Why aren't Crooked Donald's lawyers contesting the facts?

The gop senators already know all the facts. The trial is a dog and pony show for them. Republicans don’t think it’s a crime to cheat on elections, because they’ve been doing it for decades. So Trump is doing nothing different then anyother Republican candidate who sees nothing wrong with voter suppression. .

 

Guilty implies a crime there are no crimes listed in the articles of impeachment.

 

Those are opinions, not facts.

 

Clinton didn't lie to Congress he committed perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and witness tampering in a federal court during a federal civil rights lawsuit and then before the grand jury investigating it. And it had to do with his actions first as a governor of a state and then as President.
And the Democrats those charges of multiple felonies, yes a President can have charges by a prosecutor brought against him, did not merit removal from office.

 

Clinton did so in a federal court and then a federal grand jury. Because of the Democrats he was not removed.

 

Is soliciting aid in a criminal investigation into corruption?

As the Democrat witnesses testifies it is done routinely.

Not if it is a separation of powers issue.

 

Strike that reverse it.

 

Thanks. Basically he was impeached for lying about a sexual tryst. That was my point. It didn't merit impeachment let alone removal from office. The Senate did it right and will likely do it right again.

 

There you go. He did political misconduct, not a crime. The whole thing is pretty obvious.

 

Awe shucks. Nobody is playing your game.
Terrible!!

 

The videos of trump's own admissions of criminal actions are undercutting his defense lawyers's claims, which have already been labelled absurd by the vast majority of legal experts anyway.
The whole trial is a sham because the repubs lack the moral courage to do their duty. The country is watching.

 

Yes, the country is watching and being entertained by it. Politics at its best - or worst depending on your point of view.

 

You seem to be presenting yourself as someone with a good grasp of the relevant facts of this case.

Tell me, how do you know for certain that his request for an investigation was about the 2020 election, as opposed to it being about potential corruption in the last administration, of which Biden was an integral part? Do you have proof, or just a suspicion?

 

I don’t watch opinion television or listen to it on my radio. Most news is just repetitious with a lot of fluff. I get most of my news from the PBS news hour and occasionally from the Sunday news shows on NBC and network FOX.

I watched the impeachment hearings from end to end. The collective testimony of a dozen or so people showed a clear picture of Trump soliciting the Ukraine for domestic political help. Evidence has since come out confirming what has already been alleged. It seems to me, that if it were a proper trial, with the pertinent witnesses and documents, Trump would be gone. So Trump’s best defense is to just refuse to cooperate.

If everyone got a Trump defense, no one would ever go to jail.

 

He has an opinion. But, as we all know, that is all that is required for impeachment.

 

Clear and present danger before Pelosi got constipated before Christmas dinner, gotta move right now.

 

So you are saying I could file a complaint against you, not knowing anything about you, and you would be "responsible" to refute it? I would say the complaint would have to have some legal bearing and these to articles of impeachment do not. You can legally file restraining orders against anyone for anything but they do not reflect the integrity of that person in the least. Just because the complaint is legal it does not mean it proves a crime or misdemeanor has been committed or even that the complaint represents that. To suggest it is the responsibility of the defense to supply information is beyond the pale.

 

Why would anyone recite all the factual evidence revealed during the House inquiry and established during the Senate proceeding thus far by the House managers with respect to the requested investigations.............or the complete lack of any evidence of corruption by the last admin in this regard...........when you will reject it as insufficient unless you get a Jack Nicholson moment?

 

In the impeachment hearing testimony it was revealed that Trump wasn’t asking for an investigation. He was asking for Zelensky, and other Ukrainian officials, to make public statements saying they were investigating. No investigations, just the public statements.

And by the time line that Shiff laid out, Trump didn’t start asking for the statement on Biden until after Biden had entered the presidential race. Although the Trump officials have been working Ukraine ever since Trump took office. Mostly to get public statements that would support the idea that Hillary’s email server was in the Ukraine, and that it was the Ukrainians who interferes in the 2016 election, and on the behalf of Hillary Clinton. And not the Russians who colluded with Trump. Thus merging the Russian and Republican propaganda streams.

Don’t delude yourself, Trump is still colluding.

 

If it had not been for Lewinsky none of those crimes would have ever gotten looked into, imo, and Bill Clinton would be honored and seen as an honorable man today. Hillary probably would have been elected.

I'm not blaming Lewinsky, it would have been another if not her, she just happened to be there as the catalyst for it all.

 

If by Jack Nicholson moment, you mean a moment where guilt is proven, then yes, you need a Jack Nicholson moment. While you may have a strong suspicion, what you are alleging is very difficult to PROVE, because there is another viable explanation other than what you suspect. I am sorry to inform you that in order to PROVE him guilty of what you are alleging, you need more than suspicion. You obviously do not like due process.

 

In order for your suspicion to enter the realm of proof, you need to eliminate any other logical explanation. It is your contention that asking for a public statement, eliminates all other reasonable explanations and proves that he could only be doing this for 2020, but does it? Are there any other logical explanations for such a request?

I know that with the company that I currently work for, when a customer is on credit hold, and we will not ship product until they pay past due invoices, we only require them to say that they are sending a check. If they say they are sending a check, we take them at their word and ship the product. Does this mean that we dont really want the check and that we only want the announcement? Of course not. When somebody says they are sending a check, it sort of obligates them to do so. In no manner, shape, or form, does only waiting for them to say they are sending the check mean that we do not care about the actual check.

Similarly, asking Ukraine to publically announce that they are going to conduct an investigation, sort of obligates them to follow through on their announcement. It would give people at a later time the ability to say "what ever happened to that investigation that you said you were going to conduct?". It does not guarantee that an investigation were to take place, but it most certainly puts more pressure for them to do so. While you could suspect that a request for an announcement means that they only cared about 2020, it is clearly NOT the only viable explanation for such a request. Hell, I am not even sure that it is even the most likely option, much less the ONLY viable option.

Just because the left keeps saying that this is about 2020, does not mean that they have proof of such. There is no way that they have proven that assertion unless and until they can eliminate all other viable explanations, and they most certainly have not. If the alleged request for a public announcement is the best proof that you have, and even if we 100% accept that allegation as fact, then you still have not proven your suspicion. It isnt even close to being proven. There are entirely plausible alternate explanations.

 

Like with global warming and health care costs, one side, failing in facts, resorts to politics. Once I was arrested for a crime that never happened. My lawyer told me that the general rule is an innocent defendant tends to do best with just a judge, with no jury, as judges, just from having seen so many various cases, tend to be pretty good at seeing what is up, and what is not.

But for the guilty, the judge is going to see through the lies. For the guilty, their best chance is before a jury, where there is the possibility of confusing the issue just enough, of garnering enough sympathy that a juror or two will set them free.

I think that Trump acts quite a bit like a guilty man. And is now playing to people’s emotions. Oh poor me, the greatest bestest president that ever lived. Can you believe it, they want to impeach me? Poor little picked on Donnie. He is so nice. He always says nice things to people and is always so honest. How could anyone want to impeach Trump?

 

It's been proven. I'm talking about the Liar-in-Chief admitting it.

 

Yes I watched exactly the same testimony as a bunch old school state department Shills testify that Trump must have done something wrong but couldn't testify to what it was. hours of testimony as to rumors, office gossip and innuendo, but not one iota of actual fact.