The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump
- The Articles of Impeachment have been delivered to the Senate by the seven U. S. House of Representatives Managers.
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/16/senate-impeachment-trial-president-trump-what-to-expect/4483441002/
- This is real and not a "witch hunt".
- Trump has been impeached by the U. S. House of Representatives.
- The Chief Justice (John Roberts) of the U. S. Supreme Court is being Sworn in and afterward he swears in the U. S. Senators as jurors.
- Most of the Senators are of the Republican Party.
- A majority of them have said openly and in advance they are not going to be fair and they will lie under oath.
- Most of the Republicans don't want documents or witnesses. Their first effort is dismiss the Articles of Impeachment.
- Mr. Trump has betrayed his country, his oath of office, the American people, his party, and the US Presidency.
- President Trump is a Traitor: "a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc".
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.
- "Having power corrupts a man, or lessens his morality, and the more power a man has, the more corrupted he will become. This idiom means that those in power often do not have the people's best interests in mind".
- Trump is not above the law!
- The Republicans want him gone, but they can't say it openly or now. They will later claim the evidences swayed them to impeach Trump. The Republican Party is like the flying-monkeys in the movie The Wizard of Oz. The scene the depicted when little Dorothy threw a bucket of water to put out the fire on the burning scarecrow; some of the water flashed on the wicked-witch. She melted away to nothing. Instead of the flying-monkeys getting angry, they sung, rejoicingly , "Ding dong, the wicked-witch is dead".
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808). CM
Comments
-
Senate opens impeachment trial against President Trump: Chief Justice John Roberts sworn in
America is making history... CM
-
The process to remove Trump from office. He has already been impeached. CM
-
Watch the Republicans Senators take the oath. How can they do less than their best. They swore before God , the nation and their families. The Republicans have no morals? CM
-
Who has said they are going to lie under oath? How did Trump betray his country? Be specific. How is he a traitor under the Constitution? Be specific. Remember, treason is punishable by death so you better have a good case.
What laws has Trump broken that he is being above? Be specific.
What Republicans want Trump gone? Are you delusional? Yes, there are never-trumpers but they are the minority.
-
Reformed,
Since you can read, see the articles above or listen to the video clips. Help yourself for a change. You're playing the role of being stupid or being lazy. e.g.
What laws has Trump broken...? Be specific.
A supposed student of American history, where have you been? They know this in Russia and Israel. Where do you live? Please don't say, I was just checking to see if you knew. "That dog won't hunt". Represent yourself better. CM
-
So you can't list one? Noted.
-
Reformed,
"You're slick, but not enough to slide". CM
-
-
I see, so you can't list one. Noted.
-
Reformed,
Please watch a US station other than Fox News. Trump has been impeached! CM
-
He has been impeached but not convicted. The impeachment will forever be a stain on the Democrats who did this in a wholly partisan manner.
-
Correction: "The impeachment will forever be a stain on" Donald John Trump. Remember, he is the President. Fox News didn't report this? A party is no better than its leader. I heard somewhere, "a fish rots from the head first". CM
-
First, what makes you think I watch Fox News? I don't actually. In fact, I don't watch televised news unless you count CSPAN. That being said, he has been impeached but NOT convicted. Do you believe impeachment was a stain on Clinton?
-
This trial is not about Adam Schiff or Hunter Biden. Trump is the President. He has been impeached! He committed "high crimes and misdemeanors".
People, don't fall for the detractions. It was a shameful waste of time watching this afternoon. They have to have witnesses. Trump has to go. If hunter was not qualified to be on Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company Board, Trump is doubly unqualified as the U.S. President. This in itself is a scandal. Remember the Muller Report? Trump was legally installed, but illegitimately elected. Justice demands satisfaction, one way or the other.
"Trumpsters", prepare for Trump's removal from office. Please don't turn to guns for revenge. Guns were made to kill. CM
-
This trial is not about Adam Schiff or Hunter Biden. Trump is the President. He has been impeached! He committed "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Well, there should be a trial of Biden and the respective members of the Obama regime involved in the Ukraine affair ... Why should a later US president not support an investigation in Ukraine involving possible corruption of a former US vice-president?
People, don't fall for the detractions.
Indeed ... seems like many in the USA have been detracted from the original issue and matter ...
-
Ok, first you need to learn something. Just because he has been impeached does NOT mean he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It means he has been ACCUSED of committing high crimes and misdemeanors. We are in the trial right now to see if that is true.
Why do they have to have witnesses? Because the House has no case? Because they did a shoddy job on their end?
And how do you figure the stupid remark of "If Hunter Biden....then Trump...." That's just dumb.
Remember the Mueller report that showed no collusion? No conspiracy? DULY ELECTED, LAWFULLY ELECTED president because nothing that happened in Russia altered the election? That report?
-
@reformed posted:
Ok, first you need to learn something. Just because he has been impeached does NOT mean he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It means he has been ACCUSED of committing high crimes and misdemeanors. We are in the trial right now to see if that is true.
We should hope and want your description of the trial's purpose to be correct, but in these politically polarized days, I think it's more precise to say that impeachment means the House has determined that the president committed impeachable offenses, and the the trial will determine whether the Senate agrees. I've heard too much politically charged and motivated interpretation of the trial's purpose from several senators to believe "truth" is in their view its objective (e.g. Sen Joni Ernst's barely veiled enthusiasm about the effect of the President's team's Biden presentation yesterday on Joe Biden's Iowa poll results)
Why do they have to have witnesses? Because the House has no case? Because they did a shoddy job on their end?
- Because in this country "trials" have witnesses.
- Because there has never been a U.S. Senate impeachment trial without witnesses.
- Because there are first-hand witnesses to the president's conduct whom the president refused to allow to testify during the House's proceedings, and as this week's reports of what John Bolton will claim in his upcoming book demonstrated, when under oath, first-hand witnesses can add significantly to our understanding of what happened.
- Because if the Senate is to fulfill what you believe is its mission as the trier of impeachments - to determine whether it is "true" that the president of the United States "has committed high crimes and misdemeanors" - fact witnesses with information relevant to that question should be heard from, even if the president about whose conduct in office those witnesses would testify blocks their appearance. (How crazy is the world of this impeachment trial! The defendant can bar witnesses from testifying against him!)
And how do you figure the stupid remark of "If Hunter Biden....then Trump...." That's just dumb.
That's just insightful.
Remember the Mueller report that showed no collusion? No conspiracy? DULY ELECTED, LAWFULLY ELECTED president because nothing that happened in Russia altered the election? That report?
It is false to say the Mueller report "showed no collusion." In the opening pages of Part I the report VERY specifically declared that "collusion" is not a legal term of art, and so it would not consider the issue.
As to the issue of "conspiracy," which IS a legal term of art and which the report DID engage, the report found "insufficient evidence" to "establish" the crime of conspiracy. But as the report ALSO very specifically stated, "[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”
Whether anything Russia did "altered the election" (and how can we know what effect its social media campaign had, for example?) is not the point here and was not the point of the Mueller report. If I attempt to rob a bank, but get scared and run away from the teller window empty-handed after brandishing a gun and asking for money, can I be charged with a crime? After all, I didn't actually rob the bank. My actions had no effect on the bank's assets. Of course that's nonsense. As the Mueller report made clear: 1) That the Russians tried in a systematic way to interfere in the 2016 election for the purpose of aiding Donald Trump's candidacy matters; 2) That representatives of the Trump campaign on many occasions met with Russians and were open to the fruits of Russian efforts matters; 3) That Russia will very likely seek to interfere in the 2020 election also matters.
Donald Trump IS the duly-elected president of the United States. Russia DID interfere in the 2016 general election. The Trump campaign DID meet with Russians and welcome the fruits of the Russian efforts. Further, the Trump campaign took no steps to discourage, let alone report, the Russian outreach. ALL of those things are true.
-
Donald Trump IS the duly-elected president of the United States.
Indeed ... unfortunately, he has been the first duly elected president of the US whom the political opponents, Democrats and their supporters, refused to recognize as duly elected as they have not shut up until even now.
Russia DID interfere in the 2016 general election.
Oh dear ... the USA is a banana republic or what that some foreign country can interfere in their presidential election? If your claim were true, the USA has a much bigger and different problem ... What kind of interference was supposedly happening? People on the internet making publicity for one candidate? Eh, were there not other people and supporters making propaganda for the other candidate?
The Trump campaign DID meet with Russians and welcome the fruits of the Russian efforts.
Hmn ... aren't heads of state quite normally meeting with nationals of other countries? What kind of country are you making of the USA ?
Further, the Trump campaign took no steps to discourage, let alone report, the Russian outreach. ALL of those things are true.
My question rather is Why did the then regime in office not take steps to secure the US presidential election from foreign interference? Why did that former regime only begin spreading their rumors about "Russian interference" after they had lost the election ??
-
My question rather is Why did the then regime in office not take steps to secure the US presidential election from foreign interference? Why did that former regime only begin spreading their rumors about "Russian interference" after they had lost the election ??
Wolfgang,
Not so! check the video, it was a part of the debate between Hillary and Trump. CM
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Indeed ... unfortunately, he has been the first duly elected president of the US whom the political opponents, Democrats and their supporters, refused to recognize as duly elected as they have not shut up until even now.
There ARE people who believe Mr Trump was not duly-elected, just as there are people who believe Russia did not interfere in our 2016 general election. BOTH groups are, as a matter of fact, wrong.
Oh dear ... the USA is a banana republic or what that some foreign country can interfere in their presidential election? If your claim were true, the USA has a much bigger and different problem ... What kind of interference was supposedly happening? People on the internet making publicity for one candidate? Eh, were there not other people and supporters making propaganda for the other candidate?
I encourage you to read part I of the Mueller report. Russia's interference efforts were massive in scope and breadth, and extended FAR beyond "[p]eople on the internet making publicity for one candidate." In addition, those efforts weren't just from a group of people scattered about the nation of Russia who by coincidence happened to interfere in the same American election. Those efforts were of the Russian government, which in my view greatly increases the magnitude of the offense.
Hmn ... aren't heads of state quite normally meeting with nationals of other countries? What kind of country are you making of the USA ?
- I asserted that it was the Trump campaign, not our head of state, who met with and welcomed the fruits of the Russians' efforts.
- At the time of Russia's 2016 election interference and the Trump campaign's meetings with Russians, Mr Trump was NOT our head of state; he was a candidate running for office.
My question rather is Why did the then regime in office not take steps to secure the US presidential election from foreign interference? Why did that former regime only begin spreading their rumors about "Russian interference" after they had lost the election ??
The Obama administration took some, but not nearly enough, steps to hold Russia accountable for its actions in real time back in 2016. Mr Obama's desire to avoid criticism that he was trying to influence the election - which Republicans SURELY would have leveled had he made the intelligence public - led him to stand down when I believe he should have stood up. I criticize Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as well for his well documented refusal to sign a letter that what would have been a public and bipartisan denunciation of the Russian efforts in August, September, or October 2016 (don't recall which month). I think Mr Obama should have released the letter even without Republican support, even though I understand his desire for a bipartisan response.
What the American intelligence community first reported on October 7, 2016 were not "rumors about 'Russian interference' after they had lost the election." It was a statement of the intelligence community's confidence that Russia had meddled in the election and that meddling actions could only have been authorized by the Russian government. The intelligence community issued its statement a month before the election.
-
Those efforts were of the Russian government, which in my view greatly increases the magnitude of the offense.
Just as it has never been some American people who interfere in foreign ocuntries' affairs ... of course (!) it is governments or representatives.
Now, as for Russian interference in the US presidential election, I have never read what exactly supposedly constituted this interference. There were accusations that Russia meddled with the votes and/or ocunting procedures ,.. which later was said, did not happen. So then, what did Russia do to supposedly "win" the election for Trump against Clinton????????????
The whole matter of both "Russiagate" and "Ukraingate" have been so meddled with and have been twisted to actually be 180° the opposite of what they most likely should be. The media under the control of the USA enemies are doing their utmost to dismantle the duly elected president and have been busy for 3 years in a coup against the USA president.
Looking on from the outside with no personal interest to support either "elephants" or "donkeys", I am wondering greatly what has become of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and the country of "liberty and justice for all". There seems to have been a takeover over in progress during several decades ... and people all over the world are suffering from the hegemon's cruel "holding on to the empire" while the empire morally, culturally and economically is falling apart and the American people at large in the USA are suffering most having lost much of their liberty and justice to the "frogs in the swamp"
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Now, as for Russian interference in the US presidential election, I have never read what exactly supposedly constituted this interference. There were accusations that Russia meddled with the votes and/or ocunting procedures ,.. which later was said, did not happen. So then, what did Russia do to supposedly "win" the election for Trump against Clinton????????????
Again, I encourage you to read part I of the Mueller report. Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election were massive and widespread.
Vote counting? I don't think so. They hacked some county election servers, but I know of no reputable claim that Russian efforts affected any actual vote counts.
And the allegation is NOT that Russia "won" the 2016 election for Trump against Clinton; it's that Russia improperly interfered in the 2016 election with the intention of aiding Mr Trump's election efforts. The wrong was the attempt, not the result.
If I leave a bank without money because I ran away once I pulled a gun on the teller and demanded money, do you claim I am not guilty of any offense? Do you claim that it's okay that I tried to rob the bank since I didn't leave the bank with any of its assets? Similarly, that the Russian government worked to influence the result of the 2016 election (AGAIN, read part I of the Mueller report for details) was the problem, and would have been the problem also had Secretary Clinton had won the election.
The whole matter of both "Russiagate" and "Ukraingate" have been so meddled with and have been twisted to actually be 180° the opposite of what they most likely should be....
The rest of your post expresses your political point of view, but in my view does so without facts and without relevance to the issue of Russia's 2016 election interference. Hence, I choose not to engage those comments.
-
And the allegation is NOT that Russia "won" the 2016 election for Trump against Clinton; it's that Russia improperly interfered in the 2016 election with the intention of aiding Mr Trump's election efforts. The wrong was the attempt, not the result.
oh dear oh dear ...."improperly interfered" ???? I guess there is also "properly interfer" which may be what US regimes are doing? Like there aree "good bombings" and "bad bombings" ... with hundreds of thousands of "colleteral damage" or "victims to make citizens rise up against their country's regime" ???
Mr. Obama went to UK and spoke at EU vote election campaign meetings to the point of threatening that leaving the EU would cost the UK certain advantages in their international dealings ... time to grow up and wake up
-
The Republicans are running around like chickens without heads. They are afraid of John Bolton. They working to put him "under the bus". Trump is toasted. His days are numbered. Trump's lawyers have lowered the reputation of lawyers.
@reformed asked:
Why do they have to have witnesses?
"...In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV)).
Are the American people are so gullible of what's in plain sight -- A trial without documents or witnesses? Israel 🇮🇱 or Canada 🇨🇦 would never tolerate this craziness. America, fix your mistakes! CM
-
@Wolfgang posted:
oh dear oh dear ...."improperly interfered" ???? I guess there is also "properly interfer" which may be what US regimes are doing? Like there aree "good bombings" and "bad bombings" ... with hundreds of thousands of "colleteral damage" or "victims to make citizens rise up against their country's regime" ???
I take your point about the redundancy of the term "improperly interfered;" I should not have added the adjective "improperly." I think I remember sensing the core needlessness of that word as I wrote the post, but obviously that didn't stop me from using it.
Mr. Obama went to UK and spoke at EU vote election campaign meetings to the point of threatening that leaving the EU would cost the UK certain advantages in their international dealings ... time to grow up and wake up
In my view, Mr Obama should not have advocated for particular outcomes to elections other than those held in the U.S. But there is a significant difference in detail and magnitude between what he did and what the Russians did in our 2016 election. Mr Obama spoke on camera or in print. His name, face, and voice were directly, openly, and obviously tied to his advocacy. In 2016, none of the fake social accounts Russians created had Russian flags or account holder names attached to them. None of the Russian advocacy on behalf of Mr Trump was identified directly, openly, and obviously as was Mr Obama's. Mr Obama was wrong to do what he did, but at least he did it where everyone could see, hear, and read what he was doing. The Russians cloaked their efforts in secrecy and gave the intentionally and blatantly false impression that the creators and agents of their electoral advocacy were members of the American electorate.
In addition, we can count on one, perhaps two hands the number of occasions Mr Obama offered input to foreign electoral campaigns. We need computer databases to catalog all of the Russian efforts.
I accept your point that Mr Obama should not have injected himself into a foreign election. Do you accept my point that there was a significant difference in detail and magnitude between what he did and what the Russians did in the U.S. 2016 general election?
-
It's a flat lie to say there were no documents or witnesses.
-
@reformed posted:
It's a flat lie to say there were no documents or witnesses.
You make a bold claim. The current issue with and request for documents and witnesses are specific to the Senate trial; they do NOT refer to the House impeachment process. So, which witnesses have testified before the Senate hearing to-date? Which documents have been introduced into the Senate trial's record? I'm not aware of ANY witnesses or documents that have been introduced (other than the House managers, the President's legal team, and their respective presentations, of course).
-
Blowing smoke... CM
-
Exactly, House managers, White House Team, Reports, etc. Those are documents and witnesses which is why I can say 100% that it is a bold lie to say there are no witnesses or documents in this trial.
Not to mention the replaying of witness testimony from the House inquiry.
-
Also not to mention the transcript.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
