1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

The current GAO is led by an Obama appointee.  The agency works for the Legislative Branch, not the POTUS.   No surprise that they'd spring this on the day of the funeral procession to the Senate.  A reasonable and critically thinking individual would have to ask: Why wasn't this included in the impeachment articles?  The answer is simple.  Because Democrats know that the GAO declaration is toothless.

 

According to Alan Dershowitz, Law Professor and registered Democrat, the GAO's announcement regarding federal law is incorrect.  In Dershowitz's interview on Fox News, Dersh said, "The GAO got it exactly backwards."

 

Dershowitz explained that the POTUS, according to the Constitution, has the sole authority to set foreign policy.  If the POTUS determines that a country will not receive aid, and the Congress passes legislation to send aid to that country, the POTUS can stop the aid because the POTUS is the sole authority to set foreign policy.  

 

The Congress cannot compromise or undermine foreign policy with legislation.  This is why previous presidents were able to hold up aid or completely stop it in the past without being impeached for it.  This is another of those pesky "separation of powers" issues between the three branches of government.  It's the same reason why Trump's travel ban was upheld by the SCOTUS.  The POTUS controls that power.

 

Democrats know that the GAO's claims are unenforceable and nothing more than a "declaration."

 

GAO ... big *yawn* 

 

This is just more of what Democrats have been doing -- all those late, fantastic bombshell revelations (that eventually go nowhere) like the Kavanaugh hearings and the gossipblower 1 and gossipblower 2 fiasco.  I fully anticipate more.  It's their modus operandi.

Let’s look at that rubbish for a moment, but instead of me providing links that you won’t be bothered reading, let’s do some of that reasonable and critical thinking that you invoked above

 

a declaration of war is foreign policy (unless the _trump instigates a civil war).... the president cannot declare war.... ergo the president does not have sole power to set foreign policy.

 

article 2 does not give the president sole authority for a reason... but you know who does have sole authority, right? Ding ding ding... monarchs and dictators etc... like kimmy of North Korea.

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Why wasn't this included in the impeachment articles?  The answer is simple.  Because Democrats know that the GAO declaration is toothless.

Surely the simple answer is because the articles of impeachment were voted on prior to the release of this report, which took 2 1/2 months to create.... and is still incomplete because the trumps admin won’t cooperate with oversight mechanisms, as noted in the report.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

First President ever impeached soley on partisan grounds. Etched in Marble.

 

I wish I could come back in 50 years and read about it.

and you think that is is a good thing that not one republican congressman  found trump's behaviour troubling ? 

You don't have to wait 50 years you will read about it in a little more than  a year.

Just as foreign policy is an enumerated power of the POTUS, declaring war falls on the Congress.  

 

No one, including me, said that declaring war was part of foreign policy and a power of the POTUS.  Since I know that declaring war is an enumerated power of Congress, I did not state or even insinuate that war would be related to the POTUS' foreign policy powers. 

 

Powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the three branches, fall to the states.  This amendment ensured states' rights and the federal system with another layer of "separation of powers."  See the 10th Amendment.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-x

Fox News is reporting that the Presidents defense team will include Dershowitz and Ken Starr. Ouch. 

More and more information will continue to flow out, even after this.  When you constantly lie, you will eventually be figured out because behind most lies is evidence of wrongdoing.  

Even the GOP isn’t really happy.  It’s true, you can’t have a trial without evidence and witnesses, if there are any:

https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-rule-of-law-john-bolton-ads-083335506.html

Off-topic, troll posts and replies removed.  

16 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

He who laughs last? 

Trump's soaring popularity insures a crushing landslide in the fall. Heh... 

The issue is not popularity. The issue is did the man break the law? Did he use the resources of the US to further his own interests. 

His cult followers don't care but people who believe in the rule of law see possible criminal behavior that needs to be investigated. 

trumps cult followers engage in pure hypocrisy when they claim to be conservative then say they don't care that their dear leader has broken the law...strange. 

 

7 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Fox News is reporting that the Presidents defense team will include Dershowitz and Ken Starr. Ouch. 

Ouch! Same as ... Recommendation from beyond the grave?

3 hours ago, candide said:

Ouch! Same as ... Recommendation from beyond the grave?

Ouch as poor Democrats.

11 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Fox News is reporting that the Presidents defense team will include Dershowitz and Ken Starr. Ouch. 

And Dershowitz has stated he is not a member of Trump’s team.

 

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/alan-dershowitz-distances-himself-from-trump-legal-team-im-not-really-part-of-it/

16 hours ago, xylophone said:

Trump has been violating both the domestic and foreign emolument clauses of the Constitution from day one of his moneymaking presidency.

And yet.... everything claimed, are not listed in the Impeachment charges... why not?

43 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

And yet.... everything claimed, are not listed in the Impeachment charges... why not?

Because having so many things to consider is too difficult for his base. It needs to be dumbed down.

He’s keen to say he’s not part of Trump’s team, why is that I wonder?!

Better tell him. He just stated several times live on tv that he does not represent trump.

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

And yet.... everything claimed, are not listed in the Impeachment charges... why not?

Firstly, read this again...............Trump settled three different fraud lawsuits related to his Trump University for $25 million. Earlier this month, as the New York Attorney General Letitia James formally announced, the president was “forced to pay $2 million for misusing charitable funds for his own political gain,” and his Trump Foundation was “shut down for its misconduct.” 

trump has been found guilty of misusing charitable funds, and of misconduct with regards to funding and has been forced to pay $2 million.

 

The reason those events that are listed have not been included in the impeachment process is because no current POTUS has ever been convicted of such crimes, and the process for doing so is unprecedented, and is not even clear in the constitution whether this is allowable or not.

 

So basically, following those lines this POS could do just about anything with regards to fraudulent activity and get away with it, however if he weren't president he would be taken to court and probably convicted.

 

The fact that this impeachment focuses on certain aspects is because they are easily definable as being "impeachable offences" whereas fraud, misusing/stealing charitable funds and running a scam are not – – go figure.

 

It basically means that the man is a crook, but little can be done about it at the moment apart from forcing him to pay back the monies. 

As i said. A few hours ago he expressly stated he does not represent trump and is not part of the team.

 

That is from the man himself

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

As i said. A few hours ago he expressly stated he does not represent trump and is not part of the team.

 

That is from the man himself

Yes, he is representing the Constitution, which in this case is the same as representing Trump. 

Off topic deflection posts and replies have been removed. 

 

Forum Netiquette:

 

5. Please do not quote multiple nested quotes. Quote only the relevant section that you are discussing. Moderators will snip excessively long nested quotes. 
 

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 6:38 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

That was fast. The news this AM said that it would start next week.

Still, sooner started sooner finished and Trump can get back to campaigning.

Nothing to fear.

Do you ever read the news? 

"n all, 14 Trump aides, donors and advisers have been indicted or imprisoned since the days when the first-time candidate promised that he would only hire "the best people."

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-associates-who-have-been-sent-to-prison-or-faced-criminal-charges/ar-BBZ4qc9?ocid=spartandhp

On 1/17/2020 at 12:47 PM, earlinclaifornia said:

trump was a Democrat until 2015!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-changed-political-parties-at-least-fi/

20 hours ago, mogandave said:

Yes, he is representing the Constitution, which in this case is the same as representing Trump. 

Yes, Dersh has explained his role several times in the last 24-48 hours.  He has stated that he is there to defend the Constitution and refute both articles of impeachment -- non crimes.   That role is in defense of Trump.

 

 

For those who want to try to attach civil matters endured by Trump companies and subsidiaries before he was POTUS, they weren't included in the impeachment articles for several reasons. 

 

1. If they're civil matters, they're not crimes (criminal matters). 

2. If they've been settled through the courts, they are settled matters. 

3. If they happened before Trump was POTUS, it was nothing that Trump did while in office, which is what impeachment is about -- high crimes and misdemeanors in office.

An off topic post and a reply has been removed. 

 

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s keen to say he’s not part of Trump’s team, why is that I wonder?!

Could be that he's hoping that his peers (friends, relatives, colleagues) eventually speak to him again. 

On 1/18/2020 at 12:58 AM, jm91 said:

The issue is not popularity. The issue is did the man break the law? Did he use the resources of the US to further his own interests. 

His cult followers don't care but people who believe in the rule of law see possible criminal behavior that needs to be investigated. 

trumps cult followers engage in pure hypocrisy when they claim to be conservative then say they don't care that their dear leader has broken the law...strange. 

 

Close but not quite.

Impeachment is not a criminal process.

High crimes and misdemeanors as mentioned in the constitution for impeachment are not the same thing as literal criminal offenses in a criminal code.

The consequences of an impeachment conviction (has never happened to a president but has to other officials and won't happen this time) is removal from office. There is no criminal law consequence, again, because this isn't about criminal law.

 

As we already know the outcome of the republican controlled senate exercise in profiles in discourage realistically the goal is to convict this impeached president in the eyes of the American swing state voters. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/impeachment-managers-should-forget-the-senate-and-focus-on-the-real-jury-voters/2020/01/17/246d9c96-3894-11ea-bf30-ad313e4ec754_story.html

 

Impeachment managers should forget the Senate and focus on the real jury: Voters

On 1/17/2020 at 6:47 PM, earlinclaifornia said:

trump was a Democrat until 2015!

Then perhaps he realised what a waste of time ( IMO ) the Dems are and jumped ship.