The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[knapplc]

These guys would be tossed out of any other jury pool.

 

Quote

 

Senators overseeing impeachment trial got campaign cash from Trump legal team members

 

Some members of President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team are campaign donors to jurors in the Senate. 

 

Former independent counsels Ken Starr and Robert Ray, who investigated then-President Bill Clinton around the time of his impeachment, each made large campaign contributions to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last year before joining Trump’s legal team. 

 

Starr, who on Monday lambasted what he called the “age of impeachment” before the Senate, gave $2,800 to McConnell in July 2019. Just after House Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry in September, Ray gave McConnell $5,600, the maximum allowed for the primary and general elections. OpenSecrets couldn’t identify any other federal contributions from the two during the 2020 cycle. 

 

Before the impeachment trial started, McConnell said he would work in “total coordination” with the White House on impeachment tactics, prompting backlash from Senate Democrats and one crucial Republican. The Republican-led Senate is expected to acquit Trump on charges that he abused the presidency by withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into his political opponents. Following revelations reportedly uncovered in a manuscript written by former national security adviser John Bolton, some Republicans may join Democrats in calling for witnesses to testify. 

 

Among Starr’s other political contributions, he gave $2,700 to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in 2017. Graham has emerged as one of Trump’s staunchest allies in the Senate, but he indicated Monday he’s interested in seeing what Bolton wrote in the manuscript.  Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal attorneys, gave financial support to several Republican senators over the last two decades, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and John Thune (R-S.D.). Like others on Trump’s team including Ray, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin, Sekulow gave thousands to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. 

 

Trump himself is fundraising for senators tasked with coming to a verdict on his impeachment. He launched a joint fundraising committee to raise campaign cash for Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) late last year. Republican senators have reportedly been warned to acquit Trump or face retribution. 

 

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

What a time to be alive ....when Bolton is a “tool for the left”. 
 

 

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

So, in other words, you really don't care about the law.  You know...the ones that protect whistle blowers?  After all, everything that was in his complaint has been substantiated by other witnesses.  The ONLY reason why Trump (and you) wants him outed is so that he can be personally attacked and prevent more whistle blowers.

 

He's likely a political operative who got angry that Trump's dialogue with Ukraine was not front page news. They had to change the rules to shoehorn his interference into the "whistleblower" law.  That institution has all the dignity of the FISA court.  If this was a real criminal trial, well first the charges would be tossed for vagueness.  Afterwards every witness Trump's team has named would be relevant and fundamental. 

 

  

8 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

You do realize that waiving a privilege is not the same as not being able to sustain an assertion of it, don’t you?  Ultimately it may get decided in court, but trump isn’t waiving anything.  
I also must point out that there is also a “jury” of voters who would like to know what happened, not just a majority of biased senators who won’t convict and don’t want to know the truth.  Can you see now why the more evidence we learn, the better?   It’s really not that difficult to understand.  

Seriously?  The jury would probably like to know everything the people told their attorney.  Sorry that's confidential.  You want to know what top ministers told the chief executive?  You lose. The necessity for any President to get the best advice from the best people trumps your unending partisan ire.  If you want a source see Chuck Schumer in 1999.

[BigRedBuster]

He studied the talking points very well. 
 

The problem is Ukraine was pressured to fire him BECAUSE HE WASN’T INVESTIGATING BARISMA.  
 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Wow. 
 

 

[cornhuskers4ever]

Trump's defense team has nothing. 

They are questioning Hunter Biden being in a position he knows nothing about.  Can you say Ivanka Trump amd Jared??  Those 2 didn't even have security clearance. 

The only people that believe what the defense team is the Fox News sheep.  I'm sure Rush Limbaugh is going off every day talking about "This is a waste of Taxpayer money.. What a wonderful President.. by the way, remember the time that ....."

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, cornhuskers4ever said:

Trump's defense team has nothing. 

They are questioning Hunter Biden being in a position he knows nothing about.  Can you say Ivanka Trump amd Jared??  Those 2 didn't even have security clearance. 

The only people that believe what the defense team is the Fox News sheep.  I'm sure Rush Limbaugh is going off every day talking about "This is a waste of Taxpayer money.. What a wonderful President.. by the way, remember the time that ....."

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[teachercd]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Good lord!!!!  Unreal.

[BigRedBuster]

@Notre Dame Joe why would Republicans sign a letter supporting the firing of the prosecutor....only to act outraged about it now?

 

 

[QMany]

Don't let the cult members deflect from what is actually contained in the Articles and Reports, criminality outlined clearly. They want to argue semantics about just the title of the Articles, not the content. There is a section of the report explicitly titled President Trump’s Abuse of Power Encompassed Impeachable “Bribery” and Violations of Federal Criminal Law, and any rational actor will admit Bribery is part of the impeachment clause.

2/ Now read Article I, Abuse of Power:
Trump:
A. Corruptly
B. Demanded/Sought
C. A thing of value
(announce Biden investigation, investigate 2016 server conspiracy theory for 2020 personal benefit)
D. For official acts
($391M in Arms and official state visit)

 

3/ In past impeachments and now, the Articles are not meant to dig into legal analysis. They summarize the CONDUCT, the ACTS.
The House Report is where you find the application of law to acts.
Analyze the content of the Articles and the Report.
Dersh just argued about titles. 

 

4/ It would be like an English professor arguing which books are better than others because their titles are better.

First, some examples from past impeachments:
Nixon Article 2, passed by House Judiciary 28 to 10.
1. NO TITLE.
2. Crimes are not explicitly named or titled:

 

5/ Here is Nixon Article 3, no crimes are specified, nor any statute.
No title. This is common practice. The point is to read the articles and the Report to understand these facts PLUS the law.

The Trump impeachment article I is far more clear than Nixon's articles.

 

6/ I've noted before the House Judiciary Report is explicit about:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY
2. CRIMINAL BRIBERY
Element by element, p. 118-126.
Read it here:
docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/… 

7. The Report first starts with Constitutional Bribery to show that Trump violated the "Bribery" reference in the original Constitution, the original public meaning of bribery in 1787-89:

8. Then the Report explains CRIMINAL BRIBERY element-by-element, exactly how the concise Article I, Abuse of Power, summarized these details elemet-by-element:

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, cornhuskers4ever said:

Trump's defense team has nothing. 

They are questioning Hunter Biden being in a position he knows nothing about.  Can you say Ivanka Trump amd Jared??  Those 2 didn't even have security clearance. 

The only people that believe what the defense team is the Fox News sheep.  I'm sure Rush Limbaugh is going off every day talking about "This is a waste of Taxpayer money.. What a wonderful President.. by the way, remember the time that ....."

 

 

Sen Toomey wants a one for one witness deal.   As though truth / evidence is a negotiable item.  Bolton for Hunter Biden.  

So what will be the GOP defense?  - "Hunter Biden was doing wrong (so they say) so that justifies Trump doing wrong in response"

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/toomey-proposes-a-one-for-one-witness-deal-in-trump-impeachment-trial-amid-bolton-revelations/ar-BBZnTdg

[TGHusker]

9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What a time to be alive ....when Bolton is a “tool for the left”. 
 

 

 

This happens when Truth, Fact and Evidence are secondary to party loyalty.  When integrity can be sold to someone with a campaign donation, and when personal interest are put before national interests.     A tool of the left - how about a man with a conscience (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) 

[TGHusker]

All of the President's Turncoats - this editorial lists many of the former people who had worked for Trump or were appointed by Trump in some official capacity and who have spoken out about their experience.  They were once the greatest in Trump eyes to rubish - people trump barely knew or 'didn't know at all outside of taking a picture with them'.    Trump has a massive ego problem - everyone is great when they are on his side - because it reinforces his greatness. Everyone is terrible when they speak the truth that is contrary to his version of truth.    The list of Turncoats is pretty amazing.   Even Nixon didn't have a list like this. 

 

https://theweek.com/articles/889882