DASHY wrote:
I did listen to this morning's Trump show and I agree it was utter nonsense. Lawyers taking marching orders from their guilty president. Attack the process...defame the witnesses. Do not bring forward any witnesses or documents to support the president's position. 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?
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 truth. Only despots, determined only to impose their own will regardless of facts or truth, 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 leftists 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 truth.
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 voted 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 vote 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 election because they (outwardly) don’t like the policies of the man that America voted 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.