trump impeachment watch thread

[vy65]

So to keep track:

1) somehow SCOTUS is going to reverse Nixon because TSA doesn't want to answer on whether White House counsel is wrong on the nature of impeachment and whether due process applies.

2) DJT didn't commit an impeachable offense because Obama.

[RandomGuy]

Fact:
Threats do not have to be explicit to be real. They can be implied.

Fact:
Donald Trump held up Ukranian aid, and any official state visit.

Fact:
When the Ukranian president mentioned this aid, Trumps response was "do us a favor", in a heavily populated call.

The threat here was implicit. The aid did not get cleared until the day before Ukraine announced a "review" of the corruption prosecutions of the company Biden was a boardmember for, presumedly after discussions with the white house.

This is like Watergate, but with morons.

[hater]

Why does that matter? It's an abuse of office no matter how realistic or not the opponent is. In this case, Biden is the frontrunner.

Now you are changing your own analysis. You said likely candidate not frontrunner. And at this point it's not clear Biden is either

You might want to tell DJT this since he's having his personal lawyer involved in the investigation. To, you know, investigate Biden.

Trump never said Rudy is investigating. You made that up

But even if you disagree with that - which you shouldn't because its plainly there in the transcript - it's nevertheless an abuse of office to have a personal attorney involved, at all.

according to which law?

It is off limits to have the president involve his personal attorney in requesting a foreign power to investigate a political rival. You're asking these questions as though there's some distinction you're making, but you're not.

If Biden commits murder, then we have non-politicized organizations (D.C. police, the FBI, the U.S. Marshalls, etc...) to investigate. None of what you're saying is support for a president to politicize the issue.



No.

You keep saying Rudy is investigating, but you just made that up

Truth is no law was broken. Impeachment is a political process. At best for democrats it will go along political lines and die at the senate. At worst it will be an utter failure for democrats that will bring down many of them


In other words the case is a nothing burger

[Chris]

[Pavlov]

So to keep track:

1) somehow SCOTUS is going to reverse Nixon because TSA doesn't want to answer on whether White House counsel is wrong on the nature of impeachment and whether due process applies.

2) DJT didn't commit an impeachable offense because Obama.

I may actually buy a diminished capacity kind of defense for 2). Black President did a lot of permanent mental damage to white men all over the US as this thread proves.

[RandomGuy]

You don't want to deal with reality, because you know that Trump did, by your own definition, commit something you yourself admit is impeachable.

All your whining about honesty and in the exact same post you just outright lie. Never once did I say Trump threatened other countries for dirt on his political opponents. You’re a pathetic liar and there is no point in continuing this discussion with someone who tries to pull that type of .

That's not what I said. I say that Trump's actions met YOUR definition of what is impeachable.

Which is why you are so pissy. You know it too.

[TSA]

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I don't think what happened 3 years ago is particularly relevant to whether DJT committed an impeachable offense. Because it's, you know, irrelevant.

asking for a country to investigate actual corruption is an impeachable offense

Agree to disagree on that one VY

[Pavlov]

asking for a country to investigate actual corruption is an impeachable offense

Agree to disagree on that one VY

What crime are you saying Hunter Biden committed?

Be specific.

[vy65]

Now you are changing your own analysis. You said likely candidate not frontrunner. And at this point it's not clear Biden is either

No I'm not. Either is an abuse of office. That's the Larry Tribe law review article I quoted.

Trump never said Rudy is investigating. You made that up

Trump asked the Ukranian President to have his people get in contact with Rudy about the Biden investigation.

according to which law?

https://heinonline.org/HOL/PDFsearch...n&from=dropbox[/QUOTE]

You keep saying Rudy is investigating, but you just made that up

Truth is no law was broken. Impeachment is a political process. At best for democrats it will go along political lines and die at the senate. At worst it will be an utter failure for democrats that will bring down many of them

The transcript speaks for itself. Feel free to show me those portions that back you up.

Whether or not DJT is convicted is irrelevant to whether he's committed an impeachable offense. Unless you think the Senate GOP don't prioritize reelection or party affiliation.


In other words the case is a nothing burger[/QUOTE]

[Chris]

disappointed

Disappointed you couldn't goalpost? Just keep at it slugger.

[vy65]

asking for a country to investigate actual corruption is an impeachable offense

Agree to disagree on that one VY

Yeah, you're free to misstate the situation and be wrong. Can't help you there buddy.

Still waiting on your comments as to why Nixon is gonna be overturned.

[spurraider21]

Disappointed you couldn't goalpost? Just keep at it slugger.

you posed gowdy's being a prosecutor as an excuse for why he reportedly wasn't going to take on the role as trump's outside counsel, even though it never made sense as an excuse, because prosecutors can become defense attorneys without issue (as rudy has been doing for some time now)

then gowdy took on the role, further confirming the excuse as bull .

you haven't owned it. SAD!

[TSA]

That's not what I said. I say that Trump's actions met YOUR definition of what is impeachable.

Which is why you are so pissy. You know it too.

I have merely agreed with you:
Trump [should] be impeached if he starts threatening countries for dirt on his political opponents

I am attempting to determine if that happened based on the facts we can both agree on.

An hour ago you said you were attempting to establish the facts. Now, again, you’ve made your mind up. You’re a dishonest hack RG...it’s sad to see what’s become of you after your TDS. Poor fella.

[Pavlov]

The non-lawyers bowing up ITT:

[RandomGuy]

An hour ago you said you were attempting to establish the facts. Now, again, you’ve made your mind up. You’re a dishonest hack RG...it’s sad to see what’s become of you after your TDS. Poor fella.

I have reviewed the facts and made my conclusion.

I was attempting to establish mutually agreed on facts to see if we could reach an agreement on a conclusion.

We got to:
1) Trump should be impeached if he threatened another country to investigate his political rivals
and
2)Ukraine is dependent on the US for military and financial aid.

Once you realized that you painted yourself into a corner and would have to admit that, in fact, the moron you idolize is a moron and should be impeached by your own standards, you clammed up and stopped answering questions.

You stopped being honest.

I merely wondered why you think you stopped being honest.

[vy65]

you posed gowdy's being a prosecutor as an excuse for why he reportedly wasn't going to take on the role as trump's outside counsel, even though it never made sense as an excuse, because prosecutors can become defense attorneys without issue (as rudy has been doing for some time now)

then gowdy took on the role, further confirming the excuse as bull .

you haven't owned it. SAD!

KaiserDillon PLLC has extensive experience representing clients in white-collar criminal matters.

Two of our partners, Matt Kaiser and Jon Jeffress, are former Assistant Federal Public Defenders. Another, Justin Dillon, is a former Assistant United States Attorney.

Described as “a haven for clients in trouble,” by The American Lawyer, Zuckerman Spaeder consistently ranks among the top firms in the United States for white collar criminal defense. In fact, our reputation was built on defending clients in high-stakes white collar litigation.

We defend individual and ins utional clients in all manner of white collar prosecutions, government investigations, and other criminal matters. With a team assembled from former prosecutors and public defenders, we are trial-ready litigators with decades of experience in court. Because our teams come from both the prosecution and defense side, we understand prosecutors and regulators, giving our clients a better perspective on the case.

Over the past three decades, our lawyers have been involved in every significant Department of Justice (DOJ) white collar enforcement initiative, including the Enron and AOL accounting fraud matters — securing an acquittal for an AOL executive in the federal criminal trial and a repudiation of the SEC’s allegations in the companion civil trial; investigations of the major banks for LIBOR and Foreign Exchange rate fixing; Volkswagen for cir venting emission controls, BP for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; the Japanese auto parts supply and auto shipping industries on criminal an rust claims, and the Petrobras foreign bribery inquiry. One of our partners successfully defended former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell at trial and before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most high profile cases in the past decade; other partners successfully defended individuals at trial in the DOJ’s largest prosecution of individuals under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the largest environmental criminal prosecution; and more recently, defeated the government in a federal prosecution of corruption and fraud in awarding government contracts.

[hater]

No I'm not. Either is an abuse of office. That's the Larry Tribe law review article I quoted.

Larry tribe is a rabid anti trump lol

Trump asked the Ukranian President to have his people get in contact with Rudy about the Biden investigation.

Exactly. He never said Rudy is investigating. Glad we agree here.

and your link don't work

The transcript speaks for itself. Feel free to show me those portions that back you up.

LOL you are the one saying it's a compelling case, you tell me which portions back you up. What you quoted 9bviously doesnt

[TSA]

Yeah, you're free to misstate the situation and be wrong. Can't help you there buddy.

Still waiting on your comments as to why Nixon is gonna be overturned.

Speaa as king of misstating, never said it would be.

[RandomGuy]

Speaa as king of misstating, never said it would be.

You are the sofa king, we tar dead.

[TSA]

I have reviewed the facts and made my conclusion.

I was attempting to establish mutually agreed on facts to see if we could reach an agreement on a conclusion.

We got to:
1) Trump should be impeached if he threatened another country to investigate his political rivals
and
2)Ukraine is dependent on the US for military and financial aid.

Once you realized that you painted yourself into a corner and would have to admit that, in fact, the moron you idolize is a moron and should be impeached by your own standards, you clammed up and stopped answering questions.

You stopped being honest.

I merely wondered why you think you stopped being honest.

The only thing you’ve done is lie and put words in my mouth in an attempt to get me to discuss a conclusion you’ve already reached without evidence. You’re a dishonest hack.

[vy65]

Larry tribe is a rabid anti trump lol

The article is from 1998

Exactly. He never said Rudy is investigating. Glad we agree here.

We don't agree. Trump asked Ukraine to contact Rudy because Rudy knows a lot and would assist in the investigation.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...v=31&id=&page=

LOL you are the one saying it's a compelling case, you tell me which portions back you up. What you quoted 9bviously doesnt

It is. That's why I quoted from it. At length. All you've said is "nuh uh."

[vy65]

Speaa as king of misstating, never said it would be.

Then you agree that white house counsel got it wrong, since there'll be no reason for SCOTUS to take up Nixon again. Glad we could finally agree on something

[Chris]

you posed gowdy's being a prosecutor as an excuse for why he reportedly wasn't going to take on the role as trump's outside counsel, even though it never made sense as an excuse, because prosecutors can become defense attorneys without issue (as rudy has been doing for some time now)

then gowdy took on the role, further confirming the excuse as bull .

you haven't owned it. SAD!

Negative. We've already established it was a ststement of fact which is evident. Nothing to own; you're just spinning your wheels with no tread.

[spurraider21]

Negative. We've already established it was a ststement of fact which is evident. Nothing to own; you're just spinning your wheels with no tread.

cant own it

Sad!

[hater]

The article is from 1998

Post it then

We don't agree. Trump asked Ukraine to contact Rudy because Rudy knows a lot and would assist in the investigation.

Which does not = Rudy is investigating. Do you agree Trump didn't say the words Rudy is investigating?

It is. That's why I quoted from it. At length. All you've said is "nuh uh."

What you quoted does not back up your claims. So yeah. Nuh uh