Posts Made By: Greg Shaffer

Originally Posted by James Brown

There are two articles of impeachment - obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.  I've blathered on and on about the illegitimacy of the obstruction article and probably convinced no one.  Hopefully some of you appreciate that my arguments on obstruction are the same whether Trump is guilty or not of an abuse of power.

On the abuse of power, I would argue that all of the following statements amply demonstrate that you guys have made up your minds well before the trial and further that you obviously lack any objectivity.  Same as our guys and gals in Congress.

"Why do you dismiss  what Trump obviously did in Ukraine and his covering it up as no big deal. There is no other explanation for your posts on the matter."

"the Dems failed to make their case" would have been a lot simpler than all that beating around the bush you just posted"

"There's no doubt Trump was shaking down the Ukraine for dirt on a political opponent and you don't want to hear from Bolton about it?"

Sorry to be so jaded, but when everyone who considers Trump's actions makes a half-baked decision on guilt based upon their own predispositions, why even have a trial?

Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Greg:

You think Rod and Russ are idiots?  And you think it is hard to take me seriously?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

I guess it depends on who the "we" is.  I agree of course that impeachment is the only constitutionally mandated way Congress has to hold the executive branch accountable.  We the People have an alternative way to hold Trump accountable, or not, in November.

I would disagree with you on HRC.  In hindsight, I think that criminal prosecution was fully justified.  She got away with it because of who she is, which should surprise no one.  You work with data - imagine the fall out if you bleach-bit deleted large swaths of it after subpoenas had been issued.  Good grief.  I'd be sending you cakes right now.  But this is not about HRC.  We the People already spoke in that instance.

I would add, respectfully, that you have no idea whether the Whistleblower, Vindman, Hill, Sondland, and a whole host of other serious, smart, and deeply patriotic public servants are lying, or more likely re-telling half truths, speculation and legends until the defense presents it's entire side of the story.  

I was not born yesterday, I understand that Rod is likely correct that the R's in the Senate will probably block as much evidence as possible - so we may never get to the bottom of this, at least not through the impeachment process.  

Jim

p.s.  I think I have had one decent and original (to my knowledge) thought in this thread.  Schiff should re-convene his panel and depose Bolton and anyone else on his list.  Schiff should not be a tool, he should allow vigorous cross examination by DJT's representatives.  He can not prohibit the Executive's lawyers.  The Executive will likely assert privilege.  Schiff will have to go to court, where he may or may not win.  Assuming the depositions take place, the deposition testimony can be presented in the trial, using the Clinton impeachment rules that McConnell favored as of a few days ago.

Can anyone tell me why Schiff does not do this? 

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Don't expect Trump or the MAGA faithful to admit that they have been wrong all along:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-winds-down-clinton-related-inquiry-once-championed-by-trump-it-found-nothing-of-consequence/2020/01/09/ca83932e-32f9-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html


Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry once championed by Trump. It found nothing of consequence.


A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything.