as far as you can tell?
I literally just quoted you making 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?
as far as you can tell?
I literally just quoted you making up. I really hate when lawyers can’t just take the L and move on.
She did, it’s a pity the house didn’t decide to subpoena anyone else.
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?
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 en led 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
A pitty eh? So you'd be good with the house re-opening or supplementing its impeachment inquiry?
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 from mid-November included 45 false claims he has made and a brief fact check of each one.https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/21/1913131/-Trump-lies-updated-to-65-national-support-for-impeachment-at-53-GOPCoverup
27. Republicans were not allowed into the closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings. (Republican members of the three committees holding the hearings were allowed into the room 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 in the closed-door hearings. (Republicans were allowed to ask questions. Democrats and Republicans alternated questioning.)
29. Republicans were not allowed to ask questions 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.)
30. Republicans were not allowed to have lawyers participate in the public hearings chaired by Schiff. (They were. Lawyer Steve Castor 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 has ever faced closed-door impeachment hearings. (Both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment processes involved some closed-door hearings.)
32. Trump's opponents have committed "illegal acts" 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." (Various witnesses have had firsthand knowledge of various components of the story.)
34. Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, maintained there was "no quid pro quo." (Sondland revised his original testimony. While he continued to say that Trump told him there was no quid pro quo, he said his own belief was that there was a quid pro quo.)
35. Unlike Democrats, former House Speaker Paul Ryan "would never issue a subpoena." (Numerous Republican subpoenas were issued to the Obama administration during Ryan's tenure as speaker.)
36. "Many" 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 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." (The House did not hold a trial at all. Under the Cons ution, it is the Senate that has the sole power to try impeachments.)
38. Trump was "deprived of basic Cons utional 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 was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials." (This is absurd. Nineteen innocent people were hanged 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 into confessions.)
40. Trump "won 196 to nothing" 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, then the December votes on the two articles of impeachment, 230-197 and 229-198. 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" 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 on the bill.)
These are good points. If Trump was on the up and up, why did he send his personal lawyer in a "non-official" capacity?
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 "do ent 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?"
Schiff is terrified of democracy
Welp. There it is
you still deny that Russia interfered with the last election, rube.
you too, rube.
Operation Minimize will now commence.
America has NEVER been a democracy, and for the past few decades, the degradation of even the myth of democracy is complete.
They didn't decide it, rube
Follow it up with Operation Deflection now, rube.
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 about the evidence of the president’s guilt.
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, 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 Cons ution,” 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 Cons ution’ 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
The WH MUST adopt "a far too narrow one" because just a teeny bit wider understanding makes TRASH IMPEACHABLE.
No problem at all
He’s got receipts. Trump’s defense team is going to destroy the house managers, it’s not a fair fight.
i'm down for that too.
let's show the public how corrupt and re ed the left truly are.
Chump is all in on Russiagate
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)