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

They were all aware of what was happening on the ground. They were in contact with Ukrainian officials. Vindman listened in on the call.

 

Vindman is the guy who leaked to the person who leaked to the person who leaked to the whistleblower. Why didn't Vindman just file a complaint?

 

Their testimony was that Burisma and Hunter were an issue and a concern in the Obama administration. It was and remains in the best concerns of both countries to investigate and if necessary prosecute corruption.

Tell me if Joe Biden weren't the front runner for the Democrats would it have been an impeachable offense?

 

The Democrat witnesses testified holding up aid is routine for administrations and the law requires to President certify it will not be used for corrupt purposes.

Tell me if it were a governors son would it be an impeachable offense?

 

And could not testify to an impeachable offense.

 

Trump never did a quid pro quo (all though even mentioning it in the same phone call is suspect, it is not proof of a quid pro quo)
The aid was given
You got nothing.
I can't wait for the results!

 

Ukraine was never told of any aid being held up or as a condition for anything.

 

Incorrect, if the legal complaint doesn't prove an infraction of the law has been made. I can complain that I don't like my neighbors roof, but if he didn't break the law....He doesn't have to do squat!

Again, it is up to the plaintiff to define the law has been infringed first.

So that would be like me going to court and saying "Bob committed murder". I don't even know you other than this forum. So I file suit, you don't defend, and you get life in prison?

 

In order to hurt his prospects for re-election later this year.

 

It’s obvious you have never been involved in any legal complaint that you’ve litigated yourself. As to the complaint itself:

In a criminal complaint it only has to allege a crime was committed, it doesn’t have to prove it. That is determined in a trial. If the defendant fails to defend the allegation though, the defendant risks being found guilty. A judge can also decide to dismiss a criminal complaint on various technical grounds. If the defendant fails to assert any grounds for which a complaint may be dismissed the risk is that the judge isn’t going to bother coming up with one for the defendant. So again failure to defend is a very risky tactic.

In a civil complaint, the defendant has a time limit by which to answer the complaint. Failure to answer the complaint within the time constraint set by the jurisdiction will result in an automatic loss regardless of the allegation(s) stated in the complaint because the plaintiff is going to file a motion for summary judgment which will very likely be granted by the judge.

Agreed however it doesn’t change anything I posted above.

It doesn’t quite work that way. If your claim is that I committed murder you would normally notify the police and they would investigate. The only suit you can file is a wrongful death civil complaint. And that falls into the civil complaint portion that I posted above.

 

Are you paying attention? I said Trump's legal team!

Focus!

Not that your post would have been any less nonsensical if I hadn't but...

 

Game? I'm dead serious!

 

Yes, about them playing the game the way you want it played. Oh well, maybe next time you can compell your witnesses.

 

Because the facts are exculpatory.

A better question would be: Why are the Democrats making stuff up?

 

that's what I am getting at....abuse of power is a subjective complaint. Every single President we've ever had could have abused power. It's in the eyes of the beholder. Not impeachable. Not a criminal complaint. You can't obstruct justice without a crime. Self defense is not obstruction of justice anyway. The house could have subpoenaed anyone they wanted to. Why didn't they? The Court could over rule executive privilege. Why didn't they?

You're probably right. Murder was an extreme example and I've never murdered anyone. If I claimed you embezzled money from me, I would have to have evidence before a prosecution could be considered.

 

I refer to the House's legal team. Are you dyslexic?

 

That is the unproven dem narrative.

 

You and those liking your post ignore the obvious. The position of the President's defenders (and me) is that nothing President Trump is accused of rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor and thus he should not be removed from office for it.

If you believe that then "refuting" any evidence presented is utterly pointless isn't it?

 

Agreed. The key is the level of abuse of power.

And they all likely did.

That's incorrect, the House decides impeachment or not. Abuse of power is one of the foremost reasons the framers incorporated Article II Section 4 into the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence lists a host of abuses of power by King George III, many of which are being perpetrated by all 3 branches of the US government today. And the framers wanted a mechanism by which such abuses by any government servant, including the President can be remedied by impeachment, conviction and removal from office. If a President can't be impeached for abuse of power, a President is then the same as a King and can commit the same abuses as King George III with impunity.

Impeachment is not a criminal complaint.

Obstruction is a crime in itself.

That's correct but obstruction is not self defense, it's obstruction, plain and simple.

I can't speak for the House and who they wanted subpoenaed but they did subpoena several people who refused to testify under orders from Trump. And that's called obstruction no matter how much one wants to sugar coat it. In fact Trump confessed to obstruction (2nd article of impeachment) without being coerced to do so:

President Trump boasted Wednesday that his side in the impeachment trial has information that wasn’t shared with the House Democrats who pursued the investigation and brought the charges.

One of the impeachment managers presenting the case against the president observed that his remarks, at a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, appeared to support one of the two charges he faces: obstruction of Congress by refusing to answer requests for documents or allow testimony by administration officials.

Trump, when asked by a reporter for his reaction to the impeachment trial that resumed Wednesday afternoon, praised the work of his legal team, adding that they had the advantage of possessing “all the material.”

“We’re doing very well,” said Trump. “I got to watch enough. I thought our team did a very good job. Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material.”

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-trial-all-the-material-obstruction-davos-185326298.html

If Trump refused to give Congress evidence that he gave to his attorneys, that's obstruction. In fact he had every opportunity to give Congress the exculpatory evidence he gave his attorneys that he believes would exonerate him.

I don't speak for SCOTUS and I don't believe the issue was framed for a petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Actually before charges could be filed. But it seems to me you're trying to mix apples and oranges. Impeachment and a Senate trial for removal of a President from office is not the same as prosecuting a typical crime. Having said that bribery (or extortion) is alleged to have been committed by Trump, not to mention obstruction.

 

An impeachment is Congress saying he did this and here is the proof of that so we impeach him. They don't indict him which is a much lower standard. He's impeached and as Pelosi was bragging will forever be an impeached President. If you are found not guilty in court it goes away, you are not forever indicted, you are not forever accused under the eyes of the law. Once impeached it doesn't go away so yes the case for impeachment is proved in the House. The Senate only has one role, what is the sentence, remove, remove and can no longer hold office, or not remove. According to the Constitution their judgement shall go no further. That's why Clinton was not censured by the Senate as some Democrats were proposing. They judge one thing remove or not and that should be based on the evidence upon which he was impeached.

This is not a civil complaint and not small claims court it is not going to follow those procedures.

 

No. They can’t. It’s not their turn yet! Nadler has the floor!

 

Fighting corruption and insuring our taxpayer dollars are not involved in corruption and conducting such foreign policy is his sworn duty. That doesn't go away because Hunter Biden's father is running for President. Did Trump running for President stop all the Obama administration investigations into him?

 

It is game to me

 

Note the poster was likening the impeachment process with criminal and civil suits so my response was to enlighten him mostly on criminal and civil suits. They are not the same of course.

Agreed however additional evidence can be presented to the Senate during the trial process for further consideration.

An impeachment is an indictment of sorts, somewhat like a grand jury.

And that is true.

On paper that's true but in reality that's far from the truth. American law, derived from English common law, uses the innocent unless and until proven guilty doctrine. But anyone who has been indicted will tell you that he/she is already treated as if guilty and that stigma often remains for life. In fact, even in law good luck on getting your indictment record erased.

Yes and no. The Senate has a duty to examine ALL the evidence and testimony and deliberate before making any determination. And it also has a sworn duty to be as impartial as reasonable. What is going on is a clear violation and dereliction of duty by at least half the Senate. The bottom line is of course acquittal or removal.

Agreed (see first sentence).

 

All the evidence presented by the House from their investigation. Remember an investigation comes before an indictment. They now want the Senate to subpoena witnesses they did not subpoena during the investigation. They don't need them since they found Trump guilty based on the evidence they already have and that is all they need for the trial. If the evidence is weak, and it is, it just means they forged ahead without doing their job.