How closely are you following Trump's trial, and aftermath?

[the_mother_thing]

I believe that this is the kind of statement which provokes "the other side" and leads to angry discussion. It is pretty immoderate to say that the Democrats who think that President Trump got an unfair trial do not think that "all Americans are deserving of the Constitution and its rights." How would one derive Democratic hate from the accusation about a fair trial?

Reading comprehension is critical; please re-read my statement as I wrote it, in its entirety. I stated that Dems’ hate for Trump does NOT override his Constitutional rights; you went all ‘Schiff’ty and twisted it into something to do with a ‘fair trial’.

 

[Karl_K]

I think the best description of Republicans is that they are sore winners.

Better than sore losers.
What i find funny is how Democrats dont understand the Republican party.
It is a coalition of people who are not democrats some of who dislike each others politics almost as much as they dislike the democrats politics.

Fact is that the democrats and the media have been tying their best to undermine the election since the second the results were announced.

 

[redwood66]

 

[redwood66]

I don't think democrats want to understand anything republicans might think about this situation. There is little point in attempting to discuss a differing opinion. Though there are plenty of assumptions.

People just want to be heard and understood. All people.

 

[AGBF]

TMT-You just wrote to me:

Reading comprehension is critical; please re-read my statement as I wrote it, in its entirety. I stated that Dems’ hate for Trump does NOT override his Constitutional rights; you went all ‘Schiff’ty and twisted it into something to do with a ‘fair trial’.

The quotation above is your more recent address to me. The statement blow is your statement as you wrote it (underlining yours).

"I wonder how the families of those who died on Flight 93 would feel about their loved one‘s memory being politicized in a divisive & partisan meme. Nevertheless, ‘ordinary citizens’ volunteer their lives everyday in support of the Constitution and rights of ALL Americans, including those Democrats hate and feel aren't deserving of those rights."

You do not say in the quoted passage that the Democrats' hate for Trump does not override his Constitutional rights. In fact you do not mention (President) Trump. I think I am able to read for comprehension. So maybe it is not a bad thing that I went "all Schiffty" (a personal insult to me, by the way). Adam Schiff is exceptionally well read and articulate. He can obviously read for comprehension since he can read and speak with with clarity just as I can

 

[redwood66]

Back on topic.

Chief Justice Roberts is absolutely right that he should not be a tie breaking vote as an unelected official. I find Schumer's argument to be very weak considering the particular votes made in the Johnson case.

Chief Justice Roberts Is Right: An Unelected Official Should Not Break Ties

Roberts’ unwillingness to interfere in the proceedings of the trial will undoubtedly infuriate the left, but despite the hysteria, he's absolutely correct.

thefederalist.com

 

[Tekate]

I sincerely hope they would be happy. Be proud of their family members and wish for truth, justice and the American way. Yes ordinary citizens do volunteer, such as my brother and my father, 4 battlestar Dad, so I know about this. A family member of mine is a pediatric cardiologist, her whole life was on hold while working for little ones. I do not know if ordinary citizens go to work every day thinking about being in support of the constitution, I never did and I worked for 2 non profits in my life, supporting a clean environment and clean water and returnable bottles, maintaining the US architecture and history so people who come after me can see the past, I also worked for years as a volunteer and a paid employee of a youth organization that invested in the poor of my city. I support the constitution as do all Americans.

I wonder how the families of those who died on Flight 93 would feel about their loved one‘s memory being politicized in a divisive & partisan meme. Nevertheless, ‘ordinary citizens’ volunteer their lives everyday in support of the Constitution and rights of ALL Americans, including those Democrats hate and feel aren't deserving of those rights.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Adam Schiff is exceptionally well read and articulate. He can obviously read for comprehension since he can read and speak with with clarity just as I can

But can you lie like him??

 

[Tekate]

I don't get your post Yes I do think no one here said anything to provoke Redwood, what I said and while I cannot speak for the others I believe they are similar in what they are saying: We post our personal opinion, I think (partgypsy) who said to trace and read about the history of the republican party, what they stood for and where they stand today, I don't think that is a provocation, this is a suggestion. Why do you use innocent, guilt? there is no way to discuss this country's politics without a bit of temper which I do not think has been out of line at all. There are some posters who are great at the sui generis or the good old American one-off.

Sui generis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no one who is trolling here in my opinion.

Urban Dictionary: Internet Troll

Someone who takes pleasure in causing drama by arguing with people without wanting or accepting anyone's response, also known as a "Justin"

www.urbandictionary.com

but there are very strong opinions and judgements on others.

Do you think none of the things that are said by democrats here in this very thread, and many others, are said to provoke? Let's be honest about provoking and trolling here. Plenty are not innocent in that regard. While you are not usually among them to be sure.

 

[Tekate]

Unless there is precedent I don't mind.

 

[partgypsy]

51-53% of the polling population want to see witnesses. If there is nothing to "see here" why not call witnesses? Why not review relevant testimony? It's going to be really difficult to see this as anything other than a subversion of Justice. Especially as we as Americans had to sit through the Clinton impeachment, where not only were all witnesses called, Clinton himself testified. And so we found out his presidential wrong doing was a blow job. Where we had to sit through multiple investigations, of bengazhi, where Republicans vowed to leave no stone unturned and cost the taxpayers 3.3 million and yes Hillary Clinton took the stand and asked all the questions asked of her. And she was absolved of wrong doing. (something the Republicans are strangely quiet about). Yet now when the president under investigation. Matters of entering information. Having relevant witnesses testify under oath. Having the president testify under oath, now suddenly seen as being outrageous and unreasonable. Trump actually ordered witnesses not to testify. Right there, that's obstruction of Congress (one of the articles of impeachment). Can you imagine if Hillary asked staff to not testify during the Benghazi investigations? the outrage from the right? Now it's met with crickets. I'm sorry, your hypocrisy and fake outrage is showing. No longer buying it. Correction the majority wants witness testimony, including 45% of Republicans. It's 50% of public would like Trump removed. So no the Senate is neither being fair nor impartial as they swore under oath when they refused to hear witnesses.

 

[the_mother_thing]

A wise person once said "keep doing what you’ve always done, and you’ll always be where you’ve always been."

Those crying & whining about ‘the right’ and Trump (now and everyday for the last 3 years) will still be calling him ‘President’ after November.

Me, on the other hand ...

 

[redwood66]

51-53% of the polling population want to see witnesses. If there is nothing to "see here" why not call witnesses? Why not review relevant testimony? It's going to be really difficult to see this as anything other than a subversion of Justice. Especially as we as Americans had to sit through the Clinton impeachment, where not only were all witnesses called, Clinton himself testified. And so we found out his presidential wrong doing was a blow job. Where we had to sit through multiple investigations, of bengazhi, where Republicans vowed to leave no stone unturned and cost the taxpayers 3.3 million and yes Hillary Clinton took the stand and asked all the questions asked of her. And she was absolved of any wrong doing. (something the Republicans are strangely quiet about). Yet now when the president under investigation. Matters of entering information. Having relevant witnesses testify under oath. Having the president testify under oath, now seen as being outrageous and unreasonable. Trump actually ordered witnesses not to testify. Can you imagine the outrage if Hillary asked staff to do so doing bengazhi, the outrage from the right? Now it's met with crickets. I'm sorry, your hypocrisy and fake outrage is showing. No longer buying it. Correction the majority wants witness testimony, including 45% of Republicans. It's 50% of public would like Trump removed. So no the Senate is neither being fair nor impartial as they swore under oath when they refused to hear witnesses.

Is this for me? I don't think what happened is impeachable in the first place so it is moot at this point. Wrong? Sure. Impeachable? No. Vote in November and we'll see how it all shakes out.

 

[redwood66]

I don't get your post Yes I do think no one here said anything to provoke Redwood, what I said and while I cannot speak for the others I believe they are similar in what they are saying: We post our personal opinion, I think (partgypsy) who said to trace and read about the history of the republican party, what they stood for and where they stand today, I don't think that is a provocation, this is a suggestion. Why do you use innocent, guilt? there is no way to discuss this country's politics without a bit of temper which I do not think has been out of line at all. There are some posters who are great at the sui generis or the good old American one-off.

Sui generis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no one who is trolling here in my opinion.

Urban Dictionary: Internet Troll

Someone who takes pleasure in causing drama by arguing with people without wanting or accepting anyone's response, also known as a "Justin"

www.urbandictionary.com

but there are very strong opinions and judgements on others.

Well I am certainly not trolling.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@partgypsy I appreciate that you’re being respectful in the discussion, so I’ll share my view in response to your comment re: the Clinton impeachment. The big differences I see between the two are 1) Clinton was charged with & found guilty of an actual crime (not just getting a BJ in office); and, 2) Clinton’s rights were not violated in that process. So these are not exactly ‘apples to apples’ impeachments.

The Dems set the pace for how urgent and quickly this needed to happen and they cut a lot corners IMO; they shot their own case in the foot before they even voted on the Articles in the House. Then, they came into the Senate, accused the Jury of complicity & corruption, and expected them to overlook everything they did wrong in the House that was unfair to the accused. The House Dems’ missteps throughout this entire process would have had a speeding ticket tossed out of court, much less an impeachment of the President. And I’d feel the same regardless of what letter - D or R - was beside the accused’s name.

If individual rights can be violated at the highest levels in our country by those sworn to uphold them, then EVERYONE is fair game for the same; I am not okay with that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

51-53% of the polling population want to see witnesses. If there is nothing to "see here" why not call witnesses? Trump actually ordered witnesses not to testify.

The house did called what? 13 witnesses? . It doesn't matter if Trump ordered witnesses not to testify the house could have had gone to court and let the court decide.

 

[partgypsy]

If the President is not held accountable to the same laws as everyone else. I am not okay with that. Actually I think they should be held to a higher standard.

Another editorial, where are we now. By not proceeding with impeachment, much more power has been ceded to the executive branch. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...what-did-it-change/ar-BBZyfv3?ocid=spartanntp

 

[the_mother_thing]

If the President is not held accountable to the same laws as everyone else. I am not okay with that. Actually I think they should be held to a higher standard.

In order for anyone - the President included - to be held accountable, the processes established to hold one accountable must be followed. That IS the law.

 

[partgypsy]

I agree. What I disagree with, that there were missteps to the degree that allow the throwing out of this impeachment inquiry or impinged on Trump's rights (to a greater degree than anyone else in the same situation). The judge ruled the inquiry lawful and appropriate. True It was rushed but only conservatives seem to think that something was out of the ordinary. In fact the impeachment claims were so damaging, Trump's defense had no defense. Other than to say, if he did it then it wasn't an impeachable offense. Because he's a sitting incumbent president. Saying that the process was flawed or unlawful, is another strawman argument, and parrots Trump's white house talking points, which are taken up by the Republicans and other conservative sites. Very important, because he has no defense. Just because you disagree with the proceedings, does not make it a sham.

But I certainly agree for example if you have a court case where the judge and jury refuse to admit evidence and hear witnesses, sure sounds like sham (aka senate hearings).
I don't expect to sway you mother_thing. I do wish you would take up my suggestion to maybe read some legislative history of the Republican party, maybe read some biographies of Republican presidents. Compare to what is going on now. Part of why I know Trump is not good for America? He LOVES demonizing groups of people, creating strife, fear and hostility, pitting Americans against each other. I see it on this thread. He's done an amazing job of demonizing. He calls Democrats unpatriotic, which I find deeply offensive. I don't doubt that conservatives and Republicans ALSO love this country. It is deeply painful to see what is becoming of this country, And in the end we all lose.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/opinion/trump-impeachment-inquiry.html

We the people, elect leaders not to rule but to serve." Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Tekate]

This is interesting, what law was not followed? how were Trump's rights not allowed? There is no law that says there has to be a law broken?


The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. ... Federal judges are subject to impeachment.
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Impeachment_in_the_United_States
Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

Constitutional Rights Foundation

High Crimes and Misdemeanors High Crimes and Misdemeanors, a reading on the meaning of this strange phrase that is the grounds for most impeachments and an activity in which students determine the outcome of hypothetical impeachment proceedings., High Crimes and Misdemeanors, a reading on the...

www.crf-usa.org

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

If Trump did not commit high crime then what is?

Maybe Trump will be elected again or maybe the independents will not vote for Trump this time. No way to know yet. My money is on anyone but Trump.

In order for anyone - the President included - to be held accountable, the processes established to hold one accountable must be followed. That IS the law.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@partgypsy If House Dems went to court to force compliance and the court/s agreed with them, it would not be an issue or question. But they didn’t, and according to the opinion piece you linked, Schiff clearly never even intended to try ...

As the investigation moves into its public phase, Democrats are determined not to get bogged down in court fights over every document and hostile witness. “We are not willing to let the White House engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope in the courts, so we press ahead,” said Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who has been spearheading the investigation.

 

[partgypsy]

Again, what makes the impeachment inquiry a sham. What were they required to do under law that they did not do. What were they not allowed to do, that they did do? What did they do that was illegal or unlawful or bypassing precedent. I may not check in later but happy Superbowl everyone!

 

[MollyMalone]

@partgypsy I appreciate that you’re being respectful in the discussion, so I’ll share my view in response to your comment re: the Clinton impeachment. The big differences I see between the two are 1) Clinton was charged with & found guilty of an actual crime (not just getting a BJ in office); and, 2) Clinton’s rights were not violated in that process. So these are not exactly ‘apples to apples’ impeachments. * * *

Seems very odd to me to employ "found guilty" in this procedural context. And I'd be willing to bet that Bill Clinton is of the opinion that the current President was treated more fairly/ afforded more due process in the run-up to the House vote on the 2 Articles of Impeachment delivered to the current Senate than what happened 31 years ago.

The Fall 1998 Judiciary Committee's factual bases relied almost entirely on "the fruits" of Ken Starr's wide-roving Special Counsel investigation spanning 4 years and the attendant grand jury proceeding, an entirely secret proceeding -- to which Clinton and his attorney were not privy, save for his own appearance before the grand jury (he did not contest the subpoena of him) -- where neither the "target" nor his lawyer can be an observer, let alone participate; the target has no say as to who is called as a witness, can't challenge the scope of witness testimony and the receipt of evidence; and where, in the Federal system, compound hearsay is admissible in the grand jury.

There were never any Judicial Committee depositions and none of the Committee's initial 3 hearings was intended to elicit fact witness testimony:

• October 9, 1998 - the Subcommittee on the Constitution heard from 19 legal and constitutional experts on the background-nature of impeachment, and more particularly, their views on "high crimes and misdemeanors"
• October 19, 1998 - Ken Starr testified before the Committee; he essentially was asked to confirm/deny x, y, z aspects of his report, and he did not repudiate anything in his report.
• December 1, 1998 - witnesses called by the Judiciary Committee re the law of perjury and its consequences (included 2 women who had been prosecuted for perjury arising out of civil litigation).

On December 4, 1998 -- after House Judiciary Committee Chair Henry Hyde had announced that the Committee would vote on Articles of Impeachment in the upcoming week -- counsel for the White House informed Hyde that the WH would like to call witnesses. There was some wrangling about this (because of its "last minute" timing), but the Judiciary Committee did agree to hear, on December 8-9, 10-minute rebuttal presentations by 14 people; Clinton's Special Counsel Greg Craig & White House Counsel Charles Ruff were given more time, and the Committee accepted written statements as well. Committee members were each given 5 minutes to question each person who appeared on those two days.

Nothing of an evidentiary nature was held after the proposed Articles of Impeachment were sent to the full House on December 12. The House voted to send 2 of the 4 proposed Articles to the Senate for trial. And as we all know, a majority of the Senators subsequently voted "not guilty."

 

[redwood66]

@partgypsy If House Dems went to court to force compliance and the court/s agreed with them, it would not be an issue or question. But they didn’t, and according to the opinion piece you linked, Schiff clearly never even intended to try ...

I wish this issue had been pushed by the democrats because it may be time for SCOTUS to rule on it. But no one wanted to wait that long. It was the same during the Fast and Furious investigation and the republicans didn't want to push it either. Perhaps no one really wants a ruling.

 

[doberman]

What a joke. Trump is teflon, once again. The Republican party could have evidence that he was revealing state secrets and nuclear codes to Russia and they still wouldn't do a thing.

 

[Maria D]

@MollyMalone thanks for reminding us all of the historical facts. Political discourse in this country has gone so far off the rails that much of the time I just feel that every conservative I talk to (IRL) either has complete political amnesia or is just trying to gaslight me. (As I recall, you consider yourself a Republican, no? A Kasich supporter if I remember correctly. Or maybe I have amnesia myself...)

As for the topic at hand - Sen. Lamar Jackson reasoned that he did not need to hear witnesses because the Democrats had proved their case. He felt Trump did everything he was accused of doing, and that those things were inappropriate but not impeachable offenses. What else is there to say? I think he speaks for all the Republican Senators. I will be shocked if a single one of them votes to convict. So yeah, why bother dragging this out with witnesses. It was over before it started - McConnell said so from day one.

But I'm of the camp that this impeachment needed to happen. Jackson gave me exactly what I needed to hear, and wanted to see on record, to be certain of my viewpoint: "Trump is guilty and the Republican controlled senate is OK with that." All a voter can do at this point is make his own decision about what kind of republic he wants the US to be and vote accordingly.

 

[MollyMalone]

@MollyMalone thanks for reminding us all of the historical facts. Political discourse in this country has gone so far off the rails that much of the time I just feel that every conservative I talk to (IRL) either has complete political amnesia or is just trying to gaslight me. (As I recall, you consider yourself a Republican, no? A Kasich supporter if I remember correctly. Or maybe I have amnesia myself...) * * *

Your memory is better than mine! But a search of my own posts "refreshed my recollection," as we say in the law biz. You let me cast a write-in vote in this poll you launched 4 years ago

PS Super Tuesday 2016 - Republican

Enter your choice for the Republican Presidential nominee. You don't have to be a registered republican and you can vote in both, or neither, of the PS primaries!

www.pricescope.com

Although I've "split my ticket" more than once (probably in every/just about every 4-year Massachusetts and NY local-state-Presidential election since I was old enough to vote), I think of myself as a Democrat, with some libertarian leanings. Think my parents considered themselves Republican for many years (they always declined to tell us kids for whom they voted as we were growing up). But the kind of Republican sneeringly derided in more recent years as "RINOs" because they were fiscally conservative, socially progressive. And although they were Methodist lay leaders, my parents considered the separation of church and state to be very important. (One of my vivid childhood memories is of answering the phone and hearing a man deliver scary threats in a deep, hissing voice; the local newspaper had published my dad's letter to the editor voicing his approval of the Supreme Court's decision in Engel v Vitale,

Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

not that I knew the name of the case at the time).

I think they each voted for Ford-Dole (1976) and Dole-Kemp (1996), but not other Republican Presidential nominees after Eisenhower. I do know for certain that Dad voted in Ohio's 2016 Republican primary and cast his vote for Kasich (Dad died of cancer before the November election). As he declared at the time, "I didn't fight in the goddamned trenches of World War II so that a man like Donald Trump could become President."

 

[partgypsy]

If Trump is SO concerned about potential corruption, surprised he didn't investigate this dude (attorney diverting 65 million from charities to himself and family members). https://apnews.com/9d2ed80ca912d18a...NiyRqA9N-_zJwykfT6PR6qWW-CB--3ZuNGYBgbaz6vNKo

Oh whoops that's Trump's lawyer.

And in other news, the White house announces that they will no longer use American Bar Association to screen judges. Because having to have credentials and ethics is so inconvenient.

 

[redwood66]

The ABA has long been thought by conservatives to be a left leaning group due to the rating it gives constructionist judges. This is likely in response to the ethics committee's scuttlebutt about not allowing judges to be members of the Federalist Society.

 

[AGBF]

If Trump is SO concerned about potential corruption, surprised he didn't investigate this dude (attorney diverting 65 million from charities to himself and family members). https://apnews.com/9d2ed80ca912d18a...NiyRqA9N-_zJwykfT6PR6qWW-CB--3ZuNGYBgbaz6vNKo

Oh whoops that's Trump's lawyer.

And in other news, the White house announces that they will no longer use American Bar Association to screen judges. Because having to have credentials and ethics is so inconvenient.

Thank you for the information.

Edited to add: Just as I agree with redwood that there are dangers from the military industrial complex (although unlike red, I revered John McCain) I am glad (and I would bet she agrees with me) that we are lucky we still have a free press.