The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[jimmyjazz 47,238]

 

32 minutes ago, Zavala said:

That's all you got? We held up some money going to the most corrupt country in the world, to see if their leadership was corrupt, and that's not how congress stipulated?

So you're unaware that the Trump DoD had already informed Congress on May 23 (two months prior to the phone call) that Ukraine had done more than enough in reducing corruption to receive this aid?

Or that Trump's administration had provided similar aid in 2017 and 2018?

Answer me, you fucking troll.  I fucking dare you.

[TwiceHorn 32,087]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

oh, by the way, @Zavala, your president committed a crime, and, ergo, is a criminal. congrats!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/16/white-house-violated-the-law-by-freezing-ukraine-aid-gao-says-099682

 

Just for the record, violation of that statute is not a crime.  It is not a criminal statute.

It does, however, place a limitation on executive power, so it supports the notion than what Trump did was an abuse of power, to the extent that wasn't obvious.

[Zavala 1,384]

24 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if it was official policy, then why did he use the word "favor"?

Because he's in the mob?

 

Look at his right-hand-man

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32,087]

Also, Ukraine is nowhere near the most corrupt country in the world.

Its corruption stems from its proximity (physical and "spiritual") to Russia, which is far more corrupt. 

How come Teh Donald isn't asking good buddy Putin to do something about his own country?  I mean since he's the arbiter of all that's good and right in Eastern Europe and Western Asia.

Edited January 17, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Ted Lange 16,426]

 

[4th&Five 42,011]

Trump has been forced to pay millions of dollars because he ran a sham university and charity but yeah, he’s totally worried about corruption. 

[immamac 44,387]

8 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Because he's in the mob?

 

Look at his right-hand-man

 

 

look we get it you are fucking retarded. You don't have to keep proving it over and over

[jimmyjazz 47,238]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just for the record, violation of that statute is not a crime.  It is not a criminal statute.

It does, however, place a limitation on executive power, so it supports the notion than what Trump did was an abuse of power, to the extent that wasn't obvious.

I have no reason to doubt you, but the ICA is referred to as "law".  What does it mean to break the law?

[Biff Tannen 46,178]

28 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

So you're unaware that the Trump DoD had already informed Congress on May 23 (two months prior to the phone call) that Ukraine had done more than enough in reducing corruption to receive this aid?

Or that Trump's administration had provided similar aid in 2017 and 2018?

Answer me, you fucking troll.  I fucking dare you.

[ChiTownDoc 21,346]

1 hour ago, Zavala said:

 

Zavala is JohnnySackOfShit?  
 

Truly shocking news.  

[TwiceHorn 32,087]

44 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have no reason to doubt you, but the ICA is referred to as "law".  What does it mean to break the law?

There are lots of laws, many of which have no penalty, some of which give rise to a civil cause of action, and some are criminal statutes.

Hayden said "Trump committed a crime" and cited the Impoundment Act.  It doesn't really assist that argument.

He broke the law.  It's unlawful, or illegal.  But it's not a crime.

I actually can't find a statutory crime that Trump's Ukraine shenanigans match up with.  But I think it's neither required nor wise to be doctrinaire about "high crimes and misdemeanors."  What Clinton did was an actual crime, but I don't think was impeachment-worthy (I vacillate on this).  I do think what Trump has done is impeachment worthy.  I am particularly disturbed by the whole ongoing and extensive shadow diplomacy thing that underlies it all.

I also think Trump is a complete flaming asshole and moron shitstain.  But I try not to let that color his treatment at the hands of the law.

Edited January 17, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 47,238]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He broke the law.  It's unlawful, or illegal.  But it's not a crime.

The pedant in me loves this distinction.  The pragmatist finds it irrelevant.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,106]

 

[DDD Dad 14,657]

Someone behind Starr looks thirsty.

[TwiceHorn 32,087]

 

36 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The pedant in me loves this distinction.  The pragmatist finds it irrelevant.

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

In this particular context it may not be, but it's still inaccurate to say Trump committed a crime when there's no criminal statute he violated, at least by what we know of what he did with regard to Ukraine and Zelensky.

Edited January 17, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14,657]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

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

In this particular context it may not be, but it's still inaccurate to say Trump committed a crime when there's no criminal statute he violated, at least by what we know of what he did with regard to Ukraine and Zelensky.

+1 

The key here is that the GAO's findings support the proposition that Dotard's conduct "broke the law."  What he did was "illegal."  This directly counters the QAnon and Trumpkin talking point demanding that they be shown something illegal that he did.

The fact that the illegal conduct goes directly to limits on his executive authority suggests that it falls squarely within the meaning of a High Crime as that term was intended by the founders (i.e., violation of public trust).

[Ted Lange 16,426]

Creeper 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32,087]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

+1 

The key here is that the GAO's findings support the proposition that Dotard's conduct "broke the law."  What he did was "illegal."  This directly counters the QAnon and Trumpkin talking point demanding that they be shown something illegal that he did.

The fact that the illegal conduct goes directly to limits on his executive authority suggests that it falls squarely within the meaning of a High Crime as that term was intended by the founders (i.e., violation of public trust).

Of course, now that talking point will become "show us the crime."

It bolsters the idea that it was an abuse of power.

[Dbeasy 15,605]

I’m going to ask a stupid question. Republicans are afraid of Trump because he will tweet and get his base to go after any Republican that crosses him.

But if enough Republicans just line up and boot him out of office, he’s done. He can’t do anything else to them. Pence will take over, and the party will be in probably a better place than they are today. Why aren’t they planning to do this. Just dump him.

[DDD Dad 14,657]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

I’m going to ask a stupid question. Republicans are afraid of Trump because he will tweet and get his base to go after any Republican that crosses him.

But if enough Republicans just line up and boot him out of office, he’s done. He can’t do anything else to them. Pence will take over, and the party will be in probably a better place than they are today. Why aren’t they planning to do this. Just dump him.

Because Tea Party.  (i.e., these folks are crazy/stupid/etc.)

[cactusflinthead 27,628]

3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m going to ask a stupid question. Republicans are afraid of Trump because he will tweet and get his base to go after any Republican that crosses him.

But if enough Republicans just line up and boot him out of office, he’s done. He can’t do anything else to them. Pence will take over, and the party will be in probably a better place than they are today. Why aren’t they planning to do this. Just dump him.

You answered your own question.

[hayden_horn 11,402]

3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m going to ask a stupid question. Republicans are afraid of Trump because he will tweet and get his base to go after any Republican that crosses him.

But if enough Republicans just line up and boot him out of office, he’s done. He can’t do anything else to them. Pence will take over, and the party will be in probably a better place than they are today. Why aren’t they planning to do this. Just dump him.

i think it has to be because they are all in it with trump. it's that dark russian nra money, dude, i just know it.

from a republican perspective, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with president pence. unless there is a reason to believe that if trump goes down, he'll take everyone with him, including pence, which would result in a president pelosi.

[Zavala 1,384]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

look we get it you are fucking retarded. You don't have to keep proving it over and over

Being such a genius I'm sure you are betting big on Biden2020?

He's leading in all the expert polls just like HillDawg

[TwiceHorn 32,087]

I think and maintain that the GOP has no idea what to say or do to get itself elected anymore.  Its "neo" platform doesn't hold enough appeal to win other than a statewide election in a state full of rurals.

They were all pretty violently opposed to Trump in the primary stages.

But when they found out that his word salad of despicable shit was actually a platform that could get votes and win a national election, they decided to go along.  And they're all petrified to buck him because they know they need "his base" to continue to get elected.

[cactusflinthead 27,628]

7 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Being such a genius I'm sure you are betting big on Biden2020?

He's leading in all the expert polls just like HillDawg

Is that what you were saying in the lead up to the midterms? Y'know the ones where they got the House? But HIllary is the best you got now?

[Dbeasy 15,605]

i think it has to be because they are all in it with trump. it's that dark russian nra money, dude, i just know it.
from a republican perspective, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with president pence. unless there is a reason to believe that if trump goes down, he'll take everyone with him, including pence, which would result in a president pelosi.

Trump having dirt in Pence is a solid strategy to keep Republicans inline. I wouldn’t be surprised if he set him up more than a year ago.

[Loch Ness Monster 3,533]

Pence wouldn't win in 2020 and Trump most likely will beat Biden easily.

[TheFlyingBoat 913]

47 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Creeper 

 

 

So we got a pedophile/statutory rape supporter in Dersh and Rapelor leader Ken Starr as two of the major guys in this impeachment defense. Any Republicans here willing to disavow Rapelor or are y'all basically aggy now?

[hayden_horn 11,402]

Just now, TheFlyingBoat said:

So we got a pedophile/statutory rape supporter in Dersh and Rapelor leader Ken Starr as two of the major guys in this impeachment defense. Any Republicans here willing to disavow Rapelor or are y'all basically aggy now?

actually, cnn is leaving a ton of baylor story on the table with regards to starr. they could be flaying him alive. but they are just focusing on his impeachment of clinton.

[WhatTheBuck 28,934]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I actually can't find a statutory crime that Trump's Ukraine shenanigans match up with.

What about this statute?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A)

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)

a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C)

an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2)

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b)“Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—

(1)

a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2)

an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

[DDD Dad 14,657]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

actually, cnn is leaving a ton of baylor story on the table with regards to starr. they could be flaying him alive. but they are just focusing on his impeachment of clinton.

Yeah that interview in his office when he goes full puppy dog with his publicist is amazing.

[WhatTheBuck 28,934]

17 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Pence wouldn't win in 2020 and Trump most likely will beat Biden easily.

Trump and the polls disagree.  That's why Trump is so desperate to enlist foreign countries to wage a disinformation campaign to discredit Biden. He knows Biden is more likely to defeat him than any other Dem. (Or Bernie.)

[Loch Ness Monster 3,533]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump and the polls disagree.  That's why Trump is so desperate to enlist foreign countries to wage a disinformation campaign to discredit Biden. He knows Biden is more likely to defeat him than any other Dem. (Or Bernie.)

Either way- Trump has about 1000% better chance to beat the Dems than any other Republican choice. 

Can stack all of the courts, Ginsburg could die any day etc

[TheFlyingBoat 913]

10 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Yeah that interview in his office when he goes full puppy dog with his publicist is amazing.

Link?

[DDD Dad 14,657]

Just now, TheFlyingBoat said:

Link?

 

 

[Jack Straw 2,955]

Trump is going to lose the popular vote by a larger margin than 2016 - probably much larger - and he will be re-elected in a sham.  It doesn’t matter who the Democratic candidate is.  

[WhatTheBuck 28,934]

3 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Either way- Trump has about 1000% better chance to beat the Dems than any other Republican choice. 

Can stack all of the courts, Ginsburg could die any day etc

What are you talking about? What do you mean by, "any other Republican choice?" There's no choice in Republican candidates. Trump has merged his reelection campaign and the RNC. The Republican candidate is a foregone conclusion. If by "Republican choice" you mean who Trump wants to run against, his last choice is Biden. Trump is more likely to lose to Biden than any other candidate. He knows that. He spends a shitload of his time telling you that.

[WhatTheBuck 28,934]

20 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

 

"I honestly have no recollection."

Fraud, guaranteed. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,106]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m going to ask a stupid question. Republicans are afraid of Trump because he will tweet and get his base to go after any Republican that crosses him.

But if enough Republicans just line up and boot him out of office, he’s done. He can’t do anything else to them. Pence will take over, and the party will be in probably a better place than they are today. Why aren’t they planning to do this. Just dump him.

To put it a different way: they're not afraid of trump. They're afraid of his cult

[Francisco 2.0 32,605]

11 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

To put it a different way: they're not afraid of trump. They're afraid of his cult

It's going to be interesting.  Trump is going to die, and what then?  Jr doesn't have the gift of showmanship that the old man has, and quite frankly, that's what got him elected.  The other kids don't have it either.  Trump could anoint someone as his successor in a sense, and that would be good enough.  However, he's far too vain to ever do something like that.  Anointing someone would imply he in his own mind knows he is going to be out of the office someday one way or another.

Someone will bring out the cray in an attempt to keep the #MAGA folks corralled, since it's not really a traditional coalition of Republicans.  They will stoop even lower than Trump dreamed of, since it's going to take a new level to keep the interest up.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Francisco 2.0

[jimmyjazz 47,238]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can't go to jail for patent infringement.

Touche, and noted.

 

Quote

In this particular context it may not be, but it's still inaccurate to say Trump committed a crime when there's no criminal statute he violated, at least by what we know of what he did with regard to Ukraine and Zelensky.

Honest curiosity -- what constitutes a "criminal statute" in the context of a law passed by Congress?  Is it not "a law"?  Is the criminality of violation not established by the language of the law?

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

I think you Surly folks need to head to DC to correct Mr. Dershowitz. Seems he is taking the tactic you thought he would.

 

 

[NWBuck 8,630]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I think you Surly folks need to head to DC to correct Mr. Dershowitz. Seems he is taking the tactic you thought he would.

 

 

Looking forward to the eventual argument that something is only "crime adjacent". 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Something about a 'brush' with the law comes to mind. Think of it as the feather duster defense.

[Jack Straw 2,955]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fraud, guaranteed. 

what is, what you get when you vote for or support any Republican, for any office? 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

My mom really liked this movie, Romancing the Stone with Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas. I think she watched it whenever it was showing on television. Anyway, when the Dershowitz and Starr announcement was made, it reminded me of a scene from that movie:

Just in case you haven't seen the movie, I'll give a little background. Kathleen Turner plays a romance novel author named Joan Wilder, quite successful but very single, always looking for her hero. She's just finished a novel, and her publisher, Gloria,  wants to celebrate and so takes her to a bar for some drinks. Gloria also wants to help Joan find her hero and so while they are sitting at the bar, she is assessing the local talent.

Gloria: Wimp. Wimp. Loser. Loser. Major loser. Too angry. Too vague. Too desperate. God, too happy. Oh, look at this guy. Mr. Mondo Dismo. I actually used to date him. Total sleaze bucket. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Hold everything. Get a load of this character. What about him?

Joan: No, he's - he's just not...

Gloria: Who? Jessie? (the name of the hero in the just finished novel)

 

So I"m picturing the Senate trial all solemn and quiet and Kamala Harris sending Liz Warren notes since they're not supposed to talk. They're both married, but instead of the 1, X, X, 2, 3 thing you do:

Kamala: Rapist. Rapist Defender. Pedophile. Loser. Loser. Major loser. Too angry. Too desperate....

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

These shady motherfuckers.





With DeSantis

With our new favorite idiot, Hyde

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,106]

This seems big:

 

[TwiceHorn 32,087]

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What about this statute?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

 

 

That may fit, but it's getting attenuated at this point.

Also, as much as that has been bandied about, it's not a criminal statute.  It's enforced by FEC by civil penalty, although it can be referred out to the DOJ for prosecution.

Insofar as bribing foreign officials or extorting them, I can't find anything that would apply.

Edited January 18, 2020 by TwiceHorn