to the judgment of a majority of the House and a supermajority of the Senate, as always under the supervision of the voters, whether a president’s conduct had rendered his continuation in office intolerable.

The Editors comprise the senior editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

William Frank Buckley Jr. was an American public intellectual and conservative author and commentator. In 1955 Buckley founded National Review, a magazine that stimulated the conservative movement in the late-20th century United States.

Some of us have seen Conservatives . . .

. . . lose it for years.

[Redhot1960]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime

[rexdutchman]

The Constitution is clear High crimes and MM , No matter what the box is telling you. Just being bad or un liked isn't Impeachable ,,,,,,,

[oeb11]

Alan Dershowitz will argue that point before the Senate - from statements he has made in appearances.

The Senate will decide.

[HoeHummer]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

The Constitution is clear High crimes and MM , No matter what the box is telling you. Just being bad or un liked isn't Impeachable ,,,,,,,

Link to it, buddy.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Link to it, buddy.

What link would be necessary? I'm sure he was referring to impeached, convicted, and removed from office. And by the looks of things, the Senate is going to right the injustices of the House in their partisan non-crime based impeachment.

VIVA LA ACQUITTAL!!

[eccieuser9500]

[oeb11]

Trump's "high crime" was winning the Nov 2016 election.

nazi pelosi is alrady planning her 2021 Impeachment.

The Fascist DPST's in the House have only one fruitless agenda - Per rep Green - "Impeach".

Pathetic. The TDS hatred is so profound the Fascist DPST's have lined up on the side of Iran , terrorism and murdering Americans.
Truly pathetic,

[HedonistForever]

Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime

And yet actual 20th century crimes were alleged and I would suggest proven in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. This will be the first time in history were no crime is spelled out, only abuse of power which the opposing party of every President has proposed as I pointed out in the Obama Presidency.


So yeah, you don't need a "crime" but it sure would help but then again, I don't think anybody would debate that Bill Clinton committed actual crimes in lying to a grand jury and was still not convicted of those crimes, Hmmm, imagine that, broke the law but it wasn't enough for 67 Senators to come to the conclusion that it was enough to convict which is exactly what this Senate will decide now and the Democrats will yell TRAITOR'S!....... But only when it's a Republican and not a Democrat that actually broke defined laws.



Remember that the Democrats have accused Trump of Bribery and Treason, actual crimes in the Constitution but didn't include them in the Articles because they know it was bullshit. They also yelled extortion and again didn't include that defined crime in the Articles. They say they had the President dead to right on obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation but failed to include that in the Articles. They were so flummoxed as to what to accuse the President of since they couldn't offer an actual legal term, that they settled with "abuse of power" precisely because they could make that mean anything they want it to like 9500 suggests and that is exactly what Madison warned against, the opposition party making up shit because they want to undo an election.

[HedonistForever]

Here's a question I would like to ask. Remember when Obama was caught on a hot mike telling Medvedev of Russia implying, "do me a favor" notice not us a favor but me a favor when he asked the Russians to not push him on missile defense in Poland so close to his re-election? "Wait till I get re-elected and I'll have more "flexibility" Obama said. That could be seen as asking a foreign country, Russia no less, to involve themselves in our election. If they put pressure on Obama to do something they wanted, he might not win re-election. So what did Obama promise in return for the Russians turning down the pressure on him so he could get re-elected? Was there a quid pro quo?



9500, I'd like to address this to you since you are so hung up on "whataboutism".



Should Black people stop saying "what about Black people getting pulled over by police more than Whites"? What about Blacks getting harsher sentences for the same drug crimes Whites commit? What about Black children getting punished more harshly in school when White kids do the same things and don't receive the same punishment?


Should Blacks just shut up about "whataboutisms" or is it legitimate to point out what they see as hypocrisy? Are they just making that case to over look the crimes that Blacks commit or do they have a legitimate grievance? Oh how I would love to hear Olivor tackle that question?


I think Blacks would tell you and Olivor that it is necessary sometimes to ask "what about". And when one group of politicians are willing to over look the same actions as "their guy" commits but want to impeach a guy from the other party for the exact same thing, you're damn right "whataboutism" is a legitimate topic for discussion.