Quote (GLYC123 @ Feb 2 2020 09:26am)
0. No solid evidence yet of funds being withheld solely for this reason. I can only speak to the evidence we can see. We still have no evidence that aid was being withheld solely for a Burizma investigation.
1. What evidence do you have of this? There is none to show Trump knew about this prior to January that I've seen, considering that sounds like the first time Giuliani was made aware was after speaking with the Ukraine prosecutor.
2. It doesn't matter if your preferred route is a formal investigation with the DOJ, and for arguments sake, if it is possibly the best method. Is having a foreign government investigate their own company illegal? No.
3. See above.
4. Really irrelevant since there is legitimacy in having the investigation based on the facts at hand. A case of mixed motives. There is public benefit in the investigation.
Impeachment summarized. Dems trying to impeach over a foreign policy disagreement.
That's fine to have that opinion or disagree, I never said that wasn't a primary motive for the investigation. In fact I've said that I agree with you that it likely was a primary motive for the investigation. Trump is likely looking for retaliation in regards to being the target of false smear campaigns since 2016. Mixed motives are still present and the investigation is still legitimate. We still have no evidence that aid was being withheld solely for a Burizma investigation.
"The second charge against Trump is obstruction of Congress, because he did not comply with congressional subpoenas for documents and witnesses to testify. There is no question that Trump did not comply, but there is legitimate debate about whether he constitutionally had to comply, since by nature the impeachment process is a political one. High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution or in law. The term basically means whatever a majority of the House says it means, and then whatever two-thirds of the Senate agree it means.
As a past chairman of a major House committee who had the responsibility to issue subpoenas, I believe this charge to be the more serious but also problematic. It does not in my mind rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. If it did, every president I served with (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump), would theoretically be guilty. All presidents resist congressional subpoenas for documents and witnesses. When this occurs, negotiations usually result in mutually agreeable compliance. In rare cases, the House brings a contempt of Congress resolution to the House floor for a vote. The current article of impeachment regarding failure to comply with a House subpoena is unique in congressional history."
When you make impossible criteria you are just giving immunity. You say that there's no evidence be also seen the GOP actively suppress the evidence by saying the jury will not take credible witness testimony by 51-49. We are talking 1st person testimony and not hearsay... Legally admissible and if this was a criminal trial it would be in.
Why aren't you addressing this?
You are seriously acting like the president is exonerated.... When everybody just seen a crime be covered up.
Never in my life would I expect an actual jury to suppress evidence because their vote is predetermined no matter the facts they see, because it would hurt them politically. They admitted this. We all knew this was the case but anybody saying this should be arrested for contempt and Obstruction of Justice.
Quote (krackprophet @ Feb 2 2020 09:31am)
I'm not convinced SCOTUS is a sure thing on this matter. Just my opinion though.
I'd argue learned helplessness at this point with politics. No matter how you vote it seems corruption is the rule.
No one on the campaign trail is talking about limiting executive power sadly. Hell they all have plans for their day 1 EOs already.
Term limits or bust.
This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 2 2020 08:37am