We Support Donald Trump II

I dont think its a legal proceeding-so there won't be an guilty/innocent verdict.

 

I think it IS a legal proceeding in every sense of the word. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the process in the Senate. To throw out the charges as having no merit would end it, but it would leave nothing resolved. The Dems would still accuse the President all through 2020 claiming the Senate just took a party line vote.

But to put the evidence out there that the President is innocent or at least not guilty of the charges would be far more advantageous to the President and leave the Dems with even more egg on their faces trying to use this as a campaign benefit.

So I still haven't made up my mind which way I want it to go.

 

On this forum we have mused about an impeachment trial being sort of a free-for-all where our side could call all kinds of witnesses. We've mused about calling Adam Shiff and asking him about his alleged conversations with the whistleblower. Did he lie about that? We have mused about calling Joe and Hunter Biden and making them testify about how Joe coerced the Ukrainians and how Hunter got the job with Burisma. Perhaps there are other witnesses we may want to call, thinking we can force them to testify about other aspects of the process that might embarrass their side.

But the Chief Justice is going to preside over the trial. Now there is very little in the Constitution about how the trial shall be conducted. This means that the Chief Justice is going to have powers similar to any judge in any trial. That is considerable power. And one of the things a trial judge may do is to hear testimony before it is given to a jury and make a ruling on its relevance. If a trial judge decides that the testimony of a potential witness is not relevant, the trial judge may simply disqualify that witness. Remember, the president is on trial here, not Adam Shiff, not Joe Biden, and not Hunter Biden. And so I could see long, drawn out arguments being made about relevance if the Republicans go down the road of using the trial for political purposes that are not strictly relevant to the accusations against the President. I could see them losing a lot of those arguments. Why? Because the issues on trial here are whether the President obstructed Congress and whether he abused his power by holding up foreign aid to Ukraine until he got a promise of an investigation into the Bidens from the Ukrainian president. And I could see the Chief Justice deciding that this trial shall not become a free-for-all of testimony that is not relevant to those specific charges. What Joe did with respect to Ukraine when he was Vice President may have been wrong, but it is not relevant to the question of whether or not Trump abused his power by the hold up of that foreign aid combined with the content of the phone call he made. Yes, they are two similar actions, but what Joe did is a matter of history, and all of the Senate already knows it.

So if the Chief Justice enforces a standard that all testimony must be strictly relevant to the charges, the Republicans could get embarrassed over and over again by trying to bring forth witnesses that the Chief Justice disqualifies, thereby chipping away at the credibility of the Republicans in front of the public. We must also remember that if Joe were to become a witness, Joe and the Democrats would argue passionately that what Joe did as Vice President was right - that what he did was fighting corruption in the Ukraine - which would do nothing to strengthen President Trump in the eyes of the public. They would try to turn Joe into "Saint Joe" in front of a gigantic audience, and, of course, the MSM would lap it up and promote the narrative.

This is what I meant by that old saying about having a great plan until the bullets start flying. Closely related to that is the danger of unintended consequences, another down side to taking a low road rather than a high road.

President Trump is going to be acquitted by the Senate regardless. Everybody knows that. So the real question for Republicans should be how they and the President come out of this in the eyes of the public. My argument is that if the Senate holds a very short trial - perhaps with no witnesses, just summary arguments from both sides - and then votes to acquit, this is safer and better. The Senate Republicans could simply stand on the opinion that these charges against the President were politically motivated and had so little credibility that a quick disposal of the charges was all they warranted. And they could talk about moving on for the good of America.

Personally, I think the Democrats would be happy if the Republicans draw out this trial. The longer, the better if you're a Democrat.

So there's some more for you to chew on.

Seth

 

The main thing the Republicans have going for them though are some really savvy lawyers. And if Trey Gowdy goes onto the President's defense team--there are rumors that this is the plan--the Republican lawyers with impeachment experience and Trey will almost certainly know how to dodge the land mines. That is my hope.

I have also read that the Democrat's witness, Fiona Hill, may have implicated John Roberts in a Ukraine matter and he may have to recuse himself. As there is no Constitutional provision for an 'acting' Chief Justice to preside over an impeachment trial, and if he had to step down for a new Chief Justice to be named, and Clarence Thomas replaced him, that would make it hugely interesting.

 

Trump funny Tweet...

---

A few days ago, a Hill reporter asked Pelosi...

"Question: "You yourself accused [Trump] of bribery. Why did you decide not to make bribery one of the articles of impeachment."
---

Trump just Tweeted this reply today, about a half hour ago...

---

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 27m27 minutes ago

Donald J. Trump Retweeted Mark Meadows

"Because Nancy’s teeth were falling out of her mouth, and she didn’t have time to think!"

----

Okay, I cringe a bit when he does stuff like that, before cracking up. His sense of humor is an acquired taste. As mean as people have been to him, I've started finding most of his insults and wisecracks acceptable.

 

So I googled around and found out what that's about. Justice Roberts oversees the FISA Court. This doesn't mean that he had anything to do with the FISA warrant, but the idea is that since he oversees that court, he is a "material witness", and a material witness cannot also be the judge. But it sounds like this is only relevant if the FISA warrant becomes part of the impeachment trial, and there is no reason why it should. It is irrelevant to the two Articles of Impeachment. So I don't think John Roberts is going to recuse himself, and nobody can make him recuse himself.

I agree with you that Trey Gowdy is a savvy and tough lawyer. Nevertheless, I'm going to stick with my position. I think a long drawn out process, with endless witnesses, both sides trying to score points, both sides tearing away at each other - in other words, a political food fight - is not good for President Trump. I still think it's risky. And, I think I speak for those who are sick of this whole thing and who want to move on as soon as possible. I just want the Senate to vote this thing away in a day, and I want the country to move on. Let's let Trump accomplish what he can for the country in the next 11 months, and let's let him put this behind him and go on the campaign trail.

I appreciate all of the confidence his supporters show on this forum that he will be reelected. In spite of the economy and the many other things he has done for our country in his time in office, I do not share that same confidence. I think that if just a few states are turned around for the Democrats, they win in 2020. Sorry to say, but I think he could lose. He won in 2016 by a lot of electoral votes, but they were credited by states where he won by the narrowest of margins. And, in 2020, the Democrats are going to energized. They took a Hillary win for granted in 2016, and voted third party, or didn't vote at all. I don't think that will be the case in 2020. They are going to turn out and vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is.

And so, I don't want to give them a long period of free air time, sanctimoniously pontificating about the impeachment trial. "Unintended consequences" are real. They always have been, and they could easily rear their heads again. I think the smartest thing to do is to look at those Articles of Impeachment and simply say they aren't worth the paper they're written on, vote for acquittal, and move on.

Seth

 

Why would the GOP want to get it over with quickly?
Why would the GOP not want to use this to their political advantage?

 

They could overplay their hand and look every bit as partisan as the Democrats have made themselves look. They will have the best end of the primacy-recency effect, with the Senate trial happening closer to the election. They can drag it out as long as they are not shutting out Democrats they same way that Republicans were shut out of the House Democrats proceedings.

Just depends on how they play their cards. A quick trial is less risky.

 

It was quite a week...

 

OK....
Is it a civil trial or a criminal trial?
What standards of evidence are in place?
Beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence?
Can jurors be dismissed for cause?

 

I've thought about the political environment that Trump has been subjected to, and I've often wondered how most of us would react to it. He is working for free- it's certainly not the money, and despite the daily barrage of insults and spite, he stays the course- and unlike all the presidents before him in my memory, tries to keep promises and get things done. He is performance oriented. I looked up his schedule one day (the white house does publish it) and every minute is booked. I'm a workaholic, and I have no idea how the man keeps up with all the things he has on the table- and has to deal with the jackasses on the left, the plots, the media trash all at the same time. There has never been a president like him.

And, Nancy Pelosi's dentures have fallen down on video before... I don't think Trump made that one up. I wonder how many of us would have called it or laughed at it coming from a person so interested in destroying us.

I suspect that many of us citizens, were we subjected to that- would tell them to shove the job and that they didn't deserve a great nation.

 

The logic of the Bern, pretty much the socialists who call themselves democrats too. Makes sense to the cats, I'll bet.

 

Let's just look at Trump's last week,
1. House approves USMCA
2. New Government budget including $1.3 billion for THE WALL
3. House approves a new branch of the military The Space Force.
4. Agreement on Government family leave progrram.
4. Tentative agreement on trade with China.
5. Approval of the 50th Federal Appeals judge, flipping the 9th circut from far leftie to moderate.
6. New FDA chief.
7. Wall Street sets a new record high.
8. Comey trips all over his dick on national television.

 

The dems will tell you Trump does nothing- (Orange Man Bad, always) because that's what they need people to think in order to level the playing field. It's not true; it's propaganda.

Something I find especially important is the family structure and traditional values that have been increasingly eroded by the growing liberal/progressive influence in the democratic party over the last 40 years, which has now risen to a dangerous level.

Trump understands this problem, and is working to improve and restore family strength and values. Here's some copy from the Dec 12 report on 1600 Daily. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600daily/)


President Trump is putting parents back in charge

Conservatives know that strong families are what make America thrive. They build up our neighborhoods, sustain our communities, pass down our values, and create a brighter future for every American citizen.

Yet for years, Washington has treated families as an afterthought—at best—and an outright barrier to “progress” at worst. President Donald J. Trump knows that bureaucrats shouldn’t have the final say in raising our kids. So from child care to school choice to paid family leave, the Trump Administration is putting parents back in control.

Today, President Trump and Ivanka Trump hosted a White House Summit on Child Care and Paid Family Leave. “Our goal is simple,” the President said. “We want to expand child care options and reduce unnecessary regulations so that parents can choose the best care for their children, including, and very importantly, in-home and faith-based care.”

After all, how families balance work and raising children is a deeply personal choice. Government’s mission should be to support parents as they make the best decision possible for their families, not to dictate a one-size-fits-all “solution” for every household.

That support begins with access to quality child care, both from safe providers and from parents themselves. “In more than 60 percent of American homes, both parents work,” President Trump said. “Yet many struggle to afford child care, which often costs more than $10,000 per year. And it’s devastating to families, frankly. Devastating.”

Help is on the way. In his State of the Union Address this February, President Trump called for Congress to pass paid family leave into law. One week ago, legislators introduced “very strong bipartisan legislation, Paid Family Leave legislation,” the President said today. “We were thrilled.”

This kind of support for working families has defined the Trump Administration’s economic and social agenda since day one:

• The President signed legislation last year securing historic funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which helps low-income families access quality child care programs.
• The Trump tax cuts included a new tax credit that incentivizes companies to offer paid family leave to their employees.
• The Administration worked with Congress to secure paid parental leave for all Federal employees as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
• The President’s tax cuts also doubled the child tax credit, benefitting more than 40 million American families with an average of over $2,200 apiece this year.

Without a booming economy, none of this progress would be possible. Last year alone, nearly 300,000 American families were lifted out of poverty. In that same period, more than 600,000 children being raised by single mothers were lifted from poverty, too.

“We have a chance to give all moms and dads the resources and support they need to succeed, thrive, flourish, prosper, and help their sons and daughters reach their amazing God-given potential,” President Trump said.

Funny how when the MSM quotes Trump- they never mention things like this. They only harvest information they can use abusively... which means they are lying to all their viewers, everyday.

 

It does not have to be a civil trial or criminal trial necessarily in order to be a legal proceeding. Mediation, grand juries, hearings, small claims courts, and formal trials all are legal processes with very different rules.

Probably the rules for civil and criminal trials will bear a lot of similarities and also a few variations among the 50 states each of whom set their own rules for that. But the jury does not provide its own opinion and analysis of evidence or present evidence during a civil or criminal trial. The Senate will argue the evidence or lack thereof and also serve as the judge and jury in an impeachment process. But it is absolutely a legal proceeding. The Chief Justice's role is not that of judge who will pronounce sentence, but rather the arbitrator ensuring both sides are fairly represented.

Ultimately the whole thing will ride on the integrity of Congress to follow the Constitution and its intent.

The standards of evidence for impeachment are set in the Constitution: the House 'arraigns' and the Senate determines whether the evidence rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. IMO the whole thing could be thrown out based on the fact that the Democrats have provided no evidence for any CRIME and that alone makes an impeachment bogus/invalid. But they haven't asked my opinion.

Ultimately I think they'll have to decide if the Republicans, being in the driver's seat in the Senate, can undo some of the damage done by Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, et al and restore integrity to the process by 'trying' the case and exonerating the President. Or if the President and nation are best served by just ending it with an vote to acquit based on evidence already presented.

 

Except that, unlike any other trial anywhere, the rules, and rulings of the judge, can be set and or/or overturned by a majority of the jury.

It is a 'trial' in that the Senate decides if the President is guilty of the charges sent over by the house, but in no other -- indeed, like we saw in 1998, the Senate can decide t he charges sent over by the house are invalid in that the actions taken by the President are not, in fact, impeachable.

 

Yet another record...

 

Nevertheless how the rules fall, it is a legal and legally binding process.

 

So now Schumer is saying he wants to subpoena Bolton and the President's Chief of Staff plus a bunch of documents, texts, emails, etc. If that is allowed it will be only the beginning, and it will turn into a sh-t show. This is what I was talking about. No thanks.

 

Trump mentioned he would follow McConnells lead on the senate side-and so it looks like he wants to wrap it up asap.

Sounds like the democrat clown car wants the exact opposite.

 

Democrats, how many people do you know that are worse off because Trump is president? Take your time...........keep thinking........no Hillary doesn't count...............I will wait..................nothing? ................................get back to me on that. In the meantime, enjoy your 401K gains, treat yourself to a nice meal, or a vacation, buy some good old American made goods, you know the ones not available under Obama....................and then get back to me.

 

Dems seem to know they are in for a rough 2020...

 

I'm still conflicted intellectually, but my gut is leaning toward keep it short, sweet, vote and dismiss.

I have been running a poll for a little over 2 hours now on Twitter.

If the House impeaches this week, can the Senate GOP undo some of the damage done by Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, et al by 'trying' the case and exonerating the Pres? Or is Pres. and nation best served by just ending it with an vote to acquit based on what has already been presented?

Poll options (right now 782 votes in cast mostly by right leaning folk):

Acquit with full trial - 58.1%
Just vote and dismiss - 41.9%
​

And those ratios have been slightly but steadily narrowing.
Quite a few haven't voted as they honestly don't know which way would be best for President Trump and the country.

 

Of course it does! The Democrat clown car would love to spend weeks in front of a national audience trashing the President, trashing Republicans, trashing the process, declaring the President guilty in all their interviews, opining on each witness, appearing on TV talk shows, and just generally getting a ton of free publicity, taking their shot at hurting Trump's reelection chances. That's what all this is about anyway, and I don't think we should accommodate them.

I think everybody knows everything they need to know about these charges. Let the House manager have 3 hours in the morning to use as he pleases. He can present witnesses and/or give a speech. Break for lunch. Then give 3 hours to Trump's side to do with as they please - a witness or two, a speech. And then at 4 pm, vote.