What Trump's "defense" will be is starting to become clear...

No one said they don't have sole power. The question for me, and for Prof. Turley, is whether it is prudent to exercise that power in this instance. Democrats are trying to paint themselves as Nathan Hale, proclaiming it their solemn duty to impeach. It really isn't. It's just a prerogative.

My view is that it is never prudent to do that within 12 months of an election, maybe even 24.

A dilemma for everyone is that judgments are supposed to be rendered by impartial people. There are none in Congress. Some are ideologically wired to oppose the other side, some pretend to be because they are thinking of their own reelection prospects.

We need term limits. One term and your done. Same for Presidents.

 

I have seen a great piece, I wish I recall where, that described what is happening here on this topic. Had Trump lost, sure, Republicans would be bummed. But we'd go back to our lives. For the left, the election of Trump was a repudiation of so much of what they believe and the direction in which they want the nation to go. It's driven them batty.

 

What Trump's "defense" will be is starting to become clear...
I considered a straight reply but concluded it would be a complete waste of time.

 

Yeah, I have had fun here, but more and more it seems like all of this is a waste of time.

 

How about ONE reason?

There was NO quid pro quo.

BOOM! END THREAD

 

That's a defense?

Avoiding the testimony and the evidence is a defense? Only Trump and his Trumpets would think so.

However, that is what his Republican defenders did yesterday. They spent most of their time avoiding direct testimony, offering their own testimony, trying to change the subject, attacking the process, and attacking the witnesses not for what they said but their character.

The last was futile. Each witness yesterday was a highly qualified expert with enormous credentials. The Republicans are desperate. They are dealing with a President who committed impeachable offenses and they know it.

Asking a foreign government to interfere in our Presidential election, using bribery as an incentive, and obstructing Congress are all impeachable offenses and there is no way around it.

Simply denying the evidence exists and/or calling it all hearsay is no defense. So, Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard spot.

 

That is false.

“What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted a reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied [Trump's chief of staff] Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/mulvaney-ukraine-get-over-it.html

 

Three of the four witnesses are leftists hacks who have always hated Trump. One law professor claimed writing mean tweets is an impeachable offense. Another implied Trump naming his son Baron is impeachable. Highly qualified experts??? Surely you joke.
Trump did not ask Ukraine to interfere in our election. Our election never came up, was never mentioned and was not in anybody's mind. Trump certainly didn't bribe them to do it. Obstruction of Congress is not an impeachable offense even though the articles in Nixon's impeachment claimed it so.

 

Its all right there in the Whiny Little Bitch Defensive Playbook.

 

I got a question. Can any politician take a campaign contribution if the donor, say a steel manufacturer, hands him an envelope and says "I want you to do something for us, though. Can you look into the chinese practice if steel dumping? The chinese are killing us." Is that a bribe? Why not?

 

Yeah, I know, but what good is it if the Senate frees him, which is extremely likely under current circumstances? That is my point. The Democrats will have failed in their goal, and failure is not conducive to winning elections.

 

More cross-post trolling?
4 topics?
Sad.

 

Mulvaney is accurate as far as you went with it. It has indeed been done for most of the last 240 years. Probably the last 8000 years. It's how diplomacy works

 

And in the end it will mean absolutely nothing. Because the senate will almost certainly acquit because the House has proven almost nothing other than ill will and a great contempt for the process, the constitution, and the American people.

 

Oh really? Can you substantiate that or did you just make it up? Give me one example where a President used extortion on a foreign country for his personal benefit. Just one.

 

Roosevelt. Japan.
Duh.

 

That is what I said.

Denying evidence is not a defense. I noticed you have managed to avoid all posts dealing with the evidence, then you say the House proved nothing.

That is just about the only thing a Trump fan can say because even they know Trump is guilty as hell.

Republicans will not remove Trump from office. In November Americans will have their say about Republicans and the Republican President. The GOP has already lost a number of critical elections in 2018 and this year because of Trump. In 2018, Republicans set a record for those who quit. They are about to do it again. Already, 24 Republicans have quit or will quit.

 

I did. Read the OP!

 

Of course I don't! Nobody likes Trump, other than maybe some of his most cult-like followers. But not even the majority of his supporters. Not even his own family likes him. But that's not going to save him from impeachment.

 

Denying that which is only a figment of someone else's imagination is easy.

 

You just profess to the OP being a strawman; now you're saying they're Trumps actual arguments. Which is it?

 

How many hours of History Have you taken? HOw many treaties have your read? Every damn one of them is a quid pro quo of some sort. Even Ceasefires are the most basic of quid pro quos. Hell the Nato treaty is a multi nation quid pro quo signed buy more than a dozen countries. You ought to see some of the ones from the middle ages. They are truly awful some of them being little more than a promise that if you give me x amount of gold me and my boys won't come in and rip off your head and crap down your throat. Such 'agreements' go back a very long way.. There are even some verses in the Bible that talk about that sort of thing.

 

This is getting good.

US Attorney Durham is reportedly seeking information from Admiral Mike Rogers for his investigation.

Rogers was the guy who blew the lid on Obama’s illegal spying operation.

Clapper, Brennan, and Comey can’t stop what is coming.

I can’t wait.

 

Here's what bothers me ...

If, during 2016, as the election was shaping up towards being between Trump and Clinton, President Obama said to the Ukrainian president, "I've heard that Trump was involved in some bad things in Ukraine. Would you please do an investigation?"

The Democrats would deny that this was impeachable. They would say that Obama didn't want to give money to a corrupt government. And they would make the case that the American people deserved to know everything about this before voting. They would portray Obama's request as a noble deed, and, most likely, defend Obama's request without question.

Yeah, that bothers me.

You know I'm right.

 

Correct at last. So how about keeping our pants on until then?

Or do we believe that the Russians will steal the election again if we don't impeach right now, this very second?

I'll be glad when this is over so we can get back to arguing about global warming.