Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-17-2020, 04:59 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,914
Wait, so we're trying to make the claim that Americans being involved in an American election is interfering in an American election?

You probably just shouldn't vote. You know, so you don't interfere.

That opinion piece is a joke.
  #52  
Old 01-17-2020, 05:02 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Hitler?
no, but this guy reminds me of Hitler
  #53  
Old 01-17-2020, 05:09 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Ken Starr, who was fired from Baylor for covering up a rape scandal, and Alan Dershowitz, who spent lots of time with Jeffrey Epstein.
Look, there’s still a few days before the trial starts. These guys can easily be replaced with someone with broader appeal. Like A$AP Rocky, maybe.
  #54  
Old 01-17-2020, 05:23 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
or Judge Judy , but probably not because she endorsed Bloomberg for president.
  #55  
Old 01-17-2020, 05:58 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
You realize, of course, that that ISN'T the reason for recusing themselves?
I realize, of course, the inept "logic" presented as the author's attempt to smear Democratic candidates while ignoring Mitch MConnell's, "I'm not impartial about this at all," and Lindsey Graham's, "I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Maybe we should all consider Sen. Mike Lee's advice, and go from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lee
By its very nature, the Senate’s role in the impeachment process clearly indicates that senators are not passive observers of the trial. The Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to set its own rules. Under the Senate’s long-established impeachment rules, senators decide what evidence should be heard, how it should be presented and what witnesses should (or should not) be called. They can even override the presiding officer, who in the case of a presidential impeachment is the chief justice.

No jury can do that.
  #56  
Old 01-17-2020, 06:47 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Clinton gave a SOTU speech during his trial. He did not mention the trial in the speech.
Taking bets now on "Trump's ability to refrain from mentioning that he's been impeached."*

But my guess is that the trial will still be going on when February 4 rolls around, and that Donald will give the speech from the Oval Office, due to Some Really Important Reason.

He's not going to give Nancy another chance to make a triumphant/snarky meme.






*Not actually taking bets, per board rules.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 01-17-2020 at 06:47 PM.
  #57  
Old 01-17-2020, 07:48 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
no, but this guy reminds me of Hitler
Twitler?
  #58  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:18 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
One article that John Solomon wrote, way back when, was this one:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ate-department

In it, he states that Kilimnik was a US government source (sometimes).

Given that we know that Parnas was in communication with Derek Harvey and John Solomon, it feels reasonable to assume that it was the Aide to Devin Nunes, Derek Harvey, who leaked classified information to the press.

If I was the FBI, I would be talking to Mr. Harvey.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-17-2020 at 10:19 PM.
  #59  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:37 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Play her cards right and she could be press secretary some day.
Since the press secretary doesn't really do anything, why can't there be more than one of them?
  #60  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:20 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,650
Will I miss anything if I continue to avoid TV and video clips of this stuff? Where will the most concise write-ups be found, where I can scroll past the dull bits?
  #61  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:30 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Will I miss anything if I continue to avoid TV and video clips of this stuff? Where will the most concise write-ups be found, where I can scroll past the dull bits?
If a transcript isn't released, I'd check Lawfare for a "no bull" edition.
  #62  
Old 01-18-2020, 05:25 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
If a transcript isn't released, I'd check Lawfare for a "no bull" edition.
Thank you! It already looks tolerable.

I recall an old-time data consumer saying they didn't read newspapers until ten years after publication, so they'd have perspective on what was REALLY important. How long should I wait on Senate trial news?
  #63  
Old 01-18-2020, 06:32 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Thank you! It already looks tolerable.

I recall an old-time data consumer saying they didn't read newspapers until ten years after publication, so they'd have perspective on what was REALLY important. How long should I wait on Senate trial news?
The 12th of never?
  #64  
Old 01-18-2020, 06:43 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Thank you! It already looks tolerable.

I recall an old-time data consumer saying they didn't read newspapers until ten years after publication, so they'd have perspective on what was REALLY important. How long should I wait on Senate trial news?
Treat life like ten years have passed.
  #65  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:31 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,446
Next time you hear someone float the notion of "censure"....as in "Sure, mistakes were made, but we mustn't throw out the baby with the bongwater"....restock your popcorn, Hellzapoppin....

Last edited by elucidator; 01-19-2020 at 09:32 AM.
  #66  
Old 01-19-2020, 10:53 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
Usually, I would recommend that people stay on topic and not go ad hominem but, ancillary to the impeachment trial, Dershowitz was asked about his work for Jeffrey Epstein:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...like-sometimes

He implied, in essence, "I didn't like the guy." That is false. He started hanging out with him, if I recall correctly, prior to being employed by him; he had a few social visits and plane flights that are unrelated to his known legal services; he admitted to getting a massage from "an older woman" at Epstein's house; and, despite Dershowitz claiming to have otherwise never been with nor seen any women in Epstein's company, we have flight logs that put Dershowitz with "Tatianna", "Hazel", and "Claire" - and not all on the same flight, I don't believe.

If any news reporter asks any Democrat about anything related to Dershowitz's defense of Trump, it would be amazingly stupid to not point out that the guy is a liar. That he was chummy with Epstein largely comes from his own, earlier, statements. And there's zero to debate about the flight logs about him spending some time with Epstein and some unknown girls.

Hell, if I was Schiff, I'd pre-emptively publish a press release that goes over the facts of the matter, before then also pointing out that Dershowitz's legal arguments are bull and that the Founders didn't want impeachment used to block maladministration not corruption, as Dershowitz is trying to imply.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-19-2020 at 10:56 AM.
  #67  
Old 01-19-2020, 10:59 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Usually, I would recommend that people stay on topic and not go ad hominem but, ancillary to the impeachment trial, Dershowitz was asked about his work for Jeffrey Epstein:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...like-sometimes

He implied, in essence, "I didn't like the guy." That is false. He started hanging out with him, if I recall correctly, prior to being employed by him; he had a few social visits and plane flights that are unrelated to his known legal services; he admitted to getting a massage from "an older woman" at Epstein's house; and, despite Dershowitz claiming to have otherwise never been with nor seen any women in Epstein's company, we have flight logs that put Dershowitz with "Tatianna", "Hazel", and "Claire" - and not all on the same flight, I don't believe.

If any news reporter asks any Democrat about anything related to Dershowitz's defense of Trump, it would be amazingly stupid to not point out that the guy is a liar. That he was chummy with Epstein largely comes from his own, earlier, statements. And there's zero to debate about the flight logs about him spending some time with Epstein and some unknown girls.

Hell, if I was Schiff, I'd pre-emptively publish a press release that goes over the facts of the matter, before then also pointing out that Dershowitz's legal arguments are bull and that the Founders didn't want impeachment used to block maladministration not corruption, as Dershowitz is trying to imply.
Quote:
Several of Epstein's victims have accused Dershowitz of having sex with them when they were minors. He has denied the allegations, claiming to have a "perfect sex life."
His sex life is "perfect," that phone call was "perfect".... Somehow I doubt it.
  #68  
Old 01-20-2020, 01:37 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,211
Not unexpected: "Yeah, he did it, but so what?"
Quote:
...The brief [submitted by the president's defense team] does not deny that Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., but argues that the president has the right to conduct relations with other countries as he sees fit and that he had valid reasons to raise those issues with Ukraine to fight corruption.

The lawyers rejected the notion that doing so was an abuse of power, as outlined in the first article of impeachment, calling that a “novel theory” and a “newly invented” offense that would allow Congress to second-guess presidents for legitimate policy decisions.
....
Cite
  #69  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:16 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Not unexpected: "Yeah, he did it, but so what?"
I wonder if we will ever see the President's "valid reasons to raise those issues with Ukraine". I will admit that, if he had valid reasons, he does possess the power to ask Ukraine to investigate a political rival (or their family). He does have a wide latitude when it comes to foreign policy. Although I do not think the President's foreign policy powers trump Congress's power over the purse, the President has not been impeached for impoundment. He was impeached for corrupt abuse of power, and if he had legitimate reasons to do what he did, he should be acquitted on that charge.

But all of this is predicated on the President having valid reasons. Neither the House investigation nor public statements have convinced me that there were valid reasons to ask Ukraine to announce an investigation into either Mr. Biden or the DNC.

~Max
  #70  
Old 01-20-2020, 06:37 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,512

The Defense Case


Read the White House's 117-page defense brief here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Trial-Memorandum-of-President-Donald-J.-Trump.pdf

~Max
  #71  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:16 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Susan Collins, ever the spineless weasel, is hedging her votes before the trial even starts:


The only gravity the craven GOP senators feel is the gravity of cash that Trump will use to either support or deny them their next election.
Collins is hardly worth thinking about. A total waste of a Senate seat.
  #72  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:39 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I'd be amazed if that length is due to substance.

I feel like I should skim through, to give the President his fair shot to provide some form of evidence to demonstrate an interest in fighting corruption. But I feel pretty confident that the page count is to convince people that there's more than hot in air in there.
  #73  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:43 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
I see that Cippolone got to choose the title headings for the chapters....

Jesus fuck, these idiots.

Fortunately, it looks like we can skip to page 80.
  #74  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:11 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,936
So the trial will be held in the middle of the night and they will not look at any evidence?
  #75  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:29 PM
The Tooth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,849
Yep. If you saw this happening in another country you'd think that country's government is broken, wouldn't you? I certainly do.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #76  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:47 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,022
Sounds like this will wrap by Friday. Disgraceful.
  #77  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:01 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I'd be amazed if that length is due to substance.

I feel like I should skim through, to give the President his fair shot to provide some form of evidence to demonstrate an interest in fighting corruption. But I feel pretty confident that the page count is to convince people that there's more than hot in air in there.
I sort of feel obliged to read the briefs for both sides and play judge. But yeah, I would be quite surprised if there's a coherent defense to be made this far in.

~Max
  #78  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:56 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I sort of feel obliged to read the briefs for both sides and play judge. But yeah, I would be quite surprised if there's a coherent defense to be made this far in.

~Max
I only read the section from 80 to 106, as the only portion that seems to produce evidence.

The argument laid out would seem to rest on four legs:

1) The assumption of impropriety rests entirely on Gordon Sondland and his statements of belief of Trump's guilt. But, notably, his "belief" is just that and he could offer no direct statements from the President which clearly ask for anything beyond doing what Zelenskyy had promised to do as part of his party platform. Everyone else's impression of the matter comes from Sondland's statements. That is to say, Sondland has a black soul and read his own dark thoughts onto the reasonable and justified actions of the President.

2) The House witnesses testified at various points that the President brought up and discussed corruption, in speeches and discussions with Ukrainian officials.

3) There is a variety of evidence attesting to the fact that Trump has complained regularly that the US shouldn't be paying for Ukraine and other places, and certainly not if others aren't.

4) Zelenskyy says that he saw no pressure and was aware of no pressure. Various witnesses to the house attest that Ukraine had no idea that money was being held up, and would have asked if they had thought that it was. And, again, no one can produce any statement that - minus the intent to read ill-will into everything Trump says, no matter how benign - says anything other than that Trump wants Zelenskyy to do what he campaigned on.

Overall, not a terrible argument. I wouldn't say that any of the materials hold up to a lot of scrutiny but, just as much the case, the House argument (at current) is as weak as #1 and #4 imply. Neither the House nor White House case stands up to much poking.

Fundamentally, the House needed to prove that the "reading nefarious intent into everything Trump says" viewpoint is both eminently correct and undeniable. They did not do so, even though that was within their subpoena power to accomplish.

Alternately, they needed to take it to court and get their subpoenas pushed through (after two years of wrangling). I agree that this would have been a waste, though they should have gotten the ball rolling. I also suspect that they could have gotten more, if they had been more clever in their witness selection.

They also need(ed) a Benjamin Franklin to send to Ukraine - for those who know their history of the role of France during the Revolution.

I'll point out some issues with the four arguments above but, it should be pointed out, Ukraine is not the only topic in the House Impeachment articles.

The House believes that they should be able to subpoena the White House and receive answer. Presumably, this would be based on the Oversight Power of Congress.

However, there is no actual Oversight Power of Congress. It's an assumed power that we have record of the Framers discussing. We also have a long history of everyone understanding that there is an Oversight Power, with it being employed right from day 1 of the US beginning, 200+ years ago. There are a few Supreme Court cases that mildly affirm the matter, and that should be enough to lock it in, but "textualism" is in favor of the right in recent times. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power of Oversight.

And more worrying than textualism is the matter that, if you took the question to the Supreme Court, ultimately, they know that they have no power to enforce anything. Adherence to the mandates of the Supreme Court require that the people running the other two branches, at the end of the day, don't want to nuke the US Constitution.

Donald Trump, if he understood the US Constitution, would think that it is dumb. As it is, he simply doesn't care about it. If it was between him losing his job or lighting that piece of paper that's "so outdated and naive" on fire, it'd be marshmallow time in an instant. I mean, hell, that's already where we are. That's why this is the other issue in the impeachment list.

So even ignoring textualism, the Supreme Court is going to recognize that they can't rule for Congressional Oversight and have that be a meaningful verdict. It would just be the shot that makes everyone realize that the sky is actually falling. They would, quite likely, simply decide that Congress has to use its levers to force the White House to come to an agreement. Which means that Pelosi would need to slam the door on the budget the way Donnie did for his Wall.

Except, of course, that we're not asking the Supreme Court to decide this matter. Pelosi is asking the Senate to put down a precedent that the White House doesn't have to respond to subpoenas, unless it is politically advantageous to them.

That's why McConnell is trying to skip the trial. He doesn't want to have to answer that question.

But that is the big ticket item for the Senate Republicans.

And so that's what one really needs to look at. How good was the case that the House made?
  #79  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:40 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
To address the White House arguments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
1) The assumption of impropriety rests entirely on Gordon Sondland and his statements of belief of Trump's guilt. But, notably, his "belief" is just that and he could offer no direct statements from the President which clearly ask for anything beyond doing what Zelenskyy had promised to do as part of his party platform. Everyone else's impression of the matter comes from Sondland's statements. That is to say, Sondland has a black soul and read his own dark thoughts onto the reasonable and justified actions of the President.
a) Trump has an easily proven record of hiring black souls, with that being provable by their presence in jail.
b) Trump has records of practicing extortion and fraud, both of which are supportable through legal testimony and court records.
c) This argument relies on a very cherry-picked and questionable set of quotations. I am somewhat doubtful that they would all stand up to a full read-through, with proper context.
d) Lev Parnas

Quote:
2) The House witnesses testified at various points that the President brought up and discussed corruption, in speeches and discussions with Ukrainian officials.
Is there any chance that these mentions were simply given to the President, on pieces of paper, by the State Department and that the President simply said what was on them?

Or, can the White House provide evidence that these concerns about corruption (in general) were the result of some form of communication from the White House - specifically from the President's office - indicating a desire to fight corruption in Ukraine?

Given that the White House did, I believe, provide some materials in their defense - not just cherry-pick quotes from the House witnesses - it would have been reasonable for them to support this argument with a paper trail of some form.

It is also quite easy to demonstrate that the President is pro-corruption, minus occasions where he's reading off a cue card or using the mention as a negotiating tactic.

Quote:
3) There is a variety of evidence attesting to the fact that Trump has complained regularly that the US shouldn't be paying for Ukraine and other places, and certainly not if others aren't.
While I have no question that the assertion, as stated, would bear through all scrutiny - that is indeed the unprompted statements of Trump, complaining about being used - again we would need some form of paper trail.

The White House argues that they had a general policy and review to ensure that money was being spent wisely. However, there's no indication that the hold had anything to do with the review project and strong evidence that the request came direct from the White House, and not from the review.

It provides no explanation for why Ukraine would be singled out for special Presidential notice. And, given the President's connection to Paul Manafort - a man who is in jail for practicing corruption in Ukraine - and the Biden connection, it's fair to say that the President has a large conflict of interest in Ukraine and should not be directly interfering.

Quote:
4) Zelenskyy says that he saw no pressure and was aware of no pressure. Various witnesses to the house attest that Ukraine had no idea that money was being held up, and would have asked if they had thought that it was. And, again, no one can produce any statement that - minus the intent to read ill-will into everything Trump says, no matter how benign - says anything other than that Trump wants Zelenskyy to do what he campaigned on.
1) It's unclear how much we should trust the Ukrainian statements, given that they are dependent on Trump's goodwill.
2) The White House actually argues against itself in pointing out that Zelenskyy was busy shoring up support in Parliament at the time and not paying much attention to anything else.
3) Lev Parnas
4) Again, we have a lot of this argument made through questionable quotations that might not stand up to scrutiny, within the full context.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-21-2020 at 12:42 AM.
  #80  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:49 AM
Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 20,266
Nothing to add to the discussion, but I do want to thank Sage Rat for taking the time to read and summarize the document, and offer his analysis of the issues.

This will help me to understand what will happen in the coming days. Thanks again!
  #81  
Old 01-21-2020, 02:24 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
summarize the document
I read only a small portion.

That said, I'm comfortable to claim from the chapter headers that those remaining parts wouldn't stand Constitutional scrutiny.

This is contentious. What they're trying to argue is not contentious - basically that Congress has no power of oversight, that the President can do anything he wants, that the President isn't being accused of impeachable offenses, and impeachment is unconstitutional - and that's unmitigated nonsense.

Granted, the second one isn't complete complete nonsense, but given the silliness of most of their Constitutional arguments which I have seen to date, I'm going to pan their version on simple style points, sight unseen.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-21-2020 at 02:25 AM.
  #82  
Old 01-21-2020, 02:27 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,588
Oh yes and, further, on the first argument:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/impe...-sondland.html
  #83  
Old 01-21-2020, 05:59 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,446
The estimable Mr. Josh Marshall makes these points over at his pop-stand, Talking Points Memo

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...o-are-on-trial

A worthy read.
  #84  
Old 01-21-2020, 07:41 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
this will be like the OJ trial except shorter and we know the outcome. On second thought we thought we knew the outcome of the OJ trial but we were wrong.
  #85  
Old 01-21-2020, 08:13 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
On the one hand, they are ostensibly the jury, and should not be making up their minds or discussing the case while the trial is in progress.
There's the theory that the Senate is something akin to a trial jury, and there's another theory that the Senate is there to provide a political trial with Senators representing the will of their constituents.

Many Republicans have already publicly declared that they have zero intention of serving as unbiased jurors, that they are acting purely in a political capacity. If that's the case then none of these jury-tainting arguments matter. They should be declaring their intent on TV, we should be feeding back our opinions to them, we should watch the proceedings on TV to be held accountable for what we've asked them to do.

Can't have it both ways. You're either bound by the rules and protections of an impartial juror, or else you owe us full transparency and accountability for whatever political exercise you intend to conduct.
  #86  
Old 01-21-2020, 08:22 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
Not sure why Trump is hiring big name high dollar lawyers. He could choose random lawyers from all across the US and the outcome would be the same. Or random people who are not lawyers
  #87  
Old 01-21-2020, 08:52 AM
What the .... ?!?! is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
this will be like the OJ trial except shorter and we know the outcome. On second thought we thought we knew the outcome of the OJ trial but we were wrong.
The term "jury nullification" comes to mind.
  #88  
Old 01-21-2020, 08:53 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Not sure why Trump is hiring big name high dollar lawyers. He could choose random lawyers from all across the US and the outcome would be the same. Or random people who are not lawyers
Because they need to put on a good show that will allow the Trump Party to have their fig leaf for the voters.
  #89  
Old 01-21-2020, 08:56 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
The estimable Mr. Josh Marshall makes these points over at his pop-stand, Talking Points Memo

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...o-are-on-trial

A worthy read.
I fully agree with Josh. Trump is going to be acquitted, so the real object of this proceeding, from the Dems' POV, should be to put the GOP Senators on trial in the court of public opinion.

For those GOP Senators who are up for re-election (or up for election, in McSally's case) this fall who might be vulnerable, make sure their constituents know how crazy Mitch's rules are, and that they voted for them; make sure their constituents know that they voted against allowing witnesses; make sure their constituents know that they repeatedly voted to turn the presiding Chief Justice into a figurehead and a puppet of Mitch McConnell.

And make sure their constituents know now that that's how they're likely to roll, so they can see it happening in real time.
  #90  
Old 01-21-2020, 09:44 AM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Not sure why Trump is hiring big name high dollar lawyers. He could choose random lawyers from all across the US and the outcome would be the same. Or random people who are not lawyers
Do you honestly think they're going to get paid? They know he's a deadbeat who will stiff them but they want to play on the big stage so they work for free. Yeah, we know the outcome is preordained so Ernest T Bass could present the case and still win.

I've moved from having the faintest hope of acquittal to hoping the stench of the "trial" moves the needle on some of the close Senate races so that next year at this time Chuck Schumer is Majority Leader.
  #91  
Old 01-21-2020, 11:13 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
since the trial is a joke I assume Comedy Central is also showing it? Might be funnier than most of their shows that are not South Park.
  #92  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:49 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,257
https://twitter.com/Bill_Maxwell_/st...670651398?s=20

Rudy Colludy admits that not only does he know Parnas, he's Godfather to Parnas's kid.
  #93  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:27 PM
MulderMuffin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 162
McConnell: We're going to read out my rules, then debate then for two hours. Schumer will offer amendments, then we'll debate them for two hours. Then we'll take a break.
Then we'll hold a vote to ignore Schumer.

Paraphrased. He didn't say wil hold a vote on the resolutions Schumer offers. He said well vote to table any resolutions Schumer offers.

This is going to be painful.
  #94  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:37 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Not sure why Trump is hiring big name high dollar lawyers. He could choose random lawyers from all across the US and the outcome would be the same. Or random people who are not lawyers
They are the fox crew. tv personalities never go away or lose. donnie is in fantasy land and thinks that dershowitz can't be dislodged from his intellectual perch (because it never happens on tv) and so he will be safe. He is basing his defense on how he feels after a good fox hit by one of his supporters, so his defense will have to be put on by those supporters.
  #95  
Old 01-21-2020, 02:15 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I fully agree with Josh. Trump is going to be acquitted, so the real object of this proceeding, from the Dems' POV, should be to put the GOP Senators on trial in the court of public opinion.
Son of a gun!
Quote:
In their scathing responses to McConnell’s restrictive proposed trial rules, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) fired a warning shot at politically vulnerable GOP senators who would potentially vote for McConnell’s efforts to tailor the trial in Trump’s favor.

“Any senator that votes for the McConnell resolution will be voting to hide information and evidence from the American people,” Schumer said.

And Pelosi threatened that “every Senator who supports this sham process must be held accountable to the American people.”
Game on!
  #96  
Old 01-21-2020, 02:26 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,184

Last Chance


Schiff is making an elaborate logical argument for witnesses and documents. But, his argument is not the issue. The only issue is what action will ensure that first the Senate and second the Presidency remain under Republican control after 2020. Unless Trump is an asset in achieving those goals, he needs to be removed. This is the last chance for the Republicans to take control, dump Trump and blame the Dems.
  #97  
Old 01-21-2020, 02:31 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,880
My local ABC news just interrupted the coverage for local news. I sent them a message on Facebook and asked them if they were just trying to cover up Trump's crimes so we can't see what is happening, and they assured me, Oh, I can watch it on their website. So I switched over to NBC.

I noticed that NBC is labeling Individual 1's lawyers as White House defense. No, they are Individual 1's defense, they don't work for the White House.
  #98  
Old 01-21-2020, 02:52 PM
MulderMuffin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
My local ABC news just interrupted the coverage for local news. I sent them a message on Facebook and asked them if they were just trying to cover up Trump's crimes so we can't see what is happening, and they assured me, Oh, I can watch it on their website. So I switched over to NBC.

I noticed that NBC is labeling Individual 1's lawyers as White House defense. No, they are Individual 1's defense, they don't work for the White House.

One of them does. Pat Cipillone, White House lawyer. The same lawyer that several administration officials went to in order to voice their concerns about the Ukraine matter. He told then he'd look into it and told then not to talk about it.

Last edited by MulderMuffin; 01-21-2020 at 02:53 PM. Reason: Typo
  #99  
Old 01-21-2020, 03:45 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,717
Previously quoted:

Any senator that votes for the McConnell resolution will be voting to hide information and evidence from the American people,” Schumer said.

And Pelosi threatened that “every Senator who supports this sham process must be held accountable to the American people.”


Like they give a damn.
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #100  
Old 01-21-2020, 04:55 PM
MulderMuffin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 162
They voted down the first amendment to call for documents and witnesses before they finish presenting arguments on a straight party line with no defectors.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017