Jump to content

The Senate Impeachment Trial of DJT


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If the facts and law were on DJTs side, we would see a trial, which is a thing where one side presents evidence (documents and witnesses) and the other side cross examines them, and then they switch.  If they choose not to have a trial, and if Trump refuses to testify, it only means one thing to the majority of americans. 

Just like the house investigation went down huh!

As stated above, the vast majority could give a shit about this whole thing. Oh it's Americans BTW...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh well, the USA once again chooses to further diminish it's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.  So be it.

I don't know where to start.  People are dying each day because Trump fucked up.  He refused to face the reality of Covid.  Worst President ever, full stop.  I know I will never spend a nickel at any

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Ah, we should be perfectly OK with running roughshod when the Dems "have the cards" but not when the Reps "have the cards". Ok, yeah, sure... 

And now you want witnesses? Short answer, No. 

I agree that the Dem's should be going to court to enforce the subpoenas. It's important to get that resolved, although it won't happen in any reasonable amount of time. So it won't be directly applicable to this case. However, future administrations need to know that they can't just stonewall when Congress starts asking questions. The entire point of Congress is to be an equal branch of government, and to hold the Executive accountable for actions. So in that sense, yes, the House fucked it up.

So yah, get that one resolved. In the meantime, where this case is now, why don't you want the jurors to hear testimony from witnesses who have direct knowledge of the incident in question? Wouldn't that be the prudent thing for the Senate to do? Don't you think jurors should have the most information possible? And if not, why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

The administration's claims of privilege are still operative now, months later. This could have been resolved by now if the house had acted.

I doubt they would be resolved by now. I would expect they would be held up for several years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I agree that the Dem's should be going to court to enforce the subpoenas. It's important to get that resolved, although it won't happen in any reasonable amount of time. So it won't be directly applicable to this case.

That there is the problem. The proper procedure was to hard , was to slow,  was "We are Congress, there for we are God" . That attitude worked once when they had both houses amd a health care idea. The got fucked in the polls after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nice! said:

 

So yah, get that one resolved. In the meantime, where this case is now, why don't you want the jurors to hear testimony from witnesses who have direct knowledge of the incident in question? Wouldn't that be the prudent thing for the Senate to do? Don't you think jurors should have the most information possible? And if not, why not?

That was the job of Congress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

That there is the problem. The proper procedure was to hard , was to slow,  was "We are Congress, there for we are God" . That attitude worked once when they had both houses amd a health care idea. The got fucked in the polls after that.

We can disagree on why the House chose that route will maintaining our agreement that they should have gone to court with the subpoenas. 

That said, my original question stands. Regardless of House and Senate procedures, regardless of how they got to this position and why certain strategies were chosen, why wouldn't everybody want the jurors in this case to have the most information possible and hear from the witnesses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If the facts and law were on DJTs side, we would see a trial, which is a thing where one side presents evidence (documents and witnesses) and the other side cross examines them, and then they switch.  If they choose not to have a trial, and if Trump refuses to testify, it only means one thing to the majority of americans. 

This is kind of a silly thing for a lawyer to say.  Any defense lawyer would prefer winning on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment vs. going to trial.  

If you were being charged with a false murder charge, would you prefer to have the case dismissed or go to trial?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:

I agree that the Dem's should be going to court to enforce the subpoenas. It's important to get that resolved, although it won't happen in any reasonable amount of time. So it won't be directly applicable to this case. However, future administrations need to know that they can't just stonewall when Congress starts asking questions. The entire point of Congress is to be an equal branch of government, and to hold the Executive accountable for actions. So in that sense, yes, the House fucked it up.

So yah, get that one resolved. In the meantime, where this case is now, why don't you want the jurors to hear testimony from witnesses who have direct knowledge of the incident in question? Wouldn't that be the prudent thing for the Senate to do? Don't you think jurors should have the most information possible? And if not, why not?

Alright! some common ground. 

Reasonable amount of time? Where's the rush when the duly elected President is/has been impeached? Particularly on a 100% partisan vote with no direct witnesses in a horribly weak case. It's a joke that it passed. Schiff could have just said Orange man bad and held the vote. It would have ended up the same way. 

So "where this case is now"? Trump should be given every right under the law to defend himself just as President Clinton had. If this is about the truth and not politics then the time it takes is irrelevant. whether or not we have witnesses or not, I fully expect (as in the Clinton case) that Trump will be acquitted along much the same reasons for Clinton's acquittal. Yeah he did it, it's just not enough to remove the President.

Jurors in any trial never get all the information, they get what is required by law that is not tainted in any way. This case is no different. It's why they call it hearsay... However, if the Senate votes to have witnesses you won't find me hanging off a long dock with a short rope.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, warbird said:

It is a fact that the house majority does not like Trump. It is also a fact that many "witnesses" testified speculation, imagination, and supposition. 

Then we should hear from somebody who was in The Room Where It Happened, no?

 

https://www.amazon.com/Room-Where-Happened-White-Memoir/dp/1982148039

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean said:

Then we should hear from somebody who was in The Room Where It Happened, no?

 

https://www.amazon.com/Room-Where-Happened-White-Memoir/dp/1982148039

Are you suggesting that Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi  and the House of Representatives  of the United States of America charged the President of the United States of crimes for which they had no evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

Are you suggesting that Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi  and the House of Representatives  of the United States of America charged the President of the United States of crimes for which they had no evidence?

Not a fan of playing gotcha! but that's priceless.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

Wild goose chase or not, you seem to think requiring the congress to go through the courts to get the documents was perfectly justifiable in that case but not in this. You know, "justice delayed" and all that... 

The Obama administration had already turned over 10s of thousands of pages of documents and Holder had testified 11 times before congress.  Obama drew the line about a specific conversation where he claimed executive privilege.  Trump has never even claimed executive privilege on anything.  He has claimed Absolute Immunity for the entire executive branch.  Not a single Document, not a single witness.  Never done before.  This is Banana Republic behavior.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Alright! some common ground. 

Reasonable amount of time? Where's the rush when the duly elected President is/has been impeached? Particularly on a 100% partisan vote with no direct witnesses in a horribly weak case. It's a joke that it passed. Schiff could have just said Orange man bad and held the vote. It would have ended up the same way. 

So "where this case is now"? Trump should be given every right under the law to defend himself just as President Clinton had. If this is about the truth and not politics then the time it takes is irrelevant. whether or not we have witnesses or not, I fully expect (as in the Clinton case) that Trump will be acquitted along much the same reasons for Clinton's acquittal. Yeah he did it, it's just not enough to remove the President.

Jurors in any trial never get all the information, they get what is required by law that is not tainted in any way. This case is no different. It's why they call it hearsay... However, if the Senate votes to have witnesses you won't find me hanging off a long dock with a short rope.   

There is a valid reason for a rush. If the IMPOTUS did what he is accused of, he has severely undermined the national security of the United States (which is why Bolton is so pissed). To ensure he doesn't do it again, especially as that type of activity could undermine the coming election, the impeachment needed to proceed quickly. I understand that reasoning, even if I only partially agree with it.

Agree that Trump should be given every right to defend himself. Clearly, the process is about truth AND politics, but for those of us watching from the sidelines, it should be just about truth. Most of us can see the politics and we should put that aside. I also agree that Trump will be acquitted for the same reason Clinton was. But to me the comparison should stop there. What Clinton did (lying under oath about a blow job) is not nearly as egregious as what Trump is accused of.

Just because jurors historically never get all the info, doesn't mean that *these* jurors should restrict themselves. We have a unique scenario here where the jurors get to vote on whether or not they get more information. A non-partisan jury acting in good faith should always want more relevant information. That they want to remain in the dark speaks to their partisanship, and their concern that further information will undermine their political position. Why else would they not want it? What other possible reason could there be?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jacksparrow said:

The Obama administration had already turned over 10s of thousands of pages of documents and Holder had testified 11 times before congress.  Obama drew the line about a specific conversation where he claimed executive privilege.  Trump has never even claimed executive privilege on anything.  He has claimed Absolute Immunity for the entire executive branch.  Not a single Document, not a single witness.  Never done before.  This is Banana Republic behavior.

Seems the WH subpoenas were defective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nice! said:

There is a valid reason for a rush. If the IMPOTUS did what he is accused of, he has severely undermined the national security of the United States (which is why Bolton is so pissed). To ensure he doesn't do it again, especially as that type of activity could undermine the coming election, 

 

Bolton is a policymaker?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nice! said:

There is a valid reason for a rush. If the IMPOTUS did what he is accused of, he has severely undermined the national security of the United States (which is why Bolton is so pissed). To ensure he doesn't do it again, especially as that type of activity could undermine the coming election, the impeachment needed to proceed quickly. I understand that reasoning, even if I only partially agree with it.

Agree that Trump should be given every right to defend himself. Clearly, the process is about truth AND politics, but for those of us watching from the sidelines, it should be just about truth. Most of us can see the politics and we should put that aside. I also agree that Trump will be acquitted for the same reason Clinton was. But to me the comparison should stop there. What Clinton did (lying under oath about a blow job) is not nearly as egregious as what Trump is accused of.

Just because jurors historically never get all the info, doesn't mean that *these* jurors should restrict themselves. We have a unique scenario here where the jurors get to vote on whether or not they get more information. A non-partisan jury acting in good faith should always want more relevant information. That they want to remain in the dark speaks to their partisanship, and their concern that further information will undermine their political position. Why else would they not want it? What other possible reason could there be?

 

 It's all kind of moot now anyway. It appears we will have witnesses if Olsen is to be believed on a different thread.   Let's get on with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Movable Ballast said:

 It's all kind of moot now anyway. It appears we will have witnesses if Olsen is to be believed on a different thread.   Let's get on with it. 

I'll believe that when it happens. I wonder if the current Mitt Romney show is just a ploy being acted out, with Moscow Mitch pulling the strings, to undermine the Dems. I have no evidence on this, just pure speculation. But we'll find out soon enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has an IMPOTUS ever addressed Congress while the trial in the Senate was underway?

IMPOTUS Clinton looks to have given 2 SOTUs after impeachment, but not during the trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, warbird said:

Are the witnesses going to testify something to the Senate that they didnt already testify to the Congrees?

Bolton didn't testify to Congress. Nor did Mulvaney, etc etc.

Let Trump play the obstruction game with the Senate, and see where that leads us. Or let the witnesses speak.

Otherwise it's a cover-up, not a hearing.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, warbird said:

Are you suggesting that Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi  and the House of Representatives  of the United States of America charged the President of the United States of crimes for which they had no evidence?

Not at all. Merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your arguments. That you can't detect a slight tongue in cheek tone is not my problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I'll believe that when it happens. I wonder if the current Mitt Romney show is just a ploy being acted out, with Moscow Mitch pulling the strings, to undermine the Dems. I have no evidence on this, just pure speculation. But we'll find out soon enough.

It could very well be, but I hope not. One things for sure pretty much all the chicanery like what you have described has blown up in the respective parties face (Dem and Rep). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

It could very well be, but I hope not. One things for sure pretty much all the chicanery like what you have described has blown up in the respective parties face (Dem and Rep). 

 

Like what? Bring out all those old guys from the Clinton impeachment who have now "evolved" their views? Redefine the meanings of the Constitution to the point that even if Trump does shoot the guy on 5th Avenue it's ok because he deserved it so not a crime?

When the Constitution was written the wordage was based on English law and "high crimes and misdemeanors" has no bearing on current definitions. Under the current arguments there is nothing a POTUS could do that warrants removal.

Another example of the GOP winning battles and losing the war. It never ends.

3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Don't know how much more real one can be. Most of the time working/cheating the system too much will blow up in your face. How would you think otherwise? 

It's been great for Trump his entire life. Why change now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nice! said:
20 minutes ago, warbird said:

Trump taking policy in a direction that Bolton disagreed with .....

Well duh. He was National Security Advisor is the War Walrus.

FIFY

Not sure which Bolton hates worse, Democrats or peace

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Bolton wasn't asked, Mulvaney was blocked by Trump

- DSK

When was Bolton blocked?

18 minutes ago, warbird said:

Defective subpeona that Schiff didn't seem to want to rectify.

This resolution, formally authorizing the impeachment inquiry, was approved by the House on October 31, 2019, by a vote of 232 to 196. In November 2019, the House Intelligence Committee held a number of public hearings in which witnesses testified publicly. On November 13, Taylor and Kent testified publicly.
Proponents: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Adam Schiff, C...
Outcome: Impeached by the House of Representatives; trial in the Senate began on ...
 
Were White House personnel subpoenaed before the above date 31 Oct 2019?
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Bolton wasn't asked, Mulvaney was blocked by Trump

- DSK

 

23 minutes ago, warbird said:

Defective subpeona that Schiff didn't seem to want to rectify.

 

6 minutes ago, warbird said:

When was Bolton blocked?

This resolution, formally authorizing the impeachment inquiry, was approved by the House on October 31, 2019, by a vote of 232 to 196. In November 2019, the House Intelligence Committee held a number of public hearings in which witnesses testified publicly. On November 13, Taylor and Kent testified publicly.
Proponents: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Adam Schiff, C...
Outcome: Impeached by the House of Representatives; trial in the Senate began on ...
 
Were White House personnel subpoenaed before the above date 31 Oct 2019?

Because no one wants to answer....

https://time.com/5703748/trump-impeachment-subpoenas/

The NYT ran a story about WH staff not answering subpoenas on 18 Oct 2019. That is a week before tje House voted on an Impeachment inquiry.  Subpoenas from Adam Schiff dont mean schitt , there was not an Impeachment Inquiry happening when the WH  essentially told Schiff to fuck off....

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, warbird said:

 

 

Because no one wants to answer....

https://time.com/5703748/trump-impeachment-subpoenas/

The NYT ran a story about WH staff not answering subpoenas on 18 Oct 2019. That is a week before tje House voted on an Impeachment inquiry.  Subpoenas from Adam Schiff dont mean schitt , there was not an Impeachment Inquiry happening when the WH  essentially told Schiff to fuck off....

This doesn't answer the question of why you object to Bolton, or anyone else, testifying before the Senate if it provides either condemning, or exculpatory evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

This doesn't answer the question of why you object to Bolton, or anyone else, testifying before the Senate if it provides either condemning, or exculpatory evidence.

The constitution assigns the duty of impeachment to the house. The duty of the Senate is to hear the evidence the House assembled to arrive at an impeachment  charge. The Senate has heard that evidence. It is not the Charter of the senate to seek new evidence, subpoena new witnesses, hear testimony from 2, 4, 17 months latwr. Should this process go till June? August? March 2021? January 2022?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

The constitution assigns the duty of impeachment to the house. The duty of the Senate is to hear the evidence the House assembled to arrive at an impeachment  charge. The Senate has heard that evidence. It is not the Charter of the senate to seek new evidence, subpoena new witnesses, hear testimony from 2, 4, 17 months latwr. Should this process go till June? August? March 2021? January 2022?

Have another vodka and tonic. It'll smooth out the jitters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Wonder if there have been any Senate impeachment trials without witnesses. Over to you warbird.

Why does that matter? Has there ever been a Senate with out a redhead? Has there ever been a Congress without a drunk?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, warbird said:

Why does that matter? Has there ever been a Senate with out a redhead? Has there ever been a Congress without a drunk?

If you were a person on trial, would you rather have a red head, a drunk, or a viable witness as your defense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A drunk Redhead is not a viable witness, BTW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

If you were a person on trial, would you rather have a red head, a drunk, or a viable witness as your defense?

I would rather face charges assembled by the current US House of Representatives.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a liberal,  I would be seething with rage. I spent my lifeblood over 6 years hoping against hope to gain a majority on the House or Senate. I finally acheive that goal, then the opportunity to impeach the sitting Pres of the opposite party presents itself.  Wow. Then my party presents a"grade school book report" quality document labeled "Articles of Impeachment ".

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, benwynn said:
On 1/27/2020 at 8:13 PM, The Joker said:

What strange times we live in when the left is singing the praises of one of the greatest all time republican hawks, John Bolton while tearing down a liberal Democratic icon like Alan Dershowitz. 

Did you also find it strange times we live in when the right is disparaging one of the greatest all time Republican Hawks, John Bolton while singing the praises of liberal democratic icon Alan Dershowitz? 

I didn't think so.

Dershowitz was always an asshole. The kind of lawyer who gives lawyers a bad name.

Bolton is more nutcase than asshole - he's probably more dangerous than Dershowitz but neither of them add value to existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I'm skipping a lot of this thread, but what really stands out is the stupidity of the Turnip supporters.

Carry on.

You say that like it's a discovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of our President's most ardent defenders allege the Impeachment is an attempt to subvert the "will of the people" as expressed in the 2016 election. Mind you, President Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. But, that is how the Electoral College works.

Back to the "will of the people" - shouldn't those same defenders be insisting there be witnesses at the Senate trial? I mean, 75% of the people polled support just that.

'75% OF AMERICANS' TRENDS AFTER POLL SHOWS MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT TO HEAR WITNESSES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Left Shift said:

That's just good salesmanship:  Tell 'm what you're going to tell them.  Tell them what you want to tell them.  Tell the what you told them.

Unlike the Republicans who have spent two days denying, spinning or recanting things they said under oath previously.  Now that's deadly serious stuff.

That is exactly what the Army taught us in the Faculty Development course that I had to attend before I started teaching at FT Sam Houston, TX.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an aside...

I watch maybe an hour of cable news a day, except when there's something newsworthy.  Yesterday I was looking for reports on the 7.7 earthquake off the coast of Jamaica.  It was all impeachment all the time, much of it already hashed over numerous times.

We are a politics obsessed nation.

So Bolton is going to testify..... :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:
8 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Those witness who declined to speak to the house certainly may.

Seems the "witnesses " were not invited properly. See post 1443.

That post is no more coherent or accurate than the Trump defense team's gnat-straining and quibbling.

You aren't a lawyer. Adam Schiff is. I'll trust his judgement on the legality of how he did things over yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Some of our President's most ardent defenders allege the Impeachment is an attempt to subvert the "will of the people" as expressed in the 2016 election. Mind you, President Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. But, that is how the Electoral College works.

Back to the "will of the people" - shouldn't those same defenders be insisting there be witnesses at the Senate trial? I mean, 75% of the people polled support just that.

'75% OF AMERICANS' TRENDS AFTER POLL SHOWS MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT TO HEAR WITNESSES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

Bring it then...It does seem backwards to impeach first and investigate at trial. But this is a clown show anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Hearts and minds? Nobody gives a shit, nobody cares. It's only us idiots raging on the internet that care and we are not the hearts and minds you speak of. We are the small minority less than a few percent on one side or the other that give two fucks about this...  

From your side Sure.  50+%  of this country want to see witnesses and want the orange one ousted and 75% of everyone wants witnesses according to one of the most popular, oldest and well grounded polls.  Why don't you??   

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, warbird said:

The American people saw a clown show,  repeated and repeated. I don't think the Senate has an optics problem here.

Well you are finally right about something birdy...  The American people have indeed seen a clown show..  since 2016, in the oval...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, warbird said:

If I were a liberal,  I would be seething with rage. I spent my lifeblood over 6 years hoping against hope to gain a majority on the House or Senate. I finally acheive that goal, then the opportunity to impeach the sitting Pres of the opposite party presents itself.  Wow. Then my party presents a"grade school book report" quality document labeled "Articles of Impeachment ".

You are an angry angry man.  Again, I said it before, The dem's are not as angry at their enemies as the repubs think they are.  The anger here is not equal on both sides.    No one I am in contact with has spent their lifeblood over the last 6 yrs hoping for anything let alone for a damn election.  Hoping, and wishing, but you will  find that most of us are normal citizens that just want the country to do right by them.  Your side, not so much with the guns, warmongering, natziism, and your embracing of the far right and evangelicals to further your iron grip on everything wrong in this country.  From immigration, to healthcare, to foreign policy..  How does it feel to be on the wrong side of every single decision made since the election??  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

Just an aside...

I watch maybe an hour of cable news a day, except when there's something newsworthy.  Yesterday I was looking for reports on the 7.7 earthquake off the coast of Jamaica.  It was all impeachment all the time, much of it already hashed over numerous times.

We are a politics obsessed nation.

So Bolton is going to testify..... :ph34r:

In the 2012 election, one of the comments Trump made that was actually intelligent was that Romney did poorly at getting himself on the news, relying on paid ads... he said (words to the effect of) "They should pay -you- to be on TV, if you're paying them you're wasting money and doing it wrong." And this was the principle he campaigned on, be outrageous and always be front and center in the news.

I don't know why the news play his game for him, but they do. 4 years later he still sucks all the oxygen out of the room, it's like there's no other news. it must be very gratifying for the narcissist. I think Trump is deeply unhappy with the demands of being President but I think he's figured out how to dodge a lot of them and he's very happy being the center of attention.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

There was an NPR story on this very thing about a year or so ago talking about why the press couldn't help themselves, even though they KNEW they were being played by SS to get coverage.  The panel of journalists all lamented at how unfair it is and that the press were the ones who essentially colluded to get him first the Nomination and then the WH.  IIRC, they were then all asked at the end if it would change given that they are aware of the issue and 100% of them said no, the rating$ are too good and no one is going to take a chance on missing out on a good outrageous story.  

And the American public laps it up.  Including the left.  They (YOU) hang on his every word & read his every tweet just so they can get their outrage fix on for the day.  I swear, if we literally all just ignored him for a day or a week - he would probably die of a coronary.

I would never wish a coronary or any other ill on you.  

But if we all ignore you for a day or a week, will you shut up and go away?  

Please!

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I agree with shaggs.

Im not angry, just disappointed by Republicans. Frankly, I think a bunch of Republicans are disappointed with their party, too. The good ones have left and been replaced by yes men. 

Do you normally call people you're "disappointed" with traitors?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Bring it then...It does seem backwards to impeach first and investigate at trial. But this is a clown show anyway.

There is no historical precedent of an impeachment trial without witness testimony. 
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

There is no historical precedent of an impeachment trial without witness testimony. 
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/

That may be, but normally the investigation precedes the indictment and trial. Witnesses are introduced during trial to support or refute the indictment. I guess it's different for clown shows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

That may be, but normally the investigation precedes the indictment and trial. Witnesses are introduced during trial to support or refute the indictment. I guess it's different for clown shows.

No, it’s different with impeachment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

That may be, but normally the investigation precedes the indictment and trial. Witnesses are introduced during trial to support or refute the indictment. I guess it's different for clown shows.

Don’t you mean a ‘Dog’ and pony show?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:
20 minutes ago, Dog said:

That may be, but normally the investigation precedes the indictment and trial. Witnesses are introduced during trial to support or refute the indictment. I guess it's different for clown shows.

No, it’s different with impeachment.

The real problem here is that there is NOTHING that Dog and his elk won't accept from Trump. Defying Congress? Meh. Murder foreign leaders, every President does it. Use of office for personal profit, what's your beef with that? Undermining democracy, hell that's Republican policy, innit? etc etc etc.

There is NO grounds for impeachment that they would accept. Trump could nuke Dog's mother's house and he'd say "Fine, I'm glad you did that."

So from their point of view, of course the process is all wrong. There shouldn't even BE a process, if they truly got their way. And odds are, after this, there won't be.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

I agree with shaggs.

Im not angry, just disappointed by Republicans. Frankly, I think a bunch of Republicans are disappointed with their party, too. The good ones have left and been replaced by yes men. 

I left The Party just about the time they started treating people across the aisle as their enemy instead of their countrymen with whom they had philosophical differences. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The real problem here is that there is NOTHING that Dog and his elk won't accept from Trump. Defying Congress? Meh. Murder foreign leaders, every President does it. Use of office for personal profit, what's your beef with that? Undermining democracy, hell that's Republican policy, innit? etc etc etc.

There is NO grounds for impeachment that they would accept. Trump could nuke Dog's mother's house and he'd say "Fine, I'm glad you did that."

So from their point of view, of course the process is all wrong. There shouldn't even BE a process, if they truly got their way. And odds are, after this, there won't be.

- DSK

I will concede that an impeachment effort that precedes the alleged impeachable event is problematic for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

That post is no more coherent or accurate than the Trump defense team's gnat-straining and quibbling.

You aren't a lawyer. Adam Schiff is. I'll trust his judgement on the legality of how he did things over yours.

You are a sheep. The subpoenas issued to the WH were not legal WRT impeachment. When one WH staffer appealed SCOTUS, Schiff quietly withdrew the subpoena.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

I will concede that an impeachment effort that precedes the alleged impeachable event is problematic for me.

Violating the Oath of Office would be perjury, wouldn't it? That occurred on Day 1. It was not included in any of the proposed Articles of Impeachment, nor were the emoluments violations (which also began on Day 1)  included in the ones currently in the Senate.

What is it that you like so much about Trump? The cheating on his taxes, the cheating on his wives, or the hair?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

I agree with shaggs.

Im not angry, just disappointed by Republicans. Frankly, I think a bunch of Republicans are disappointed with their party, too. The good ones have left and been replaced by yes men. 


“I said whatever you do, don’t hire a ‘yes man,’ someone who won’t tell you the truth — don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached”

- John Kelly

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Violating the Oath of Office would be perjury, wouldn't it? That occurred on Day 1. It was not included in any of the proposed Articles of Impeachment, nor were the emoluments violations (which also began on Day 1)  included in the ones currently in the Senate.

What is it that you like so much about Trump? The cheating on his taxes, the cheating on his wives, or the hair?

- DSK

No, violations of the oath of office are not necessarily perjury and hypothetical offenses he has not charged with are moot.

It's not so much that I like Trump, as a person I think he's an ass. My problem is that the Democratic party is corrupt.

Link to post
Share on other sites