It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Vigilant]

Your boys and girls have done everything in their power to assure 4 more years of MAGA. Hope you make it through, and your TDS isn’t terminal!

 

[Brad69]

So when President DJT is acquitted what will all of this amount too?

He is not going to be removed.

Big money Democrats are being quite they even know that a Democrat President means financial ruin and the choice between Biden and Bernie means certain victory for the GOP.
This “impeachment” has damaged the Democrats President DJT wears impeachment as a badge of honor and some moderates will error on the side of DJT because of impeachment.
Ask yourself record low unemployment, booming economy, the rest of the world on notice, border wall being built, military strong with pay raises, the list goes on get on the Trump Train or maybe consider a visa ?

BTW
Nice rally for DJT tonight in “IOWA” while half the Democrats running for President are stuck In D.C. priceless!

 

[jamil]

Oh, Alpo. Do you really think anybody is allowing anything to be taped since Nixon? And if some IC agency was actually taping the President's secure diplomatic calls, that information will never see the light of day

I took “hear the tape” as an allegory back to Nixon’s equivalence, the unredacted transcript of the call. But as someone already pointed out, people with knowledge of the full transcript said there is nothing materially different. So I think that’s a non-issue. I’m not aware that it’s a serious assertion by the Democrats that there is missing damning information that is not in the transcript that was released.

 

[jamil]

Here’s a question for the people who think definitely the president is guilty of the charges made in the articles of impeachment. Is there evidence for the claim that’s been presented, now? What makes your belief rational, is what I’m asking.

 

[KG1]

The Democrats are trying to pull another Kavanaugh here. Time for the Senate to end this nonsense before they try to trot out another last minute “bombshell!” to bolster their “rock solid case”

 

[Kutnupe14]

But that's irrational. There are plenty of reasonable interpretations that don't require thinking that he is being blackmailed. While I don't think Dershowitz is a big Trump fan, I do think he believes that this impeachment is a partisan hackary that is not what the founders had in mind with impeachment. I think he laid out a pretty good case for that. But anyway, I did not catch the part you quoted. I'll need to go back and review that in context.

You use the word irrational a lot. What it seems you fail to understand, is irrational actions occur frequently. Let's not assume that irrational is synonymous with "can't happen, so lets not consider it."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here’s a question for the people who think definitely the president is guilty of the charges made in the articles of impeachment. Is there evidence for the claim that’s been presented, now? What makes your belief rational, is what I’m asking.

He thinks so...

"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.
"There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.' There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

​

"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

"The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

"The Senate has spent nine long days considering this 'mountain' of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president's lawyers, their answers to senators' questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution's 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' standard for an impeachable offense.

"The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.
"Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with 'the consent of the governed,' not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide."

-Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

 

[Ingomike]

He thinks so...

And at the end of the day, Alexanders opinions are of no more validity than yours, , maybe less, he is a self serving politician. And for that matter mine.

So as we reach the final hours of a nakedly partisan impeachment we will likely see a vote on procedure to have additional witnesses, that will be purely along partisan lines except for Manchin. Then there will likely be the vote to remove that a few more red state dems will be allowed to vote against for campaign reasons since they are so far from the 2/3's needed. Logically it will all happen this afternoon so the pols can get out of town for the weekend and the dem candidates can get on the road to Iowa...

 

[drillsgt]

Quotes without links or citations aren't very useful.

Hmmm, Rand looks about 1/2 quart low.....

Lol, when all else fails demand links, sources etc etc.

 

[jamil]

He thinks so...

Lamar Alexander did not mention there was any evidence that Trump wanted the investigation for any other reason than what's been admitted by Trump himself all along. Where is the evidence that Trump did this only to harm his opponent politically. Where is the evidence that Trump did not do this in the best interest of the nation, to see if there was any fire at the bottom of the smoke? I do think Trump went about it inappropriately. Sending his personal attorney to dig into it was not the right way to do it. But unless someone has some real ass evidence that Trump only wanted the investigation for his own political gain, they might as well STFU.

 

[Alpo]

Lol, when all else fails demand links, sources etc etc.

Well, when you provide a quote without a source citation, it could be that it came from Pravda. Lots of Rooskie sympathizers about. Check yer sources. Tradecraft, ya know?

 

[Alpo]

And at the end of the day, Alexanders opinions are of no more validity than yours, , maybe less, he is a self serving politician. And for that matter mine.

So as we reach the final hours of a nakedly partisan impeachment we will likely see a vote on procedure to have additional witnesses, that will be purely along partisan lines except for Manchin. Then there will likely be the vote to remove that a few more red state dems will be allowed to vote against for campaign reasons since they are so far from the 2/3's needed. Logically it will all happen this afternoon so the pols can get out of town for the weekend and the dem candidates can get on the road to Iowa...

Actually, ol' Lamar's "opinion" is worth a lot more than yours. He gets a vote on the matter. You don't .... until November.....and we already know which lever you'll pull.

 

[jamil]

Quotes without links or citations aren't very useful.

Hmmm, Rand looks about 1/2 quart low.....

If you look at Paul's twitter feed you'd know that Paul believes that Schiff colluded with the whistleblower to use that call as a way to impeach Trump, long before the whistle was blown. There's some smoke there. There's evidence that Schiff did talk to the whistleblower before hand, and knew him personally. I mean. C'mon. We all know it was Eric Caramelmarshmellow. Even WaPo gave Schiff 4 Pinocchio's for claiming he never met the whistleblower. I don't think it's wrong to look for fire when you see smoke.

BTW, it's pretty easy to take a still shot from a video that makes people look bad. I mean, sometimes it conveys a truth about the person. Maybe Paul didn't get much sleep. But that's not what would tend to disprove his belief. Facts would be needed for that.

 

[jamil]

But, NOBODY, not even Adam Schiff, knows who the whistleblower is.
How could asking a question that doesn't require revealing his/her name reveal a protected witness?
Or do you (Alpo) know who the whistleblower is and did you just reveal it and expose yourself to federal prosecution?

You can say everyone's name in all of this, except you can't say Eric Caramelmarshmellow. How do they know not to say HIS name? But it's okay to say everyone else's name in this whole saga.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Lamar Alexander did not mention there was any evidence that Trump wanted the investigation for any other reason than what's been admitted by Trump himself all along. Where is the evidence that Trump did this only to harm his opponent politically. Where is the evidence that Trump did not do this in the best interest of the nation, to see if there was any fire at the bottom of the smoke?

"Only?" I don't think that is an acceptable litmus test. If something is 99% corrupt and 1% in the "interest" of the nation, that's impeachable wrongdoing IMO. Further, the "where is the evidence Trump did not do this in the best interest of the nation," can easily be turned around and asked of Joe Biden's situation. The difference being that Biden has numerous people, entities, and nations that would back his actions as being appropriate. The president doesn't have that. What he does have is administration officials, decorated soldiers, ambassadors, all indicating they had issue with his actions and silence by the Ukrainian govt not want to get involved.... Wait, I'll amend that. The president does have someone that says he's doing the right thing.... The guy currently involved in a hot war with the Ukraine and whose intelligence agencies assisted in the election of the president; ole Vlad.

I do think Trump went about it inappropriately. Sending his personal attorney to dig into it was not the right way to do it. But unless someone has some real ass evidence that Trump only wanted the investigation for his own political gain, they might as well STFU.

And investigating the Biden's? What proof do people have that there was any wrongdoing? Now, if you hold that the investigation into Trump, was witchhunt, hoax, or illegitimate... don't you have to say the same for the Biden's given your statement?

 

[Kutnupe14]

If you look at Paul's twitter feed you'd know that Paul believes that Schiff colluded with the whistleblower to use that call as a way to impeach Trump, long before the whistle was blown. There's some smoke there. There's evidence that Schiff did talk to the whistleblower before hand, and knew him personally. I mean. C'mon. We all know it was Eric Caramelmarshmellow. Even WaPo gave Schiff 4 Pinocchio's for claiming he never met the whistleblower. I don't think it's wrong to look for fire when you see smoke.

BTW, it's pretty easy to take a still shot from a video that makes people look bad. I mean, sometimes it conveys a truth about the person. Maybe Paul didn't get much sleep. But that's not what would tend to disprove his belief. Facts would be needed for that.

And yet, Rand Paul, pretty regularly is attempting to commit a crime by outing the whistleblower.

 

[Alpo]

If you look at Paul's twitter feed you'd know that Paul believes that Schiff colluded with the whistleblower to use that call as a way to impeach Trump, long before the whistle was blown. There's some smoke there. There's evidence that Schiff did talk to the whistleblower before hand, and knew him personally. I mean. C'mon. We all know it was Eric Caramelmarshmellow. Even WaPo gave Schiff 4 Pinocchio's for claiming he never met the whistleblower. I don't think it's wrong to look for fire when you see smoke.

BTW, it's pretty easy to take a still shot from a video that makes people look bad. I mean, sometimes it conveys a truth about the person. Maybe Paul didn't get much sleep. But that's not what would tend to disprove his belief. Facts would be needed for that.

If you are in a significant public office, there is always someone laying in the weeds waiting for you to make a mistake. Heck, it happens in business too. The world is full of jackals. Get your head above the treeline and someone is going to shoot at it. If this is news to you, I'd be surprised.

But, if you commit no offense and stay within the law, the most you get is an investigation and criticism of your decision.

Trump colored outside the lines. Ghouliani may have incited it, or not. In any event, Trump broke a few rules, if not federal law. We never got all the facts, so I'll just rely upon Sen Alexander's summary.

As to Rand, he always looks like he's drinking heavily. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. He looks like a drinker. My opinion. Now, I don't necessarily hold that against him. One of my favorite senators was a heavy drinker. But he got things done.

 

[jamil]

Unfortunately, none of those mentioned will be testifying in front of the Senate, it seems. That's the problem with no witnesses. The public will never know the truth of the matter.

The only downside to all of the allegations in the article is that every counter-argument is supported by unnamed sources. That may be the way business is conducted today, but since the guy in charge of realclearinvestigations used to be with the NY Times, he knows that unnamed sources detract from the weight of the allegations. Without witnesses, we'll never know.

If this were about truth, wouldn't the House have done their due diligence? They had to have an impeachment. And their timing had to be now. If you're lamenting that we'll never know, point to the shoddy work the Democrats did in the house. Take it to court to get the testimony you need to prove it. Instead they insisted they had all the proof they needed and wrote the articles of impeachment. In their pontificating prior to the vote to approve the articles, they insisted they had the proof they needed.

As I've said, I'd like to hear what Bolton has to say. I also think the Senate has the right to hold the House to their claim that they had overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt on both articles. Personally I think this thing is a partisan circus on both sides. Just ****ing finish it and let's get on with the campaign season.

 

[jamil]

"Only?" I don't think that is an acceptable litmus test. If something is 99% corrupt and 1% in the "interest" of the nation, that's impeachable wrongdoing IMO. Further, the "where is the evidence Trump did not do this in the best interest of the nation," can easily be turned around and asked of Joe Biden's situation. The difference being that Biden has numerous people, entities, and nations that would back his actions as being appropriate. The president doesn't have that. What he does have is administration officials, decorated soldiers, ambassadors, all indicating they had issue with his actions and silence by the Ukrainian govt not want to get involved.... Wait, I'll amend that. The president does have someone that says he's doing the right thing.... The guy currently involved in a hot war with the Ukraine and whose intelligence agencies assisted in the election of the president; ole Vlad.



And investigating the Biden's? What proof do people have that there was any wrongdoing? Now, if you hold that the investigation into Trump, was witchhunt, hoax, or illegitimate... don't you have to say the same for the Biden's given your statement?

How can you even come close to proving something like 1% or 99%? What I'm saying, if Trump did it because he wanted to get to the bottom of the controversy about Biden, but hey, this can only help his campaign in the process, I don't see a problem with that. But, if we're saying it the other way, that it starts out being, hey, I can make Biden look bad if Ukraine is investigating him for corruption. And, oh, by the way, I might be doing the country a service by exposing this, that's different. That's inappropriate. The point is, also having coincidental political gain, acknowledged or not, in addition to whatever national benefit there may be, is not evidence of impropriety.

Yes, of course this can be applied to Joe Biden's case as well. I've said all along that both cases are more similar than they are different. But we have both sides claiming the other doesn't have the same relevance. In both cases, I don't think the impropriety warrants any criminal charge. Short of congress writing a law that specifically deals with this, political damage is the consequence.

 

[jamil]

And yet, Rand Paul, pretty regularly is attempting to commit a crime by outing the whistleblower.

Cite the chapter and verse then of the specific part of the law that's broken.