Democrats' impeachment report cites Trump obstruction and withholding aid

[Bobber]

I am still waiting for Republican posters to PROVE all 10 sworn testimonines were nothing but lies. Until a Trump supporter does that, he has no defense.

Lies? Or merely that they were engaging in speculative notions of what Trump what thinking?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Lies? Or merely that they were engaging in speculative notions of what Trump what thinking?

If you can't prove they are the truth, they are not the truth. By that I mean prove all 10 witnesses lied under oath and there were no emails, text messages, or calls, which have been transcripted and recorded.

 

[Bobber]

If you can't prove they are the truth, they are not the truth.

What? I thought the legal system was you're innocent until proven guilty NOT guilty until proven innocent.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What? I thought the legal system was you're innocent until proven guilty NOT guilty until proven innocent.

The evidence keeps mounting and Democrats have undisputable proof Trump is guilty.

 

[NxNW]

What? I thought the legal system was you're innocent until proven guilty NOT guilty until proven innocent.

This isn't a trial.

 

[whatbogsends]

The latter side is actually the guilty party spouting lies about everything. I have no idea why anybody still thinks Democrats are making stuff up.

Because Trump tells them it is "Fake News" and the entire conservative media-sphere repeats the mantra.

Trump supporters have flung themselves into the world of alternate facts to support their positions.

The Democrats certainly indulge in spin and left wing media outlets engage in selective reporting, but they at least generally align with established facts, while right wing media creates facts as needed to support their narrative.

 

[Belk]

Lies? Or merely that they were engaging in speculative notions of what Trump what thinking?

I don't care what he was thinking, I care what he did. We have had multiple witnesses state plainly there was a quid pro quo. We have had senior Trump advisors state on national television that this was done to help Trump reelection and that we need to just accept it. Trump has stated on camera that he would accept any kind of foreign influence offered. This is not speculative in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Bobber]

The evidence keeps mounting and Democrats have undisputable proof Trump is guilty.

Sorry you have a massive number of legal scholars who don't believe there's undisputed proof of anything you say.

 

[Bobber]

This isn't a trial.

The Dems have set this up to be one in the court of public opinion. Why have legal scholars in the hearing today trying to educate everyone on just what is impeachable? They're appealing to the PUBLIC to be the jury, and problem is they stack the deck in their favour. 3 scholars who they knew favoured impeachment and 1 that didn't. How about at least to line it up as in two for and two against. Can they say they couldn't find another Constitutional expert that didn't agree with them?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Sorry you have a massive number of legal scholars who don't believe there's undisputed proof of anything you say.

Again - and I will not stop asking until you directly answer the question with factual evidence to support a claim - What makes you think Democrats lie and Republicans tell the truth about Donald Trump's proven, recorded, and testified abuses of power that perfectly fit the constitutional definition of impeachable acts?

 

[wing2000]

The Dems have set this up to be one in the court of public opinion. Why have legal scholars in the hearing today trying to educate everyone on just what is impeachable? They're appealing to the PUBLIC to be the jury, and problem is they stack the deck in their favour. 3 scholars who they knew favoured impeachment and 1 that didn't. How about at least to line it up as in two for and two against. Can they say they couldn't find another Constitutional expert that didn't agree with them?

I agree with you with regards to having a balanced panel. I also don't think it's appropriate for scholars to opine as to whether Trump committed an impeachable offense...it seems more appropriate in the Senate where presumably, the White House will mount a defense. At this stage, I would expect scholars to speak to the impeachment process, history, context etc

In the end, the Senate is the jury and, assuming the House votes to Impeach, each Senator will need to decide....

 

[GodLovesCats]

I agree with you with regards to having a balanced panel. I also don't think it's appropriate for scholars to opine as to whether Trump committed an impeachable offense...it seems more appropriate in the Senate where presumably, the White House will mount a defense. At this stage, I would expect scholars to speak to the impeachment process, history, context etc.

The enitre reason law professors were brought in was to inform the Judiciary Committee whether Trump's actions are impeachable offenses, not to tell Representatives how to vote. What is wrong with that?

The Senate's only job is to decide if they are convictable offenses.

 

[mark46]

So, the Democrats have insufficient evidence because much of it is in documents not provided, or with witnesses who have not been called. The Democrats infer evidence, even though they don't have it. They did get some phone records, but need to interview those on the calls.

Curiously, the Republican witness on impeachment is one that advised that Congress had the right to have McGann as a witness, and should go to court (where they won). That witness believes (as the Democrats do) that the president is likely guilt of Abuse of Power (quid pro quo, and asking a foreign government to help his campaign). He doesn't believe the Democrats new definition of bribery (since there is case law that defines it differently). The president isn'y yet guilty of Obstruction Of Congress since the issue has not been decided in court.

So, the Republican witness indicated that Congress CANNOT alone decide whether the president had the right to withhold witnesses or documents. Congress is usurping the role of the Courts. Congress should submit an appeal to the courts, which they would almost assuredly win, at least in part. Nixon was guilty of Obstruction of Congress, primarily because the Supreme Court had ruled in the favor of Congress.

BOTTOM LINE
Perhaps the Democrats have proven that Trump asked the president of Ukraine for help in the 2020 election, through Giuliani and directly.

The rest is lacking evidence.

Congress is rightly fighting with the president with regard to the balance of power between the Congress and the Executive Branch. This battle SHOULD NOT be won by the Congress bypassing the courts. In any case, the situation cannot help the Democrats in the 2020 election.

AS AN ASIDE
The lawyers and witnesses did well. The congressmen and women didn't acquit themselves very well (as expected).

 

[wing2000]

...there's no doubt Nunes will be facing a subpoena to testify under oath.

...and given Nunes clear involvement (phone records) he should have recused himself from the Intelligence Committee hearings.

 

[mark46]

We need evidence. A call log is not that evidence.

...and given Nunes clear involvement (phone records) he should have recused himself from the Intelligence Committee hearings.

 

[mark46]

I disagree.

There should have been a balanced panel. However, the Republican witness did very well. He had advised eh Congress to go forward in going to Court to force the testimony of McGann.

The congress and we needed to understand whether the evidence, so far, constitutes impeachable acts. Those are not defined as whatever the House believes is an impeachable act.

.

In the end, the Senate is the jury and, assuming the House votes to Impeach, each Senator will need to decide....

 

[FreeinChrist]

So, the Democrats have insufficient evidence because much of it is in documents not provided, or with witnesses who have not been called. The Democrats infer evidence, even though they don't have it. They did get some phone records, but need to interview those on the calls.

Curiously, the Republican witness on impeachment is one that advised that Congress had the right to have McGann as a witness, and should go to court (where they won). That witness believes (as the Democrats do) that the president is likely guilt of Abuse of Power (quid pro quo, and asking a foreign government to help his campaign). He doesn't believe the Democrats new definition of bribery (since there is case law that defines it differently). The president isn'y yet guilty of Obstruction Of Congress since the issue has not been decided in court.

So, the Republican witness indicated that Congress CANNOT alone decide whether the president had the right to withhold witnesses or documents. Congress is usurping the role of the Courts. Congress should submit an appeal to the courts, which they would almost assuredly win, at least in part. Nixon was guilty of Obstruction of Congress, primarily because the Supreme Court had ruled in the favor of Congress.

BOTTOM LINE
Perhaps the Democrats have proven that Trump asked the president of Ukraine for help in the 2020 election, through Giuliani and directly.

The rest is lacking evidence.

Congress is rightly fighting with the president with regard to the balance of power between the Congress and the Executive Branch. This battle SHOULD NOT be won by the Congress bypassing the courts. In any case, the situation cannot help the Democrats in the 2020 election.

AS AN ASIDE
The lawyers and witnesses did well. The congressmen and women didn't acquit themselves very well (as expected).

I actually think that the Dems did well, and there was evidence (even video evidence) and the Republicans had little except complaints about process. Even their lawyer witness said Trump's call was not perfect. Their lawyer seemed persuasive til rebutted by the other three.

Trump's Actions 'Worse Than Misconduct Of Any Prior President,' Law Prof Testifies

“If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” Gerhardt added later, during questioning from Norm Eisen, House Democrats’ counsel. “This is precisely misconduct that the framers created a Constitution, including impeachment, to protect against. If Congress concludes they are going to give a pass to the president here, every other president will say, ‘OK, then I can do the same thing.’ And the boundaries will just evaporate, and those boundaries are set up by the Constitution. And we may be, unfortunately, witnessing their erosion. And that is a danger to all of us.”​

 

[Allandavid]

Sworn testimonies by 10 witnesses, phone call transcripts, emails, text messages, and other documents - what makes you think there is no basis for the report?

Because, when you don’t like the message, you attack the messenger...

 

[wing2000]

We need evidence. A call log is not that evidence.

It's circumstantial evidence that any competent prosecutor would use to build a case with other evidence.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Congress is rightly fighting with the president with regard to the balance of power between the Congress and the Executive Branch. This battle SHOULD NOT be won by the Congress bypassing the courts. In any case, the situation cannot help the Democrats in the 2020 election.

Apparently you missed the report about the DOJ refusing to cooperate, forcing the HOR to investigate the crimes alone. Nancy Pelosi had to take the cards they gave her.