Evidence continues to suggest that past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior; obstruction and abuse of power. Stay tuned.

I will. Keep fighting the good fight!

22. Ambassador Sondland testifies 11/20/19 on Ukraine:

"Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” he said. “Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of [claims Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election] and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

“But I never received a clear answer,” he said. “In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.”

Ambassador Sondland later concluded that at the time, and in spite of a subsequent telecom directly with President Trump to the contrary, that a quid pro quo was nevertheless implied.

Trump was never a suitable possibility for POTUS, and the Republican Party, had they had, at last, some decency, would not have selected him as their standard bearer. There were other, better (even as Republicans) choices. As always, "the problem" is stacked up several layers deep.

"Trump" is an exemplar of a much larger problem. So is the Republican Party. But then, so is the Democratic Party, and so is Wall Street, Capitalism, and more!

My thoughts exactly! I wanted a moderate John Kasich to get the nomination...I think most people will end-up doing a protest vote just to get the guy outa there....sad.

Being an Independent Moderate is tough....and nowadays the Republican party is a far cry from the party of Lincoln…. .

"Trump" is an exemplar of a much larger problem. So is the Republican Party. But then, so is the Democratic Party, and so is Wall Street, Capitalism, and more! — Bitter Crank

Yes but 'everything is fucked anyway' is hardly an answer. Trump is such an egregious example of wrong man for the job, were he removed (and regrettably I'm not expecting that outcome) then that would go a long way to righting many wrongs. Followed by the lunatic fringe in the GoP, most of whom originated with that idiotic 'Tea Party' fad and shock jock radio. There are decent republicans, although I admit they're very hard to see.

Stay tuned there was bombshell testimony today from Fiona Hill and others... It could be the start of some Republicans turning on the President.

Don't hold your breath. They will simply bring a couple of more more lorries full of bullsh*t and bury everything under it. I mean, I'm really hoping I'm wrong, but if there's one thing more depressing that Trump's mendacity, it's the GoP's refusal to acknowledge reality.

Yes but 'everything is fucked anyway' is hardly an answer??? — Wayfarer

I commend the Democrats' efforts toward impeachment. (Remember, impeachment, to be effective, has to be followed by a conviction and removal from office--quite unlikely, given the Republican controlled Senate). The Democrats happen to not be at fault on the question of manipulating the Ukrainians into investigating Bidens Jr. and Sr., but they haven't caught fire and fought fiercely on other issues where they should have, were they a "real" opposition. Everything isn't fucked. What is fucked is the the Two-Wingéd Unitary Beast that colludes to facilitate all sorts of corruption and bad policy.

The United States does not have a viable third party. Third parties there have been, oppositional groups there are, but up against a united front of political and corporate power, they have not had, do not have, and, as far as most oppositional analysis sees it, will not have a chance much better than NIL.

A third, militantly progressive oppositional party would have to arise from the electorate; While there may be 10% (arbitrary number picked out of thin air) of the electorate who could be militantly progressive and oppositional, it would take quite some time for such a new, rapidly growing party, even given plurality and majority election numbers, to win in the 50 states, elect a majority oppositional party in both houses, win the White House, and repeal reams worth of regressive legislation and go on to achieve real change. Meanwhile, the Two-Wingéd Unitary Beast would not have died. It would fight like hell to maintain its prerogatives and privileges.

The single most disappointing thing about the Trump presidency is the methodical and total disregard for facts. This impeachment enquiry really ought not to be about Democrat vs Republican at all. If the Senate acquits on purely partisan grounds, I really feel as though Trump will go completely rogue at that time. I wouldn't be surprised if he suspended the constitution and had Pelosi and Schiff arrested. And what power could restrain him, when he and the GOP clearly hold Congress in complete contempt?

The constitution can't be suspended. Were he to order the DOJ or the military to arrest and jail Pelosi and Schiff, I expect that officials (who didn't have a gun pointed at their head, and maybe not even then) would quite properly refuse.

Trump can disregard the facts because he is a liar who has no respect for what is true or real. You know, some people are liars. They lie. Or thieves, knaves, and scoundrels. They tend to behave in an immoral manner.

The congress could, if they were not hogtied by partisan divide, withdraw funding from White House operations.

Does the elected government technically even run the country? Politics is just a façade of tabloid material, there's not a single honest fact in the mix! lol We should vote Hugh Hefner president, that'd be a good scandal!

23. November 8, 2019 - A federal jury has convicted Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to President Donald Trump, of making false statements to Congress, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. The false statement and obstruction of justice charges have maximum sentence of five years each. Witness tampering carries a maximum of 20 years in prison.

Stone’s trial has also proved damaging for Trump. The government argued that Stone’s motive was simple. “Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign, and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump,” prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said in his opening remarks to jurors last week.

Testimony Tuesday by former campaign staffer Rick Gates suggested that Trump probably lied to special counsel Robert Mueller about conversations he had in 2016 with Stone regarding WikiLeaks. Trump told Mueller in written answers that he did not recall “discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.”

But Gates described a July 31, 2016, phone call between Trump and Stone, immediately after which Trump told Gates that “more information would be coming.” Gates also revealed that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort told Gates that he intended to brief Trump on information from Stone on WikiLeaks’ plans.

24. 1/24/20- An audio tape surfaced from Ukraine/Giuliani associate Lev Parnas that revealed not only that Trump lied about not knowing Lev Parnas (repeat of yet another lie ala Michael Cohen/Stormy Daniels), but was caught on tape saying 'Get rid of her, take her out' thug mentality/intimidation toward our own Ambassador for Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

This tape is further evidence of Trump's guilt relative to wanting no 'internal' opposition to political cheating/investigating political rival Biden. Although a President can certainly have the power to hire/fire appointed positions, this also speaks to the fact that he continues to lie to the public about things. Last week he denied knowing him 14 times in one White House question and answer session, then he denied it again last Wednesday, this time saying: 'I don't know him, other than he's sort of like a groupie.'

Lev Parnas seems to be a very forgettable guy. Even Devin Nunes forgot he'd ever talked with him. Maybe Parnas is a Jedi.

The pro-Trump view is that Trump really didn't know who Parnas was. But that implies he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch on the basis of a stranger claiming she'd been badmouthing him.

Yep. It fits the reverse Modus Tollens principle: if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, smells like a duck, it probably is a duck.

As Adam Schiff so well articulated in his closing argument on Friday....use of common sense can most likely go a long way here... . In short, his [Trump's] behavior suggests guilt. Otherwise, if one was not guilty, one would not block documents/witnesses. But rather, provide such evidence documents/witnesses to exonerate oneself.

"Chronological Addendum"

25. Feb 6, 2018: A federal court approved a $25 million settlement with students who said they were duped by Donald Trump and his now-defunct Trump University, which promised to teach them the "secrets of success" in the real estate industry.

Documents made public through the litigation revealed that some former Trump University managers had given testimony about its unscrupulous and exploitative business practices. One sales executive testified that the operation was “a facade, a total lie.” Another manager called it a “fraudulent scheme.”

Other records showed how Mr. Trump had overstated the depth of his involvement in the programs. Despite claims that Mr. Trump had handpicked instructors, he acknowledged in testimony that he had not.

Despite its name, Trump University, which ceased operations in 2010, was not a licensed university.

The so-called 'defense' of Trump is preposterous in the extreme. It all comes down to, well if Trump does it, then it can't be criminal! It can't be an abuse of power, but the legit exercise of political power. They're now openly saying - even if he did it (and of course he did it, the evidence is undeniable), it can't be considered wrong. In effect they're just blatantly putting Trump above the law, above any kind of accountability.

All the lies, the deception, the mendacity, the cheating, the abuse of power - it will all come down to the vote on Friday as to whether there will be more witnesses and documents. If Mitch McConnell has the numbers to close the inquiry and declare Trump acquitted, then it's goodbye to American constitutional democracy, and Hail Caesar. It will be a coronation, not an impeachment.

The so-called 'defense' of Trump is preposterous in the extreme. It all comes down to, well if Trump does it, then it can't be criminal! It can't be an abuse of power, but the legit exercise of political power. They're now openly saying - even if he did it (and of course he did it, the evidence is undeniable), it can't be considered wrong. In effect they're just blatantly putting Trump above the law, above any kind of accountability. — Wayfarer

As I've argued in the other thread, this is the only legal argument that can really succeed. Trump, as an elected official, is supposed to know what the boundaries of his power are. His intent in the matter is irrelevant as I would suspect negligence or even strict liability to apply. Whether the Ukrainians took it seriously or whether it was successful are irrelevant too, because an unsuccessful threat was still a threat.

So what's left is that it was within his powers to do what he did but that begs the question what "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean and can radically shift the balance of power towards the office of the president as he basically becomes untouchable.

The fact party politics trump these considerations once again reflects the deep division in US society between cola and cola light, since there is currently no substantive difference between the two parties.

Schiff and Dershowitz are channeling their inner John Rawls here:

Considering Dershowitz's shady past (let me know if you need any information on his past record/court cases and who he typically represents) unfortunately, he comes across as one of those stereotypical lawyers who can't be trusted, and of course flip-flops on his own interpretations of the law. Adam Schiff uncovers some of that here:




Here's where Dershowitz contradicts himself in this other video (that Schiff alludes to), where he say's abuse of power is impeachable viz. Clinton:

https://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2020/01/alan-dershowitz-1998-contradicts

Reported behavior now includes; abuse of power, obstruction, misogyny, racism and fascism. — 3017amen

And yet you fail to present a single example of them. Could you start by doing so?

Hi Nonsense!

You may want to start from the beginning of the thread. For example, you'll see instances of misogyny and other nefarious behavior. Painstaking I know, but you kinda came late in the game. Nevertheless, please take the time to read through the enumerations that I posted, then if you care to challenge them I would be more than happy to make a case... !

They're now openly saying - even if he did it (and of course he did it, the evidence is undeniable), it can't be considered wrong. — Wayfarer

It's not even that. Collins, Alexander, and Rubio (and probably others) all accept that he did it and that it's wrong. But for Collins and Alexander it isn't impeachable, and for Rubio it is impeachable but he shouldn't be removed for it because it would be bad for the country or something.

Too many people are still conflating impeachment with conviction/removal. Arguably a simple majority of the House of Representatives can impeach any federal official for any reason whatsoever, but as I noted at the very beginning of this thread, a two-thirds majority of the Senate can only constitutionally remove someone from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In this case, a majority of Senators voted that the President was not guilty of anything of that magnitude.

Being immoral, dishonest, and obnoxious--which I have acknowledged to be an accurate description of Donald Trump, which is why I did not and will not vote for him myself--is not sufficient to take the drastic step of overturning the result of a valid election. The American people will have their say in nine months, and so far it looks like the first-ever strictly partisan impeachment of a sitting president has had the opposite of its intended effect on his approval ratings.

As a Christian Existentialist myself, it is indeed refreshing to see a man of faith having the courage to speak the truth. (This is what the GOP used to stand for... .)

I know that is your interpretation, however, High Crimes and Misdemeanors is simply that, a constitutional interpretation. Accordingly, abuse of power is not considered an unreasonable interpretation, much like Prof. Dershowitz'' initial interpretation during the Clinton era.

Otherwise, the question becomes, how can we prevent such an abuse of power for future Presidents? And would you condone such behavior from any President (requesting foreign assistance for personal political gain-which is in violation of campaign statues.)...unfortunately he can't be trusted. I worry he may try to rig the 2020 election.

I know that is your interpretation, however, High Crimes and Misdemeanors is simply that, a constitutional interpretation. — 3017amen

Not really, it is a direct quote from the text itself. The Senate has the exclusive power to determine what qualifies.

And would you condone such behavior from any President (requesting foreign assistance for personal political gain-which is in violation of campaign statues.) — 3017amen

Of course not; but in my opinion, the House managers did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump requested foreign assistance strictly for personal political gain. That is an attribution of motive, which is a very tricky thing to prove, especially on the basis of a single phone conversation. The issue there is whether an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens was (and still is) properly predicated, in which case the fact that it might also have a personal political benefit for Trump is irrelevant.

Not really, it is a direct quote from the text itself. The Senate has the exclusive power to determine what qualifies. — aletheist

Yep, and that's their job; its a political process and, an interpretation.

Of course not; but in my opinion, the House managers did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump requested foreign assistance strictly for personal political gain. — aletheist

Even though it wasn't a criminal trial, we all wanted witnesses in order to help determine incriminating or exculpatory evidence. The mere fact there was obstruction of documents and witnesses, suggests a Modus Tollens type of inference.

This is the first Impeachment without witnesses. 75% of Americans wanted witnesses. So, what are we left with, reasonable inference you think?

Even though it wasn't a criminal trial, we all wanted witnesses in order to help determine incriminating or exculpatory evidence. The mere fact there was obstruction of documents and witnesses, suggests a Modus Tollens type of inference. — 3017amen

Impeachment is supposed to be a rare and serious matter. Gathering evidence to support taking such action is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. If its investigators believed that there was genuine "obstruction of documents and witnesses," then they could (and should) have taken that argument to the courts, since that is where such disputes between the legislative and executive branches are routinely resolved. Besides, two Democrats in the House and Mitt Romney in the Senate acknowledged that President Trump was not guilty of obstructing Congress.

This is the first Impeachment without witnesses. — 3017amen

No, it is the first Senate trial for removal from office without witnesses; again, please do not conflate the two distinct steps. It is also the first impeachment without bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and even Nancy Pelosi once argued against proceeding under such circumstances.

So, what are we left with, reasonable inference you think? — 3017amen

A majority of Senators did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. What other inference would be reasonable?