• 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

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
20,025
Reaction score
12,035
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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?
 
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...

All this "evidence" wouldn't get a person convicted of jaywalking, so I don't think Trump is worried too much about "defense".
 
Mycroft said:
All this "evidence" wouldn't get a person convicted of jaywalking, so I don't think Trump is worried too much about "defense".
Click to expand...


Oh he's very worried thanks to Pelosis delay the public is far more aware of Moscow Michs plan for a sham trial.

Polls are far to high for witnesses and documents that if they are not produced everyone will know it was fixed as McConnell said it would be.
 
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...

Evidence of what exactly, would anything considered a crime be on that list?
 
His defense is that it was a perfect call, there was no quid pro quo, that quid pro quos happen all the time, that he just wants Europe to pay more, that he's a well-known fighter of corruption , that he does these corrupt things all the time so its okay and that he never did it at all.
 
j brown's body said:
His defense is that it was a perfect call, there was no quid pro quo, that quid pro quos happen all the time, that he just wants Europe to pay more, that he's a well-known fighter of corruption , that he does these corrupt things all the time so its okay and that he never did it at all.
Click to expand...

I hope you see now, why no one is really at risk of taking you seriously in all of this.
 
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...



I think they'll probably just state what's happened - Trump was within his rights to ask Ukraine's leader to investigate the situation with Biden and his son. Trump was within his rights to withhold aid money. Biden was not Trump's political opponent at the time -- he still isn't and may never be -- so the democrats accusations are baseless.
 
Oborosen said:
Then you're just saying that he's committed no crime, nor is he being charged with one.
Click to expand...


High "CRIMES" and misdemeanors...

This all was covered in eight grade civics, how is this so far over your head???
 
j brown's body said:
His defense is that it was a perfect call, there was no quid pro quo, that quid pro quos happen all the time, that he just wants Europe to pay more, that he's a well-known fighter of corruption , that he does these corrupt things all the time so its okay and that he never did it at all.
Click to expand...
:applaud:applaud:applaud

Thank you for the laugh before I try to go to sleep!!!
 
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...

There is no evidence against him. The only evidence uncovered during the house hearings was that Trump wanted NO quid pro quo. The rest of the Schiff / Nadler show was nothing more than a bunch of people giving their buttsore opinions and third hand conversations. I especially got a kick out the attack on Trumps underage son during "unbiased" testimony. She hated Trump so bad she couldn't help herself from attacking his child...other than that she wasn't biased at all. I'd buy a couple boxes of kleenex, you're going to need them when the Senate flushes this.
 
Piglet said:
I think they'll probably just state what's happened - Trump was within his rights to ask Ukraine's leader to investigate the situation with Biden and his son. Trump was within his rights to withhold aid money. Biden was not Trump's political opponent at the time -- he still isn't and may never be -- so the democrats accusations are baseless.
Click to expand...


He absolutely was and is trumps political rival, and extorting a foreign government to influence an american election is not only not within his power, but clearly an abuse of power for personal gain.

I would hope his lawyers are smarter than tbat...
 
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...

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.
 
Piglet said:
I think they'll probably just state what's happened - Trump was within his rights to ask Ukraine's leader to investigate the situation with Biden and his son. Trump was within his rights to withhold aid money. Biden was not Trump's political opponent at the time -- he still isn't and may never be -- so the democrats accusations are baseless.
Click to expand...

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.
 
j brown's body said:
His defense is that it was a perfect call, there was no quid pro quo, that quid pro quos happen all the time, that he just wants Europe to pay more, that he's a well-known fighter of corruption , that he does these corrupt things all the time so its okay and that he never did it at all.
Click to expand...

While keeping the transcript on the most secret server he has.
 
GDViking said:
He absolutely was and is trumps political rival, and extorting a foreign government to influence an american election is not only not within his power, but clearly an abuse of power for personal gain.

I would hope his lawyers are smarter than tbat...
Click to expand...


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.
 
Craig234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Polls mean nothing -- you should know that.

The fact is until the democratic primary is over, we will not know who Trump's opponent will be. And, we can't keep a sitting president from inquiring about every potential opponent he may be likely to face in the future. Presidents have more leeway than that.

The articles of impeachment don't even mention the term "quid pro quo" and even if they did, asking for a political favor from another country has never been a crime.

Personally, I don't see this going anywhere. But, maybe we'll all get to see the alleged whistleblower testify after all.
 
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...

Im not sure Trump will mount any sort of defense at all. It is up to the House managers to prove a case to the Senate. If they dont then its over.
 
Fletch said:
Im not sure Trump will mount any sort of defense at all. It is up to the House managers to prove a case to the Senate. If they dont then its over.
Click to expand...

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.
 
the fix is in
 
GDViking said:
Oh he's very worried thanks to Pelosis delay the public is far more aware of Moscow Michs plan for a sham trial.

Polls are far to high for witnesses and documents that if they are not produced everyone will know it was fixed as McConnell said it would be.
Click to expand...

After that sham House "inquiry", everyone already knew it was fixed...before anyone even talked about the Senate.
 
Piglet said:
Polls mean nothing -- you should know that.

The fact is until the democratic primary is over, we will not know who Trump's opponent will be. And, we can't keep a sitting president from inquiring about every potential opponent he may be likely to face in the future. Presidents have more leeway than that.

The articles of impeachment don't even mention the term "quid pro quo" and even if they did, asking for a political favor from another country has never been a crime.

Personally, I don't see this going anywhere. But, maybe we'll all get to see the alleged whistleblower testify after all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mycroft said:
All this "evidence" wouldn't get a person convicted of jaywalking, so I don't think Trump is worried too much about "defense".
Click to expand...

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd...

/Thread

:thumbs:
 
Piglet said:
Polls mean nothing -- you should know that.

The fact is until the democratic primary is over, we will not know who Trump's opponent will be. And, we can't keep a sitting president from inquiring about every potential opponent he may be likely to face in the future. Presidents have more leeway than that.

The articles of impeachment don't even mention the term "quid pro quo" and even if they did, asking for a political favor from another country has never been a crime.

Personally, I don't see this going anywhere. But, maybe we'll all get to see the alleged whistleblower testify after all.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom