Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

duploelabs

eire4 wrote: »

Rubio and Graham come to mind and Cruz as well off the top of my head.

Romney too

aloyisious

sid waddell wrote: »

Pelosi shouldn't have let this sham happen, it was correctly said over and over and over again that moving the articles of impeachment to the Senate would result in a total sham of a "trial". Democrats should have sat on the articles of impeachment until November and kept adding to them, dragging Trump's presidency deeper and deeper into the mire.

That could have been a good plan. This way the Dems set out their stall before the public so it can see [if it wants] what Don did. That way, when Don keeps on doing business his way emboldened by a win in the senate, he will f*ck up in a major way with his trading with other countries and when that multitude of countries tell the US "no deal, all talks are over, we're going home" the finger pointing at him and all those who backed him directly wont have time to fade away before the Nov election. The Dems wont even have to try explain things to the US public. It's unfortunate for the US public that it will have to continue to suffer at the hands of Don before they get the chance to make the GOP admit what a genius Don is.

aloyisious

It'd be nice if the debate in the senate could be turned into a question of what High Misdemeanours actually consist of in terms of acts and deeds and some-one there sought advice from CJ Roberts from the floor for the legal definition of High Misdemeanours when it comes to the actions of a sitting US president. What are the limitations of acts that the term misdemeanour covers? Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution".

The Senators are legally allowed [by majority vote] to disregard any legal advice CJ Roberts offers them and no one can do anything about it. However, it would be set in stone as their record that they ignored the Chief Justice's legal advice given them in good faith.

I'm not talking about a definition where it comes to criminal acts as it is already made clear in dictionary terms that misdemeanours are not criminal acts, rather acts which can get public office holders removed from the office they hold without criminal sanction for the act/s.

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, it is clear that his lawyers are well trained and professional.

The problem is not with the representation, it is with what they have to work with. They come across as crazy or out of their depth simply because there is little actual legal argument involved, they have to rely and bluff and bluster,

It's like the difference between making the case that water is wet versus making the case that water doesn't exist. With the former you would come out of it looking smart while making the latter case would make you look like a Trump TV Lawyer.

aloyisious

Lawyer Sekulow - Lawyer law suits???

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Lawyer Sekulow - Lawyer law suits???

Adam Schiff doesn’t know what it means either and he’s having none of it.

Outlaw Pete

Schiff lying about what Mulveney said. Does he ever stop lying this guy.

First the mafioso parody, suggesting Trump asked Zelensky to "make up dirt" on the Bidens (when all he'd done was ask him to look into it, as is his right) and now outright lying that Mulveney said Russia didn't interfere in 2016.

When will this chap (and the rest of the democrats / liberals) get it into their heads that pointing out Ukrainians went out of their way to interfere in the outcome of the 2016 election is NOT saying that Russia did not hack the DNC.

They're pushing that strawman a long time now, soon they'll be unable to.

aloyisious

Jason Crow, as a veteran, is putting a good case against Don and the Admin in respect of the Senate-approved Ukraine military aid, incl the OMB decision to also withhold any notification to the senate of its actions. A GOP senators decision to vote down this amendment will be a vote against how veterans see how important military aid is to US military allies, something Don admittedly is in favour of, if you're Saudi Arabia of course.

Jay Sekulows attempt at a rebuttal sucks: Obama and Egypt. But for the leak that Don and OBM had withheld the funding, the time limit laid for its expenditure would have passed and the monies returned to central funding. The leak gave time for Congress to pass a emergency law to ensure the money got to Ukraine, something the Admin clearly did not want to happen. The Congress pulled its finger out, after Don stuck his finger in.

BonnieSituation

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Schiff lying about what Mulveney said. Does he ever stop lying this guy.

First the mafioso parody, suggesting Trump asked Zelensky to "make up dirt" on the Bidens (when all he'd done was ask him to look into it, as is his right) and now outright lying that Mulveney said Russia didn't interfere in 2016.

When will this chap (and the rest of the democrats / liberals) get it into their heads that pointing out Ukrainians went out of their way to interfere in the outcome of the 2016 election is NOT saying that Russia did not hack the DNC.

They're pushing that strawman a long time now, soon they'll be unable to.

If we saw the transcript to the perfect call I'm sure we could make a call on Shifty Schiff's lies.

StringerBell

Pete, whats the point lad?

You have no credibility in your commentary, you have no principles in your critique, what is the point?

The Senate fiasco won't take long, just enjoy it and all the pwning the libs it will bring. We know you have no problem with lies so why pretend any lies would outrage you? Just enjoy this time for as long as it lasts. Every situation is temporary remember.

aloyisious

Point made on CNN coverage that Mitch McConnell temporarily lost control of his group and had to cede ground to the honest waverers and change his plans on how things were to go at the trial GOP-wise. Now he's asked for a 2 hour recess after the input by Jason Crow and Adam Schiff, presumably to get a sounding on how his troops feel and decide what to do next.

Rjd2

Is there any good neutral people covering this "trial"?

I don't mean hardcore MAGA folk or Resist!! PUTIN~! echo chamber superstars.

mattser

Well he's just done 3 years. Well done him.

Paul_Hacket

Listening to the testimony live right now. Trump's lawyer Pat Cippolone sounds uncannily like the lawyer on the Simpsons. Not even kidding, he has the same faux exasperated, pearl-clutching manner. He's completely incoherent, everything that comes out of his mouth is a complete word salad and he KEEPS BUMPING INTO HIS OWN MICROPHONE making it bounce around and make a ton of noise.

Of course none of this matters, the republican senators have already prejudged this and have just voted not to allow admittance of any further evidence or witnesses. Not something most people do when they have the actual facts on their side.

Ludo

Rjd2 wrote: »

Is there any good neutral people covering this "trial"?

I don't mean hardcore MAGA folk or Resist!! PUTIN~! echo chamber superstars.

It is kinda hard to be neutral on this to be honest once you have any interest at all. Both sides are SO FAR apart on even the "facts" that there it no real middle ground possible. These are not policy differences where middle ground can be found and compromise is possible.

Maybe on some minor points there could be. For example, I do see a problem with calling a presidents close advisors to give evidence. There is privilege there which should be respected.
But then again using it to cover up a crime is wrong.
If they then come along in a few months/couple of years and tell all in a book, then why not just save everyone from looking stupid and say whatever they gotts say now (no money in that of course).

Leroy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

Is there any good neutral people covering this "trial"?

I don't mean hardcore MAGA folk or Resist!! PUTIN~! echo chamber superstars.

It depends on what you mean by neutral. Are you using it in the sense that each side should be treated as if equal?

Or that each side piece of evidence should be treated in the same way, ie is there any backup and if not that should be made clear?

The definition of neutral has morphed over the last few years to seem, in some cases, to me that every argument should be afforded the same weight.

sid waddell

Rjd2 wrote: »

Is there any good neutral people covering this "trial"?

I don't mean hardcore MAGA folk or Resist!! PUTIN~! echo chamber superstars.

Trump is objectively a terrible president and an utterly odious excuse for a human who is up to his neck in corruption, criminality and racism and is a cancer on US society and beyond in every way you can think of.

He objectively needs to be thrown out of office and imprisoned.

There is no "neutral". Anybody who is "neutral" has either just got off a flight from Mars or has already been completely brainwashed by the insanity of the MAGA loonies.

A few weeks ago people here were calling yer man Soleimani "evil" despite never having heard of him until he was assassinated.

Strange that I didn't hear anybody object to that.

Drumpot

What is the reasoning for not allowing certain information/facts be used in this process? You can see this sort of stuff happening in American courts aswell where very relevant and important information or evidence or even witness’s are not permitted for no obvious reason.

I appreciate this is a very emotive topic and it’s kind of a turkeys voting for Christmas when the Reps can decide the terms of this impeachment but what reasons are given when they deny certain things as mentioned above?

everlast75

Drumpot wrote: »

What is the reasoning for not allowing certain information/facts be used in this process? You can see this sort of stuff happening in American courts aswell where very relevant and important information or evidence or even witness’s are not permitted for no obvious reason.

I appreciate this is a very emotive topic and it’s kind of a turkeys voting for Christmas when the Reps can decide the terms of this impeachment but what reasons are given when they deny certain things as mentioned above?

the simple reason is - the more information that comes out regarding Trump's actions, the worse it is for him. That's it. That's the reason.

That's why not a screed of paper was handed over. That's why not one witness will be allowed testify.

51% want him convicted and removed based on the facts in the public domain - as things stand. That number can only go up if further information comes to hand. Hence, the blocking.

Drumpot

everlast75 wrote: »

the simple reason is - the more information that comes out regarding Trump's actions, the worse it is for him. That's it. That's the reason.

That's why not a screed of paper was handed over. That's why not one witness will be allowed testify.

51% want him convicted and removed based on the facts in the public domain - as things stand. That number can only go up if further information comes to hand. Hence, the blocking.

Ah yeh, I get that, but I was wondering More as to what reasons are given for not allowing the process to be transparent and clean?

Outlaw Pete

Another lie by the democrats last night was suggesting Ukrainian soldiers "perished" as a result of Trump holding up aid. This was done by Jason Crow who projected an LA Times article to the Senate implying as much:


https://twitter.com/GeekTrader/status/1219773359824699397


But that is a scurrilous suggestion as we know from testimony during the hearings that it was future aid that was held up:


https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/status/1205149283512659970


And before anyone says that he/they didn't actually say soldiers died because of Trump, don't bother as it won't wash. Projecting that headline in the Senate was a sanctimonious hail mary attempt at implying that Trump's actions were responsible.

Wasn't too long ago Obama was giving them blankets and I don't recall too many democrats ever suggesting his actions were results in the deaths of soldiers, let alone the MSM amplifying such an opinion ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iXMKL_-tu8

That the democrats need to keep resorting to these tactics speaks volumes.

Hoop66

Give it up mate

Gwen Cooper

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That the democrats need to keep resorting to these tactics speaks volumes.

Pete, what is your opinion on Trump's confirmed lying record?

everlast75

Drumpot wrote: »

Ah yeh, I get that, but I was wondering More as to what reasons are given for not allowing the process to be transparent and clean?

They are not bothered with the general public's perception. All statements given are directed to the base. Their strategy is to keep the 35% outraged "at the left" and muddy the waters (through gas lighting, false equivalencies, attacking the media and downright lies) so much that they demoralise the remaining 65% of the voters so they won't vote.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Another lie by the democrats last night was suggesting Ukrainian soldiers "perished" as a result of Trump holding up aid. This was done by Jason Crow who projected an LA Times article to the Senate implying as much:


https://twitter.com/GeekTrader/status/1219773359824699397


But that is a scurrilous suggestion as we know from testimony during the hearings that it was future aid that was held up:


https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/status/1205149283512659970


And before anyone says that he/they didn't actually say soldiers died because of Trump, don't bother as it won't wash. Projecting that headline in the Senate was a sanctimonious hail mary attempt at implying that Trump's actions were responsible.

Wasn't too long ago Obama was giving them blankets and I don't recall too many democrats ever suggesting his actions were results in the deaths of soldiers, let alone the MSM amplifying such an opinion ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iXMKL_-tu8

That the democrats need to keep resorting to these tactics speaks volumes.

I would be genuinely happy if any defender of Trump could debate in good conscience here, instead of this nit picking nonsense while ignoring the facts.

It is genuinely tiresome and at the same time, quite telling.

Drumpot

everlast75 wrote: »

They are not bothered with the general public's perception. All statements given are directed to the base. Their strategy is to keep the 35% outraged "at the left" and muddy the waters (through gas lighting, false equivalencies, attacking the media and downright lies) so much that they demoralise the remaining 65% of the voters so they won't vote.

So they just ignore reason or sound arguments and the public don't care. Suppose it shouldn’t surprise me. :pac:

Drumpot

everlast75 wrote: »

I would be genuinely happy if any defender of Trump could debate in good conscience here, instead of this nit picking nonsense while ignoring the facts.

It is genuinely tiresome and at the same time, quite telling.

I’m not going to get involved in this but just be specific. Pick one or two or three things about Trump that’s irrefutable and keep repeating it until you get a response.

Trump and his supporters thrive on obfuscation, keep it simple and don’t let them side track your point.

everlast75

Drumpot wrote: »

So they just ignore reason or sound arguments and the public don't care. Suppose it shouldn’t surprise me. :pac:

Most of their base get their news from Fox, or from Fox affiliated radio shows, hosted by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity etc.

At a rally held by Justin Amash, an attendee stated that she had no idea that the Mueller report said anything negative about Trump, as the above were her listed sources of info. It is incredibly sad, but true.

Barr is complicit in that aspect, what with his flatly false summation of the report.

Generally speaking, if you are lucky enough not to be worried about ICE, LGBTQ rights, Medicare, jobs affected by Trump's crazy tariff war, mass shootings, the rise of white nationalism and your wage keeps coming in, those people may just about tolerate Trump enough not to care about any of his scandals.

Stallingrad

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Another lie by the democrats last night was ....

I tuned out there. Isn't there a glass house somewhere you would be happier in?

Us leftie liberals are being very tolerant of these tiresome, repetitive contributions. If you would respond to any of the many invitations to deal with the contradictions in your posts you would have more credibility.

ghost of ireland past

What Trump is alleged to have done in Ukraine doesn't seem like a crime. That's a problem. It also seems as if Joe Biden did a very similar thing himself. That's a bigger problem for the democrats.


Trump is just more open and more brazen about his behaviour than democrats. Bizarrely, it could be argued that Trump is more honest in that regard than Democrats. Democrats are living a lie and are pretending to be purer than the driven snow.

Politicis appears to be completely corrupt, on all sides. Trump is somehow immune by being the only person who is telling the truth about politics, even though he lies about everything else.