world

Trump's impeachment defense, prosecutors dig in

64 Comments
By LAURIE KELLMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


64 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

No president has ever been convicted and removed by the Senate, which means acquittal is no big deal. Each president that has been impeached is remembered for having been impeached, not for having been acquitted in the Senate. HAR!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

digging in on whether a crime is required for his conviction and removal 

Hahaha. And let's not forget what sober and solemn Nancy said: we don't need proof if we have allegations.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

Hahaha. And let's not forget what sober and solemn Nancy said: we don't need proof if we have allegations

Cite?

10 ( +12 / -2 )

McConnell has said he's working closely with the president's team

So clearly in breach of his oath to act impartially.  The trial will be a sham.  Crooks voting to acquit another crook.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Lets not forget who is being impeached here, a man who stole money from a charity meant for cancer stricken children.

It takes a special kind of depravity to steal from seriously ill children and donny is special in special way!!

12 ( +14 / -2 )

My guess: Dershowitz owes Trump and Barr for keeping his escapades with a dead pedophile secret.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@mrnoidallAnd let's not forget what sober and solemn Nancy said

Interesting interpretation. Free, for-profit press allows that. This is the Trump era, aka post truth era. Trump supporters with a history of posting distorted 'interpretations' (sometimes alt facts, sometimes fake news) and who continue to do so have lost any credibility they might have had. But then many have defended their Trump's lies saying 'all politicians lie'. Trump's attracted so many like-minded followers.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, was shedding no light

What are McConnell and the other Republicans hiding?

 the White House blocked officials from appearing in the House.

What's Trump hiding?

The Trump regime sliming and sliding the country down the ever steepening, ever slippery-ing slope toward greater authoritarianism. With Trump as big brother.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The American people deserve a fair trial.

They also deserve a House of Representatives that doesn't waste taxpayer money.

Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said, Trump will “be impeached forever.”

Yeah, he'll also be acquitted forever. And he'll continue to get things done for the American people.

This impeachment sham has only benefited Trump and hurt the Dems. Har!

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

The trial will be a sham

The one in the House was. This one won't be.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

The trial will be a sham

The Senate Republicans, following the lead of Trump, are doing whatever they can to ensure this shampeachment (alt right term) aka kangaroo court, benefits them.

The Republicans know Trump's income redistribution plan (see taxcuts for the elite and their corporations) the ongoing subsidies (see big oil, gas and coal, see big corporate farms, see big defense industries) aka socialism/welfare for the richest, the weakening of environmental, consumer and worker protection measures benefit their richest contributors around the globe.

The Republicans have long been the party for the .01%. The R’s in the Senate care more about maintaining their wealth than they do the country.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The trial will be a sham

The one in the House was. This one won't be. (Sgt Serrano)

The purpose of a trial is to unearth the truth.

The purpose of this republican dominated trial will be to bury the truth.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Pelosi says: *“It’s not a question of saying what proof, it’s what allegations have been made, and that has to be subjected to scrutiny as to how we go forward. *

Later in the clip, she appears to avoid the word “evidence,” as she corrects herself and says uses “events” instead.

https://youtu.be/7dzhIxeF204

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

so to impeach “forever” she claims it’s an airtight case with plenty of proof and evidence.

Now that it’s trial time in front of the American people it’s only allegations. the Senate needs to call the witnesses she thinks have proof of her allegations or it’s a “cover up”.

Not her fault if they don’t find her evidence for her. hoax.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Eveyone knows Trump is guilty of breaking his oath. You can hear and read the testimony from the diplomats, Mulvaney admitting it, and the texts/emails from Parnas.

The good news for Trump is that his base has a lot of lower class people who just don't care. They are in it for revenge against liberals.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The one in the House was. This one won't be.

The "one in the House" wasn't a trial. It was an inquiry, i.e. an investigation.

It’s not a question of saying what proof, it’s what allegations have been made, and that has to be subjected to scrutiny as to how we go forward. *

The inquiry was conducted because substantive allegations were made, which were subsequently investigated and corroborated. Now it moves on to the Senate for a trial. Trumpsters can't seem to get this straight.

The Democrats in the House did their job admirably. The Republicans in the Senate have already decided not to do their job at all.

Dershowitz either knows better or should

Of course Dershowitz knows better. His line of reasoning is rubbish, and he knows it, but it's the rubbish that Team Trump and the GOP Senate has decided upon for its line of defense of their Lord and Savior. At this point, Trump's defenders have nothing else to go on except the "not impeachable" schtick.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Not only not impeachable but no evidence of a crime if he were impeachable. Weak case can be thrown out, that’s the Senate doing their job.

but if liberals want to go through the whole thing with witnesses, sure. We have a whole list of people who “admirable” Dems didn’t call for some reason.even withdrew their subpoena for a couple of them because afraid the court would rule against them.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

“Criminal-like conduct is required,” said Alan Dershowitz

Disingenuous Dershowitz is once again grandstanding with his contrarian shtick attempting to make us believe he can square the circle: Trump’s acquittal by the Senate “would produce results that make me unhappy as an individual”, sez he, adding that he's acting “for the survival of the constitution” which is more important than “the short-term partisan advantage of getting my person elected to be president” (?!).

Since there are only 2 articles of impeachment despite the cornucopia of criminality to choose from, why hasn't the "constitution-hugging" Dershowitz volunteered his lawyerly advice on ways to remove the orange mountebank who has violated his oath to defend the constitution and disgraced the office of president in the eyes of the whole world .

3 ( +4 / -1 )

maybe because he has not committed a crime that the Constitution allows an elected president to be removed for?

just a thought.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Criminal-like conduct is required,” said Alan Dershowitz

My knowledge of the legality of Trump's actions is rudimentary at best. Dershowitz is well regarded as a legal expert, a man whose made his reputation in many ways, including as an extremely high priced defender of the criminal 'elite' and other members of the DC swamp. 

Who knows what Dershowitz, a DC swampman himself, actually believes. He's like Trump, a shapeshifter for sale to the highest bidder. The 'allegations' of his and Trump's close contacts with the late Jeffrey Epstein are hard to ignore. Epstein's 'suicide' while in a prison overseen by Trump's DOJ appointee Barr, and Barr's lifelong associations with other ‘elites’ and swampmembers known to have been connected with Epstein just make the murky world of headswampman Trump backed by Dershowitz in the alleged trial even murkier.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Blacklabel: Not only not impeachable

He sure seems impeached.

but no evidence of a crime

Except from witnesses, texts, and emails. I suppose you'd call it all a big misunderstanding from a half dozen career diplomats. And Mulvaney.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

What crime was committed again that the Constitution allows a president to be removed for?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

If the senate acquits him sure seems validation that the impeachment was not justified under the law.

but sure he is “forever impeached” either way. Not that it means anything other than a bunch of partisans said so but were overruled at trial.

I’m looking forward to you guys have to explain to your base why Orangemanbad is sill in the White House when this is all done.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

What crime that the Constitution allows removal for? Name it.

he doesn’t have to prove his innocence you have to prove his guilt. America.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

At least we know that history will forever know Trump as a criminal only protected by the unethically corrupt, who place more importance in power than in stamping out corruption.

Literally the most morally deficit americans that have ever lived. Ever.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So in other words, no crime that you can name. Thanks!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

but no evidence of a crime

 

Except from witnesses, texts, and emails. I suppose you'd call it all a big misunderstanding from a half dozen career diplomats. And Mulvaney.

I think he meant that they were going to suppress any evidence.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

What evidence? Didn’t you see what Nancy said? Only the allegations matter!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Then name it. It’s that simple. Otherwise you just wasting our time with speculation.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

So what crime has been committed? One that is listed in the Constitution as a reason for removal from office? Neither article of impeachment supports this as a “crime”.

or is this just a political thing and never actually about removal?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

My guess: Dershowitz owes Trump and Barr for keeping his escapades with a dead pedophile secret.

Turn off CNN for a moment, just a tad bit.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Scum, die of old age, deplorable. Unethical, lazy, morally deficient. Plus all the other things that were deleted already.

you think you are slick by saying “they” or “your team” thinking you can escape responsibility for what you say. That’s lame.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Everyone knows Trump is guilty of breaking his oath. You can hear and read the testimony from the diplomats, Mulvaney admitting it, and the texts/emails from Parnas.

Prove it....oh, the Democrats had their chance and now Nadler is demanding that witnesses be called because they couldn’t and wouldn’t do their job, it’s not going to happen like that and if they demand Mulvaney or Bolton to testify, then both Biden’s and even the Whistleblower will be called and if the Dems refuse, watch this farce come to a complete halt and closure.

The good news for Trump is that his base has a lot of lower class people who just don't care.

It’s that kind of talk which basically helps keep Trump in office, they feel like why on Earth would I ever vote for a Democrat that thinks of me as trash? I thought Obama supporters were trash, but I didn’t underestimate them unlike liberals have done in the past with the Freedom Caucus (formerly the Tea Party) and Trump voters.

They are in it for revenge against liberals.

After what they’ve done to this man over the last 3 years...Yup, I believe it!

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Who needs CNN? Epstein, who had dirt on rich people, died while under Trump's watch. And Clinton who has an even longer history with Epstein...

Trump has friends who are rich.

Clinton is more popular and has even more friends.

This is easier to put together than a pedophile ring out of a non-existent basement of a pizza shop.

No wonder Clinton staff came out early shortly before his death to deny any known associations with the man. Thank God for photo archives. Pheeew!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

My guess: Dershowitz owes Trump and Barr for keeping his escapades with a dead pedophile secret.

@bas4fTurn off CNN for a moment, just a tad bit

Has CNN reported the above,

that Dershowitz owes Trump and Barr for keeping their escapades with Epstein and the underaged girls he'd trafficked secret?

Or is this the CNN ghoul that's come to haunt rightwingers. Or the meme used by global alt rightists to mean media that don't and won't question Trump and Putin.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Trumpers must be proud: defended by men who have not only defended pedophiles, abusers, and murderers with absolute pride, Dershowitz even took part in some of the child prostitution at Epstein's behest, and Starr's own words against Clinton could be an opening for the prosecution in regards to why Trump is being impeached. Trump chose these lunatics, and he DID call Starr that himself, because they can go on TV before the trial on Fox and make a bunch of BS claims about things. This is going to be hilarious. And all Trump defenders have to admit they support Trump being defended by people who support murderers and child molesters (like Trump).

5 ( +7 / -2 )

That's the Truth! Everyone hates Trump.

93% approval among registered voting Republicans, that kind of hate we love.

Nevertheless, Epstein was under the control of Trump not Clinton.

But Clinton was seen more often in public together. Why is Clinton trying to avoid questions about Epstein?

Clintons popularity couldn't get Epstein's neck broken. Only the person controlling him could do or allow that.

Ahhhh....the old Oliver Stone theory. Like the old OJ didn’t kill his wife, but he knows who did. ROFL.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Dershowitz is a registered 

shapeshifter for sale to the highest bidder, out for himself and himself alone. If you were an American, you'd understand the spectrum on which lawyers are seen by those of us stuck in a litigious society. On that spectrum Dershowitz's on the dishonest scum pole. I've been fortunate to have known and worked with many at the opposite pole. Unfortunate for having known the Dershowitz' ilk.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

shapeshifter for sale to the highest bidder

You have anything else in your repertoire besides name-calling? Fwiw, from the interviews with Dershowitz that I am seen, he is emphatically not defending Trump. He sees his role as defending EVERY president from the cheapening of the impeachment process that is attempted here.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

If you were an American, you'd understand the spectrum on which lawyers are seen

He is not a lawyer, he is a law professor at Harvard and the most respected constiutional expert in your country. That is not mentioned in your echo chamber, is it?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

What crime that the Constitution allows removal for? Name it.

The same thing day after day - do me a favor and bookmark this so I don't have to post it every other day...

ttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

he doesn’t have tho prove his innocence you have to prove his guilt. America.

Tell us about it Mr "Lock Her Up"...

Nancy has handled the impeachment like a Master - Parnas is proving Bolton had it nailed - the whole QPQ was a "drug deal" and Crazy Rudy was a "grenade that is going to take everyone out". And just look at the pictures and videos of those who are on their way out - multiple photos and video of Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Don Jr, McCarthy, Ivanka and Jared. And all those photos of Parnas and Rudy with their arms around each other. Yep, Parnas was well ensconced within Trump-world.

Thanks Rudy! You've done more than anyone else to get your client impeached...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

48% of registered republicans support the impeachment, more than 90% of registered democrats and 56% of Americans in general.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

He is not a lawyer, he is a law professor at Harvard and the most respected constiutional expert in your country. That is not mentioned in your echo chamber, is it?

"Retired" for his molesting charges and other nefarious behaviors.

The same law professor that was a friend of Epstein like Trump that was also accused of assaulting an underage girl.

The same Dershowitz defended the call to lower the age of consent.

Epstein "mysterious death" under Trump's watch and everyone's problems go away.

Now he is on the Trump defense!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Whatever happens in the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said, Trump will “be impeached forever.”

Absolutely - "Impeached" will now be part of Donnie's legacy which already includes failed businessman, third-rate reality TV host, white supremacist, serial liar, Russia-lover, and as we've seen last month war-monger...

He acknowledged that his argument really is against having new testimony introduced.

“There's no need for witnesses,” he said.

Trump and Trumpers last month: This is a witch hunt! We are being shut out! We can't have our witnesses! It's unfair!

Trump and Trumpers now: Witnesses? Oh, no, no, no - we don't want witnesses....don't need them. Get it over with! We don't want to hear about any drug deal...

McConnell has said he's working closely with the president's team.

Moscow Mitch - the swampiest creature to emerge from the Black Lagoon. So tell us Mr Turtle, how can you be fair and impartial when you are "working closely" with Donnie's TV lawyers?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@willibHe is not a lawyer, he is a law professor

Maybe in your nation a 'law professor' would not be considered a 'lawyer'.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The Democrats have abused their power for pure political gain. They have tossed the dignity and honor of America in the trash and placed politics ahead of the American people and the good of the Country. They are promoting a socialist agenda that failed in the USSR and will destroy the United States, but then, that is their goal. I think everyone of them should be brought up on charges of treason.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Then why is this not in either article of impeachment? You showed a crime, now prove it was committed. I haven’t heard “campaign finance violation” in any of the House transcripts.

Is Christopher Steele not a foreign national who contributed something too? Oops

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Don’t need your witnesses that you should have called but didn’t because you were afraid the law was against you. Key distinction.

of course we would love to have our witnesses and deny you yours, just like you did in the House. But you claim now that’s unfair.

so let’s be clear: witnesses: YES- but only ours.

Trump and Trumpers now: Witnesses? Oh, no, no, no - we don't want witnesses....don't need them.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@blacklabIs Christopher Steele not a foreign national who contributed something too? Oops

Deflect much?

@donalttaylrThey are promoting a socialist agenda

I have a very different perspective: the Trump led Republicans are pushing a far right authoritarian agenda, similar to the one that resulted in failure for Italy and Germany in the 1930's.

On a 'socialist' theme, do you think the federal subsidies for big farming and ranching corporations, big oil, gas and coal, and big defense industries is socialistic?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No one cares about the GAO. At least they didnt when they found the previous administration broke the law multiple times.

https://www.npr.org/2014/08/22/342335099/gao-bergdahl-exchange-violated-law

The topic was supposed illegal contributions from a foreign national. If true that would also apply to the contributions Christopher Steele made. We arent proposing unequal application of the law are we?

My copy of the Constitution doesnt contain the words campaign or finance, and I only see violation once, about Prohibition. So you cannot impeach a President for that, and it isnt included in your articles anyway.

All this will come out in the trial, if we even really have one. Enjoy!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The topic was supposed illegal contributions from a foreign national. If true that would also apply to the contributions Christopher Steele made. We arent proposing unequal application of the law are we?

No, we aren’t proposing unequal application of the law. Christopher Steele was paid for his work, he didn’t “donate” it. Another false equivalency brought to you by a Trumpophile.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Oh you can ask foreign nationals to dig up dirt on Presidential candidates to interfere in an election as long as you PAY FOR IT?

you might want to rethink that one....

Christopher Steele was paid for his work, he didn’t “donate” it.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

All I can say is its gonna be a rough next 5 years for most of you who cant even vote in a US election anyway.

But for America and Americans, it is going to a glorious period of historical growth and achievement.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@blacklabNo one cares about the GAO

Mighty authoritarian of you to speak for everyone. I care about the GAO and want the government to tell the truth.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Ok let me rephrase. personally don’t care about this specific (incorrect) GAO decision. No more than any of you likely cared about the seven times GAO said previous administration broke the law (supposedly).

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Blacklabel

First. it was prove it. Now it is

No one cares about the GAO. At least they didnt when they found the previous administration broke the law multiple times.

Your attempts to continuously "move the goalposts" and distract is becoming obvious.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The topic was supposed illegal contributions from a foreign national. If true that would also apply to the contributions Christopher Steele made. We arent proposing unequal application of the law are we?

Lol no it wouldn't. Apparently you don't know the difference between a market transaction (paying for the Dossier) and an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign government.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I am not sure any of you know who the GAO works for? The URL gives a hint. Plus precedent is that GAO decision does not cause impeachment. As the previous occupant of the White House was found to have broken the law by them SEVEN times.

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/legislative-branch-partners/government-accountability-office

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

so your proof is a GAO report that came out AFTER he was impeached? How do you explain the previous seven times? did I miss seven impeachments for breaking the law, as determined by the GAO?

Ok then....

First. it was prove it. Now it is

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Blacklabel

I am not sure any of you know who the GAO works for?

They work for the people! What's your point?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They work for the House of Representatives in the US Congress. the "house.gov" URL gives that away and thats my point.

So was justice "for the people" denied the other 7 times GAO said the law was broken?

Regardless, enjoy the trial and prepare for disappointment. Acquittal will be awesome.

They work for the people! What's your point?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Blacklabel

so your proof is a GAO report that came out AFTER he was impeached? How do you explain the previous seven times? did I miss seven impeachments for breaking the law, as determined by the GAO?

Ok then....

A lot of reports came out after Trump was impeached because the WH was stalling the impeachment. The same reason the WH wouldn't allow people with first hand knowledge to testify. That isn't what innocent people do!

The WH knew the evidence was overwhelming!

Your logic makes no sense!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Even if so, you cant use a report that came out AFTER the impeachment as the reason for the impeachment. Most Dems already wanted impeachment even before the Ukraine call, so thats not the reason either. Neither is Lev Parnas.

A lot of reports came out after Trump was impeached because the WH was stalling the impeachment.

you just needed to subpoena them. why didnt you? There is a thing called executive privilege that is used by all Presidents, not just this one. Subpoena the witnesses and make them exert the privilege. You were in a hurry for politics and just withdrew the subpoenas or never filed them. Then delayed the trial a month despite the "urgency"

The same reason the WH wouldn't allow people with first hand knowledge to testify. That isn't what innocent people do!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Even if so, you cant use a report that came out AFTER the impeachment as the reason for the impeachment. 

Being made public after the impeachment doesn't prove anything. The people on the committee had the evidence at the beginning. Just like the WH hiding evidence on secret servers.

Your logic does not make sense!

you just needed to subpoena them. why didnt you? There is a thing called executive privilege that is used by all Presidents, not just this one. Subpoena the witnesses and make them exert the privilege. You were in a hurry for politics and just withdrew the subpoenas or never filed them. Then delayed the trial a month despite the "urgency"

They were, and they were ignored with the WH has explicit instructions. That is not what innocent people do!

Your logic does not make any sense!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites