Debate Now Where is the proof to impeach Trump?

task0778

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
12,247
11,350
2,265
Texas hill country
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.

2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.

3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.


Far as I can tell, there is none. Proof that is. I saw several people testify in the House inquiry and most of them said Trump was guilty of bribery or quid pro quo, but when pressed they had no proof. One after another they said it was a presumption, opinion, personal guess. I can understand the feeling that Trump was trying to get the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and withheld military aid to them if they didn't comply, but you gotta have more than a feeling if you're going to impeach a president. So, first question: where's the proof?

There's nothing wrong with the president asking for an investigation; Joe Biden is a candidate for the democratic nomination, shouldn't we find out if he was engaged in or complicit in corruption? There was enough evidence to support at least an investigation by the Ukrainians, I don't see anything wrong with that. It could have been at least in part Trump's job to determine the facts.

We do know that the military aid was held-up for awhile but then delivered. But there is no evidence or proof for why. None of the inquiry witnesses could state that they knew the reason. But one witness did explain that aid was held-up to other countries, and is not uncommon:

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale confirmed Wednesday evening at the House Intelligence Committee that aid to Lebanon was held up at the same time, and in the same way, as aid to Ukraine. Hale testified during the sixth public hearing in the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Responding to questions from Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Hale agreed that President Trump had a general skepticism of foreign aid and wanted to overhaul the way it was handled, as part of his “America First” policy.

He also agreed that delays on aid are not uncommon, and confirmed his earlier testimony that aid to Lebanon had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House, as had aid to Pakistan and to the “Northern Triangle” countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) until it was later released. The Lebanon hold remains in effect.

The Pakistan aid was held up because of “unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the Pakistani government toward certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with the United States,” Hale said.

Hale also confirmed that when aid was withheld from Lebanon, there was no reason given — just as with Ukraine. Asked whether that was “not uncommon,” Hale said it is “not the normal way that we function,” but that “t does happen.”

David Hale: Aid Was Held up to Lebanon, Central America Alongside Ukraine

Therefore, it s not out of the question that Trump had other reasons for delaying that aid to Ukraine. Which means the Dems have no proof of "abuse of office".
 
IMHO Trump has committed no impeachable offense. The current articles of impeachment have no bases in fact.

Article One has no basis as Trump allowed aid once concerns were aired and no demand for a Quid Pro Quo was given. The two base actors, on the phone call, state it never happened. The only witness to question the president said he wanted nothing and his assumptions were his own. Game over for article One.

Article 2 was laid waste by SCOTUS just weeks before becoming an article of impeachment when SCOTUS ruled that Executive Privilege was not unlawful or unconstitutional. The Court cited that in disputes between the legislative and executive branches, the court was the sole arbitrator and the equal branches of government do not have powers that exceed the others, they are equal. Article Two was laid waste before it was even written.

The house's dream of impeachment and removal was dead long before the ink was dry on the paper they wrote it on.
 
I believe beyond a reasonable doubt will suffice. 'Proof' is only available in mathematics.
 
I believe beyond a reasonable doubt will suffice. 'Proof' is only available in mathematics.
LOL..

Why do you people think that just be cause you say Trump is guilty that he must prove his innocence? 800 years of Jurist Prudence going back to the time of the Romans has men innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. Where is your hubris coming from?
 
I believe beyond a reasonable doubt will suffice. 'Proof' is only available in mathematics.

I understand that, but I believe your idea of what constitutes a reasonable doubt is probably different from mine. If in fact you believe Trump to be guilty of the abuse of office charge that is. When not one witness who appeared before the inquiry could testify that they knew why the military aid to Ukraine was delayed, then I think a reasonable doubt exists. There could have been other reasons, legitimate reasons for delaying the aid. As I said in the OP, one witness did testify that aid to other countries was also delayed, without knowing why, and it was not uncommon. Maybe Trump wanted to make sure the money wasn't going into the pockets of the wrong people, no one really knows.

To me, in a court of law, proof of guilt can be established through eye witness testimony and documents that show what Trump's intent was when he delayed the military aid. Did anyone testify that he or she heard Trump demanding the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens by the Ukrainians before the aid would be released? NO. Some people assumed it, interpreted the phone call to mean that, but you do not impeach a president based on nothing more than an interpretation or an assumption. Has any document of any kind surfaced that shows Trump abused his office? NO. And yes, I know this wasn't in a court of law; BUT, if you're going to impeach a president then don't you think something stronger than hearsay evidence should be required?

So, I'm asking anyone who believes Trump to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: WHY? Based on what? Cuz the Dems say so? Do you believe the witnesses might have been biased against Trump, and that their testimony might have been tainted by that? You have no doubts about that? WHY? What have you got that makes you think he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you believe Trump's use of executive privilege means he's guilty? Really? Then you must've thought Obama was guilty as hell when he invoked executive privilege so many times while he was in office.
 
What have you got that makes you think he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
They believe if Trump can not prove his innocence that the reasonable doubt of his innocence is inference of his guilt.. They want to turn over 800 years of Jurist Prudence on its head as socialist and dictators do.

You must be very careful with these people as they use the same legal terms we use but they have very different interpretations as to what they mean..
 
When not one witness who appeared before the inquiry could testify that they knew why the military aid to Ukraine was delayed, then I think a reasonable doubt exists.
Only when one ignores the totality of evidence.
 
Last edited:
So, I'm asking anyone who believes Trump to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: WHY? Based on what?
Mulvaney's admission on TV, for one example, Sondland's testimony, 'Everyone was in the loop'. You are depending on unreasonable doubt.
 
As I understand it, Individual1 is arguing total immunity, not executive privilege.
 
I believe beyond a reasonable doubt will suffice. 'Proof' is only available in mathematics.

I understand that, but I believe your idea of what constitutes a reasonable doubt is probably different from mine. If in fact you believe Trump to be guilty of the abuse of office charge that is. When not one witness who appeared before the inquiry could testify that they knew why the military aid to Ukraine was delayed, then I think a reasonable doubt exists. There could have been other reasons, legitimate reasons for delaying the aid. As I said in the OP, one witness did testify that aid to other countries was also delayed, without knowing why, and it was not uncommon. Maybe Trump wanted to make sure the money wasn't going into the pockets of the wrong people, no one really knows.

To me, in a court of law, proof of guilt can be established through eye witness testimony and documents that show what Trump's intent was when he delayed the military aid. Did anyone testify that he or she heard Trump demanding the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens by the Ukrainians before the aid would be released? NO. Some people assumed it, interpreted the phone call to mean that, but you do not impeach a president based on nothing more than an interpretation or an assumption. Has any document of any kind surfaced that shows Trump abused his office? NO. And yes, I know this wasn't in a court of law; BUT, if you're going to impeach a president then don't you think something stronger than hearsay evidence should be required?

So, I'm asking anyone who believes Trump to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: WHY? Based on what? Cuz the Dems say so? Do you believe the witnesses might have been biased against Trump, and that their testimony might have been tainted by that? You have no doubts about that? WHY? What have you got that makes you think he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you believe Trump's use of executive privilege means he's guilty? Really? Then you must've thought Obama was guilty as hell when he invoked executive privilege so many times while he was in office.
You should have also added in your rules for this debate to identify what country you live in. Because in some countries those people don't have a concept about what constitutes reasonable doubt in the American legal system.
 
No doubt if a witness says 'Trump told me to withhold aid until Ukraine fingered Biden' you'll scream 'Hearsay', so this whole thread is rather pointless.
 
No doubt if a witness says 'Trump told me to withhold aid until Ukraine fingered Biden' you'll scream 'Hearsay', so this whole thread is rather pointless.
That witness later in the hearing admitted that he assumed that was what the president wanted even though the President said he wanted nothing in return.
 
This is a ridiculous thread. Everyone knows Individual1 did it, this thread is about arguing there is no possible proof he did so beyond an unreasonable doubt.
 
Put Dishonorable Discharged Hunter Biden in lockdown in a supermax.
 
This is a ridiculous thread. Everyone knows Individual1 did it, this thread is about arguing there is no possible proof he did so beyond an unreasonable doubt.
If that were true Schiff sham wouldn't have tried to create evidence
 
Are you really such a simp as to think Individual1 didn't try to shakedown Ukraine?
If that is the case I see what he means.

iu
 
cherry-picking what someone said is dishonest almost as dishonest as making a post to another post without quoting that post.
Are you really such a simp as to think Individual1 didn't try to shakedown Ukraine?
If that is the case I see what he means.

iu
 
This is a ridiculous thread. Everyone knows Individual1 did it, this thread is about arguing there is no possible proof he did so beyond an unreasonable doubt.

Except everybody DOESN'T know that, and since you have not indicated any substantive evidence/proof then clearly you have no reason to believe it. I don't get it, I really don't. A bunch of people testify they thought he did it but not one can offer anything definitive to show why or support their contention. My personal guess is, I assumed, I interpreted what he said in the phone call. That's not evidence, that's an opinion. And here's the thing: you do not or should not impeach a president on such flimsy testimony.
 
So, I'm asking anyone who believes Trump to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: WHY? Based on what?
Mulvaney's admission on TV, for one example, Sondland's testimony, 'Everyone was in the loop'. You are depending on unreasonable doubt.
Sondland changed his story....Everything he says is now GIGO.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top