Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Monday, April 14, 2025 23:28
VIEWED: 485499
PAGE 343 of 404
I certainly have been wrong in my predictions before, but I can't imagine anything other than the House democrats voting for impeachment, and the Senate republicans voting to acquit Trump. And if the fact of the parties attached to each step doesn't tell you how POLITICAL this supposed effort at 'justice' is, nothing will.
I would prefer an extended Senate trial myself. I want to see republicans calling witnesses showing that Burisma and Hunter Biden were legitimate targets of corruption investigations (which they were and are).
But I think it'll be quick.
Either way, an acquittal will have a POLITICAL cost for democrats.
I know there's been speculation about what ELSE the deep state may try to do to get rid of Trump. So I'd like to bring up 'crashing the economy' again, which I read some time ago.
I still think the democrats screwed up with Clinton's impeachment. They needed to make a literal federal case out of what level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' needed to be reached before something became an IMPEACHABLE offense. Now that the low-bar precedent has been set with Clinton, the floodgates are open for frivolous impeachments.
Finally, my opinion is that the players backing Trump are the original "Deep State' - the military industrial complex MIC. And the players trying to eliminate him are the national and foreign spook agencies - the FBI, CIA, NSA (and the other 14 US 'intelligence' agencies); and international spook agencies like MI6 and the other agencies of the 'Five Eyes'.
Over the years, especially with Obama, the US military proper has been downsized and sidestepped, while the intelligence agencies have had money and resources poured into them both for internal (Utah data center) and external (eg 'The Rat Line') operations. Obama was about doing things on the cheap and on the down-low, and avoiding public opinion. I'm sure that pinched the MIC greatly.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Giuliani, Mulvaney, Bolton, and Pompeo didn't testify to the House committee. Mitch McConnell does not want them to testify during the Senate trial.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I see that in the Senate, Mitch McConnell won't allow the prosecution to call witnesses during impeachment. As far as Mitch is concerned, the Senate does not need to hear from any witnesses accusing Trump. But Mitch is interested in hearing witnesses against the Bidens, if that is what Trump wants. Funny thing, V.P. Biden is not being impeached. I wonder what is going on inside Mitch's brain?
"McConnell rejects Democrats’ calls for witnesses"
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcconnell-rejects-democrats-call-for-n
ew-witnesses-in-senate-impeachment-trial/2019/12/17/dbdc326a-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Didn't we already hear from all of the Democrat witnesses? I mean, that's what this circus was all about in the first place, wasn't it?
There's no sense in making them all perjure themselves twice.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
If these witnesses could exonerate Trump, why isn’t Trump allowing them to testify?
Trump’s defenders suggest that they could exculpate the president — but the evidence suggests otherwise.
What remains of Trump’s defense is only a question of his intent in doing the things that nobody disputes he did. A handful of witnesses (Giuliani, Mulvaney, Bolton, and Pompeo) are in a position to speak directly to Trump’s intent — all of whom have refused to testify to the House Committee. All of them Mitch McConnell refuses to subpoena during the Senate trial.
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/trumps-defense-cant-save-him
/603277/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup. Democrats in 2019 LOVE Bolton.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
repeated since I significantly edited it
I certainly have been wrong in my predictions before, but I can't imagine anything other than the House democrats voting for impeachment, and the Senate republicans voting to acquit Trump. So nothing will come of all this.
But if the fact of the parties attached to each step doesn't tell you how POLITICAL this supposed effort at 'justice' is, nothing will.
I would prefer an extended Senate trial myself. I want to see republicans calling witnesses showing that Burisma and Hunter Biden were legitimate targets of corruption investigations (which they were and are).
But I think it'll be quick.
Either way, an acquittal will have a POLITICAL cost for democrats.
I know there's been speculation about what ELSE the deep state may try to do to get rid of Trump. So I'd like to bring up 'crashing the economy' again, which I read some time ago.
I still think the democrats screwed up with Clinton's impeachment. They needed to make a literal federal case out of what level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' needed to be reached before something became an IMPEACHABLE offense. Now that the low-bar precedent has been set with Clinton, the floodgates are open for frivolous, or ahem ! 'Trumped-up', impeachments.
Finally, my opinion is that the players backing Trump are the original "Deep State' - the military industrial complex MIC. And the players trying to eliminate him are the national and foreign spook agencies - the FBI, CIA, NSA (and the other 14 US 'intelligence' agencies); and international spook agencies like MI6 and the other agencies of the 'Five Eyes'.
Over the years, especially with Obama, the US military proper has been downsized and sidestepped, while the intelligence agencies have had money and resources poured into them both for internal (Utah data center) and external (eg 'The Rat Line') operations. Obama was about doing things on the cheap and on the down-low, and avoiding public opinion, and secretive operations fit his MO perfectly. I'm sure that pinched the MIC greatly. The MIC and the spooks could be considered the 'nationalist' and 'internationalist' branches of the deep state respectively. And Trump is a nationalist, and putting significant resources into the MIC proper.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you mean in the same sense as they love Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Pompeo? All 4 could directly testify about Trump's intent in Ukrainegate because all 4 talked to Trump before, during and after Trump's infamous phone calls and his orders withholding aid to Ukraine. But none of the four have yet testified under oath. Others have lied to Congress and they go to jail. Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is in jail for 3 years, for one example. The real possibility of jail might motivate these four witnesses to not lie, since their lies might eventually be discovered just as in the case of Michael Cohen.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup. Democrats in 2019 LOVE Bolton.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cohen_(lawyer)#Conviction_for_pe
rjury_in_congressional_testimony
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Do you mean in the same sense as they love Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Pompeo?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup. Democrats in 2019 LOVE Bolton.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Nope I mean in the same way they love tech censorship, James Comey, the FBI, the CIA, George W Bush, Robert Muller and John McCain's ghost.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Pompeo will not be subpoenaed by Mitch McConnell in the Senate trial of Trump, if the trial happens, because Mitch does not know for sure if those 4 will lie to protect Trump or tell the truth to protect themselves from eventual perjury charges. Mitch knows it is much better for Trump if those 4 are not allowed to testify at all about Trump's intention to withhold aid to Ukraine until he gets reelection help from Ukraine's President.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Do you mean in the same sense as they love Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Pompeo?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup. Democrats in 2019 LOVE Bolton.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Nope I mean in the same way they love tech censorship, James Comey, the FBI, the CIA, George W Bush, Robert Muller and John McCain's ghost.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ACTUALLY - we already heard from them twice. Once was during the closed-door 'hearings' where transcripts of their testimony were going to be released; the second time was during public hearings broadcast on CNN (and elsewhere). That's the testimony I tediously watched/ listened to, that made me realize there was nothing beyond second / third / nth hand gossip and people's opinions.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Didn't we already hear from all of the Democrat witnesses? I mean, that's what this circus was all about in the first place, wasn't it?
There's no sense in making them all perjure themselves twice.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Trump angrily objects to impeachment, calls it ‘perversion’
In a fiery letter Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the eve of his expected impeachment, Trump maintained that he did nothing wrong in seeking foreign investigation of political rivals.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-angrily-objects-to-impea
chment-calls-it-perversion/ar-BBY5MzF?ocid=spartandhp
It's hard to imagine any as brainless as the two of you. Then again, there's sig rappy and jsf.
T
Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1. Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I still think the democrats screwed up with Clinton's impeachment. They needed to make a literal federal case out of what level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' needed to be reached before something became an IMPEACHABLE offense. Now that the low-bar precedent has been set with Clinton, the floodgates are open for frivolous, or ahem ! 'Trumped-up', impeachments.
Let’s be clear. Conduct that gives rise to an impeachable offense need not be a violation of a federal criminal statute. Impeachable offenses are subject to a different standard. Impeachable offenses are “pubic offenses,” they include more amorphous actions like abuse of one’s office and power.
But impeachable offenses can be based on criminal behavior. There is no doubt that President Trump’s actions are worthy of impeachment. Now the question is whether Trump’s actions satisfy the elements of the federal bribery statute. I believe the better answer is that President Trump did commit bribery, but these are difficult cases to prove.
Paraphrasing a bit, the statute would require that President Trump “corruptly” asked for or obtained a thing of value for him personally (like dirt on a political opponent), that he asked for that in exchange for performing an official act (like releasing military aid). The most difficult thing to prove will likely be that President Trump acted corruptly.
However, in this case it appears that he did, it must be shown that he had the specific intent to get the information on Vice President Biden and his family (the thing of value) in exchange for the official act. This is the quid pro quo we hear so much about.
2. Jed Shugerman, law professor, Fordham University
The House Judiciary presents a solid case that Trump’s conduct constituted bribery. I would add two observations: Many people were puzzled by why the first article of impeachment was titled “Abuse of Power,” and not “Bribery,” did not cite the federal bribery statute, and did not allege bribery explicitly, even as the article deliberately laid out each element of federal bribery.
And yet this committee report spends six pages (p. 120-126)
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf
going step by step through the bribery statute: an exchange of a “thing of value” for “an official act” for “corrupt” purposes. As the “thing of value,” The report wisely highlights that Trump was seeking merely “announcement” of an investigation into the Bidens, because it shows Trump was not sincerely interested in a real investigation, and an announcement would usually be counterproductive for starting a background investigation under the radar, to prevent tipping off witnesses to start coordinating their stories.
A mere announcement benefited Trump’s campaign, and that’s one piece of evidence among many of “corrupt” intent. And the report offers a thorough explanation for why the arms and an official White House visit are official acts. The report rebuts the Trump defenders’ argument that an official White House visit is not an “official act” under Supreme Court precedent.
So why not spell out this felony in the article of impeachment? The House Judiciary Committee was making a crucial point now and as a clear precedent for future federal officials: high crimes and misdemeanors do not require a statutory felony. They are more fundamentally about the officer’s abuse of power. This argument notably can cut the other way. If a president cheated on his or her taxes many years before taking office, that would be a felony but probably not a “high crime or misdemeanor” in these terms of “abuse of power.” He or she may have used his office to cover up these crimes, but that abuse would be the impeachment trigger, not the past crime.
The report quotes the conclusion from our historical study (with Andrew Kent and Ethan Leib) of “faithful execution”: The Constitution’s “faithful” language imposes a duty on
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
There is another side to that Trump wooden nickel: always say whatever you are doing is the most incredible thing to ever happen, better than anything any other human has ever done. Dimwits will believe it because simple people WANT to believe. Confrontation, learning is too hard - easier to accept and follow.
Worthy uv a reprint!
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME