The Trump Presidency

[Bryanpoprobson]

In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.”

Mitt Romney Republican.

[MBDK]

In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.”

Mitt Romney Republican.

In his opinion.  There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion.  No one should EVER be convicted on such grounds.  Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.

[Bryanpoprobson]

In the opinion of many other republicans as well, ones who did not have the courage to vote according to their conscience.

[LunarOrbit]

In the end, the evidence was inescapable. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said. “And really, corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one's oath—that I can imagine. It's what autocrats do.”

Mitt Romney Republican.

In his opinion.  There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion.

There is direct evidence, and the President blocked access to it (hence the Obstruction of Congress charge). The House Managers showed documents that they had access to that were heavily redacted, but still confirmed many details provided by their witnesses. Do you think he would have prevented people like Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton from testifying if they were able to prove his innocence? Do you think he would have blocked access to emails and other documents if they proved he did nothing wrong? You're living in denial, just like all of the Republican Senators who voted to acquit Trump.

Susan Collins believes Trump has learned his lesson and won't make a mistake like this again, but I disagree. The only lesson he learned is that he can do whatever he wants without consequences. This didn't cause him hit the brakes on his corrupt ways, it caused him to push the gas pedal.

No one should EVER be convicted on such grounds.  Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.

No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.

[MBDK]

There is direct evidence, and the President blocked access to it (hence the Obstruction of Congress charge).

No.  This IS conjecture.  What don't you understand about THAT?

The House Managers showed documents that they had access to that were heavily redacted, but still confirmed many details provided by their witnesses.

Completely irrelevant to the FACT that all they stated was their OPINION.  What don't you understand about THAT?

No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.

I don't.  Since he has been acquitted, and rightly so based on the lack of concrete evidence, it is a matter of record that he wasn't, at least in this case.  Based on your previous smear attempts, I guess it is NOT so odd that you should think differently.

[LunarOrbit]

There is direct evidence, and the President blocked access to it (hence the Obstruction of Congress charge).

No.  This IS conjecture.  What don't you understand about THAT?

How on Earth is it conjecture? Are you denying that Trump withheld documents and blocked witnesses from testifying? Name any other circumstance where the subject of an investigation would be allowed to block the investigators from doing their job. If the mayor of your city blocked the police from investigating him/her, wouldn't you find that suspicious? I'm trying to understand how you can look at Trump's behaviour an not think he is trying to hide his corruption.

The House Managers showed documents that they had access to that were heavily redacted, but still confirmed many details provided by their witnesses.

Completely irrelevant to the FACT that all they stated was their OPINION.  What don't you understand about THAT?

For Christ's sake, it isn't opinion to say that there were discussions happening between all of the people involved, that there are documents that corroborate what the witnesses have testified, and that Trump blocked access to those documents. If they in any way assisted Trump's defense he would have made sure we saw them.

No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.

I don't.  Since he has been acquitted...

He was acquitted by a sham trial that did not allow witnesses or evidence.

and rightly so based on the lack of concrete evidence

Let me give you a scenario...

Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?

Based on your previous smear attempts, I guess it is NOT so odd that you should think differently.

I thought you were leaving? Should I help?

[LunarOrbit]

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

[smartcooky]

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody  terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.

[MBDK]

Let me start with this.

I thought you were leaving? Should I help?

In post #680, you wrote this: "You can **** off any time now."

My reply to that sentence was, "As for your suggestion of how to occupy my time, I will take your advice to heart and proceed to do so, as long as I can."

Well, I did it as long as I felt I could, and any offer you extend to "help" me is actually justification for my return.  This is because, once again, you are using a CT tactic by threatening to ostracize me, apparently since you do not agree with what I have to say.

How on Earth is it conjecture? Are you denying that Trump withheld documents and blocked witnesses from testifying?

Because YOU are filling in the blanks.  That is the very definition of conjecture.  If you have contrary evidence, please present it.

If the mayor of your city blocked the police from investigating him/her, wouldn't you find that suspicious? I'm trying to understand how you can look at Trump's behaviour an not think he is trying to hide his corruption.

Yes, I would find it suspicious, but I am not entitled to claim a specific crime was proven to occur based solely on suspicion.  Why do YOU do so?
Also, it doesn't matter what I, or you THINK Trump is trying to do, because our thoughts and "suspicions" are not proof, by any means, especially legally.

For Christ's sake, it isn't opinion to say that there were discussions happening between all of the people involved, that there are documents that collaborate what the witnesses have testified, and that Trump blocked access to those documents. If they in any way assisted Trump's defense he would have made sure we saw them.

Yes, discussions happened, but the meaning of them, since specific conditions were NOT mentioned, ARE pure conjecture.  What the documents said, and their impact, are also conjecture.  I could argue thousands of other reasons the documents were blocked, including national security, but without the actual evidence, my assumptions hold no water, either.

No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.

I don't.  I think people should be subject to the same legal requirements regardless of social or political stature.

He was acquitted by a sham trial that did not allow witnesses or evidence.

IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there.  Realize, too, that Democrats during the House proceedings denied witnesses and concealed testimony that weakened their already shoddy case.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/schiff-house-democrats-conceal-testimony-of-18th-witness-from-trump-team/
[/quote]

Let me give you a scenario...

Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?

Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty, you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence, and as such, should be able to testify accordingly (regarding its proof of murder) without being in violation of security rules.  Also, a House committee can wrangle the pertinent information from him (albeit, in such circumstances, surely not without a protracted legal battle).  Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.

[MBDK]

....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody  terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.

I agree.  However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left.  That is my entire point.

[Obviousman]

***BE AWARE THE VIDEO CONTAINS VERY COLOURFUL LANGUAGE***

Jonathan Pie is a UK spoof news reporter but his evaluation of the impeachment process and Trumps Acquittal is spot on.

Brilliant, Michael - absolutely brilliant!!

[smartcooky]

....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody  terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.

I agree.  However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left.  That is my entire point.

No, it isn't at all

No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to invite foreign interference to help them get re-elected
No-one on the left is fighting all the way to SCOTUS to prevent their tax returns from being released
No-one on the left is giving a free pass to killers, misogynists and rapists
No-one on the left has a large portion if their advisors and managers indicted and/or convicted
No-one on the left is promoting conspiracy theories that are part of a Russian Security Service disinformation campaign
No-one on the left has lied or made misleading claims to the American people over 15,000 times in less that 1,100 days

I could write a dozen further lines, but this is enough to make the point, clearly and unequivocally.

THE IS NO COUNTERPOINT IN THE LEFT OF AMERICAN POLITICS THAT BALANCES TRUMP'S PERFIDY!!

[LunarOrbit]

Let me start with this.

I thought you were leaving? Should I help?

In post #680, you wrote this: "You can **** off any time now."

My reply to that sentence was, "As for your suggestion of how to occupy my time, I will take your advice to heart and proceed to do so, as long as I can."

Well, I did it as long as I felt I could, and any offer you extend to "help" me is actually justification for my return.  This is because, once again, you are using a CT tactic by threatening to ostracize me, apparently since you do not agree with what I have to say.

I don't care if you disagree with me, I've put up with people disagreeing with me in this forum for many years. You came here, to a forum that I provide to you for free, and insulted me. Insulting your host is a good way to get yourself kicked out of a party.

How on Earth is it conjecture? Are you denying that Trump withheld documents and blocked witnesses from testifying?

Because YOU are filling in the blanks.  That is the very definition of conjecture.  If you have contrary evidence, please present it.

It's simple logic. If the evidence that Trump is withholding could clear him of any wrong doing he would make that evidence publicly available. We're talking about someone who tweeted top secret spy satellite photos just because he wanted to push the idea that we need to go to war with Iran.

If the mayor of your city blocked the police from investigating him/her, wouldn't you find that suspicious? I'm trying to understand how you can look at Trump's behaviour an not think he is trying to hide his corruption.

Yes, I would find it suspicious, but I am not entitled to claim a specific crime was proven to occur based solely on suspicion.  Why do YOU do so?

I have never claimed to know for a fact that Trump did anything wrong. I have expressed suspicion. Why is it ok for you to be suspicious of the mayor in that hypothetical situation, but not for me to be suspicious of the President in a real situation?

Also, it doesn't matter what I, or you THINK Trump is trying to do, because our thoughts and "suspicions" are not proof, by any means, especially legally.

I think it matters very much that a significant portion of the population is suspicious of the President, especially since if those suspicions are justified, it means the most powerful man on the planet is corrupt. The fact that you are not concerned about him is mind-boggling to me. People need to be able to trust the President of the United States, and there are enough reasons to not trust him that investigation is warranted... and one of those reasons is that he keeps obstructing those investigations.

People's suspicions are used to initiate criminal investigations all the time. Just recently the police where I live arrested a man who had been reported for attempting to abduct a woman off the street. He followed her down the street in his car and yelled at her to get in. Did the police know for a fact that he was going to abduct her before investigating it? No, but his behaviour did fit with that possibility, right? So was the woman wrong to report her suspicions to the police because she was just "speculating" and "using conjecture"?

For Christ's sake, it isn't opinion to say that there were discussions happening between all of the people involved, that there are documents that collaborate what the witnesses have testified, and that Trump blocked access to those documents. If they in any way assisted Trump's defense he would have made sure we saw them.

Yes, discussions happened, but the meaning of them, since specific conditions were NOT mentioned, ARE pure conjecture.  What the documents said, and their impact, are also conjecture.  I could argue thousands of other reasons the documents were blocked, including national security, but without the actual evidence, my assumptions hold no water, either.

The meaning is only conjecture because the subject of the investigation for some reason has the power to limit that investigation. That should not be possible. If the President claims Executive Privilege or national security reason, he should have to justify that to the investigators, otherwise he can just claim everything he does is top secret and literally get away with murder if he wanted to.

No one should EVER be above the law. Odd, IMHO, that you should feel differently.

I don't.  I think people should be subject to the same legal requirements regardless of social or political stature.

Then why do you have a problem with investigating credible allegations of the President's corrupt behaviour? No other American citizen can block investigations into their behaviour, so why should Trump be able to?

He was acquitted by a sham trial that did not allow witnesses or evidence.

IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there.  Realize, too, that Democrats during the House proceedings denied witnesses and concealed testimony that weakened their already shoddy case.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/schiff-house-democrats-conceal-testimony-of-18th-witness-from-trump-team/

Why do Republicans want that testimony made public? Probably because they want to expose the identity of the whistle-blower. We saw just yesterday what happens to people who testified against Trump. What difference does it make who the whistle-blower is? If the allegations they made can be verified by other means they are no longer needed.

Let me give you a scenario...

Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?

Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty...

Ok, let's say he is merely suspected of committing murder. But there is security camera footage that can either prove he is guilty or innocent... surely you'd agree that he would happily provide the footage if it proved someone else committed the murder.

you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence

I would think that every American citizen should be "privileged" to see evidence of their President committing a murder.

Also, a House committee can wrangle the pertinent information from him (albeit, in such circumstances, surely not without a protracted legal battle).

It should not be necessary to go to court to obtain evidence of a crime. No other person in America has the right to withhold evidence from an investigation. Executive Privilege is not supposed to be used to cover up criminal behaviour, that is an abuse of power.

Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.

It is absolutely unbelievable the lengths that Trump supporters will go to in order to defend him. You're actually arguing that the President has the right to withhold evidence that he murdered someone. You're arguing that the President can do anything he wants, block any attempts to investigate him, and vindictively punish anyone who reports his behaviour to Congress. That is the side you're arguing on... and I doubt you'd be making those same arguments if it had been Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton that we were talking about.

[MBDK]

....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody  terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.

I agree.  However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left.  That is my entire point.

No, it isn't at all

No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to invite foreign interference to help them get re-elected
No-one on the left is fighting all the way to SCOTUS to prevent their tax returns from being released
No-one on the left is giving a free pass to killers, misogynists and rapists
No-one on the left has a large portion if their advisors and managers indicted and/or convicted
No-one on the left is promoting conspiracy theories that are part of a Russian Security Service disinformation campaign
No-one on the left has lied or made misleading claims to the American people over 15,000 times in less that 1,100 days

I could write a dozen further lines, but this is enough to make the point, clearly and unequivocally.

THE IS NO COUNTERPOINT IN THE LEFT OF AMERICAN POLITICS THAT BALANCES TRUMP'S PERFIDY!!

Your logic train has completely derailed.  You went from complaining about the intelligence level of some Trump supporters to listing a litany of allegations you have against Trump himself, all the while listing some obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong. 

Let's start with the intelligence levels.  This started with a meme that showed the ridiculousness of a Trump supporter who had no cogent argument in Trump's defense.  You commented on those people.  I claimed the left also has people with the same level of laughable contentions/actions.

Your response is complete denial of such easily verifiable facts (I can provide plenty of examples of people on the left acting/arguing just as foolishly, if you want), and then your allegations, which I have no intention of debating in their entirety, as they have no bearing on the intelligence, or lack thereof, in comparing other individuals.  What I mean by this is, if you claim someone from another town is stupid because, for example, they support a person you claim has stolen a car, a person in your town can be just as stupid without having to support someone who has been accused of auto theft.  Otherwise, you are making a logically fallacious case that in order to be stupid, a person has to act within a very narrow set of parameters.

As for obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong, allow me to briefly list them:

No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts

Hillary is too obvious, but do you REALLY stand by such outlandish claims? 
Before you answer, you may just want to chew on THIS for a while (in regards to the $$$)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/

And remember, these must apply to EVERYONE on the left, or you need to strike "no-one" from your contentions.

[Jason Thompson]

IMHO, the House's indictment was much more of a sham, for reasons previously stated, and any such witnesses or evidence should have been presented there.

Admittedly I'm no expert on US impeachment proceedings, but that seems to be saying that the House should have had a watertight case for conviction before moving proceedings to the impeachment trial, in which case why have a two-stage process at all?

Let me give you a scenario...

Pretend Trump had murdered someone in the Oval Office, and there was security camera footage to prove it. But Trump has declared the footage "top secret" and blocked access to it. Would that be acceptable to you? Should he be acquitted of murder charges because "there was no concrete evidence", even though the reason there is no evidence is because the murderer has withheld it?

Well, since per your scenario, you already deemed him guilty, you (or your trusted source) must be privilege to such evidence, and as such, should be able to testify accordingly (regarding its proof of murder) without being in violation of security rules.[/quote]

That's not what is being suggested at all. No-one is presuming guilt, the scenario presented is that he DID do it and is hiding the evidence.

Regardless, if that is the ONLY evidence against the president, then under our rules of law, without it, he should not be convicted.

The question you have not answered, which was the point, is why should he, as the person indicted for the crime, have the power to withold that evidence? In no other case, surely, does the person on trial get to decide what material evidence is seen and who gets to testify, so why should the President be accorded such privilege in his own impeachment trial? There may be good reasons for evidence not being made part of the public record, but that's not the same as witholding it from consideration entirely.

If he, as an indicted president, has the power to determine what evidence is seen and who testifies, then he is being accorded a privilege open to literally nobody else, and that is pretty much the definition of being above the law.