Conservative Commentator: Trump's Defenders Have No Defense

[Bobber]

Who needs a defense when your accomplices are running the show in the Senate?

So you give the impression that you're opposed to the checks and balances the Founding Fathers set up with different branches of government. I'm sure when they established the Senate they were well aware some Senators of a region might have bias but they still set it up as the most fair way to deal with such an issue. They chose to have faith they would put the well being of country over politics. Will you do the same?

I have limited hopes in Chief Justice John Roberts, who knows it will be HIS name in the history books if he becomes part of the obstruction that began during the Mueller investigation...

And many great numbers of the nation don't believe any such thing took place. Perhaps the Chief Justice recognizes that as well.

Make sure your representatives in the Senate know that you want no cover ups! Hold rallies for "no cover up."

Fair enough. Rallies are the flower of democracy. The other side might counter to do the same as well but the important thing is that they'd would be peaceful and legal demonstrations that BOTH SIDES make them a priority to be.

Finally, if your Senators don't do their jobs--deliver the right verdict at the polls. Send Trump home to Mar a Lago.

And of course that's just your opinion just what the RIGHT verdict should be. Others have their own opinions.

 

[Kentonio]

So you give the impression that you're opposed to the checks and balances the Founding Fathers set up with different branches of government. I'm sure when they established the Senate they were well aware some Senators of a region might have bias but they still set it up as the most fair way to deal with such an issue. They chose to have faith they would put the well being of country over politics. Will you do the same?

I think it’s safe to say the founders would have been both shocked and horrified to hear that senators were strategizing a defense with the president and smearing witnesses before the trial has even started.

 

[Bobber]

I think it’s safe to say the founders would have been both shocked and horrified to hear that senators were strategizing a defense with the president and smearing witnesses before the trial has even started.

And I suppose the partisan opinions of this goes both ways towards the House (the Dems in control) and the Senate with the Republicans in control. However the institutions are what they are so if you don't like the systems of government I think you'd be at a loss to imagine any other system more fair. Is it a guarantee of absolute fairness from either side. Nope. But I think it's the best there is given the overall nature of men.

 

[Bobber]

I think it’s safe to say the founders would have been both shocked and horrified .....

I know the Dems are putting down a case for bribery. I could be wrong on this but if I understand correctly I'm guessing the Founders were even thinking in terms of bribery not as the current Dems are putting forth. We've heard a lot about the term quid pro quo, or bribery.

I'm guessing the Founders meant that as meaning where a foreign power bribes a U.S. Government official with benefit that is to their nation. NOT a government official whether it be a President, or CIA official offering a quid pro quo to another nation for the benefit of the U.S.

Not saying Trump was going for a quid pro quo BUT even if he was where's the crime in that? Don't nations always say if you do this we'll do that? Sometimes those in an opposition make it seem you're down in a pit you have to prove you're not in but who said it's even really a pit? I think the very premise that it is would rightly would have to be defined by the courts. Is quid pro quo with every circumstance an unlawful thing? I think if you ask any American is it wrong to say to another nation if you do this we'll do that....is it wrong....I think the light would come on and they'd say of course not. How could it be? The Founding Fathers I think would say the same.

 

[JohnAshton]

Starkey: I have limited hopes in Chief Justice John Roberts, who knows it will be HIS name in the history books if he becomes part of the obstruction that began during the Mueller investigation.

Bobber: And many great numbers of the nation don't believe any such thing took place. Perhaps the Chief Justice recognizes that as well.

Starkey: Roberts and other American patriots knows those who don't believe are in the solid minority.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But it's not absolute proof in fact there's many other reasons why he potentially was showing a reservation towards quickly releasing the aid. And to your point anyway you look at it it's a speculative notion your putting forth and basic rule of law is you're innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.

If you read the rest of my post, I mentioned that there's nothing concrete due to the fact that his administration was clever enough to use vague enough verbiage that they can pass it off as being part of a more broad anti-corruption position.

It is a little damning, however, when the the only countries that are being encouraged to "expose corruption" (with aid contingent upon that) are ones that he has a pretty good idea have some dirt on a top political rival.

You can find several nations with larger corruption issues than Ukraine & China, yet those are the two primary ones that Trump has encouraged to "look into the Bidens"

 

[Bobber]

Starkey: Roberts and other American patriots knows those who don't believe are in the solid minority.

So you're of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with the Dem's positions ARE NOT American patriots? All soldiers who served in the forces and even received purple hearts...nope they're not a patriot because they don't agree with you? You sure you don't want to dial that back?

 

[Yttrium]

So you're of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with the Dem's positions ARE NOT American patriots?

You've jumped to a silly extreme there, Bobber.

Good job. Have you considered running for Congress?

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, Bobber, there was no "many other reasons why he potentially was showing a reservation towards quickly releasing the aid."

But the attempt alone revealed Trump's intent to pervert the Constitution, which is a impeachable offense.

Which p art of the Constitution are you accusing Trump of perverting?

 

[Bobber]

The fate of the Republic rests on Chief Justice Roberts.

Oh come on John! Let's assume for argument's sake that Trump was guilty of this blunder of saying something inappropriate and let's say a most perfect, fair and never wrong judge actually stated Trump should have been impeached and removed, but wasn't. You're putting down that the whole Republic would crumble, the nation would dissolve and fall apart? All branches of government, the House, Senate, the Judiciary and Courts would all collapse because they never got it right about one President's misstep? There's been 44 U.S. Presidents besides Trump.

Do you actually think that if each one of them were put under such intense scrutiny as he, turning over every rock and never giving them the benefit of the doubt about anything that there wouldn't be whole lists of things they actually did which would be questionable? I'm guessing you or at least others would answer yes there probably would be but the nation didn't collapse because things never were perfect along the way. Not saying things should be minimized which shouldn't but you're making a claim similar to the sky will fall and the destruction of everything if this isn't assessed properly. Sorry but that's nonsense. Or maybe you can tell us why the country collapses for not seeing things your way.

 

[Bobber]

You've jumped to a silly extreme there, Bobber.

Good job. Have you considered running for Congress?

Why? I never questioned the patriotism of Dems. I was responding to another poster who was insinuating others that who don't agree with the Dems aren't patriots. It was he that brought up the word (see post 25)

 

[JohnAshton]

Starkey: I have limited hopes in Chief Justice John Roberts, who knows it will be HIS name in the history books if he becomes part of the obstruction that began during the Mueller investigation.

Bobber: And many great numbers of the nation don't believe any such thing took place. Perhaps the Chief Justice recognizes that as well.

Starkey: Roberts and other American patriots knows those who don't believe are in the solid minority. [This is what I said above that Bobber immediately misconstructs below: ["Starkey: Roberts and other American patriots knows those who don't believe are in the solid minority.']

Bobber: So you're of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with the Dem's positions ARE NOT American patriots? All soldiers who served in the forces and even received purple hearts...nope they're not a patriot because they don't agree with you? You sure you don't want to dial that back?

Starkey: Where did I ever use "Dem's positions." Those among you, Bobber, who believe both the country and Mueller were not interfered with by the Russians and their American lackies are indeed far fewer than you think, including those who have Purple Hearts.

The majority of Americans believe that the Russians interfered, that Trump acted improperly with the Ukrainians, etc., and those who refuse to believe it.

Anyone who supports Trump supports the overthrow of the Republic and American democracy.

And you will fail.

 

[JohnAshton]

Why? I never questioned the patriotism of Dems. I was responding to another poster who was insinuating others that who don't agree with the Dems aren't patriots. It was he that brought up the word (see post 25)

I insinuated nothing, but you did.

Those who support the Republic and and American democracy are patriots, while those are supporting the current attempt in overthrowing the Constitution's checks and balance as well as separation of power are not.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I insinuated nothing, but you did.

Those who support the Republic and and American democracy are patriots, while those are supporting the current attempt in overthrowing the Constitution's checks and balance as well as separation of power are not.

What we need is a fire in the Reichstag.

 

[Go Braves]

That Fox link only has part of it.

As an aside, I’m continually surprised at how many people here cite links to WSJ, which has one of the tightest paywalls I’ve come across, when I’m pretty confident none of them subscribe.

The WSJ is frequently cited on right-wing sites but oftentimes in a very misleading way. What I've noticed is that folks who don't have to have anyone point out the lack of credibility of that right-wing site will instead post the link to WSJ but present the info from their right-wing site. Probably counting on most folks not being able to read the whole WSJ article themselves.

 

[Go Braves]

But it's not absolute proof in fact there's many other reasons why he potentially was showing a reservation towards quickly releasing the aid. And to your point anyway you look at it it's a speculative notion your putting forth and basic rule of law is you're innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.

What are the other reasons that actually make a lick of sense? What experts testified under oath about any sensible reasons to withhold the aid after it had been approved? You seem to know about this so help us out.

As for guilty until proven innocent, this is an impeachment process not a criminal trial. Do you have that same attitude though about the folks Donald routinely makes nasty accusations about?

And to consider the precedent that would be set for the future about grounds to impeach a President....such a low level of evidence would be needed to remove any President. It should be considered this issue is so much bigger than President Trump.....what you do now is how the nation is built for the future.

I'd ask all to imagine some future American say 50 years from now being encouraged to run for office as people think he or she would be great but have them say, "No way! Not worth it! You can be impeached solely on people's speculation of anything that's been said regardless of whether I would have made a DIRECT statement to that effect!"

I'd think that'd be a crying shame as the nation wouldn't maybe have it's best and brightest willing to serve. People should strive to see the bigger picture. What type of nation are you leaving future Americans?

If you were old enough back in the 90s to remember, did you feel the same way about President Clinton's impeachment then as you do Donald's now?

If Donald truly is innocent and won't perjure himself in under a minute flat, he ought to actually testify. Not say he will on Twitter. Go and do it. Let the others testify if he & they have got nothing to hide. While he's at it, honor his promise to release his taxes instead of continuing to hide them.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Not saying Trump was going for a quid pro quo BUT even if he was where's the crime in that? Don't nations always say if you do this we'll do that? Sometimes those in an opposition make it seem you're down in a pit you have to prove you're not in but who said it's even really a pit? I think the very premise that it is would rightly would have to be defined by the courts. Is quid pro quo with every circumstance an unlawful thing? I think if you ask any American is it wrong to say to another nation if you do this we'll do that....is it wrong....I think the light would come on and they'd say of course not. How could it be? The Founding Fathers I think would say the same.

You thinking is totally flawed. It is NEVER legal to ask a foreign leader to investigate an American citizen's actions there for domestic political purposes and everyone knows that was Trump's intent. In addition, he has NO right to ask a personal favor like that directly; it must go through executive branch agencies. This aspect of the phone call is abusing his power no matter what the reason is for his investigation request. A President is also not allowed to withhold security aid to a foreign country more than 45 days and he put it off 51 days, so the timing of the delivery was a crime. Can you see where this is going?