Trump asks Supreme Court to shield financial records from House Democrats —

[NebraskaFootball]

@DougBH

@NebraskaFootball

@DougBH

I suspect that the Senate would expect more in the way of a determination by the judicial system than a determination by an anonymous forum poster.

I highly doubt the partisan cultists in the GOP Senate care one bit what the courts have to say. The proof will be that they won’t seek to have any of the documents turned over or any of the direct witnesses testify, and seek the courts power of enforcement of subpoenas. They don’t care. They have decided to place their allegiance to a man instead of their sworn duty to the Constitution.

The Dems wanted this fake impeachment. If they wanted a conviction they should have done a better job.
They never even expected a conviction…just hope of personal political gain.

It is not a “fake impeachment.” Trump committed high crimes by abusing the power of his office. The evidence is clear as day and it is damning. He also obstructed Congress, which is impeachable, and he obstructed justice, which is impeachable. None of that is fake.

Neither the Democrats nor the Founders could have ever imagined that there would be an entire political party that would abdicate their oaths of office, the very duty of their positions, and place their allegiance to their party and its Master above that of the country as a whole.

The lack of conviction in the face of overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses is squarely and solely on one party, and it is not the Democrats.

[sikofit]

@PurpnGold

@DougBH

If “I did 2+2=4 in my head” can be called direct evidence.

As opposed to Republicans claiming _ + _ = 4. Yes I’ll take 2 + 2 = 4 over that any day.

Spot on!

[sikofit]

@NebraskaFootball

of

Great post!

[WorldWatcher]

.^
.
.
What some people are forgetting is that the Senate can choose to delay the trial all they want.

Just subpoena the same witnesses (Bolton, Mulvaney, Gulliani, etc.) and for the relevant documents. Trump then can obstruct their testimony and production of documents and the GOP Senate can decide to delay the Impeachment Trial pending a court resolution.

Dear Senator McConnell - go for it.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

[Nemesis]

@Phaedrus

@Apocalypto

Mazar already stated that they will comply.

Depressingly: what if they do? What if his records clearly show that he wildly overinflated his properties’ worth for loan valuation purposes, and underinflated them for tax purposes? Clear evidence of an actual crime, not a “high crime or misdemeanor”? Will it make a dent in the support of the faithful? I think not. If it hasn’t happened by now, it’s not gonna. People won’t start jumping ship until their own political lives are clearly threatened.

Seriously all they will say is that its not important to them, followed by he did what every successful businessman does.

It will be ignored by the likes of Hannity and Levin or briefly touched on And then pivot to Hilary. I get why they will not show Trump in a bad light as it goes against their key demographic and business model. I cannot fault them for that, we would do the same.

But I guarantee on this forum not one trumpist will change their mind. They are too deep within the Trump hive mentality to even start questioning their decision to give Trump blanket approval to do and say whatever the ■■■■ he wants.

[BlueTex]

@WorldWatcher

What some people are forgetting is that the Senate can choose to delay the trial all they want.

Just subpoena the same witnesses (Bolton, Mulvaney, Gulliani, etc.) and for the relevant documents. Trump then can obstruct their testimony and production of documents and the GOP Senate can decide to delay the Impeachment Trial pending a court resolution.

Dear Senator McConnell - go for it.

And you can bet the democrats in the senate are going to be sure to make the case to do so and force the republican senators to go on record as being opposed to actually finding out the truth.

[DougBH]

“Evidence”.
Gossip among a bunch of bureaucrats who were mad because they were left out of the loop.
Of course the Republicans have to be attacked before the trial even begins. Democrats know there is no evidence and this will fail in the Senate.

[highroller]

@DougBH

Democrats know there is no evidence and this will fail in the Senate.

Just because you dismiss the evidence doesn’t mean there’s no evidence.

And Republicans in the Senate have already gone on record saying they’re not even going to look at the evidence.

[DougBH]

@highroller

@DougBH

Democrats know there is no evidence and this will fail in the Senate.

Just because you dismiss the evidence doesn’t mean there’s no evidence.

And Republicans in the Senate have already gone on record saying they’re not even going to look at the evidence.

No. There will be a trial. Democrats may not like it, though.

GOP is already thinking about how to turn a Senate impeachment trial to...

[Plasmaball]

Lol…what cec ■■■■■■■■■ …the gop in the senate are protecting this trolling from the cec and that’s it. Just like barr with the Mueller report. Bunch of corruption

[daha]

@DougBH

The court will straighten things out.

Except the court has already all but admitted it will not vote to convict regardless of any evidence (i.e. they admitted this before impeachment proceedings even began). That this is the outcome you desire does not mean it is “straightened out”, it means you get your outcome regardless of evidence etc.

[Plasmaball]

So political…there is the gaslighting

[DougBH]

@daha

@DougBH

The court will straighten things out.

Except the court has already all but admitted it will not vote to convict regardless of any evidence (i.e. they admitted this before impeachment proceedings even began). That this is the outcome you desire does not mean it is “straightened out”, it means you get your outcome regardless of evidence etc.

No, they haven’t. They basically are saying that sufficient evidence has not been presented of guilt, not that if real evidence of wrongdoing were provided they wouldn’t convict.

[highroller]

I don’t think it’ll hurt them that much.

[BlueTex]

@DougBH

No, they haven’t. They basically are saying that sufficient evidence has not been presented of guilt, not that if real evidence of wrongdoing were provided they wouldn’t convict.

That’s great… Will they vote to get the real evidence?

[NebraskaFootball]

@DougBH

“Evidence”.
Gossip among a bunch of bureaucrats who were mad because they were left out of the loop.
Of course the Republicans have to be attacked before the trial even begins. Democrats know there is no evidence and this will fail in the Senate.

Yes evidence. And it is substantially more evidence than gossip.

Why shouldn’t the Republicans be attacked? They’ve made no bones about what they plan to do. Drive this as a total partisan play that defends their party and abdicates their responsibility to their oath of office and to the Constitution.

[NebraskaFootball]

@DougBH

@daha

@DougBH

The court will straighten things out.

Except the court has already all but admitted it will not vote to convict regardless of any evidence (i.e. they admitted this before impeachment proceedings even began). That this is the outcome you desire does not mean it is “straightened out”, it means you get your outcome regardless of evidence etc.

No, they haven’t. They basically are saying that sufficient evidence has not been presented of guilt, not that if real evidence of wrongdoing were provided they wouldn’t convict.

Real evidence of wrongdoing has been presented. In spades. Not least of which the obstruction charges.

[DougBH]

Yeah yeah. Sondland told me there was a quid pro quo until he called Trump who said there was no quid pro quo. No, I never talked with Trump, Giuliani or the President of Ukraine about any of it. And I should have been in the loop I tell you…and I was not in the loop.

[Nemesis]

I can categorically state that if the same evidence had been presented about a democratic president I would not be saying there was zero evidence.

You might not agree with the impeachment but to say that there is nothing there and Trump is pure and innocent is ludicrous.

[NebraskaFootball]

@DougBH

Yeah yeah. Sondland told me there was a quid pro quo until he called Trump who said there was no quid pro quo. No, I never talked with Trump, Giuliani or the President of Ukraine about any of it. And I should have been in the loop I tell you…and I was not in the loop.

Minimizing the evidence that is clear and damning does not bolster the argument here. Heck, there is not even evidence that a call was placed by Sondland to Trump at the time he claimed Trump told him “No QPQ.” The only evidence that exists is of the call two days earlier which was problematic enough it sent multiple people scurrying to Legal Counsel because of the obvious abuse of power that was being committed.

Trump has obstructed Congress and obstructed justice, in addition to his abuse of power. I notice that continues to be overlooked here as well.

Do you want Pompeo, Mulvaney (who admitted publicly to the QPQ) Giuliani, Perry, and Bolton, along with others, to testify? Are you demanding the truth here? Do you care enough to know what they know? Or does it not matter? I’m the guy that believes in the truth and the rule of law. Which guy are you?