Schumer Slams McConnell's Proposed Senate Trial Rules: as Hell-Bent On Making It Much More Difficult (1 Viewer)

[sjmay]

Trump abused his office by coercing Ukraine into announcing a public investigation of the Bidens, something that would personally benefit him, in exchange for a variety of official U.S. government assets, acts, and services.



I think the case is pretty strong with respect to certain things. I think the case could be made stronger with respect to other things. It all depends on what kind of burden of proof you are trying to reach and what aspect of the case you're examining.

I also think it's not the House's fault that the President blocked important witnesses from testifying and there is nothing preventing Republicans in the Senate form helping this occur other than blind partisanship.



If you cared about revealing the truth of this matter, you would demand that witnesses who can provide first-hand testimony be compelled to testify during the Senate trial.

You don't care about revealing the truth of this matter. Just like the Republicans you want to cover it all up. You want to cover it all up because you are scared of what the witnesses will reveal because you suspect Trump is guilty just as everyone else suspects Trump is guilty.

I agree with you it's not the House's fault that the President blocked witnesses, however IT IS the House's fault that they did not PURSUE the remedy to obtain those witnesses.

As far as being scared, no, I don't care, that's the difference. I don't view it as some evil plot, the problem is, you take everything Trump says or does, and put it in the WORST light possible, EVERY time, you guys keep doing that and 2020 is gonna bite you in the ass just like 2016 did.

 

[sjmay]

BECAUSE A DIRECT WITNESS GIVES OPINION ON WHAT THEY WITNESSED DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE A DIRECT WITNESS.

hurr durr.

Again, just read the ****ing testimony, you are so far gone the rabbit hole with this you can't see the ****ing light....

 

[NWRatCon]

Or you could do what I did, read the testimony transcripts and realize that NONE of them were DIRECT witnesses....

I give up. I have no desire to continue to debate with a brick.

 

[sjmay]

I give up. I have no desire to continue to debate with a brick.

Well hell, you talk to yourself every day,

Here's the issue you have, you KNOW you don't have any direct witnesses, so you are crying about the defense, not helping the prosecution. OF those witnesses you DO HAVE, NOT ONE OF THEM have provided any proof to guilt, just thoughts and conjecture, you know this, but you also know that that's not enough for most people, so you invent **** up.

But yea, I'm the brick because I don't buy your bull****.

 

[Athanasius68]

Holy ****, you are pinning your hopes on that phone call....no wonder you think he's a DIRECT witness.....****ing hopeless....

You are going to lose this argument.

Ultimately, all that matters here is that the aid was released with no strings attached.

All these other guys have testified to is that they think Trump wanted to harm Biden.
Maybe they are right.
But even if it was true, it didn't actually happen. Aid was released; no investigation required.

Moreover, Trump didn't ask Zelensky to make things up about Biden- he mentioned factual statements made by Biden and factual activities by his son. And as president, Trump does have the responsibility to enforce the law.
Regardless as to whether he benefits from it.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Oh my. Look at which news channel is now showing the full video and audio of the impeachment hearing now that the president's lawyers are presenting. Very amusing.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I agree with you it's not the House's fault that the President blocked witnesses, however IT IS the House's fault that they did not PURSUE the remedy to obtain those witnesses.

Why isn't it Trump's fault for not doing the right thing and complying with the subpoenas?

As far as being scared, no, I don't care, that's the difference. I don't view it as some evil plot, the problem is, you take everything Trump says or does, and put it in the WORST light possible, EVERY time, you guys keep doing that and 2020 is gonna bite you in the ass just like 2016 did.

If you didn't care you'd be okay with the witnesses being called to testify.

Instead, you keep advancing the argument that witnesses who can provide DIRECT evidence, the evidence you keep demanding, not actually testify.

You are advancing a deceitful, disingenuous argument.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

But even if it was true, it didn't actually happen. Aid was released; no investigation required

It doesn't matter that the aid was eventually released, that's not the act of wrongdoing that is most important.

It's the threat to not release the aid, in pursuit of a personal benefit, that is the act of wrongdoing in question.

In doing so Trump abused the power and authority of the office of the President.

 

[Athanasius68]

It doesn't matter that the aid was eventually released, that's not the act of wrongdoing that is most important.

It's the threat to not release the aid, in pursuit of a personal benefit, that is the act of wrongdoing in question.

In doing so Trump abused the power and authority of the office of the President.

Enforcing the law is a job of the president.
Regardless whether the president benefits from it.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Enforcing the law is a job of the president.
Regardless whether the president benefits from it.

Except that is not what he did, and you know it, and you know I know you know it, but you still persist in trying to mislead me and everyone else. Why are you being deceitful? Why are you lying on behalf of Trump?

Yes, it is the President's job to enforce the law, and there is a process to do this that leads to the best outcomes in that respect, and a good indication Trump wasn't interested in enforcing the law is that he went around the usual process. To the best of our knowledge, there is still no investigation being done by either the FBI or the Senate with regard to Biden. There may be a reason for that. There is a logical, thoughtful, prudential process that investigators use to determine whether or not someone should be investigated, and whether or not investigations should continue, and whether or not there is enough evidence to justify the use of certain investigatory tools. There is no indication any of this was ever done. On the contrary, there is every indication that Trump tried to go around the usual process, disguise his actions has he undertook them, and then cover it all up when his plot was discovered. This is yet more evidence of his evil intent. In fact, the coverup continues to this day, and people like you assist in this coverup by advancing the argument that no further witnesses, witnesses who can provide direct, first-hand testimony should be allowed to appear before the Senate and testify during the Senate trial.

It may be true that the President was only interested in enforcing the law with respect to Joe Biden. I don't believe that, and I don't think you do either.

And, if it is true that Trump intended to use the law enforcement authority of the U.S. government to target his political rival in an upcoming election for his own personal benefit, he should be removed from office, even if Biden did something wrong, and even if there is sufficient evidence and a sufficient logical rationale to justify an investigation of Biden.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Oh my. Look at which news channel is now showing the full video and audio of the impeachment hearing now that the president's lawyers are presenting. Very amusing.

That’s because they made their case ONCE. Unlike the democrat house managers, they understand that repeating the same talking points and emotional commentary over and over , even with different people, just irritated people.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

You are going to lose this argument.

Ultimately, all that matters here is that the aid was released with no strings attached.

All these other guys have testified to is that they think Trump wanted to harm Biden.
Maybe they are right.
But even if it was true, it didn't actually happen. Aid was released; no investigation required.

Moreover, Trump didn't ask Zelensky to make things up about Biden- he mentioned factual statements made by Biden and factual activities by his son. And as president, Trump does have the responsibility to enforce the law.
Regardless as to whether he benefits from it.

They seem to not be aruding the facts but instead that these facts not be publicly exposed.

 

[NWRatCon]

That’s because they made their case ONCE. Unlike the democrat house managers, they understand that repeating the same talking points and emotional commentary over and over , even with different people, just irritated people.

So say those with the attention span of gnats.

 

[NWRatCon]

The two fundamental, and obviously fatal, flaws in all of the defenses of Trump's behavior is this: The President has obstructed all investigation of the process. That is Article 2 of the impeachment. It isn't denied. It isn't even seriously defended. He did not invoke privilege. He does not have a legal or constitutional basis for doing so. He did not temper his stonewalling in any way. Indeed, he put it in writing. That is enough.

But... Notwithstanding those efforts, enough evidence had been adduced to demonstrate untoward, and yes, even criminal, actions. Most of the excuses propounded don't even pass the laugh test, much less any legal or moral consideration. I'm particularly amused by the argument that "he didn't succeed" - so that makes it all okay. What utter, unmitigated, ****** hogwash. This is the friggin President if the United States, not some two-bit hustler (though he acts like one). If the standard for occupying that office is reduced to "he hasn't been convicted... yet", we're all ****ed, and deserve to be.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

As long as you understand what happened in Germany can't happen here -- we're good.

Have you ever read

​

If not, you should.

Heck, you can even get it for free on line and download it.

Unfortunately it does contain a lot of big words and doesn't contain very many pictures of scantily clad women so it is likely not to be very familiar to the members of "Claque Trump".

 

[MTAtech]

Enforcing the law is a job of the president.
Regardless whether the president benefits from it.

What he did was violate the law for his benefit. Quite a different thing.

 

[Athanasius68]

What he did was violate the law for his benefit. Quite a different thing.

Trump violated no law.
If he had, it would be front and center for the last month.

 

[Athanasius68]

[

QUOTE=W_Heisenberg;1071237716]Why isn't it Trump's fault for not doing the right thing and complying with the subpoenas?

Defending the office of the president and the concept of separation of powers is doing the right thing.
Why does Congress think their orders must be obeyed without question?

 

[joko104]

What he did was violate the law for his benefit. Quite a different thing.

Probably then they should have put that in their articles of impeachment.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

It doesn't matter that the aid was eventually released, that's not the act of wrongdoing that is most important.

It's the threat to not release the aid, in pursuit of a personal benefit, that is the act of wrongdoing in question.

In doing so Trump abused the power and authority of the office of the President.

So if the President did not threaten Zelensky then the Demas have no case?

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes, it is the President's job to enforce the law, and there is a process to do this that leads to the best outcomes in that respect,

He told Zelensky that he would have Barr coordinate with the relevant Ukranian officials.
That is the process.

and a good indication Trump wasn't interested in enforcing the law is that he went around the usual process.

There was no investigation.

To the best of our knowledge, there is still no investigation being done by either the FBI or the Senate with regard to Biden. There may be a reason for that.

Trump did not direct Barr to do so.

There is a logical, thoughtful, prudential process that investigators use to determine whether or not someone should be investigated, and whether or not investigations should continue, and whether or not there is enough evidence to justify the use of certain investigatory tools.

As we have learned from the Horowitz Report, that really isn't true.

There is no indication any of this was ever done. On the contrary, there is every indication that Trump tried to go around the usual process,

As there was no investigation, there was no process to go around.

I

n fact, the coverup continues to this day, and people like you assist in this coverup by advancing the argument that no further witnesses, witnesses who can provide direct, first-hand testimony should be allowed to appear before the Senate and testify during the Senate trial.

I am sort of indifferent about witnesses.
But if so, the Bidens must be some of the them.

It may be true that the President was only interested in enforcing the law with respect to Joe Biden. I don't believe that, and I don't think you do either.

Then that matter of opinion should be a question that should hashed out by me and you and tens of millions of other Americans over the course of the year and settled in November. It should not be settled by 100 Senators in February.

And, if it is true that Trump intended to use the law enforcement authority of the U.S. government to target his political rival in an upcoming election for his own personal benefit, he should be removed from office, even if Biden did something wrong, and even if there is sufficient evidence and a sufficient logical rationale to justify an investigation of Biden.

Then we should wonder why there are higher standards being applied to Mr. Trump than applied to Mr. Obama. After all, President Obama was well aware that his administration was investigating a presidential candidate and a president-elect. Did he support it? Did he direct it anyway? Why didn't he stop it? Did he perceive a political advantage in such an investigation? This is the logic of saying presidents should be impeached and removed for bad thoughts.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The two fundamental, and obviously fatal, flaws in all of the defenses of Trump's behavior is this: The President has obstructed all investigation of the process. That is Article 2 of the impeachment. It isn't denied. It isn't even seriously defended. He did not invoke privilege. He does not have a legal or constitutional basis for doing so. He did not temper his stonewalling in any way. Indeed, he put it in writing. That is enough.

But... Notwithstanding those efforts, enough evidence had been adduced to demonstrate untoward, and yes, even criminal, actions. Most of the excuses propounded don't even pass the laugh test, much less any legal or moral consideration. I'm particularly amused by the argument that "he didn't succeed" - so that makes it all okay. What utter, unmitigated, ****** hogwash. This is the friggin President if the United States, not some two-bit hustler (though he acts like one). If the standard for occupying that office is reduced to "he hasn't been convicted... yet", we're all ****ed, and deserve to be.

Reading between the lines (and with a little help from my friends) it appears that the following is the situation:

1. The "OUTS" realized that they had SOME case against "President IN".
   *
2. The "OUTS" realized that they were never going to be able to fully investigate the case that they had against "President IN".
   *
3. The "OUTS" realized that the "INS" were never going to allow for a full trial of "President IN" regardless of the case against "President IN" that the "OUTS" had compiled.
   *
4. The "OUTS" realized that they could make a lot of political headway by showing the American people that the "INS" were never going to allow a full trial of "President IN".
   *
5. The "OUTS" are, in the background, slowly accumulating even better evidence against "President IN".
   *
6. The "OUTS" are going to be releasing the evidence that they are slowly accumulating when it is most beneficial to them.
   *
7. The "OUTS" are also going to be making it quite clear that they would have been using the evidence that they have newly obtained much earlier BUT FOR the fact that they weren't able to obtain it earlier due to the machinations of "President IN" and the "INS".
   *
8. The "OUTS" believe that they can get as much (and possibly even more) political advantage by showing that "President IN" was actually guilty of the charges which the "INS" voted "President IN" to not be guilty of as they could have received had the "OUTS" actually have been successful in having "President IN" convicted and tossed out of office.
   *
9. The potential benefit to the "OUTS" of showing the American people that the "INS" voted to acquit "President IN" when "President IN" was actually guilty is enormous.
   *
   and
   *
10. Several people who are NOT a part of the internal power structure of the "OUTS" are going to make one hell of a lot of money when they publish their books that detail what they actually knew about what was happening and which they would have been more than willing to reveal had not "President IN" exerted pressure on them to keep quite about what they knew. (This last applies regardless of whether what those people reveal is favourable or unfavourable to "President IN".)

Given that there is always the possibility that my sources are not as good as they have been in the past, it is still something to think about - isn't it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump violated no law.
If he had, it would be front and center for the last month.

The position of the "republicans" (whatever that means) is quite simply:

1. The President cannot be impeached unless the President has committed (and been convicted for [and lost all possible appeals {regardless of how frivolous}]) a criminal act.
   *
   and
   *
2. The President cannot be indicted, tried, or convicted for committing a criminal act as long as the President is still the President.

The net result of that position is (effectively) "The President of the United States of America can NOT be impeached, REGARDLESS of what the President does or does not do.".

 

[Athanasius68]

The position of the "republicans" (whatever that means) is quite simply:

1. The President cannot be impeached unless the President has committed (and been convicted for [and lost all possible appeals {regardless of how frivolous}]) a criminal act.
   *
   and
   *
2. The President cannot be indicted, tried, or convicted for committing a criminal act as long as the President is still the President.

The net result of that position is (effectively) "The President of the United States of America can NOT be impeached, REGARDLESS of what the President does or does not do.".

Its a bad argument by Trump to say that a law must be broken to be impeached. But as impeachment is a political act, it certainly helps.

Otherwise, we are left with an abuse of power. And given that the power wasn't exercised (the aid was released, no investigation required) it continues to be difficult to argue that power was abused.
Which explains why we have all these stories and posts about how Trump is a rotten human being and how is 'enablers' are also rotten human beings ect ect ect. There is nothing else.

 

[mrdeltoid]

So say those with the attention span of gnats.

Clever. That really cuts deep. Oh my...….