The Trial Thread

I thought it might be good to start a fresh new thread specific to the Trial itself.  

Looks like there will be a vote on whether witnesses or documents will be available .

Now that it sounds like witnesses will probably be blocked - Rudy says he'd be happy to testify.

Sounds like this will be a quick trial - thanks to Mitch!

What's the over/under for how long this will take?  4 days?


ok, so they want to talk for 16 hours on each side - then vote on allowing witnesses and documents?


Sekulow was just lying and lying. I hope someone in the Senate is taking notes and that one of the Dem speakers takes the time to rebut all of his b.s.

Cippolone isn't actually saying anything. He's just gas-bagging.


jamie said:

ok, so they want to talk for 16 hours on each side - then vote on allowing witnesses and documents?

 Schiff has pretty well demonstrated how ridiculous the GOP proposal is.


Will Trump's lawyers ever defend of his actions?


No they are not refuting what he did. Just saying it's an acceptable abuse of power.


ugh, this is maddening.  Trump's side is complaining about process.  This is where Trump's obstructions have paid off.  The main claim is that the house should have gone to courts first to fight Trump's obstruction.


jamie said:

ugh, this is maddening.  Trump's side is complaining about process.  This is where Trump's obstructions have paid off.  The main claim is that the house should have gone to courts first to fight Trump's obstruction.

 The Dems need to remind them that if the request got tied up in the courts, the election would be in progress and the whole purpose of the impeachment is to stop a repeat of soliciting foreign interference, before the next election.


Morganna said:

 The Dems need to remind them that if the request got tied up in the courts, the election would be in progress and the whole purpose of the impeachment is to stop a repeat of soliciting foreign interference, before the next election.

 I think Val Demings has made the case.

Great job by all of the managers.

And Hakeem Jeffries 2024


Ok so all amendments will be tabled?  The term sounds like it's a motion that is currently put off, but tabling = defeated.  So does this mean all of these testimonies won’t happen?


Anyone still watching?  How late will this go?  3am?


Still going at 1:10 and no end in sight yet. I think they still need to vote on an amendment.


wtf? - 1:20AM - they just finished one vote, and Schumer is proposing another amendment.


And seriously - they don't have push-button voting yet? Or maybe they're not using it?


Mitch wants this over - he will not end this session.  Chuck is attempting a filibuster via amendments.


If I understood Justice Roberts just now, there are at least two hours left for debate.


ok, it's the last one now.  And I was wrong tabling isn't a complete defeat.  All of these can come up again.


no max 2 hours - they've been shorter the past 2 amendments


The House Impeachment managers are using the tools they have to make their points.

Mitch McConnell gets his way, so long as the GOP Senators all stick with him.  The consequences of "sticking with Mitch", and hindering the discovery of more facts and the presenting of witnesses, is the type of ridiculously long session that took place.

Mitch could have ended it by agreeing to adjourn and pick it up the following day, but he didn't want to do that.  Instead, he asked if all of these amendments could be stacked together, for a single motion and a vote.  Schumer declined to give Mitch that easy out.


Great line from Colbert: "Soon we'll find out if breaking the law is illegal."


the "centrist" GOP Senators were really going to vote to call witnesses?


ml1 said:

the "centrist" GOP Senators were really going to vote to call witnesses?

Most GOP Senators won't.  But it shouldn't be painless for them to refuse.  And by "painless" I mean, "without consequences for their re-election".  There are some like Collins and Gardner who would love to have some phony excuse, but it's going to look like a cover-up to the voters in Maine and Colorado. 


GL2 said:

Great line from Colbert: "Soon we'll find out if breaking the law is illegal."

 Which law is Colbert referring to?

AFAIK, no violations of law were cited in articles of impeachment.

See:  https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/dec/12/paul-gigot/donald-trump-would-be-first-us-president-impeached/

PS Perhaps for his next act, Colbert can try a joke where he assumes that dogs are bilingual (similarly, based on a wholly false factual premise).


RealityForAll said:

 Which law is Colbert referring to?

AFAIK, no violations of law were cited in articles of impeachment.

See:  https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/dec/12/paul-gigot/donald-trump-would-be-first-us-president-impeached/

PS Perhaps for his next act, Colbert can try a joke where he assumes that dogs are bilingual (similarly, based on a wholly false factual premise).

 "Liberal humor" is clearly inferior to conservative humor.

Here's a great example of the latter -


RealityForAll said:

AFAIK, no violations of law were cited in articles of impeachment.

See:  https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/dec/12/paul-gigot/donald-trump-would-be-first-us-president-impeached/

On topic - Dershowitz's argument that a President can't be impeached without showing a violation of a criminal law statute, isn't supported by any actual, legitimate scholar. 


nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

 Which law is Colbert referring to?

AFAIK, no violations of law were cited in articles of impeachment.

See:  https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/dec/12/paul-gigot/donald-trump-would-be-first-us-president-impeached/

PS Perhaps for his next act, Colbert can try a joke where he assumes that dogs are bilingual (similarly, based on a wholly false factual premise).

 "Liberal humor" is clearly inferior to conservative humor.

Here's a great example of the latter -

 Nice smear.  I never encouraged or supported such behavior on behalf of DJT.  Additionally, I am not a supporter of DJT (never have been).

Clearly, you (nohero) have no cogent response to my critique of Colbert's joke based on a a wholly false factual premise ("WFFP").  I accept your attempt at smear as an acknowledgement that Colbert's joke is based on a WFFP.

PS One of the problems with Colbert's joke is that some MOLers (like GL2) begin to believe that the  WFFP is true.  


RealityForAll said:

 Nice smear.  I never encouraged or supported such behavior on behalf of DJT.  Additionally, I am not a supporter of DJT (never have been).

Clearly, you (ml1) have no cogent response to my critique of Colbert's joke based on a a wholly false factual premise ("WFFP").  I accept your attempt at smear as an acknowledgement that Colbert's joke is based on a WFFP.

PS One of the problems with Colbert's joke is that some MOLers (like GL2) begin to believe that the  WFFP is true.  

 dude, I didn't write that. 


drummerboy said:

And seriously - they don't have push-button voting yet? Or maybe they're not using it?

 I think Trump and McConnell are discussing this. There's a Russian company that has offered to install the technology.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.