Poll of the Day > Is Trump's team arguing that Trump can't be impeached because he was elected?

(+) Yeah! (+)

what the fuck is this shit?

---

Also this guy has a grating speech cadence.
Also arguing that an entire party doesn't support the impeachment of their god doesn't mean that trump hasn't repeatedly abused his power.

---

Is Trump's team arguing that Trump can't be impeached because he was elected?

No, they're not. Try to not hear what you want to hear next time.

And why even listen when you're so hopelessly biased? Your brain is so close-minded you won't learn anything anyway.

They have no defense, so what else are they going to say?

They can't say they didn't do it, he already admitted he did it.

Plus Trump has an ego bigger than the planet, you think he would let them make a rational defense? No it's going to be "I can do whatever I want" like Nixon saying "it's not illegal if the president does it"

Sounds like a normal conservative argument

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

They have no defense, so what else are they going to say?

They can't say they didn't do it, he already admitted he did it.

Plus Trump has an ego bigger than the planet, you think he would let them make a rational defense? No it's going to be "I can do whatever I want" like Nixon saying "it's not illegal if the president does it"

This guy is literally speaking so slowly you can't follow what he's saying.
It's a known tactic.


---

Did he just use the term "spirit of comedy?"

---

Arguing we should do this slowly too.

---

Dude why the fuck is he talking about minority rights?

---

We are going through due process.
The problem is that the Trump Admin refuses to provide any documents or even be questioned by either the house or the senate.

---

Everyone knows that due process means that no evidence can be presented and witnesses can not be allowed to testify

everyone knows that

---

Mead posted...

Everyone knows that due process means that no evidence can be presented and witnesses can not be allowed to testify

everyone knows that

Obviously.


---

Mead posted...

Everyone knows that due process means that no evidence can be presented and witnesses can not be allowed to testify

everyone knows that

I love how they keep talking about its the Houses fault for not taking this to court. Knowing full well that doing that would allow Trump to cheat yet again.


---

Do they understand that Justice Roberts is a Judge (literally the most powerful Judge in the country) and that the Senate is a court right now?

---

When did conservative doodoo wall man become trump obsessed?

Judgmenl posted...

Do they understand

they do not

---

Trump never wanted anyone with principles. He wants sycophants, incompetents and grifters.

---

Hotel_Security posted...

Is Trump's team arguing that Trump can't be impeached because he was elected?

No, they're not. Try to not hear what you want to hear next time.

And why even listen when you're so hopelessly biased? Your brain is so close-minded you won't learn anything anyway.

this guy has hella amp

BlackScythe0 posted...

They have no defense, so what else are they going to say?

Well, considering that they're facing no real accusations, what do you expect them to say?


---

Trump never did anything wrong and the thing that he didnt do isnt impeachable!

theyre gonna give themselves a damn aneurysm if they keep this up

---

Normally I listen to NPR on my commute, but Ive turned off the station on my evening commute because they broadcast the impeachment hearings

I dont feel like being blatantly lied to by Trumps lawyers

---

I'm surprised his legal team isn't just standing up and reading the phone book to the Senate for eight straight hours, given that the vote was decided before the trial even started. :-P

---

Alpha218 posted...

Normally I listen to NPR on my commute, but Ive turned off the station on my evening commute because they broadcast the impeachment hearings

I dont feel like being blatantly lied to by Trumps lawyers

Me too. And honestly, I agree with you. I would listen to his defense if it actually had compelling arguments. If it got me to think, Hey, maybe I was wrong. But this situation is pretty cut and dry.

Its going to be tragic when they clear him despite all the House found, and all hes hidden.


---

I think it's funny that what democrats consider mountains of evidence is a 100 hour opinion piece from Adam schiff lol

I_Abibde posted...

I'm surprised his legal team isn't just standing up and reading the phone book to the Senate for eight straight hours, given that the vote was decided before the trial even started. :-P

Is this any different than how it was in Congress?

Zeus posted...

Well, considering that they're facing no real accusations, what do you expect them to say?

The accusation is that Trump illegally withheld congressionally-appropriated funds (Crime #1) in order to solicit a bribe (Crime #2) from a foreign representative in order to discredit a political rival and interfere in the 2020 election (Crime #3) and refused to comply with congressional subpoenas investigating the issues around the same (Crime #4).

Pretty straightforward, honestly.

OhhhJa posted...

I think it's funny that what democrats consider mountains of evidence is a 100 hour opinion piece from Adam schiff lol

Yep, pretty laughable. Just ol' Schiff doing his thing. Well, him and the testimony of all the witnesses that got called during the House investigations. And the text messages. And the transcript that Trump helpfully provided, which remains the single-most damning piece of evidence in this whole affair.

---

And the GAO report

---

darkknight109 posted...

The accusation is that Trump illegally withheld congressionally-appropriated funds (Crime #1) in order to solicit a bribe (Crime #2) from a foreign representative in order to discredit a political rival and interfere in the 2020 election (Crime #3) and refused to comply with congressional subpoenas investigating the issues around the same (Crime #4).

Pretty straightforward, honestly.

Yep, pretty laughable. Just ol' Schiff doing his thing. Well, him and the testimony of all the witnesses that got called during the House investigations. And the text messages. And the transcript that Trump helpfully provided, which remains the single-most damning piece of evidence in this whole affair.

The transcript didn't actually prove anything though. It'd be really tough to make that stick in a court of law

And in one of the so called damning messages he says there's no quid pro quo of any kind and that he just wants to make sure there's transparency. Which has been trump's argument all along

OhhhJa posted...

And in one of the so called damning messages he says there's no quid pro quo of any kind and that he just wants to make sure there's transparency. Which has been trump's argument all along

That is a lie. They attempted to hide all the information in the most secure server available to the presidency.

Oh my golly they arent even proving anything and btw evidence and witnesses are still not allowed, this makes sense to us

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

That is a lie. They attempted to hide all the information in the most secure server available to the presidency.

Yeah, he said, I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo. That was said after the whistleblower complaint came out.

Its like driving up to a hooker, flirting with her, asking what she does and doesnt do, telling her to get in the car, and while on the way to the hotel your friend who saw you texts you that shes an undercover cop. She asks, So, Whatcho gonna do to me when we get to the hotel? And then dude goes, NOTHING! I dont want any sex in exchange for money! Get out the car.

But Trumps defenders want you to focus on whats said, and not the situation around it. You know, like they gave up trying to impeach Bill Clinton after he said he didnt have any sexual relations with that woman.

---

John Bolton's baiting to sell a biography is probably the most hilarious part. People claiming that he knows shit about the quid pro quo and he's only going to release the info after the trial is just hilariously sad.
Why won't John Bolton just testify?

---

Judgmenl posted...

Why won't John Bolton just testify?

He likely will, but he wants to use all of this as free advertising for his book, which is working

---

darkknight109 posted...

And the transcript that Trump helpfully provided

Don't call it a transcript. It's a memo of the call.

The actual transcript has been classified and is being withheld.
---

Alpha218 posted...

Normally I listen to NPR on my commute, but Ive turned off the station on my evening commute because they broadcast the impeachment hearings

I dont feel like being blatantly lied to by Trumps lawyers

Doing the same myself. Throwing their party out the window for a man worse than W.

---

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Doing the same myself. Throwing their party out the window for a man worse than W.

I don't think trump is a good president but he is no where near the level of destruction that GWB caused this country

OhhhJa posted...

The transcript didn't actually prove anything though.

On it's own? No, it didn't.

But cases aren't typically built off a single piece of evidence. And, in the context of all the other testimony and evidence offered, that transcript is damning.

OhhhJa posted...

And in one of the so called damning messages he says there's no quid pro quo of any kind and that he just wants to make sure there's transparency. Which has been trump's argument all along

He sure did... after the whistleblower had already made their complaint and the House had started investigating, both of which Trump was aware of when he claimed he wanted no QPQ.

Notably the person he made the claim to - Gordon Sondland - has testified that yes, unquivocably, there was an expectation of a quid pro quo from Trump.

This is basically like saying that if someone is accused of murder and subsequently says they aren't a murderer, you feel that statement is exculpatory evidence, even if the person they said it to has testified to the fact that yes, they are, in fact, a murderer.

Also, if Trump truly wanted transparency from Ukraine, why the cloak-and-dagger routine? Why did he illegally withhold funds and then ask Zelenskiy to announce an investigation into a political rival instead of, say, going to Congress and saying, "I believe there is substantial corruption in Ukraine and I would like to request a hold on aid money and a full investigation to confirm that said money is being spent appropriately."?

There are processes for this *exact* situation to ensure that there isn't even the appearance of impropriety. Notably, those processes are not, "Go talk to my personal lawyer, who is not a government employee and is not subject to any official oversight."

---