View Full Version : trump impeachment watch thread
You can't have it both ways. If Chalupa Grande and Steele Dossier guy are relevant, let them testify at trial before the Senate. If they don't, their testimony isn't relevant, right?
You can't have it both ways. If Chalupa Grande and Steele Dossier guy are relevant, let them testify at trial before the Senate. If they don't, their testimony isn't relevant, right?
That ship has already sailed thanks to the house Dems rush to impeach. Like I said earlier Pelosi bungled the fuck out of this.
Any witnesses in previous impeachment trials that were called before the senate had also been witnesses during house impeachment trials. Begging for new witnesses at the senate is unprecedented and laughable considering how the house ran its proceedings. Should McConnell cave because Pelosi fucked up?
That ship has already sailed thanks to the house Dems rush to impeach. Like I said earlier Pelosi bungled the fuck out of this.
Any witnesses in previous impeachment trials that were called before the senate had also been witnesses during house impeachment trials. Begging for new witnesses at the senate is unprecedented and laughable considering how the house ran its proceedings. Should McConnell cave because Pelosi fucked up?
You didn't answer my question. Do you now realize why that proves my point - a point you're dodging?
That ship has already sailed thanks to the house Dems rush to impeach. Like I said earlier Pelosi bungled the fuck out of this.
Any witnesses in previous impeachment trials that were called before the senate had also been witnesses during house impeachment trials. Begging for new witnesses at the senate is unprecedented and laughable considering how the house ran its proceedings. Should McConnell cave because Pelosi fucked up?
I thought the defense was all team due process? A trial without live witnesses is unprecedented and laughable.
I thought the defense was all team due process? A trial without live witnesses is unprecedented and laughable.
Bring back the same witnesses from the house proceedings just like every impeachment trial before this.
Pelosi/Schiff fucked up on not going to court to compel witnesses and now want a redo in the senate. That’s not how it works and I find joy in watching the left cry about it.
In any previous impeachment trial can you name a single witness the senate called that was not previously called by the house?
You didn't answer my question. Do you now realize why that proves my point - a point you're dodging?
You’re not making a strong point and are missing my point, which you’re dodging by avoiding my question.
Should McConnell cave because Pelosi fucked up?
You’re not making a strong point and are missing my point, which you’re dodging by avoiding my question.
Should McConnell cave because Pelosi fucked up?
Your point is a non-sequitur and irrelevant to the original point you were arguing which was: the House GOP was somehow prejudiced by not calling "their" witnesses. What you're missing is that their burden is to first show the relevance of those witnesses as a precondition to their being prejudiced. McConnell caving or not to Pelosi is utterly irrelevant. You're talking about this like there's merit to the GOP list of witnesses. There's not, and you're avoiding that issue like the plague.
DarrinS
01-21-2020, 07:14 PM
Does the prosecution typically close their case and then ask the judge for new evidence to be introduced?
Asking for a friend.
DarrinS
01-21-2020, 07:16 PM
Does the prosecution typically close their case and then ask the judge for new evidence to be introduced?
Asking for a friend.
I guess I should say, rest their case.
Does the prosecution typically close their case and then ask the judge for new evidence to be introduced?
Asking for a friend.
Do you rest your case at the end of discovery or after you've presented your evidence to the jury?
Asking for a friend
Do you rest your case at the end of discovery or after you've presented your evidence to the jury?
Asking for a friend
:lol Darrin Drive by fail just like TSA.
benefactor
01-21-2020, 07:38 PM
Do you guys ever get tired of playing the victim card? In case you didn't realize it, it's kind of a bad look for a grown fucking man, tbh.
Your point is a non-sequitur and irrelevant to the original point you were arguing which was: the House GOP was somehow prejudiced by not calling "their" witnesses. What you're missing is that their burden is to first show the relevance of those witnesses as a precondition to their being prejudiced. McConnell caving or not to Pelosi is utterly irrelevant. You're talking about this like there's merit to the GOP list of witnesses. There's not, and you're avoiding that issue like the plague.
Issue was already addressed in the link I provided.
You’re talking about this as if it’s a standard criminal trial, it’s not. In any previous impeachment trial can you name a single witness the senate called that was not previously called by the house?
Spurminator
01-21-2020, 08:13 PM
Issue was already addressed in the link I provided.
You’re talking about this as if it’s a standard criminal trial, it’s not. In any previous impeachment trial can you name a single witness the senate called that was not previously called by the house?
:lol "any previous impeachment trial"
You don't establish precedent from a sample of two.
Issue was already addressed in the link I provided.
You’re talking about this as if it’s a standard criminal trial, it’s not. In any previous impeachment trial can you name a single witness the senate called that was not previously called by the house?
Then why was dear leader crying foul about a lack of due process? You can't have it both ways.
Again, this has shit about dick to do with the issue of relevance. You haven't passed the initial gateway. And as for the house/senate issue, why's that significant?
:lol "any previous impeachment trial"
You don't establish precedent from a sample of two.
In other words, you can’t name one.
Then why was dear leader crying foul about a lack of due process? You can't have it both ways.
Again, this has shit about dick to do with the issue of relevance. You haven't passed the initial gateway. And as for the house/senate issue, why's that significant?
I’m not trying to have it both ways.
Pelosi rushed the articles instead of waiting for more evidence/witnesses to build a stronger case. She made a political gamble and is now being forced to eat it by McConnell.
I’m not trying to have it both ways.
Pelosi rushed the articles instead of waiting for more evidence/witnesses to build a stronger case. She made a political gamble and is now being forced to eat it by McConnell.
You're still not proving any of the house GOP's witnesses mattered in the first place. But I'll assume you can't do that and move on.
You said this is not a "standard criminal trial." Dear leader has bitched and moaned for months that he hasn't been given due process. Due process would apply in a standard criminal trial. But you're saying this is not one.
So pick a lane - is this a standard criminal trial or no?
weebo
01-21-2020, 08:52 PM
You're still not proving any of the house GOP's witnesses mattered in the first place. But I'll assume you can't do that and move on.
You said this is not a "standard criminal trial." Dear leader has bitched and moaned for months that he hasn't been given due process. Due process would apply in a standard criminal trial. But you're saying this is not one.
So pick a lane - is this a standard criminal trial or no?
You're wasting your time debating trump cultist--the more logic you bring into the argument the more defiant they get--before trump announced he was running for president 3/4 of his cult thought he was a clown--now his their savior SMH
Spurminator
01-21-2020, 08:52 PM
In other words, you can’t name one.
I suppose during the Johnson impeachment your dumb ass would be saying we can't impeach a President because it's never happened before.
You're still not proving any of the house GOP's witnesses mattered in the first place. But I'll assume you can't do that and move on.
You said this is not a "standard criminal trial." Dear leader has bitched and moaned for months that he hasn't been given due process. Due process would apply in a standard criminal trial. But you're saying this is not one.
So pick a lane - is this a standard criminal trial or no?
I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.
It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences :cry
spurraider21
01-21-2020, 08:56 PM
Does the prosecution typically close their case and then ask the judge for new evidence to be introduced?
Asking for a friend.
do you think the house's impeachment was the prosecution's case? no. that was the indictment.
the prosecution then puts on their case at trial before the jury
Spurminator
01-21-2020, 08:57 PM
Cornered in an argument he can't win, TSA lands on "Doesn't matter, Republicans run the Senate and can do whatever they want, nah nah nah."
:lol Why do you bother typing so many stupid words?
Winehole23
01-21-2020, 08:58 PM
Does the prosecution typically close their case and then ask the judge for new evidence to be introduced?
Asking for a friend.Impeachment is analogous to indictment.
Witnesses and evidence are introduced at trial. Sometimes, information that has recently come to light is introduced for the first time at trial.
Lol magpie Darrin, blindly repeating what others say.
I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.
It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences :cry
Can you name a single trial where the proponent of the witnesses testimony didn’t have to first establish the testimony’s relevance? Do you know why why rules of evidence like 402 exist? This shit is so basic and fundamental that there’s no point in discussing this with you if you think things like “irrelevant testimony is admissible evidence.
I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.
It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences :cry
So then due process wouldn’t apply and dear leader and all the other republican retard pundits were wrong on that talking point. Congratulations on finally seeing the light.
I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.
It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences :cry
Trial is before senate. The rules of evidence govern admissibility at trial. You absolutely need to prove the relevance of the GOP witnesses testimony
pgardn
01-21-2020, 09:06 PM
I don’t need to prove house GOP’s witnesses mattered as I said earlier that ship has already sailed.
It’s not a standard criminal trial. The house set the rules for their impeachment proceedings and the senate sets the rules for the impeachment trial. Elections have consequences :cry
yes they do
Trump is the third president ever to be impeached
all these senators from the red team are going to have to explain their stance in the future and this history is not gonna be nice to them
unless we end up becoming an authoritarian government after this and the Congress becomes the duma and all the judges are corrupt
which seems what the red team is driving for
Winehole23
01-21-2020, 09:14 PM
If more damning information about DJT comes out before the election, Senators might pay for their purblind haste to acquit. Trump is already the least popular modern President, and he won by a whisker last time. He doesn't have much wiggle room on the downside.
So then due process wouldn’t apply and dear leader and all the other republican retard pundits were wrong on that talking point. Congratulations on finally seeing the light.
:lol finally?
Trial is before senate. The rules of evidence govern admissibility at trial. You absolutely need to prove the relevance of the GOP witnesses testimony
House already denied the GOP witnesses, I don’t need to prove their relevance, the ship has sailed.
Can you name a single trial where the proponent of the witnesses testimony didn’t have to first establish the testimony’s relevance? Do you know why why rules of evidence like 402 exist? This shit is so basic and fundamental that there’s no point in discussing this with you if you think things like “irrelevant testimony is admissible evidence.
You saying they’re irrelevant over and doesn’t make it true.
https://republicans-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rm_letter_to_chm_re_witness_request.pdf
:lol finally?
Yes finally.
Trump tried pushing an incorrect and inflammatory theory about due process - one that you disagree with - to discredit the impeachment process. I’m guessing you also finally now believe he should at least be guilty of the obstruction of justice impeachment article?
Winehole23
01-21-2020, 09:25 PM
GOP may be underestimating the downside of giving evidence and witnesses the bum's rush:
1219747970981224452
House already denied the GOP witnesses, I don’t need to prove their relevance, the ship has sailed.
Didn’t the house invite Trump to present his case?
Is the trial before the senate or the house?
Do you know when witnesses are presented to the jury?
You saying they’re irrelevant over and doesn’t make it true.
https://republicans-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rm_letter_to_chm_re_witness_request.pdf
Sure it does, and it’s the proponents burden to establish admissibility. A nunes letter doesn’t cut it. Let’s take an example. Why’s the golden shower PI guy relevant?
House already denied the GOP witnesses, I don’t need to prove their relevance, the ship has sailed.
If you believe this there’s really no point in discussing this with you.
Look, TSA. It’s either one of the following.
Either the senate proceeding is a trial, where witnesses are supposed to testify, and evidentiary concepts like relevance apply.
Or
It’s a political proceeding and not a trial where those concepts wouldn’t apply. That would mean the president lied to the American people and attempted to discredit the entire impeachment process — a much more serious issue.
Which is it?
Sure it does, and it’s the proponents burden to establish admissibility. A nunes letter doesn’t cut it. Let’s take an example. Why’s the golden shower PI guy relevant?House Res 660 Supra note 2 calls for exactly what Nunes sent...detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness.
Golden shower PI guy isn’t even on the list of requests from Nunes what the fuck are you talking about :lol
Winehole23
01-21-2020, 09:37 PM
There's going to be another Wohl/Burkman presser.
GAME OVER
1219768658206973952
Yes finally.
Trump tried pushing an incorrect and inflammatory theory about due process - one that you disagree with - to discredit the impeachment process. I’m guessing you also finally now believe he should at least be guilty of the obstruction of justice impeachment article?
There is no obstruction of justice impeachment article what the fuck are you talking about :lol
House Res 660 Supra note 2 calls for exactly what Nunes sent...detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness.
Golden shower PI guy isn’t even on the list of requests from Nunes what the fuck are you talking about :lol
Fusion GPS, the 2016 election, Trumps golden shower party, etc are irrelevant to the two articles of impeachment for a number of reasons, the main being events that occurred in 2016 (alleged Ukrainian interference) are not probative of events that occurred three years later. Nunes is a hack pushing talking points, not relevant evidence
There is no obstruction of justice impeachment article what the fuck are you talking about :lol
What is the obstruction of congress article about TSA?
spurraider21
01-21-2020, 09:46 PM
Can you name a single trial where the proponent of the witnesses testimony didn’t have to first establish the testimony’s relevance? Do you know why why rules of evidence like 402 exist? This shit is so basic and fundamental that there’s no point in discussing this with you if you think things like “irrelevant testimony is admissible evidence.
401 tbh
Look, TSA. It’s either one of the following.
Either the senate proceeding is a trial, where witnesses are supposed to testify, and evidentiary concepts like relevance apply.
Or
It’s a political proceeding and not a trial where those concepts wouldn’t apply. That would mean the president lied to the American people and attempted to discredit the entire impeachment process — a much more serious issue.
Which is it?
It’s not an either/or...it’s a political proceeding that has rules set by whichever party holds the senate.
401 tbh
401 defines relevance, 402 is what makes it admissible and excludes irrelevant evidence.
It’s not an either/or...it’s a political proceeding that has rules set by whichever party holds the senate.
Does due process apply, yes or no?
Fusion GPS, the 2016 election, Trumps golden shower party, etc are irrelevant to the two articles of impeachment for a number of reasons, the main being events that occurred in 2016 (alleged Ukrainian interference) are not probative of events that occurred three years later. Nunes is a hack pushing talking points, not relevant evidence
So what did you bring up Steele when he wasn’t even mentioned by Nunes as a witness?
So what did you bring up Steele when he wasn’t even mentioned by Nunes as a witness?
Why did Nunes mention it in his letter?
Is this question your argument why Ohr’s testimony is relevant?
spurraider21
01-21-2020, 09:55 PM
those witnesses aren't relevant just beacuse nunes says they are in a letter.
the biden's could be corrupt to their core, as could Ukrainian prosecutors and all those people on the list. that doesnt make them relevant to the question of whether or not trump abused his power in withholding aid unless the ukrainian government agreed to publicly announce an investigation into biden. again, even if biden was guilty as sin, that doesnt change the dynamic one bit. thats why they arent relevant witnesses.
relevant witnesses would be those privy to the president's decision making, the people on the call, the people who discussed the call, etc. the whistleblower in his own report said he only heard about what happened through other people, so he has no first-hand knowledge of any of this, so his testimony isnt going to be helpful. same with schiff. he has no first-hand knowledge of the president's conversations or decision making. he's not a relevant witness.
whether the bidens/burisma are actually corrupt, whether the ukrainian government officials were actually corrupt, whether schiff and the whisteblower were in contact have no relevance to the claim that trump used the power of his office for the purpose of benefitting himself personally in his efforts to get re-elected. its all a side show.
the constitution says the chief justice is supposed to preside. in any normal case, is is the judge would determine relevancy of witnesses... so that should be john roberts' call regardless of what cocaine mitch says.
spurraider21
01-21-2020, 09:56 PM
401 defines relevance, 402 is what makes it admissible and excludes irrelevant evidence.
:tu
those witnesses aren't relevant just beacuse nunes says they are in a letter.
the biden's could be corrupt to their core, as could Ukrainian prosecutors and all those people on the list. that doesnt make them relevant to the question of whether or not trump abused his power in withholding aid unless the ukrainian government agreed to publicly announce an investigation into biden. again, even if biden was guilty as sin, that doesnt change the dynamic one bit. thats why they arent relevant witnesses.
relevant witnesses would be those privy to the president's decision making, the people on the call, the people who discussed the call, etc. the whistleblower in his own report said he only heard about what happened through other people, so he has no first-hand knowledge of any of this, so his testimony isnt going to be helpful. same with schiff. he has no first-hand knowledge of the president's conversations or decision making. he's not a relevant witness.
whether the bidens/burisma are actually corrupt, whether the ukrainian government officials were actually corrupt, whether schiff and the whisteblower were in contact have no relevance to the claim that trump used the power of his office for the purpose of benefitting himself personally in his efforts to get re-elected. its all a side show.
the constitution says the chief justice is supposed to preside. in any normal case, is is the judge would determine relevancy of witnesses... so that should be john roberts' call regardless of what cocaine mitch says.
VY’s litigation associate, submitting bench briefs and taking names
Does due process apply, yes or no?
No due process.
"More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials,"
And no I don’t think Trump’s hyperbole was a serious issue.
spurraider21
01-21-2020, 10:01 PM
VY’s litigation associate, submitting bench briefs and taking names
now licensed in two states even tho im still just working remotely for the LA office
No due process.
"More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials,"
And no I don’t think Trump’s hyperbole was a serious issue.
If you think dear leader and the rest of the fucking retards that follow his lead crying about a miscarriage of justice because process was not given is just hyperbole, and not meant to taint the legitimacy of the process, there’s really no point in discussing anything.
now licensed in two states even tho im still just working remotely for the LA office
I’m about to get my NY license.
Winehole23
01-21-2020, 10:07 PM
1219792127430995968
If you think dear leader and the rest of the fucking retards that follow his lead crying about a miscarriage of justice because process was not given is just hyperbole, and not meant to taint the legitimacy of the process, there’s really no point in discussing anything.
If you don’t think the legitimacy of impeachment was tainted by Democrats who’ve been trying to impeach before he even took office there’s really no point in discussing anything.
spurraider21
01-21-2020, 10:20 PM
I’m about to get my NY license.
sick. they're UBE now too, right? so you can get into a lot of jurisdictions with that
https://mobile.twitter.com/MZanona/status/1219785094036099072
:lol typical Schiff. At what point will the left start calling him out for all his fabricated bullshit.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtracey/status/1219811132640243712
sick. they're UBE now too, right? so you can get into a lot of jurisdictions with that
I dunno, but I get reciprocity, although I passed the NY bar like 10 years ago
Winehole23
01-21-2020, 10:31 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/MZanona/status/1219785094036099072
:lol typical Schiff. At what point will the left start calling him out for all his fabricated bullshit.
TSA picking nits from Schiff's beard while ignoring Team Trump's parade of full-throated lies.
pgardn
01-21-2020, 10:35 PM
TSA pulling that red ass out and doing his best to get away from what this process concerns...
The President
Not Joe fckn Biden
Not crybaby Nunes
Not the Republicans failing to call witnesses that could theoretically cleanly exonerate Trump from fragments of this fck up (can’t take the perfect phone call back unfortunately)
Not the whistleblower; why is he/she even needed? Trump outed himself
Not Adam (bugeyes) Schiff
Make or break vote coming up. Up to this point they had been debating on whether to subpoena documents which were voted on party line on each side.
This debate is to have actual people to testify.
TSA pulling that red ass out and doing his best to get away from what this process concerns...
The President
Not Joe fckn Biden
Not crybaby Nunes
Not the Republicans failing to call witnesses that could theoretically cleanly exonerate Trump from fragments of this fck up (can’t take the perfect phone call back unfortunately)
Not the whistleblower; why is he/she even needed? Trump outed himself
Not Adam (bugeyes) Schiff
Just last week Dems said their case was overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt, why do they now need more witnesses? Why didn’t they subpoena these witnesses during the house impeachment proceedings?
pgardn
01-21-2020, 11:15 PM
Just last week Dems said their case was overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt, why do they now need more witnesses? Why didn’t they subpoena these witnesses during the house impeachment proceedings?
Which witnesses?
Mulvaney, Blair, Bolton, and Duffey would have been huge.
You tell me why?
pgardn
01-21-2020, 11:27 PM
If you don’t think the legitimacy of impeachment was tainted by Democrats who’ve been trying to impeach before he even took office there’s really no point in discussing anything.
oh you mean the fact that Trump has pushed the boundaries of presidential power on multiple fronts... oh shit, no idea why another branch turned blue would do that...
cmon...
But Trump made the ultimate phone call that forced Pelosi to act, so sad.
Which witnesses?
Mulvaney, Blair, Bolton, and Duffey would have been huge.
You tell me why?
I’m asking you why the house didn’t subpoena any of these witnesses during the impeachment proceedings that they now so desperately need.
ChumpDumper
01-21-2020, 11:40 PM
I’m asking you why the house didn’t subpoena any of these witnesses during the impeachment proceedings that they now so desperately need.
Same disingenuous bullshit from you.
Can you even be honest with yourself?
pgardn
01-21-2020, 11:41 PM
I’m asking you why the house didn’t subpoena any of these witnesses during the impeachment proceedings that they now so desperately need.
What did Donald say about witnesses from the WH testifying before the House?
Winehole23
01-21-2020, 11:45 PM
I’m asking you why the house didn’t subpoena any of these witnesses during the impeachment proceedings that they now so desperately need.To avoid a lengthy court battle. Because Trump stonewalled and forbid all of them from testifying.
What is Trump hiding?
Claims of innocence sort ill with midnight votes to prevent direct witnesses and evidence from being heard at trial.
pgardn
01-21-2020, 11:48 PM
Why does TSA like being crushed?
Just say:
Asking a foreign president and their security services to investigate a potential presidential opponent is fine. Even if you threaten them by withholding US taxpayer money allowed to said country by Congress.
Just say: It’s Ok. Trump’ lawyers have. Nothing wrong. It’s fine.
pgardn
01-21-2020, 11:48 PM
Why does TSA like being crushed?
Just say:
Asking a foreign president and their security services to investigate a potential presidential opponent is fine. Even if you threaten them by withholding US taxpayer money allowed to said country by Congress.
Just say: It’s Ok. Trump’ lawyers have. Nothing wrong. It’s fine.
pgardn
01-21-2020, 11:53 PM
To avoid a lengthy court battle. Because Trump stonewalled and forbid all of them from testifying.
What is Trump hiding?
Claims of innocence sort ill with midnight votes to prevent direct witnesses and evidence from being heard at trial.
But, but, ... they can exonerate him?
Damn the investigation that can’t let them lie. Damn them, they got it as evidence!
sum bitches with the goods...
“If I don’t testify, I don’t have to lie and perjure myself. Cool.”
TSA just flapping about wounded.
ElNono
01-21-2020, 11:55 PM
I'm just going to enjoy the boutons meltdown, tbh
To avoid a lengthy court battle. Because Trump stonewalled and forbid all of them from testifying.
What is Trump hiding?
Claims of innocence sort ill with midnight votes to prevent direct witnesses and evidence from being heard at trial.
Does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:01 AM
Does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
A dispute?
What dispute?
These guys can exonerate Trump and we are done with this mess.
Why does TSA like being crushed?
Just say:
Asking a foreign president and their security services to investigate a potential presidential opponent is fine. Even if you threaten them by withholding US taxpayer money allowed to said country by Congress.
Just say: It’s Ok. Trump’ lawyers have. Nothing wrong. It’s fine.
Show me exactly where he threatened them by withholding aid.
Just say: Presidential candidates, as long as they aren’t Trump, are immune from any investigations into corruption.
ElNono
01-22-2020, 12:02 AM
Does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
It's still stonewalling, tbh... I mean, if it's the "perfect call" and there are no issues, he would actually want these subordinates to actually step in and testify to that effect, right?
A dispute?
What dispute?
These guys can exonerate Trump and we are done with this mess.
Congress: we demand these witnesses
Executive: no, we say they have immunity
Again, does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:08 AM
Show me exactly where he threatened them by withholding aid.
Just say: Presidential candidates, as long as they aren’t Trump, are immune from any investigations into corruption.
You don’t want that.
You really don’t want that put together and corroborated by all in the WH.
So just say it was a perfect phone call:
The President can ask a foreign country and their intelligence to investigate a political opponent. So that the president can aid his re election. That’s really all you need. That the call. If you want to eviscerate Trump, then bring up the $ that his men can corroborate. Do we really want to torture the poor guy, he was stupid enough to make the call. There are laws protecting brains dead people.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:09 AM
Show me exactly where he threatened them by withholding aid.
Just say: Presidential candidates, as long as they aren’t Trump, are immune from any investigations into corruption.
You don’t want that.
You really don’t want that put together and corroborated by all in the WH.
So just say it was a perfect phone call:
The President can ask a foreign country and their intelligence to investigate a political opponent. So that the president can aid his re election. That’s really all you need. That the call. If you want to eviscerate Trump, then bring up the $ that his men can corroborate. Do we really want to torture the poor guy, he was stupid enough to make the call. There are laws protecting brains dead people.
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 12:09 AM
Does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?Sure, but there’s no dispute where there’s no subpoena. Team Trump is all in on stonewalling, the only consequences they’ll have to face for that, for good or for ill, are political.
There’s nothing to prevent the House from issuing subpoenas now or at some time in the future, or adding new articles of impeachment, or from transmitting supplementary information as it becomes available.
Remember Benghazi?
It's still stonewalling, tbh... I mean, if it's the "perfect call" and there are no issues, he would actually want these subordinates to actually step in and testify to that effect, right?
Call it what you whatever you want, does the executive branch have that right?
Trump is probably enjoying watching the frantic dems step on their dicks over and over again all while his approval ratings reach and all time high during and after impeachment.
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 12:14 AM
Call it what you whatever you want, does the executive branch have that right?
Trump is probably enjoying watching the frantic dems step on their dicks over and over again all while his approval ratings reach and all time high during and after impeachment.saved for future reference
You don’t want that.
You really don’t want that put together and corroborated by all in the WH.
So just say it was a perfect phone call:
The President can ask a foreign country and their intelligence to investigate a political opponent. So that the president can aid his re election. That’s really all you need. That the call. If you want to eviscerate Trump, then bring up the $ that his men can corroborate. Do we really want to torture the poor guy, he was stupid enough to make the call. There are laws protecting brains dead people.
Sorry, but show me exactly where he threatened them by withholding aid.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:16 AM
...
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:16 AM
Congress: we demand these witnesses
Executive: no, we say they have immunity
Again, does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
The executive branch (Trump) has been impeached.
Its too late for that. Get your WH witnesses out that know you have done nothing wrong and have them testify.
Dont be stupid. Do what’s good for the country. Get this president back, fully exonerated and backed by both parties, that now know he is a honest, selfless man who wants the USA to be the best. No matter who is president.
ElNono
01-22-2020, 12:17 AM
Call it what you whatever you want, does the executive branch have that right?
Nobody said they don't have a right to preclude the witnesses that have first hand knowledge that he's an innocent man. It's just seems counter-intuitive.
Sure, but there’s no dispute where there’s no subpoena. Team Trump is all in on stonewalling, the only consequences they’ll have to face for that, for good or for ill, are political.
There’s nothing to prevent the House from issuing subpoenas now or at some time in the future, or adding new articles of impeachment, or from transmitting supplementary information as it becomes available.
Remember Benghazi?
If there’s no dispute where’s there’s no subpoena then there is no obstruction of Congress.
Nobody said they don't have a right to preclude the witnesses that have first hand knowledge that he's an innocent man. It's just seems counter-intuitive.
House claims that right is obstruction of Congress.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:21 AM
Sorry, but show me exactly where he threatened them by withholding aid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/politics/veto-threatened-veto-ukraine-aid.html
And It does not even matter.
The call was enough.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:26 AM
If there’s no dispute where’s there’s no subpoena then there is no obstruction of Congress.
You are making a disingenuous tautological argument that fools no one.
We know what our president said on the phone, and we know why he has vacillated on letting witnesses and documents be shown that could exonerate him. Because he is guilty of selling our country out for his re election. This awful argument is for the liars who are ignorant and beholden to the red team.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/politics/veto-threatened-veto-ukraine-aid.html
And It does not even matter.
The call was enough.
That’s not threatening Ukraine. Try again, show me where he threatened them by withholding aid.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:35 AM
And this is the Trumpy that enjoyed the excruciating pain of putting pizza and child parts together.
” No, I’ll take the impossible puzzle to solve over blatant stuff that, when put together, shows the moon is round. I like my theories and my rational possibilities to be... well... irrational.”
You are making a disingenuous tautological argument that fools no one.
We know what our president said on the phone, and we know why he has vacillated on letting witnesses and documents be shown that could exonerate him. Because he is guilty of selling our country out for his re election. This awful argument is for the liars who are ignorant and beholden to the red team.
You claim Trump obstructed congress by going to the courts and asking them to resolve. Make your case. Explain to me how he doesn’t have that right and it’s obstruction of Congress. Had congress sought subpoenas and Trump ignored even after a court issued an order than you’d have actual obstruction. You don’t have shit and you know it. Looking forward to the inbound babble.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:40 AM
That’s not threatening Ukraine. Try again, show me where he threatened them by withholding aid.
Yes it is.
Read the article.
All we need to put this to bed is the WH players on the stand.
Personally the phone call is enough.
I don’t need him shot for treason and bribes.
Looking forward you the inbound babble
And this is the Trumpy that enjoyed the excruciating pain of putting pizza and child parts together.
” No, I’ll take the impossible puzzle to solve over blatant stuff that, when put together, shows the moon is round. I like my theories and my rational possibilities to be... well... irrational.”
Right on cue :lol
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 12:44 AM
If there’s no dispute where’s there’s no subpoena then there is no obstruction of Congress.No legal dispute.
It's clear tthere'a a political.one. Ken Starr thought Clinton's claims of executive privilege were contemptuous, abusive and impeachable, the idea isn't so out there as you make it sound. It used to be the Starr/Kavanaugh party line.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 12:48 AM
Looking forward to the inbound babble.
So you will have your pizza with child sauce?
When you extricate yourself from the web of connecting the dots.
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 12:50 AM
In this case Trump has not claimed privilege or overriding NATSEC rationales, or indeed, any credible rationale at all. He has baldly refused to share documents and witnesses.
Purer contempt and obstruction can hardly be imagined. To be impeached no law need be broken, it is enough that power be abused.
ElNono
01-22-2020, 12:55 AM
House claims that right is obstruction of Congress.
Well, no, not really. Congress clearly never made the argument that the executive doesn't have that right. As a matter of fact, they appeared in court. That doesn't mean that the executive actually directing certain employees not to comply with subpoenas isn't obstruction of Congress.
Spurminator
01-22-2020, 02:11 AM
Call it what you whatever you want, does the executive branch have that right?
Trump is probably enjoying watching the frantic dems step on their dicks over and over again all while his approval ratings reach and all time high during and after impeachment.
Imagine being such a pathetic submissive sack of shit that you take pride in your favorite most-powerful-man-in-the-world having an approval rating in the 40's. :lmao
Chris
01-22-2020, 02:36 AM
https://twitter.com/DewsNewz/status/1219707097396453376?s=19
yikes
Chris
01-22-2020, 02:38 AM
Imagine being a pathetic submissive sack of shit
Don't have to imagine; you display those qualities every time you post : )
Chris
01-22-2020, 02:44 AM
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1219841602945998848?s=19
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 03:08 AM
Show me exactly where he threatened them by withholding aid.
Just say: Presidential candidates, as long as they aren’t Trump, are immune from any investigations into corruption.I welcome any legal investigation into any presidential candidate.
You don't.
That's why you're not a very good person.
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 03:09 AM
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1219841602945998848?s=19
Yes, you and Trump's defenders have been banging the table.
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 03:11 AM
You claim Trump obstructed congress by going to the courts and asking them to resolve. Make your case. Explain to me how he doesn’t have that right and it’s obstruction of Congress. Had congress sought subpoenas and Trump ignored even after a court issued an order than you’d have actual obstruction. You don’t have shit and you know it. Looking forward to the inbound babble.When did he go to the courts?
I think you don't understand anything that has happened.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 08:46 AM
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1219841602945998848?s=19
Yeah.
Well his wife is ugly.
That worked for you before.
Since Chris is all about getting his king exonerated in a most convincing fashion.
”He did nothing wrong...” Then go hide behind the trust people put in the orange liar when they voted for him.
Or just work for the king before country.
RandomGuy
01-22-2020, 09:05 AM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
:lmao
:lmao
:lmao
Child raping ok with TSA now.
Duly noted.
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 09:15 AM
When did he go to the courts?
I think you don't understand anything that has happened.There's a reason Trump hasn't claimed executive privilege, there's a good chance he'd get shot down.
Congress: we demand these witnesses
Executive: no, we say they have immunity
Again, does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
Not necessarily. The executive would need standing (live controversy, capable of redress, etc...). The court abstains from matters all the times as non justiciable political questions. A dispute doesn’t necessarily mean the court has to get involved
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 09:46 AM
"does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?"
Congress has the Constitutional power of oversight of the Exec, esp when the Exec is accused of a impeachable action.
Trash and his mafiya are GUILTY as FUCK of the accusations as proven by their forgetting/lying/obstructing Mueller / Russia and Congress / Ukraine
Spurs Homer
01-22-2020, 10:15 AM
Crappolini - late last night said:
(while clutching his pearls after nadler called trump team -liars)
”trump is a man of his word!”
:lol:lol:lol:lol
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 10:29 AM
The goal from day one
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 10:36 AM
If you have the facts, you bang the facts. Dems have the facts
If you have the law, you bang the law. Dems have the law
If you don't have either, your're a Repug
Repugs attacking the Dems, much like House Repugs, rather than defending the indefensible, confessed Trash
Spurs Homer
01-22-2020, 10:38 AM
Lol
trump was so concerned about “ukrainian corruption”
so concerned...that instead of going to USA intel, USA law enforcement, intl law enforcement -
he asked the “corrupt” ukranians to investigate?
hahahahahahahaha!!!
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 10:39 AM
The goal from day one
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/Lots of people knew he would be impeachable from day one.
Not you, apparently.:lol
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 10:54 AM
White House lawyers begin yelling at Democrats during late-night impeachment trial — after Trump starts tweeting
President Donald Trump woke up and began tweeting around midnight EST during the Senate impeachment trial over the amendments over the rules. That’s when a noticeable thing changed on the Senate floor: Trump’s team started yelling.
Nearing 1 a.m. EST Tuesday morning while the president was tweeting about impeachment,
his team began attacking Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) personally.
They called him a liar and accused him of attacking the president and demanded an apology.
After nearly 12 hours this was the first time the White House got even remotely animated after a dull defense of the president.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/white-house-lawyers-begin-yelling-at-democrats-during-late-night-debate-after-trump-starts-tweeting/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3547&recip_id=298460&list_id=1 (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/white-house-lawyers-begin-yelling-at-democrats-during-late-night-debate-after-trump-starts-tweeting/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3547&recip_id=298460&list_id=1)
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 10:57 AM
muh rawstory
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 11:04 AM
muh rawstory
you rightwingnutjob assholes and Repugs always attack the messenger rather then counter with facts, with refutations, just like Trash's so-called "defense" team is doing now.
All of you incorrigible deplorables: G F Y
MultiTroll
01-22-2020, 11:29 AM
Have these hearings been given an end date?
Can whining Demons extend it or will the show be forced to end on X date?
https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2017/10-25/NW83STGz6N-10.png
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 11:32 AM
Have these hearings been given an end date?
Can whining Demons extend it or will the show be forced to end on X date?
https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2017/10-25/NW83STGz6N-10.png
Low information.
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 11:33 AM
We need term limits, tbh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHcGppEEJAA
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 11:33 AM
We need term limits, tbh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHcGppEEJAANow do Graham.
MultiTroll
01-22-2020, 11:36 AM
Low information.
High productive time user.
Low time waster.
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 11:43 AM
Have these hearings been given an end date?
Can whining Demons extend it or will the show be forced to end on X date?
https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2017/10-25/NW83STGz6N-10.pngSenate has no control over the House. There's nothing to prevent more articles of impeachment being voted on and sent over.
MultiTroll
01-22-2020, 11:45 AM
Senate has no control over the House. There's nothing to prevent more articles of impeachment being voted on and sent over.
So the Demons could keep this shit show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?
Spurs Homer
01-22-2020, 11:50 AM
So the Demons could keep this shit show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?
better yet -
your CULT leader can stop breaking the fucking law...
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 11:50 AM
High productive time user.
Low time waster.You aren't smart enough to look it up yourself.
Low intelligence.
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 11:51 AM
So the Demons could keep this shit show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?You are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Low information.
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 11:53 AM
Senate has no control over the House. There's nothing to prevent more articles of impeachment being voted on and sent over.
$100M-aire Pelosi folded, sniffed derisively at Mueller's 9? documented, proven instance of Trash's obstructions.
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 11:54 AM
Senate has no control over the House. There's nothing to prevent more articles of impeachment being voted on and sent over.
I fully expect them to keep trying.
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 11:58 AM
I fully expect them to keep trying.I fully expect Dennison to keep committing impeachable acts.
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 12:11 PM
So the Demons could keep this shit show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?Remenber Benghazi?
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 12:12 PM
I fully expect them to keep trying.Wonder who they learned that trick from?
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 12:24 PM
C-SPAN3 After Dark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ceck0KYbY&feature=em-uploademail
Trill Clinton
01-22-2020, 12:27 PM
1220011975809421314
uh oh
You claim Trump obstructed congress by going to the courts and asking them to resolve. Make your case. Explain to me how he doesn’t have that right and it’s obstruction of Congress. Had congress sought subpoenas and Trump ignored even after a court issued an order than you’d have actual obstruction. You don’t have shit and you know it. Looking forward to the inbound babble.
This is a lot more complicated than you're making out. Executive privilege is not absolute.
4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of[p685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 703-707.
5. Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 187, 190, 191-192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Pp. 707-713.
A simple search would tell you that there'd have to be a balancing between the Executive's asserted need to protect the testimony of the subpoenaed witness versus the interest in having that information be disclosed. Since you're the one asserting Trump is justified in the privilege, maybe you can explain why that balancing weighs in Trump's favor?
This is why I really hate when non-lawyers talk about law. You're talking about this like Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege. 5 minutes on google would show you he doesn't.
hmmmmmmmm ....
The interest in preserving confidentiality is weighty indeed, and entitled to great respect. However, we cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution.
On the other hand, the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the court. A President's acknowledged need for confidentiality[p713] in the communications of his office is general in nature, whereas the constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular criminal case in the administration of justice. Without access to specific facts, a criminal prosecution may be totally frustrated. The President's broad interest in confidentiality of communications will not be vitiated by disclosure of a limited number of conversations preliminarily shown to have some bearing on the pending criminal cases.
We conclude that, when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 01:11 PM
1220011975809421314
uh oh:lol Dennison explained how he's beating the first article of impeachment by confessing to the second.
benefactor
01-22-2020, 01:21 PM
So the Demons could keep this shit show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?
Yep. But it doesn't have to be that way. Trump could actually develop some semblance of self-awareness and not do things that could lead to investigations. That said, I see no reason anything that is happening will change him. He'll continue to be King Trump, impulsively doing whatever he wants and he'll keep getting investigated.
Child raping ok with TSA now.
Duly noted.
Falling for a Jerry Springer producer stunt :lmao
Well, no, not really. Congress clearly never made the argument that the executive doesn't have that right. As a matter of fact, they appeared in court. That doesn't mean that the executive actually directing certain employees not to comply with subpoenas isn't obstruction of Congress.
Which employees received subpoenas and didn’t comply?
Imagine being such a pathetic submissive sack of shit that you take pride in your favorite most-powerful-man-in-the-world having an approval rating in the 40's. :lmao
Your favorite most-powerful-man-in-the-world had an approval rating in the 40’s at the same point in his term :lmao
Not necessarily. The executive would need standing (live controversy, capable of redress, etc...). The court abstains from matters all the times as non justiciable political questions. A dispute doesn’t necessarily mean the court has to get involved
True, but the court did. See McGhan.
This is a lot more complicated than you're making out. Executive privilege is not absolute.
A simple search would tell you that there'd have to be a balancing between the Executive's asserted need to protect the testimony of the subpoenaed witness versus the interest in having that information be disclosed. Since you're the one asserting Trump is justified in the privilege, maybe you can explain why that balancing weighs in Trump's favor?
This is why I really hate when non-lawyers talk about law. You're talking about this like Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege. 5 minutes on google would show you he doesn't.
I never once claimed Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege, I said Trump has the right to ask the courts to rule on his executive privilege. I really hate when lawyers make shit up.
I never once claimed Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege, I said Trump has the right to ask the courts to rule on his executive privilege. I really hate when lawyers make shit up.
If his request for court intervention is bullshit, then no, he doesn't have the right. He'd just be stonewalling at that point.
You've talked about Trump's request as if it were meritorious simply because it was made. Not once did you give a reason why he has the right to ask for "court intervention" where he's not even asserting NATSEC as the basis for some kind of privilege. As far as I can tell, you're the only one here making shit up.
True, but the court did. See McGhan.
Judge Jackson had some pretty choice things to say about that, didn't she?
If his request for court intervention is bullshit, then no, he doesn't have the right. He'd just be stonewalling at that point.
You've talked about Trump's request as if it were meritorious simply because it was made. Not once did you give a reason why he has the right to ask for "court intervention" where he's not even asserting NATSEC as the basis for some kind of privilege. As far as I can tell, you're the only one here making shit up.
:lol as far as you can tell?
I literally just quoted you making shit up. I really hate when lawyers can’t just take the L and move on.
Judge Jackson had some pretty choice things to say about that, didn't she?
She did, it’s a pity the house didn’t decide to subpoena anyone else.
:lol as far as you can tell?
I literally just quoted you making shit up. I really hate when lawyers can’t just take the L and move on.
I never said you explicitly stated Trump claimed "absolute privilege." I said you were discussing the topic as if it were one. I'm sorry if that distinction is lost on you.
As far as taking the L goes, what point are you trying to get at given that the basis for non-compliance offered by Trump has been shown to be specious?
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 02:48 PM
Before he was Moscow Mitch, McConnell wanted to hear all the impeachment witnesses
1999
"I would have been prepared to vote for whatever the House managers wanted in terms of putting on their trial.
That was not the majority view, but I still think we had a mountain of evidence upon which to make a decision," McConnell said.
That was after the trial, in response to Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who broke ranks and eventually became a Democrat, when Specter complained about a lack of evidence.
He added, "My view was that we were entitled to witnesses. [...]
I voted for live witnesses myself.
I voted for the one live witness the House asked for and
I voted to allow the videotaping of the witnesses they asked for.
"https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/21/1913138/-Before-he-was-Moscow-Mitch-McConnell-wanted-to-hear-all-the-impeachment-witnesses (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/21/1913138/-Before-he-was-Moscow-Mitch-McConnell-wanted-to-hear-all-the-impeachment-witnesses)
She did, it’s a pity the house didn’t decide to subpoena anyone else.
A pitty eh? So you'd be good with the house re-opening or supplementing its impeachment inquiry?
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 03:12 PM
Trump lies updated from 45 to 65,
national support for impeachment at new 53% high
#GOPCoverup
Daniel Dale updates the Trump lies, some of which were repeated by Trump’s counsel in the Senate trial.
Our original list (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/politics/fact-check-trump-dishonesty-ukraine-and-impeachment/index.html) from mid-November included 45 false claims he has made and a brief fact check of each one.
27. Republicans were not allowed into (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-sean-hannity-october-21-2019) the closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings. (Republican members of the three committees holding the hearings were allowed into the room (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/fact-check-trump-96-false-claims-ukraine/index.html) and to ask questions of witnesses. Only Republicans who were not on the committees were barred from the room.)
28. Republicans were not allowed to ask questions (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1184435422346305537) in the closed-door hearings. (Republicans were allowed to ask questions. Democrats and Republicans alternated questioning.)
29. Republicans were not allowed to ask questions (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-wpht-radio-rich-zeoli-november-19-2019) in the public hearing held by the House Intelligence Committee on November 15. (Republicans were allowed to ask questions. Schiff would not grant a request from the committee's top Republican, Rep. Devin Nunes, to hand some of Nunes' questioning time to Rep. Elise Stefanik, because only Nunes was allowed to speak at that point in the hearing, but Stefanik got to ask questions later in the day (https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/11/upstate-ny-rep-elise-stefanik-seizes-spotlight-in-impeachment-hearings.html).)
30. Republicans were not allowed to have lawyers participate in the public hearings chaired by Schiff. (They were. Lawyer Steve Castor (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/politics/who-are-dan-goldman-steve-castor-impeachment-lawyers/index.html) questioned witnesses on behalf of the Republicans on the committee. It was Trump himself who was not allowed to have a lawyer participate.)
31. Nobody else (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-sinclair-media-group-eric-bolling-october-25-2019) has ever faced closed-door impeachment hearings. (Both (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/impeachment-republican-complaints-fact-check/index.html) the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment processes involved some closed-door hearings.)
32. Trump's opponents have committed "illegal acts" (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-kag-rally-monroe-lanovember-6-2019) related to impeachment. (Trump wasn't clear about who he was talking about, but there is no evidence of illegality by either the whistleblower or Democrats.)
33. The people who have testified in the impeachment inquiry have had "no firsthand knowledge (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-76/)." (Various witnesses have had firsthand knowledge of various components (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics/trump-impeachment-defense-tweets/index.html) of the story.)
34. Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, maintained there was "no quid pro quo." (Sondland revised (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/gordon-sondland-hearing-takeaways/index.html) his original testimony. While he continued to say that Trump told him there was no quid pro quo, he said (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/gordon-sondland-hearing-takeaways/index.html) his own belief was that there was a quid pro quo.)
35. Unlike Democrats, former House Speaker Paul Ryan "would never issue a subpoena (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-mattarella-italian-republic-bilateral-meeting/)." (Numerous Republican subpoenas (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/flurry-of-trump-falsehoods/) were issued to the Obama administration during Ryan's tenure as speaker.)
36. "Many (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-cabinet-meeting-15/)" of the people who had testified as of October 21 "were put there during Obama, during Clinton, during the Never Trump or Bush era." (FactCheck.org noted (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-error-filled-cabinet-meeting/) that just two of the nine people who had testified at that point had been appointed under Obama. The other seven were appointed by Trump or his appointees.)
37. Pelosi gave Trump "the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1209106016551481344)." (The House did not hold a trial at all. Under the Constitution, it is the Senate (https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm) that has the sole power to try impeachments.)
38. Trump was "deprived (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/letter-president-donald-j-trump-speaker-house-representatives/) of basic Constitutional Due Process" during the House impeachment process, "including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses." (The rights of criminal defendants do not apply to public officials in a House of Representatives impeachment process.)
39. "More due process (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/politics/trump-90-false-claims-final-two-weeks-2019/index.html) was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials." (This is absurd. Nineteen innocent people were hanged (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/site-salem-witch-trial-hangings-finally-has-memorial-180964049/) after they were accused of witchcraft in the trials of the late 1600s. The courts accepted "spectral evidence" from dreams. Some of the accused were tortured (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1098/salem-witch-trials) into confessions.)
40. Trump "won 196 to nothing (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-press-gaggle-mar-a-lago-december-31-2019)" in the House. (Trump did not win any vote related to impeachment. He lost an October vote to set the rules of the impeachment inquiry, 232-196 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/31/us/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-house-vote.html), then the December votes on the two articles of impeachment, 230-197 and 229-198 (https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/house-impeachment-vote/). He appeared to mean that there were no Republican defections from his side, but he didn't explain here.)
41. Democrats are "not doing anything (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-ktve-michelli-martin-monroe-louisiana-november-14-2019)" on gun violence because "all they do is the impeachment nonsense." (The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill in February to require background checks on all gun sales. The Republican-controlled Senate has refused to hold a vote (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/politics/democrats-frustrated-mitch-mcconnell-gun-control-senate/index.html) on the bill.)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/21/1913131/-Trump-lies-updated-to-65-national-support-for-impeachment-at-53-GOPCoverup (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/21/1913131/-Trump-lies-updated-to-65-national-support-for-impeachment-at-53-GOPCoverup)
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 04:46 PM
These are good points. If Trump was on the up and up, why did he send his personal lawyer in a "non-official" capacity?
1220094232620347392
Spurs Homer
01-22-2020, 05:19 PM
These are good points. If Trump was on the up and up, why did he send his personal lawyer in a "non-official" capacity?
1220094232620347392
1) If Trump was really interested in corruption in ukraine - why ask the "corrupt ukrainian government" to perform an investigation for him - instead of all the resources at his command?
2) Why not have a ceremonial "document signing" with his flashy signature and pat himself on the back for attacking ukrainian corruption?
3) If his call was perfect and the aid was just a normal executive decision - why RESUME the aid after getting caught? Why isn't his team right now arguing "he did nothing wrong and we STILL refuse to resume aid to a corrupt govt?"
I never said you explicitly stated Trump claimed "absolute privilege." I said you were discussing the topic as if it were one. I'm sorry if that distinction is lost on you.
As far as taking the L goes, what point are you trying to get at given that the basis for non-compliance offered by Trump has been shown to be specious?
Since you're the one asserting Trump is justified in the privilege
These are good points. If Trump was on the up and up, why did he send his personal lawyer in a "non-official" capacity?
1220094232620347392
Never been done before
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1960-01-01/special-envoy
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/23/giuliani-style_shadow_diplomacy_par_for_the_course_of_us_hi story_120883.html
https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1220115171953315842
Schiff is terrified of democracy
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 08:52 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1220115171953315842
Schiff is terrified of democracy
Welp. There it is
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 09:02 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1220115171953315842
Schiff is terrified of democracy:lol you still deny that Russia interfered with the last election, rube.
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 09:02 PM
Welp. There it is:lmao you too, rube.
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 09:03 PM
Operation Minimize will now commence.
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 09:03 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1220115171953315842
Schiff is terrified of democracy
America has NEVER been a democracy, and for the past few decades, the degradation of even the myth of democracy is complete.
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 09:03 PM
:lol you still deny that Russia interfered with the last election, rube.
They didn't decide it, rube
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 09:04 PM
Operation Minimize will now commence.
They didn't decide it, rube
:rollin
Follow it up with Operation Deflection now, rube.
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 09:09 PM
Republicans’ own witness says the White House’s defense of Trump rests on a ‘mistake’
Jonathan Turley, who was critical of the House’s proceedings and was skeptical :lol about the evidence of the president’s guilt. :lol
Turley has become critical of the way the White House is defending the president.
said that even he can’t support Trump’s new line of defense against the core charge of abuse of power.
Dershowitz (https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/thats-not-what-you-said-then-alan-dershowitz-crashes-and-burns-when-confronted-with-his-own-words-on-impeachment/), is that “abuse of power” is not actually an impeachable offense.
And other lawyers for the president say you can’t impeach the president without a criminal charge.
Turley isn’t buying it.
“It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution,” Turley wrote.
“While Framers did not want terms such as ‘maladministration’ in the standard as dangerously too broad,
they often spoke of impeachable conduct in noncriminal terms, such as Justice Joseph Story referring to
‘public wrongs,’
‘great offenses against the Constitution’ or
acts of ‘malfeasance or abuse of office.’
Alexander Hamilton spoke of impeachment trials as addressing
‘the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”
he warned that senators may be unwilling to accept the White House’s sweeping claims in Trump’s defense,
even if the president himself can’t resist making the absolutist claim that he did nothing wrong.
“There is a vast array of harmful and corrupt acts that a president can commit outside of the criminal code,”
I do not believe that the criminal code is the effective limit or scope of possible impeachable offenses.
If some of the president’s critics are adopting a far too broad understanding of impeachable offenses,
the White House is adopting a far too narrow one.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/republicans-own-witness-says-the-white-houses-defense-of-trump-rests-on-a-mistake/?
utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3555 (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/republicans-own-witness-says-the-white-houses-defense-of-trump-rests-on-a-mistake/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3555)
The WH MUST adopt "a far too narrow one" because just a teeny bit wider understanding makes TRASH IMPEACHABLE.
What are you saying here?
A pitty eh? So you'd be good with the house re-opening or supplementing its impeachment inquiry?
No problem at all
https://mobile.twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1220156387986231298
He’s got receipts. Trump’s defense team is going to destroy the house managers, it’s not a fair fight.
koriwhat
01-22-2020, 09:24 PM
No problem at all
i'm down for that too. :lmao
let's show the public how corrupt and retarded the left truly are. :tu
Chris
01-22-2020, 09:36 PM
Chump is all in on Russiagate :lol
Chris
01-22-2020, 09:37 PM
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1220119647199981569?s=19
Chris
01-22-2020, 09:41 PM
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1220158966841266177?s=19
Facts.
pgardn
01-22-2020, 09:55 PM
Should president’s from now on be able to ask foreign governments and their intelligence services to spy on political opponents in US elections?
Yes or No?
Because the current president told us that he did this.
Lets write this into campaign law.
Now, should this hold for ANY elected office, or just the president?
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 10:11 PM
Should president’s from now on be able to ask foreign governments and their intelligence services to spy on political opponents in US elections?
Which president are you talking about?
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 10:12 PM
Chump is all in on Russiagate :lol:rollin l:lolw inf:lolrmati:loln Qhris
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 10:13 PM
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1220158966841266177?s=19
Facts.:lol Qhris believes all this bullshit
boutons_deux
01-22-2020, 10:27 PM
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=c5ffe9fe07&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-a:r-4860437089001632697&th=16fd052ef3ee6134&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_PjRLgbS6iCA_i4oHRg6iIJYpu4bXRFZC0u5V cMKcaJ7fj1MQ_MknVGGTHJFyzrFzYhzMyQL7swHIf0BkV_TAVs Zv5IC1j2BJ2CyQ6JhKssuIs96O9K1Lf5m0&disp=emb&realattid=ii_k5q57z300
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 10:30 PM
Which president are you talking about?Lol you think Obama spied on Trump, even after Barr's hand-picked investigator said no dice.
Lol you think Obama spied on Trump, even after Barr's hand-picked investigator said no dice.
who was Barr’s hand-picked investigator?
Sending confidential human sources at the campaign is indeed spying.
Sending undercover FBI agents at the campaign is indeed spying.
A FISA warrant is the most intrusive form of spying on someone there is. (and this one was obtained fraudulently)
Horowitz confirmed all of the above in his report.
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 10:45 PM
Lol you think Obama spied on Trump, even after Barr's hand-picked investigator said no dice.
What are you referring to?
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 11:18 PM
What are you referring to?Slight mistake on my part, it was an IG investigation:
https://ctmirror.org/2019/12/11/horowitz-tells-blumenthal-there-was-no-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign/
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 11:20 PM
Horowitz did bitchslap the FBI for sloppy casework though.
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 11:36 PM
Lol you think Obama spied on Trump, even after Barr's hand-picked investigator said no dice.
Slight mistake on my part, it was an IG investigation:
https://ctmirror.org/2019/12/11/horowitz-tells-blumenthal-there-was-no-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign/
Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice on April 16, 2012
Let the record show that Barr was not AG in 2012
pgardn
01-22-2020, 11:42 PM
Which president are you talking about?You tell me.Ill set the facts up.You have a newly elected president of a country who is a political novice. How is he going to find out information on Biden jr? Walk up and ask him? He be directed to ask his intelligence agencies by the folks in the country who understand how to to look into Biden jr. The newly elected president awaiting needed money, from a supposed partner, is asked for a favor. Okay now.Who asked for the favor?Hillary?
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 11:51 PM
You tell me.Ill set the facts up.You have a newly elected president of a country who is a political novice. How is he going to find out information on Biden jr? Walk up and ask him? He be directed to ask his intelligence agencies by the folks in the country who understand how to to look into Biden jr. The newly elected president awaiting needed money, from a supposed partner, is asked for a favor. Okay now.Who asked for the favor?Hillary?
Obama gave Ukraine blankets
DarrinS
01-22-2020, 11:54 PM
Schiff tried to get naked pics of drumpf from who he thought were Ukrainians.
Lead impeachment manager
Winehole23
01-22-2020, 11:57 PM
Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice on April 16, 2012
Let the record show that Barr was not AG in 2012
I copped the mistake, do you accept the IG's conclusions?
ChumpDumper
01-22-2020, 11:58 PM
:lol Jesus, Darrin-- you ever get tired of deflecting for your Dear Leader?
Spurminator
01-23-2020, 12:00 AM
Schiff tried to get naked pics of drumpf from who he thought were Ukrainians.
Provide the quote. Not a link to the audio, not a link to an article... an actual quote from the prank phone call where Adam Schiff tried to get nude photos.
I bet you won't.
:lol Devin Nunes talking points
DarrinS
01-23-2020, 12:02 AM
Provide the quote. Not a link to the audio, not a link to an article... an actual quote from the prank phone call where Adam Schiff tried to get nude photos.
I bet you won't.
There's nothing but the audio. You think it's fake?
Spurminator
01-23-2020, 12:03 AM
There's nothing but the audio. You think it's fake?
I'm saying I want you to transcribe the quote from the audio where Adam Schiff tried to get nude photos of Donald Trump.
pgardn
01-23-2020, 12:06 AM
Should president’s from now on be able to ask foreign governments and their intelligence services to spy on political opponents in US elections?
Yes or No?
Because the current president told us that he did this.
Lets write this into campaign law.
Now, should this hold for ANY elected office, or just the president?
So how about anyone running for president?
We need these new campaign laws enacted because apparently, it’s fine.
How about a candidate for president but not the current incumbent.
Maybe ask a country to hack the incumbent’s headquarters? Or maybe just hack another opponent with foreign help during the primary?
Little help here.
pgardn
01-23-2020, 12:07 AM
...
pgardn
01-23-2020, 12:08 AM
Obama gave Ukraine blankets
k
ElNono
01-23-2020, 12:11 AM
Well, no, not really. Congress clearly never made the argument that the executive doesn't have that right. As a matter of fact, they appeared in court. That doesn't mean that the executive actually directing certain employees not to comply with subpoenas isn't obstruction of Congress.
Which employees received subpoenas and didn’t comply?
You're asking the wrong question. Look what was the claim (in bold) vs what you're asking/derived from it. See the difference?
But to answer your unrelated question, Charles Kupperman was one. Mick Mulvaney was another. There's also a plethora of document requests from the WH, the Secretary of State, the Defense Department and the OMB which were plainly ignored.
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 12:14 AM
What the hell happened to this guy?
Florida Republican Matt Gaetz admits Trump’s legal defense was ‘like an 8th grade book report’ — only worse
admitted that President Donald Trump’s team of lawyers weren’t quite the legal eagles that he thinks they might be
Gaetz said that the House presented it like it was going to be on “cable news.”
For many that may be an insult, but it appears to Gaetz that was a compliment.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/florida-republican-matt-gaetz-admits-trumps-legal-defense-was-like-an-8th-grade-book-report-only-worse/
DarrinS
01-23-2020, 12:15 AM
rawstory
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 12:16 AM
CNN’s Toobin Calls Schiff Argument ‘Dazzling’:
The ‘Second-Best Courtroom Address’ I’ve Ever Heard
. “I thought the way he wove through both the facts of the case and the historical context was really remarkable.”
“It was the second-best courtroom address, since it’s like a courtroom, that I ever heard,
when you consider the volume of information he covered using the video, as I think Jake mentioned earlier, the — you know,
the witness testimony, the documents, it’s very persuasive stuff, and you know,
if people are listening it’s very hard to imagine that they will think that the Democrats and the house managers are just making this up.
The argument that the president extorted or bribed or whatever criminal term you want to use issue the,
the president of Ukraine to get his political dirt on Joe Biden in return for the $390 million of taxpayer money,
I mean, it’s there if you want to see it,
and the question is if you want to see it.”
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-toobin-calls-schiff-argument-dazzling-the-second-best-courtroom-address-ive-ever-heard/ (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-toobin-calls-schiff-argument-dazzling-the-second-best-courtroom-address-ive-ever-heard/)
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 12:19 AM
now, what the fuck is wrong with LG?
Lindsey Graham Pals With Adam Schiff Post Impeachment:
‘Very Well Spoken’
https://am13.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-22-at-11.32.57-PM.jpg
Friendly words were exchanged by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to Lead House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) late Wednesday night after Day Two of impeachment hearings commenced in the U.S. Senate.
“Good job, you’re very well spoken,” Graham reportedly stated to Schiff.
https://www.mediaite.com/news/lindsey-graham-pals-with-adam-schiff-post-impeachment-very-well-spoken/ (https://www.mediaite.com/news/lindsey-graham-pals-with-adam-schiff-post-impeachment-very-well-spoken/)
pgardn
01-23-2020, 12:20 AM
You're asking the wrong question. Look what was the claim (in bold) vs what you're asking/derived from it. See the difference?
But to answer your unrelated question, Charles Kupperman was one. Mick Mulvaney was another. There's also a plethora of document requests from the WH, the Secretary of State, the Defense Department and the OMB which were plainly ignored.
He knows they are doing everything they can not to get people in the WH before the Senate.
The blue team has the documents and if the WH players come before the Senate and are forced to retract and lie it’s gonna be really bad. Or, tell the truth.
Its a loss either way.
DarrinS
01-23-2020, 12:23 AM
CNN’s Toobin Calls Schiff Argument ‘Dazzling’:
Toobin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmyRzoEgwDg
ElNono
01-23-2020, 12:23 AM
I never once claimed Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege, I said Trump has the right to ask the courts to rule on his executive privilege. I really hate when lawyers make shit up.
But he does have a privilege. That's what the bolded is. There's plenty of jurisprudence on what that privilege covers and what it does not (as vy was kind enough to reference).
You're saying he has to go to court to ask the judiciary if he can use that privilege. He doesn't. The sole reason to go to the courts is to 1) stonewall, 2) test the limits of House subpoenas.
ElNono
01-23-2020, 12:25 AM
Anyhow, did they acquit yet, tbh? I haven't been following the dog and pony show.
pgardn
01-23-2020, 12:26 AM
now, what the fuck is wrong with LG?
Lindsey Graham Pals With Adam Schiff Post Impeachment:
‘Very Well Spoken’
https://am13.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-22-at-11.32.57-PM.jpg
Friendly words were exchanged by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to Lead House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) late Wednesday night after Day Two of impeachment hearings commenced in the U.S. Senate.
“Good job, you’re very well spoken,” Graham reportedly stated to Schiff.
https://www.mediaite.com/news/lindsey-graham-pals-with-adam-schiff-post-impeachment-very-well-spoken/ (https://www.mediaite.com/news/lindsey-graham-pals-with-adam-schiff-post-impeachment-very-well-spoken/)
The red team is not allowed to appreciate skills without a hissy fit.
You must admit McConnell is very good at what he does even though you hate him.
Winehole23
01-23-2020, 12:37 AM
Anyhow, did they acquit yet, tbh? I haven't been following the dog and pony show.
Could be over as soon as Feb 4.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/31/787235305/how-a-senate-impeachment-trial-could-work
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 12:53 AM
Adam Schiff Makes GOP Senators Squirm With Video Of Trump Asking China And Ukraine For Election Help
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/22/adam-schiff-makes-gop-senators-squirm-with-video-of-trump-asking-china-and-ukraine-for-election-help.html (https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/22/adam-schiff-makes-gop-senators-squirm-with-video-of-trump-asking-china-and-ukraine-for-election-help.html)
Repug Roberts did not enforce the rules on the lawless Repugs who walked out.
Adam Schiff Makes GOP Senators Squirm With Video Of Trump Asking China And Ukraine For Election Help
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/22/adam-schiff-makes-gop-senators-squirm-with-video-of-trump-asking-china-and-ukraine-for-election-help.html (https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/22/adam-schiff-makes-gop-senators-squirm-with-video-of-trump-asking-china-and-ukraine-for-election-help.html)
Repug Roberts did not enforce the rules on the lawless Repugs who walked out.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/1220181531727220737
:lol lawless Feinstein
Well, no, not really. Congress clearly never made the argument that the executive doesn't have that right. As a matter of fact, they appeared in court. That doesn't mean that the executive actually directing certain employees not to comply with subpoenas isn't obstruction of Congress.
Yeah I think I’m going to go with the Attorneys General of 21 states over what you, vy, or pencil neck Schiff claim.
Page 7 directly addresses the bolded
https://www.scribd.com/document/443932892/Attorneys-General-Submit-Legal-Brief-in-Support-of-Rejecting-Impeachment-Articles
Also addressed here
QQU_VH0l0ys
Skip to 3:20
And here
https://www.scribd.com/document/443783939/OLC-Opinion-Judicial-Enforcement-Authority-01-19-2020
ElNono
01-23-2020, 04:23 AM
Yeah I think I’m going to go with the Attorneys General of 21 states over what you, vy, or pencil neck Schiff claim.
Page 7 directly addresses the bolded
https://www.scribd.com/document/443932892/Attorneys-General-Submit-Legal-Brief-in-Support-of-Rejecting-Impeachment-Articles
Also addressed here
QQU_VH0l0ys
Skip to 3:20
And here
https://www.scribd.com/document/443783939/OLC-Opinion-Judicial-Enforcement-Authority-01-19-2020
I read the first document, from the Republican States' AGs (lol), and they actually don't contradict what I said and you bolded at all. They simply predicate that as a judicial matter, which this is not.
They argue that the Obstruction of Congress charge is deficient because, and I quote: "Also notably absent in Article II is any mention that the subpoenas were defied on the basis of the President’s invocation of executive privilege".
That's correct for a judicial process. This is a political process. Unlike regular Congressional investigations which might involve a person, and eventually evolve into a referral into a criminal case to the DOJ, this was an impeachment investigation, which is political, and ends up in a political trial in Congress. The judiciary doesn't enter the picture (other that John Roberts acting as a glorified moderator).
Impeachment would be simply meaningless if Congress cannot carry out it's duty to investigate the Executive, gathering any relevant evidence. This is very basic. It's also clear, just as it was with Nixon and Clinton, that the Executive will fight tooth and nail to prevent Congress from finding the bodies, but that is besides the point.
The notion that the Executive has a right to hide any and all evidence of wrongdoing from Congress while it's being investigated for wrongdoing, simply defies the very purpose of impeachment. We might as well erase it from the Constitution, since the powers delegated by it to a given branch of government are impossible to carry out.
We can agree or disagree whether these political processes are 'fair' or not (I'm hearing the bitching now about the rules in the Senate from the left, it was the House rules before them on the right, etc), but it's what the Constitution defined.
Sure, we all know how the partisan math works, and that he'll be acquitted and walk away from this. I just find it odd that he wouldn't be willing to share all that evidence for a perfect call and the witnesses that can speak to his innocence in this matter. But hey, we're all paying for his great lawyers, so this is probably what they recommended.
Winehole23
01-23-2020, 09:11 AM
Counselor TSA is fond of arguing points of law, still doesn't seem to get that such arguments are misplaced in the context of impeachment, which isn't a judicial process, but a purely political one.
Criminal definitions.procedure and legal opinions do not apply.
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 09:56 AM
The red team is not allowed to appreciate skills without a hissy fit.
You must admit McConnell is very good at what he does even though you hate him.
Moscow Bitch is excellent at playing hardass (legal) Constititonalism, fucking up the Senate, insulting the Senate, breaking every rule, protocol, convention to maintain and grab power while denying everything to the "illegit" Dems.
HATED MB has done much more damage to America than Trash, with his herding through dozens of young, inexperienced, BIASED, incompetent, ABA-disapproved hard right political tools in Federal judicial roles. The damage they will do to USA will last decades, long after Trash and MB are rotting away.
I read the first document, from the Republican States' AGs (lol), and they actually don't contradict what I said and you bolded at all. They simply predicate that as a judicial matter, which this is not.
They argue that the Obstruction of Congress charge is deficient because, and I quote: "Also notably absent in Article II is any mention that the subpoenas were defied on the basis of the President’s invocation of executive privilege".
That's correct for a judicial process. This is a political process. Unlike regular Congressional investigations which might involve a person, and eventually evolve into a referral into a criminal case to the DOJ, this was an impeachment investigation, which is political, and ends up in a political trial in Congress. The judiciary doesn't enter the picture (other that John Roberts acting as a glorified moderator).
Impeachment would be simply meaningless if Congress cannot carry out it's duty to investigate the Executive, gathering any relevant evidence. This is very basic. It's also clear, just as it was with Nixon and Clinton, that the Executive will fight tooth and nail to prevent Congress from finding the bodies, but that is besides the point.
The notion that the Executive has a right to hide any and all evidence of wrongdoing from Congress while it's being investigated for wrongdoing, simply defies the very purpose of impeachment. We might as well erase it from the Constitution, since the powers delegated by it to a given branch of government are impossible to carry out.
We can agree or disagree whether these political processes are 'fair' or not (I'm hearing the bitching now about the rules in the Senate from the left, it was the House rules before them on the right, etc), but it's what the Constitution defined.
Sure, we all know how the partisan math works, and that he'll be acquitted and walk away from this. I just find it odd that he wouldn't be willing to share all that evidence for a perfect call and the witnesses that can speak to his innocence in this matter. But hey, we're all paying for his great lawyers, so this is probably what they recommended.
Please watch the linked video as it directly addresses the “subpoenas” in question. Philbin argues they were merely requests and held no enforcement authority because there was no authorizing house vote per the Constitution. OLC said the same and that is also linked.
Winehole23
01-23-2020, 10:08 AM
Please watch the linked video as it directly addresses the “subpoenas” in question. Philbin argues they were merely requests and held no enforcement authority because there was no authorizing house vote per the Constitution. OLC said the same and that is also linked.Legal arguments have purely hortatory value in the context of impeachment.
An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives says is impeachable; removal is effective upon a 2/3 vote of the Senate, which is free to adopt any legal reasoning it sees fit, or none at all.
Andrew Johnson was impeached among other things for "intemperate language" related to the US Congress. Kinda weak, admittedly, but in principle it could happen again -- nothing would restrain it but the forseeable political consequences.
benefactor
01-23-2020, 10:10 AM
So now subpoenas aren't real subpoenas the are just requests that can be ignored with consequences?
:lol
Winehole23
01-23-2020, 10:14 AM
So now subpoenas aren't real subpoenas the are just requests that can be ignored with consequences?
:lolIf the party served disagrees, it can ignore, the argument seems to go.
Spurminator
01-23-2020, 10:50 AM
rawstory
Toobin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmyRzoEgwDg
Do you have that Schiff quote yet? Maybe don't scoff at other people's sources after parrotting fake news on the previous page.
DarrinS
01-23-2020, 11:36 AM
Do you have that Schiff quote yet? Maybe don't scoff at other people's sources after parrotting fake news on the previous page.
Caller: Yes, absolutely. And she got compromising materials on Trump after their short relations.
Schiff: Okay. And what’s the nature of the Kompromat?
Caller: Well, there were pictures of naked Trump.
Schiff: Well, I’ll be in touch with the FBI about this. And we’ll make arrangements with your staff. I think it probably would be best to provide these materials both to our committee and to the FBI. So we’ll make arrangements between my staff and yours on how to facilitate that. And we’ll also obviously let the FBI know about Buzova and Sobchak’s plans to travel to Ukraine.
Spurminator
01-23-2020, 12:05 PM
That's not a quote where Schiff specifically asks for the photos or the Kompromat. You have one quote where the caller states that the Kompromat involves naked photos, and then you've pulled another from minutes later in the call where Schiff is expressing interest in recordings of the discussion of Kompromat between Bozova and Sobchak for the purposes of blackmail.
It's a nice try at a clever edit, but it's obvious that you've already figured out that you accepted a false narrative.
If you're still not convinced, maybe take 8 minutes out of your busy schedule to listen to the phone call.
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 12:15 PM
New poll reveals 57 percent of likely voters want Trump removed (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/22/1913357/-New-poll-reveals-57-percent-want-Trump-removed)
a Microsoft News poll finds that 57 percent of likely voters support removing him from office.
The poll found that 57 percent support a Senate vote for removal, and just 37 percent oppose.
Not surprisingly, there are huge differences on the vote by party.
93% of Democrats support removing Trump from office,
along with 67 percent of independents and
15 percent of Republicans.
Hispanics and African Americans strongly support removal from office,
at 78 percent of Hispanics and
77 percent of African Americans.
Among whites, just 52 percent back removal. :lol
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/22/1913357/-New-poll-reveals-57-percent-want-Trump-removed?detail=emaildkre (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/22/1913357/-New-poll-reveals-57-percent-want-Trump-removed?detail=emaildkre)
DarrinS
01-23-2020, 12:15 PM
That's not a quote where Schiff specifically asks for the photos or the Kompromat. You have one quote where the caller states that the Kompromat involves naked photos, and then you've pulled another from minutes later in the call where Schiff is expressing interest in recordings of the discussion of Kompromat between Bozova and Sobchak for the purposes of blackmail.
It's a nice try at a clever edit, but it's obvious that you've already figured out that you accepted a false narrative.
If you're still not convinced, maybe take 8 minutes out of your busy schedule to listen to the phone call.
Meh, he was all too happy to get dirt on his political opponent from a foreign govt.
And he's the lead impeachment manager
DarrinS
01-23-2020, 12:18 PM
Meh, he was all too happy to get dirt on his political opponent from a foreign govt.
And he's the lead impeachment manager
Obviously, it wasn't actually a foreign govt., but Schiff thought it was. :lol
Spurminator
01-23-2020, 12:19 PM
Meh, he was all too happy to get dirt on his political opponent from a foreign govt.
And he's the lead impeachment manager
Reasonable people can judge that the House Intelligence Committee has a duty to hear potential leads that suggest the President of the United States might be getting blackmailed by a foreign government, but that's another discussion and probably one that's too nuanced for you.
The important thing is you've accepted that he didn't ask for naked pictures. That's a good start. Consider your sources next time. They're lying to you and you're choosing to accept their version of the truth because you hate liberals.
Spurminator
01-23-2020, 12:23 PM
Meh, he was all too happy to get dirt on his political opponent from a foreign govt.
And he's the lead impeachment manager
Also, your crocodile tears about this are pretty laughable considering you basically accept the POTUS using the military as leverage to do the same.
ChumpDumper
01-23-2020, 12:38 PM
Meh, he was all too happy to get dirt on his political opponent from a foreign govt.
And he's the lead impeachment manager
And he instructed the dude to give it to the executive branch. :lol Darrin really thought right wing media had given him something that wasn't bullshit.
Spurs Homer
01-23-2020, 01:05 PM
Just like the kavanaugh hoax rushed trial that confirmed a drunk lying emo racist...
this sham will acquit the traitor rapist criminal
the GOP is bought and paid for by trump donors
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 04:47 PM
House Dem trolls Trump at impeachment by citing a Fox News poll showing him getting crushed by Biden
https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/sylvia-garcia-2.jpg
“The chart on the screen shows a Fox News poll emphasizing…
that from March through December,
Vice President Biden had consistently led President Trump in national polls by significant margins,” she said.
“Beginning around March, Vice President Biden is beating the president in polls, even on Fox News.
In April, Biden officially announces his candidacy, and… that is when the president gets worried.”
(https://www.kindest.com/campaign/raw-story-investigates-invest-in-courageous-progressive-journalism)
She then recounts how
Biden’s entry into the race
coincided with the president’s increased focus on pushing Ukraine
to publicly announce investigations of his prospective 2020 rival.
“By July, right before President Trump’s call with President Zelensky where he asked for the investigation into Biden,
the Fox News poll showed Biden beating Trump by 10 points,” she said.
“And then on July 25th, after years of not caring what vice president did,
does President Trump ask for an investigation into his formidable political rival in the 2020 election.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/watch-house-dem-trolls-trump-at-impeachment-by-citing-a-fox-news-poll-showing-him-getting-crushed-by-biden/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3567
.. and Dems haven't even gotten to the Obstruction article! :lol
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 04:48 PM
Fox News legal analyst shames ‘unworthy’ Republicans who have already decided to acquit Trump
Andrew Napolitano’s latest column (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-senate-impeachment-trial-judge-andrew-napolitano) explains
why President Donald Trump’s actions are worthy of impeachment — and
he shames any Republican senators who have already made up their minds.
Napolitano starts by making the case that
there is enough evidence to credibly charge the president with crimes,
even though Democrats in the House only impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/fox-news-legal-analyst-shames-unworthy-republicans-who-have-already-decided-to-acquit-trump/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3567 (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/fox-news-legal-analyst-shames-unworthy-republicans-who-have-already-decided-to-acquit-trump/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3567)
Is Andy a Dem mole? :lol
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 05:29 PM
Jerry Nadler throws Trump lawyers’ words back in their faces to show abuse of power is impeachable
Nadler then read a quote from Barr in which he made the explicit case that a president can be removed from office for abuse of power.
“The fact that
the president is answerable for any abuses of discretion and
is ultimately subject to the judgement of Congress
through the impeachment process means that
the president is not the judge in his own case,” Barr wrote less than two years ago.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/watch-jerry-nadler-throws-trump-lawyers-words-back-in-their-faces-to-show-abuse-of-power-is-impeachable/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3567&recip_id=298460&list_id=1 (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/watch-jerry-nadler-throws-trump-lawyers-words-back-in-their-faces-to-show-abuse-of-power-is-impeachable/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3567&recip_id=298460&list_id=1)
boutons_deux
01-23-2020, 06:52 PM
'With me, there's no lying,' Trump says as he lies and lies and lies and lies about impeachment
“Now, with me, there's no lying,” Donald Trump said Wednesday about impeachment.
You know what happened next, right?
Yup, Trump unleashed a barrage of lies about impeachment (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/fact-check-trump-false-impeachment-wednesday/index.html).
Trump made 14 false claims Wednesday spread out between the press conference in which he said “Now, with me, there's no lying” and interviews with CNBC and Fox Business.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/23/1913491/--With-me-there-s-no-lying-Trump-says-as-he-lies-and-lies-and-lies-and-lies-about-impeachment?detail=emaildkre (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/23/1913491/--With-me-there-s-no-lying-Trump-says-as-he-lies-and-lies-and-lies-and-lies-about-impeachment?detail=emaildkre)
==================
Trump says 'with me, there's no lying' -- and makes 14 false claims about impeachment and Ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/fact-check-trump-false-impeachment-wednesday/index.html
Chris
01-23-2020, 08:21 PM
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1220494487375491073?s=19
benefactor
01-23-2020, 08:29 PM
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1220494487375491073?s=19
:lol...ok
So in other words, they won’t be doing what they’re there to do which is to defend Trump, instead they’ll be attacking the dem by calling them corrupt? :lol
thispego
01-23-2020, 08:47 PM
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1220494487375491073?s=19
Fuk yah :bking
:lol the comments full of Qanon retards.
:lol Qchris living up to his given name.
weebo
01-23-2020, 09:02 PM
:lol the comments full of Qanon retards.
:lol Qchris living up to his given name.
Ya pretty sad/pathetic tbh...brainwashed morons...before he ran for office most of these people thought trump to be a con and a clown...now he is above lying and cheating shm
Winehole23
01-24-2020, 12:26 AM
VOTE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT & YOUR HEAD WILL BE ON A PIKE
Spurs Homer
01-24-2020, 01:10 AM
Schiff absolutely destroyed right wing propaganda narratives all day today
and closed with a tour de force nuke bomb of criminal trump
Schiff absolutely destroyed right wing propaganda narratives all day today
and closed with a tour de force nuke bomb of criminal trump
There is no doubt they have made a clear cut case for removal but they won’t even get 4 republicans to vote for witnesses.
DarrinS
01-24-2020, 01:37 AM
Schiff absolutely destroyed right wing propaganda narratives all day today
and closed with a tour de force nuke bomb of criminal trump
There is no doubt they have made a clear cut case for removal but they won’t even get 4 republicans to vote for witnesses.
:cry
:cry
That doesn’t mean they won’t pay at the ballot box. There are at least 5 republicans who are as good as dead come November.
boutons_deux
01-24-2020, 08:41 AM
Amanda has great article about the rotten, toxic Repugs and similar their voters,
evidence that America (of the lower 4 quintiles) and its mythical democracy are finished, fucked and unfuckable,
condemned to decline inexorably towards one-party authoritarianism.
Impeachment trial makes it clear:
Republicans are beyond reason, evidence, reality and hope
In liberal, politically plugged-in circles, it is an article of faith that if only Democrats did something different, they would do better at winning political battles.
I was struck by the fact that Democrats were making a flawless case.
Their evidence is overwhelming.
Their arguments are airtight.
The rhetoric was pitch-perfect.
It was a tour de force of Enlightenment faith in the power of rhetoric and reason. Rep. Adam Schiff kept morphing, before my eyes, into Atticus Finch, as portrayed by Gregory Peck.
Atticus loses his case and his innocent client, Tom, is killed.
Our problem isn’t the Democrats and their “messaging.”
Our problem is the Republicans.
Justice has no place in a society run by people who care only about domination and the will to power.
“authoritarian tendencies” of conservatives have grown unchecked, and
the parasite has now completely taken over the host body.
American conservatism is an authoritarian movement. (so is Christianity, esp Catholicism)
The American right has become enthralled with the same idea that has motivated fascists for decades, which is that
justice, reason and reality itself do not matter — all that matters is raw power.
a day-long showdown between reason and brute force,”
To the fascist, she added, it doesn’t really matter if people point out that your rhetoric is lies and your leaders are ridiculous.
Republican senators, to the last one, are responding with the rhetorical equivalent of fart noises
Sen. Ron Johnson (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/22/republicans-nadler-cover-up-accusation-102180) of Wisconsin exclaimed that it was “offensive” to make such a charge and
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-scale-back-language-as-trump-and-gop-press-ahead-with-attacks-on-senate-impeachment-trial/2020/01/22/792f642e-3d55-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html), a smirk masquerading as a person, called that suggestion “outrageous” and “embarrassing.”
what holds together these Republican responses is an unvarnished contempt for reason and facts and,
even more important,
outright scorn for anyone foolish enough to cling to those Enlightenment notions of rational discourse.
This inability to look reality directly in the face is most evident on the Democratic campaign trail,
All these answers are different flavors of bullshit.
The reality is Republicans have disproportionate power, pretty much baked in.
They will leverage that power
to stop any and all Democratic agenda items, no matter how minor,
because, under the leadership of Trump and Senate boss Mitch McConnell,
they have embraced a fascistic “will to power” philosophy.
No argument will move them, since
their goal is to crush their opponents and achieve total domination,
not to engage in governance based on rational debate and discourse.The only thing Republicans respond to is power.
they are stifling any remaining care for our democratic values and
wholeheartedly running toward the siren call of authoritarianism.
They are lost.
They aren’t coming back.
it’s not just the party leaders or elected politicians
one unassailable number: 42%. That’s the consistent baseline (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo) of Donald Trump’s approval
represents the percentage of Americans who have, it appears, wholly rejected reasoned discourse and democratic values.
42% will likely control the Senate for the foreseeable future and will quite possibly win the presidency again in 2020.
they cannot change that Republicans, backed by that 42%, simply don’t care.
To be clear, this situation isn’t hopeless. :lol Yes, it's hopeless.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/impeachment-trial-makes-it-clear-republicans-are-beyond-reason-evidence-reality-and-hope/?utm_source=&utm_%E2%80%A6 (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/impeachment-trial-makes-it-clear-republicans-are-beyond-reason-evidence-reality-and-hope/?utm_source=&utm_%E2%80%A6)
Even if the Dems win it 2020, sweep the govt, they won't undo, or even try to undo, the damage of 20 years of Repug terror and error, it will only be a short detente in the oligarchy's ratcheting of America downward into authoritarianism.
the 42%? who are they? We have many rotten, toxic specimens here in Spurstalk.
hater
01-24-2020, 08:47 AM
havent been paying attention to this snoozefest ma nigas
whats the score?
boutons_deux
01-24-2020, 09:00 AM
Violence threatened by Trash's mafiya
‘Your head will be on a pike’:
GOP senators warned to stay on Trump’s side in impeachment trial
Republican senators received a violently metaphorical threat before the impeachment vote.
One of President Donald Trump’s confidantes said GOP senators were
warned not to vote for impeachment — or else
“Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike,” senators were told,
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/your-head-will-be-on-a-pike-gop-senators-warned-to-stay-on-trumps-side-in-impeachment-trial/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3569&recip_id=298460&list_id=1 (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/your-head-will-be-on-a-pike-gop-senators-warned-to-stay-on-trumps-side-in-impeachment-trial/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3569&recip_id=298460&list_id=1)
baseline bum
01-24-2020, 09:07 AM
That doesn’t mean they won’t pay at the ballot box. There are at least 5 republicans who are as good as dead come November.
Which five? The only two I can think of that are likely to lose in 2020 are Gardner and Collins. Of which one will be offset by Doug Jones' sure thing loss. Not sure how you're expecting the senate to be easy to flip.
MultiTroll
01-24-2020, 09:30 AM
Violence threatened by Trash's mafiya
‘Your head will be on a pike’:
GOP senators warned to stay on Trump’s side in impeachment trial
Republican senators received a violently metaphorical threat before the impeachment vote.
One of President Donald Trump’s confidantes said GOP senators were
warned not to vote for impeachment — or else
“Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike,” senators were told,
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/your-head-will-be-on-a-pike-gop-senators-warned-to-stay-on-trumps-side-in-impeachment-trial/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3569&recip_id=298460&list_id=1 (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/your-head-will-be-on-a-pike-gop-senators-warned-to-stay-on-trumps-side-in-impeachment-trial/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3569&recip_id=298460&list_id=1)
"It’s not clear who delivered the message or how it was sent."
Solid reporting, Booty.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.