GOP Senators vote that Overwhelming Evidence should be more than sufficient

Paulos23 · Jan 23, 2020

Bobber said:
And if Congress can't be checked by the Executive Branch and the Courts you're not either.

Congress is checked by the courts, and the voters.

And so why didn't the Democratic politicians allow everything to go through the Courts? It was the Forefathers that set that system up.

Because:

A) They got enough evidence from people that came forth dispite the WH saying they didn't need to come to Congress.

B) Trump is the master of dragging things out in the courts. It would have lasted well into this year to get everything they asked for. Bill Clinton didn't block the start of his investigation into Whitewater.

HTacianas · Jan 23, 2020

Paulos23 said:
The reason it is phrased "High crimes and mistameners" is because the founders knew there would be times when the President would abuse their power and still be on the legal side.

In that case, you could call for extortion and indict him. But wait, you can't according to the DOJ.

And around and around we go. At what point will you look at his actions and say he has abused power? Ignoring Congress? Getting another country to look into his top policial rival for money and favors? Allowing other countries to interfer in our elections and not denouncing it?

What is the limit?

Those are violations of campaign finance laws. Have the impeachment managers charge him with it.

GoldenBoy89 · Jan 23, 2020

civilwarbuff said:
MR. PRESIDENT, YOU MUST PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.....

When there’s tons of testimony and legal evidence showing what he did was wrong, yeah a credible alibi is kinda necessary. Withholding that evidence doesn’t exactly make him guilty but it does raise suspicion. It certainly hasn’t helped his case, has it?

DavidPT · Jan 23, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
Ah yes, the defendant and his co-conspirator.

But look what you have to prove now in order to make your case, keeping in mind that it's the prosecutor's job to prove the defendant is guilty as charged. Now you have to prove Zelensky is a co-conspirator. It's one thing to assume that, it's another thing to prove it.

And now that you brought this point up, unless the House managers set out to show and prove Zelensky is a co-conspirator, that alone proves they have no case to begin with. Because unless they can first prove Zelensky is a co-conspirator, they can't prove their case about this July 25 phone call, since not only Trump, but Zelensky as well, have both said this call did not involve anything the House Democrats are trying to accuse Trump of via the first article of impeachment, abuse of power and that that giving him an advantage in the 2020 election coming up.

Albion · Jan 23, 2020

High crimes and mistameners.

Clearly.

Paulos23 said:
The reason it is phrased "High crimes and mistameners" is because the founders knew there would be times when the President would abuse their power and still be on the legal side.

Then "mistameners" wasn't a joke, after all?

And around and around we go. At what point will you look at his actions and say he has abused power?

In my opinion, and because you ask, it would be when he actually abuses his power.

Getting another country to look into his top policial rival for money and favors?

That's the Bidens, not Trump.

Bob Carabbio · Jan 23, 2020

BobRyan said:
Amazing to me that we suddenly find that we got NO EVIDENCE at all out of the house investigation... even though what is now being portrayed as "no evidence at all" for impeachment - was being gift wrapped and handed to the Senate as "OVERWHELMING" evidence.

How shocking that only having overwhelming evidence -- is now NO Evidence!

Yep -- we are stuck with "OVERWHELMING" evidence. and nothing more.

BTW: The BIpartisan line on impeachment voted in the house - was against it.

Good!! This FARCE may take less time than we expected!!!!

BobRyan · Jan 23, 2020

HTacianas said:
I need a law that was violated.

Indeed ... it is a shame that "overwhelming evidence" included none of that. How odd.

BobRyan · Jan 23, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
There is plenty of evidence.

Indeed that is the nature of "overwhelming evidence". How odd this does not satisfy "the managers" regarding their own proposal.

BobRyan · Jan 23, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
There is plenty of evidence. That’s how the articles were drafted. If there was no additional evidence the White House wouldn’t be doing its absolute best to avoid it getting out. If the evidence they have could somehow exonerate the president you better believe they’d be sharing it with the House, Senate and the American People.

What innocent party wouldn’t?

How many innocent lives were totally ruined in the Muller investigation not because of any crime committed prior to being hauled it - but rather due to not have "total recall about everything" and getting caught in the entrapment program initiated for those who came in "innocent" but "without total recall".

Having found no actual crime and no actual evidence for crime - they wonder why the President is not "offering more evidence"?? Where is the incentive for "more evidence" in the case of the president when the prosecution did not charge him with an actual crime in their list of "high crimes" and no evidence of one??

How is this not obvious?

HTacianas · Jan 23, 2020

BobRyan said:
Indeed ... it is a shame that "overwhelming evidence" included none of that. How odd.

That's where we're at.

BobRyan · Jan 23, 2020

Paulos23 said:
The reason it is phrased "High crimes and mistameners" is because the founders knew there would be times when the President would abuse their power and still be on the legal side.

So then "low crimes" in fact "not even a crime" and misdemeanors??

Sort of an "anything that suits your fancy as long as the guy is in the opposing party"??

Because there are a lot of things that get done these days "on the legal side" including eating breakfast and chewing gum... all of it "legal"

BobRyan · Jan 23, 2020

Rather, it is merely stipulated that he wanted to hurt a potential political opponent or else to somehow "rig" the coming presidential election...as though talking to the Ukrainian government could do that.

GoldenBoy89 said:
Without any evidence to the contrary what other conclusion could any reasonable person come to?

Because as every American knew - asking a foreign government that was already known to be dealing with lots of corruption ... to look into "Burisma" in a private secure phone call - is exactly how you rig an American election.

Yeah I think we all knew that --- or ... not.

Laura Ingraham shows emails tying alleged Ukraine whistleblower to Obama White House meeting on Burisma

civilwarbuff · Jan 23, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
When there’s tons of testimony and legal evidence showing what he did was wrong

But not criminal. JFK did not support the Cuban resistance fighters during Bay of Pigs as he had promised....should he have been impeached because what he did was wrong?

civilwarbuff · Jan 23, 2020

Albion said:
Then "mistameners" wasn't a joke, after all?

I was thinking the same thing....I thought I was the only weird one here.....

Paulos23 · Jan 23, 2020

BobRyan said:
So then "low crimes" in fact "not even a crime" and misdemeanors??

Sort of an "anything that suits your fancy as long as the guy is in the opposing party"??

Because there are a lot of things that get done these days "on the legal side" including eating breakfast and chewing gum... all of it "legal"

Since Nixon, the party not in power has been looking for infractions by the President. It has not always been fruitfull, and has lead to abuses like the unlimited Starr Inquiry, and the endless Bengazi hearings.

And most Presidents have been keeping the office of the President within the lines.

The problem with Trump is he blows right past all the lines and norms from day one. So much so that we are all in shock an numb so that when we do catch him at something, most want to ignore because it is the new normal.

If Obama or Clinton where caught doing this, they would have been nailed to the wall by the GOP. Instead, we get this pay with words about how he has not done a crime, and this is within the Presidents power.

Is it within the Presidents power to use his own personal attorney to conduct investigations outside the DOJ? Is it within the power of the President to withhold funds without giving a reason?

civilwarbuff · Jan 23, 2020

Paulos23 said:
Since Nixon, the party not in power has been looking for infractions by the President. It has not always been fruitfull, and has lead to abuses like the unlimited Starr Inquiry, and the endless Bengazi hearings.

And most Presidents have been keeping the office of the President within the lines.

The problem with Trump is he blows right past all the lines and norms from day one. So much so that we are all in shock an numb so that when we do catch him at something, most want to ignore because it is the new normal.

If Obama or Clinton where caught doing this, they would have been nailed to the wall by the GOP. Instead, we get this pay with words about how he has not done a crime, and this is within the Presidents power.

Is it within the Presidents power to use his own personal attorney to conduct investigations outside the DOJ? Is it within the power of the President to withhold funds without giving a reason?

Those are issues properly designed to be answered by the courts; of course when someone is in a hurry to derail a reelection campaign then all sense of sensibility goes flying out the window.......

Paulos23 · Jan 23, 2020

civilwarbuff said:
Those are issues properly designed to be answered by the courts; of course when someone is in a hurry to derail a reelection campaign then all sense of sensibility goes flying out the window.......

And now we are back to the courts.

Congress doesn't need the courts for this. It is just another attempt to delay and keep your President in the office while we wait for documents that the WH has but never releases, or people called and never show.

At what point would you let any other President get away with that?

civilwarbuff · Jan 23, 2020

Paulos23 said:
And now we are back to the courts.

Congress doesn't need the courts for this. It is just another attempt to delay and keep your President in the office while we wait for documents that the WH has but never releases, or people called and never show.

So the executive and legislative branches are at odds. Who, if not the judicial branch, would you suggest (based on the Constitutiion of course) is the proper mediator?

Paulos23 said:
At what point would you let any other President get away with that?

Well, take it up with the constitution because that IS the way it has always been done.

Allandavid · Jan 23, 2020

DavidPT said:
But there is evidence to the contrary, overwhelming evidence actually. Both Trump and Zelensky, the two talking on the phone with each other, and if anyone should know, you would think they should, both said that nothing in the phone call involves anything House Democrats are trying to accuse Trump of. And so what if Trump has lied about things hundreds of times in the past, that doesn't prove he is lying about any of this, even pathological liars tell the truth every now and then. Especially the fact Zelensky is backing him up on this rather than contradicting him, thus proving Trump is not lying about this.

I’ve addressed this one before. Do you really think Zelensky would contradict Trump’s story? Remember, this guy desperately needs not only the aid money that was withheld, he also needs ongoing support from the US if his country is to prevail over Russian aggression. The worst action he could take would be to state that Trump had indeed strong-armed him.
To repeat my earlier analogy...the shopkeeper that has just had a visit from the ‘protection’ gang isn’t going to report that to the cops, is he...?

civilwarbuff · Jan 23, 2020

Allandavid said:
Do you really think Zelensky would contradict Trump’s story? Remember, this guy desperately needs not only the aid money that was withheld, he also needs ongoing support from the US if his country is to prevail over Russian aggression. The worst action he could take would be to state that Trump had indeed strong-armed him.

You addressed it in the wrong way.
1. If he says there was QPQ then Trump is gone and Pence give Zelensky everything he wants as over compensation.
2. If is says there was QPQ and Trump is not gone the Zelensky gets everything he wants because congress scrutinizes Trump over anything Ukraine related in over compensation.
Zelensky can't lose by admitting QPQ.....unless of course that would be a lie.

GOP Senators vote that Overwhelming Evidence should be more than sufficient

Never tell me the odds!

Well-Known Member

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Old guy -

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Never tell me the odds!

Well-Known Member

Never tell me the odds!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads