Impeachment Hearings

[GMDino]

Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump's impeachment team, on 'abuse of power':

"Abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense. That's what the framers rejected. They didn't want to give Congress the authority to remove a president because he abused his power."

— TheBeat w/Ari Melber (@TheBeatWithAri) January 17, 2020

[BmorePat87]

(01-17-2020, 11:06 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump's impeachment team, on 'abuse of power':

"Abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense. That's what the framers rejected. They didn't want to give Congress the authority to remove a president because he abused his power."

— TheBeat w/Ari Melber (@TheBeatWithAri) January 17, 2020

Wild stuff. Dershowitz figures the conservative political book market is far more lucrative than the liberal right now?

He also said

"My sole responsibility is to analyze and present the constitutional arguments. I will present the history of the constitutional impeachment provisions, the history of impeachments... and make a broad argument."

Basically the preview of the defense is “doesn’t matter what he did, you can’t impeach for abuse of power”. That’s a pretty weak defense that, if the GOP accepts, sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. One would think that basing their defense on that could actually lose Republican support.

[GMDino]

(01-18-2020, 12:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wild stuff. Dershowitz figures the conservative political book market is far more lucrative than the liberal right now?

He also said

"My sole responsibility is to analyze and present the constitutional arguments. I will present the history of the constitutional impeachment provisions, the history of impeachments... and make a broad argument."

Basically the preview of the defense is “doesn’t matter what he did, you can’t impeach for abuse of power”. That’s a pretty weak defense that, if the GOP accepts, sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. One would think that basing their defense on that could actually lose Republican support.

They are not concerned about republican support...only Trump supporter support.  The rabid 30-40% that only want them to protect DJT from the "lies".

The defense could be "Trump is guilty or everything he is accused of and we'll even given you MORE evidence to prove that and we dare you to vote against him" and the gop will not vote for impeachment.  And the Trump cult will applaud them for defending him.

[BmorePat87]

(01-18-2020, 12:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: They are not concerned about republican support...only Trump supporter support.  The rabid 30-40% that only want them to protect DJT from the "lies".

The defense could be "Trump is guilty or everything he is accused of and we'll even given you MORE evidence to prove that and we dare you to vote against him" and the gop will not vote for impeachment.  And the Trump cult will applaud them for defending him.

I’m willing to bet a few GOP senators actually would pause to consider setting the broad precedent that abuse of power isn’t impeachable. I’d imagine that they’d try to convince the defense team to change course so that they didn’t have to set that precedent.

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks are free to believe the House investigation's only motive was to "find the truth". I'm gonna roll with its motivation was to find enough to impeach POTUS. It's ok if we differ on that.

I think those two things are not mutually exclusive.

(01-17-2020, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I learned quite a bit in the House hearings and some changed my stance. However, I do believe it was partisan and maybe more can come out when the defense has its day in court.

Sure, let the defense have their turn as foreseen in the processs. I have to say though. If the defense really is "abuse of power is not an impeachable offense", they lose me.

[NATI BENGALS]

So the Epstein buddy who visited the island and a guy fired for covering up rape at Baylor are Trumps defense team?

Republicans get your heads out of your asses

[BmorePat87]

The rules are set and ready to be introduced.

Each side gets 24 hours over 2 days from 1pm to 1am for opening statements... (Clinton's opening statements occurred over 4 days with 6 hour sessions).

From there Senators can ask questions for up to 16 hours.

After that, they will vote on whether or not the impeachment managers and defense team can request witnesses/evidence. If McConnell gets enough Republicans on board, they can completely block any introduction of witnesses or evidence. They've made it clear that they are working with the White House to ensure this.

If Schumer somehow gets 4 Republicans on his side for subpoenas, the managers and defense will get to request subpoenas. The Senate will then vote on whether or not that person will be subpoenaed. If motions are approved, both sides get a chance to depose the witness. The Senate can then decide whether or not to allow the testimony.

The White House is already talking to McConnell to use executive privilege as an excuse to block witnesses.

After all of that, there will be 4 hours of arguments by each side and then the Senate will deliberate.

[GMDino]

(01-20-2020, 11:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The rules are set and ready to be introduced.

Each side gets 24 hours over 2 days from 1pm to 1am for opening statements... (Clinton's opening statements occurred over 4 days with 6 hour sessions).

From there Senators can ask questions for up to 16 hours.

After that, they will vote on whether or not the impeachment managers and defense team can request witnesses/evidence. If McConnell gets enough Republicans on board, they can completely block any introduction of witnesses or evidence. They've made it clear that they are working with the White House to ensure this.

If Schumer somehow gets 4 Republicans on his side for subpoenas, the managers and defense will get to request subpoenas. The Senate will then vote on whether or not that person will be subpoenaed. If motions are approved, both sides get a chance to depose the witness. The Senate can then decide whether or not to allow the testimony.

The White House is already talking to McConnell to use executive privilege as an excuse to block witnesses.

After all of that, there will be 4 hours of arguments by each side and then the Senate will deliberate.

If the WH and McConnell are working together then why aren't they doing with DJT said he wanted and having witnesses to exonerate him and a totally fair trial?  

[GMDino]

This is going to go swimmingly.

Alan Dershowitz tries to explain his contradictory views on impeachment by saying he wasn't wrong during Clinton's impeachment, he's just "much more correct right now" pic.twitter.com/5HLd6aI6Ra

— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) January 21, 2020

 

Tribe is trying to sensor my arguments . The headline of Tribe’s article says it all: “Trump’s lawyer shouldn’t be allowed to use bogus arguments on impeachment.”

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 20, 2020

[GMDino]

Oh look: Collins and Jordan.  That will bring civility to the "trial".

No Nunes?  Interesting...

BREAKING: Per @johnrobertsFox - Congressional Members of Pres @realDonaldTrump's impeachment team are Reps Doug Collins, Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, and Lee Zeldin

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) January 21, 2020

[BmorePat87]

(01-21-2020, 01:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oh look: Collins and Jordan.  That will bring civility to the "trial".

No Nunes?  Interesting...

BREAKING: Per @johnrobertsFox - Congressional Members of Pres @realDonaldTrump's impeachment team are Reps Doug Collins, Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, and Lee Zeldin

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) January 21, 2020

They're just advisors. The lawyers themselves will be doing the talking in the Senate. We're also fortunate that the Senators cannot directly ask questions. All questions will be asked via John Roberts.

[Belsnickel]

(01-20-2020, 11:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The rules are set and ready to be introduced.

Each side gets 24 hours over 2 days from 1pm to 1am for opening statements... (Clinton's opening statements occurred over 4 days with 6 hour sessions).

From there Senators can ask questions for up to 16 hours.

After that, they will vote on whether or not the impeachment managers and defense team can request witnesses/evidence. If McConnell gets enough Republicans on board, they can completely block any introduction of witnesses or evidence. They've made it clear that they are working with the White House to ensure this.

If Schumer somehow gets 4 Republicans on his side for subpoenas, the managers and defense will get to request subpoenas. The Senate will then vote on whether or not that person will be subpoenaed. If motions are approved, both sides get a chance to depose the witness. The Senate can then decide whether or not to allow the testimony.

The White House is already talking to McConnell to use executive privilege as an excuse to block witnesses.

After all of that, there will be 4 hours of arguments by each side and then the Senate will deliberate.

It should be noted that one of the large differences between the Clinton trial and Trumps is that for Clinton's trial, the House inquiry documents were entered into the Senate record as evidence, meaning that the jurors/Senators had that information to work from from the start. In this instance, McConnell has put in the rules that they would only enter into the record as evidence with a Senate vote and only after the vote on whether or not to accept evidence/witnesses, meaning after opening arguments.

So not only do we have them saying the House evidence should be enough, McConnell is even trying to suppress the work the House already did.

[GMDino]

(01-21-2020, 09:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They're just advisors. The lawyers themselves will be doing the talking in the Senate. We're also fortunate that the Senators cannot directly ask questions. All questions will be asked via John Roberts.

Understood...and they still will bring nothing of value to the actual trial.  

[BmorePat87]

A small victory for Democrats, McConnell has agreed to three 8-hour days for opening statements (1pm-9pm) rather than two 12-hour days (1pm-1am)

[GMDino]

So let's say this guy IS lying...does anyone care?  Does it change the results at all?

Of does it become so much "fake news" that can be ignored by the gop?

"Not even Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF" -- this is a blatant lie from Cipollone pic.twitter.com/A4cWhwRSUo

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 21, 2020

 

[GMDino]

(01-21-2020, 04:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A small victory for Democrats, McConnell has agreed to three 8-hour days for opening statements (1pm-9pm) rather than two 12-hour days (1pm-1am)

It was a silly idea anyway.

I wonder if that was some pushback from Roberts (who still has a day job) or if Mitch didn't think he had the votes to get it through?

[jj22]

You can tell Trump isn't a good person by the people he gets to "defend" him. These people are the worse. And I'm not saying that because I approve of the impeachment. I'm saying these people representing him don't do Trump any favors. You'd think the POTUS could provide some people who can seriously defend him. Right or wrong...

People who defend mass murderers do better than the people he hires to defend him. It's actually pretty sad to see. Crindgeworty.

[GMDino]

[jj22]

And he supposedly hires all the best people....

[jj22]

No one in the defense team has claimed Trump is innocent. This.is.a.moment.