Trump supporters, please explain something to me..

[KCfromNC]

Those articles are a joke!!! Proving what they have claimed in a court of law will prove it to be a joke.

I'm impressed you're trying to sell the idea you managed to read and digest the full 298 page report in the 9 minutes between my post and yours. It kinda makes it look like your claims of it being a joke aren't based on a full consideration of the facts outlined in that report.

 

[KCfromNC]

Really...where is the evidence?

Here's a start - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_trump-ukraine_impeachment_inquiry_report.pdf

 

[Charlie24]

I'm impressed you're trying to sell the idea you managed to read and digest the full 298 page report in the 9 minutes between my post and yours. It kinda makes it look like your claims of it being a joke aren't based on a full consideration of the facts outlined in that report.

I don't think they are as serious as you think. Refer to post#117

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't think they are as serious as you think. Refer to post#117

I have no idea what point you think you're making here.

 

[wing2000]

Just heard Polosi on the news saying that McConnell is talking about bringing up a vote on the floor to dismiss the charges against the president.

She said with a smile on her face that even so, he will always have an impeachment on his record.

...if McConnell were to do that, Pelosi could go to the Supreme Court and challenge the constitutional muster of such a decision.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 6

Does the Senate have the power to dismiss charges?

 

[Charlie24]

...if McConnell were to do that, Pelosi could go to the Supreme Court and challenge the constitutional muster of such a decision.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 6

Does the Senate have the power to dismiss charges?

It is my understanding that the chief justice, I think that would be John Roberts, is not the judge during this trial.

He is there to give definition to the Constitution, and define any misunderstanding the Senators may have concerning this.

The Senators are the judge and the majority will rule if the number of votes required is met.

It is also my understanding that a majority vote by the Senators, what ever that number of votes is, can end the trial. That would leave the House to bear the burden of establishing a crime beyond reasonable doubt. That will be very difficult.

 

[Fantine]

If the Senate dismisses the impeachment Republican Senators will be outed as accomplices to Trump's misdeeds--past, present, and future.

Right now a small majority of Americans believe Trump needs to be impeached. If this happens, he will be joined by 53 Senators.

There are plenty of people shouting I'm mad as hel* and not going to take it anymore" already.

If the Senate becomes his accomplices they are drawing a target (electoral) on his--and their own--backs for 2020.

 

[Charlie24]

If the Senate dismisses the impeachment Republican Senators will be outed as accomplices to Trump's misdeeds--past, present, and future.

Right now a small majority of Americans believe Trump needs to be impeached. If this happens, he will be joined by 53 Senators.

There are plenty of people shouting I'm mad as hel* and not going to take it anymore" already.

If the Senate becomes his accomplices they are drawing a target (electoral) on his--and their own--backs for 2020.

When the trial begins and the people actually see what the House has sent to the Senate, they will see the scam and the opposite affect will take place.

 

[packermann]

Michael Flynn transcripts are available online. When he and others originally plead guilty, the judge asked if they understood the charges, and if they had any problem with them. Each charge is read through one by one. He said he understood and had no issue. He would have served no time at all had he not traded out his legal team for conspiracy chasers and also he tried to sabotage another case. In one of the transcripts the judge pondered why he wasn't being accused of treason after what he had done, so I'm pretty sure if he only gets 6 months he will be getting off lightly.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/121818am-USA-v-Michael-Flynn-Sentencing.pdf


Michael Flynn Plea Agreement Documents

One thing you left out. The judge who rejected Flynn's defense, and pondered why he was not accused of treason, was a Clinton-appointed judge.

Clinton-appointed federal judge rejects Michael Flynn’s bid for exoneration

 

[packermann]

If the Senate dismisses the impeachment Republican Senators will be outed as accomplices to Trump's misdeeds--past, present, and future.

Right now a small majority of Americans believe Trump needs to be impeached. If this happens, he will be joined by 53 Senators.

There are plenty of people shouting I'm mad as hel* and not going to take it anymore" already.

If the Senate becomes his accomplices they are drawing a target (electoral) on his--and their own--backs for 2020.

The articles of impeachment submitted to the Senate is "abuse of power". Although "abuse of power" is bad, if it can be proven, it is not a crime so it is not an impeachable offense.

The transcript shows that there was ,no quid quo pro on Trump's conversation with the president of Ukrane, and president of Ukrane said that there was no quid quo pro. Also, Ukrane did not do what Trump wanted and the Unkrane still received the aid.

If Trump is kicked out then we are a banana republic.

 

[packermann]

While his administration cuts food stamps or makes them harder to get.

He is only cutting loopholes to prevent those who are abusing the system.

Trump proposal seeks to crack down on food stamp ‘loophole’

Could not care less about what the scripture says about why we currently have the most corrupt man in the Oval Office I've seen in my 56 years on the planet.

Let's face it. The only reason you consider him the most corrupt president is because he is the most pro-life president. Clinton lied in court, was credibly accused by a woman of raping her, and after leaving office set up the Clinton Fund with is wife so that other countries could bribe them. Obama assassinated American citizens, sold weapons to the drug cartel in Mexico, his administration told Navy Seals to not rescue our embassy at Bengazi, and then blamed it all on a movie. And yet Trump is the most corrupt president of all because of a phone call???

 

[Albion]

Just heard Polosi on the news saying that McConnell is talking about bringing up a vote on the floor to dismiss the charges against the president.

She said with a smile on her face that even so, he will always have an impeachment on his record.

Well, it is widely believed that that was Pelosi's intention all along. And it makes sense, considering that the House never came up with any 'high crimes or misdemeanors' sufficient to impeach but rushed through an impeachment vote anyway. The suspicion that the Republicans had that it was all a campaign tactic appears to have been verified.

So we now know that whenever a president is elected, and is of the opposite party from the majority of the House members, impeachment can be the response of the latter.

President Trump appears to understand this fully, which is why he may try to have witnesses such as Schiff, Biden, and the "whistleblower" rather than opt for a quick resolution.

 

[Charlie24]

Well, it is widely believed that that was Pelosi's intention all along. And it makes sense, considering that the House never came up with any 'high crimes or misdemeanors' sufficient to impeach but rushed through an impeachment vote anyway. The suspicion that the Republicans had that it was all a campaign tactic appears to have been verified.

So we now know that whenever a president is elected, and is of the opposite party from the majority of the House members, impeachment can be the response of the latter.

President Trump appears to understand this fully, which is why he may try to have witnesses such as Schiff, Biden, and the "whistleblower" rather than opt for a quick resolution.

I agree it's all on the table! It will be very interesting to see what actually does happen.

 

[packermann]

Everyone remembers why they were impeached.

Donald Trump for pressuring Ukraine (while under attack from Russia) to interfere in the next USA presidential election to improve Trump's re-election chances.

The transcript showed that there was no quid quo pro. Trump was investigating the corruption of Joe Biden, who boasted how he was able to pressure Ukrane (while under attack from Russia) to fire the investigator of Hunter Biden. Why is Crooked Joe getting a free pass?

Nixon (almost impeached) for breaking into the Democratic party offices to help him in the upcoming elections.

Obama wire-tapped candidate Trump to help the Dems in the upcoming 2016 election. But he got away with it.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Not for the power hungry Dems. They are a disgrace to this country!

Said the Trump supporter.

Lol.

 

[Hank77]

It is also my understanding that a majority vote by the Senators, what ever that number of votes is, can end the trial. That would leave the House to bear the burden of establishing a crime beyond reasonable doubt. That will be very difficult.

The managers for the House are charged with presenting evidence the same as a prosecutor. How could they do that if the Senate already voted and ended the trial?

 

[LostMarbels]

Moreover, the same people that are now claiming "I won't listen to anything after the Muller investigation" are the same people that steadfastly refused to read and assess the Mueller Report with any sort of objectivity.

How can one be objective concerning a known lie, and illegally coerced process based off of intentionally (even paid for) misleading information that was the basis for the entire investigation?

 

[Hank77]

One thing you left out. The judge who rejected Flynn's defense, and pondered why he was not accused of treason, was a Clinton-appointed judge.

Clinton-appointed federal judge rejects Michael Flynn’s bid for exoneration

So what? Do you think that a judge can't make a fair judgment because they were appointed by a particular President? They do take an oath and most of them aren't inclined to break that oath.
If they get caught they are looking at impeachment and the loss of their license to practice law.

 

[Charlie24]

The managers for the House are charged with presenting evidence the same as a prosecutor. How could they do that if the Senate already voted and ended the trial?

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm looking for a formal announcement of the Articles against Trump to begin the trial.

Then I'm looking for McConnell to suggest (if he thinks he has the majority of votes) the charges to be dropped on the grounds of no crime has been established in the House as to be considered reasonable.

Like I say, I am not a lawyer, anything is possible.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Mueller was commissioned by the Republican Acting Attorney General Rod Rossenstein. Mueller wasn't working for the Dems, and wasn't looking to find evidence to press any charges against the sitting president. Even if he found evidence of wrong doing by the sitting president, he still wasn't going to press charges.

The Special Council investigation has nothing at all to do with the investigation and trial into the Ukraine shakedown.
How can you logically go from
a) The special council investigation didn't charge Donald Trump with a crime
Therefore I'm not wasting my time with any future investigation of unrelated wrong doing by Donald Trump.

Basically you are saying that since Mueller didn't charge Trump with crimes when he was investigating Russians and Trump's campaign members therefore Trump can now feel free to commit crimes and he should never be investigated.

All this does is to confirm my belief that any investigation into Trump will never settle the issue once and for all, because the issue is the democrats don't want Trump to be president.

All of those convictions had nothing to with the Mueller investigation; convictions that had no need for an appointment of a special council. Bringing them up is nothing but a smoke screen to hide the fact the investigation found no collusion, which is what it was supposed to be looking for.

The investigation was about whether Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election through nefarious means. Nothing of this nature was ever found.

So now we are onto the next investigation; whether Trump engaged in a "quid pro quo" with Ukraine.

The content of the phone call was made public and no witness brought forward could testify anything was withheld pending any particular outcome.

Yet democratic congressional house members still had promises to their supporters to impeach the sitting president; promises made prior to his being sworn in. At this point it's about overturning the election, not crimes, and all your doing is proving this beyond a shadow of any doubt.