The evidence against Trump is mounting!

[bootz]

1 vote away from being removed

[sikofit]

@Paul_Thomson

This is not a legal trial, as Dems repeatedly point out… When it suits them

Hello Dem

[Paul_Thomson]

@sikofit

Hello Dem

Logic’s not your strong suit, sikofit?

[acsirip]

The evidence against Trump is mounting

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck…then it probably is a cat?

[toreyj01]

@Smyrna

@WorldWatcher

.^
.
.
They will. Plus any new evidence that has come to light.

Maybe even, you know, witness testimony and documents that Trump blocked from being included in the House action.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

The President has a lot on the line with this impeachment process so wouldn’t it be cool…that if after this goes through the Senate and if…the President is found not guilty…that those who brought up these fake charges could then be sued for defamation?

Ooof, not the best idea if you are Trump. Whoever he is suing now has the power of discovery and can actually make Trump testify. It isn’t defamation if it is true, the defendant would have the right to prove what they alleged was true.

In other words, that will never happen.

[Borgia_dude]

@Smyrna

@WorldWatcher

There is not IF involved, McConnell is coordinating with the White House to ensure that doesn’t happen.

But ya, I’d be all for the Donald J. Trump suing for defamation and the discovery that would allow under court subpoena.

Defamation is a civil action and as we found in Clinton v. Jones, the President can be compelled to testify along with those witnesses and documents he blocked from appearing during the impeachment inquiry.

So ya, bring it on.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

If Trump or anyone else…is guilty of a crime…I want them prosecuted for that crime. The problem is, that’s not happening on an equal basis. Justice is being used as a political weapon, being applied when those in power desire it and that…IMO…is the biggest crime of all.

So we should let Trump slide if he committed crimes?

[Smyrna]

@Borgia_dude

So we should let Trump slide if he committed crimes?

No…but my point still stands. When it’s only a one sided prosecution…you get things like giving immunity but no indictments, the person being investigated deciding what evidence is pertinent to your own investigation or destroying evidence that’s under a Congressional subpoena…and yet…no prosecution. After a while my friend, good people…will no longer care…about the rule of law. Then…“we” have total mayhem.

[Borgia_dude]

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

So we should let Trump slide if he committed crimes?

No…but my point still stands. When it’s only a one sided prosecution…you get things like giving immunity but no indictments, the person being investigated deciding what evidence is pertinent to your own investigation or destroying evidence that’s under a Congressional subpoena…and yet…no prosecution. After a while my friend, good people…will no longer care…about the rule of law. Then…“we” have total mayhem.

Agreed.

We should still try Trump if he is suspected of illegal acts. Glad we agree.

[bootz]

It is my understanding and it may be wrong that instilled in the constitution is the concept of due process. It has even been argued that John Adams became a PATRIOT DUE TO THE Suspension OF DUE PROCESS by the king.

At the heart of sue process is the presumption of innocense, it is foundational.

Yet some that defend the constitution are willing by bypass due process like a lynch mob. Some of those even served in the military.

what crimes have the prosecution committed?

[Borgia_dude]

@bootz

It is my understanding and it may be wrong that instilled in the constitution is the concept of due process. It has even been argued that John Adams became a PATRIOT DUE TO THE Suspension OF DUE PROCESS by the king.

At the heart of sue process is the presumption of innocense, it is foundational.

Yet some that defend the constitution are willing by bypass due process like a lynch mob. Some of those even served in the military.

what crimes have the prosecution committed?

Dude, I said we should try Trump. Put him on trial to determine from the evidence whether he is innocent or guilty.

A presumption of innocence does not mean you don’t put someone on trial. That’s ridiculous.

[WildRose]

It means that as defendants we don’t have to prove our innocence, it’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

[westaussie]

Part of the process to prove the accused’s guilt would be having relevant witnesses provide testimony under oath in the trial.

[WildRose]

They already had that chance in the House.

This is all coming to the predictable end.

[westaussie]

That was not a trial. It is an absolute absurdity to have a trial without witnesses unless the accused is going to plead guilty.

I note also that M McConnell had proposed that the evidence from the House of Reps would not have been included automatically in the record of the Senate trial.

[WildRose]

Guess just how much your feigned outrage matters?

[Paul_Thomson]

@WildRose

They already had that chance in the House.

This is all coming to the predictable end.

The Dems claimed that from the evidence uncovered during the House trial it is indisputable that Trump is guilty of whatever they listed in their articles. Now they are arguing that they need to be allowed to present more new evidence to prove their supposedly already watertight case.

They have driven themselves mad with their unrestrained hatred of their President and their frustrated addiction to power.

[WildRose]

Lest we forget the Dem’s also had full control of the timeline and calendar.

They weren’t willing to wait for the courts to rule on Trump’s assertion of Executive Privilege, and they weren’t willing to wait until more witnesses could be heard from.

It isn’t up to the senate to help them make their case nor should McConnell even entertain anything they are demanding to that end.

[Paul_Thomson]

The House obviously see themselves as the supreme branch of government, with the authority to direct or by-pass the Senate, the judiciary and the executive. Poor self-important lunatics.

[Medicswife2002]

@WildRose

Lest we forget the Dem’s also had full control of the timeline and calendar.

They weren’t willing to wait for the courts to rule on Trump’s assertion of Executive Privilege, and they weren’t willing to wait until more witnesses could be heard from.

It isn’t up to the senate to help them make their case nor should McConnell even entertain anything they are demanding to that end.

They promised their base an impeachment by Christmas. Their master was the calendar. They had no time to wait!!

[bigtwnvin]

Perhaps not. But Vegas odds are the Dims will begin the process all over again and their first witness in the new proceedings will be Frankie Pentangeles!