Trump's Defenders: What would it Take?

[Twilight Hue]

Trouble is there is absolutely no evidence of any of Trump's alleged wrong doings.

That's the bottom line.

There's no cover up.

Trump has been open all along.

There's been no law broken because the Socialist Democrats can't even specifically cite a single one thats on the books. Just the imaginary ones they pluck out of their heads.

None. Na da...

 

[Nakosis]

The House has passed how many bills now that are stalled in the GOP controlled Senate? Didn't McConnell say he was going to be the Grim Reaper?

Against progressive bills. So perhaps a more moderate approach?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's the bottom line.

There's no cover up.

Trump has been open all along.

There's been no law broken because the Socialist Democrats can't even specifically cite a single one thats on the books. Just the imaginary ones they pluck out of their heads.

None. Na da...

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of congress. That’s like a trifecta for Trump.

Of those, I think only contempt of Congress is a crime. I believe it’s a felony and probably the most easily probable crime since the WH is openly obstructing the investigation and defying subpoenas.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Trouble is there is absolutely no evidence of any of Trump's alleged wrong doings.

I’m very confused by this. What evidence would you expect there to be if he did what he was accused of doing, other than the facts we have about the aid, the transcript, and the testimony of witnesses?

Is there some kind of quid pro quo “gun” that matches the quid pro quo bullet casings at the scene? We’re you expecting a photograph or fingerprints of quid pro quo? Jeez.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why don't you tell us what impeachable offense the hearings have uncovered?

Well, I'm not the jury in this case, so I can only discuss those things that may be impeachable. That they are or are not is not up to me. However, Neal Katya, former Acting Solicitor General of the US, lays them out thus:

1. Abusing the public trust by soliciting interference in the 2020 presidential election.
2. Abusing the public trust be engaging in bribery -- repeatedly -- through his quid pro quo exchanges with President Zelensky of Ukraine.
3. Abusing the public trust by obstruction of justice in the investigations of his conduct, adopting an unconstitutional view of executive power.

And to my way of thinking, these things have been substantiated by the testimony in the House committee last week.

And indeed, while the Republicans on the committee have tried to deflate some of these, by claiming that the money voted by Congress to the Ukraine was paid, timing plays a clear role in such proceedings, and it is very clear to me that the money was NOT released until AFTER the White House knew for certain that there was a whistleblower investigation in progress. ("Ooops!, they're onto us, hide the evidence!") And no White House visit has been granted to Zelensky. And both of these were the items on the table while Ukraine was being asked for that little favour of announcing, publicly, that it was investigating -- not "corruption in general" but rather, two members of the Biden family, Trump's then-chief competitor in the next election.

 

[BSM1]

I’m very confused by this. What evidence would you expect there to be if he did what he was accused of doing, other than the facts we have about the aid, the transcript, and the testimony of witnesses?

Is there some kind of quid pro quo “gun” that matches the quid pro quo bullet casings at the scene? We’re you expecting a photograph or fingerprints of quid pro quo? Jeez.

Well, I'm not the jury in this case, so I can only discuss those things that may be impeachable. That they are or are not is not up to me. However, Neal Katya, former Acting Solicitor General of the US, lays them out thus:

1. Abusing the public trust by soliciting interference in the 2020 presidential election.
2. Abusing the public trust be engaging in bribery -- repeatedly -- through his quid pro quo exchanges with President Zelensky of Ukraine.
3. Abusing the public trust by obstruction of justice in the investigations of his conduct, adopting an unconstitutional view of executive power.

And to my way of thinking, these things have been substantiated by the testimony in the House committee last week.

And indeed, while the Republicans on the committee have tried to deflate some of these, by claiming that the money voted by Congress to the Ukraine was paid, timing plays a clear role in such proceedings, and it is very clear to me that the money was NOT released until AFTER the White House knew for certain that there was a whistleblower investigation in progress. ("Ooops!, they're onto us, hide the evidence!") And no White House visit has been granted to Zelensky. And both of these were the items on the table while Ukraine was being asked for that little favour of announcing, publicly, that it was investigating -- not "corruption in general" but rather, two members of the Biden family, Trump's then-chief competitor in the next election.

So you really have nothing substantial.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So you really have nothing substantial.

You dodged my questions. If you just want to assert your disagreement with others and not engage in a debate that’s cool, but, this is a debate forum.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you really have nothing substantial.

I get it. That's how you see it. That's not how I see it. This is often true, when we consider things in which we have an emotional investment, as I suspect we both do. I see enough there to cause me great concern -- you don't. But you and I are not the jurors. One day (say, the election of 2020) you will be and I won't, but only of how those contesting elections comported themselves.

But this has always been true. I know of juries that have convicted totally innocent people, and I know of juries that have exonerated the obviously guilty. You probably do, too, or could easily find out. That's the system. We live with it, because we don't know what else to do about it.

In this case, the decision whether or not to vote articles of impeachment lies with the jurors specifically in the House of Representatives. The judges, who will decide (if it comes to it) to convict are the members of the Senate. All of those people, in both houses -- just like you and I -- have to use their best judgment. Or, should they choose, they can vote on partisan lines and ignore anything or everything they don't care for. Juries can do that, too, and judges really have no power to overrule what a jury decides, after all the evidence is presented and the jury is instructed.

We humans, we try hard (or I think we do), but boy, do we ever screw it up sometimes. And I don't see us getting better.

The one thing I will say, though, having been a loner all my life, and not "aligned" politically with any party, is that I will never let partisan loyalty override my better judgment. I'm the same way with religion, and I'm the same way with social "norms."

 

[sooda]

Well, I'm not the jury in this case, so I can only discuss those things that may be impeachable. That they are or are not is not up to me. However, Neal Katya, former Acting Solicitor General of the US, lays them out thus:

1. Abusing the public trust by soliciting interference in the 2020 presidential election.
2. Abusing the public trust be engaging in bribery -- repeatedly -- through his quid pro quo exchanges with President Zelensky of Ukraine.
3. Abusing the public trust by obstruction of justice in the investigations of his conduct, adopting an unconstitutional view of executive power.

And to my way of thinking, these things have been substantiated by the testimony in the House committee last week.

And indeed, while the Republicans on the committee have tried to deflate some of these, by claiming that the money voted by Congress to the Ukraine was paid, timing plays a clear role in such proceedings, and it is very clear to me that the money was NOT released until AFTER the White House knew for certain that there was a whistleblower investigation in progress. ("Ooops!, they're onto us, hide the evidence!") And no White House visit has been granted to Zelensky. And both of these were the items on the table while Ukraine was being asked for that little favour of announcing, publicly, that it was investigating -- not "corruption in general" but rather, two members of the Biden family, Trump's then-chief competitor in the next election.

Trump told the people of the US who he was in one of his early campaign speeches.. He was being clever and probably know one under 70 got it.

Trump: `You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.”

 

[Twilight Hue]

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of congress. That’s like a trifecta for Trump.

Of those, I think only contempt of Congress is a crime. I believe it’s a felony and probably the most easily probable crime since the WH is openly obstructing the investigation and defying subpoenas.

Nixon is a poor example. Trump is nothing like Nixon.

If he was , where is the equivalent of the tapes and where is the cover-up?

Trump has been open and obviously spoken his mind on the matter , and he's pretty transparent about it. He isn't hiding anything.

Nixon on the other hand tried to cover up everything. Tell me exactly what Trump has hidden? And exactly what precise law did Trump break?

The only obstruction I see here is the socialist Democrats interfering with his job as president of the United States. Maybe it's time to investigate the investigators.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nixon is a poor example. Trump is nothing like Nixon.

I agree Trump is very different from Nixon. Trump is a fool and Nixon was highly intelligent and competent (as corrupt as he was), for one. But that is not the point.

The point is, you said “there has been no law broken” but as the articles of impeachment against Nixon show, there need not be a law broken - e.g. abuse of power, and obstruction. Unless you disagree with the impeachment of Nixon - do you?

To me this makes sense, because there needs to be a political remedy for a president who abuses his power like a king like Trump, who violates the spirit of the oath of office and acts in his own interest contrary to the interests of the United States, perhaps in new and unexpected ways that no one thought to make a law against (as Bob Woodward commented). It’s a political not a legal / criminal remedy, and that is why it requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove him from office. It’s not a jury of his peers selected by the prosecution and defense in the usual way, in a courtroom, and they are not voting to send him to jail.

So, to be clear, are you saying only felonies are impeachable offenses? If so, do you disagree with the articles of impeachment against Nixon since they weren’t all felonies?

If he was , where is the equivalent of the tapes and where is the cover-up?

Well again he is very different from Nixon, I agree with you there. Nixon was cunning and his crimes were carefully premeditated.

Trump is a fool whose crimes are more like when a drunk is guilty of public indecency and disturbing the peace - unplanned, irrational, shameless, unnecessary and ultimately, self destructive.

I would not expect to find tapes where he masterfully expounds his villainous plan to shake down Ukraine and cover his tracks. He is neither a “very stable genius”, nor an evil genius, nor any kind of genius. He’s more like the drunk being arrested on the show COPS, who has the right to remain silent but just can’t shut up, and sort of admits to the crimes even while claiming innocence and whining about how unfairly he’s being treated.

In short, Trump would be incapable of the kind of crimes and conspiracies that Nixon almost pulled off. His only advantage is he commits his crimes in plain sight and nearly admits to them, which to the gullible, can be disarming.

Trump has been open and obviously spoken his mind on the matter , and he's pretty transparent about it. He isn't hiding anything.

He is hiding why he held up the aid - he’s just really, really bad at it. The aid was held up without explanation - except the one we all know - and was similarly released without explanation.

Now I will grant you, while it’s not always easy to decipher what the hell Trump is saying - if he’s saying anything - you could argue that he has in fact admitted why the aid was held up. He did that in the recent live Fox and Friends interview and in other instances, and in releasing the transcript of the call with Zelensky. But this admission doesn’t help Trumps case. Except, of course, that by committing wrongdoing in plain sight Trump is able to disarm the gullible half of this country.

Trump is like a bank robber who says yeah, I was there ... I made a withdrawal, so what?

Nixon on the other hand tried to cover up everything. Tell me exactly what Trump has hidden? And exactly what precise law did Trump break?

If he’s not hiding anything he should stop trying to prevent his staff from obeying lawful subpoenas. Contempt of Congress is a felony. Why don’t he and Mulvaney testify under oath and clear all this up for us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Kind of a moot point. I could ask you the same question, basically. what would it take for you to admit that Adam Schiff and his cohorts are trying their best to overthrow an election and unseat a duly elected President?

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to remove duly elected presidents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nixon is a poor example. Trump is nothing like Nixon.

If he was , where is the equivalent of the tapes and where is the cover-up?

Trump has been open and obviously spoken his mind on the matter , and he's pretty transparent about it. He isn't hiding anything.

Nixon on the other hand tried to cover up everything. Tell me exactly what Trump has hidden? And exactly what precise law did Trump break?

The only obstruction I see here is the socialist Democrats interfering with his job as president of the United States. Maybe it's time to investigate the investigators.

The Mueller investigation found many cases of obstruction of justice.

That aside, I think that Trump is too stupid and too unethical to see that what he did was wrong, and he keeps firing advisors who try to give him good advice.

 

[BSM1]

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to remove duly elected presidents.

No one is arguing that point.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree Trump is very different from Nixon. Trump is a fool and Nixon was highly intelligent and competent.....

Odd....
I remember him being described as a "low potential high achiever" back in the day.

 

[Jollybear]

Thanks.

So the main argument I was hearing from the President’s defenders, prior to the televised hearings, was that there was a lack of convincing EVIDENCE that Trump did the things the whistleblower accused him of doing.

It sounds like your argument is very different from that. You aren’t disputing what he did or claiming there’s a lack of evidence. You are saying sure, he did it, and it was “noble”.

Is that correct? Just want to make sure I understand because this seems to be one of TWO very different arguments defending the President on this issue.

No, no, no, your misunderstanding the whole point.

The reality is this. Trump DID ask a favor from the ukraine president. FACT.

Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT.

Trump wanted other countries to help ukraine. FACT.

The aid to ukraine was released. FACT.

Trump did say to sondland "i want no quid pro qoe. Tell zelinski i want nothing. Do the right thing." Paraphrase from memory. FACT.

All the "witness testimony" hearings all in unison admitted they had no evidence trump did wrong when they wer asked if they had evidence. FACT.

All the witnesses also admitted the bidens had the appearence of a conflict of interest with ukrain/burisma. FACT.

Now, those things HAPPENED.

What im telling you is, if hypothetically those things did not happen, like the aid was NOT released and trump DEMANDED a quid pro qoe, im saying that would have STILL NOT been wrong.

 

[sooda]

Nixon is a poor example. Trump is nothing like Nixon.

If he was , where is the equivalent of the tapes and where is the cover-up?

Trump has been open and obviously spoken his mind on the matter , and he's pretty transparent about it. He isn't hiding anything.

Nixon on the other hand tried to cover up everything. Tell me exactly what Trump has hidden? And exactly what precise law did Trump break?

The only obstruction I see here is the socialist Democrats interfering with his job as president of the United States. Maybe it's time to investigate the investigators.

Step back and look at it again. The Trump gang wanted one more big hit.. They know the have just a small window to walk away with 100 million a piece.

All these lies and contradictions are about taking control of Naftagaz.. They had to first get rid of Biden and the US Ambassadors to Russia and the US.

 

[sooda]

No, no, no, your misunderstanding the whole point.

The reality is this. Trump DID ask a favor from the ukraine president. FACT.


Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT.

Trump wanted other countries to help ukraine. FACT.

The aid to ukraine was released. FACT.

Trump did say to sondland "i want no quid pro qoe. Tell zelinski i want nothing. Do the right thing." Paraphrase from memory. FACT.

All the "witness testimony" hearings all in unison admitted they had no evidence trump did wrong when they wer asked if they had evidence. FACT.

All the witnesses also admitted the bidens had the appearence of a conflict of interest with ukrain/burisma. FACT.

Now, those things HAPPENED.

What im telling you is, if hypothetically those things did not happen, like the aid was NOT released and trump DEMANDED a quid pro qoe, im saying that would have STILL NOT been wrong.

Ignore what they said.. Pay attention to what they did. Rick Perry may still have a smidgen of conscience about their failed attempt at screwing over the US taxpayer and the Ukraine.

Guess you noticed that the Russian money launderers from Mira Lago will plead the 5th.

 

[fantome profane]

Trump DID ask a favor from the ukraine president. FACT.

Trump did not DEMAND what he asked. FACT.

Just like a guy holding a knife to my throat would politely ask for my wallet.

 

[Jollybear]

Just like a guy holding a knife to my throat would politely ask for my wallet.

Very poor analogy.

The reality is, the "WALLET" is already in trumps pocket (i.e. the aid) and it never BELONGED to ukraine. It was a gift.

Terrible analogy. Stupid matter of fact.

Care to try again?

Here, ill give you an analogy.

A homeless person comes up to me on the street and asks for money. I say ill buy you food, i wont give you money. The guy says hed rather money. I say no, take my offer or not. Thats my conditions. He says yes. I buy him food. We part ways.

That analogy is more like it!