Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The Impeachment Trial
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostA non-binding opinion from a group that regularly accuses US presidents of breaking the law. So what?
This looks suspiciously like another case of "guilty until proven innocent".
Comment
-
When you boil it down their case amounted to disagreeing with how Trump was doing things.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostA non-binding opinion from a group that regularly accuses US presidents of breaking the law. So what?
This looks suspiciously like another case of "guilty until proven innocent".
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostTweb should be renamed; The Dishonourable Society of Brothers and Sisters in Trump.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostTweb should be renamed; The Dishonourable Society of Brothers and Sisters in Trump.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostIll try to explain it like a criminal charge.
To prove a crime the prosecution has to establish the actus reus (action) and the mens rea (the mental state or motive).
Actus reus - abuse of power
Abuse of power in this case is the improper freezing of aid using the authority of the presidential office.
So theres an abuse of power regardless of whether Biden is running for president or not.
Mens rea - to put Bidens reputation into question
Biden not running for president - amounts to the improper use of power for personal benefit. The benefit here is only personal in the satisfaction of hurting someone he doesnt like.
Biden running for president - amounts to improper use of power for political benefit. The benefit here is the same as above however, as Biden is now a political opponent, it also provides a political advantage.
It's the same concept in criminal law where the circumstances around the action or victim affects the seriousness of the crime like an assault on a minor is automatically considered aggravated or on a police officer is an upgraded charge if the police officer is on duty.
Let's look ate Trump asking to look into Hunter Biden, Trump has a valid case to look into Hunter because of probable cause (Does not matter the fact that his father is running for Presadent). This has been established by Pam Bondies presentation at the Impeachment Trial. In order to establish the actus reus (action) you need to present evidence that will hold up in a court of law, I'm still waiting for you or the Impeachment Managers to present this evidence.
And before you tell me that the Impeachment Managers have 17 witnesses that gave evidence, I need to remind you that that evidence is All hear say and assumption, none of which is would be valid in a Real Court of Law.
Also as for additional witnesses Impeachment Manager have clamed that they had all the evidence they needed prove their case many times, but now they can't prove it without more witnesses (The contradiction in their statement is glairing). If the House had all the evidence needed to vote for Impeachment they have all the evidence to make a case for removal in the Senate, If they needed more witnesses in the Senate to remove the President than they should not have voted to Impeachment and called the witnesses they needed (Catch 22).
I have ask you before for evidence that proves that Trumps Motive was purely political and you have not produced it. Oh and your Statement
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostAbuse of power in this case is the improper freezing of aid using the authority of the presidential office.
Hear is an extreme analogy for you, Say you are found in your house holding a gun over the dead body of some one that you have been fighting with for years. I could say that you murdered that person and need to go to jail because killing him benefited you. But another explanation was that this person broke into your house and threatened you with a gun. If what your accession is right you still go to jail for murder because your enemy's death benefited you personally and the fact that the other person has a gun on the floor next to him and the door is broken, don't count for anything because you benefited personally. This is not a perfect but analogy but it shows the problem with your accession.
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostIt's the same concept in criminal law where the circumstances around the action or victim affects the seriousness of the crime like an assault on a minor is automatically considered aggravated or on a police officer is an upgraded charge if the police officer is on duty.
Your analogy does not address mixed motives. Trumps case is a case of mixed motive and you want to ignore any motive other then the one you assert without providing the evidence to prove your case.
True Evidence Please !!! Your argument is mote without it."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
1) In fact, the president has some discretion when it comes to releasing funds even when they've been allocated by Congress. In fact, he can choose to not release them at all so long as he informs Congress before the deadline. In Trump's case, he did release the funds before the deadline, so it's ultimately a moot point.
2) Trump never said one word to Ukraine about the 2020 election. His focus was on past wrongs committed by Quid Pro Joe Biden.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View PostThe president's team basically has admitted that Donald Trump acted corruptly, withheld this money, tried to cheat in the next election, use the money to coerce or extort the leader of Ukraine into doing his political dirty work. And so, all they can fall back on now is, So what?" - House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff.
We have no idea what Bolton's book says, we only know what the disreputable New York Times says anonymous people claim the draft manuscript says. The "reporter" who wrote the story went on CNN and admitted that she never saw the manuscript herself and so couldn't even verify if her sources were telling the truth.
But we know for a fact that Ultraman officials have said on the record that they were never pressured, and that they were never told that the release of military aid was in anyway tied to their willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden's dirty deals. So whatever Trump might have said to Bolton in a high level brainstorming session, it seems nobody down the chain of command was ever given orders to carry that message to Ukraine. On the contrary, witness after witness testified before the House that they never heard anything directly from the President, and Gordan Sondland testified under oath that he was explicitly and clearly told "no quid pro quo".Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAdam Schiff is a proven liar. The President's defense team admitted nothing of the sort, "basically" or otherwise.
We have no idea what Bolton's book says, we only know what the disreputable New York Times says anonymous people claim the draft manuscript says. The "reporter" who wrote the story went on CNN and admitted that she never saw the manuscript herself and so couldn't even verify if her sources were telling the truth.
But we know for a fact that Ultraman officials have said on the record that they were never pressured, and that they were never told that the release of military aid was in anyway tied to their willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden's dirty deals.
So whatever Trump might have said to Bolton in a high level brainstorming session, it seems nobody down the chain of command was ever given orders to carry that message to Ukraine. On the contrary, witness after witness testified before the House that they never heard anything directly from the President, and Gordan Sondland testified under oath that he was explicitly and clearly told "no quid pro quo".Last edited by JimL; 02-05-2020, 07:42 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:24 AM
|
2 responses
28 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 01:00 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Today, 09:13 AM
|
12 responses
75 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 04:58 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:15 AM
|
26 responses
102 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 04:04 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-01-2024, 04:11 PM
|
14 responses
99 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 08:11 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-01-2024, 03:50 PM
|
2 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 06:35 AM
|
Comment