• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trumps defense?

GDViking said:
With all the evidence against him and more coming out every day what could trumps lawyers possibly be planning to try to defend him?

Or are they just assuming the fix is in?
Click to expand...

They are assuming the fix is in of course and it is :shrug:
people can debate the forign stuff all they want but theres no debating the obstruction of congress. Its only the fix and feelings that will stop his removal, no biggie, it is what it is.
 
j brown's body said:
However, the evidence, by his own words, is clear. He's guilty. But like he said with regard to killing the Iranian general, "it doesn't matter." And with his hold over the Republican Party, that is the case.
Click to expand...

This supposed evidence of guilt you claim to have convinced not a single republican to your side in the House and has not lessened Trumps support among republican one iota. Your side needs to do a far better job of making its case because you cant simply rely upon mindless liberals if you want Trump removed.
 
Craig234 said:
It's more than an assumption, but yes, they have no defense and will simply make false attacks on Democrats and count on Republicans to be dishonest.

The evidence is overwhelming. And too many voters are dishonest as well and are ignoring it.
Click to expand...

you may want to look at the real national polling

this is over....has been for weeks now....the only people who either havent figured that out, or havent accepted reality are the diehard anti trumpers who so much want him gone from office

this like Mueller has blown up in the democrats faces....and all that is left is to clean up the mess made and see what the fallout will be
 
j brown's body said:
If risking our national security by coercing a foreign leader to participate in a sham in order to aid him in an election doesn't make a president unfit for the office, then nothing does.
Click to expand...

The foreign leader wasnt 'coerced' to do anything.
 
Piglet said:
I really think that's what will happen. At present, Biden's only political opponents are the ones who shared the stage with him last night at the debate. He may never be Trump's opponent.

And we can't tie a sitting president's hands when it comes to potential corruption of a former administration, no matter who the president is and who was in the former administration. I think Pelosi knows that, which is why she filed the articles she filed, rather than anything alleging quid pro quo.

This was a political move, and I'd be willing to bet the House impeaches Trump again in his next term (if he wins), perhaps more than once. And, presidents from now on will likely be impeached by the opposing party. It doesn't bode well for our nation, but it's probably here to stay.
Click to expand...

This is terribly naive. The Republican Senate had already refused to consider a Democratic president's nominee to the Supreme Court. And Republicans talked about impeaching Clinton if she had won the 2016 election, so you are way late to this party. The damage has already been done.

Pelosi's statement that Congress had no choice but to impeach is a fair one. They can't stand by idley while the president uses foreign policy to coerce corruption in his poltical favor.

Beyond that, under normal circumstances, impeaching a president and removing him from office just means the vice oresident takes over, so the balance of power stays the same. However, in this case, where the president hold the party in the palm of his hand, where, in essence, he is the party, his removal would mean a chaotic free fall for the party because a President Pence would be a disaster.
 
GDViking said:
With all the evidence against him and more coming out every day what could trumps lawyers possibly be planning to try to defend him?

Or are they just assuming the fix is in?
Click to expand...

When the jury has publicly stated they're going to acquit you regardless of what happens during the trial, no defense is needed. His defense is "The Republican party won't let me be convicted".
 
Fletch said:
The foreign leader wasnt 'coerced' to do anything.
Click to expand...

He was required to announce a sham investigation into his political opponent and an investigation into a discredited conspiracy theory in order to get allocated foreign aid and a visit to the White House.
 
Fletch said:
This supposed evidence of guilt you claim to have convinced not a single republican to your side in the House and has not lessened Trumps support among republican one iota. Your side needs to do a far better job of making its case because you cant simply rely upon mindless liberals if you want Trump removed.
Click to expand...

This is kind of a dodge. Republicans fear Trump. They have seen him destroy the political careers of those who have not fallen into line. Beyond that, the party is nothing without him. As you point out, his high approval rating within the party makes holding him accountable virtually impossible.

What's your excuse?
 
j brown's body said:
He was required to announce a sham investigation into his political opponent and an investigation into a discredited conspiracy theory in order to get allocated foreign aid and a visit to the White House.
Click to expand...

He wasnt 'required' to do anything either. How do we know? Because he never did it.
 
Mycroft said:
After that sham House "inquiry", everyone already knew it was fixed...before anyone even talked about the Senate.
Click to expand...

Why not request direct witness testiminy and documentation to expose the sham?

Because you know it serve to prove him guilty.
 
Fletch said:
He wasnt 'required' to do anything either. How do we know? Because he never did it.
Click to expand...

He did because we read his own words doing just that. That's why he won't let anyone testify. It could bury him.
 
j brown's body said:
This is kind of a dodge. Republicans fear Trump. They have seen him destroy the political careers of those who have not fallen into line. Beyond that, the party is nothing without him. As you point out, his high approval rating within the party makes holding him accountable virtually impossible.

What's your excuse?
Click to expand...

They dont fear him, they fear losing his support and if you want him removed, you have to convince the typical republican voter. You failed because your side turned this into yet another partisan attack on the guy. His support among the right is strong because they support what he is doing and see the left as too radical and stupid to put in power. Trumps real strength is unacceptability of his radical, hate-filled opponents. The left is unhinged and unworthy of power. Their recent cheer leading for Iran is the best evidence of that to date.
 
j brown's body said:
Why not request direct witness testiminy and documentation to expose the sham?

Because you know it serve to prove him guilty.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the House should release ALL the secret testimony they have first. Let's see what THEY are hiding.

Sorry, but if Congress wants anything from Trump they'll have to go to court to get it.

The President doesn't have to give up his rights just because someone wants to make **** up about him.
 
j brown's body said:
He did because we read his own words doing just that. That's why he won't let anyone testify. It could bury him.
Click to expand...

Lots of people testified and you guys claimed it was enough to impeach him. If it was enough for the House to impeach, its enough for the Senate to render its verdict. But as we both know, it wasnt enough and now you are trying to get the Senate to do the work the House should have done. If Boltons testimony is so vital, then dems in the House should have waited to hear from him before impeaching Trump. The House is essentially the prosecution. And here you have the prosecution bringing indictments to trial without hearing from any of the supposed key witnesses. Nor do they have any idea what they might say. Your side didnt do their job and now you are going to blame the senate for not doing the Houses job. This is not a serious event because your side didnt take it seriously. They shoved through partisan articles without proper investigation and are now demanding that the Senate be non-partisan and do the investigating for them. Its a joke and that is why you have no buy-in from the right.
 
j brown's body said:
This is kind of a dodge. Republicans fear Trump. They have seen him destroy the political careers of those who have not fallen into line. Beyond that, the party is nothing without him. As you point out, his high approval rating within the party makes holding him accountable virtually impossible.

What's your excuse?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

Who's political career has Trump destroyed?
 
Oborosen said:
Evidence of what exactly, would anything considered a crime be on that list?
Click to expand...

How many times does this have to be said for it to sink in?

About the worst thing a President can do is turn his enormous official power from the benefit of the country to the benefit of himself, in this case his political benefit in blocking an act of Congress to gain an advantage over a rival. It is the kind of abuse of office the Founders worried about. The evidence shows that this is what Trump did.
 
Each Democrat and Republican Congressman and Senator bases their actions on one primary factor. and iit's not whether Trump abused his power or obstructed justice or any of that. It's will this get me re-elected?
 
GDViking said:
High "CRIMES" and misdemeanors...

This all was covered in eight grade civics, how is this so far over your head???
Click to expand...

Then what crimes did he commit, come on. You have the information, so you should be able to easily just put it in simple terms right here.

Because as it stands nothing has actually been established, nor has any crime been shown to have occurred.
 
JackA said:
How many times does this have to be said for it to sink in?

About the worst thing a President can do is turn his enormous official power from the benefit of the country to the benefit of himself, in this case his political benefit in blocking an act of Congress to gain an advantage over a rival. It is the kind of abuse of office the Founders worried about. The evidence shows that this is what Trump did.
Click to expand...

No such evidence was given, nor was such an action on his part even established.

How many times does that have to be said for it to sink in?
 
JackA said:
How many times does this have to be said for it to sink in?

About the worst thing a President can do is turn his enormous official power from the benefit of the country to the benefit of himself, in this case his political benefit in blocking an act of Congress to gain an advantage over a rival. It is the kind of abuse of office the Founders worried about. The evidence shows that this is what Trump did.
Click to expand...

The same could have been said for Obama's "bending" of federal immigration law to create DAPA/DACA with no congressional action. Obviously, Trump's "abuse of power" resulted in nothing but a delay in foreign aid to Ukraine while Obama's "abuse of power" continues to serve as the law of the land.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The same could have been said for Obama's "bending" of federal immigration law to create DAPA/DACA with no congressional action. Obviously, Trump's "abuse of power" resulted in nothing but a delay in foreign aid to Ukraine while Obama's "abuse of power" continues to serve as the law of the land.
Click to expand...

The differences between the two are absurdly obvious for anyone willing to see it.
 
Oborosen said:
No such evidence was given, nor was such an action on his part even established.

How many times does that have to be said for it to sink in?
Click to expand...

Just his own words.
 
Oborosen said:
No such evidence was given, nor was such an action on his part even established.

How many times does that have to be said for it to sink in?
Click to expand...

You weren't paying attention is all that this means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom