• 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!

Evidence of Trump's guilt in impeachment

M

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Democrats presented the Senate with what democrats assumed was an air-tight proven case for a guilty verdict. But was that assumption accurate?

The charges were based upon specific opinions about a specific phone call and specific opinions about the legality of Trump's methods of objecting to the allegations pertaining to that specific phone call. Here are pertinent facts about the case.

1. President Trump's call to President Zelenski in itself was not illegal.
2. President Trump did not actually openly request what his accusers claimed was a quid pro quo demand of Zelensky, but it was assumed by House managers that he secretly demanded investigations into Joe Biden for purely political gain.
3. Several American government employees were listening to the call and it can be assumed Trump was aware of their presence on the line when he made the call.
4. Only one listener became concerned about the call and leaked details about the call to various people who were not on the call listening in with him.

For Trump to be found guilty of obstruction in the call two things needed to be proved: That the phone call was a crime and that his objections to the process of establishing his guilt in the crime being discussed involved specific illegal actions.

What must be proven to interpret the phone call as a crime? Criminal motive and intent. What evidence did democrats present of Trump's criminal motive and intent?
1. Schiff paraphrased the content of the call in a way which left no doubt about the selfish intent by wording which was clear. However, Schiff's rendition of the call was clearly erroneous and pure fabrication, but it did show how democrats interpreted Trump's call according to what they assumed were his secret motives and intentions.

The democrats failed to prove they were correct in their assumptions about Trump's motives and intentions, but they impeached him anyway on a party line vote and sent that result to the Senate and then pressed Senators to keep questioning new witnesses in hopes of finally finding proof that their assumptions of Trump's motives were accurate.

Nobody should criticize US Senators for voting to acquit because democrats failed to prove democrat assumptions about Trump's secret motives.
 
Last edited:
How could democrats prove Trump secretly feared Joe Biden and wanted Zelensky to dig up dirt on him for his political benefit? They needed actual evidence showing Trump saying that or else they would be screwed. That is what they were hoping to get from new witnesses like Bolton, but they would have been disappointed because Bolton could not produce evidence of that sort even if he wanted to because Trump never said any such thing of the sort.

Democrats failed to prove Trump was thinking stupid thoughts like they were sure he was thinking, although they could not prove it. The Senate did the right thing and judged Trump NOT GUILTY!
 
marke said:
How could democrats prove Trump secretly feared Joe Biden and wanted Zelensky to dig up dirt on him for his political benefit? They needed actual evidence showing Trump saying that or else they would be screwed. That is what they were hoping to get from new witnesses like Bolton, but they would have been disappointed because Bolton could not produce evidence of that sort even if he wanted to because Trump never said any such thing of the sort.

Democrats failed to prove Trump was thinking stupid thoughts like they were sure he was thinking, although they could not prove it. The Senate did the right thing and judged Trump NOT GUILTY!
Click to expand...

Their problem was they thought everyone would submit to what Bill thought, what Sally thought, what Jimmy heard, what Trump was thinking.

So they paraded a bunch of idiotic bias witnesses thinking everyone else should make their assumptions based on hearsay testimony and how dare anyone question their findings.

I love watching idiots like Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and Schumer fail over and over.
 
Alan Dershowitz wrote a timely book on the emerging modern practice of establishing 'Guilt by Accusation, which is the title of his book. The House democrat managers impeached Trump on the basis of this new democrat doctrine. Trump was declared guilty by the democrats in the House on the basis of the fact that he was accused of attitudes (not a crime) that he did not adequately prove to them he did not have.

Of course that is not real law but dummass perversion of judgment and justice.
 
marke said:
Democrats presented the Senate with what democrats assumed was an air-tight proven case for a guilty verdict. But was that assumption accurate?

The charges were based upon specific opinions about a specific phone call and specific opinions about the legality of Trump's methods of objecting to the allegations pertaining to that specific phone call. Here are pertinent facts about the case.

1. President Trump's call to President Zelenski in itself was not illegal.
2. President Trump did not actually openly request what his accusers claimed was a quid pro quo demand of Zelensky, but it was assumed by House managers that he secretly demanded investigations into Joe Biden for purely political gain.
3. Several American government employees were listening to the call and it can be assumed Trump was aware of their presence on the line when he made the call.
4. Only one listener became concerned about the call and leaked details about the call to various people who were not on the call listening in with him.

For Trump to be found guilty of obstruction in the call two things needed to be proved: That the phone call was a crime and that his objections to the process of establishing his guilt in the crime being discussed involved specific illegal actions.

What must be proven to interpret the phone call as a crime? Criminal motive and intent. What evidence did democrats present of Trump's criminal motive and intent?
1. Schiff paraphrased the content of the call in a way which left no doubt about the selfish intent by wording which was clear. However, Schiff's rendition of the call was clearly erroneous and pure fabrication, but it did show how democrats interpreted Trump's call according to what they assumed were his secret motives and intentions.

The democrats failed to prove they were correct in their assumptions about Trump's motives and intentions, but they impeached him anyway on a party line vote and sent that result to the Senate and then pressed Senators to keep questioning new witnesses in hopes of finally finding proof that their assumptions of Trump's motives were accurate.

Nobody should criticize US Senators for voting to acquit because democrats failed to prove democrat assumptions about Trump's secret motives.
Click to expand...


It was pure political gamemanship.....the democrats only wishing to interfere in the election....that is what this was all about. It worked for them in the 2018 election and they regained the House with their faux russian collusiion narrative. Pelosi knew this was wholly partisan and that the Senate will acquit Trump...she knew this...yet continued, what for?....for political gain, that's all.
 
Now trump admits to the whole damn thing and the deplorables still say he is not guilty
 
marke said:
Democrats presented the Senate with what democrats assumed was an air-tight proven case for a guilty verdict. But was that assumption accurate?

The charges were based upon specific opinions about a specific phone call and specific opinions about the legality of Trump's methods of objecting to the allegations pertaining to that specific phone call. Here are pertinent facts about the case.

1. President Trump's call to President Zelenski in itself was not illegal.
2. President Trump did not actually openly request what his accusers claimed was a quid pro quo demand of Zelensky, but it was assumed by House managers that he secretly demanded investigations into Joe Biden for purely political gain.
3. Several American government employees were listening to the call and it can be assumed Trump was aware of their presence on the line when he made the call.
4. Only one listener became concerned about the call and leaked details about the call to various people who were not on the call listening in with him.

For Trump to be found guilty of obstruction in the call two things needed to be proved: That the phone call was a crime and that his objections to the process of establishing his guilt in the crime being discussed involved specific illegal actions.

What must be proven to interpret the phone call as a crime? Criminal motive and intent. What evidence did democrats present of Trump's criminal motive and intent?
1. Schiff paraphrased the content of the call in a way which left no doubt about the selfish intent by wording which was clear. However, Schiff's rendition of the call was clearly erroneous and pure fabrication, but it did show how democrats interpreted Trump's call according to what they assumed were his secret motives and intentions.

The democrats failed to prove they were correct in their assumptions about Trump's motives and intentions, but they impeached him anyway on a party line vote and sent that result to the Senate and then pressed Senators to keep questioning new witnesses in hopes of finally finding proof that their assumptions of Trump's motives were accurate.

Nobody should criticize US Senators for voting to acquit because democrats failed to prove democrat assumptions about Trump's secret motives.
Click to expand...
As usual, your argument reads like an ignorant 6th grader’s civics report.

Trump’s request of Zelensky to investigate Hunter/Joe Biden was highly inappropriate and motivated by his desire to damage the reputation of a potential political opponent.

The obstruction of Congress charge stemmed from Trump’s order to all departments not to cooperate in any way, shape, or form with Congresses lawful requests/subpoenas.
 
marke said:
How could democrats prove Trump secretly feared Joe Biden and wanted Zelensky to dig up dirt on him for his political benefit? They needed actual evidence showing Trump saying that or else they would be screwed. That is what they were hoping to get from new witnesses like Bolton, but they would have been disappointed because Bolton could not produce evidence of that sort even if he wanted to because Trump never said any such thing of the sort.

Democrats failed to prove Trump was thinking stupid thoughts like they were sure he was thinking, although they could not prove it. The Senate did the right thing and judged Trump NOT GUILTY!
Click to expand...
More ignorance. :2no4:

Trump wasn’t judged not guilty, he was acquitted. Acquitted and not guilty are not synonymous . Take time to learn what the hell you’re talking about before posting idiotic assertions.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
As usual, your argument reads like an ignorant 6th grader’s civics report.

Trump’s request of Zelensky to investigate Hunter/Joe Biden was highly inappropriate and motivated by his desire to damage the reputation of a potential political opponent.

The obstruction of Congress charge stemmed from Trump’s order to all departments not to cooperate in any way, shape, or form with Congresses lawful requests/subpoenas.
Click to expand...

You seem sure of Trump's motivation. Like I said, the House managers were having a heck of a time trying to prove that was Trump's motivation when he said nothing of that sort out loud to anyone. Nevertheless, they impeached him anyway due to his assumed guilt by accusation.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
More ignorance. :2no4:

Trump wasn’t judged not guilty, he was acquitted. Acquitted and not guilty are not synonymous . Take time to learn what the hell you’re talking about before posting idiotic assertions.
Click to expand...

For democrats who found Trump guilty by accusation "acquitted" has the same meaning as "guilty."
 
marke said:
You seem sure of Trump's motivation. Like I said, the House managers were having a heck of a time trying to prove that was Trump's motivation when he said nothing of that sort out loud to anyone. Nevertheless, they impeached him anyway due to his assumed guilt by accusation.
Click to expand...
What you’ve said is horse ****. Pure Trump worshipper’s horse ****.

Even without additional evidence Trump unlawfully prevented Dems access to, Schiff and his team absolutely proved Trump’s guilt on both counts.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
What you’ve said is horse ****. Pure Trump worshipper’s horse ****.

Even without additional evidence Trump unlawfully prevented Dems access to, Schiff and his team absolutely proved Trump’s guilt on both counts.
Click to expand...

Dumb democrat assessment: 'Schiff and team supposedly proved beyond doubt that Trump was guilty of secretly wanting Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden, even though Trump never actually said specifically and Zelensky never got that message. Nevertheless, Schiff and team took their 'ironclad proof' into the Senate and immediately began chiding the Senate for not furthering his investigation by calling new witnesses in search of proof that Trump secretly wanted what Schiff already supposedly proved beyond doubt that he wanted.'
 
marke said:
Dumb democrat assessment: 'Schiff and team supposedly proved beyond doubt that Trump was guilty of secretly wanting Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden, even though Trump never actually said specifically and Zelensky never got that message. Nevertheless, Schiff and team took their 'ironclad proof' into the Senate and immediately began chiding the Senate for not furthering his investigation by calling new witnesses in search of proof that Trump secretly wanted what Schiff already supposedly proved beyond doubt that he wanted.'
Click to expand...
More “perfect phone call” ridiculousness.

The phone call, itself, was just one part of Trump’s corrupt efforts. Witness statements, emails/texts and various documents also helped to prove Trump’s scheme.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
More ignorance. :2no4:

Trump wasn’t judged not guilty, he was acquitted. Acquitted and not guilty are not synonymous . Take time to learn what the hell you’re talking about before posting idiotic assertions.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Similarly in Scottish law there are three possible outcomes to a trial; 'not guilty', 'guilty' and 'not proven', which emphatically does not prove innocence; simply that insufficient evidence was provided to establish guilt or innocence either way. Guilty, but not proven in court.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
Indeed. Similarly in Scottish law there are three possible outcomes to a trial; 'not guilty', 'guilty' and 'not proven', which emphatically does not prove innocence; simply that insufficient evidence was provided to establish guilt or innocence either way.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should switch from using “acquitted” to “not proven” to aid the illiterate in understanding.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
More “perfect phone call” ridiculousness.

The phone call, itself, was just one part of Trump’s corrupt efforts. Witness statements, emails/texts and various documents also helped to prove Trump’s scheme.
Click to expand...

If witness statements already proved Trump's secret intent and alleged scheme then why was Schiff complaining to Senators because they offered no help in assembling new witnesses and evidence not investigated in the House in hopes of uncovering more evidence to further 'prove' partisan democrats were right in their assumptions about Trump's alleged secret motives?
 
marke said:
Democrats presented the Senate with what democrats assumed was an air-tight proven case for a guilty verdict. But was that assumption accurate?

The charges were based upon specific opinions about a specific phone call and specific opinions about the legality of Trump's methods of objecting to the allegations pertaining to that specific phone call. Here are pertinent facts about the case.

1. President Trump's call to President Zelenski in itself was not illegal.
2. President Trump did not actually openly request what his accusers claimed was a quid pro quo demand of Zelensky, but it was assumed by House managers that he secretly demanded investigations into Joe Biden for purely political gain.
3. Several American government employees were listening to the call and it can be assumed Trump was aware of their presence on the line when he made the call.
4. Only one listener became concerned about the call and leaked details about the call to various people who were not on the call listening in with him.

For Trump to be found guilty of obstruction in the call two things needed to be proved: That the phone call was a crime and that his objections to the process of establishing his guilt in the crime being discussed involved specific illegal actions.

What must be proven to interpret the phone call as a crime? Criminal motive and intent. What evidence did democrats present of Trump's criminal motive and intent?
1. Schiff paraphrased the content of the call in a way which left no doubt about the selfish intent by wording which was clear. However, Schiff's rendition of the call was clearly erroneous and pure fabrication, but it did show how democrats interpreted Trump's call according to what they assumed were his secret motives and intentions.

The democrats failed to prove they were correct in their assumptions about Trump's motives and intentions, but they impeached him anyway on a party line vote and sent that result to the Senate and then pressed Senators to keep questioning new witnesses in hopes of finally finding proof that their assumptions of Trump's motives were accurate.

Nobody should criticize US Senators for voting to acquit because democrats failed to prove democrat assumptions about Trump's secret motives.
Click to expand...

What's with the quid pro quo accusation, anyway? Trump's tariffs are quid pro quos. The deal the Obama administration made with Iran was a quid pro quo. The Treaty of Versailles made after the first world war which the US participated in as a member of the allies was a quid pro quo. Further restrictions would be placed on Germany if it didn't comply with the points of the treaty.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Maybe we should switch from using “acquitted” to “not proven” to aid the illiterate in understanding.
Click to expand...

Mebe you (and Mueller) should acquaint yourselves with due process.:roll:
 
marke said:
If witness statements already proved Trump's secret intent and alleged scheme then why was Schiff complaining to Senators because they offered no help in assembling new witnesses and evidence not investigated in the House in hopes of uncovering more evidence to further 'prove' partisan democrats were right in their assumptions about Trump's alleged secret motives?
Click to expand...
Congress wanted the administration to follow the law in providing witnesses and documentation as part of the impeachment process. Though they had enough evidence to prove Trump’s guilt without the cooperation of administration officials, house managers were obliged by their duty to gather/present all possible evidence, to request the Senate’s help in compelling the release of lawfully subpoenaed documents and witnesses.
 
marke said:
If witness statements already proved Trump's secret intent and alleged scheme then why was Schiff complaining to Senators because they offered no help in assembling new witnesses and evidence not investigated in the House in hopes of uncovering more evidence to further 'prove' partisan democrats were right in their assumptions about Trump's alleged secret motives?
Click to expand...

Because these dems already think Trump a cheat, liar, guilty and worse. Heck, dems have this bogus website (PolitiFact) which specifies a multitude of Trump lies.:roll:
 
cabse5 said:
Mebe you (and Mueller) should acquaint yourselves with due process.:roll:
Click to expand...
You’re lost, as usual. Mueller has nothing to do with the impeachment.
 
rickc said:
Now trump admits to the whole damn thing and the deplorables still say he is not guilty
Click to expand...

Whatever Trump has admitted he has admitted all along and what he said did not involve criminal behavior.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
As usual, your argument reads like an ignorant 6th grader’s civics report.

Trump’s request of Zelensky to investigate Hunter/Joe Biden was highly inappropriate and motivated by his desire to damage the reputation of a potential political opponent.

The obstruction of Congress charge stemmed from Trump’s order to all departments not to cooperate in any way, shape, or form with Congresses lawful requests/subpoenas.
Click to expand...

Just because democrats have been travelling the globe trying to keep America, Ukraine and other nations from investigating Burisma does not mean Trump sinned by asking Zelensky to help American investigators look into the crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom