The Trial Thread
Klinker said:
That said, if Joe Biden appearing on the witness stand is the price we have to pay to get John Bolton up there well, then, I think Joe Biden needs to ask not what his country can do for him but rather what he can do for his country. If they want to hear from Hunter, then they should have to put up Pompeo or Mulvaney as well.
If they want to call either of the Bidens the GOP can do it without any trade. They only need 51 votes and there are 53 Republicans. And if Bolton cares about sharing the truth, he could go on any news show and be interviewed and perhaps share just enough to be provocative.
I still hold out hope that 4 Republicans will call for witnesses and documents and let the chips fall where they may.
If Joe Biden did anything wrong, let it come out, if he didn't but is unfortunate enough to have a son who was unscrupulous, I wouldn't hold that against him.
I think this will taint the GOP if they don't call witnesses but they have painted themselves into a corner.
Only a craven toadie for Trump could issue a statement like this:
Remember when the GOP was "outraged" over Obama's exercise of Presidential authority? When they agree with excuses like Lamar's, you know what really bothered them.
Boo hoo. Blame it all on the Republicans.
The Democrats, that have the house, have the votes yet they passed on the opportunity to do a real investigation. It was rush, rush, rush.
BG9 said:
Boo hoo. Blame it all on the Republicans.
The Democrats, that have the house, have the votes yet they passed on the opportunity to do a real investigation. It was rush, rush, rush.
Why are you buying into this narrative? SCOTUS is hearing the Congressional subpoena case in March and likely won't rule until late June.
nohero said:
Only a craven toadie for Trump could issue a statement like this:
Remember when the GOP was "outraged" over Obama's exercise of Presidential authority? When they agree with excuses like Lamar's, you know what really bothered them.
So, is it a different standard during a second term? Would a President who is no longer subject to election be limited in his/her actions because there could be no argument that reelection is in the national interest?
nohero said:
And how is that relevant?
If I were being paid $1M for my service, as a consultant, to a foreign government, and I was personally near bankruptcy, and my father was Vice President and currently running for the office of POTUS, my understanding would be hired that I was hired as an “influencer” for that foreign country.
Paraphrasing the insurance adjuster in the commercial: “I have been around a long time, and I know a thing or two.”
BG9 said:
Boo hoo. Blame it all on the Republicans.
The Democrats, that have the house, have the votes yet they passed on the opportunity to do a real investigation. It was rush, rush, rush.
Alexander agrees that it's all true, Trump did it, but it's not enough to remove him.
More facts from an investigation wouldn't matter.
mtierney said:
If I were being paid $1M for my service, as a consultant, to a foreign government, and I was personally near bankruptcy, and my father was Vice President and currently running for the office of POTUS, my understanding would be hired that I was hired as an “influencer” for that foreign country.
Paraphrasing the insurance adjuster in the commercial: “I have been around a long time, and I know a thing or two.”
If you "know a thing or two", then how is it relevant to the question of whether to remove Trump from office?
Steve said:
BG9 said:
Boo hoo. Blame it all on the Republicans.
The Democrats, that have the house, have the votes yet they passed on the opportunity to do a real investigation. It was rush, rush, rush.
Why are you buying into this narrative? SCOTUS is hearing the Congressional subpoena case in March and likely won't rule until late June.
We'll there is no rush there since subpoenas, as far as the impeachment, goes are moot. Do not assume they would have waited until June especially if waiting would hold up an active impeachment.
I do know an attorney who practices before the SC who also think subpoenas should have been issued. He has a nice framed certificate in his that says he's admitted to practice before the SC. Do you have one of those? I'm saying, who do I listen to, you another MOL poster, or someone who has actually gone before the SC?
Anyway, the House had the opportunity but now it seems there isn't.
As for Collins, the so-called moderate. Does anyone really believe she would have voted to allow witnesses if the Republicans needed her vote to deny? Her vote is not needed so as usual she can posture moderate credentials. There is nothing moderate about her or of any other Republican senator.
If nothing else, McConnell's senate worked hard on getting Trump's judicial nominees approved. A factory where approving Trump's nominees is prioritized, often in batches of three. Their redoing of the federal courts into the right wing wet dream. A generational future brought to us by Trump, McConnell and all Republican senators.
mtierney said:
nohero said:
And how is that relevant?
If I were being paid $1M for my service, as a consultant, to a foreign government, and I was personally near bankruptcy, and my father was Vice President and currently running for the office of POTUS, my understanding would be hired that I was hired as an “influencer” for that foreign country.
Paraphrasing the insurance adjuster in the commercial: “I have been around a long time, and I know a thing or two.”
Then firstly you should know that Burisma is not the Ukrainian government, it's a privately owned gas company.
ridski said:
Then firstly you should know that Burisma is not the Ukrainian government, it's a privately owned gas company.
Thing No. 3.
ridski said:
Then firstly you should know that Burisma is not the Ukrainian government, it's a privately owned gas company.
I knew that and I didn’t say it was. But the company and country are closely linked.
mtierney said:
ridski said:
Then firstly you should know that Burisma is not the Ukrainian government, it's a privately owned gas company.
I knew that and I didn’t say it was. But the company and country are closely linked.
You said Hunter was consulting for the Ukranian government. That's not even close to correct.
Also, where did you get the story that Hunter was near bankruptcy? (rhetorical question. I know where.) That appears to be bogus too.
@BG9 I’m eligible for admission to the Supreme Court but don’t feel the need to waste my money on the certificate.
jamie said:
Murkowski is a "no" on witnesses.
Probably sinks it then.
nohero said:
Steve said:
@BG9 I’m eligible for admission to the Supreme Court but don’t feel the need to waste my money on the certificate.
Oh, c'mon. $200 isn't going to bankrupt you, is it?
And all of the certificates of good standing, the travel time, hotel and meals, etc. my clients don’t look at my walls to get a sense of my skills and abilities, they have a history to consider.
well now that it appears to be over-will any democrats actually vote for Trump/acquittal etc?
Good question - Since it's all purely political, probably not
Democrats approved two articles of impeachment that failed to identify a crime. Senators are instead asked to render verdicts on a vague “abuse of power” claim and on a “obstruction of Congress” charge that is the result of the House’s own decision not to litigate its demand for testimony. Those articles were passed by a partisan vote with no serious expectation of conviction, simply to make a statement: “He is impeached forever,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this month.
lord_pabulum said:
Those articles were passed by a partisan vote
People of your ilk repeat this as if it is a damning criticism of the Democrats but, in reality, all it shows is that not a single Republican had the testicular fortitude to stand up for our country.
The GOP has, with each vote in this process, cemented its place in history as the Party of Treason. A grand irony, given the party got its start.
lord_pabulum said:
Good question - Since it's all purely political, probably not
Democrats approved two articles of impeachment that failed to identify a crime. Senators are instead asked to render verdicts on a vague “abuse of power” claim and on a “obstruction of Congress” charge that is the result of the House’s own decision not to litigate its demand for testimony. Those articles were passed by a partisan vote with no serious expectation of conviction, simply to make a statement: “He is impeached forever,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this month.
what does "purely political" mean? is it a bad thing?
These are politicians, practicing politics. What else would it be?
ETA: or to put it differently - do you think Mitch McConnell is not practicing politics here?
Klinker: Treason?
Drummerboy: Exactly. In theory the impeachment process is used when a president does something wrong not because he may win re-election. By any standard going to war with Iraq based on invisible WMDs and no exit plan is more of 'crime' than anything Trump has done.
I repeat...Where is Nadler ?????
Never mind...turns out he needed to be home with his wife with cancer. Totally legit !
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I repeat...Where is Nadler ?????
Never mind...turns out he needed to be home with his wife with cancer. Totally legit !
Apparently his wife is in pretty bad shape.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Senate: Hunter, were you in the room or on the phone call when President Trump asked President Zelensky to announce a pretend investigation into you and/or your father, or one of the companies on which you served on the board of directors?
HB: No.
Senate: Obviously Hunter Biden had nothing to do with the illegal actions of the President. No further questions.