• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doing the right thing is never easy!

Paradoxical said:
Time magazine is worse that WaPo and HuffPo. The first part of the column says it all
Click to expand...

Robert DeNiro? Seriously?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I figured that would disregard that.

Here is the same reporting (early and later) from The LA Times; Newsweek; NBC News; The New Yorker Magazine, and the Journal of the American Bar Association.

Op-Ed: President Trump argues he is above the law. A thousand prosecutors say he’s wrong - Los Angeles Times

Former Federal Prosecutors Renew Statement That Trump Would Have Been Indicted If he Weren't President

Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president

Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Would Indict Donald Trump | The New Yorker

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

My guess is that you won't accept them as legitimate sources either.
 
Frank Apisa said:
All the evidence indicates that he attempted to extort the president of Ukraine to aid his personal re-election campaign.
Click to expand...

Yea some hearsay and mind reading testimonies. Yes it’s evidence, but it’s weak. It’s nit the kind ng that gets convictions in a court of law.

That he was simply trying to insure a proper investigation into corruption is a rational explanation that fits the facts as well. That’s called reasonable doubt.

The president has full authority to persuade foreign leaders, even threaten them, to bring about good policy results, just ask Biden.
 
Last edited:
The GOP would remove Trump in a skinny minute if it weren't for Trump's deplorable republican base. They know just like the.rest.of.us what a despicable individual he is.
 

That's only because you are a far leftist
 
Frank Apisa said:
Robert DeNiro? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured that would disregard that.

Here is the same reporting (early and later) from The LA Times; Newsweek; NBC News; The New Yorker Magazine, and the Journal of the American Bar Association.

Op-Ed: President Trump argues he is above the law. A thousand prosecutors say he’s wrong - Los Angeles Times

Former Federal Prosecutors Renew Statement That Trump Would Have Been Indicted If he Weren't President

Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president

Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Would Indict Donald Trump | The New Yorker

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

My guess is that you won't accept them as legitimate sources either.[/QUOTE]

What? No quotes from WaPo or HuffPo?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Robert DeNiro? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured that would disregard that.

Here is the same reporting (early and later) from The LA Times; Newsweek; NBC News; The New Yorker Magazine, and the Journal of the American Bar Association.

Op-Ed: President Trump argues he is above the law. A thousand prosecutors say he’s wrong - Los Angeles Times

Former Federal Prosecutors Renew Statement That Trump Would Have Been Indicted If he Weren't President

Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president

Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Would Indict Donald Trump | The New Yorker

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

My guess is that you won't accept them as legitimate sources either.[/QUOTE]

Frank Frank Frank. Those things were all from after the Mueller Report. And they said they would indict. And they were talking about obstruction. And the only source that counts said there was no obstruction.
You gotta try to get current.
 

The evidence is not weak...and much of "the evidence" is hidden by the machinations of this corrupt administration. IF the testimony of fact witnesses not yet heard from were exculpatory, it would not be held back. Testimony from people like Bolton, Pompeo, and Mulveney will never see the light of day...because it is NOT exculpatory.

In any case, "trying to insure a proper investigation into corruption" DOES NOT fit the evidence we have anywhere near as well as "Trump was trying to extort President Zelensky into at least the pretense of an investigation of the Bidens for his personal political gain."

Look...a Trump supporter has the right to suppose anything that makes Trump look better...just as an anti-Trumper has the right to suppose anything that makes him look like the trash he is. (!)

We could go on forever. Trump has been impeached (rightfully in my mind) and will almost certainly be acquitted in the Senate (rightfully in yours).

The world goes on.
 

I think objectively, this case would not convict if it were a criminal case. No smoking gun. Again, the pres has a right to threaten, to strong arm, to intimidate foreign leaders to advance his policy. You have to prove intent for this to fly. Reasonable doubt is objectively there for those without agenda.

And I think he likely was out for himself. But again, you have to prove it.
 
Last edited:

Bubba...you are being a pawn for Trump...and that is your right.

I've got too much self-respect for that kind of nonsense.

Trump attempted to extort President Zelensky...and like with so many other things, FAILED.

Trump attempted to obstruct the House in its constitutionally mandated responsibility to investigate him.

For that...HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

Almost certainly he will be acquitted by the spineless Republicans in the Senate.

Fine.

Our nation will continue to swim is the slime of this administration for at least one more year.
 

You are absolutely on most of this.

BUT...that bevy of former federal prosecutors say that Trump would almost certainly be indicted (and convicted)...seems to disagree with your initial comment.

I tend to take their assessment more seriously than I do the assessment of people posting here in the Internet.
 
That shouldn’t surprise anyone ,given the intense partisan nature of his, and thst prosecutors can be just as partisan and anyone, and the hate of trump runs deep and can bias deeply.

I bet there are prosecutors out there saying the opposite, what does that tell us? It’s not s slam dunk, reasonable doubt would win out.
 

You may be correct, but my bet is you are not.

If there are prosecutors who say the opposite...why have they, a thousand or so, not gotten together to sign a letter saying so?

Some prosecutors think if he were not president, the case would not even get to a jury. Any competent attorney would advise him to settle for a plea deal...to a lesser charge.

The evidence already in...and the available evidence that would be available if he did not have the power as president to suppress it would be overwhelming.

Anyway, S...we will not decide this issue. The Senate will. And I concede that the Senate will side with your point of view...and acquit Trump.

We both have to be satisfied with that. Unless the Trump-supporters suppose our side will suddenly say, "Oh, Trump is a delightful fellow...innocent as a new-born babe. He would never sink so low as to try to extort someone for personal political gain."
 

ANother reason for me is the partisan nature of this. Senators will be partisan no doubt. But they typically draw a line when it comes to objectively true crimes. Hard to imagine not having st least a handful of defections in the senate if this were such a slam dunk legal case. They do have their reputations, integrity etc to consider. None want to get caught on the back end of this deal looking like a collaborator of crimes and on the wrong side of history.
 

That's what I was referring to. You think that what you want to believe was Trump's motivation is evidence. It isn't. There is no evidence. There is suspicion. Suspicion isn't evidence.
 
bubbabgone said:
That's what I was referring to. You think that what you want to believe was Trump's motivation is evidence. It isn't. There is no evidence.
Click to expand...

There is evidence...tons of it.

The former federal prosecutors see tons of it...and any common sense look at what happened leads to "Trump attempted to extort Zelensky."

But to suppose there is "no evidence" after 1000 former federal prosecutors (appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents) signed a letter saying not only is there evidence...there is ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR AN INDICTMENT and probably enough for a conviction...

...is simply refusing to look at things objectively on your part.

There is suspicion. Suspicion isn't evidence.
Click to expand...

Actually...reasonable suspicion CAN BE EVIDENCE.

But there is plenty of evidence more than just suspicion.
 

Once again, I agree with your underlying contention, S. Senators do typically draw that line.


But in this case, Trump has so taken control of the base, that voting guilty (no matter how compelling the evidence) would be political suicide for any Republican.

The Senate is almost certain to vote for acquittal...but it will not be because one side deems him guilty of the impeachment articles and the other does not. I'd love to see the vote taken with each Senator linked to a lie detector...and asked question leading to, "Are you voting for acquittal based on testimony and evidence...or because you are terrified of the consequences of your vote on re-election or future employment.
 

Actually there will be a few Democrats defect in the senate just like they did in the house.
That is also why pelosi doesn't want to send it because she knows any bi-partisan votes against the articles in the Senate will confirm what said about a partisan witch hunt.
 

Not at all. I would 100% be for any impeachment and removal from office if there was a high crime committed.

Since there is no evidence of a crime the senate has full right to acquit. Also there will be a few dems that will vote against the articles as well.

So far there is more bi-partisan support against impeachment and the articles than there is for them.

The question we have to ask is why is pelosi extorting and abusing her power and not sending over the articles per the constitution?
 

Almost 90% of convictions are on circumstantial evidence as direct evidence would generally come from the guilty in most cases and they are not going to say I did it. This is one of the strongest cases you will see and so your opinion that there is no evidence is not only wrong, but you would not believe even if the people Trump is keeping from testifying did so and said he did it. I would bet if trump said I did it so what, you would just say it was not important enough to convict and oust your cult leader.
 

Your links were about the Mueller Report. The impeachment articles aren't. The impeachment articles are not supported by evidence. Suspicion of motive isn't evidence.
 
humbolt said:
My dear leader? I get my instructions from a 1953 DeWalt radial arm saw.
Click to expand...

so that explains it.

I've seen no global eruption. Why is you guys so often believe everything must be global, anyway? When did anyone conduct a poll of everybody, everywhere?
Click to expand...

Gee if only there was a international public research company that did annual surveys of global attitudes.

America's international image continues to suffer | Pew Research Center


1. Gee not as many 3% growth quarters as obama, but considering its cost a couple trillion in debt.....



2. Rebuilding the military? Seriously? What a crock of crap. You mean before trump the us military was limping along with 600 billion a year? Gimme a break. Yet more bull**** from trump.

3. Immigration is still a complete clustermuck.

4. Ah yes, the old, short term pain for long term gain. Its like a union going on strike for a year to get a $1 an hour raise because its the principle of the thing that's important not the fact they lost a year's income. And let's not even go into bailing out farmers, steel companies and coal companies with taxpayer money. Corporate socialism is okay in trumpland.

5. Yes employment numbers are excellent, continuing a 11 year trend of improving employment numbers.

And I totally understand how you don't give a crap about what the world thinks. American parochialism has always been the ugly side of its global domination.

Trump didn't put America on top, but he is doing his level best to bring it down a few notches.
 

Pelosi IS NOT abusing her power.

She is using it.

Trump was the guy doing the abusing.

He is guilty as hell...but he will be acquitted by the spineless Republicans in the Senate.
 
bubbabgone said:
Your links were about the Mueller Report. The impeachment articles aren't. The impeachment articles are not supported by evidence. Suspicion of motive isn't evidence.
Click to expand...

The 1000 former federal prosecutors have indicated that there is enough evidence to indict Trump...and convict him.

Get over it, Bubba.

The guy is dirty as dirty can be.

He has not cleaned up the swamp...he is the swamp.

He does have a chance to make America great again, though...by resigning.
 

The House of Representatives couldn't find any.
 

Is that post a joke? I like to laugh, but an awful lot of people didn't do well at all during the Obama administration. Ya know, Obama never even came close to 3% growth, in any quarter ever. Even Pew agrees that their international efforts are seriously plagued with inconsistencies. And apparently you've never heard of sequestration.

So, you're kidding, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…