U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[Chiphigh]

11 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

feel free to do your home work and (for a start) add to that the Muller report that didn't exonerate him....

18 hours ago, Mavideol said:

Trump was elected fairly? where and when? and Vlad has nothing to do with that "fair" election

11 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

 

I put in the original post where you claimed he wasn't fairly elected. You replied with a vacuous deflection. 

 

That says it all. Once again the left is peddling the same thing for the failing impeachment. 

[Mavideol]

2 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

18 hours ago, Mavideol said:

Trump was elected fairly? where and when? and Vlad has nothing to do with that "fair" election

I put in the original post where you claimed he wasn't fairly elected. You replied with a vacuous deflection. 

 

That says it all. Once again the left is peddling the same thing for the failing impeachment. 

I make it easy for you but as a Trump supporter I am quite sure you will deny everything and anything, good luck though make sure to read the full report and if you need additional ones they will be in your way

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

 

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States.

The Internet Research Agency, based in Saint Petersburg and described as a troll farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups, and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton; they reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media.

 

Russian attempts to interfere in the election were first disclosed publicly by members of the United States Congress on September 22, 2016, confirmed by United States intelligence agencies on October 7, 2016, and further detailed by the Director of National Intelligence office in January 2017.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

 

Joint Statement, Oct. 7: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-intel-russia-hearing-live-updates/

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/russia-trump-and-2016-us-election

 

 

[Sujo]

38 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So telling the dems they have to go through the court, while they fight them in court is somehow diametrically opposing arguments? 
 

In what world? 
 

Did you read it? I think not. 

No, telling the dems to go thru the court whilst at the same time arguing in the court that the court has no juridiction.

 

comprehension issues?

[Chiphigh]

33 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

I make it easy for you but as a Trump supporter I am quite sure you will deny everything and anything, good luck though make sure to read the full report and if you need additional ones they will be in your way

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

 

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States.

The Internet Research Agency, based in Saint Petersburg and described as a troll farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups, and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton; they reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media.

 

Russian attempts to interfere in the election were first disclosed publicly by members of the United States Congress on September 22, 2016, confirmed by United States intelligence agencies on October 7, 2016, and further detailed by the Director of National Intelligence office in January 2017.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

 

Joint Statement, Oct. 7: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-intel-russia-hearing-live-updates/

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/russia-trump-and-2016-us-election

 

 

The Russians have attempted to interfere in many elections for decades.

So has the United States. 

 

Nowhere does it say that it means that the president wasn't fairly elected, as was your claim. Which is a complete lie. 

 

This is Just in case you were confused about what you tried to claim in your previous post. Understand? 

[simple1]

5 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

That is quite a large generalized assumption with nothing to back it up other than your own opinions. 

Polls can be incorrect, but showing majority are anti trump, as was the case in 2016. Guess depends if the electoral college again saves him from defeat. Still don't understand why some people support such an endemic liar with a horrible Administration...

[Chiphigh]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Polls can be incorrect, but showing majority are anti trump, as was the case in 2016. Guess depends if the electoral college again saves him from defeat. Still don't understand why some people support such an endemic liar with a horrible Administration...

The electoral College did not "save" anything. It is the way we elect presidents. I still don't know how the left can sustain the irrational emotional hatred and outrage, while the economy and job market is doing remarkably well. 

[earlinclaifornia]

5 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

What part of the timing to get the SCOUS tiing is so diffucut to understand. Point in question the repease of his taxes is schudled for April I recall. Waiting for these issues to get court judgement is no timely possible!

Ahh, still confused. I know this technical stuff is hard for some to grasp.

[simple1]

24 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

The electoral College did not "save" anything. It is the way we elect presidents. I still don't know how the left can sustain the irrational emotional hatred and outrage, while the economy and job market is doing remarkably well. 

You are correct, I loath the persona of trump., but I ain't the 'left' actually voted for Conservatives in our last election. Economy doing well for sure, you never know what's around the corner. Given trump's business record seriously question if he could handle a down turn.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

I make it easy for you but as a Trump supporter I am quite sure you will deny everything and anything, good luck though make sure to read the full report and if you need additional ones they will be in your way

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

 

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States.

The Internet Research Agency, based in Saint Petersburg and described as a troll farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups, and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton; they reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media.

 

Russian attempts to interfere in the election were first disclosed publicly by members of the United States Congress on September 22, 2016, confirmed by United States intelligence agencies on October 7, 2016, and further detailed by the Director of National Intelligence office in January 2017.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

 

Joint Statement, Oct. 7: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-intel-russia-hearing-live-updates/

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/russia-trump-and-2016-us-election

 

The Russians have attempted to interfere in many elections for decades.

So has the United States. 

 

Nowhere does it say that it means that the president wasn't fairly elected, as was your claim. Which is a complete lie. 

 

This is Just in case you were confused about what you tried to claim in your previous post. Understand? 

Not a scintilla of proof has been provided by the intelligence community.  Ever.  To this day they cannot prove how the emails were hacked or who hacked them.  Brennan himself is on record stating he has no idea as to the extent of "Russian interference;" whether it swayed 10 votes or a million.  That's the former director of the CIA making this admission.  That so many people repeat an unproven claim and are willing to accept it as absolute fact without ever being given proof, without ever following the many dubious circumstances involved in the declaration, is testament to the naivete, the unthinking and sheepish nature of so many people.

[Tippaporn]

Some folks obviously need an education.  Listen carefully.

 

Attorneys General ask Senate to reject articles of impeachment

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Not a scintilla of proof has been provided by the intelligence community.  Ever.  To this day they cannot prove how the emails were hacked or who hacked them.  Brennan himself is on record stating he has no idea as to the extent of "Russian interference;" whether it swayed 10 votes or a million.  That's the former director of the CIA making this admission.  That so many people repeat an unproven claim and are willing to accept it as absolute fact without ever being given proof, without ever following the many dubious circumstances involved in the declaration, is testament to the naivete, the unthinking and sheepish nature of so many people.

I am sure you treat this as fake news. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

[Tippaporn]

Some more educational material.  Again, listen carefully to the many valid points made.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I am sure you treat this as fake news. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

You've missed my entire point.

[Sujo]

19 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I am sure you treat this as fake news. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

Even putin admitted russia did it to help trump.

 

im sure they do it because it has no impact. Sarcasm.

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Even putin admitted russia did it to help trump.

 

im sure they do it because it has no impact. Sarcasm.

You missed the point of my post as well.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You missed the point of my post as well.

Still waiting for your point........ 

[Tippaporn]

49 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Still waiting for your point........ 

My post was clear enough.  Chiphigh and Ricohoc understood my point.

[Chiphigh]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Even putin admitted russia did it to help trump.

 

im sure they do it because it has no impact. Sarcasm.

Can you please provide factual reference to this and show how anything you are referring to had effect on the election. 

[Chiphigh]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

I am sure you treat this as fake news. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

Where are the names of the people who are making these statements. Who, when and where were they made and more importantly, where in the article does it say specific examples of votes that were affected. 

 

3 years on, there still is no evidence of their claims. 

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts, troll posts, inflammatory posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Eric Loh]

55 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Where are the names of the people who are making these statements. Who, when and where were they made and more importantly, where in the article does it say specific examples of votes that were affected. 

 

3 years on, there still is no evidence of their claims. 

Evidences were enough for Mueller and his team to file charges against 37 defendants, secured seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial. Six former associates and advisors of POTUS were among those charged. The case of Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates was transferred from the special counsel’s office to federal prosecutors in Washington. Perhaps the best part is when Trump leave office and not protected by DOJ policy and indicted as a civilian. That may come this year. 

 
 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Evidences were enough for Mueller and his team to file charges against 37 defendants, secured seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial. Six former associates and advisors of POTUS were among those charged. The case of Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates was transferred from the special counsel’s office to federal prosecutors in Washington. Perhaps the best part is when Trump leave office and not protected by DOJ policy and indicted as a civilian. That may come this year. 

 
 

25 of those charged were Russians.

 

12 Russians were claimed to be GRU intelligence officers.  It's a bogus indictment as Mueller charged that they conspired to interfere with the election by hacking computers, stealing documents, and releasing those documents with intent to interfere while full well knowing that he would never have to prove those charges.  No proof ever provided to the American public.  Just take his word for it.

 

The other 13 were Russian citizens associated with 3 Russian companies and were accused of running a troll farm.  One of the Russian companies, Concord, blindsided Mueller by actually showing up in court to dispute the charges.  That certainly doesn't appear to be conclusive of anything.  No proof ever provided.

 

The others were associated with the Trump campaign and none of the charges against any of them had anything to do with Russian election interference.

 

So, as Chiphigh has been asking, where is definitive proof of Russian election interference?  Mueller's report stated: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."  Given this wildly general assertion which is no where defined in detail there was no proof provided in the report.  How can the American public decide for themselves as to the true scope?  Or was it simply hyperbole which, again, Mueller never had to fear having to prove.

 

And as I've mentioned, no proof of Russian election interference has ever been provided to the American people by either Mueller or the intelligence agencies.  No one knows with certainty who stole the emails or how they accomplished it.  And since it's not known then it's easy to make the claim that it was the Russians.

 

Gullible people suck it all up despite a complete lack of proof and with nary a question.  People with critical thinking skills ask hard questions and demand proof.  These people take Americans for fools and there's far to many Americans who prove them correct.

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Tippaporn

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, mogandave said:

Are you not already convinced he’s guilty? 
 

Did the witnesses and evidence presented by the House not prove overwhelming that he was guilty? 
 

If not, why was he impeached? 
 

If so, additional witnesses should not be needed. 

Well done. You just pointed out the weak spot in the argument that more evidence is required. Seems obvious to me that the Dems are just trying to spin this circus out as long as possible, in the hope that some undecided voters will vote for them in November.

I hope some GOP senator calls for a vote soon as the Dem's statements are concluded, so this can all be concluded ASAP.

[choff56]

10 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Evidences were enough for Mueller and his team to file charges against 37 defendants, secured seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial. Six former associates and advisors of POTUS were among those charged. The case of Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates was transferred from the special counsel’s office to federal prosecutors in Washington. Perhaps the best part is when Trump leave office and not protected by DOJ policy and indicted as a civilian. That may come this year. 

 
 

20-1-21

[Ricohoc]

If friends and associates are charged in crimes -- even though those crimes are unrelated to your political campaign and there is no link to you -- you must be guilty of something.

 

Like I said previously, the LIBs try awfully hard to convict Trump using standards not imposed on anyone else.  He's guilty because his one-time campaign chairman violated the law in ways prior to his joining the campaign.  Wow.  Everyone better look out if they have friends who have committed crimes.

[Ricohoc]

Something that has been lost on those who are screaming about subpoenas to testify in the House's impeachment inquiry is that their subpoenas were NOT subpoenas because of the way that Nancy decided to go about it all.  Technically and legally, the formal calls to testify were nothing more than letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production.  Their letters have no penalty of noncompliance attached to them.

 

The SCOTUS has held since the Nixon days that in order for subpoenas to carry any legal and enforceable weight, the full House must vote on the impeachment inquiry.  That was not done.  Nancy did it unilaterally.  She simply came out and announced that the impeachment inquiry will begin.

 

This is one reason why the POTUS' legal team has stated that the impeachment effort is unconstitutional.  White House lawyer Patrick Philbin explained it yesterday.  The constitutional process for beginning the impeachment inquiry was not followed.  Even the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel outlined this flaw

 

Absent the vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority.  All of those House chairpersons were relegated to having to send request letters -- not subpoenas.  A lawful subpoena requires an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word.  In other words, compliance with the "letters" was discretionary.

 

In order for Democrats to have any chance of pulling this stunt and making it look legal and enforceable, they relied on their propaganda arm -- the media -- and they complied nicely as usual.

 

So the mission to create a public "impression" was underway from the start.

 

The SCOTUS has long established that Congress has lawful subpoena powers as it relates to their oversight responsibility.  See the powers enumerated in A1§8.  You will note, if you read it correctly, that foreign policy and impeachment are not included in the legislative purpose of oversight.

 

The SCOTUS precedent that makes subpoena power with penalties for non-compliance possible in the House, and is allowed in impeachment investigations, requires a full House authorization vote and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee.  Nancy did this by herself, and it immediately went to the Intelligence Committee headed by Schiff.

 

Legally and technically, the House was not exercising impeachment authority.  So their demands infringed on the separation of powers and executive privilege.  The letters were not legally subpoenas.

 

As previously stated, the SCOTUS already established precedent for the House to overcome executive privilege claims during the Nixon impeachment investigation -- but the precedent requires a full House vote and with the Judiciary Committee beginning the formal impeachment investigation.

 

The letters to appear or provide documents were absent a penalty for non-compliance.  The Executive Branch had no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.   Nancy and her team of lawyers designed this all for public consumption and with a reliance on the public's lack of understanding of the legal issues involved.

 

When Nancy and her team of lawyers changed the House rules, changed the House impeachment rules and changed the committee rules, they removed Republicans from the entire process in the House.  However, none of that changed the Constitution and the separation of powers between co-equal branches of government.

[Eric Loh]

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

25 of those charged were Russians.

 

12 Russians were claimed to be GRU intelligence officers.  It's a bogus indictment as Mueller charged that they conspired to interfere with the election by hacking computers, stealing documents, and releasing those documents with intent to interfere while full well knowing that he would never have to prove those charges.  No proof ever provided to the American public.  Just take his word for it.

 

The other 13 were Russian citizens associated with 3 Russian companies and were accused of running a troll farm.  One of the Russian companies, Concord, blindsided Mueller by actually showing up in court to dispute the charges.  That certainly doesn't appear to be conclusive of anything.  No proof ever provided.

 

The others were associated with the Trump campaign and none of the charges against any of them had anything to do with Russian election interference.

 

So, as Chiphigh has been asking, where is definitive proof of Russian election interference?  Mueller's report stated: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."  Given this wildly general assertion which is no where defined in detail there was no proof provided in the report.  How can the American public decide for themselves as to the true scope?  Or was it simply hyperbole which, again, Mueller never had to fear having to prove.

 

And as I've mentioned, no proof of Russian election interference has ever been provided to the American people by either Mueller or the intelligence agencies.  No one knows with certainty who stole the emails or how they accomplished it.  And since it's not known then it's easy to make the claim that it was the Russians.

 

Gullible people suck it all up despite a complete lack of proof and with nary a question.  People with critical thinking skills ask hard questions and demand proof.  These people take Americans for fools and there's far to many Americans who prove them correct.

 

Indicted and got guilty pleas Russians by Muller’s team in the Trump Russia election meddling investigation. On top of that, seven of which six were Trump’s advisers. Sprawling set of allegations, encompassing both election interference charges against overseas Russians and various other crimes by American Trump advisors. Any sensible and intelligent person can see the connection. POTUS got away because of DOJ policy but how long can that policy protect him. He will meet his fate as a civilian, no doubt about that. 

[Chiphigh]

13 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Evidences were enough for Mueller and his team to file charges against 37 defendants, secured seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial. Six former associates and advisors of POTUS were among those charged. The case of Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates was transferred from the special counsel’s office to federal prosecutors in Washington. Perhaps the best part is when Trump leave office and not protected by DOJ policy and indicted as a civilian. That may come this year. 

 
 

Again, I have asked for clear details about the claims you made, and you have not supported them. 

 

It is astounding to see the lack of actual facts while you constantly post opinions as facts. 

 

Each week we are learning the real facts behind the attempts to unseat a duly elected president. 

 

This is going to backfire in spectacular fashion. It will be well deserved. 

[mogandave]

12 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Indicted and got guilty pleas Russians by Muller’s team in the Trump Russia election meddling investigation. On top of that, seven of which six were Trump’s advisers. Sprawling set of allegations, encompassing both election interference charges against overseas Russians and various other crimes by American Trump advisors. Any sensible and intelligent person can see the connection. POTUS got away because of DOJ policy but how long can that policy protect him. He will meet his fate as a civilian, no doubt about that. 

Do you understand that none of this is relevant to the articles of impeachment, yes? 

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Indicted and got guilty pleas Russians by Muller’s team in the Trump Russia election meddling investigation. On top of that, seven of which six were Trump’s advisers. Sprawling set of allegations, encompassing both election interference charges against overseas Russians and various other crimes by American Trump advisors. Any sensible and intelligent person can see the connection. POTUS got away because of DOJ policy but how long can that policy protect him. He will meet his fate as a civilian, no doubt about that. 

I have to say that if that's the best response you can muster I have to simply laugh.  For instance:

 

"Sprawling set of allegations, encompassing both election interference charges against overseas Russians . . . "

 

Where's the proof of the allegations?  Have you seen it?  Or do you simply take team Mueller claims at face value?

 

I'll repeat myself:  Gullible people suck it all up despite a complete lack of proof and with nary a question.  People with critical thinking skills ask hard questions and demand proof.  These people take Americans for fools and there's far to many Americans who prove them correct.