The Trump Impeachment Trial

[elucidator]

@Ravenman

…Barr doesn’t find out about the phone call until September…

…I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it…

The Call

Uh, what?

[BigAppleBucky]

I wonder, if at this late stage of his career, John Roberts might be swayed by some of the lying antics of the Republicans at the trial. And if that will color his view of some of the cases that he adjudicates over the next couple of years.
Clearly the Senate vote will be for an acquittal along entirely party lines. But will there be an aftereffect with the Chief Justice?

[drad_dog]

@Max_S

As far as I can tell, the only part of that sentence which might be a lie would be that the Ukrainian investigation was legitimate. I don’t think that has been established to be a lie: going by the prosecution’s statement of fact #12, then-prosecutor-general Shokin was known to be corrupt and inneffectual at prosecuting corruption, and his removal made a legitimate investigation more likely, but it does not follow that Shokin’s investigation was illegitimate. Please correct me, but I think it was a nuanced statement.

The problem I have with the defense theory here is that the President went beyond mentioning Biden/Burisma or assuring Zelensky that the U.S. would be above board moving forward. The President actually asked Zelensky to look into it, and so I expect the defense theory to, in their own words, explain how looking into the matter would advance the public interest.

Here it seems there is a deep disagreement as to whether it has been proved that Joe Biden did no wrong. The prosecutor’s brief, again statement of fact #12, says witnesses unanimously testified that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation that Joe Biden corruptly pressured Ukraine to remove Shokin for investigating Burisma. They cite official U.S. policy, bipartisan support, and Shokin’s corruption. The defense brief responds by claiming that the circumstances show a conflict of interest on Biden’s part; that prosecutors have no evidence to debunk the theory that Bidens’ did wrong, and that the burden is on prosecutors in this matter.

I’m not terribly familiar with how this would work in other courtroom settings, so I’m doing research on legal burdens and proving negatives, etc.

~Max

You are using a regal or royal doctrine of the presidency. potus can’t just improvise national policy for our agencies, outside of his chain of command. This is a very important principle in the US. Are you American?

[EasyPhil]

@BigAppleBucky

I wonder, if at this late stage of his career, John Roberts might be swayed by some of the lying antics of the Republicans at the trial. And if that will color his view of some of the cases that he adjudicates over the next couple of years.
Clearly the Senate vote will be for an acquittal along entirely party lines. But will there be an aftereffect with the Chief Justice?

I wonder if he’ll be swayed by some of the lying antics of Adam Schiff and company.

[digs]

Easy, Phil…

[kaylasdad99]

@BigAppleBucky

Collins is hardly worth thinking about. A total waste of a Senate seat.

Not if you’re a gods-damned fucking Republican (which is the only kind of Republican that exists).

[Sage_Rat]

@EasyPhil

I wonder if he’ll be swayed by some of the lying antics of Adam Schiff and company.

While I would agree that Schiff is not above stretching the truth a fair ways - or, at least, is so partisan that he is prone to misreadings that render some of his output useless - the majority of his work is perfectly founded in fact and would survive any independent review.

Moreover, it is silly to complain that Schiff is a liar while backing even greater liars. And it is silly to back liars because you hate the FBI, when those liars would almost certainly use the FBI for far graver violations of privacy than is already occurring.

At the same time as Devin Nunes was writing his first memo on FISA abuse, as example, he was voting to maintain full spy powers for the FBI. That gives strong lie to the concept that he believed what he preached.

[Johanna]

@drad_dog

Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying.

Knowledge is a deadly friend if no one sets the rules
The fate of all mankind I see is in the hands of fools.

[kaylasdad99]

@Sage_Rat

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.

They need to do nothing of the sort. What you have stated as [needing to be proved] is axiomatically factual. I have declared this to be the case. If it is not the case, may Reality cease to exist, Thanos Infinity Glove-style, the instant I hit “Submit” on this browser.

[kaylasdad99]

Still here? Well, I guess the matter is settled, then.

[Sage_Rat]

@kaylasdad99

They need to do nothing of the sort. What you have stated as [needing to be proved] is axiomatically factual. I have declared this to be the case. If it is not the case, may Reality cease to exist, Thanos Infinity Glove-style, the instant I hit “Submit” on this browser.

In my view, if they wanted to actually win the case, they needed to…

I’ll grant that it can be important to distinguish between opinion and fact. I’m not sure that this was such an example but, if you weren’t sure then, yes, that was a statement of opinion.

[elucidator]

@EasyPhil

I wonder if he’ll be swayed by some of the lying antics of Adam Schiff and company.

Well, OK. Which lying antics worry you the most?

[RickJay]

@Max_S

He’s the head of all federal law enforcement agencies, and were it not for the statutes which establish those agencies it would be the President himself who enforces the entirety of federal law.

Being the nominal head of something does not make you that profession. The President is Commander in Chief of the armed services, but he is not a soldier, he’s a civilian - a rather critical fact in a democratic republic. He is the head of the GAO but he’s not an accountant, and he’s the head of NASA but he’s not an astronaut.

[kaylasdad99]

@Max_S

The defense raises the possibility that Ukraine attempted to interfere with the 2016 election, cites some public sources I need to check, and does some word lawyering of the July 25 call to claim Trump informally requested assistance for John Durham’s ongoing investigation at the DOJ… I think. Not sure if I agree with their interpretation of the call yet, but it appears superficially sound.

Corruption is what the defense says forms the rationale behind the mention of Biden/Burisma. I find myself agreeing that it may have been appropriate from a foreign policy perspective to “make clear both that the United States was not placing any inquiry into the incident off limits and that, in the future, there would be no efforts by U.S. officials to do something as “horrible” as strong-arming Ukraine into dropping corruption investigations while operating under an obvious conflict of interest.”

What I don’t see the defence try to justify in these later pages is what appears to be the President strong-arming Ukraine to pick up a corruption investigation while the President is operating under a clear conflict of interest. I think that is what you mean when you say the rationale behind the mention of the DNC and Biden/Burisma is irrelevant to a charge of extortion. But the quid pro quo is disputed earlier in the defense brief as the disowned consequence of Mr. Sondland’s dark soul. Sage Rat summarizes it well.

~Max

Wondering why Sondland still holds the position he bought…

[drad_dog]

@RickJay

Being the nominal head of something does not make you that profession. The President is Commander in Chief of the armed services, but he is not a soldier, he’s a civilian - a rather critical fact in a democratic republic. He is the head of the GAO but he’s not an accountant, and he’s the head of NASA but he’s not an astronaut.

Let’s be fair on one point: He’s the head of the government and he is an idiot.

[drad_dog]

@elucidator

Well, OK. Which lying antics worry you the most?

The ones that are the most truthful.

[kaylasdad99]

@Max_S

And what do you mean by “toireup”?

This poster always spells the America-hating fuckstick’s surname incorrectly, but uses at least three (and usually four) of the letters from the [del]wrong[/del] conventional spelling.

[elucidator]

The ones that are the most truthful.

I mean, the implication is there are scads and scads of lying antics, the man is a veritable fountain of disinformation. (Schiff, I mean. And company.) So, it figgers that there are a whole bunch more. Well, OK, I’m ready, bring 'em on.

[Max_S]

@drad_dog

The defense case is…what does one even say. What they admit to, what they don’t…You want to get inside that swamp?

It’s hard to imagine a spoken conversation where it could be claimed that dts defense is not absurd so here we are in writing. It’s not more believable.

It is absurd for one thing to say he was acting as a govt agent fighting corruption, when he was trying to operate rogue outside of our govt, and keep this from his chain of command, rather than operate within the constitution. Commander in chief implies a chain of command.

In this situation what would be the “chain of command”?

~Max

[Max_S]

@Ravenman

There was no investigation of Burisma, legitimate or not, by the corrupt prosecutor general.

This is contrary to my understanding, and I will have to return with cites.

@Ravenman

It’s not plausible on its face that a week later, anything substantive has happened to address corruption, because nothing had happened except the whistleblower and Pence/Portman telling Trump that he had to move on.

And the defense theory is that the whistleblower had nothing to do with it, and the Pence/Portman meeting had everything to do with releasing the hold.

~Max