Impeachment Hearings

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479184-gop-rejects-effort-to-compel-documents-on-delayed-ukraine-aid?fbclid=IwAR3mvwe4SlGXJsJTQpD-5FJ_G3L2zXDjZo0pDoPHvppthKsGyJLJu-yVUTM

Republicans shoot down Democrats efforts to have the White House turn over documents on the aid being delayed... because... I honestly don't know what legitimate reason there is for disagreeing with that.

Mitch was seen napping as Democrats talked and many moderate Republicans were seen actively taking notes.

Also, I believe Pelosi should have made Amash an impeachment manager.

[GMDino]

(01-21-2020, 07:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479184-gop-rejects-effort-to-compel-documents-on-delayed-ukraine-aid?fbclid=IwAR3mvwe4SlGXJsJTQpD-5FJ_G3L2zXDjZo0pDoPHvppthKsGyJLJu-yVUTM

Republicans shoot down Democrats efforts to have the White House turn over documents on the aid being delayed... because... I honestly don't know what legitimate reason there is for disagreeing with that.

Mitch was seen napping as Democrats talked and many moderate Republicans were seen actively taking notes.

Also, I believe Pelosi should have made Amash an impeachment manager.

Because there are no documents that will exonerate Trump.  They could have Jesus Christ as a manager and the gop will not care.  There sole job is to protect Trump.  Period.

[GMDino]

"Ladies and gentlemen, yes, my client handed the bank teller a note saying 'this is a robbery, give me the money or I will kill you.' But the bank guard tackled him before she could give him any money. I ask you, what's the crime in that? How can it be a crime to fail at crime?"

— DopesAnd/OrBabiesHat (@Popehat) January 22, 2020

[GMDino]

So, he seems nice.

Random, but looking to see if Sekulow commented on impeachment in 1998 I found a minor freakout he had over gay pride flags in Orlando. pic.twitter.com/75mPk3B0I3

— andrew kaczynski? (@KFILE) January 22, 2020

[GMDino]

If you believe Trump blocked witnesses to preserve the powers of the next president, you probably believe he cheated on Melania to preserve the powers of her next husband. https://t.co/cg6j2OBMaq

— Eric Columbus (@EricColumbus) January 21, 2020

 

[SunsetBengal]

(01-21-2020, 06:26 PM)jj22 Wrote: No one in the defense team has claimed Trump is innocent. This.is.a.moment.

Uhh, maybe that's because in the United States, a person IS innocent until PROVEN guilty?

[GMDino]

(01-21-2020, 09:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Uhh, maybe that's because in the United States, a person IS innocent until PROVEN guilty?

And that is what the jury is to think and then decide on the the evidence.

However the people who are there to represent the POTUS are to make a DEFENSE for him in order them to reach that decision just as the those there charging him are make a case AGAINST the president to prove his guilt.

Kind how trials are supposed to work.

[GMDino]

They're just making stuff up...right?

Sekulow said earlier, "33 days -- 33 days, they held onto those impeachment articles -- 33 days. It was such a rush of national security that -- impeach this president before Christmas that they then held them for 33 days."

It was 28 days.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 21, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Again, the record is that on October 2, 2019, the President's CURRENT defense attorney informed the President's past defense attorney that the President was waiving conflict so he could represent Lev Parnas. pic.twitter.com/tzRWPSyHWn

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) January 19, 2020

[GMDino]

As an aside (but related to this thread because I believe this is where it was discussed):

Remember when the "right" was all aghast at someone using the name Barron as a play on words to make a point?

Seems like years ago.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-21-2020, 09:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: And that is what the jury is to think and then decide on the the evidence.

However the people who are there to represent the POTUS are to make a DEFENSE for him in order them to reach that decision just as the those there charging him are make a case AGAINST the president to prove his guilt.

Kind how trials are supposed to work.

Ok, I'll bite this once, because I like you.  Please tell me exactly what crime Donald Trump has been impeached for?  Precisely which U.S.C. did he violate?  Can you please tell me that one small detail?

[BmorePat87]

(01-21-2020, 09:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Uhh, maybe that's because in the United States, a person IS innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Coffin v. United States established the concept of the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, but this is not a criminal case nor does it operate as such, which is why the prosecution currently cannot introduce evidence or witnesses unless the jury, who are not impartial, choose to allow it. 

[GMDino]

(01-21-2020, 10:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, I'll bite this once, because I like you.  Please tell me exactly what crime Donald Trump has been impeached for?  Precisely which U.S.C. did he violate?  Can you please tell me that one small detail?

He is charged with withholding funds in order to get a foreign country to announce an investigation into a political rival for personal gain.  Abuse of the power of the office.  Also with obstruction for his lack of cooperation...to put it mildly.

Hint:  It doesn't have to be a "crime".

[BmorePat87]

(01-21-2020, 10:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, I'll bite this once, because I like you.  Please tell me exactly what crime Donald Trump has been impeached for?  Precisely which U.S.C. did he violate?  Can you please tell me that one small detail?

He wasn't impeached for a crime. He was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-21-2020, 10:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: He is charged with withholding funds in order to get a foreign country to announce an investigation into a political rival for personal gain.  Abuse of the power of the office.  Also with obstruction for his lack of cooperation...to put it mildly.

Hint:  It doesn't have to be a "crime".

Well then, that certainly would be setting a strange precedent, seeing how so many before him have done exactly that, without any pushback whatsoever..

[BmorePat87]

(01-21-2020, 10:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well then, that certainly would be setting a strange precedent, seeing how so many before him have done exactly that, without any pushback whatsoever..

Can you name the Presidents who withheld funding from foreign nations in exchange for them investigating electoral rivals?

[SunsetBengal]

(01-21-2020, 10:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Coffin v. United States established the concept of the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, but this is not a criminal case nor does it operate as such, which is why the prosecution currently cannot introduce evidence or witnesses unless the jury, who are not impartial, choose to allow it. 

Get is straight, they cannot allow NEW evidence or witnesses.  They had the opportunity to build their case, they chose to throw together a group of made up articles, in hopes that they could tell the Senate how to run the trial.  

Hint:  It doesn't work that way..

[GMDino]

(01-21-2020, 10:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well then, that certainly would be setting a strange precedent, seeing how so many before him have done exactly that, without any pushback whatsoever..

No, no they didn't.  None of them withheld funds while asking for a personal favor (then covered it up while calling it "perfect").  If they have please provide proof.  Thank you.

Here:

SCHIFF: "We are not saying that aid has never been withheld...but I would hope & expect this is the first time aid has been withheld by POTUS to coerce an ally at war, to help him cheat in the next election. I think that's a first. What we do here will determine if it's the last" pic.twitter.com/8OKqDn5RIu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 22, 2020

 

[SunsetBengal]

(01-21-2020, 10:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Can you name the Presidents who withheld funding from foreign nations in exchange for them investigating electoral rivals?

Lol!  If Biden is guilty of the same offense that the POTUS is being held liable for, then does he even really deserve to be a Presidential candidate??  Enough with the double standard crap already...

[BmorePat87]

(01-21-2020, 10:40 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Get is straight, they cannot allow NEW evidence or witnesses.  They had the opportunity to build their case, they chose to throw together a group of made up articles, in hopes that they could tell the Senate how to run the trial.  

Hint:  It doesn't work that way..

Well the President blocked numerous witnesses and evidence. Reintroducing those at the trial puts more pressure on the President to actually comply with subpoenas. Also, to be clear, they cannot have any witnesses period, old or new.