Toronto Escorts

Trump, Democrats offer duelling arguments ahead of Senate impeachment trial

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
There isn't anything in your post I can agree with, but I don't think much would be accomplished by a detailed deconstruction. I'll just sum it all up by saying that if Trump is not re-elected, it won't be because of anything that happened in relation to the Ukraine, or because of anything that happened in the course of this impeachment process. Most voters don't care a whit about the Ukraine, or about the arcane arguments about what kinds of international political pressure are ok and which are not. However, if Trump is re-elected, it might be in part because independent voters don't want to be governed by a party that would abuse the impeachment power of Congress. If the Democrats are prepared to abuse the little power they now have, and are prepared to do it to a duly elected President who is successfully managing the economy and has not engaged the country in any new wars, just imagine what they would do to the Joe Q. Publics they disagree with. I believe that independant voters are pragmatic in this way.
Neither do I agree with a single thing that you have stated. Obviously, you are not following the polls where now 51% of Americans want Trump to be removed from office. 70% wanted the witnesses to testify as well as the evidence / documents revealed to the senate. Now this is a true fact. Surely, Trump has not learned from the lessons of the Russian Interference in the 2016 elections and is arrogant enough to ask Ukraine to publicly announce the investigation into the Bidens. He was warned by his staff against pursuing such an action, but he was pompous enough to even get Giuliani to move forward with it until the Whistleblower blew the whistle on him. Trump has a strong 30% or so base that do not care if he breaks the law or cheats. They will still be his loyal supporters. The Republicans also know that Trump is very likely to be guilty. Surprising how more than 50% of them also want the witnesses to testify. They are hoping that if the witnesses testify, then it may not be as bad as it is painted out to be. There are many Independents who are progressives, that will want Sanders or Warren as President. If neither of them are nominated, then they may not vote or a small number may switch to Trump. But a lot of these Independents probably will not do so, based on this coverup by the Republican Senators. After all the Senate are doing practically nothing with the numbers of Bills etc sent to them by the House to be approved. They are sitting on their desks while Moscow Mitch's only role is to try and protect Trump in a very partisan manner!!
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,978
6,111
113
Politics is the art of assembling whatever support is necessary for advancing a specific agenda, or as much of that agenda as possible. Sometimes that support can be assembled because others simply agree with you. Sometimes others don't actually agree (or care) but need your support for something they do care about - thus, support comes as part of an amicable agreement. Sometimes support comes because you have the independent power to deny what someone else wants/needs - thus, support can come as a result of grudging agreement. No President has the power or influence to simply issue "marching orders" to Senators. However, Senators have their own agendas to advance that need the support of the President. What you describe as "following orders" (only potentially applicable in some cases, because I think a number of Senators simply agree with Trump) I see as no more than the political deal making and compromise at the heart of any democratic system of government.

When voters go to pull the lever, they will weigh the benefits of what you achieved for them against the detriment of compromises you made to get those benefits.

As to whether there was "nothing wrong" with "the call", I think that it is at least debatable, especially if you focus on "the call" itself. I don't use words like "absurd" to address opinions that are debatable. As to "perfect", no call can be perfect in the abstract. It can only be perfect in achieving the purposes of the caller. We'd have to define those purposes to discuss how "perfect" this call was, but I expect that wouldn't be a useful expenditure of our efforts.
Once again I agree with your firts point. the Chosen One has demonstrated an absolute control over his employees in both the House and Senate. that is really quite impressive. It is ththose empoyees who have completely abrogated their oaths and duties to their constituents in the interests of self-preservation.

And no their is nothing debatable about the call of the events both before and after. Nothing at all. Regardless of the standard or proof you require that onus has been met. The Chosen One and his lawyers simply repeating lies does not then make them facts other than in Trumpworld. If the facts were in dispute the lawyers would be arguing same. they have not really mentioned any facts atr all. just everything else trying to undermine the legitimacy of the process which for lawyers is the oldest tactic in the book when you know you have a dog. And it will likely be effective with the dumbest most gullible cohort in the world. The only reasonable debate is whether it justifies impeachment and/or removal.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
LOL. That is what the Chosen One and his lawyers keep saying that the Mueller Report did (which it did not) and what he is seeking fom the Senate. You have learned projection well from your fearless leader. Too funny.
Changes exactly zero regarding your attempt to invent a new legal standard.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
Exoneration? Is that a new legal standard? Since when? Any accused facing a court is deemed and presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hate to point out the obvious, but that standard also applied to Trump. The bad orange man is making you people lose your minds.
But you have repeatedly claimed this is not a legal process, it is a political one.
No?
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,804
2,264
113
Neither do I agree with a single thing that you have stated. Obviously, you are not following the polls where now 51% of Americans want Trump to be removed from office. 70% wanted the witnesses to testify as well as the evidence / documents revealed to the senate. Now this is a true fact. Surely, Trump has not learned from the lessons of the Russian Interference in the 2016 elections and is arrogant enough to ask Ukraine to publicly announce the investigation into the Bidens. He was warned by his staff against pursuing such an action, but he was pompous enough to even get Giuliani to move forward with it until the Whistleblower blew the whistle on him. Trump has a strong 30% or so base that do not care if he breaks the law or cheats. They will still be his loyal supporters. The Republicans also know that Trump is very likely to be guilty. Surprising how more than 50% of them also want the witnesses to testify. They are hoping that if the witnesses testify, then it may not be as bad as it is painted out to be. There are many Independents who are progressives, that will want Sanders or Warren as President. If neither of them are nominated, then they may not vote or a small number may switch to Trump. But a lot of these Independents probably will not do so, based on this coverup by the Republican Senators. After all the Senate are doing practically nothing with the numbers of Bills etc sent to them by the House to be approved. They are sitting on their desks while Moscow Mitch's only role is to try and protect Trump in a very partisan manner!!
You recite a lot of considerations which (whether true or not) seem important to you. However, I don't think you are giving enough consideration to what is important to the majority of American voters. What they care most about is their economic well being. Their second greatest concern is whether they (or their children) will have to go to war. Everything else pales in comparison. Political jousting and/or how the US treats the government officials of other countries is of no great concern to voters by comparison.

As to polls, surely you've learned not to put too much stock or faith in them? I would bet everything I own on the proposition that most respondents to these polls (leaving aside the polling sample as an issue) do not understand the impeachment process, the facts of the case, the historical precedent, or the consequences of impeachment well enough to answer the poll questions in a meaningful way. As a example, if there was a poll amongst men "would you like to sleep with the world's top supermodel", I would expect the answer would be overwhelmingly "yes". However, if we added the information that this supermodel was expected to die from cancer a week afterward, the numbers would drop. If you added that the model has HIV, the numbers would drop. If you added that you would have to marry her if you slept with her, the numbers would drop. Etc. Polls NEVER ensure that the poll respondents are properly informed before they answer. Election campaigns do a better job of providing information to voters. That's why elections are the only polls that matter.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
You recite a lot of considerations which (whether true or not) seem important to you. However, I don't think you are giving enough consideration to what is important to the majority of American voters. What they care most about is their economic well being. Their second greatest concern is whether they (or their children) will have to go to war. Everything else pales in comparison. Political jousting and/or how the US treats the government officials of other countries is of no great concern to voters by comparison.

As to polls, surely you've learned not to put too much stock or faith in them? I would bet everything I own on the proposition that most respondents to these polls (leaving aside the polling sample as an issue) do not understand the impeachment process, the facts of the case, the historical precedent, or the consequences of impeachment well enough to answer the poll questions in a meaningful way. As a example, if there was a poll amongst men "would you like to sleep with the world's top supermodel", I would expect the answer would be overwhelmingly "yes". However, if we added the information that this supermodel was expected to die from cancer a week afterward, the numbers would drop. If you added that the model has HIV, the numbers would drop. If you added that you would have to marry her if you slept with her, the numbers would drop. Etc. Polls NEVER ensure that the poll respondents are properly informed before they answer. Election campaigns do a better job of providing information to voters. That's why elections are the only polls that matter.
You seem to think that you know exactly what the Americans want in their lives. These polls have conducted a lot of research prior to compiling one. That is why contrary to your beliefs the Blacks are even less likely to vote for Trump, as they think that he is racist and cares very little about them. The Hispanics are also less likely to vote for him. Not many of them think that they are better off under his administration. I clearly also stated what the Americans think about him, and maybe you are in denial as to the facts. Yes going to war is a huge concern, as it has escalated for the first time since the Iraq War. These tensions are something that could have been avoided in the first place. We have seen the accuracy of the polls in the most recent Canadian elections, and previously in the US mid terms. I have more faith in them and how they pan out, rather than speculation from certain news networks or by everyone who do not want to accept what the Americans truly believe in. Clearly the majority of the Americans want to see the documents and witnesses' testimony. After all it is supposed to be a REAL TRIAL in the Senate and not just another debate in the Senate. This is all about preventing the documents and witnesses from being made public by the Republican Senators, as they believe that their only duty is to protect the President irrespective of whether he did or did not break the law. Well, their own chances of being re-elected is their priority and not their duty to the Constitution!!
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Adam Schiff really performed superbly, when he addressed the Senate in the Impeachment trial of Trump. He put together really well all the circumstantial evidence along with the videos and emails etc that were released to back it up. But even displaying Trump's own words to add fuel to the fire was tremendously eloquent in the manner that they dotted the "I"s and crossed the "T"s.

Even Lindsey congratulated him on his performance, something that will piss off Trump and his cult followers:

Graham 'congratulated' Schiff on a 'well done day' in impeachment trial, senator says:

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham congratulated Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, on a job well done after day two of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump wrapped, according to one Democratic senator included in Wednesday's conversation.

"A professional compliment, I would call it, by another prosecutor," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told CNN's John Berman Thursday of the moment between Graham, a juror in the Senate trial and ally of the President, and Schiff, who had been laying out the House's case against Trump.
In a photograph of the three men captured by a HuffPost reporter and posted Wednesday, Graham is shaking Schiff's hand as Whitehouse looks on, smiling. All three lawmakers are former prosecutors.

"It was sort of a nice human moment in which Sen. Graham, who I think are adversaries on this subject but friends, both stopped to congratulate a man who had a hard day, but a good day," Whitehouse told CNN Thursday.
Sheldon, a Democrat, argued that you can "agree or disagree on what conclusions to draw," but that Schiff did a "very good job as an advocate in a very long day on the Senate floor yesterday."
Graham has previously said he would do everything in his power to make the Senate impeachment trial "die quickly."
"I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here," Graham, of South Carolina, said last month, adding, "What I see coming, happening today is just a partisan nonsense."
Graham held a news conference on Wednesday to say it would be an "uphill battle" for him to vote to convict Trump, since "the best group of people to pick a president are the voters -- not a bunch of partisan politicians."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/graham-schiff-senate-impeachment-trial-cnntv/index.html
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
Adam Schiff really performed superbly, when he addressed the Senate in the Impeachment trial of Trump.
As I mentioned before, I think Adam Schiff, his hyping non-existent Russian collusion evidence and his pursuit of impeachment for three years made him a bad choice for the lead House impeachment manager in the Senate.

The whole time you watch him you can't help think Schiff is in performance mode. I think Daniel Goldman the Democrats' House Intelligence Committee attorney would be a better choice.

I was not too impressed with Trump's choice of celebrity attorneys. The Trump team sensibly has so far had those attorneys in the background. Schiff shouldn't be the lead prosecutor for the same reason.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
As I mentioned before, I think Adam Schiff, his hyping non-existent Russian collusion evidence and his pursuit of impeachment for three years made him a bad choice for the lead House impeachment manager in the Senate.

The whole time you watch him you can't help think Schiff is in performance mode. I think Daniel Goldman the Democrats' House Intelligence Committee attorney would be a better choice.

I was not too impressed with Trump's choice of celebrity attorneys. The Trump team sensibly has so far had those attorneys in the background. Schiff shouldn't be the lead prosecutor for the same reason.
Well apparently the Senate filled up when Schiff addressed the Senate. Every single one of them paid very close attention to him:

Schiff brilliantly crushes Trump defense:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/opinions/impeachment-trial-day-two-commentary/index.html
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
Well apparently the Senate filled up when Schiff addressed the Senate. Every single one of them paid very close attention to him....
You do understand the concept of optics? The Republican Senators are respecting his role even if they don't agree with him.

We can't really have a conversation if you carry the partisan water all the time.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
You do understand the concept of optics? The Republican Senators are respecting his role even if they don't agree with him.

We can't really have a conversation if you carry the partisan water all the time.
So they aren't taking their recently sworn oath seriously.
Glad you admit that.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
So they aren't taking their recently sworn oath seriously.
Glad you admit that.
Did they swear to agree with him? All the Senators did was agree to listen to him.

 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,402
113
You do understand the concept of optics? The Republican Senators are respecting his role even if they don't agree with him.

We can't really have a conversation if you carry the partisan water all the time.
Methinks Schiff is eying Kamala's Senate seat....
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
Did they swear to agree with him? All the Senators did was agree to listen to him.

Actually no.
They swore to be impartial jurors.
Your above statement claims that they are 'humouring him'.
Do you believe that is being an impartial juror?
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
Actually no.
They swore to be impartial jurors.
Your above statement claims that they are 'humouring him'.
Do you believe that is being an impartial juror?
First, you really shouldn't attribute specific words to another member's posts when they were not used. It's also especially bad form to put them in quotations when they are not a quote. This is kind of ironic because that is how Schiff began his prosecution in the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff created and cited an entirely fictitious phone conversation.

Second, I actually believe when Schiff introduces some new evidence and stops repeating himself constantly, all the Senators will take it into consideration.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
First, you really shouldn't attribute specific words to another member's posts when they were not used. It's also especially bad form to put them in quotations when they are not a quote. This is kind of ironic because that is how Schiff began his prosecution in the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff created and cited an entirely fictitious phone conversation.

Second, I actually believe when Schiff introduces some new evidence and stops repeating himself constantly, all the Senators will take it into consideration.
You can try and word-smith things all you want.
But the fact remains that you dismissed the republican senators 'attention' as 'optics' (your word)... clearly indicating that 'attention' was not in fact being paid, directly contradicting the oath they just swore to be impartial jurors.

PS: Thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong when you stated that "all the senators did was agree to listen to him".
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
Look the main point is if you are trying to persuade the public, it's just dumb to have Adam Schiff leading this thing. He is associated with trying to impeach the President for three years and claiming he had evidence of Russian collusion. Believing there was Russian collusion and saying you have definitive evidence of such that you can't produce are very different.

I believe Adam Schiff has talked himself out on this Ukrainian situation and has gotten more than his share of camera time. All of us seem to go back and forth on whether this is a legal process or a political process depending how it fits are most recent argument. I still think you have to get a considerable majority of Americans to support impeachment. The Senators are there representing us. So I am saying the Democrats shouldn't be putting up Adam Schiff unless he can persuade independent and moderate voters who will hold sway with the Senators. My opinion is that Schiff strictly appeals to liberals and partisan Democrats. He does have much appeal beyond that base.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
You do understand the concept of optics? The Republican Senators are respecting his role even if they don't agree with him.

We can't really have a conversation if you carry the partisan water all the time.
Obviously you are not following the Impeachment trials. When the other managers are up on the podium, some of the Republicans do take a break and leave the Hall. But during Schiff's long two hour presentations, every single Republican was seated and paying full attention to what he had to say. But this whole partisan nonsense coming from someone like you is hilarious!!
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
But this whole partisan nonsense coming from someone like you is hilarious!!
I acknowledged that some of Trump's choices for his defense team were not smart. Comment #58 explains why I don't think Schiff is a good choice for the prosecution.

It's kind of like fantasy football. You don't just pick players from your home team.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts