Trump wants Senate trial, expects Joe Biden to testify - White House

[rabas]

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Investigation of what, he’s done nothing wrong.

 

Even Trump only wanted the Ukrainians to announce an investigation.

 

There is no crime to investigate.

How does one know he did nothing wrong without investigating?

 

So if Trump didn't want an investigation, he too has done no wrong?

 

Or is that enough to impeach and remove a president? Not wanting an investigation?

 

Of course you'll say I'm just twisting words but my best twisting, and even yours, pales by miles compared to those in power, yet there's nothing to investigate.

 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

How does one know he did nothing wrong without investigating?

 

So if Trump didn't want an investigation, he too has done no wrong?

 

Or is that enough to impeach and remove a president? Not wanting an investigation?

 

Of course you'll say I'm just twisting words but my best twisting, and even yours, pales by miles compared to those in power, yet there's nothing to investigate.

 

Because the so-called evidence against Biden has been investigated and debunked. Biden was carrying out US policy in getting rid of Shokin. There is no more evidence that Biden was promoting his son's interest when he pushed for the firing of Shokin than there is that Trump helped Ivanka get trademarks from China or helped Jared get a sweetheart deal that bailed his family out of a terrible investment. Get back to us when the Democrats start going after Ivanka or Jared. Actually, come to think ot it, Ivanka's and Jared's situation is even worse since they were working for the government when these things happened. And still, no one is proposing an investigation of Trump helping them. It's sleazy that Hunter Biden got that job. It's sleazy that Ivanka and Jared got those benefits. But sleaziness is not a crime. And it's not a crime for Joseph Biden to be the father of a sleazy child any more than it is for Trump to be the father of one and the father-in-law of another.

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

How does one know he did nothing wrong without investigating?

 

So if Trump didn't want an investigation, he too has done no wrong?

 

Or is that enough to impeach and remove a president? Not wanting an investigation?

 

Of course you'll say I'm just twisting words but my best twisting, and even yours, pales by miles compared to those in power, yet there's nothing to investigate.

 

It's been debunked. In particular, the investigation into Burisma had been stopped long before Shokin was fired. The US and the UK complained about it

 

 

Quote from the timeline linked below:

Early February 2015 — U.S. administration conveys harsh criticism of prosecutor general office for its coverup of Zlochevsky/Burisma.

....Kent, who had long pushed Ukrainian prosecutors for investigations into Zlochevsky, “scolded” the deputyprosecutor for having “shut the criminal case” that had been the basis for a U.K. court freezing Zlochevsky’s assets,demanding, “Who took the bribe andhow much was it?,” Kent asked.......

Feb. 10, 2015  – Viktor Shokin takesoffice as Ukraine’s prosecutor general, replacing Yarema.

Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine GeoffreyPyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma.....Pyatt specifically called for the investigation and removal of officials who were involved in the failure to help the British authorities investigate Zlochevskiy.....

Etc.....

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

[mogandave]

11 hours ago, candide said:

In which investigation?

In any investigation. 

[bristolboy]

14 hours ago, mogandave said:

Justice 

Obstruction of justice would only apply in a case of statutory criminal investigation. Not to an impeachment investigation. Perhaps this link to an article in Smithsonian magazine of how impeachment came to be part of the Constitution will help you to better understand why impeachment and a trial in the Senate is different from criminal investigations and trials.

Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Obstruction of justice would only apply in a case of statutory criminal investigation. Not to an impeachment investigation. Perhaps this link to an article in Smithsonian magazine of how impeachment came to be part of the Constitution will help you to better understand why impeachment and a trial in the Senate is different from criminal investigations and trials.

Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/

Thank you, an excellent article.

 

So the founders clearly recognized the dilemma we face today, and  could not agree on a clear solution. On one hand, a president should be removable when necessary but not purely because some are opposed to him, i.e. for political reasons. The wording handed down was a dodge because they could not clearly delineate the two.

 

"After a sharp back-and-forth with fellow Virginian James Madison, Mason came up with another category of impeachable offenses: “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Americans have debated the meaning of this decidedly open-ended phrase ever since."

 

Removing Trump for iffy reasons would just do more damage to our system of government. 

 

[Sujo]

21 minutes ago, rabas said:

Thank you, an excellent article.

 

So the founders clearly recognized the dilemma we face today, and  could not agree on a clear solution. On one hand, a president should be removable when necessary but not purely because some are opposed to him, i.e. for political reasons. The wording handed down was a dodge because they could not clearly delineate the two.

 

"After a sharp back-and-forth with fellow Virginian James Madison, Mason came up with another category of impeachable offenses: “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Americans have debated the meaning of this decidedly open-ended phrase ever since."

 

Removing Trump for iffy reasons would just do more damage to our system of government. 

 

What is iffy about what trump did.

[RideJocky]

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

What is iffy about what trump did.

Iffy you’re a leftist what he did boarders on treason. Iffy you’re not a leftist, what he did does not seem that significant. 
 

 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

Iffy you’re a leftist what he did boarders on treason. Iffy you’re not a leftist, what he did does not seem that significant. 
 

 

Trump asking/blackmailing a foreign leader for election assistance is not significant, but Democrats employing a UK investigator for opposition research is.  Got it.

[Kelsall]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Trump asking/blackmailing a foreign leader for election assistance is not significant, but Democrats employing a UK investigator for opposition research is.  Got it.

Whatever Trump did is not significant enough to impeach, according to some key Dems.  ICYMI, Schiff is backpedaling, and then there's this, ICYMI:

 

Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, abruptly announced Sunday that she no longer saw any "value" in the process and called for her fellow Democrats to throw their support behind a symbolic censure resolution.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dem-reverses-course-on-impeachment-as-polls-show-declining-support-i-want-to-censure

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, RideJocky said:

Iffy you’re a leftist what he did boarders on treason. Iffy you’re not a leftist, what he did does not seem that significant. 
 

 

The constitution is not iffy.

[jany123]

On 11/22/2019 at 3:51 PM, TopDeadSenter said:

If you can liken this to somebody calling the fire department. Then consider they called the fire department and said they were at the local pub drinking wine with their mates, and heard someone at the other end of the table talking on the mobile and thought you heard them say there was a fire. Department asks did the person actually talking on the phone say there is a fire? No. They ask can you smell smoke? No. Can you see a fire? No. Do you feel hot? No. I guess at this stage the fire department starts turning the air blue and hangs up. Which is what the dems would have done when Schiff floated this dreadful plan, had they been sensible.

Lmao.... and if there is a fire, despite all the he said she said, which the fire department then failed to respond too, even by investigating further (thru other means such as the police station, in need), then the fire department would be justifiably pilloried and heads would roll.

 

in the event that there was no fire.... after that fact was confirmed, then investigators would drill down on the origins of the call and justifiably press charges for making a false report.... and that’s where we are, when speaking in analogies

[jany123]

18 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Whatever Trump did is not significant enough to impeach, according to some key Dems.  ICYMI, Schiff is backpedaling, and then there's this, ICYMI:

 

Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, abruptly announced Sunday that she no longer saw any "value" in the process and called for her fellow Democrats to throw their support behind a symbolic censure resolution.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dem-reverses-course-on-impeachment-as-polls-show-declining-support-i-want-to-censure

That’s not really what the link says... or even implies.

 

rather, it’s clear that her changing position reflects an awareness that the republicans in the senate will betray their oaths to office, and not vote to impeach, ergo a trial is moot.

 

all the trial is likely to do is officially note who voted which way, for posterities sake... her suggestion is to simply replace a partisan vote with a censure motion, which will establish the same thing.

 

that said, with rudi’s Ukrainian mates seemingly willing to provide audio tapes of conversation, not to mention mcgahn having to testify, this could be the tipping point, a la Nixon and his recorded gaffs.

 

Personally, I pray that the trumps health scare, of the last week or so, is something minor which does not prove fatal. I would hate to see the trump die, thereby  escaping consequence for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Kelsall]

9 minutes ago, jany123 said:

That’s not really what the link says... or even implies.

 

rather, it’s clear that her changing position reflects an awareness that the republicans in the senate will betray their oaths to office, and not vote to impeach, ergo a trial is moot.

 

all the trial is likely to do is officially note who voted which way, for posterities sake... her suggestion is to simply replace a partisan vote with a censure motion, which will establish the same thing.

 

that said, with rudi’s Ukrainian mates seemingly willing to provide audio tapes of conversation, not to mention mcgahn having to testify, this could be the tipping point, a la Nixon and his recorded gaffs.

 

Personally, I pray that the trumps health scare, of the last week or so, is something minor which does not prove fatal. I would hate to see the trump die, thereby  escaping consequence for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

There will be no impeachment, no trial in the Senate.

 

Also, from the article, "Democrats still don't have the strong case they're seeking to justify removing President Donald Trump from office" 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

There will be no impeachment, no trial in the Senate.

Can you tell me your opinion on the next lottery numbers so i can avoid them like the plaque.

[billd766]

11 hours ago, rabas said:

Thank you, an excellent article.

 

So the founders clearly recognized the dilemma we face today, and  could not agree on a clear solution. On one hand, a president should be removable when necessary but not purely because some are opposed to him, i.e. for political reasons. The wording handed down was a dodge because they could not clearly delineate the two.

 

"After a sharp back-and-forth with fellow Virginian James Madison, Mason came up with another category of impeachable offenses: “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Americans have debated the meaning of this decidedly open-ended phrase ever since."

 

Removing Trump for iffy reasons would just do more damage to our system of government. 

 

quote "Removing Trump for iffy reasons would just do more damage to our system of government."

 

Hasn't Trump done enough damage to the USA as it is?

[billd766]

7 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

There will be no impeachment, no trial in the Senate.

And you know this for a fact?

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And you know this for a fact?

He thinks he does.

 

notice how him and boon mee and topdeadcentre dont respond to questions.

[jany123]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

There will be no impeachment, no trial in the Senate.

 

Also, from the article, "Democrats still don't have the strong case they're seeking to justify removing President Donald Trump from office" 

also from the article... oh you... lmao

 

the Detroit news editorial opinion article went on to speculate;

”Democrats still don’t... “ etc etc

 

MAGA... by locking up the trump... thereby redeeming those Divided States.

[billd766]

12 hours ago, Sujo said:

He thinks he does.

 

notice how him and boon mee and topdeadcentre dont respond to questions.

He thinks?

 

Boon Mee and TDC are on my ignore list anyway.

[JCauto]

On 11/22/2019 at 1:05 PM, roobaa01 said:

nothing but hearsay, no first hand account information only opinions. 

 

wbr

roobaa01

 

Step 1 - Prohibit anyone with direct knowledge and first-hand accounts of what happened from testifying, including compelling them to break the law by ignoring a subpoena ordering them to do so. 

 

Step 2 - hear overwhelming evidence by those who were carrying out the orders from those with first-hand knowledge about what happened, evidence that is corroborated by people who had no other connection to each other, and which is confirmed independently.

 

Step 3 - flood the media and social media with contradictory and irrelevant information and conspiracy theories while maintaining that sworn testimony of distinguished career diplomats and soldiers is lies and inventions of traitors and turncoats.

 

Step 4 - watch as each of the disinformation, false leads and conspiracies are debunked by direct testimony and evidence until you're left without a leg to stand on.

 

Step 5 - claim that the evidence and conclusions are hearsay because there's "no first hand account information", for which of course the only reason is that you won't allow anyone to testify. 

 

I presume that if any of them have the courage to take an oath and testify, they would just repeat "I choose to exercise my Fifth Amendment rights", and this would further cement your case of innocence, correct?

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, JCauto said:

Step 1 - Prohibit anyone with direct knowledge and first-hand accounts of what happened from testifying, including compelling them to break the law by ignoring a subpoena ordering them to do so. 

 

Step 2 - hear overwhelming evidence by those who were carrying out the orders from those with first-hand knowledge about what happened, evidence that is corroborated by people who had no other connection to each other, and which is confirmed independently.

 

Step 3 - flood the media and social media with contradictory and irrelevant information and conspiracy theories while maintaining that sworn testimony of distinguished career diplomats and soldiers is lies and inventions of traitors and turncoats.

 

Step 4 - watch as each of the disinformation, false leads and conspiracies are debunked by direct testimony and evidence until you're left without a leg to stand on.

 

Step 5 - claim that the evidence and conclusions are hearsay because there's "no first hand account information", for which of course the only reason is that you won't allow anyone to testify. 

 

I presume that if any of them have the courage to take an oath and testify, they would just repeat "I choose to exercise my Fifth Amendment rights", and this would further cement your case of innocence, correct?

They would not have to take the fifth, they could just say their attorney advised them not to answer. 

[earlinclaifornia]

On 11/22/2019 at 12:17 PM, Enoon said:

 

How many moons does your planet have?

 

 

His tin hat has slipped off