https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1225119428964245505

TURN THE PAGE

(02-05-2020 07:23 PM)green Wrote:  

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1225119428964245505

TURN THE PAGE

Here's where I come down on the two charges, as a lawyer, for the record:

1) On the first charge, there is precious little direct evidence of anything. I believe a number of the "witnesses" had never had any direct contact with Donald Trump, and I don't believe that any of them were able to testify as to any direct evidence of any such acts. But beyond that, an essential element of the charge is that Donald Trump did it (which is unproved) for the sole purpose of his own political gain. That part is nowhere even close to being proved, nor is there in fact any evidence of it. There is ample evidence, in the form of Hunter Biden's absurdly lucrative contract with Burisma, to conclude that something untoward was going on. What the prosecution would have to argue is that a president cannot cause to be investigated, or seek the assistance of any foreign country in the investigation of, any potentially illegal or corrupt conduct by any American, if such American is a potential future political opponent. I reject that argument as absurd, and therefore would vote "not guilty" on the first article. Not that there is nothing that John Bolton could testify to, that would swing that argument the other way.

2) On the second charge, note that the alleged offense is described as, "obstruction of congress," not, "obstruction of justice." The latter is a crime, the former isn't. Presidents get to obstruct congress, it's inherent in the separation of powers into three co-equal branches. To convert, "obstruction of congress," to, "obstruction of justice," there is a simple path for congress to follow. Issue subpoenas, and when they are not complied with, go to the third branch, the courts, to obtain a judgement. If the judge upholds the subpoenas, and the subject continues to refuse, then you have the requisite elements for, "obstruction of justice." But the accusation, as written, is totally bogus, like accusing you of going 54 in a 55 mph zone.

These people are truly psychotic. I’m beginning to kind of feel sorry for them.

(02-05-2020 07:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's where I come down on the two charges, as a lawyer, for the record:

1) On the first charge, there is precious little direct evidence of anything. I believe a number of the "witnesses" had never had any direct contact with Donald Trump, and I don't believe that any of them were able to testify as to any direct evidence of any such acts. But beyond that, an essential element of the charge is that Donald Trump did it (which is unproved) for the sole purpose of his own political gain. That part is nowhere even close to being proved, nor is there in fact any evidence of it. There is ample evidence, in the form of Hunter Biden's absurdly lucrative contract with Burisma, to conclude that something untoward was going on. What the prosecution would have to argue is that a president cannot cause to be investigated, or seek the assistance of any foreign country in the investigation of, any potentially illegal or corrupt conduct by any American, if such American is a potential future political opponent. I reject that argument as absurd, and therefore would vote "not guilty" on the first article. Not that there is nothing that John Bolton could testify to, that would swing that argument the other way.

2) On the second charge, note that the alleged offense is described as, "obstruction of congress," not, "obstruction of justice." The latter is a crime, the former isn't. Presidents get to obstruct congress, it's inherent in the separation of powers into three co-equal branches. To convert, "obstruction of congress," to, "obstruction of justice," there is a simple path for congress to follow. Issue subpoenas, and when they are not complied with, go to the third branch, the courts, to obtain a judgement. If the judge upholds the subpoenas, and the subject continues to refuse, then you have the requisite elements for, "obstruction of justice." But the accusation, as written, is totally bogus, like accusing you of going 54 in a 55 mph zone.

As to the 1st article.....I believe it is a President’s duty as part of the job to investigate possible, backdoor use of taxpayer funds to enrich what was, at the time, a government officeholder....... doesn’t matter if that person may be an opponent for the same office. It just means that the investigators better do everything by the book with no shenanigans...

(02-05-2020 08:26 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-05-2020 07:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's where I come down on the two charges, as a lawyer, for the record:

1) On the first charge, there is precious little direct evidence of anything. I believe a number of the "witnesses" had never had any direct contact with Donald Trump, and I don't believe that any of them were able to testify as to any direct evidence of any such acts. But beyond that, an essential element of the charge is that Donald Trump did it (which is unproved) for the sole purpose of his own political gain. That part is nowhere even close to being proved, nor is there in fact any evidence of it. There is ample evidence, in the form of Hunter Biden's absurdly lucrative contract with Burisma, to conclude that something untoward was going on. What the prosecution would have to argue is that a president cannot cause to be investigated, or seek the assistance of any foreign country in the investigation of, any potentially illegal or corrupt conduct by any American, if such American is a potential future political opponent. I reject that argument as absurd, and therefore would vote "not guilty" on the first article. Not that there is nothing that John Bolton could testify to, that would swing that argument the other way.

2) On the second charge, note that the alleged offense is described as, "obstruction of congress," not, "obstruction of justice." The latter is a crime, the former isn't. Presidents get to obstruct congress, it's inherent in the separation of powers into three co-equal branches. To convert, "obstruction of congress," to, "obstruction of justice," there is a simple path for congress to follow. Issue subpoenas, and when they are not complied with, go to the third branch, the courts, to obtain a judgement. If the judge upholds the subpoenas, and the subject continues to refuse, then you have the requisite elements for, "obstruction of justice." But the accusation, as written, is totally bogus, like accusing you of going 54 in a 55 mph zone.

As to the 1st article.....I believe it is a President’s duty as part of the job to investigate possible, backdoor use of taxpayer funds to enrich what was, at the time, a government officeholder....... doesn’t matter if that person may be an opponent for the same office. It just means that the investigators better do everything by the book with no shenanigans...

He had a duty to investigate.
And yet there was zero evidence he specifically ordered funds held. Only hearsay.
There was plenty of evidence the Ukraine did not know the funds were held.
And the funds still got released.

It just defies common sense. Nobody should have voted yes based on this evidence.

The second article is beyond ridiculous.

(02-05-2020 08:03 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  These people are truly psychotic. I’m beginning to kind of feel sorry for them.

I felt sorry for them until they created this precedent which will be bad for the country for generations. Now they are just a basket of deplorable takers.

Okay Owl, I'm not a lawyer but I played one on tv. What route specifically could Trump have taken to get the full disclosure about daddy's boy Hunter's shenanigans? Is a president allowed to even ask someone to get info on Hunter without seeming to be interfering in Bite'em's run for president?

(02-05-2020 10:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Okay Owl, I'm not a lawyer but I played one on tv. What route specifically could Trump have taken to get the full disclosure about daddy's boy Hunter's shenanigans? Is a president allowed to even ask someone to get info on Hunter without seeming to be interfering in Bite'em's run for president?

Trump WAS taking the correct legal route.

Perhaps he could have simply "sent in the FBI" which was the cry from the left. "Why didn't he send in the FBI?"

If he had, then they would have accused him of using the FBI to investigate Biden. And that would have actually been something easier to sell as wrong.

So, he couldn't do that.

But, there is a standing practice that allows for an FBI legal attache to join investigations of other countries where U.S. citizens or businesses are being investigated by those countries. If the Ukraine simply announced they were investigating, then that would be sufficient cause for the FBI to dispatch a legal attache to investigate in the Ukraine.

That is the reason Trump wanted the investigation announced. Had they done it, it would have given him legal cover to send in the FBI.

If they subpoena Bolton, Trump will claim executive privilege and it will have to work through the courts. By then the election will be upon us. What this means is that republicans have to do everything within our power to win the House back. Do that and it all goes away.

(02-06-2020 12:47 AM)banker Wrote:  If they subpoena Bolton, Trump will claim executive privilege and it will have to work through the courts. By then the election will be upon us. What this means is that republicans have to do everything within our power to win the House back. Do that and it all goes away.

which is XACLY! why they didn't do it in the first merry-go-round.....

I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.

(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.

from the buddy christ....

(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.

Wow.. You think that the Dems are gonna let Bernie be the candidate?

Part 2, you think the entire blue nation will fall behind him?

Lastly, when comparing accomplishments, who do you think has the upper hand?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/b...ord-220508

I don't think Bernie Sanders is who the Dems want as their face for 2020. If he gets the nod, I feel there'll be a major rift in the party. He won't won't be able to unite the party..

Trump hasn't successfully united the GOP, but it's better than it was 4 years ago.

(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.

Bernie Sanders is never going to be President. He is eventually going to die having never done anything of value for this country. He will leave a nice little multi-million dollar inheritance for his family, however. Which is a bit odd for a Socialist politician who has never had a job outside of politics in his entire life.

(02-06-2020 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.

Wow.. You think that the Dems are gonna let Bernie be the candidate?

Part 2, you think the entire blue nation will fall behind him?

Lastly, when comparing accomplishments, who do you think has the upper hand?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/b...ord-220508

I don't think Bernie Sanders is who the Dems want as their face for 2020. If he gets the nod, I feel there'll be a major rift in the party. He won't won't be able to unite the party..

Trump hasn't successfully united the GOP, but it's better than it was 4 years ago.

I still stand behind, "DJT only announced to get the pubs up off their collective arses."

after a few weeks he decided, "fk'n shite, I have to do this one myself."

what a ride it's been........I simply say, "thank you Mr. President!"

(02-05-2020 07:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's where I come down on the two charges, as a lawyer, for the record:

1) On the first charge, there is precious little direct evidence of anything. I believe a number of the "witnesses" had never had any direct contact with Donald Trump, and I don't believe that any of them were able to testify as to any direct evidence of any such acts. But beyond that, an essential element of the charge is that Donald Trump did it (which is unproved) for the sole purpose of his own political gain. That part is nowhere even close to being proved, nor is there in fact any evidence of it. There is ample evidence, in the form of Hunter Biden's absurdly lucrative contract with Burisma, to conclude that something untoward was going on. What the prosecution would have to argue is that a president cannot cause to be investigated, or seek the assistance of any foreign country in the investigation of, any potentially illegal or corrupt conduct by any American, if such American is a potential future political opponent. I reject that argument as absurd, and therefore would vote "not guilty" on the first article. Not that there is nothing that John Bolton could testify to, that would swing that argument the other way.

2) On the second charge, note that the alleged offense is described as, "obstruction of congress," not, "obstruction of justice." The latter is a crime, the former isn't. Presidents get to obstruct congress, it's inherent in the separation of powers into three co-equal branches. To convert, "obstruction of congress," to, "obstruction of justice," there is a simple path for congress to follow. Issue subpoenas, and when they are not complied with, go to the third branch, the courts, to obtain a judgement. If the judge upholds the subpoenas, and the subject continues to refuse, then you have the requisite elements for, "obstruction of justice." But the accusation, as written, is totally bogus, like accusing you of going 54 in a 55 mph zone.

This lawyer pretty much agrees with you as if he had written it.

(02-06-2020 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.

Wow.. You think that the Dems are gonna let Bernie be the candidate?

Part 2, you think the entire blue nation will fall behind him?

Lastly, when comparing accomplishments, who do you think has the upper hand?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/b...ord-220508

I don't think Bernie Sanders is who the Dems want as their face for 2020. If he gets the nod, I feel there'll be a major rift in the party. He won't won't be able to unite the party..

Trump hasn't successfully united the GOP, but it's better than it was 4 years ago.

Do I think they will "let" him be the candidate? Hell no I don't. We just watched the DNC commit seppuku on national TV in Iowa to try to stop this, and it's going to fail. The DNC's choice is gonna be have Bernie as the nominee and lose control of all the levers of power they now have, or actively steal it from him at the convention and no longer have a viable national party. There is no "unifying" anything because the establishment has made it clear they hate the Bernie wing of the party more than the GOP does. They had their chance to "unify" after they got busted for stealing it in 2016, throw the Bernie wing a bone and just name Warren the VP and most of this calms down. Instead they assumed the Bernie people would just shut up and fall in line. It cost them big time in 2016, and you think they'd have learned some lesson from it, but not in the least.

(02-06-2020 09:24 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.

Wow.. You think that the Dems are gonna let Bernie be the candidate?

Part 2, you think the entire blue nation will fall behind him?

Lastly, when comparing accomplishments, who do you think has the upper hand?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/b...ord-220508

I don't think Bernie Sanders is who the Dems want as their face for 2020. If he gets the nod, I feel there'll be a major rift in the party. He won't won't be able to unite the party..

Trump hasn't successfully united the GOP, but it's better than it was 4 years ago.

Do I think they will "let" him be the candidate? Hell no I don't. We just watched the DNC commit seppuku on national TV in Iowa to try to stop this, and it's going to fail. The DNC's choice is gonna be have Bernie as the nominee and lose control of all the levers of power they now have, or actively steal it from him at the convention and no longer have a viable national party. There is no "unifying" anything because the establishment has made it clear they hate the Bernie wing of the party more than the GOP does. They had their chance to "unify" after they got busted for stealing it in 2016, throw the Bernie wing a bone and just name Warren the VP and most of this calms down. Instead they assumed the Bernie people would just shut up and fall in line. It cost them big time in 2016, and you think they'd have learned some lesson from it, but not in the least.

I do find it funny that the Dems complain about the electoral college, but yet they have Super Delegates that can help put in the candidate of their choice.