Trump Isn�t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[Sam]

So basically ad hom and argument by weblink?

If you want to show me the "Copious direct evidence and witness testimony has verified and added to the whistleblower complaint" then show it. Don't link to the Impeachment report in whole. And scholars are not evidence. They are opinions. And they have no evidence that his motive asking about Biden was regarding the election and not investigating a crime for the country as he claims and involved no quid pro quo as the Ukrainian President confirmed.

As far as making the House wait for "months or years" - not only would that not happen, they are now content to wait an indefinite period to present the articles to the Senate, so what was the hurry? And just because they don't want to wait for testimony doesn't mean they can just ASSUME it and convict anyway. If a prosecution can't get one of their key witnesses to testify, they can't just claim that proves their case and rest. They have to proceed with not enough evidence which would result in an acquittal or dismiss the charges.

Sorry, no. One doesn't get to throw his hands up and shout "argument by weblink!" when the claim is that Trump was impeached on hearsay evidence by a whistleblower when the very long and very detailed record shows otherwise. It will not be recreated here when you should be reading the reports before you say nonsense things.

Trump did not claim that Biden committed a crime in Ukraine. If there was a corrupt act by Biden, it would have been a domestic act and the DOJ -- assuming a proper predicate -- would be the relevant institution tasked with investigating any criminal activity.

As for Zelensky, a man who was and continues to be beholden to the US president clearly conditioning USA's intangible and material support on "favors" is not likely to state something at odds with said president's interests. Regardless, direct and testimonial evidence exists showing that Ukraine was told government support was conditioned on "favors" to Trump and that Ukrainian officials understood it to be corrupt:



That y'all simply choose to remain ignorant and dismissive of material facts and witnesses, at this point, just serves as an explanation for why one day it's "Trump deserves the due process rights of calling witnesses!" and the next day it's "The Senate can run a trial however it wants end of story!". If folks put the energy and effort into learning the facts and applying a consistent approach, this would be much less the "partisan game" some are contenting themselves with.

--Sam

[Sam]

Regarding the House's decision to not send the articles of impeachment:

I believe the House has delayed the delivery, so far, by one in-session day. And that's because Graham and McConnell, most notably, were on TV flatly stating that they would not adhere to their oath of impartiality and, in McConnell's case, were actively coordinating the trial along the White House's desired track. If the House holds the articles back through January, that will be a significant problem for their argument.

But it's absolutely less of a problem than the majority leader and the Senate Judiciary chairman outright bragging about violating their oath pre-trial.

--Sam

[Sparko]

Sorry, no. One doesn't get to throw his hands up and shout "argument by weblink!" when the claim is that Trump was impeached on hearsay evidence by a whistleblower when the very long and very detailed record shows otherwise. It will not be recreated here when you should be reading the reports before you say nonsense things.

Then your claim is just your opinion and is hereby ignored. I see no such evidence looking through that lengthy report.

Trump did not claim that Biden committed a crime in Ukraine. If there was a corrupt act by Biden, it would have been a domestic act and the DOJ -- assuming a proper predicate -- would be the relevant institution tasked with investigating any criminal activity.

As for Zelensky, a man who was and continues to be beholden to the US president clearly conditioning USA's intangible and material support on "favors" is not likely to state something at odds with said president's interests. Regardless, direct and testimonial evidence exists showing that Ukraine was told government support was conditioned on "favors" to Trump and that Ukrainian officials understood it to be corrupt:



That y'all simply choose to remain ignorant and dismissive of material facts and witnesses, at this point, just serves as an explanation for why one day it's "Trump deserves the due process rights of calling witnesses!" and the next day it's "The Senate can run a trial however it wants end of story!". If folks put the energy and effort into learning the facts and applying a consistent approach, this would be much less the "partisan game" some are contenting themselves with.

--Sam

The rest of your argument by weblink is also ignored and against our rules.

Either support your claims with actual excerpts or don't argue by web links.

Look Sam, it is clear that neither of us are experts in impeachment proceedings and we each can trot out "experts" who agree with us. It is getting us nowhere. I am done arguing about it and will just watch what happens. I think it will be dismissed. Not sure what you believe.

[Teallaura]

Ya know if the House Democrats are that certain they need those witnesses they can just open a new inquiry and subpoena them.

[Sparko]

Ya know if the House Democrats are that certain they need those witnesses they can just open a new inquiry and subpoena them.

That's what I said above. Nothing is stopping them from recalling the Articles and starting over and doing it right. Apparently time isn't a concern anymore. But that would mean they would have to admit they didn't have enough evidence in the first place.

Which is why I was saying they either have enough evidence to proceed as is and don't need any more witnesses, or they need the witnesses, which means they impeached Trump with not enough evidence. Choose one.

[Cow Poke]

That's what I said above. Nothing is stopping them from recalling the Articles and starting over and doing it right. Apparently time isn't a concern anymore. But that would mean they would have to admit they didn't have enough evidence in the first place.

Which is why I was saying they either have enough evidence to proceed as is and don't need any more witnesses, or they need the witnesses, which means they impeached Trump with not enough evidence. Choose one.

Or, just impeach him again.... nothing says you can't impeach again without waiting for the first impeachment to be fully resolved.

House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.

House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

[JimL]

Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Either they had enough evidence to impeach and don't need any more, or they didn't and shouldn't have impeached.

Which one, Jim?

Oh, there's definitely enough evidence now, but just not enough to convince those who don't want to believe it from being able to make excuses, from being able to rationalize the evidence away in their own minds. I mean deep down they know, they're not stupid, but they need to hear from the presidents aides, those who were in on the scheme, they have to see the iron clad documentary evidence so that they can no longer refute it. We on this side, though we are already convinced, want to see that evidence as well. So the blocked evidence being admitted is really for your benefit. Why don't you want to see it?

[JimL]

Sure there is: the House's impeachment inquiry committee did not prove they have legal sufficiency to override executive privilege.

Executive privilege had nothing to due with the blocking of subpoenas and witnesses. Trump had contempt of congress from the start saying that "I will fight every subpoena."

[Cow Poke]

... And that's because Graham and McConnell, most notably, were on TV flatly stating that they would not adhere to their oath of impartiality...

Can you please provide a cite for this?

Thanks

[JimL]

Also, it would be silly to suggest that bribery and treason weren't widely regarded as serious crimes.

The charge is bribery, or extortion if you will, along with obstruction of congress, but being that this is not a criminal trial, the defendent isn't going to prison if convicted, as he would if it were criminal court, the charge is therefore abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

[JimL]

Can you please provide a cite for this?

Thanks

Seriously, you didn't know that? Where do you get your news?

http://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politi...ent/index.html

[Mountain Man]

Ya know if the House Democrats are that certain they need those witnesses they can just open a new inquiry and subpoena them.

They're trying to use the articles as evidence in court that they now need the testimony for the Senate trial. Seems circular to me. Since when can an indictment be used to seek evidence to support the indictment?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ment-evidence/

[JimL]

Seriously, you didn't know that? Where do you get your news?

http://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politi...ent/index.html

McConnell also said that he was coordinating the trial with the White House council, in other words with the defendent.

Btw, Lindsey Graham said essentially the same thing "I'm not trying to be a fair juror."

[Teallaura]

That's what I said above. Nothing is stopping them from recalling the Articles and starting over and doing it right. Apparently time isn't a concern anymore. But that would mean they would have to admit they didn't have enough evidence in the first place.

Which is why I was saying they either have enough evidence to proceed as is and don't need any more witnesses, or they need the witnesses, which means they impeached Trump with not enough evidence. Choose one.

Yeppers

[Teallaura]

They're trying to use the articles as evidence in court that they now need the testimony for the Senate trial. Seems circular to me. Since when can an indictment be used to seek evidence to support the indictment?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ment-evidence/

Yep. I think they are hoping that if they throw enough crap at the fan people will give up watching and they can run away while declaring victory.