The Trial Thread
mtierney said:
I actually appreciated the history recap by Starr. He barely looks at his notes, often speaking at length with clear and impassioned comments.
Going forward, impeachment will be used as a remedy for a future election loss. We are witnessing that remedy in use right now. Long before the phone call with Ukraine’s President, impeachment of DJT was front and center on the Democratic agenda. This fact is undeniable.
You have no idea the pain that I feel for the condition of your brain.
Ken Starr lecturing on the misuse of impeachment is like a Dean Martin lecture on the evils of alcohol.
Lindsey Graham now says he wants to subpoena - the Bolton book manuscript.
jamie said:
almost like McConnell vowing that Obama be a one term president? Main difference is that he never put his personal ambitions above the country.
Obviously McConnell was expressing his conviction that President Obama would not win a second term.
mtierney said:
jamie said:
almost like McConnell vowing that Obama be a one term president? Main difference is that he never put his personal ambitions above the country.
Obviously McConnell was expressing his conviction that President Obama would not win a second term.
That's one way to look at it.
It's the wrong way, but a way nonetheless.
nohero said:
Ken Starr lecturing on the misuse of impeachment is like a Dean Martin lecture on the evils of alcohol.
We've really entered Bizarro-world raised to 10th power when Starr is chosen to present this argument.
I assume it's just another troll to upset us libtards.
I have this on in the background so haven't completed heard everything. Does anyone know if they defended Trump's actions?
mtierney said:
I actually appreciated the history recap by Starr. He barely looks at his notes, often speaking at length with clear and impassioned comments.
Going forward, impeachment will be used as a remedy for a future election loss. We are witnessing that remedy in use right now. Long before the phone call with Ukraine’s President, impeachment of DJT was front and center on the Democratic agenda. This fact is undeniable.
Yes, impeachment was front and center because trump was in violation of the Email Clause from the minute he took office. Despite what trump says, it’s not “ the phony Emoluments Clause.” The House gave him a pass (thus far) on that constant and continuous violation. The abuse of power was too much.
But you’re fine with foreign interference in our elections. You’re fine with trump’s corruption. It’s all because of his fake pro birth stance.
I think Trump's team is basically saying - you should have litigated Trump's obstruction in the courts.
Zero Trump defense again. It's all procedural.
drummerboy said:
nohero said:
Ken Starr lecturing on the misuse of impeachment is like a Dean Martin lecture on the evils of alcohol.
We've really entered Bizarro-world raised to 10th power when Starr is chosen to present this argument.
I assume it's just another troll to upset us libtards.
And to add more to the Bizarro-world - to have the balls to talk about nepotism is just beyond the pale.
So I have not seen anything at all today other than Dershowitz for the last fifteen minutes. WHAT THE **** IS HE GOING ON ABOUT?
What a douchebag.
excellent thread on what the R's intent really is
mtierney said:
jamie said:
Now we have Ken Starr giving us a history lesson. We are truly in bizarro land.
I actually appreciated the history recap by Starr. He barely looks at his notes, often speaking at length with clear and impassioned comments.
Going forward, impeachment will be used as a remedy for a future election loss. We are witnessing that remedy in use right now. Long before the phone call with Ukraine’s President, impeachment of DJT was front and center on the Democratic agenda. This fact is undeniable.
The president illegally withheld Congressionally-appointed aid in an attempt to prevent his own election loss. This fact is undeniable, as evidenced by the way the president's supporters rarely even attempt to defend it, but instead focus on process or motives.
The worst presentation, in case there is an award, goes to Ken Starr.
Just heard a quote on Morning Joe, "Does Ken Starr realize he is Ken Starr?"
In the female category, of course we have Pam Bondi.
A few fun phrases from Joe Scarborough, " a confederacy of dunces" and dragging out "the corpse of irony."
Alan Dershowitz gave an impassioned defense of Alan Dershowitz. "Don't hate me because I'm speaking on behalf of Trump. I'm doing it for my phony-baloney argument about the Constitution!"
Sean Hannity for the defense. Sean Hannity defends Trump: "So if you say 'I want to kill this person,' ok, what crime have you committed? Did you kill the person? No. Did you think about it for a second? Yeah but you didn't do it." pic.twitter.com/OTggEUkoXF
Morganna said:
The worst presentation, in case there is an award, goes to Ken Starr.
Just heard a quote on Morning Joe, "Does Ken Starr realize he is Ken Starr?"
In the female category, of course we have Pam Bondi.
A few fun phrases from Joe Scarborough, " a confederacy of dunces" and dragging out "the corpse of irony."
On Bondi, a reminder of how she ended up in Trump's orbit:
https://nyti.ms/2cP1nwX
tl;dr -- Trump paid her PAC $25,000 when she was the FL AG, and in return her office did not join the multi-state investigation of Trump U.
It's corrupt quid pro quos all the way down in Trumpworld.
the Trump defense is a clown show - similar to his cabinet. He brings in everyone who shouldn't be there.
Mulvaney - Carson - Perry - Pruitt - Wheeler - Barr - etc
There must be a definition for this - when you bring in polarizing figures to every aspect of your office which in the end makes your agenda seem less crazy? It could just be creating a reality show - not a democracy.
Given the Bolton book and the other Parnas tapes, dems best argument for witnesses seems to be "You can hear it now or you can hear it during the next several months leading up to '2020 vote. But you're gonna hear it."
Nadler bleating -
“The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror?” Nadler said. “So far, I’m sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”
Well, the opportunity for additional evidence and more witnesses was possible during the impeachment. A chance that thrown away by rushing it. Unlike the Nixon impeachment.
Why the rush? Too burdensome? In a hurry to get back to their comfortable Washington dinner parties? Or is it a need to rush because the American public is easily bored, needing something new every month?
John Kelly:
Mr. Kelly did not specifically say whether Mr. Bolton should testify in the president’s impeachment trial as Democrats demand. But he said he supported the idea of allowing senators to hear from people who have not yet testified in the case, saying that Americans want to hear the “whole story” about what Mr. Trump did.
The whole story could have been gotten during the house impeachment.
BG9 said:
The whole story could have been gotten during the house impeachment.
How?
It would have been in the courts until forever.
BG9 said:
Why the rush? Too burdensome? In a hurry to get back to their comfortable Washington dinner parties? Or is it a need to rush because the American public is easily bored, needing something new every month?
Is that the extent of the possibilities you’ve considered and/or read about?
drummerboy said:
BG9 said:
The whole story could have been gotten during the house impeachment.
How?
It would have been in the courts until forever.
Courts can act very quickly when there is a national need. The Pentagon Papers case went from restraining order to SC judgment in two weeks.
Even if the courts would have taken forever then why are we begging senators to allow witnesses to be called? If you feel its useless for house to subpoena for witnesses then why would it not be useless for the senate? When then try to get so-called moderates like Collins to vote for it?
This would have been a no-brainer in the house where the needed votes are there.
If I were a chief prosecutor I'd never hire you to prosecute. To rush a grand jury or trial and omit discovery or possible new evidence because there may be an issue of law and we don't want to wait for court rulings?
The house screwed up and they know it. They are now begging the senate to do what they easily could themselves have done.
What did they gain by rushing?
BG9 said:
Even if the courts would have taken forever then why are we begging senators to allow witnesses to be called? If you feel its useless for house to subpoena for witnesses then why would it not be useless for the senate?
One thing that's changed -- John Bolton has said he would testify if subpoenaed, and his leaked book manuscript strongly suggests he would have relevant evidence. This is a different situation than during the House impeachment inquiry where it wast not at all clear he would comply with a subpoena.
PVW said:
BG9 said:
Even if the courts would have taken forever then why are we begging senators to allow witnesses to be called? If you feel its useless for house to subpoena for witnesses then why would it not be useless for the senate?
One thing that's changed -- John Bolton has said he would testify if subpoenaed, and his leaked book manuscript strongly suggests he would have relevant evidence. This is a different situation than during the House impeachment inquiry where it wast not at all clear he would comply with a subpoena.
Oh not at all clear. Yeah, OK, we'll quit because its not at all clear we would get what we want. A masterful way to position oneself into weakness.
If our founders thought like that we would not have started a revolution because then it was not all clear they'd win. Lincoln could just have let the south secede because it was not at all clear the north would have won. Lets not have D-Day because its not clear it would have succeeded.
Also, its not just Bolton. Many other could have been called with time discovery expanded.
BG9 said:
drummerboy said:
BG9 said:
The whole story could have been gotten during the house impeachment.
How?
It would have been in the courts until forever.
Courts can act very quickly when there is a national need. The Pentagon Papers case went from restraining order to SC judgment in two weeks.
Even if the courts would have taken forever then why are we begging senators to allow witnesses to be called? If you feel its useless for house to subpoena for witnesses then why would it not be useless for the senate? When then try to get so-called moderates like Collins to vote for it?
This would have been a no-brainer in the house where the needed votes are there.
If I were a chief prosecutor I'd never hire you to prosecute. To rush a grand jury or trial and omit discovery or possible new evidence because there may be an issue of law and we don't want to wait for court rulings?
The house screwed up and they know it. They are now begging the senate to do what they easily could themselves have done.
What did they gain by rushing?
I don't know if you've noticed, but the courts are slow walking everything having to do with Congress and Trump. Clearly they can act quickly, and should act quickly. Just as clearly, they're not.
Saying the House could have gotten witnesses easily is just denying reality.
Yes, trying to call witnesses in the Senate might be held up in the courts too. I have no answer for that. But that has nothing to do with what the House did.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Is there anything on record where Trump actually invites Zelensky to the WH? Or is it only Trump saying that he would "like" to invite him?