Jump to content

The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexArcher
TexArcher

Of course we're not getting witnesses and of course Trump is getting acquitted.  This was only going to end one way. Schiff was brilliant.  And none of the people who needed to hear it did.

Zavala
Zavala

DAMN YOU RUSSIA!

Longhorn_Fan68
Longhorn_Fan68

Posted Images

Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30,303

Posted
Posted
On 1/17/2020 at 4:49 PM, TwiceHorn said:

 

In other contexts, it's highly pragmatic.  You can't go to jail for patent infringement.

 

spacer.png

Trump refuses to cooperate with Congress on their investigation, and has threatened witnesses, tried to out whistle-blowers, and prevented relevant witnesses from testifying and documents from being produced to the investigation.    Obstruction.  I'd love to know what the defense is.   

 

(Your comment is relevant Twice, but I just like that gif)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,534

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

spacer.png

Trump refuses to cooperate with Congress on their investigation, and has threatened witnesses, tried to out whistle-blowers, and prevented relevant witnesses from testifying and documents from being produced to the investigation.    Obstruction.  I'd love to know what the defense is.   

 

(Your comment is relevant Twice, but I just like that gif)

 

I totally agree with the articles of impeachment and think they're amply supported by credible and admissible evidence.  Not that any of that is required for impeachment.

There's no crime for abuse of power, as such, and it would be futile because the President couldn't be prosecuted for it.  But if you can't at least give impeachment a go on this sort of abuse of power, then we might as well not have it.

I think I sense a shift in the Senate a bit with a realization that a summary acquittal of Trump is a bad optic.  But I am afraid that by "presenting a defense" Trump will just be able to talk over the whole thing, which is probably the worst possible outcome.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2,664

Posted
Posted

Alan Dershowitz 1998 and 2020:

On Clinton impeachment 8/24/98:  "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."

On Trump Impeachment 1/19/2020:  "Abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense.  [The framers] didn't want to give Congress the authority to remove the president because he abused his power. They have to prove crimes and misdemeanors."

 

giphy.gif

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,523

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Alan Dershowitz 1998 and 2020:

On Clinton impeachment 8/24/98:  "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."

On Trump Impeachment 1/19/2020:  "Abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense.  [The framers] didn't want to give Congress the authority to remove the president because he abused his power. They have to prove crimes and misdemeanors."

 

giphy.gif

 

Hopefully the rebuttal to Dershowitz's 2020 testimony will be reading his 1998 comments.  At the end of the day, he's a good attorney who can argue both sides very well. In other words, his testimony will mean nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13,318

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Red Five said:

I watched an interview with Dersh the other day for about five minutes. He's lost his fucking mind. I might rather have Rudy represent me at trial. 

Dersh keeps acting like a guy riddled with paranoia because he fucked a handful of teenagers.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

This guy Lev is a liar and a fraud and this is all a big hoax!

Ok so I guess you don't mind if we ask him some questions...

Hell yes I mind!! DON'T LET HIM TALK!!!!

The other Ukrainian-American spoke, so perhaps should this one...

Seems appropriate in an oddball kind of way:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." ---Charles Dickens

It was and is The Tale of Two Ukrainians (well, Ukrainian-Americans)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4,094

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Red Five said:

This guy Lev is a liar and a fraud and this is all a big hoax!

Ok so I guess you don't mind if we ask him some questions...

Hell yes I mind!! DON'T LET HIM TALK!!!!

Funny how everyone related to or associated with Mr. Trump is not credible or trustworthy in what they say.

Talk about the perfect defense!

Edited by yoladu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29,194

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

I'm not lawyer smart enough to know what this means, but I guess it's not a good thing. 

 

considering this is not a real trial, and it's really about the court of public opinion, i don't think it matters that much.  there could've been a signed confession by trump uncovered in the house, and then it could be admitted as evidence in the senate, and he still would not be removed.

separate topic - i saw today that the president's "defense" from the filing that was due earlier today, is basically "yes, he did it, and what he did is ok and not against the law, so it doesn't matter."  after months of bullshit posturing and arguing process, this tack seems interesting, and maybe even a little risky.  there must've been a reason for it.  of course with the format mcconnell is pushing, it probably won't matter either way.

also as far as witnesses, i keep hearing (at least from cnn) the whole "hey dems, i know you want witnesses, but would you allow the gop to call witnesses as well?  like hunter biden, adam schiff, even the whistleblower?"  the response is always - hey, you know what, these witnesses aren't relevant, and that's what it comes down to.

um, if you're a democrat in this, why the hell not?  i mean, i know witnesses being called at all is a huge longshot at this point, but can't they at least dangle this in some sort of trade that would at least make trump start yapping on twitter?  hunter biden?  if he gets called, the gop will try to smear him and embarrass him - which will look exactly like it sounds.  they won't ask him relevant questions, because he doesn't know shit about the charges.  and the dems will point that out while talking to him.  schiff?  i don't see how that's even proper from a procedural standpoint.  the whistleblower?  besides obvious safety concerns, he'll just give testimony that's already been corroborated a bunch of times, so i don't see the risk.

if the idea of a trade has even been floated, i sure as hell hope the dems jumped at it.  they'd be fools not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2,816

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

separate topic - i saw today that the president's "defense" from the filing that was due earlier today, is basically "yes, he did it, and what he did is ok and not against the law, so it doesn't matter."  after months of bullshit posturing and arguing process, this tack seems interesting, and maybe even a little risky.  there must've been a reason for it.  of course with the format mcconnell is pushing, it probably won't matter either way.

also as far as witnesses, i keep hearing (at least from cnn) the whole "hey dems, i know you want witnesses, but would you allow the gop to call witnesses as well?  like hunter biden, adam schiff, even the whistleblower?"  the response is always - hey, you know what, these witnesses aren't relevant, and that's what it comes down to.

His defense is that if what he did isn’t impeachable, there’s no need for a trial and the senate can just vote to dismiss it outright and then Hannity and Trump can proclaim to the masses that there was no crime and it was all a political ploy. If it is impeachable, there at least has to be a trial and a discussion of evidence. 

Everything that trump has ever been alleged to have done, the Giuliani defense is always “he didn’t do it. but if he did do it it doesn’t matter because it’s not a crime.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

considering this is not a real trial, and it's really about the court of public opinion, i don't think it matters that much.  there could've been a signed confession by trump uncovered in the house, and then it could be admitted as evidence in the senate, and he still would not be removed.

separate topic - i saw today that the president's "defense" from the filing that was due earlier today, is basically "yes, he did it, and what he did is ok and not against the law, so it doesn't matter."  after months of bullshit posturing and arguing process, this tack seems interesting, and maybe even a little risky.  there must've been a reason for it.  of course with the format mcconnell is pushing, it probably won't matter either way.

also as far as witnesses, i keep hearing (at least from cnn) the whole "hey dems, i know you want witnesses, but would you allow the gop to call witnesses as well?  like hunter biden, adam schiff, even the whistleblower?"  the response is always - hey, you know what, these witnesses aren't relevant, and that's what it comes down to.

um, if you're a democrat in this, why the hell not?  i mean, i know witnesses being called at all is a huge longshot at this point, but can't they at least dangle this in some sort of trade that would at least make trump start yapping on twitter?  hunter biden?  if he gets called, the gop will try to smear him and embarrass him - which will look exactly like it sounds.  they won't ask him relevant questions, because he doesn't know shit about the charges.  and the dems will point that out while talking to him.  schiff?  i don't see how that's even proper from a procedural standpoint.  the whistleblower?  besides obvious safety concerns, he'll just give testimony that's already been corroborated a bunch of times, so i don't see the risk.

if the idea of a trade has even been floated, i sure as hell hope the dems jumped at it.  they'd be fools not to.

It makes sense, though, regarding the testimony. If you think about the texts that were released recently with Lev Parnas and Andy Yermak, Kurt Volker testified that Yermak sent him the proposed statement for Zelensky to release. Volker was working with the Ukrainian president (Zelensky) because they were trying to get things ironed out because on or around July 19th, Volker had become aware of the aid hold. The statement had the two items: investigation into Burisma and investigation regarding 2016 election. Volker discussed it with Sondland and with Giuliani on conference call trying to convince Giuliani (according to Volker) because Zelensky really wanted to meet with Trump.

Rather than continuing with the testimony above, things start to become clear that this entire escapade has been Rudy and Lev and Lutsenko et al trying to get what Trump wants as well as what (on Lev's end)  Firtash wants as well. It isn't so much that this was not already clear to anyone as much as it lays it out clearly when examined side by side and that is what the Senate is trying to avoid because it shows how complicit they are.

The problem is whether this is truly able to support the Articles and secondly with the Senate rules, is it going to even matter.

The answer is no.

They deserve to hang for treason, but they won't.

Edit-forgot to add that Senator Ron Johnson was in the meeting with Volker, Trump, Giuliani, et al in the Oval Office regarding Ukraine. Don't trust him at all.

 

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4,984

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Alan Dershowitz 1998 and 2020:

On Clinton impeachment 8/24/98:  "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."

On Trump Impeachment 1/19/2020:  "Abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense.  [The framers] didn't want to give Congress the authority to remove the president because he abused his power. They have to prove crimes and misdemeanors."

 

giphy.gif

 

excellent fucking giffage

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46,120

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

This shitbag received his JD in 1962 from Yale, graduating first in his class.  He began his teaching career at Harvard in 1964, and made full professor in 1967, at the time the youngest to ever have done so.  

He would have us believe he didn't "do the research" 31 years later in 1998, even though HE FUCKING STATED THAT A CRIME WAS NOT A PREDICATE FOR IMPEACHMENT.  He "wasn't wrong".  He "didn't do the research".

Bullshit.  He's a sleazy, opportunistic jackass who will lie just as soon as take his next breath.  What an absolute disgrace he is.  He's a perfect fit for Trump.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46,120

Posted
Posted

Oh, as an addendum:  he purports to be an expert on "Constitutional law".

What kind of Constitutional scholar would not have "done the research" on the requirements for impeachment of the President?

Come on.  This is CYA, Gaslighting 101.  The base will fall for it, though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...