Trump

[RegisterMe]

I'm watching the Senate "questioning" at the moment, and there's one thing that bothers me / annoys me (perhaps because I'm a distant, ignorant, Brit). When the questions are presented to Chief Justice Roberts, the Senator's name is made clear (/ their names are made clear). Which party they represent is not. It makes it harder for me to parse what is going on .

EDIT: Because it isn't always GoP Senators asking questions of Dem lawyers / House managers, just as it isn't always Dem Senators asking questions of GoP lawyers etc.

[RegisterMe]

To my eyes Patrick Philbin is far and away the most effective lawyer speaking for President Trump.

I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say (or the conclusions he wants you to draw), but in terms of legal play, he's good.

[Mightysword]

I'm watching the Senate "questioning" at the moment, and there's one thing that bothers me / annoys me (perhaps because I'm a distant, ignorant, Brit). When the questions are presented to Chief Justice Roberts, the Senator's name is made clear (/ their names are made clear). Which party they represent is not. It makes it harder for me to parse what is going on .

EDIT: Because it isn't always GoP Senators asking questions of Dem lawyers / House managers, just as it isn't always Dem Senators asking questions of GoP lawyers etc.

While that ommission may mean something to the spectator, it should not (or supposed to not) matter to a judge.

[Vertigo 7]

She did a good job if you just take what she says at face value. As soon as I heard her say "The UK serious fraud office investigated..." - no, they did not investigate Biden. She mentions then without saying what they were doing, as it'd undermine her mentioning of them. "Politics". Mainly BS though.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -complaint

You probably shouldn't read that. Even if you do, you won't believe it - doesn't fit the narrative.

So as soon as she's putting the UK Fraud Office as a reason why it's "legitimate concerns about Biden so you shouldn't look at what Trump did because legit concern", and then read what they were actually doing, you may go "erm, why is she listing this?". At this point I should admit, I stopped watching a minute later. There was so much stuff to have to search to actually see what she's referring to, but the first was obvious smoke and mirrors.

Should I watch the rest? Why? It's not going to change your opinion if I find it all codswallop smoke and mirrors, so why spend my time. Just leave it to cong... wait, they're Republican majority so it really makes zero odds. I've got to clip my toe nails, and the outcome of that is actually tangible. Contributions here won't change anything. I mean, it's 720 pages long. Nowt changed

It's the same game the sycophants have been playing since the start. Trump gets accused of a crime, they counter by accusing someone else of a crime, and with out any factual basis to back it. It's all smoke and mirrors to rile up stupid people that want to believe their Orange Overlord is nothing but a victim and he can do no wrong. They're playing to the ignorant and the base swallows it up, hook, line, and sinker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvQ77JP8nw

[RegisterMe]

I'm watching the Senate "questioning" at the moment, and there's one thing that bothers me / annoys me (perhaps because I'm a distant, ignorant, Brit). When the questions are presented to Chief Justice Roberts, the Senator's name is made clear (/ their names are made clear). Which party they represent is not. It makes it harder for me to parse what is going on .

EDIT: Because it isn't always GoP Senators asking questions of Dem lawyers / House managers, just as it isn't always Dem Senators asking questions of GoP lawyers etc.

While that ommission may mean something to the spectator, it should not (or supposed to not) matter to a judge.

That's a very good point and one that I hadn't considered.

[Vertigo 7]

So Dershowitless argued that a President seeking reelection believes it's in the public interest to be reelected and what a president does in support of reelection can't be a crime since it's in the public interest. By that logic, a candidate can do anything, such as executing anyone who would vote against them/run against them, or filling a ballot box with fake votes, or pay off electors, etc. etc.

[Vertigo 7]

Trump's wall met it's match... wind. And then a tunnel was found well below the wall... https://crooksandliars.com/2020/01/new- ... good-trump

Nice to see such an effective use of tax payer money.

[willat]

Isn't there a transcript that shows what was said on the call? I mean, who cares what other people think Trump was thinking? It's like looking for your car keys, finding them, then ignoring the fact that you found them and continue looking, because you won't believe that you found them.

[Masterbagger]

Isn't there a transcript that shows what was said on the call? I mean, who cares what other people think Trump was thinking? It's like looking for your car keys, finding them, then ignoring the fact that you found them and continue looking, because you won't believe that you found them.

This was orchestrated well before it went public. Ciaramella went to Schiff before making a whistleblower complaint. The dems knew in advance what was going to come out and had already had already constructed a quid pro quo narrative. They were already committed when the transcript appeared days later and refused to back down. They know about it and had to change their accusations from quid pro quo, bribery, extortion or whatever to abuse of power. If you view the whole thing as a means to attack Trump then it starts making sense why they would cling to an accusation refuted by the evidence. They hate him badly enough to impeach him using lies.

[Observe]

They hate him badly enough to impeach him using lies.

All the more reason for witnesses and any other documentation available. I should think you would be all for a fair and complete trial. That way, if Trump is acquitted, there will be no reason for Dem's to call foul. If something is unearthed that causes a guilty outcome, then presumably everyone would be happy to see Trump go.

[Vertigo 7]

It's the same game the sycophants have been playing since the start. Trump gets accused of a crime, they counter by accusing someone else of a crime, and with out any factual basis to back it. It's all smoke and mirrors to rile up stupid people that want to believe their Orange Overlord is nothing but a victim and he can do no wrong. They're playing to the ignorant and the base swallows it up, hook, line, and sinker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvQ77JP8nw

^

[Vertigo 7]

Isn't there a transcript that shows what was said on the call? I mean, who cares what other people think Trump was thinking? It's like looking for your car keys, finding them, then ignoring the fact that you found them and continue looking, because you won't believe that you found them.

I'll give you the non tin foil hat wearer's explanation.

Facts of the case are fairly straight forward. What we know Trump did without being mind controlled by the democrats:

• A) illegally froze military aide to Ukraine
  B) used said freeze to attempt to pressure Ukraine to investigating Russian spawned conspiracies about Biden and Clinton
  C) Try to hide all of said actions by:
  • 1) hiding the whistle blower's complaint until congress got wind of it and demanded it be released to them
    2) ordered all executive branch personnel to not cooperate with any congressional investigation/subpoenas

The problem is that the senate has a majority controlled by Trump sycophants. They don't want to hear what Trump did or didn't do. They just want to bow before their master and tell him how great and wonderful he is. So the Trump lawyers are distracting the idiots by doing the "But Obummerz!" and "But Bidenz!" dance and throwing out the occasional misdirect to things that will never be verified by anyone in the senate. They'll try to claim Trump only had the purist of motives if he did do the things he's charged with. And Trump will get on Twitter and continue to vilify the press and democrats and everyone else that speaks out against him like the Hitler wanna be that he is.

It's amazing though. Still, no one has yet to say even once that Trump would never do these things because it's not in his character to do it.

[Observe]

Still, no one has yet to say even once that Trump would never do these things because it's not in his character to do it.

LOL. Good point!

[Mightysword]

They hate him badly enough to impeach him using lies.

All the more reason for witnesses and any other documentation available. I should think you would be all for a fair and complete trial. That way, if Trump is acquitted, there will be no reason for Dem's to call foul. If something is unearthed that causes a guilty outcome, then presumably everyone would be happy to see Trump go.

Except that will be not how it work, 101% and we both know it. It doesn't matter if there is no reason, because there is never need for a reason. These kinds of thing are always dressed up as "in the interest of the public" and while there might be a fraction of truth in that, at the core they are driven by political agenda and contest. (Read: Kenvenaugh's hearing). I can't remember one single instance in all the hearing/trial similar to this where one party would simply accept their defeat with grace the way you're suggesting. It's already decided for each side even before it started the one and only outcome each of them will accept, and that also goes for their respective supporter no matter what the result is. This is simply a political calculus where each run their number and crunch out whether they want to drag it out or end it quickly. It's more like the case whether a celebrity would decide to go to court for lengthy legal battle or pay settlement regardless of their guilt. We American of all people in the world should be the most familiar with that kind of game, let's not try to pretend this is anything but.

[Vertigo 7]

They hate him badly enough to impeach him using lies.

All the more reason for witnesses and any other documentation available. I should think you would be all for a fair and complete trial. That way, if Trump is acquitted, there will be no reason for Dem's to call foul. If something is unearthed that causes a guilty outcome, then presumably everyone would be happy to see Trump go.

Except that will be not how it work, 101% and we both know it. It doesn't matter if there is no reason, because there is never need for a reason. These kinds of thing are always dressed up as "in the interest of the public" and while there might be a fraction of truth in that, at the core they are driven by political agenda and contest. (Read: Kenvenaugh's hearing). I can't remember one single instance in all the hearing/trial similar to this where one party would simply accept their defeat with grace the way you're suggesting. It's already decided for each side even before it started the one and only outcome each of them will accept, and that also goes for their respective supporter no matter what the result is. This is simply a political calculus where each run their number and crunch out whether they want to drag it out or end it quickly. It's more like the case whether a celebrity would decide to go to court for lengthy legal battle or pay settlement regardless of their guilt. We American of all people in the world should be the most familiar with that kind of game, let's not try to pretend this is anything but.

Can't remember, eh? How about Nixon? He got caught, he knew it, he resigned. Want something more recent? Rep Chris Collins (R-NY), charged with insider trading. Denied it, at first, then plead guilty and resigned. Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA), all kinds of corruption charges. Tried the Trump style "Dems are out to get me! Fake news!" defense, failed, plead guilty, and resigned.

[Mightysword]

Can't remember, eh? How about Nixon? He got caught, he knew it, he resigned. Want something more recent? Rep Chris Collins (R-NY), charged with insider trading. Denied it, at first, then plead guilty and resigned. Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA), all kinds of corruption charges. Tried the Trump style "Dems are out to get me! Fake news!" defense, failed, plead guilty, and resigned.

Except none of those case can be described as remotely an "argument"? Nixon was a slam dunk case. The only one trying to defend Duncan was himself, seeing it was Paul Ryan that gave him the first boots out of the committee and his own constituent wanted him out? Like ... they are not even remotely similar.

Whether cases like this you see two sides - both politicians and supporters - entrench and dig in on their objective. I ask since when something like this had ended up with one side gracefully accept the outcome that is not in their favor? Yeah, can't remember any.

[Vertigo 7]

Can't remember, eh? How about Nixon? He got caught, he knew it, he resigned. Want something more recent? Rep Chris Collins (R-NY), charged with insider trading. Denied it, at first, then plead guilty and resigned. Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA), all kinds of corruption charges. Tried the Trump style "Dems are out to get me! Fake news!" defense, failed, plead guilty, and resigned.

Except none of those case can be described as remotely an "argument"? Nixon was a slam dunk case. The only one trying to defend Duncan was himself, seeing it was Paul Ryan that gave him the first boots out of the committee and his own constituent wanted him out? Like ... they are not even remotely similar.

Whether cases like this you see two sides - both politicians and supporters - entrench and dig in on their objective. I ask since when something like this had ended up with one side gracefully accept the outcome that is not in their favor? Yeah, can't remember any.

Are you kidding? Nixon came out of the gate swinging that it was all conspiracy concocted by democrats. The same shit he said and what Trump has said are practically word for word mirrors of each other, including "If the president does it, it can't be illegal", and even back then Republicans were hesitant to believe their president did anything wrong. They were ready to defend him to their dying breath, that is, until, they had no choice but to listen to the evidence. There's the biggest difference between then and now. Trumpanzies refuse to listen to any evidence. Even the more recent cases, it wasn't until the former reps were presented with the evidence against them that they said "ohh... yeah... i did it", they were still doing their damndest to make out that they were being falsely accused by some wild democrat conspiracy. And in all 3 cases, they had the grace to accept defeat and resign.

[fiksal]

Do I recall correctly that Nixon wasnt removed from office? So the Senate trial was a failure? Like this one will be.

[Vertigo 7]

Do I recall correctly that Nixon wasnt removed from office? So the Senate trial was a failure? Like this one will be.

The trial never started. After the investigations were concluded, Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on. But in that case, the republicans stopped defending him after the recordings were reviewed. There was no way he was going to survive being impeached at that point.

[Mightysword]

Do I recall correctly that Nixon wasnt removed from office? So the Senate trial was a failure? Like this one will be.

There wasn't a need for one. Which is why I don't consider them to be similar, at least from my pov.

@Vertigo 7: it seems you are aggressively trying to force and drag everyone and any argument into a guilty/not-guilty debate and I'll respect that wish of yours. However you're doing it with the wrong person, I'm not one to drag into that argument. Unlike you, I don't believe Trump is already guilty. But also unlike the others you are arguing with (i.e Masterbarger), I don't care about professionalizing Trump's innocent either. If the Democrat manage to find Trump guilty and indict him, hey more power to them, maybe they can convince some more neutral to not vote for him in 10 months, you ain't gonna see me arguing for it. If Republican manage to acquit Trump, then more power to them too, they got to shut down another circuit, and does it early this time, but you ain't gonna see me cheering either.

And that's because I'm not invested in these politically filled and tilted events. Of all the shows that were filmed and cast the last 4 years, only the Kevenaugh's hearing that I was personally vested in. This one will go to the same trash bin that the Clinton's investigation, the Russian collusion, the Muller report, the "probable cause" report are for me. I was talking about something different when I quoted Observe.