Impeachment Hearings

[*michaelsean*]

(01-30-2020, 05:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: They are already prepared with votes to impeach the kid.

Kid is a bit of a stretch.  That's the problem with naming your kid Hunter. At some point they become adults.

[Dill]

(01-30-2020, 03:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: Kind of related to Trump in general and the decay of the office. Bernie Sanders is looking into his ability to essentially executive order his whole platform through if he wins (Legalize Pot, Stop Border wall, Declare Climate change a national emergency,etc.). I have been saying that precedent matters throughout this whole presidency and that the genie isn't going back into the bottle. The legislative branch willfully allowed their powers to be usurped by the executive branch and it won't magically stop just because Trump eventually leaves.

None of this is good for the country and it's only going to get worse until both sides say "this isn't how this works".

Quick way to fix that--get a Dem president with a Republican House and Senate! 

We'll see then that it IS possible for presidents to commit crimes and be impeached.

[Dill]

(01-30-2020, 02:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I pretty much assume that all I'm supposed to read is what's there.  I just find it kind of boring, and I generally have no idea who the people are or why I should pay attention to them.  I prefer people's own opinions. You'll sometimes have an ass respond but generally it's pretty cordial.  

Mya Wiley--HOT! and civil rights lawyer and former NY city Mayors counsel, now professor at the New School for Social Research.

This one you should pay attention to.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-30-2020, 07:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Mya Wiley--HOT! and civil rights lawyer and former NY city Mayors counsel, now professor at the New School for Social Research.

This one you should pay attention to.

You had me at hot.

[BmorePat87]

It seems likely that Murkowski and Alexander will oppose witnesses. They were seen talking together and Alexander finally asked a question, focusing on the lack of bipartisan support in impeachment. Murkowski asked the defense why the Senate shouldn't call Bolton, giving them an in to justify no witnesses at all.

Collins and Romney may be the only ones who support it. It's unlikely that either will break with their party if they know there's not 4 total.

[BmorePat87]

Gotta give Schiff credit. He's a hell of a prosecutor. He's picking apart the defense. Too bad none of it matters.

He's presenting a great case for a week of depositions with Roberts deciding what is relevant and what's not.

[BmorePat87]

Blackburn working with the defense to force the whistleblower as a witness if witnesses are called.

[BmorePat87]

Defense said that the first response of Congress to Trump's call should have been using checks like refusing to fund programs the President wants, passing laws he doesn't like, or not confirming nominees. Impeachment should have been a last resort. This, of course, ignores the purpose of impeachment.

Schiff then goes up and gives a hypothetical of Trump offering to end sanctions if Russia hacks Ukrainian servers to find dirt on Biden. He says that the argument posed by Dershowitz suggests that this is not impeachable because Trump can say it's in the national interest and the defense team is suggesting the remedy to this is to just not approve nominees.

[BmorePat87]

Alexander and Murkowski joined Graham and Cruz in asking this question to the defense: even if Bolton testified, isn't what he is suggesting not an impeachable offense so his testimony doesn't matter?

Yep, they are not going to vote for witnesses.

[BmorePat87]

Schiff spitting fire: Let's be honest, I don't think there's actually a question about why the aid was withheld, why Zelensky couldn't get a White House meeting, or why Trump wanted Biden investigated... we know why all that happened. This is what we've come to in our country's history, we're saying that it is not impeachable to abuse the power of the office to help themselves to get reelected as long as they think their reelection is in the national interest. All we can do is have the Senate hold up nominations. The founding fathers would be aghast to hear that on the Senate floor, having come out of a monarchy. The chief executive now has the full power to coerce an ally to insert themselves in our elections if they think they should be reelected. Would our founding fathers support that or believe that behavior was a danger to the office?

[BmorePat87]

GOP asks defense about Biden rejecting witnesses in the Clinton trial (call it the Biden doctrine) and the defense has Biden's words immediately ready to go and read it off. Call for having the Biden Doctrine/Rules.

Accuses Schiff of making up a conversation between Trump and Russia about hacking Ukraine (Schiff clearly said it was an example of what could occur) and then says that allowing witnesses takes executive privilege away.

[BmorePat87]

Jeffries: All 15 impeachment trials had witnesses, including some with witnesses who were not heard in the House. Average 34 witnesses per trial.

Invokes Bengazi: State dept turned over 10,000's of documents. High ranking witnesses including executive secretaries voluntarily testified publicly under oath. With this trial, no witnesses, no documents, blanket defiance.

[BmorePat87]

Romney sends a question to both parties: Do you have any evidence that anyone was directed by Trump to tell Ukrainians that aid was held until an investigation was announced?

Schiff: Sondland was told that Zelensky HAS to announce the investigations and that led to Zelensky scheduling an appearance on CNN which he canceled as soon as Trump released the aid (in response to the whistleblower report coming out). Mick Mulvaney admitted on TV that part of the reason they held up the aid was for the investigation and said "we do it all the time get over it" when a reporter said that describes quid pro quo. The 3rd is Bolton.

Defense: No one specifically SAID it, Sondland just assumed that.

[BmorePat87]

LOL

GOP: Under the Dershowitz argument, would it be impeachable for Biden to do what he was accused of?

Defense: Yes, personal electoral gain is ok because it's in good faith for the US but what Biden might have done would be impeachable because he did it for family monetary gain.

[BmorePat87]

Collins just said she will support witnesses, potentially in a move to sway Murkowski and Alexander.

[BmorePat87]

Alexander said no and then added on that the charges aren’t even impeachable.

Murkowski is unlikely to support witnesses. If she did, there could be a tie and Roberts could potentially weigh in.

[Vas Deferens]

Today, I’m more worried for the future of our great nation than I was the AM of 09/11/01

[Benton]

Lost a lot of respect for Paul. He at least had some things he seemed nonpartisan on, but the whistleblower shit show was... well, a shit show.

Rand: We're talking about what Trump did. Since my first question was rebuked, I'll ask another completely related but yet at the same time unrelated question. Were Person A and Person B colluding to overthrow Trump on behalf of Obama?

Roberts: I'm not asking this question.

Rand: They wouldn't ask my question, so obviously, Person A or Person B is the whistleblower. I obviously did nothing wrong as I didn't name the whistleblower, only asked a completely unrelated and yet at the same time related question.


We know it's all a partisan pony show. At least hold up your end of the bargain and say "Nay, Trump looked really innocent to me" when you cast the vote instead of trying to say "Yo, Obama did it!!!!11!!!1!"

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2020, 12:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Schiff spitting fire: Let's be honest, I don't think there's actually a question about why the aid was withheld, why Zelensky couldn't get a White House meeting, or why Trump wanted Biden investigated... we know why all that happened. This is what we've come to in our country's history, we're saying that it is not impeachable to abuse the power of the office to help themselves to get reelected as long as they think their reelection is in the national interest. All we can do is have the Senate hold up nominations. The founding fathers would be aghast to hear that on the Senate floor, having come out of a monarchy. The chief executive now has the full power to coerce an ally to insert themselves in our elections if they think they should be reelected. Would our founding fathers support that or believe that behavior was a danger to the office?

That’s a (bizarre) defense given in a trial held by the Senate. That’s a little different than things being said on the senate floor by members of the senate.

[GMDino]

Well they did it.  Even *I* didn't think they could do it, but they did.

The gop managed to reach the conclusion that Trump did everything he's accused of for the reasons he accused of and then said "Eh".

Sad day for the Republican party.

But then who could have known that putting an ethicless, moral less thin skinned bully into the most powerful office in the country would create a groundswell of mindless support that would lead to spineless politicians kneeling down before him just to keep their jobs?