When assessing Trump’s guilt or innocence...

Who knows.... maybe he'll be more careful this time and not leave the incriminating part like he did the last time. Or maybe he'll leave the facts in and give us even more proof of his crime.

It doesn't matter much at this point. There is enough evidence that Trump is guilty. The question now is just how to present it in a way that people who don't follow politics understands it.

 

If the Trumpies are willing to share the truth with Americans, Mulvaney will testify under oath concerning who ordered him and any discussion concerning it. If they think that they need to hide it from the American people, they will try to hide the truth.

 

They have that choice......so why waste the people's money and time with things they make up?

 

If I recall all Democrats (except two) voted for this latest inquisition. Guess they weren't honorable. Just like the whistleblowers lawyer said in 2017. "The coup began then"!!

 

That is why you can make your mouth say anything it wants to. I just want to hold you accountable (and I will)

 

You obviously didn't read the last one .

 

Are you so naive as to believe that there is anyone in this impeachment process that doesn't have an axe to grind?

 

FEC investigates campaigns all the time, regardless of the President.

Obama Paid Largest FEC Campaign Finance Fine Ever

 

and they started grinding in 2016 instead of doing what they were sent to Washington to do. Why do we even have them?

 

I have to say, that's really a beautiful answer that really gets to the question you were trying to have answered at the beginning of the OP. What you described were a series of excuses to avoid making a judgement that you would have zero trouble making if the President was named Trump instead of Obama. I like the DACA example because in terms of statutory law and the constitution, it's pretty clear cut that the President had no authority to create the program, which was actually Obama's position right up until the point he decided (correctly) that he could do it and get away with it.

So in other words, your biases prevent you from reaching the fairly obvious and correct conclusion. So to answer your question, since you can't fairly assess guilt or innocence when your personal politics is involved, probably few others can either.

It's not a slam, but don't worry about the mote in someone else's eye when you have a board in yours. You seem like you are close to recognizing your own bias, but you are not there yet.

 

The exposition of truth that will be televised this week, as Congressional representatives fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, is integral to American values, but also risks, by its public nature, being made into the "freak show" or "circus" about which Trey Gowdy warned.

The President's dignified, restrained observance of the workings of democracy will be an example to all patriotic Americans that the nation's values take precedent over petty, personal ambition.

If the Cry Baby, who is mesmerized by tv, throws a tweety tantrump, that will be most unfortunate.

​

 

Prove this accusation. Prove all of the witnesses that testified are lying.

 

Go for it! I've heard that before. But none delivered. I think the main problem is that they didn't pay enough attention to my sig.

I'm sure you'll do better, though.

 

You only hear the witnesses agenda driven Democrats have called. You only hear testimony "they" want to share. There is so much more to the complete story. In fact, the complete story is found in the transcript. The money was given, and no favors done. Now the story left uncovered is Joe Biden overturned an investigation into his sons dealings by with holding threatening to with hold funds. I've seen it on tape so don't deny it. Why was Bidens son paid millions of dollars to oversee something he had no knowledge about?? There was some pay for play going on their initiated by a former executive officer. That is corruption at it's finest.

 

I'm calling you into account if Donald Trump is not removed from office prior to 2020. You won't bet, and you'll be making up other things by then.

 

No.

 

Then why should only one side be excluded from the investigation if all are tainted?

 

Constitutional law is a mater of interpretation which will be influenced (or biased) by the readers political allegiances (if any). Partisans will always interpret the Constitution in a way that is beneficial to furthering a political agenda. As for Trump I remain neutral to the question of if he has committed a crime as once again I am not a Constitutional scholar nor a legal expert. You are wrong about my alleged bias as I remain neutral when it comes to judging Trump, Obama, Clinton or the Biden's in terms of whether they did or did not violate U.S. law as I am not an expert on such matters and when I listen to the experts they cannot agree. Those with a bias are the ones that jump to a conclusion previous to a conviction. The are two courts, government run courts and the court of public opinion, the latter is riddled with bias so I do not place much value in it.

While I have my opinions as to whether Trump did something wrong or not (by my measure), those are just my opinions, I do not argue them as fact, they may be wrong and certainly are not legally binding. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, but his innocence has been predetermined by Senate republicans thus the Senate vote is simply going through the motions. With that said his guilt was determined long ago by rank and file democrats so they are no better than the republicans.

 

It is not one sided. Republicans are involved in the investigative process too. When it comes to the judging phase republicans hold all the cards that matter in that they get to decide if Trump is guilty or not and we all know how the Senate republicans will vote. Trump has nothing to worry about as he is thoroughly protected by party loyalists.

 

Still doesn't and shouldn't give the Dems the right to try to stack the deck thereby pollutting the 'witness' pool - the American people.

 

No idea what that has to do with me. I don't know if he'll be removed by 2020. I haven't even claimed that he'll be remove on 2020. So you're debating with yourself.

Again: Read my sig!!!

 

It's OK, I've already figured you out, you've exposed yourself.

 

That’s an awful lot of words to type just to say you can’t support your claim.

 

You don't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that he is guilty of anything, in in the absence of that, we are presumed innocent.

Why in the world would anyone with a brain view him as guilty of a statutory crime when his opponents can't even list the CFR number he is suspected of violating.

Guilty of WHAT statutory crime? You seem to be arguing that you don't like him, and that that is a "crime".

 

I agree just as it is wrong for the republicans to allow Trump to investigate a political adversary. I call out both sides for their overt bias.