Legal experts summoned by Democrats call Trump actions impeachable

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

So you got nothing. Cant you find one legal scholar? That cant be difficult.

Was there not one testifying in front of congress? 
 

 

[Sujo]

15 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Was there not one testifying in front of congress? 
 

 

Yayyy. Got one. Though he didnt say what trump did was ok. Infact he said it wasnt. He did say it wasnt worthy of impeachment at this stage, and more evidence is needed. Evidnce that trump wont allow.

 

 

[J Town]

15 hours ago, Sujo said:

Yayyy. Got one. Though he didn't say what trump did was ok. In fact he said it wasn't. He did say it wasn't worthy of impeachment at this stage, and more evidence is needed. Evidence that trump wont allow.

The obstruction charge will stick. It's absolute - Trump has blocked 100% of subpoenaed documents and forbade all his staff from testifying. This was very important in the Nixon impeachment. Republican senators who will serve as jurors have started to gather and talk of a lesser punishment such as a censure. They know they can't lie their way completely out of Trump's crimes.

[JHolmesJr]

7 hours ago, candide said:

Where is it written in art 2 sec3 that a president is allowed to ask a foreign power to discredit a political opponent in the absence of any official investigation? Please cite an extract of the constitution that supports your claim!

 

This is why a senate trial is so important...now the whole world will see how Joe Biden reacts under legal cross examination....he fared rather poorly when confronted by a simple Iowan farmer.

[JHolmesJr]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Do I smell a push up contest in the making?

 

That's a fat...Jack!

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

This is why a senate trial is so important...now the whole world will see how Joe Biden reacts under legal cross examination....he fared rather poorly when confronted by a simple Iowan farmer.

Exactly. The problem for Dems is that it is obvious to even my cat that they set up a process which is blatantly unfair and political. No witnesses, no counsel, no prior discovery just a charge of do you have any evidence of wrong doing?  and no one puts their hands up.

The Senate should deny the Dems in like manner. Subpoena them all, ask Hunter what he did for those millions, get the Ukraine Prosecutor over to testify that he was about to investigate Burisma and ask Joe why he withheld aid to get him fired. Whatever happens POTUS will still be here Nov 2020 re-playing all that Dem circus in ads and will probably win.

[mogandave]

54 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yayyy. Got one. Though he didnt say what trump did was ok. Infact he said it wasnt. He did say it wasnt worthy of impeachment at this stage, and more evidence is needed. Evidnce that trump wont allow.

 

 

That was the one you said was a Republican, yes? You seem to care nothing about the truth. 
 

In any event, as we all seem to agree, impeachment is a political process, not a legal process, and as such the President can be impeached for anything, correct? 
 

 

[xylophone]

6 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Subpoena them all, ask Hunter what he did for those millions,

I see this quoted many times on various threads and wonder if some folks understand how things work in industry and commerce.

 

Worldwide there are examples of people being put in positions in companies and organisations/government where they have no experience about the company/organisation to which they are appointed.............I can give you some examples that I personally know of: –

– – Former Prime Minister appointed to the board of Chinese construction company in New Zealand, and she knows nothing whatsoever about construction!

– – Sarah Jessica Parker appointed a board member of a wine producer and although she probably drinks wine, I doubt very much whether she knows much about vineyard management and so on.

Could probably dig down and find many more, but the point is that some people are appointed to roles because of the contacts they have or the "general knowledge" they have, albeit not necessarily associated with the position to which they are appointed.

 

Government ministers in many countries would be in exactly the same position, so quite why folks are getting their knickers in a twist because of the Biden appointment, is beyond me.

[xylophone]

9 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Im reading that the Dems are planning to plunder the inconsequential and failed Mueller Report

for some articles of impeachment. A report whose wild theories were debunked and laid to rest.

 

I have never seen such a rudderless bunch of deep haters.

You mean the report which resulted in many of the trump inner circle being found guilty of lying and some of whom were jailed – – that report about wild theories??

[GroveHillWanderer]

20 hours ago, luckyluke said:

For Mr. Trump opposers everything he did, do, and will do is, no matter what, wrong. 

Except I presume if he would resign. 

I can't speak for anyone else but while I would probably call myself a 'Trump opposer' in general terms, I don't think everything he has ever done is wrong and as for what he will do, I'd have to see what he does first, before I could judge whether it's wrong or not.

[JHolmesJr]

6 minutes ago, xylophone said:

You mean the report which resulted in many of the trump inner circle being found guilty of lying and some of whom were jailed – – that report about wild theories??

 

I mean the report that was based on an investigation opened on false pretences.

Wait for IG Report on Mon.....and Durham. 

[xylophone]

11 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I mean the report that was based on an investigation opened on false pretences.

Wait for IG Report on Mon.....and Durham. 

Part of one and the same, I believe, but will wait to see what transpires from your suggestion.

 

Will also be interested to see what becomes of any investigation into the mystery phone calls between Giuliani and #1........... curiouser and curiouser!

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Exactly. The problem for Dems is that it is obvious to even my cat that they set up a process which is blatantly unfair and political. No witnesses, no counsel, no prior discovery just a charge of do you have any evidence of wrong doing?  and no one puts their hands up.

The Senate should deny the Dems in like manner. Subpoena them all, ask Hunter what he did for those millions, get the Ukraine Prosecutor over to testify that he was about to investigate Burisma and ask Joe why he withheld aid to get him fired. Whatever happens POTUS will still be here Nov 2020 re-playing all that Dem circus in ads and will probably win.

Senate repubs dont decide. Justice roberts decides who is allowed as witnesses.

 

The rest of your claims have been answered many times. Nothing there.

[roobaa01]

legal experts like this stanford university  woman are imo doubtful characters when being promoted by an institution close to dems as nominee for the us supreme court. this raises imo concerns about her as an impartial witness.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

I see this quoted many times on various threads and wonder if some folks understand how things work in industry and commerce.

 

Worldwide there are examples of people being put in positions in companies and organisations/government where they have no experience about the company/organisation to which they are appointed.............I can give you some examples that I personally know of: –

– – Former Prime Minister appointed to the board of Chinese construction company in New Zealand, and she knows nothing whatsoever about construction!

– – Sarah Jessica Parker appointed a board member of a wine producer and although she probably drinks wine, I doubt very much whether she knows much about vineyard management and so on.

Could probably dig down and find many more, but the point is that some people are appointed to roles because of the contacts they have or the "general knowledge" they have, albeit not necessarily associated with the position to which they are appointed.

 

Government ministers in many countries would be in exactly the same position, so quite why folks are getting their knickers in a twist because of the Biden appointment, is beyond me.

I can assure you I am VERY familiar how it works but it does not usually involve an ex officer booted out of the service for cocaine, who's Dad happens to be the VP, doesn't speak the language and adds NOTHING to any board. If this is 'beyond you' then you obviously join many others with selective judgement due to political bias.

[BobBKK]

56 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Senate repubs dont decide. Justice roberts decides who is allowed as witnesses.

 

The rest of your claims have been answered many times. Nothing there.

It is true that those answers have 'nothing there' so thank you for that honesty. Roll on the circus, FISA and the rest the Dems time is-a-comin.

 

PS you need to look up the role of Justice Roberts

[JCauto]

23 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

As impeachment is not a criminal process (which the anti trumpers like to say...and I agree), I prefer

not to refer to these charges as crimes.

 

Let us refer to them as grounds for impeachment...

 

And they are very flimsy...once we get Biden and son on the stand everyone will see exactly why Trump saw the 

Ukraine as shockingly corrupt...and was right to want to know what was going on.

Fair enough on the "grounds" versus "crimes".

 

I fail to see how they're "flimsy". If you don't mind, as you've been quite reasonable in both responding and doing so with some substance, would you answer these questions or provide your thoughts in another way pertaining to these issues?

1. If a President DOES use US Government resources as a lever to get another country to investigate a domestic political opponent, do you believe that is impeachable or that it should be allowed?

2. If you order your subordinates to not obey a legally-issued subpoena to testify, is that okay or are you allowed to do this and thereby prevent direct testimony in a congressional investigation or is it obstruction of justice?

3. Are you at all concerned about the precedents that would be established should Trump et al get away with refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, obstruction, dragooning foreign governments into helping investigate domestic political opponents, etc.? Because no doubt they would, leading to an endless cycle of highly partisan and illegal activity at the top of the political process.

 

As to the Bidens and Ukraine, forgive me if I am less than impressed especially given the numerous "nothingburgers" such as Benghazi, Hilary's e-mails, etc. Those were thoroughly investigated by a completely Republican-controlled congress and they laid how many charges? None, zero, zip, nada.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Senate repubs dont decide. Justice roberts decides who is allowed as witnesses.

 

The rest of your claims have been answered many times. Nothing there.

And John Roberts is on record as absolutely detesting partisanism especially in legal matters. I'll let you guess how he'll react to America's first ever 100% partisan political mumbo-jumbo secretive impeachment, which wasted years of Americans' time.

 

Betcha it won't end well for Democrats.

 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Justice Roberts, if I read the leaves correctly, will need to demonstrate that he is not biased.

As Biden is CENTRAL to this whole ruckus, it is vital that he testify under oath...so America can see

why his activities in Ukraine (now public due to his bragging on film) were of such concern to many

(except Dems, who already consider the matter investigated, debunked and closed...lol).

Biden is not central. Trump is. Bidens activities are not relevant to what trump did. Trump had legal ways to have him investigated, he didnt chose that way.

 

So as this is about what trump did, what evidence could biden give to help that investigation?

[Sujo]

All irrelevant.

 

but while youre at it, care to tell us the credentials of ivanka and jared?

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Biden is not central. Trump is. Bidens activities are not relevant to what trump did. Trump had legal ways to have him investigated, he didnt chose that way.

 

So as this is about what trump did, what evidence could biden give to help that investigation?

Exactly!

But you'll never convince that fact to 45 loyalists because Biden is central to their DIVERSIONARY tactics to deflect away from 45's blatantly obvious impeachable offenses!

[Sujo]

17 minutes ago, rabas said:

And John Roberts is on record as absolutely detesting partisanism especially in legal matters. I'll let you guess how he'll react to America's first ever 100% partisan political mumbo-jumbo secretive impeachment, which wasted years of Americans' time.

 

Betcha it won't end well for Democrats.

 

Secretive? You do know republicans where there.

 

if you want secretive look at the investigation stage of clinton. Totally secret.

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Biden is not central. Trump is. Bidens activities are not relevant to what trump did.

 

The public in general do not buy into this...they see it as a  BS notion.

Dems are going to have to tread carefully as one of their VIPs is now being 

seen as crooked....even though he angrily dusts off any attempt to draw him out.

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

Fair enough on the "grounds" versus "crimes".

 

I fail to see how they're "flimsy". If you don't mind, as you've been quite reasonable in both responding and doing so with some substance, would you answer these questions or provide your thoughts in another way pertaining to these issues?

1. If a President DOES use US Government resources as a lever to get another country to investigate a domestic political opponent, do you believe that is impeachable or that it should be allowed?

2. If you order your subordinates to not obey a legally-issued subpoena to testify, is that okay or are you allowed to do this and thereby prevent direct testimony in a congressional investigation or is it obstruction of justice?

3. Are you at all concerned about the precedents that would be established should Trump et al get away with refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, obstruction, dragooning foreign governments into helping investigate domestic political opponents, etc.? Because no doubt they would, leading to an endless cycle of highly partisan and illegal activity at the top of the political process.

 

As to the Bidens and Ukraine, forgive me if I am less than impressed especially given the numerous "nothingburgers" such as Benghazi, Hilary's e-mails, etc. Those were thoroughly investigated by a completely Republican-controlled congress and they laid how many charges? None, zero, zip, nada.

 

good....we'll let the senate decide that.

[candide]

18 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Art 2, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution empowers the President to investigate and ask for investigations of corruption in countries the US provide funds to.

 

(Regardless of who thinks its been investigated and debunked...LOL)

 

4 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

This is why a senate trial is so important...now the whole world will see how Joe Biden reacts under legal cross examination....he fared rather poorly when confronted by a simple Iowan farmer.

You made a very precise claim, can you please quote what in Art. 2 Sec.3 supports your claim that it authorised a president to ask a foreign government to discredit a political opponent in the absence of an official investigation?

[candide]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

And John Roberts is on record as absolutely detesting partisanism especially in legal matters. I'll let you guess how he'll react to America's first ever 100% partisan political mumbo-jumbo secretive impeachment, which wasted years of Americans' time.

 

Betcha it won't end well for Democrats.

 

I agree with your first sentence, and that's why this trial may not proceed in the way you dream.

Do you think Roberts will accept that the trial derails from its objective by becoming the Biden's trial?

Do you think Roberts will allow obstruction such as refusing to comply with subpoenas, I.e. refusing to testify or submit documents?

 

[roobaa01]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

 

You made a very precise claim, can you please quote what in Art. 2 Sec.3 supports your claim that it authorised a president to ask a foreign government to discredit a political opponent in the absence of an official investigation?

imo the president's concern about corruption thus guilliani is just in time in kiev to gather evidence which should debunk the dem charade. he will meet with mr. derkatsh ukrainian member of parliament, who claims to be possesing papers that evidently show biden wrongdoing.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[candide]

9 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

imo the president's concern about corruption thus guilliani is just in time in kiev to gather evidence which should debunk the dem charade. he will meet with mr. derkatsh ukrainian member of parliament, who claims to be possesing papers that evidently show biden wrongdoing.

 

wbr

roobaa01

So no quote from the constitution from you either.

As concerns Giuliani, it will not make his behaviour and Trump's behaviour more legal, as there is still no official investigation into Biden.

 

By the way, do you know that Derkash is pro-Russia? Not surprising, right?

"Among those with whom Giuliani has met is pro-Russian Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach, a former member of the Party of Regions, the political party of Ukraine's toppled pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. In recent weeks, Derkach has held a series of press conferences pushing unsupported theories attacking ousted U.S. Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch and leveling allegations without proof that Hunter Biden received corrupt payments. At the press conferences, Derkach has presented dubious documents that he has also frequently misrepresented."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment-marches-forward-washington/story?id=67519317

 

[Sujo]

42 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

good....we'll let the senate decide that.

Do you understand that he is asking you.

[JHolmesJr]

34 minutes ago, candide said:

 

You made a very precise claim, can you please quote what in Art. 2 Sec.3 supports your claim that it authorised a president to ask a foreign government to discredit a political opponent in the absence of an official investigation?

 

You can't shamelessly make up words as you go along.....we have all read the transcript....nowhere is there any request to discredit. manufacture dirt.....did you go to the Adam Schiff school of reading?