nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Say it a million times, dashy, and it still isn't true!

DASHY

Do you follow this saga on TV? The House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States found sufficient evidence to impeach the President of the United States, Donald J Trump. The Articles of Impeachment have been sent to the Senate for their deliberation. It remains to be seen if the GOP Senators will reach the same conclusion.

Radiance3

================
I think you are really so stupid. The Constitution's impeachable crimes are: Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The Articles of Impeachment by Schitt, have been repeatedly done every year by all presidents of the United States. Those are not impeachable crimes.
The facts are: Schitt's articles did not even exist, Schitt, Nadler, and Pelosi fabricated them so they could have something to complain about. They were trying to prevent the president from winning, since 2016. But he won, since he took an oath of office, they were trying to impeach him.

I think Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler will end up in jail. I hope they all end up in jail.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

DASHY sez: “I did listen to this morning's Trump show and I agree it was utter nonsense. Lawyers taking marching orders from their guilty president.”

Tommy responds: Wow, you apparently give Trump more credit than even most conservatives do, especially me! So, you think all his lawyers were just parroting what Trump told them to say? That would mean Trump is a lot more knowledgeable of constitutional law and historical precedence than I would have ever given him credit for! I think you may want to rethink your statement.

DASHY sez: “...Attack the process...defame the witnesses...”

Tommy responds: Now it sounds as if you, like Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi, begrudge the very idea of Trump even having a legal defense counsel at all. It is as if you were to say, "how dare he even prepare a defense in contradiction to the accusations brought against him in the first place." This being your position, I can see why you are outraged! But that appears to be the whole substance of your position. You don’t understand that in American law, providing a defense in contradiction to the prosecution IS part of the process. A “due” process of which Trump has constantly been denied on the House side.

And President Trumps team didn’t “defame” the witnesses, rather, they showed them respect by actually quoting them in context rather than putting words in their mouths like the Democrats have done, for the most part.

Show me where the Defense team “defamed” multiple witnesses as you have accused them of doing. Failure of being able to quote such places would mean you are the one, along with the Democrats, who is now defaming witnesses.

So what you are implying is, once a man is accused of being guilty by someone in “big gubmint”, the jig is up, its off to the hokey with him. Guilt by accusation. That is the whole substance of Schiff and Nadler’s case, by the way.

As was pointed out, I believe by Sekulow, the American system of justice, which includes such things as trying cases with evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, being able to face your accusers, all of that, is by far the greatest system in the world for getting to t***h. Only despots, determined only to impose their own will regardless of facts or t***h, would disparage such a great system. In this case, not only the hearings, but even down to your lame, factless, emotionally based, defense of the "prosecution", puts you and your l*****ts leaders in the latter category: despots and enablers of the same who actually despise the American legal system, not only in detail, but also in intent.

DASHY sez: “...Do not bring forward any witnesses or documents to support the president's position.”

Tommy responds: Oh, and which witnesses were those that the defense team didn’t bring forward? I thought you said you listened. Within the first 20 minutes, yes, 20 minutes, they had addressed the testimonies of the following people, in the following order:

Ukrainian President Zelensky
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
NSC Senior Director Timothy Morrison
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman
Lieutenant General, Keith Kellogg
Jennifer Williams
Tim Morrison
Ambassador Kurt Volker
President Zelensky’s advisor, Andre Yurmack

And did any one of those individuals actually “witness” Trump demanding quid pro quo or anything at all in return for investigating corruption? Nope. In fact, the defense team made a very convincing argument that all the Democrats had were assumptions, presumptions, guesses and that they, Schiff and company, were basing their accusations on nothing more than mind reading being superior to the idea that the above folks were at telling the t***h.

Is that what you call evidence, DASHY? Mind reading and assumptions? Hope that never comes back to bite you.

DASHY sez: “The best defense I heard was the argument that the subpoenas issued by the Congress to demand documents and witnesses were somehow invalid because of a rule they just made up. Really? This the best defense?”

In this you have pretty much betrayed your disgust for one of the main foundations of American exceptionalism and liberty: the idea of a fair trial, of due process, of legal counsel for the defense, etc., and particularly, in this case, the concept of a warrant, or subpoena as being an essential part of “due process”. Remember, it is this point over which one of the two points of the House’s case hinges, which they have termed, “obstruction of Congress”.

In a normal legal case, a police officer or prosecutor, would require a warrant that would have to be obtained through a judge. Do you understand this concept? I’ll assume you don’t, for the sake of argument and clarity. Imagine if a police officer decided he didn’t need to go through a judge, that he was knowledgeable enough of the facts that he should be able to issue his own warrant. Would you like that to happen to you if an officer had a suspicion against you? It is the same basic concept with the subpoena from the House of Representatives in the case of an impeachment trial. As was pointed out numerous times by the President’s defense team, they, the President’s team, did not simply or overtly deny or resist any response to just any old subpoena, as the House constantly falsely accused them of, rather, in reply, they asked for a legal subpoena, every single time, from the House of Representatives and were never, ever given one. Why? Because that would mean the whole House would have had to have first v**ed to move forward with an impeachment. That didn’t happen until much later in the process, when the Speaker of the House had already predetermined the verdict.

What the President’s defense team contended was that, PER THE CONSTITUTION, in the case of an impeachment, the whole House of Representatives must v**e on and pass a resolution to impeach, so that not just a select sub-committee, put in place by a single member, has the authority to issue the subpoenas they presumed for themselves. It would be like the Speaker of the House were a policemen who wanted you to comply with a subpoena she had forged and demanded you to comply with it, and if you didn’t comply with that false warrant, even after you had repeatedly asked the officer to get a proper warrant issued from a judge and you would comply, but then being arrested by that policeman for contempt of court, which you never legally committed. And you would support that policeman. That’s where you are at in defending the Democrats in their sham impeachment. What you have done is merely exposed your disgust for the heart and intent of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights and the whole lot of the idea of justice and due process inherent to it! And you think you’ve “won” this discussion. Just, wow.

Let's look at the other main article of impeachment, as addressed by the defense team: abuse of power. Here we have a case where the president of the US is faced with a position of giving aid to a foreign country, having a recent history considered of being amongst the most corrupt in the world. A new government comes in on a platform of anti-corruption, and somehow President Trump is supposed to automatically turn over millions of dollars without doubting a thing when legitimate suspicions have been raised? Is that really the kind of naive, blind-faith leader you want as leader of the free world? You want to impeach him if he presses for a little caution before spending our tax money like that? That is the side you are taking by siding with the dishonest, underhanded Democrats who are out to reverse an e******n because they (outwardly) don’t like the policies of the man that America v**ed into office, but, very likely, are covering up the very same corruption that our President is concerned with. Do you really want a leader who would turn a blind eye to an American politician who was likely at the heart of the corruption of a foreign nation, and that through that corruption profited his family to the tune of millions of dollars? Really? That’s the kind of leaders you want to run this country?

So the very fact that you would attempt to disparage Trump's defense team over these points, and instead defend the likes of Schiff, (who has been on record lying that he had conclusive evidence of Russian collusion that never came out in the Mueller probe, and who stood before Congress and made a complete fabrication of what Trump said on that fateful phone call on July 25th, let alone the fact that Democrats have been “working on this impeachment for three years” which would mean well before any perceived “crime” had been committed) all adds up to betray a fundamental disagreement, if not misunderstanding, on your part of "due process". It means you would prefer (and defend just as you are doing here), a more barbaric system where those in your party should be able to circumvent true due process at will, when it is expedient to your side of an issue.

And then you get all puffed up as if you’ve won an argument with your position here, when in fact people are simply too disgusted with your lack of ability to understand the issues to want to discuss it further with you.

People like you should spend some time studying the history of America, a good place to start may be with Hillsdale College or somewhere like that.

Bottom line: You are the one who is parroting what your handlers want you to say, not Trump’s defense counsel.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

They certainly should end up in jail. But I would settle on them paying for the whole ordeal out of their own pockets, and then being indicted to show where they got so rich on their politician's salaries.

Trump keeps saying this should never ever happen again to another President. Well, if they don't get some serious accountability, they will just keep on doing the same thing, only worse.

DASHY

FYI: Trump insists that the document released by the White House regarding the famous phone call is a "transcript" of his conversation with Zelensky. A "CAUTION" note on the first page explains that it merely "records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff." Wouldn't it be fair to hear the true recording of the conversation? Trump would be happy to share it with all Americans if it helped support his position. Bring on all the witnesses and concealed documents pertaining to the impeachment inquiry and let due process proceed.

DASHY

Did you get that wording from the Impeachment managers' warning to the American people: If we don't hold this president (Trump) accountable for his abuse of power and obstruction of congress, he will just keep on doing the same thing, only much worse.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Lolol Dashy, Just as it might be wise for your sschiff, Nadler, pels and the rest of them to produce their witnesses and their evidence that they claim to of had all along...pppfffttt So where is it?? No innuendo, lies or allegations but the evidence??

President Trump need not produce anything he is the accused, the accuser is charged with supporting the facts they allege.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

That's what most of us conservatives want: a full inquiry, including testimony from the Biden's and the whistleblower. It is the Democrats who are blocking both sides and only presenting their side.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

why, nothing will suffice anyway.~<
Exactly why he shouldn’t produce anything.

Radiance3

==============
Another stupid statement. This woman is really dumb.
Mote: The correct document to use s/b 1.Transcription of the President conversation with Zelensky. 2. Actual statement of Zelensky.

The Articles of Impeachment was the finished product of Schitt, Pelosi and Nadler in Congress. They concocted those 2 issues against the president without the minority presence and to question the witnesses, Schitt or Nadler.
It was done inside a House bunker, locked door. With no other present except them. The GOP minority went down, knocked to open the door, Schitt and company did not open the door. It's in that bunker, that Schitt, et all fabricated issue to accuse the president.

Thus proceedings were unconstitutional They conducted the hearing without the presence of the GOP minority, preventing them to question the whistle blower, and Schitt on the issues they were discussing. They locked the door. 1st. No obstruction of Congress.
Therefore, obstruction of congress complaint is a JUNK. It is the opposite of the facts.
2nd. Abuse of power. As head of Foreign diplomacy, the president has the constitutional executive rights to investigate prior years corruption of Ukraine. Ukraine was reportedly doing fraudulent activities with the Obama administration e.g. Joe Biden.
Before aid is provided to Ukraine,the president must investigate to ensuring that the current administration is clean and in compliance with the policies are followed. That is the right of the president and Congress does not have the right to stop him.

There are 3 balance of independent powers, and one of that is the Executive Branch has the rights to function without Congress meddling in the affairs.

So those 2 fabricated issues could not be accused against the president.
They are Junks.
No impeachable offenses. Schitt, Pelosi and Nadler must be locked up.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Another good post!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

LOL! The democrats found "sufficient evidence." Laughable at best.

DASHY

Of course the accused must produce evidence to convince a jury of his innocence. A jury must hear both sides of the case. If Trump were accused of shooting a woman on 5th Avenue at 7:00 o'clock on January 1st, his defense evidence might be: "It couldn't have been me, I was at Mar-A-Lago at that time huddling with my lawyers about how to get out of this impeachment thing." That is an example of a legal defense and can be easily checked. Spouting long and boring legal opinions about the law does not help the jury decide the guilt or innocence of the accused. That tactic is intended to confuse everybody, and is most often used when the accused is actually guilty as charged.

EmilyD

I think Dashy has been told to think that President Trump is guilty and he has to prove his own innocence. After all, it was Steny Hoyer, who said "Trump had every opportunity to prove his innocence". I can see why Dashy and other Democrats believe this is the way it should be......but only for Trump.