Judge Ken Starr just sank Nancy's "Impeachment of Trump"

[iceberg]

that works for you today. but when we have a D president and a R house, you're not going to like those events.

it's GOING to fall out like that. it's just what we're setting up and somehow you'd manage to be a bigger fool than i ever thought possible if you don't see this coming.

shit, stevie wonder sees it coming.

When we have a D president, can that president launch investigations into the people running for the Republican nomination for any reason they want?

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

so what you are saying is there is simply zero proof of the claim this was to dig up dirt on biden for the upcoming election?

am i correct in that?

"beyond reasonable doubt" is not a high standard. it's the standard used in every case i've ever heard of. if you want to cite mythical "facts" and supposition, that's up to you. but it's hardly what anyone on any side of the political spectrum should be tried for.

like i said, is this shit flies, then yes - it will only be a "hold my beer" moment while the rights sees if they can push this yet another step forward.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

that works for you today. but when we have a D president and a R house, you're not going to like those events.

it's GOING to fall out like that. it's just what we're setting up and somehow you'd manage to be a bigger fool than i ever thought possible if you don't see this coming.

shit, stevie wonder sees it coming.

When we have a D president, can that president launch investigations into the people running for the Republican nomination for any reason they want?

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

"Look into it" is different from an investigation. Trump never said investigation--the left created that lie. Trump asked Zelensky to look into it as a favor. Investigations are not favors.

 

[BlindBoo]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and induging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE,

Where does it say the "Whole House". I must have missed that. The Majority party has the power and the whole House voted on the rules at the beginning of the legislative session.

You see the disagreement between the House and the Executive regarding the requirements for impeachment. Resolution 660 needed to be passed first, before the subpoenas regarding impeachment, so the subpoenas are not valid, period. If the House disagrees, take it to court.

As Alan further explained, the House does not take the same oath that the senate does. That is for a reason. The Framers understood that partisan pressure would make the House more likely to pull the trigger on impeachment. The senate is supposed to be more thoughtful and bi-partisan in evaluating the Articles. The senate's constitutional duty is to avoid partisanship, which is why 67 votes are needed for removal. The Articles should have been bi-partisan instead of partisan. The Articles needed to prove serious "high crimes" against the nation comparable to treason, which they don't. They aren't even crimes.

The House has subpoena power to investigate the activity of the Federal government and needs not call "Impeachment" for those subpoena's to be valid and lawful. They are taking it to court and the matter will be resolved over time. However, actively soliciting foreign intervention in our elections, combined with the drip drip drip of information that will be coming out about the Ukraine Shakedown Scheme over the next year, I think the Trumpublicans Rats will soon be abandoning the sinking ship.

I think you need to get a grasp and gain a better understanding of what has gone on and what is going on before you make yourself out the fool again.

The House's power to investigate, to subpoena witnesses and document is not contingent on or legitimized by calling an investigation an impeachment hearing. All investigations into a presidents behavior has the potential to become an impeachment hearing if they uncover evidence of wrong doing and corruption.

 

[colfax_m]

When we have a D president, can that president launch investigations into the people running for the Republican nomination for any reason they want?

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

so what you are saying is there is simply zero proof of the claim this was to dig up dirt on biden for the upcoming election?

am i correct in that?

"beyond reasonable doubt" is not a high standard. it's the standard used in every case i've ever heard of. if you want to cite mythical "facts" and supposition, that's up to you. but it's hardly what anyone on any side of the political spectrum should be tried for.

like i said, is this shit flies, then yes - it will only be a "hold my beer" moment while the rights sees if they can push this yet another step forward.

It’s hard to know I advance what you’d consider proof. I don’t think you’re actually going by “beyond a reasonable doubt”, I think you’re going much higher than that, especially in what you’re willing to consider evidence.

I don’t think there’s a piece of paper out there that says “I Donald J Trump am trying to get an investigation into Biden to help my campaign”. That just doesn’t happen. If we needed that in ever criminal case, a lot fewer very guilty people would be prosecuted.

Cases are build upon indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence. When all that evidence points the exact same way with no rational alternative explanation, then it amounts to proof

So, indirect evidence starts with how his behavior was not consistent with someone looking for a criminal investigation. It was not following principles or fundamentals of criminal investigation. His desire to investigate the matter only occurred after Biden announced his candidacy. He asked Zelensky for it personally. He even fibbed to Zelensky about what Biden said regarding the prosecutor. He wanted a public announcement. Not just on paper but on TV. In America.

This is all consistent with someone trying to hurt Joe Biden, not someone trying to seek justice.

 

[colfax_m]

When we have a D president, can that president launch investigations into the people running for the Republican nomination for any reason they want?

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

"Look into it" is different from an investigation. Trump never said investigation--the left created that lie. Trump asked Zelensky to look into it as a favor. Investigations are not favors.

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

"Look into it" is different from an investigation. Trump never said investigation--the left created that lie. Trump asked Zelensky to look into it as a favor. Investigations are not favors.

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

 

[colfax_m]

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

"Look into it" is different from an investigation. Trump never said investigation--the left created that lie. Trump asked Zelensky to look into it as a favor. Investigations are not favors.

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

"Look into it" is different from an investigation. Trump never said investigation--the left created that lie. Trump asked Zelensky to look into it as a favor. Investigations are not favors.

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

 

[colfax_m]

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

"Look into it" is different from an investigation. Trump never said investigation--the left created that lie. Trump asked Zelensky to look into it as a favor. Investigations are not favors.

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

 

[AntonToo]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

 

[iceberg]

give me proof that is what trump was doing.

every time i ask that i get:

1. called a lot of names
2. told it's in the testimony
3. ignored

but i NEVER EVER EVER get shown the smoking gun that proves this is what trump was doing. digging for dirt on biden for the strict purposes of the next election.

and given the D's hired Steele and relied on bullshit lies on trump to spawn RUSSIA - then i honestly don't care how mad they are someone said to look into their bullshit.

so - either prove this was trumps intent and it was NOT to start investigating potential crimes against the bidens, it was ONLY to get dirt and make shit up.

like they did to trump.

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

so what you are saying is there is simply zero proof of the claim this was to dig up dirt on biden for the upcoming election?

am i correct in that?

"beyond reasonable doubt" is not a high standard. it's the standard used in every case i've ever heard of. if you want to cite mythical "facts" and supposition, that's up to you. but it's hardly what anyone on any side of the political spectrum should be tried for.

like i said, is this shit flies, then yes - it will only be a "hold my beer" moment while the rights sees if they can push this yet another step forward.

It’s hard to know I advance what you’d consider proof. I don’t think you’re actually going by “beyond a reasonable doubt”, I think you’re going much higher than that, especially in what you’re willing to consider evidence.

I don’t think there’s a piece of paper out there that says “I Donald J Trump am trying to get an investigation into Biden to help my campaign”. That just doesn’t happen. If we needed that in ever criminal case, a lot fewer very guilty people would be prosecuted.

Cases are build upon indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence. When all that evidence points the exact same way with no rational alternative explanation, then it amounts to proof

So, indirect evidence starts with how his behavior was not consistent with someone looking for a criminal investigation. It was not following principles or fundamentals of criminal investigation. His desire to investigate the matter only occurred after Biden announced his candidacy. He asked Zelensky for it personally. He even fibbed to Zelensky about what Biden said regarding the prosecutor. He wanted a public announcement. Not just on paper but on TV. In America.

This is all consistent with someone trying to hurt Joe Biden, not someone trying to seek justice.

Sigh. this isn't a hard question.

what proof do we have of Trump's intentions.

all we have to date are people assuming what he meant.

I take it you have zero proof then.

got it.

 

[colfax_m]

I’m not going to feel sorry that people call you names. From what I’ve seen, you have no problem doing so yourself.

Who investigates crimes in this country?

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

so what you are saying is there is simply zero proof of the claim this was to dig up dirt on biden for the upcoming election?

am i correct in that?

"beyond reasonable doubt" is not a high standard. it's the standard used in every case i've ever heard of. if you want to cite mythical "facts" and supposition, that's up to you. but it's hardly what anyone on any side of the political spectrum should be tried for.

like i said, is this shit flies, then yes - it will only be a "hold my beer" moment while the rights sees if they can push this yet another step forward.

It’s hard to know I advance what you’d consider proof. I don’t think you’re actually going by “beyond a reasonable doubt”, I think you’re going much higher than that, especially in what you’re willing to consider evidence.

I don’t think there’s a piece of paper out there that says “I Donald J Trump am trying to get an investigation into Biden to help my campaign”. That just doesn’t happen. If we needed that in ever criminal case, a lot fewer very guilty people would be prosecuted.

Cases are build upon indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence. When all that evidence points the exact same way with no rational alternative explanation, then it amounts to proof

So, indirect evidence starts with how his behavior was not consistent with someone looking for a criminal investigation. It was not following principles or fundamentals of criminal investigation. His desire to investigate the matter only occurred after Biden announced his candidacy. He asked Zelensky for it personally. He even fibbed to Zelensky about what Biden said regarding the prosecutor. He wanted a public announcement. Not just on paper but on TV. In America.

This is all consistent with someone trying to hurt Joe Biden, not someone trying to seek justice.

Sigh. this isn't a hard question.

what proof do we have of Trump's intentions.

all we have to date are people assuming what he meant.

I take it you have zero proof then.

got it.

Posted above. Not assuming. Inferring. Based on evidence. This is how cases are prosecuted all the time. You can ignore it or refute it.

You’re choosing the first.

 

[iceberg]

"Look into it" is different from an investigation. Trump never said investigation--the left created that lie. Trump asked Zelensky to look into it as a favor. Investigations are not favors.

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

It's not enough on its own to put you in jail now is it?

 

[iceberg]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

Let me use your own words.

all those people are shills.

there. we done now?

 

[colfax_m]

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

It's not enough on its own to put you in jail now is it?

Probably not. If two people saw you, maybe. I’m not a lawyer. Can’t say for certain.

testimony is evidence. Evidence can be weak or strong. Physical evidence can be weak. Testimony can be strong. There are many, many ways to prove a case.

 

[iceberg]

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

It's not enough on its own to put you in jail now is it?

Probably not. If two people saw you, maybe. I’m not a lawyer. Can’t say for certain.

testimony is evidence. Evidence can be weak or strong. Physical evidence can be weak. Testimony can be strong. There are many, many ways to prove a case.

Great but just because someone said something doesn't make it true you will need to prove it.

still waiting on that part.

 

[iceberg]

so you're not going to offer proof, just comment on #1, which means your answer is #1.

now - can you offer the physical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt trump was doing this? then even if so, i also understand no crime is even needed.

so why push for something you don't need?

seems to beg a lot of strange questions that you don't want to go into, just bitch at my posting style. and damn straight i can be harsh. but i can also be very civil and reasonable.

whoever is answering my posts and how they do it determine which side of me i use.

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

so what you are saying is there is simply zero proof of the claim this was to dig up dirt on biden for the upcoming election?

am i correct in that?

"beyond reasonable doubt" is not a high standard. it's the standard used in every case i've ever heard of. if you want to cite mythical "facts" and supposition, that's up to you. but it's hardly what anyone on any side of the political spectrum should be tried for.

like i said, is this shit flies, then yes - it will only be a "hold my beer" moment while the rights sees if they can push this yet another step forward.

It’s hard to know I advance what you’d consider proof. I don’t think you’re actually going by “beyond a reasonable doubt”, I think you’re going much higher than that, especially in what you’re willing to consider evidence.

I don’t think there’s a piece of paper out there that says “I Donald J Trump am trying to get an investigation into Biden to help my campaign”. That just doesn’t happen. If we needed that in ever criminal case, a lot fewer very guilty people would be prosecuted.

Cases are build upon indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence. When all that evidence points the exact same way with no rational alternative explanation, then it amounts to proof

So, indirect evidence starts with how his behavior was not consistent with someone looking for a criminal investigation. It was not following principles or fundamentals of criminal investigation. His desire to investigate the matter only occurred after Biden announced his candidacy. He asked Zelensky for it personally. He even fibbed to Zelensky about what Biden said regarding the prosecutor. He wanted a public announcement. Not just on paper but on TV. In America.

This is all consistent with someone trying to hurt Joe Biden, not someone trying to seek justice.

Sigh. this isn't a hard question.

what proof do we have of Trump's intentions.

all we have to date are people assuming what he meant.

I take it you have zero proof then.

got it.

Posted above. Not assuming. Inferring. Based on evidence. This is how cases are prosecuted all the time. You can ignore it or refute it.

You’re choosing the first.

based on what evidence that is NOT inferred?

 

[ph3iron]

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it, and this is the "best" reason they could find.

A purely political action.

Using the good will of the entire nation, and the tax money of us all, to coerce foreign intervention in our election, was an attempted attack on half of our Republic. He should be removed from office for the good of the country.

Good luck with that one. The Bidens, Pelosis and Democrat staffers are still cashing checks from Burisma. You don’t think anyone falling in this category can replace Trump? How serious are you about ridding corruption or are you just heavily motivated to GETTrump?

So why didn't the all the repubs investigate him in the 2 years before?
Because there was zero there and he didn't know Biden was running then.

How about ivankas Chinese patents?
Is the con going to pay for his Nazi rally tonight?
It will be a first.
Ask the stiffed NY contractors

 

[colfax_m]

So now you’re only going to accept physical evidence?

Seems the bar is moving further and further back.

If you want to claim that this was part of an investigation into crimes, then the criminal justice system would be a part of it. They weren’t. If this was part of a personal endeavor, his personal lawyer would be involve. He was.

Not all crimes have a smoking gun. People are convicted regardless. You’ve set an impossibly high standard which does not exist.

so what you are saying is there is simply zero proof of the claim this was to dig up dirt on biden for the upcoming election?

am i correct in that?

"beyond reasonable doubt" is not a high standard. it's the standard used in every case i've ever heard of. if you want to cite mythical "facts" and supposition, that's up to you. but it's hardly what anyone on any side of the political spectrum should be tried for.

like i said, is this shit flies, then yes - it will only be a "hold my beer" moment while the rights sees if they can push this yet another step forward.

It’s hard to know I advance what you’d consider proof. I don’t think you’re actually going by “beyond a reasonable doubt”, I think you’re going much higher than that, especially in what you’re willing to consider evidence.

I don’t think there’s a piece of paper out there that says “I Donald J Trump am trying to get an investigation into Biden to help my campaign”. That just doesn’t happen. If we needed that in ever criminal case, a lot fewer very guilty people would be prosecuted.

Cases are build upon indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence. When all that evidence points the exact same way with no rational alternative explanation, then it amounts to proof

So, indirect evidence starts with how his behavior was not consistent with someone looking for a criminal investigation. It was not following principles or fundamentals of criminal investigation. His desire to investigate the matter only occurred after Biden announced his candidacy. He asked Zelensky for it personally. He even fibbed to Zelensky about what Biden said regarding the prosecutor. He wanted a public announcement. Not just on paper but on TV. In America.

This is all consistent with someone trying to hurt Joe Biden, not someone trying to seek justice.

Sigh. this isn't a hard question.

what proof do we have of Trump's intentions.

all we have to date are people assuming what he meant.

I take it you have zero proof then.

got it.

Posted above. Not assuming. Inferring. Based on evidence. This is how cases are prosecuted all the time. You can ignore it or refute it.

You’re choosing the first.

based on what evidence that is NOT inferred?

The inferences are based on evidence. Testimony. Rational logic. This is often how cases are proven.

Trey Gowdy isn’t entirely wrong when he said this about Hillary Clinton:
GOWDY: Well, there’s no question she made false statements to the public, but the reason I went through that exercise with Director Comey is, let’s assume he’s right, and there’s an intent element in the statute. I think there was circumstantial evidence that she had the intent, and one way to prove circumstantial — prove intent by circumstantial evidence is false exculpatory statements. Innocent people don’t lie. So if you have a series of false statements, then you need to ask yourself while do you feel the need to mislead. It might be consciousness of guilt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

When asked, Sondland testified that when he called Trump directly, which is the only conversation they had about the matter, what Trump wanted, Trump stated he wanted nothing from Zelensky but to do the right thing. Aid was not mentioned in his conversation. Parnas is not credible. He changes stories all the time. Mulvaney said the media misconstrued what he said, and then stated the opposite.

Which butt is yours in that picture???