The Impeachment Trial

[Cow Poke]

That's just the old liberal trick of accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of. Our Founding Fathers actually warned against the sort of impeachment spectacle the Democrats have put together.

Which is why Aunt Nancy insisted that any impeachment be bipartisan with WIDE support from the American people.

[Cow Poke]

Tomorrow, Trump will explain what he has done for you in the last year.

I pay no mind to what Trump says, but what he does.

Remember to root at the appropriate times.

I won't even be watching.

[rogue06]

Which is why Aunt Nancy insisted that any impeachment be bipartisan with WIDE support from the American people.

She didn't insist very hard, did she?

[Cow Poke]

She didn't insist very hard, did she?

And not for very long. Hate covers a multitude of discretion.

[Mountain Man]

She didn't insist very hard, did she?

Nancy lost control of the party and is desperate to stay in power, so she's pulling an Obama and leading from behind.

[One Bad Pig]

Remember to root at the appropriate times.

In the Australian sense?

[rogue06]

I pay no mind to what Trump says, but what he does.



I won't even be watching.

I figure it'll be similar to his speech at Davos.

The only question will be whether or not how much he gloats.

[JimL]

Jim, you're really not smart enough to play these "let's try to trap somebody" games. I said what I said. And you're incredibly bad at accurately summarizing somebody else's statement.

That doesn't answer my question, CP. The question was; do you now admit that impeachment for "abuse of power" does not require an actual crime?

[Mountain Man]

That doesn't answer my question, CP. The question was; do you now admit that impeachment for "abuse of power" does not require an actual crime?

Of course it requires an actual crime. Read the Constitution as our Founding Fathers were quite clear on that point and even gave two explicit examples of the nature and severity of crimes that would compel impeachment. This whole idea that a president can be removed from office simply because some diplomats disagree with his foreign policy decisions is very dangerous.

[Cow Poke]

That doesn't answer my question, CP.

Yes it does, you just don't like the answer.

[Watermelon]

If the president had the Probable Cause to look into Hunter Biden then that is a legitimate reason to ask. The framers did not want Impeachment over purely political reasons. These are the facts that you keep ignoring.

Here is what you said in post #580 :



What you are saying is that Trump had a every reason to ask to look into Hunter Biden and Burisma. But the President is being Impeached because Joe Biden is running for President so it has to be a Political decision on Trumps part (Facts not in Evidence). Trump did not ask for an outcome, he did not Threaten to with hold aid if is wasn't done, and the only witness that accursed Trump of withholding aid until Zelensky make a statement admitted to congress that "no one told him that that was the case , that he just assumed that was what Trump wanted (i.e. He make it up on his own). This answers that political question.

So putting aside the facts not in evidence above it still remains that it was legitimate for the President to ask (i.e. Not Impeachable) the only deference in the to cases is one Joe Biden is running for President the other he is not and you contend that because Biden is running for President it is an impeachable offence this a crime because you can't looking the wrong doing of a some ones Son if that person is running for President making him above the law. You said in your post.

Of course you can always go with the House Managers defense of the Hilary getting Steal to dig up dirt on Trump. It is alright to ask another country to dig up dirt on you opponent if you payee for it (this argument was actually make before the senators in the Impeachment Trial by the House Managers).


Well Hunter Biden's issues with Burisma was asked to be looked into by Trump. No one has looked into Hunters problems because the Dems are taking up all the time on Impeachment. And by the way you admitted that the witnesses all said that their was a "conflict of interest" with Hunter Biden. I hope I can use that as you word on it because conflict of interest is valid cause for Trump to ask about Hunter. So we are still down to your saying that the Bidens are above that law. Or you are a mind reader and can tell me exactly what Trump had in mind.

[Cow Poke]

Except, of course, that Impeachment is exactly like a criminal trial except it's not. It's its own animal. A zebra!

[Bill the Cat]

Don't tell that to Lamar Alexander! And the rest of the Senate Republicans know the same, but there was no way they could allow for a fair trial because that would reveal the whole conspiracy which would implicate Mike Pompeo, Lindsey Graham, Devin Nunes, Atty Gen. Barr, Mike Pence, Mick Mulvaney, White House Council Pat Cipollone, and a host of others who were in on it.

riiiight...

[JimL]

I think a reasonable case could be made that this would fall under the crime of dereliction of duty since the president is the head of our nation's military.

The President, though he is in command of the military, is a civilian and not subject to military law, so no, dereliction of duty, which is military law, applies to the military, it does not apply to the President.

[Cow Poke]

The President, though he is in command of the military, is a civilian and not subject to military law, so no, dereliction of duty, which is military law, applies to the military, it does not apply to the President.

That's actually a legitimate point, Jim!