Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Mountain Man]

Except that the charge is bribery, or extortion if you like...

Neither of those charges are specified in the articles of impeachment, and there is certainly no evidence to support those charges anyway.

As for "obstruction of Congress", that's not a crime, either. There is not a single law in the entire US code called "obstruction of Congress". The issue is whether or not the President properly invoked executive privilege, an action to which he is legally entitled and therefore cannot be construed as obstruction.

[JimL]

Except "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself; it is, rather, a description of crimes. One could say, "The President committed crimes X, Y, and Z which together are an abuse of power," and that could be a viable argument, but "abuse of power" on its own without specifying actual crimes doesn't work.

Trump's legal team touched on this point in a recent press conference:

"With regard to the first article of impeachment, we are going to assert that they must be rejected because the — and it relates to the first article of impeachment — it fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It alleges no crimes at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, as required by the Constitution. In fact, it does not allege any violation of law whatsoever. We assert that the House Democrats’ abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

"We then get into some very specific allegations, regarding the phone call itself, as it relates to this abuse of power claim. I will tell you this: We will address both the April 21st and July 25th phone calls. We will be making it very clear what President Zelensky said, as well as what the President of the United States said on those calls. We will again reiterate that the House record establishes that President Zelensky and his top aides have never said there was a quid pro quo situation, as that issue came up.

"And remember: This case started — first it was going to be quid pro quo. Actually, first it would be extortion, then bribery, then quid pro quo, then it becomes abuse of power — with the word “quid pro quo” never showing up in the actual articles of impeachment."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...house-counsel/

Except that the charge is bribery, or extortion if you like, by use of withholding appropriated funds all relating to the main charge against the Constitution which is soliciting, for personal gain, a foriegn country to investigate an american citizen all to interfere into the 2020 elections. On top of that is the obstruction charge in Trumps effort to hide his abuse of power. That's called a violation of his oath, or an abuse of power in an impeachment trial, because in an impeachment trial that's all it comes down to. The President isn't going to prison for these crimes, because it's a different process that a normal trial, he would simply be fired from his job. The SDNY can can indict him for any his other crimes which are outside his presidential abuse of power.

[Mountain Man]

Failed to allege a crime apparently. Its still worrying that some people don’t consider abuse of power or obstruction of congress to be impeachable offences. Inappropriate use of power and obstructing attempts at oversight is how dictators are made. It’s ridiculous to think a constitution created to be free from tyranny could possibly allow the very two offences that would be necessary to make tyranny possible.

Except "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself; it is, rather, a description of crimes. One could say, "The President committed crimes X, Y, and Z which together are an abuse of power," and that could be a viable argument, but "abuse of power" on its own without specifying actual crimes doesn't work.

Trump's legal team touched on this point in a recent press conference:

"With regard to the first article of impeachment, we are going to assert that they must be rejected because the — and it relates to the first article of impeachment — it fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It alleges no crimes at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, as required by the Constitution. In fact, it does not allege any violation of law whatsoever. We assert that the House Democrats’ abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

"We then get into some very specific allegations, regarding the phone call itself, as it relates to this abuse of power claim. I will tell you this: We will address both the April 21st and July 25th phone calls. We will be making it very clear what President Zelensky said, as well as what the President of the United States said on those calls. We will again reiterate that the House record establishes that President Zelensky and his top aides have never said there was a quid pro quo situation, as that issue came up.

"And remember: This case started — first it was going to be quid pro quo. Actually, first it would be extortion, then bribery, then quid pro quo, then it becomes abuse of power — with the word “quid pro quo” never showing up in the actual articles of impeachment."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...house-counsel/

[Watermelon]

How do you deny allegations, if there are no allegations?

BBC news website

Failed to allege a crime apparently. Its still worrying that some people don’t consider abuse of power or obstruction of congress to be impeachable offences. Inappropriate use of power and obstructing attempts at oversight is how dictators are made. It’s ridiculous to think a constitution created to be free from tyranny could possibly allow the very two offences that would be necessary to make tyranny possible.

[firstfloor]

How do you deny allegations, if there are no allegations?

Mr Trump and his legal team said the impeachment charges failed to allege "any crime or violation of law" and were "the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness".

The lawyers said Mr Trump "categorically and unequivocally" denies all allegations.

BBC news website

[Tassman]

So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.

They have already shown themselves to be more than sufficient to show that Trump abused his power by withholding Ukraine aid in return for a favor. The House voted as such. But there's clearly even more evidence emerging plus witnesses Trump is blocking, which could reinforce Trump's guilt.

[JimL]

So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.

No, if you didn't have such problems with reading comprehension you would have understood that what I admitted to throughout discussion is that there is probably not enough evidence to meet Senate republicans, or your, high burden of proof, because that, as we have already seen, is almost an impossible burden to achieve. But as you know, the president has blocked every single witness and every single document requested of by the House from being seen. So, if republicans, if you, aren't convinced by the already, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence in the Articles so far put forth, why don't they, why don't you, want to see all that previously blocked evidence in the Senate trial in order that you are able reach an honest conclusion one way or the other? But then again, we, you and I, already know why you don't want see it, don't we.

[Mountain Man]

Except for the fact that he isn't being denied due process. Besides, the prosecution just wants to meet "your high burden of proof" by admitting all relevant evidence at trial. You simply want to keep that from happening. The no evidence, sham trial crowd, aren't fooling anyone. Did you know that?

So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.

[JimL]

And attitudes like yours are precisely why Trump's legal team is arguing that the impeachment inquiry was a sham, because Democrats are trying to deny the President his right to due process and lower the burden of proof because, in their minds, it's "just" impeachment and not a traditional court of law.

Except for the fact that he isn't being denied due process. Besides, the prosecution just wants to meet "your high burden of proof" by admitting all relevant evidence at trial. You simply want to keep that from happening. The no evidence, sham trial crowd, aren't fooling anyone. Did you know that?

[Mountain Man]

As has been explained to you before, for the umpteenth time, this is not a normal court, the president isn't going to be sentenced to prison for committing a crime such as bribery, he will simply, if convicted, be fired from his job and the reason for the firing would be "abuse of his power."

And attitudes like yours are precisely why Trump's legal team is arguing that the impeachment inquiry was a sham, because Democrats are trying to deny the President his right to due process and lower the burden of proof because, in their minds, it's "just" impeachment and not a traditional court of law.

[JimL]

For the umpteenth time, nothing Trump did fits neither the legal nor the common definition of bribery, and "bribery" isn't specified in the articles which only name the the non-crimes of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress". The fact that the Democrats weren't even confident enough in their case to go before a judge and argue for the suspension of executive privilege tells you all you need to know.

As has been explained to you before, for the umpteenth time, this is not a normal court, the president isn't going to be sentenced to prison for committing a crime such as bribery, he will simply, if convicted, be fired from his job and the reason for the firing would be "abuse of his power."

[Mountain Man]

You make it up as you go along.

In Trump's legal team's letter today they admit he withheld the money and that he asked them to investigate Biden's son as part of the cost of regaining access to those funds. They admit the evidence fully establishes he did those things.

They simply claim his goal was to root out corruption in ukraine.
In that one response, nearly every argument made on these web pages by you against these articles is shown to be bankrupt, empty. The entire case rests on the motives for doing what he did. But that he did it is fully admitted.


And since the case hinges on the motive, let us then hear from all those with access to information about that motive. Indeed. With the info from lev parnas and others, he'd better have somebody close and credible that can swear under oath his motive was NOT personal gain, because right now nearly everything points to this being 100% about personal gain.

Well, that's certainly an optimistic interpretation.

"The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president," the formal answer reads. "This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away. This highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president began even before his election and continues to this day."

Trump's lawyers argued the impeachment articles are "constitutionally invalid on their face" and are the result of a "lawless" House inquiry that violated basic principles of fairness and due process.

"The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution of the United States, our democratic institutions, and the American people. The Articles themselves -- and the rigged process that brought them here -- are a transparent political act by House Democrats. They debase the grave power of impeachment and the solemn responsibility that power entails. They must be rejected."

In his answer, the president "categorically and unequivocally" denies "each and every" accusation leveled against him in both impeachment articles. Trump's attorneys then lay out a series of arguments as to why both articles of impeachment against the president must be rejected.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...hment-n2559739

[Mountain Man]

For the umpteenth time, it’s bribery.

For the umpteenth time, nothing Trump did fits neither the legal nor the common definition of bribery, and "bribery" isn't specified in the articles which only name the the non-crimes of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress". The fact that the Democrats weren't even confident enough in their case to go before a judge and argue for the suspension of executive privilege tells you all you need to know.

[JimL]

Alan Dersowitz tried to argue yesterday that the founding fathers did not intend for abuse of power to be impeachable. There's a video of Starr during Clinton's impeachment talking about withholding of documents and witnesses as impeachable acts. Contributors, sure, but there's some argument to be had about their expertise at this late hour of their lives.

--Sam

The GOP is the party of hypocrisy, Dershowitz and Starr fit right in with Trump, Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Graham. There is also the question about Dershowitz. He's claiming to not be part of the defense team, that he'll just be there in the capacity of a Constituional scholar or some such nonsense. But if he, as he claims, is not a part of the defense team, what exactly is he? A witness for the defense perhaps!

[oxmixmudd]

Pretend nothing. The Democrats have flatly admitted that the case cobbled together in the House is insufficient in and of itself and they need additional witnesses and evidence to actually prove the accusations.

You make it up as you go along.

In Trump's legal team's letter today they admit he withheld the money and that he asked them to investigate Biden's son as part of the cost of regaining access to those funds. They admit the evidence fully establishes he did those things.

They simply claim his goal was to root out corruption in ukraine.
In that one response, nearly every argument made on these web pages by you against these articles is shown to be bankrupt, empty. The entire case rests on the motives for doing what he did. But that he did it is fully admitted.


And since the case hinges on the motive, let us then hear from all those with access to information about that motive. Indeed. With the info from lev parnas and others, he'd better have somebody close and credible that can swear under oath his motive was NOT personal gain, because right now nearly everything points to this being 100% about personal gain.