Why no Trump impeachment thread on Paw-Litics???

[dawg80]

I really, really believe Trump did NOT ask Ukraine for a political favor!!!

Is that the answer to your question? You always have such a flimsy position that you pick one small thing to harp on. Remember this...

Have you read the Mueller Report?

Hah! even Mueller did not read the Mueller Report. You were told a gazillion times the Mueller Report is a work of fiction. Yet, because you had nothing else to harp on, no substance to your argument, that's all you had. And that is why NONE of us here have any reason to answer any questions you pose.

You have ZERO credibility. We know the truth about you. So, get over yourself and your stupid questions.

[detltu]

And the reason why Republicans won’t support it IS NOT for lack of evidence of impeachable wrong doing. Mitch McConnell laid it out bare.

"I'm not an impartial juror," he said flatly. "This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."

In other words, Republicans aren’t concerned about protecting the constitution - for them it is entirely about what plays best for them politically.

And the same can be said for the Democrats. It is a completely political process.

[Guisslapp]

You saying “everybody knows it” is just as dumb as Trump saying “everybody knows it”. Everybody knows it is not proof or evidence. Still just opinion.

You aren’t required to leave logic at the door when evaluating evidence.

[PawDawg]

Everyone knew and still knows who the investigation was going to benefit, and it wasn’t the US’s interests. It was Trumps political interests.

.

The "Crowdstrike" comment upset your fellow elite swampers more than anything.

Nothing to see here...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770

[detltu]

You REALLY don’t believe Trump asked Ukraine for a political favor?

I don't believe that has been proven to any reasonable standard.

You seem to act as if there is no legitimate reason for Trump to ask the Ukraine to look into these things.

The United States spent how many millions looking into foreign election interference in the 2016 election?

Are you genuinely saying there is no reason to look at the Ukraine as a possible source of election interference?
Are you saying there is no reason to investigate potential United States interference in foreign government actions?

Both of these things could certainly be beneficial to Trump politically. That doesn't mean they are counter to US interests or there is no legitimate basis for the requests.

I don't actually know what standard you think the impeachment trial should be held to because your view seems to float to suit your needs, but there seems to be a lot of consternation that Trump didn't cooperate with the investigation. His reasoning seems to be related to the reason most people object to an investigation of Burisma (and the Bidens) and Ukraine election interference.

1. How can you trust the process to be fair.
2. Even if the process is fair and no improper/illegal activity is found, the investigation itself can still be used as a political weapon.

[FriscoDog]

You saying “everybody knows it” is just as dumb as Trump saying “everybody knows it”. Everybody knows it is not proof or evidence. Still just opinion.

^^^ This^^^^ As an attorney he should know the difference between opinion and evidence/proof. Democrats and MSM pass their "opinions" off as facts.. which they are not.

[johnnylightnin]

I don't actually know what standard you think the impeachment trial should be held to because your view seems to float to suit your needs, but there seems to be a lot of consternation that Trump didn't cooperate with the investigation.

I believe he's said the standard is the preponderance of evidence. But again, the phase we're in is not the trial, but the indictment. The "proof" and the president's official rebuttal rightly takes place in the Senate trial.

[FriscoDog]

I have seen much more evidence that Democrats, FBI, Breenan, Comey, etc. have commited crimes and collusion than any "evidence" that Democrats have produced against Trump.

[techman05]

All of you attorneys.......

If you are counsel for the defendant and it is learned that the search warrant which led to your clients arrest was secured with false or incomplete info, would you not argue that procedure was violated and therefore charges should be dropped?

Edit: Also, any arrests and convictions achieved in connection with your client would also be thrown out, correct?

[detltu]

I believe he's said the standard is the preponderance of evidence. But again, the phase we're in is not the trial, but the indictment. The "proof" and the president's official rebuttal rightly takes place in the Senate trial.

I suppose that is ok. Even preponderance of evidence cannot be met if there is no opportunity to examine counter evidence. Even if the President isn't allowed to defend himself, the republicans in the house should be allowed to examine all of the evidence gathered and potentially examine evidence of their own. That has not been the case here.

[Guisslapp]

^^^ This^^^^ As an attorney he should know the difference between opinion and evidence/proof. Democrats and MSM pass their "opinions" off as facts.. which they are not.

Yet Trump continues to defy Congres’s constitutional power to get the documents and witnesses that would help prove these “opinions”.

[Guisslapp]

I suppose that is ok. Even preponderance of evidence cannot be met if there is no opportunity to examine counter evidence. Even if the President isn't allowed to defend himself, the republicans in the house should be allowed to examine all of the evidence gathered and potentially examine evidence of their own. That has not been the case here.

The president was invited to defend himself. He declined.

[PawDawg]

The president was invited to defend himself. He declined.

Not from the beginning.

[dawg80]

Yet Trump continues to defy Congres’s constitutional power to get the documents and witnesses that would help prove these “opinions”.

Wrong again. The SC ruled in favor of Trump re: this issue.

There are THREE branches of government. The Executive Branch has every right to deny the Legislative Branch requests for documents. What then can the LB do? They can file a suit and if the court agrees then, and only then, is the EB compelled to turn over documents. In this case the Dems did not want to wait for it to play out in the courts. They are in a hurry to rush this through, and skipped the JB part of this equation.

To summarize, the SC ruled the EB is not compelled to turn over documents just because the LB wants them. They have to prove it is pertinent to the matter, and then a judge has to make a ruling, agreeing with the LB.

[johnnylightnin]

I've counted two comparisons of Trump to Jesus.