The Impeachment Trial

[Cow Poke]

Nevertheless, Trump crimed,

I DO believe that's the first time I've ever seen "crime" used as a verb, much less a past tense one.

and he was accused of crimes

The incredibly partisan Democrats in the House were so desperate to charge Trump with SOMETHING that they even had to go to focus groups!

and his defence and other Repubs lied about it.

What, perzackly, did the Repubs lie about, and which ones were they?

In fact, in front of the Chief Justice, they conspired with a criminal POTUS, to subvert the course of justice.

Tell me, friend, do you get fever with these fits?

[Watermelon]

Did your even read my post?

Biden
Circumstances - Hunter Biden gets a lucrative job on a corrupt Ukrainian gas company with Zero Experience, make lots of money, after Joe is put in charge of negotiating with Ukraine and the gas company.

Reason - for firing the AG - to stop the investigation on Hunter Biden - AG fired and investigation stopped. Possible Obstruction of congress (In My Post, not disputed by you). The wide spread support came the state department and Biden pushing for the removal. Sokin "Protects" oligarchs by raiding the president of Baresma's house and looking into Hunter. 17 - 17 of the Dems witnesses condemned Hunter Biden's and Joe Biden's actions. After Shokin is fired Joe Biden make deal benefitting Baresma.


Trump

Situation - New President in Ukraine. That says it will fight Corruption.

Circumstances - Ukraine is full of corruption. Question on whether Zelensky will follow through with he's promise to fight corruption. Trust but Verify

Reason - As I stated was the terms to Trump releasing the aid was to make an assessment that Ukraine was working on corruption. I think this is a valid reason You did not disputed, you just ignored it.

Result - Zelensky make changes to the government to weed out corruption, (without being told the Aid was withheld). several senators and the Vice President had conversations with Zelensky to check his varsity. and the aid was release ahead of the due date.

It is also key to note that The president Does not need an actual crime to ask it Zelensky could look into Hunter Biden just Probable Cause and I have show that there was a lot of that. and you have never addressed or denied that Probable Cause existed. and remember 17 -17 of the Dems witnesses in the house confirmed that there was Probable Cause to investigate what went on around Hunter Biden.

So I still don't see where Biden is immune from investigation Just because he's running for president.

[RumTumTugger]

All you've done is admit that you haven't read the Articles yourself or you'd know better than to ask me to show them to you. You know RTT, you shouldn't be arguing a case that you obviously have no idea of what you're talking about.

So I can assume with this post you are saying you can't find the crimes mentioned. We don't have to accept the OPINION of a lazy idiot who refuses to think for himself. Glad you finally admitted it.

[JimL]

So I can assume with this post you are saying you can't find the crimes mentioned. We don't have to accept the OPINION of a lazy idiot who refuses to think for himself. Glad you finally admitted it.

Egad! You're a broken record RTT. Firstfloor just posted them for you, post #606, go back and read them if you're able.

[Mountain Man]

All of the evidence points to the contrary as Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murcowski, and now Rubio have all publically admitted.

And I have to agree with them? Ukraine officials themselves have said they felt no pressure, and they were never under the belief that the release of military aid was dependent on their willingness to investigate the Bidens.

[RumTumTugger]

Egad! You're a broken record RTT. Firstfloor just posted them for you, post #606, go back and read them if you're able.

you mean the Opinion piece that First floor linked to? Give me a break get the actual articles read them find and quote where they show the crimes. other wise my opinion of you stands.

[Mountain Man]

While that's true, Jim, the Constitution very specifically mentioned "high CRIMES and misdemeanors", both of which are criminal law terms.

The favorite excuse of liberals at the moment is that "There was no US code at the time, they couldn't have been referring to actual crimes!" Except everybody even then had a reasonably good idea of what treason and bribery meant. They also knew that laws would be eventually written, and that should a president break such laws in the future then he could be impeached.

At any rate, I read an excellent suggestion today: the Constitution should be amended to require a 2/3 vote of the House to impeach as a mirror to the 2/3 vote of the Senate to remove. This would make it pretty much impossible for a president to be subjected to a wholly partisan impeachment in the future. Of course amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult, so I don't see this ever happening.

[Watermelon]

The position of a lot of republicans at the beginning was that if Trump really did freeze aid for the investigation announcements then that would warrant impeachment. Over the course of these proceedings the goal posts have been constantly shifting making it harder for the democrats to meet their requirements. The final statement of Lamar Alexander shows that the end game had always been to remove the goal posts altogether.

[Watermelon]

While that's true, Jim, the Constitution very specifically mentioned "high CRIMES and misdemeanors", both of which are criminal law terms.

[Cow Poke]

So, the word "crime" doesn't really mean "crime". Must be fun to live in your world.

goes against the literal meaning and origin of the phrase, the intention of the writers, the history of impeachments and the vast majority of legal scholars through time.

Sure.

The argument had been that a sitting president cannot be indicted, therefore, impeachment was the remedy.

And why would congress need to do it when the courts would be far better equipped and experienced to handle these matters?

And, again, the argument was that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

[Cow Poke]

The position of a lot of republicans at the beginning was that if Trump really did freeze aid for the investigation announcements then that would warrant impeachment.

You're sure about that?

Over the course of these proceedings the goal posts have been constantly shifting making it harder for the democrats to meet their requirements.

I can see that.

The final statement of Lamar Alexander shows that the end game had always been to remove the goal posts altogether.

OK, on that, you've overshot the runway.

[Cow Poke]

The favorite excuse of liberals at the moment is that "There was no US code at the time, they couldn't have been referring to actual crimes!" Except everybody even then had a reasonably good idea of what treason and bribery meant. They also knew that laws would be eventually written, and that should a president break such laws in the future then he could be impeached.

At any rate, I read an excellent suggestion today: the Constitution should be amended to require a 2/3 vote of the House to impeach as a mirror to the 2/3 vote of the Senate to remove. This would make it pretty much impossible for a president to be subjected to a wholly partisan impeachment in the future. Of course amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult, so I don't see this ever happening.

I think that would go a long way toward de-weaponizing impeachment! And Nancy and the Democrats should be in agreement, since they were citing PARTISANSHIP and OVERWHELMING public support for impeachment to be considered, but they kept ... what was it Watermelon said... moving the goalposts?

[The Pendragon]

Yes I read your post and there can be no conversation if we are working from different facts.

No we can't have a conversation because you only look at your side of the story. By the way you use a typical liberal trick, when you can't answer the question or will look bad answering it you say the question is wrong and make up a question you think you can answer.

Where are you getting your information from?

Can you provide sources for:

- any Investigations into Hunter Biden.

Politoco, New York Time, Fox News, and many other news sources and reporters.

- any of Joe Bidens deals with Burisma.

Politoco, New York Time, Fox News, many other news sources and reporters, Obama, and government reporting.

- Any witness condemning the Bidens.

Joe Biden (when he confessed on national TV), Hunter Biden (in an interview with ABC News), The state department, All of the 17 witnesses that appeared before the impeachment inquiry hearings where asked about the Bidens and Burisma, and All of them said that it was problematic.

There are some you missed to make sure you


What is warranted about Joe Biden getting Shokin fire when Shokin is investigating the corrupt company that his son is on the board of director on. The is Probable Cause to think that Joe Biden has a conflict of interest here a valid reason to investigate (This alone make Trump request to investigate what happened legitimate).

By the way my source for Burisma being corrupt comes again from witnesses in the impeachment trial along with many News sources.

A legitimate action with corrupt intent is still legitimate so the first thing to show is that the action was not legitimate.

Why was it wrong for Joe Biden to use aid to pressure shokins firing? Just focus on that first.

You have done a good job at obfuscating the original question by making it appear that Trump asked about Joe Biden, He asked about Hunter Biden and what went on with Hunter, Joe is an ancillary subject because you thing that it might turn out to be an investigation of Joe. If that is the case you have justified Probable Cause because you beleave that there is enough there to spark that investigation.

You are wrong about it starting with Biden firing Shokins. If you want to get to the real question Its simple. Was there probable cause to look into Hunter Biden and Burisma. Hunter Biden told ABC that he probably only got the job because his last name was Biden. He admitted that he had no experience to be on the board. The Bidens have never make a case as to why Burisma hired Hunter or even what Hunter did as a Board member. It appears he make millions of dollars with out lifting a finger because he was the son of the VP of the U.S.A. Probable Cause leads to ask, the question "What compensation was Burisma looking for from the son of the VP that was incharge of looking at Ukraine and corruption, could it be that the corrupt Burisma was looking for a shield from an investigation?"

This alone is a legitimate reason for Trump to ask about Hunter Biden (Regardless of whether his father is running for President)
Remember No one is above the law. Not Hunter, Not Joe.

Your assertion that Biden had a legitimate reason to fire Shokin is irrelevant to the question that Trump asked. If there was Probable Cause to believe that there was something wrong with what Hunter Biden was involved in was Shady it is legitimate to ask about it. Probable Cause is the center peace of the Question Trump asked He said that it looked bad in the transcript (Motive) He also said that a lot of people in the US where wondering about Hunter and Burisma.

So to your point about Biden's legitimacy in releasing aid for firing Shokin, Trump is asking for information on Hunter and Burisma, because he has Probable Cause to believe that something is very shady going on. Probable Cause is what makes it legitimate regardless of Biden having a legitimate reason or not.

Now you put a lot of stake into motive and believe that Trumps motive is corrupt. What is your evidence that Trumps motives where corrupt. Please only list evidence that will hold up in court because hear say and assumption to motive is not true evidence.

I am not assorting and wrong doing on Biden's part because my presumption is that Trump's question only requires Probable Cause, so I don't need true evidence to prove my point. If you disagree show me where it requires any thing else.

Here is all I need:

Hunter Biden is on the board of directors of a corrupt company with ZERO ability to do the job, but makes millions of dollars any way. In Hunter own words he admitted that it was probable because he was Joe Biden's son. Joe Biden is point man for Ukraine. Looks Corrupt on the surface

Please stop trying to change the question. If your answer is Trump was wrong to ask Ukraine about Hunter Biden and Burisma because Joe Biden is running for President. Please explain to me why running for President make your son immune from some one looking into his possible corruption.

I would say if you asked for a specific out come like I want you to tell every one that Hunter Biden is corrupt that would be wrong. But that is not what Trump asked, he asked for them to look into it. Does running for President make your family above the law or immune to it. No One is Above the Law!

[Watermelon]

So, the word "crime" doesn't really mean "crime". Must be fun to live in your world.



Sure.



The argument had been that a sitting president cannot be indicted, therefore, impeachment was the remedy.



And, again, the argument was that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

[The Pendragon]

You might want to read the federalist papers High Crimes and Misdemeanors is a phrase that denotes extreme crimes committed be a President. The framers specifically rejected the English notion that the prime minister can be removed for Malfeasance (i,e, he did something there parliament did not like). This make the President subservient to congress and destroys the Separation of Powers. This would make Congress the overriding power over Government doing as they please, regardless of what other Branches decide. This puts the leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives dictators lording it over the executive branch over policies that they differ on.

Removing a President for policies that are deemed bad for the people are handled by elections, the people decide what policies are best in elections it is not decided by the State Department or Congress or the Courts.


I find it interesting that Watermelon is talking about nobody being above the law, when he support the view that Joe and Hunter Biden are above the law because Joe is running for President in fact he believes Joe and Hunter are immune from any one even looking into their actions.