It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Doug]

But I thought it was initiated at the behest of the sitting administration at the time. The only difference is that Obama wasn't running for re-election, but a member of his party was.

Doesn't matter; because done by DEMOCRATS.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Doesn't matter; because done by DEMOCRATS.

That's my take on it.

 

[Ziggidy]

Versus a legal one? Lol
Anyways, I have not seen anything of questionable legality concerning the impeachment process in the House and Senate. If the president is removed (though he won't be), he will be removed so legally. Humor me since you have think that there's criminal action at play here. If the Senate did vote to remove the president, do you think that the president has the right to ignore the order and stay in office? Would you support such an act?

Once removed, could he run again for the office?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ingomike]

Once removed, could he run again for the office?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He could if all they do is impeach, Constitutionally they can do another vote and strip him of the right to run for even dog catcher...

 

[jamil]

The point is lost on the distinction attributable to motivation and benefit.

If you believe Trump was acting in the national interests because his election is in the national interest, then there is no further need to argue the point. Trump is a constitutional monarch, his utterances are law.

However, if you can see the difference between a quid pro quo to replace a corrupt prosecutor and a quid pro quo to embarrass a political opponent, then there is something worth talking about. Frankly, I think 20/trump vision is too resident to allow for such a dialectic.

I don’t think monarchy necessarily follows a belief that a electing a particular president, even oneself, is in the National best interest. I mean. Everyone thinks that about the president they vote for. And that may be the very reason they vote for that person. It’s something that’s subjective.

As far as QPQ, if it’s specifically to embarrass his opponent, with no other benefit, that’s bad. I’m not sure that rises to the level of high crimes, but there should be some consequences. However two things can be true at the same time. If the president does it and in the nation’s best interest, and it’s also in his best interest, then there really is no foul.

It’s been my contention all along that the intent has yet to be proven, and likely cannot be proven.

 

[Alpo]

Rudi Ghouliani. Malicious intent is prima facie.

As to what Trump said: All you have is a redacted transcript. Correct? Let's hear the tape and see the actual full transcript.

 

[Doug]

If Trump had actually said he would withhold the aid if they didn't start the investigation, Schiff would not have had to lie about what was said.
He would not have had to say, "Now pay attention, because I'm only going to say this twelve times..."

 

[KG1]

Rudi Ghouliani. Malicious intent is prima facie.

As to what Trump said: All you have is a redacted transcript. Correct? Let's hear the tape and see the actual full transcript.

I believe it was established during the original House inquiry by witness testimony to the call that the transcript was pretty much an accurate reflection with a few minor discrepancies.

Two recent witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry shed light on a lingering question regarding the controversial July 25 call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart: How accurate was the rough transcript of the call?
The short answer, based on their testimony: It was mostly accurate, but with caveats.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...de-trump-zelensky-call-transcript-11572696000

 

[Ingomike]

CJ Roberts will not ask Rand Pauls questions, he has refused multiple questions and the grounds for such are unknown.

One was about the relationship between a Schiff staffer and Eric Ciaramellow. If he is the whistleblower, how would the CJ know, Schiff has said on the record he does know who the whistleblower is so why would the CJ?

It's all dirty...

My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...uls-questions-and-people-are-furious-n2560419

 

[Ingomike]

Just how do you guys get all those cockleburs thistles and the like out of your clothes at the end of each day? You guys get so far out there in the weeds...

 

[Ingomike]

We now have more info on the Rand Paul question...

Paul then took to Twitter, disclosing his question. “My exact question was: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together,” Paul stated, “and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.”

In the case of Roberts blocking Paul’s question, a broader issue looms about the equity of an unelected judge brazenly censoring an elected representative in the discharge of his senatorial duties.

Given Chief Justice John Roberts' censorship of a senator in the discharge of the senator's duties, the following question must now be posed on the floor: In the event a chief justice were impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, who would preside over his trial?
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 30, 2020
​

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/3...ef-justice-john-roberts-just-refused-to-read/

 

[Ingomike]

Then the house impeachment managers will not answer on the record a question asking, why they did not properly pass the impeachment process, or pass repairs to the passed bill, to create valid subpoenas after the administration said no that they were invalid and they would not comply?

Asked by one of the Republican Senators they need to garner support from, Lisa Murkowski...

Dumb move...

 

[Vigilant]

Rudi Ghouliani. Malicious intent is prima facie.

As to what Trump said: All you have is a redacted transcript. Correct? Let's hear the tape and see the actual full transcript.

If you wanted that, you should have contacted the Dems you dearly love, and have them issue a proper subpoena. It isn’t the ****ing job of the Senate to go back and do the job of the House who were in such a hurry to get the Articles, and the. Sit on them for a ****ing month!? Not the way the game is played. Tomorrow or Saturday p, this will be over and more crying, sobbing and screaming will be heard. And it can ALL be put at the feet of ineffective partisan Dems.

 

[KG1]

Then the house impeachment managers will not answer on the record a question asking, why they did not properly pass the impeachment process, or pass repairs to the passed bill, to create valid subpoenas after the administration said no that they were invalid and they would not comply?

Asked by one of the Republican Senators they need to garner support from, Lisa Murkowski...

Dumb move...

I think the Democrats may have lost Murkowski but you never know with her.

 

[Vigilant]

I think the Democrats may have lost Murkowski but you never know with her.

Last I heard this evening, McConnell has the votes needed to acquit without witnesses being called, and they figure late tomorrow or Saturday for the acquittal vote.

 

[Ingomike]

Last I heard this evening, McConnell has the votes needed to acquit without witnesses being called, and they figure late tomorrow or Saturday for the acquittal vote.

The sentiment is correct, he has the votes to stop the democrat witness demands, once the questions are over it then will be a vote on witnesses, if that is turned down there is nothing left to do but take the final vote, the dems never were close to having the 2/3's to remove him.

 

[Ingomike]

Mollie Hemingway is a good accurate reporter and tell it like it is editorial writer. She details here why Trump already won.

A WP/CNN talking head slammed a member of the Presidents legal team on Twitter, she was widely mocked because the guy has a 9-3 record before SCOTUS. That is real experience...

A couple of points I liked.

[h=2]The Defense Team Was Amazing[/h]Instead of turning things over to the effective Republicans who had handled the impeachment process so well on the House side, President Trump instead opted to put together a powerhouse collection of attorneys uniquely suited to address an audience of senators and the American people.



Even among their class of politicians, senators have an extremely high view of themselves and their office. Every senator’s ego must be stroked. They don’t want to feel upstaged, spoken down to, or lectured.



Patrick Philbin, Trump’s deputy general counsel, exemplified the defense team’s deliberate choice to put in front of senators someone who had encyclopedic knowledge of the law and this particular case, someone not there to make a name for himself. Philbin’s humble and bookish demeanor was neither bombastic nor flamboyant as he calmly explained the facts of the case and their significance. The other members of the team were also well chosen to argue their points.

[h=2]Grating and Juvenile House Managers[/h]By contrast, House Democrats picked impeachment managers who seemed perfectly calibrated to annoy and grate on those handful of senators whose votes were up for grabs. Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler were the leaders of a group that repeated their highly partisan talking points and used hyperbolic and loaded language. The media loved it, but it went over like a lead balloon with the non-Resistance senators.



The House Democrats accused senators of being cowards who were complicit in a cover-up. They suggested that the senators were unable to vote properly because President Trump would put their heads on pikes if they didn’t vote to acquit. They refused to answer specific and direct questions about whether the whistleblower worked for Biden, was involved in any decisions regarding Burisma, or about his interaction with Schiff’s staff. Even the Washington Post — even the Washington Post — gave Schiff four Pinocchios for lying about his staff’s secret collusion with the whistleblower.



At some point, the difference between the competent and highly skilled attorneys on the White House team and the bumbling and somewhat mediocre team of House managers was so pronounced it was almost embarrassing. It was as if one side belonged in front of the Supreme Court and the other failed to make the finals at a middle school debate tournament.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/30/top-8-reasons-trump-already-won-impeachment/

 

[Alpo]

We now have more info on the Rand Paul question...





http://thefederalist.com/2020/01/30...ef-justice-john-roberts-just-refused-to-read/

Sounds to me as if Rand was taking testimony of a witness. Yet the Repubicans refuse to allow testimony from other witnesses which might be important to a fair hearing.

And you scream "impeach the CJ"

 

[Vigilant]

The sentiment is correct, he has the votes to stop the democrat witness demands, once the questions are over it then will be a vote on witnesses, if that is turned down there is nothing left to do but take the final vote, the dems never were close to having the 2/3's to remove him.

I knew there would be no removal, but wasting the time and money bringing new witnesses to somehow cling to hope of making a case is just absurd.

 

[Ingomike]

Sounds to me as if Rand was taking testimony of a witness.

Not quite seeing how asking about process and the involvement of staffers, that are clearly hyper partisan, and have a provable record of promoting impeachment before the house took it up is taking testimony. The Senate rules allow questions of the house managers and the Presidents legal team.