• 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?

He did because we read his own words doing just that. That's why he won't let anyone testify. It could bury him.

I read his words too and there was no demand and no 'requirement' of any kind.
 
You weren't paying attention is all that this means.

If I'm wrong doesn't mean I'm lying. You're confusing me with Trump. But we agree that if the evidence at trial demonstrates that if Trump did what the articles accuse him off, he should be removed.
 
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.

How was our national security put at risk?
Where was the coercion?
What are you calling a sham?
 
Polls mean a lot when it comes to answering 'was he a political rival'. Your argument that the former Democratic VP, a declared presidential candidate, leading in the polls, doesn't become a political opponent until he is nominated, is absurd.
It's completely speculative.

There is no reason for the whistleblower to testify. He did his duty by filing the report with the IG. The IG then investigated and that's the basis. Then Democrats investigated and confirmed the crimes and a lot more.

There is a VERY good reason for the whistleblower to testify -- so we can hear the charges he alleges coming from his own mouth. Certainly a sitting president deserves that.
 
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.

If there's nothing to discover on Biden -- nothing changes. But if Biden actually did something wrong - then the President has no duty to skirt around the issue just because Biden might potentially be a political opponent one day.

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.


I agree Pence would be a disaster -- at least mostly. But, there doesn't appear to be a winnable case agaisnt the President in a trial so we likely won't have to worry about that.
 
It's completely speculative.

No, it's not. Biden was a top political opponent trump, and that's a fact. It's delusional to say he was't.

There is a VERY good reason for the whistleblower to testify -- so we can hear the charges he alleges coming from his own mouth. Certainly a sitting president deserves that.

There is zero reason for that and the president does not deserve it. He deserves to hear from the witnesses and evidence that he is denying to Congress. So do the American people.
 
If there's nothing to discover on Biden -- nothing changes. But if Biden actually did something wrong - then the President has no duty to skirt around the issue just because Biden might potentially be a political opponent one day.

Where's the probable cause Biden did anything wrong, and that the claim isn't a complete lie by trump?
 
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?

They haven't provided any defense. And any lame attempt they make moves when their bogus so called "defense" or excuse is proven to be bogus.

I can't believe these people are so dishonest and scummy that they continually make excuses for the obvious. These people IMO are unredeemable, on par with Taliban and ISIS
 
How was our national security put at risk?
Where was the coercion?
What are you calling a sham?

Protecting the sovereignity of nations by helping Ukraine oppose Russia's invasion helps the US national security. The coercion was withholding the aid Ukraine needed. The sham was the lie that there was a Biden crime needing investigation, and any excuse why the aid was withheld. Why don't you read once in a while and not need to ask such basic things?
 
Both articles of impeachment.

Which were passed by votes along party lines.

One would hope that when "evidence" is so overwhelming one's Party would not matter. The elected official should vote based on evidence.

My take, Senate will vote along Party lines with a few Republicans voting to impeach. There will not be enough votes to remove Trump. That will have to be done by the upcoming election.
 
Where's the probable cause Biden did anything wrong, and that the claim isn't a complete lie by trump?

How did Hunter wind up on the board of Barisma? and what sort of work did he do to earn a million dollar salary? You dont know and you dont care. Now if his name were Hunter Trump you would be in full meltdown mode.
 
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.


You may be right, however if they do not remove him that sets a precedent that his rediculous claim that a president has complete immunity.

That is tearing up the Constitution and turning our republic into a monarchy.

I hope these Republicans realize the importance of these proceedings...
 
They haven't provided any defense. And any lame attempt they make moves when their bogus so called "defense" or excuse is proven to be bogus.

I can't believe these people are so dishonest and scummy that they continually make excuses for the obvious. These people IMO are unredeemable, on par with Taliban and ISIS

A hateful rant culminating in an idiotic smear. Other than that, great post.
 
How did Hunter wind up on the board of Barisma? and what sort of work did he do to earn a million dollar salary? You dont know and you dont care. Now if his name were Hunter Trump you would be in full meltdown mode.

And you don't know either, so where does that leave us?
 
You may be right, however if they do not remove him that sets a precedent that his rediculous claim that a president has complete immunity.

That is tearing up the Constitution and turning our republic into a monarchy.

I hope these Republicans realize the importance of these proceedings...

I think its the wrong move not to remove him for obstruction of congress but i dont know about "precedent" being set it just is what it is and its what the system allows unforuntatley.
 
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


How did the Mueller report blow up?

It not only proved that not only did Russia interfere in our election, they did it with trumps blessings and assistance.

Not to mention the ten counts of obstruction that he will be charged with as soon as he leaves office...
 
That's not stating what happened. trump was NOT within his rights to withhold aid money. Biden WAS trump's political opponent at the time, polling as his #1 rival. The Democrats' accusations are completely and overwhelmingly proven.

He was absolutely within his right to withhold the aid.
Being a candidate for president does not immunize one against being investigated.

And of course, the aid was never was withheld, and Biden was never investigated.
 
No, it's not. Biden was a top political opponent trump, and that's a fact. It's delusional to say he was't.

Again, speculative, Biden will only become Trump's opponent if he wins the nomination.


There is zero reason for that and the president does not deserve it. He deserves to hear from the witnesses and evidence that he is denying to Congress. So do the American people.


Anyone who is accused has the right to face their accuser, but certainly a sitting president should have that right because he's in office as a result of the nation's election process, meaning he is the current "voice of the people."
 
Where's the probable cause Biden did anything wrong, and that the claim isn't a complete lie by trump?

From what I understand, Biden made the comment on video that he forced the firing of the prosecutor. If that's correct, it's highly suspicious because his son, Hunter, was being prosecuted at that time.
 
If I'm wrong doesn't mean I'm lying. You're confusing me with Trump. But we agree that if the evidence at trial demonstrates that if Trump did what the articles accuse him off, he should be removed.

Why should he be removed for thinking about something as opposed to actually doing it?
Kind of a low bar for impeachment and removal and seems to set a very bad precedent.
 
Back
Top Bottom