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

Manic Moran

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 can’t speak to the impeachment trial, not least because they don’t seem to be beholden to any particular set of rules, but the courts in the US are extremely big on the rules of evidence. Generally it is a check to avoid abuse of power and not unusually involves the 4th or 5th amendments. An example from the gun control thread, a convicted felon was charged with possession of a firearm. The firearm could not be used as evidence because the police had no justification to check if he was allowed to have one. Breach of 4th Amendment protections.

Even small things can be thrown out. “Why is he in federal appeals court for a parking ticket?” “Your honor, he stayed parked for over two hours and did not move as required by law”. “What is your evidence?”. “I put a chalk mark on his tyre. Two hours later, the chalk was undisturbed”. “ I see. And did you have a warrant to chalk his tyre?”. “Umm.. no?”. “Breach of 4th. Evidence may not be entered. Have you any other evidence? No? Case dismissed. Goodbye”. (6th Circuit Court of Appeals last year)

aloyisious

Adult common sense is the YARDstick by which to judge whether the president committed a high crime or misdemeanour laid down for impeachment from office.

The GOP Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, has it that the Dem Party approach is wrong in that any President can be impeached and charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanours on the basis they are going with, that Don acted outside the constitution. As Mitch and the GOP have it, Don was merely using the power of his office to do the job of president. The GOP raised the spectre of any and all presidents having the freedom to use the powers of office to best effect in the interests of the US denied them by way of fear of impeachment

The GOP, as evinced by Adam Schiiffs presentation of the case against Don, has got it wrong. Don was not acting in the best interest of the US but in his own best interests by asking several foreign powers investigate an opponent for office. The GOP is sailing past the fact that the precedent set will allow ANY president to ignore the constitution and the houses of congress, regardless of party. If that is what Mitch and the GOP want and succeed in doing, they can carry the blame for destroying the constitution and the sensible yardstick for adults set in it to prevent a president from usurping the powers of the High Office of US President for his own benefit.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can’t speak to the impeachment trial, not least because they don’t seem to be beholden to any particular set of rules, but the courts in the US are extremely big on the rules of evidence. Generally it is a check to avoid abuse of power and not unusually involves the 4th or 5th amendments. An example from the gun control thread, a convicted felon was charged with possession of a firearm. The firearm could not be used as evidence because the police had no justification to check if he was allowed to have one. Breach of 4th Amendment protections.

Even small things can be thrown out. “Why is he in federal appeals court for a parking ticket?” “Your honor, he stayed parked for over two hours and did not move as required by law”. “What is your evidence?”. “I put a chalk mark on his tyre. Two hours later, the chalk was undisturbed”. “ I see. And did you have a warrant to chalk his tyre?”. “Umm.. no?”. “Breach of 4th. Evidence may not be entered. Have you any other evidence? No? Case dismissed. Goodbye”. (6th Circuit Court of Appeals last year)

But you are well aware that isn't what is happening hear. Evidence isn't being shown because the person in charge of the trial doesn't want to be shown. Not because of an actual breach of anything. Just because the person in charge doesn't want to hear from people who know about the case or evidence that may affect it.

Gbear

aloyisious wrote: »

The GOP is sailing past the fact that the precedent set will allow ANY president to ignore the constitution and the houses of congress, regardless of party. If that is what Mitch and the GOP want and succeed in doing, they can carry the blame for destroying the constitution and the sensible yardstick for adults set in it to prevent a president from usurping the powers of the High Office of US President for his own benefit.

When they're the only ones who are going to be totally and blatantly ignoring the constitution (not because the Democrats are particularly virtuous, but because the party isn't a cult and their electorate will actually hold them to account), I'm quite sure they're totally fine with setting such a precedent.

And even if it were to transpire that the shoe was on the other foot, impeachment is a political process. Precedent is irrelevant.

If there was a Republican super-majority in the senate and a majority in the house, the Republicans would immediately impeach a Democratic president just because they could. Actually needing a justification to do so wouldn't come into it.

aloyisious

Gbear wrote: »

If there was a Republican super-majority in the senate and a majority in the house, the Republicans would immediately impeach a Democratic president just because they could. Actually needing a justification to do so wouldn't come into it.

But but but, that's what Don and the GOP are accusing the Dems o......

aloyisious

Going by what's being read into the record of the trial, Michael Duffy of OMB has some questions to answer in respect of his actions and the sequestering of authority to sign off on delaying the Ukraine funding, apparently on the grounds the delay movement was an inter-agency action and not just an OMB operation. I cant help feeling, despite having no proof, that the coincidence that the former head of OMB, was now Don's White House chief of staff and knew whom to guide in OMB so that Don's instructionto block the funding movement was followed to the letter.

Ludo

https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1220109701276454922

Can someone please explain to me why they want to know who the whistleblower is and to interview him etc. Surely he is irrelevant at this stage. His role was to tip off the congres that something was up. They investigated and found there was and gathered evidence. Trump et al even admitted everything and published a "transcript". Why the need to go back to the whistleblower?

I assume it is pure deflection or am I missing something obvious here?

SeamusFX

Ludo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1220109701276454922

Can someone please explain to me why they want to know who the whistleblower is and to interview him etc. Surely he is irrelevant at this stage. His role was to tip off the congres that something was up. They investigated and found there was and gathered evidence. Trump et al even admitted everything and published a "transcript". Why the need to go back to the whistleblower?

I assume it is pure deflection or am I missing something obvious here?

You’re not missing anything, pure deflection and to out the whistleblower so some crazed deplorable can kill him. Yes, kill him, this is what the crooked GOP has succumbed to, thugs. Plus allowing a sacrificial nut job to kill the whistleblower sends a message to future potential whistleblowers. It’s very sad, but true!

Christy42

Ludo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1220109701276454922

Can someone please explain to me why they want to know who the whistleblower is and to interview him etc. Surely he is irrelevant at this stage. His role was to tip off the congres that something was up. They investigated and found there was and gathered evidence. Trump et al even admitted everything and published a "transcript". Why the need to go back to the whistleblower?

I assume it is pure deflection or am I missing something obvious here?

Dox them so no one does it again.

Plus the GOP's strategy has been to attack people's character and avoid talking about the facts.

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

But you are well aware that isn't what is happening hear. Evidence isn't being shown because the person in charge of the trial doesn't want to be shown. Not because of an actual breach of anything. Just because the person in charge doesn't want to hear from people who know about the case or evidence that may affect it.

Probably. As I said, they are beholden to their own set of rules, made up by themselves. I replied to Drunpot's comment about American courts, which have a consistent standard.

Outlaw Pete

Ludo wrote: »

Can someone please explain to me why they want to know who the whistleblower is and to interview him etc. Surely he is irrelevant at this stage. His role was to tip off the congres that something was up. They investigated and found there was and gathered evidence. Trump et al even admitted everything and published a "transcript". Why the need to go back to the whistleblower?

I assume it is pure deflection or am I missing something obvious here?

Trump most certainly has not "admitted everything" which was alleged in the complaint that the "whistleblower" made, nor anything close to it, although it's understandable why you would think that given how the MSM often parses it.

For example (aside from things which were just wrong) the main allegations (which are still very much denied) are that: "the President of the United States [used] the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" and that he "pressured the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid".

As can immediately be seen, these allegations are largely narrative based as they infer what the POTUS's motive was for requesting that the Biden-Burisma dealings be 'looked into'. For a "whistleblower" to make these assertions (without evidence) is highly indicative of bias on their part and so that is the central reason why it is that they might want to call them as a witness.

Think of any allegation made against someone in almost any walk of life and you can be damn sure the complainants' motives will be called in to question as a means of determining their credibility, or lack thereof.

The "whistleblower" by the way is well known to republicans. They know what his motives are and were. He is far from the concerned whistleblower the democrats paint him to be. Hence the allegations that this is really just an attempted coup.

Leroy42

Even more reason to bring in all the witnesses, including Trump himself and the full audio recording.

This really could have been cleared up very quickly if Trump had simply let the truth out.

For some reason when faced with, as you imply, a politically motivated sham, he choose to lie and obstruct. So in reality, this impeachment lies directly at his feet. He could have easily avoided it but choose not to.

One then needs to ask why he would prefer to take his chances on impeachment (and although the numbers are in his favour there is always a risk) rather than simply let the truth come out.

Have you asked yourself this or do you just take his word that he is simply trying to avoid being bullied by the mean Democrats.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump most certainly has not "admitted everything" which was alleged in the complaint that the "whistleblower" made, nor anything close to it, although it's understandable why you would think that given how the MSM often parses it.

For example (aside from things which were just wrong) the main allegations (which are still very much denied) are that: "the President of the United States [used] the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" and that he "pressured the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid".

As can immediately be seen, these allegations are largely narrative based as they infer what the POTUS's motive was for requesting that the Biden-Burisma dealings be 'looked into'. For a "whistleblower" to make these assertions (without evidence) is highly indicative of bias on their part and so that is the central reason why it is that they might want to call them as a witness.

Think of any allegation made against someone in almost any walk of life and you can be damn sure the complainants' motives will be called in to question as a means of determining their credibility, or lack thereof.

The "whistleblower" by the way is well known to republicans. They know what his motives are and were. He is far from the concerned whistleblower the democrats paint him to be. Hence the allegations that this is really just an attempted coup.

Give over will ya. You're certainly not winning any hearts and minds with your drivel. The preservation of the whistleblower process is sacrosanct to a functioning democracy and to destroy that process, as the Republicans want, would further errode the checks and balances of a functioning democracy

moon2

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

For a "whistleblower" to make these assertions (without evidence) is highly indicative of bias on their part and so that is the central reason why it is that they might want to call them as a witness.

You are correct. No-one should take a whistleblower at their word, and in this case no-one did. Instead of believing it an independent investigation was launched to ascertain the truth of the assertions. This investigation revealed a lot of corroborating evidence.

The whistleblower is irrelevant at this point. To focus on the whistleblower is to misunderstand the role of whistleblowers in these kinds of cases.

pixelburp

Let's get back to the important things; that being, that that US President is a deeply unintelligent - or at least, unintelligible - individual:

Regarding Elon Musk; "He does good at rockets"

Regarding ... uh, I don't quite know. Copyright protectionism? "You know, we have to protect Thomas Edison, and we have to protect all of these people that came up with originally the light bulb, and the wheel and all of these things"

The wheel.

The wheel.

This really is Stupid Watergate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxEwTFJG1DQ

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Even more reason to bring in all the witnesses, including Trump himself and the full audio recording.

This really could have been cleared up very quickly if Trump had simply let the truth out.

For some reason when faced with, as you imply, a politically motivated sham, he choose to lie and obstruct. So in reality, this impeachment lies directly at his feet. He could have easily avoided it but choose not to.

One then needs to ask why he would prefer to take his chances on impeachment (and although the numbers are in his favour there is always a risk) rather than simply let the truth come out.

Have you asked yourself this or do you just take his word that he is simply trying to avoid being bullied by the mean Democrats.

The whole thing is a sham. The judge, jury, prosecutors and defendants couldn't be any less impartial. It's a waste of time with this current setup.

everlast75

Deleted User wrote: »

The whole thing is a sham. The judge, jury, prosecutors and defendants couldn't be any less impartial. It's a waste of time with this current setup.

I think the fact that Schiff and others have the centre stage to set out in factual detail what Trump did whilst exposing the fact that they are covering everything means that the impeachment was not a wasted exercise.

If there are only 100 people that can be informed or brought up to speed on what 45 is up to, then its worth it.

I get that Fox viewers won't be swayed, but then they never would.

Hopefully it will mobilise whatever is left of the centre ground to get out and vote come November.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/status/1220167442342658048?s=20

See? Loyalty is a one way street for Trump.

Looks like Lindsay will get a right bollocking then for this..

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1220183559287328768?s=20

Itssoeasy

pixelburp wrote: »

Let's get back to the important things; that being, that that US President is a deeply unintelligent - or at least, unintelligible - individual:

Regarding Elon Musk; "He does good at rockets"

Regarding ... uh, I don't quite know. Copyright protectionism? "You know, we have to protect Thomas Edison, and we have to protect all of these people that came up with originally the light bulb, and the wheel and all of these things"

The wheel.

The wheel.

This really is Stupid Watergate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxEwTFJG1DQ

Leave watergate out of it, it's really stupid.

Outlaw Pete

Nothing but strawman arguments being made today by democrats.

The phrase: "It was Russia not Ukraine" must have been uttered three dozen times today already. Yawn. Then Fiona Hill's silly lecturing of Republicans in congress was replayed as if her assertions were factual :rolleyes:

Here is her remarks (7m5s in) and following it Devin Nunes reply which makes it crystal clear to her that the republicans do not believe that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, and in fact, actually wrote a report on it:


https://twitter.com/politico/status/1197550513434349568

Leroy42

Well, since we know how much you hate lying and you want anybody that lies to be immediately treated with distrust, I assume you are putting Nunes in your posting as an example of yet another person that you ignore. Because we know that he has been having conversations with Parnas directly, although of course he denied it at first until more evidence came out.

Unless I misunderstand your position of course.

Itssoeasy

I don't want to post multiple videos in one post as the mods aren't found of that but I'd suggest searching for George Conway on CNN the last couple of days. They're are four videos and I'm still not sure if Kelly Anne is the real feelings on trump or George is how they feel. My point is one is playing a game, but anyway George Conway just rips trump and his allies in very simple language.

Outlaw Pete

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, since we know how much you hate lying and you want anybody that lies to be immediately treated with distrust, I assume you are putting Nunes in your posting as an example of yet another person that you ignore. Because we know that he has been having conversations with Parnas directly, although of course he denied it at first until more evidence came out.

Unless I misunderstand your position of course.

Wait, wasn't I reading on here today that the "GOP's strategy has been to attack people's character and avoid talking about the facts" and yet here's that very tactic being deployed against them? Hhhmmm.

As for Devin Nunes, he took a call and passed it on to his secretary, is what I believe he has said after checking call records. He has continued to deny having the intricate call about very specific issues) which Parnas claims to have had with him.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Wait, wasn't I reading on here today that the "GOP's strategy has been to attack people's character and avoid talking about the facts" and yet here's that very tactic being deployed against them? Hhhmmm.

As for Devin Nunes, he took a call and passed it on to his secretary, is what I believe he has said after checking call records. He has continued to deny having the intricate call about very specific issues) which Parnas claims to have had with him.

No, Nunes lied.

Notice the way there's a comma after the 'No' in the previous sentence? I ask this as you seem to have trouble with reading people's posts (and I fear other media).

I think Ted Lieu summed up Nunes best when the latter asked for an apology, and they go in harmony with my sentiments with regard to the quality of your posts and ability to counter when pulled up on the daft kerfuffle that infests your statements.
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1218301644007333888

Leroy42

Ah, so its perfectly fine for the GOP to do but when you get called out on your double standards you complain about it.

Nunes got caught out in a lie. You are being charitable in believing his story, you don't want to give others the same charity!

Nunes has been caught out numerous times, he is in no way impartial yet you are using him as some sort of basis for an argument?

Either you have standards or you don't.

Can we both agree that Nunes can be ignored in terms of trying to ascertain what the truth in all this is and start to try to find the facts?

Cody montana

"Fed indirectly bought another $70 BILLION in stocks today as stocks foundered. (Fed buys treasuries from banks who use the money to buy stocks). This brings this weeks the Fed's indirect stock purchases to $210 Billion to keep stocks high so trump can brag"

Something is very wrong?

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

No, Nunes lied.

Notice the way there's a comma after the 'No' in the previous sentence? I ask this as you seem to have trouble with reading people's posts (and I fear other media).

Perhaps if you focus on rebutting what I actually said rather than indulging in ad hominems , you might further the discussion, but this reply most certainly didn't as the user (Leroy) said that Nunes had "conversations with Parnas directly, although of course he denied it at first until more evidence came out" and so if you (or Leroy) have evidence of these "conversations" (and again: that's conversations which Parnas was very specific about having with Nunes) then post it.

I think Ted Lieu summed up Nunes best when the latter asked for an apology, and they go in harmony with my sentiments with regard to the quality of your posts and ability to counter when pulled up on the daft kerfuffle that infests your statements.

That letter was very anti-climatic after your build up, I have to say and I haven't been pulled up on anything. Please don't take my lack of a reply to regurgitated democrat talking points as somehow meaning that what I have posted has been successfully rebutted. I just couldn't be bothered repeating myself over and over and so rather than play thread tennis, I move on.

An example: replies telling me Trump hasn't built any new wall yet, and that it's all just really 'replacement wall' (while extremely well thanked) are really not replies worth replying to as it's such an absurd position to take, given that Trump campaigned on the fact that much of the new wall would be wall which would be replacing inadequate fencing that had been put up during the previous three administrations. It would be akin to saying that if you had a new hall door fitted tomorrow and then told someone about it, you'd have just lied to them as all you would have really done was replace your old door, silly. Apparently replacing old things with new things means that new things are still actually old things. Yeah, very logical, but that's the kind of mental gymnastics that those that hate Trump will regularly engage in rather than have to admit that he is doing something which he said he would.

Outlaw Pete

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can we both agree that Nunes can be ignored in terms of trying to ascertain what the truth in all this is and start to try to find the facts?

Of course Nunes should not be ignored, given that he hasn't been shown to have lied, and certainly not to the degree which you appear to be suggesting.

On the contrary, it is Devin Nunes memo which first highlight the abuse of the FISA courts and also asserted that there was good evidence that the Russia-Collusion allegations were baseless. Without Devin's tenacity and determination to uncover the truth, we wouldn't have had the recent Horowitz report (which found many issues with how the FBI conducted themselves, including the disclosure that one FBI agent doctored an email so that the Trump campaign could continue to be spied upon). Nor indeed would the forthcoming John Durham investigation likely be underway without his great work either.

In fact this evening it has finally been revealed that at least two of the FISA renewals were unlawful as:

"....there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power."

But yet this was all just a right-wing conspiracy theory we were told

StringerBell

Cody montana wrote: »

"Fed indirectly bought another $70 BILLION in stocks today as stocks foundered. (Fed buys treasuries from banks who use the money to buy stocks). This brings this weeks the Fed's indirect stock purchases to $210 Billion to keep stocks high so trump can brag"

Something is very wrong?

Now this I am very interested in, is this common or is this something out of the ordinary?

Is that not market manipulation like? Artificially keeping the bubble going and bringing more and more noise traders in to the market before the crash?

StringerBell

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Perhaps if you focus on rebutting what I actually said rather than indulging in ad hominems , you might further the discussion,

Oh my god the irony here is absolutely off the charts

I see the point now in relation to a previously dodged question, it's comic relief.

All the world's a stage I guess.