If Trump is obstructing because he knows he is guilty

[tall73]

Obstructing {Truth] from this.

If Trump is obstructing because he knows he is guilty

It certainly does not say what he is obstructing.

Very well, tell you what. You go ahead and post whatever you want in this thread within the rules of the forum.

We would not want to put you in a theological crisis.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Once again, the Constitution gives the president executive privilege for just the reason as is taking place right now.

If there is no undeniable evidence, which is what is needed to remove a duly elected president, then you will have no case.

This is silly - if the "undeniable evidence" is controlled by the Executive Branch, and the Executive Branch employs executive privilege to block access to the "undeniable evidence" on the grounds that there is no "undeniable evidence," then you're stuck in a catch-22. Surely you can see that this is corrupt and counterproductive, right?

 

[Jamesone5]

I was answering your question.

You don't need to meet a burden of proof.

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you may be happier in another thread.

You don't need to meet a burden of proof.
​

Versus​

You need meet no burden of proof against Trump to follow Christ.-​

Seen you are suggesting a thread for very clear English speakers

 

[tall73]

You don't need to meet a burden of proof.

Versus
You need meet no burden of proof against Trump to follow Christ.-​

Seen you are suggesting a thread for very clear English speakers

Carry on. I will type my English as I wish, and you can say what you wish. Then we all get our say.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Wouldn't he just say no to the Senate as well if they wanted to call witnesses, requiring the same fight in the courts?

Honestly, you're probably right. However, there are a couple possible lines of reasoning that I can think of:

1. House Democrats were hoping that the obvious obstruction would be enough to lead to Trump's removal and/or convince Americans not to vote for him in 2020.

2. The hope was that if Senate Republicans voted to subpoena witnesses and documents, they would be able to pressure the President to do so or resign.

 

[Charlie24]

Why is the burden on me for my solid decision which is to follow Christ and His Truth against the lies?

It is abundantly clear that his political rival he wanted to dig up dirt on as if an admittingly corrupt Country would find something valid?

Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.

So you say this about Trump,

"That, with the over 16,000 lies he has uttered as President in just 3 years. His lawyers try to muddy up the waters and get the attention away what he originally asked with their foolish arguments. Of course on his lawyer team is a defense attorney for OJ Simpson and we know how that trial turned out."

and then you want to hide behind Christ?

 

[tall73]

This is silly - if the "undeniable evidence" is controlled by the Executive Branch, and the Executive Branch employs executive privilege to block access to the "undeniable evidence" on the grounds that there is no "undeniable evidence," then you're stuck in a catch-22. Surely you can see that this is corrupt and counterproductive, right?

I think the whole system where they keep information from the voters is not helpful. But if the only way to get the info is the courts, then we need to get that process going.

It seems like not doing so is giving Trump his wish.

 

[Jamesone5]

Very well, tell you what. You go ahead and post whatever you want in this thread within the rules of the forum.

We would not want to put you in a theological crisis.

where in your response is there a relevance to the thread? It seem to be all about me bty and while I appreciate it just being about me there are other issues to debate. Christ, for one.

Trump is bankrupting the Country in an obstruction of truth.

And I welcome any Biblical debate.

 

[tall73]

Honestly, you're probably right. However, there are a couple possible lines of reasoning that I can think of:

1. House Democrats were hoping that the obvious obstruction would be enough to lead to Trump's removal and/or convince Americans not to vote for him in 2020.

I don't think the Democrats really expected the Republican Senate to vote him out on that basis. Republicans were already signalling they thought the house should pursue the matter in the courts.

The voters will at this point make their decision. But an optics play alone is not really helpful to us the citizens who actually want to know what happened.

2. The hope was that if Senate Republicans voted to subpoena witnesses and documents, they would be able to pressure the President to do so or resign.

I understand the hope, but I don't think they really thought the Republicans would. Again, they signaled ahead of this. So why not try to push the court cases through?

Or, if you want an optics win, why not go for the censure path, which was considered for a while, and is certainly warranted?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think the whole system where they keep information from the voters is not helpful. But if the only way to get the info is the courts, then we need to get that process going.

It seems like not doing so is giving Trump his wish.

Generally, I agree - I was addressing the point about this being the purpose of executive privilege.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The voters will at this point make their decision. But an optics play alone is not really helpful to us the citizens who actually want to know what happened.

Agreed.

Or, if you want an optics win, why not go for the censure path, which was considered for a while, and is certainly warranted?

Why censure when you can impeach? Impeachment is basically just censure turned up to 11.

 

[tall73]

where in your response is there a relevance to the thread? It seem to be all about me bty and while I appreciate it just being about me there are other issues to debate. Christ, for one.

Trump is bankrupting the Country in an obstruction of truth.

And I welcome any Biblical debate.

Don't worry, I waived you being on topic. You don't need to be. You just say anything that comes to mind.

 

[Jamesone5]

So you say this about Trump,

"That, with the over 16,000 lies he has uttered as President in just 3 years. His lawyers try to muddy up the waters and get the attention away what he originally asked with their foolish arguments. Of course on his lawyer team is a defense attorney for OJ Simpson and we know how that trial turned out."

and then you want to hide behind Christ?

Hide behind Christ? Exactly what are you trying to say about me?

Romans 8:10
And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Hardly a "hiding behind Christ". But then obviously some Christians do not know that

 

[tall73]

Agreed.


Why censure when you can impeach? Impeachment is basically just censure turned up to 11.

a. Impeachment is seen as a publicity ploy at this point, whereas censure would likely not be.

b. They may have actually gotten some bi-partisan support for censure. A number of Republicans are aware that it was not a perfect call.

c. There is a question of whether the crime, since we cannot prove intent, raises to the level of impeachable.

d. The Democrats are distracting from their own candidates, which won't help their election chances.

e. Trump loves publicity of any sort. This just keeps his name in the headlines.

 

[Jamesone5]

Don't worry, I waived you being on topic. You don't need to be. You just say anything that comes to mind.

What is the topic and who do you always go back to because you have no other arguments to make?
Do you think you invented that very clear deception?


Trump has basically obstructed Truth.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

a. Impeachment is seen as a publicity ploy at this point, whereas censure would likely not be.

Why would censure not be seen as political?

b. They may have actually gotten some bi-partisan support for censure.

Given the current state of politics, I highly doubt it.

c. There is a question of whether the crime, since we cannot prove intent, raises to the level of impeachable.

I disagree - abuse of power doesn't necessarily have to be criminal, and obstruction of Congress is - IMO - a clearly impeachable offense. "High crimes and misdemeanors," as has been pointed out multiple times over the past months on this forum, is a phrase taken from English common law that refers to abuses of power not necessarily covered by the criminal code.

d. The Democrats are distracting from their own candidates, which won't help their election chances.

True, but this actually hurts your argument about it being a purely political publicity ploy. If it was 100% about politics, Democrats wouldn't want to hinder their candidates.

e. Trump loves publicity of any sort. This just keeps his name in the headlines.

Fair point, though I'd argue that he'd find a way to keep it there regardless.

 

[Charlie24]

This is silly - if the "undeniable evidence" is controlled by the Executive Branch, and the Executive Branch employs executive privilege to block access to the "undeniable evidence" on the grounds that there is no "undeniable evidence," then you're stuck in a catch-22. Surely you can see that this is corrupt and counterproductive, right?

Glad you didn't write the Constitution, there would have been 20 or 30 presidents taken out of office by now if that were the case.

You have to catch the president red-handed to remove him from office. That's the way it's set up. If you can't, better luck next time. This goes for both gop and dnc.

Surely you can see why it's this way?

Clinton was caught, but even a Rep. Senate didn't think it was enough to remove a duly elected president from office.

 

[tall73]

What is the topic and who do you always go back to because you have no other arguments to make?
Do you think you invented that very clear deception?


Trump has basically obstructed Truth.

You are a treasure in this thread, and I am glad you are shining a light on this problem. Carry on.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Glad you didn't write the Constitution, there would have been 20 or 30 presidents taken out of office by now if that were the case.

Do tell? You honestly think that Congress had both the will and ability to impeach and remove over half of the past Presidents, and only failed to do so for lack of documents withheld by executive privilege?

You have to catch the president red-handed to remove him from office. That's the way it's set up. If you can't, better luck next time. This goes for both gop and dnc.

I don't believe that anyone can say what it takes to remove a President from office, seeing as it hasn't been done yet.

Surely you can see why it's this way?

No, I really can't.

Clinton was caught, but even a Rep. Senate didn't think it was enough to remove a duly elected president from office.

Ultimately, they decided that his perjury about an extramarital affair didn't negatively affect his ability to govern the country. Also, I don't believe that Clinton exercised executive privilege during his impeachment. In fact, he was quite open about it, all things considered, and even testified himself (via video). All in all, not the best comparison.

 

[tall73]

Why would censure not be seen as political?

I think most people think that Trump made a poor choice on that call.

Censure simply recognizes questionable behavior and warns against it in the future. I could be wrong, but I think it would be seen as a legitimate concern.

Given the current state of politics, I highly doubt it.

Perhaps not. I just read some articles that suggest some were asked, and I think you are right. Probably wouldn't get much more traction. But some off the record republicans admitted it would be a tougher vote for them on censure.

I disagree - abuse of power doesn't necessarily have to be criminal, and obstruction of Congress is - IMO - a clearly impeachable offense. "High crimes and misdemeanors," as has been pointed out multiple times over the past months on this forum, is a phrase taken from English common law that refers to abuses of power not necessarily covered by the criminal code.

Please show me the discussion on English Common law. Unfortunately I missed that. I will consider the evidence.

True, but this actually hurts your argument about it being a purely political publicity ploy. If it was 100% about politics, Democrats wouldn't want to hinder their candidates.

They also wouldn't give up on the actual evidence if it were all about principle. They can't say it is all about principle because it might hurt their candidates, but then not push every option to get at the truth.

Fair point, though I'd argue that he'd find a way to keep it there regardless.

Yes. Because whenever he tweets people feel a need to respond.