My thoughts on the impeachment of President Trump

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

Trump is guilty.

Yep. Guilty. Of beating Hillary. Obviously he needs to be thrown out of office.

Don't forget ... Trump is orange and impeachment has the word peach in it. The conclusion should be obvious.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

the House... being in the Spotlight... will milk this as much as possible...and they legally can dance-till-the-cows-come-home

I see it as Democrats Spin the Bidens as the Impeachable offense, attempt by Trump to dig-dirt on them

counter to Republicans Spin of Bidens engaged in corruption already with Ukraine & Trump only Alerting Ukraine leadership to clean up the foul play before the new Ukraine government gets smeared in scandals


the Dems are busy trying to escape being pilloried as corruption advocates as Biden cover-uppers with a very surreal explanation of defending the senior Bidens' role as Presidential Candidate being attacked by Trump re-election machine


the President, hogg-tied by House rules of discovery & Special- 'evidence'...must wait until the Senate Hearings/Trial phase to bring up his side of explanations of his actions to protect the integrity of the USA against the Biden corruptions in dealings with a /Ukraine power company & VP Biden & Hunter Biden the son getting payola from Influence Peddling by that lofty family


in a sane world, Trump would prevail … but by skillful manipulation & twisting of language, the DeepState can Prevail

a reply to: Wayfarer

You don't honestly believe Schiff is telling the truth do you?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

Really? I thought the spin was that he was just having sex ... at least that's the popular line.

Just like the popular line here is that Trump strong-armed the president of Ukraine even though the same person has said repeatedly *it did not happen.*

Do we have crimes without victims?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

You don't honestly believe Schiff is telling the truth do you?

Sure, I'm not so obtuse as to be bamboozled into believing someone paraphrasing a transcript is deliberate obfuscating/misrepresentation.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

Really? I thought the spin was that he was just having sex ... at least that's the popular line.

Just like the popular line here is that Trump strong-armed the president of Ukraine even though the same person has said repeatedly *it did not happen.*

Do we have crimes without victims?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here.

Him having sex wasn't illegal in any way, but I remember back when it was occurring the Republicans played the moral outrage card very strongly (which is why I get so tickled pink when there's a complete lack of moral outrage of Trump's many disgusting infidelities).

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

You don't honestly believe Schiff is telling the truth do you?

Sure, I'm not so obtuse as to be bamboozled into believing someone paraphrasing a transcript is deliberate obfuscating/misrepresentation.

So when that same person tightly controls every aspect of what we've seen so far including controlling what may or may not be done by the defense, including who they may or may not call as witnesses, what questions they were allowed to ask of those witnesses allowed, and even who was allowed to ask the questions ... how can you say the case was tight? The only voice you've heard is Schiff's - the prosecution.

So far, no real defense has been allowed ... at all.

a reply to: Wayfarer

The mere convenience of you suddenly recalling that Clinton was impeached over perjury when the popular line was that he was impeached over sex.

If he lied over that, what else did he lie about as pertains to more serious crimes?

Of course, what we know about Mrs. Clinton and her behavior now suggests there may have been quite a bit; then again, it's possible she's always been the dirty one of the two for plausible deniability reasons.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying (under oath)?

There, I fixed that for you. He was under oath when he lied. A very big distinction.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

You don't honestly believe Schiff is telling the truth do you?

Sure, I'm not so obtuse as to be bamboozled into believing someone paraphrasing a transcript is deliberate obfuscating/misrepresentation.

So when that same person tightly controls every aspect of what we've seen so far including controlling what may or may not be done by the defense, including who they may or may not call as witnesses, what questions they were allowed to ask of those witnesses allowed, and even who was allowed to ask the questions ... how can you say the case was tight? The only voice you've heard is Schiff's - the prosecution.

So far, no real defense has been allowed ... at all.

Its not a trial yet, there is no expectation or need for defense yet. It feels like you (and some others) are conflating what is in essence a fact finding endeavor with the actual trial.

Pelosi of course just announced its going to the senate for the 'trial' so at that point the Republicans will absolutely muster a completely and allowable equivalent defense against whatever charges have been levied.

That's just the way the system works. The defense isn't involved in the fact finding by necessity, but rather the actual assessment of the crime(s).

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

The mere convenience of you suddenly recalling that Clinton was impeached over perjury when the popular line was that he was impeached over sex.

If he lied over that, what else did he lie about as pertains to more serious crimes?

Of course, what we know about Mrs. Clinton and her behavior now suggests there may have been quite a bit; then again, it's possible she's always been the dirty one of the two for plausible deniability reasons.

Sure, lying about that would certainly raise suspicions among any reasonable person. In the same way, Trumps excessive lying has raised questions about every aspect of every defense he has mustered against every accusation, so you are right in its effect even as the pendulum swings both ways.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying (under oath)?

There, I fixed that for you. He was under oath when he lied. A very big distinction.

Technically Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions are considered 'under oath'. Word on the grapevine is the contradictions made apparent by the recent testimony prove that Trump is likely guilty of that very thing now.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Word on the grapevine is the contradictions made apparent by the recent testimony prove that Trump is likely guilty of that very thing now.

that is far more probable imo than the bs whistleblower crap served recently
if the house dems include that event in these articles with no witnesses or opportunity of such discussion on the house floor that would be a horrible abuse of power
I would not put it past the trifecta of schiff nadler and pelosi

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying (under oath)?

There, I fixed that for you. He was under oath when he lied. A very big distinction.

Technically Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions are considered 'under oath'. Word on the grapevine is the contradictions made apparent by the recent testimony prove that Trump is likely guilty of that very thing now.

More games of telephone I see. Why do people feel it is justified to believe unnamed sources or hearsay, regardless of who or why?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

You have to prove intent, not infer it.

All you've done is infer intent.

Intent is a fickle thing, innit?

Just to clarify,
Clinton was impeached for witness tampering and lying under oath.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying (under oath)?

There, I fixed that for you. He was under oath when he lied. A very big distinction.

Technically Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions are considered 'under oath'. Word on the grapevine is the contradictions made apparent by the recent testimony prove that Trump is likely guilty of that very thing now.

More games of telephone I see. Why do people feel it is justified to believe unnamed sources or hearsay, regardless of who or why?

Well because it hasn't been officially placed in record in hearings yet, so I can't in good faith claim its anything other than conjecture (which I had hoped the 'grapevine' phrase would adequately imply). My assumption is that it may likely come out in the Senate trial.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Just to clarify,
Clinton was impeached for witness tampering and lying under oath.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.

Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?

Yes thanks I had forgotten about the witness tampering portion

It to is delightfully relevant.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: DBCowboy

“Your Honor, I never said the words face stabbing while I was trying to stab him in the face. INNOCENT!!!”

That’s your argument.

Attempted face stabbing is still a crime, and the way Donald Trump went about it, in true illegal Trumpian fashion is below the office of the President. And a clear threat by way of precedent to the foundation of American Democracy.

If you allow partisanship to color your vision of right and wrong, what a President should have the authority to do, and whether or not it’s ok to bend the constitution like Donald Trump is doing maybe the other people aren’t the bad guys in this story.

You had the most credible witness to date (speaking with the President) state unequivocally that Trump did not want anything in return. And now the best the Dems have is "belief of intent".

But you want to lecture us on partisanship.

Why do you still have credibility?