“heh! heh! that’s just trump bein trump…he just says stuff, ya know? that’s how he got elected!!! 'Merikuns are tired of Warshington politicians, pundits, and the fake news media filter.”
On a serious note, something that’s becoming clear is that people crawl into the sewer and do ‘bidness’ with Trump are learning from Michael Cohen: they’re recording conversations. It gives them a chance to bargain with prosecutors, and it also gets their side of the story out.
It’s also pretty good blackmail material, which is the scary part. Trump is a blackmail machine.
Robert’s primary mission is to stay out of politics. He presumably views this as a matter to be settled between the legislative and the executive branch on their own without him giving any impression of supporting one side or the other. Actually calling a ball or strike would be seen as supporting one side or the other. So instead of an umpire he is just going to do his best impression of a potted plant, and let the batter and catcher figure it out among themselves. If the senate decides that they want a farce instead of a trial that is their prerogative.
I finally got a chance to watch Schiff’s speech. It was quite good. He presented a very compelling summation of the case for removal. It was interesting to me that he took the position: “you know he’s guilty; now we’re just haggling over the consequences.” He’s right, of course. Hopefully the message sunk into a few Republican skulls.
It’s a minor point, but he barely looked at his notes during his closing. Presenting a well crafted argument over 9+ minutes, in a high pressure situation, without notes, is a pretty impressive feat. Maybe it’s not uncommon among high level politicians like him, but I certainly couldn’t do it. (And as a teacher, I think I’m pretty good at extemporaneous speaking on my area of expertise. I still couldn’t do that.)
And the rebuttal! Zounds, the rebuttal!
Carter Page, and the terrible, awful, horrible, no good FBI totally making shit up for the FISA courts. Which means that everything that proceeded from that day forward was corrupted, inadmissible, and no damn good.
The Democrats relentless march towards impeachment, from the moment Il Douche lifted his hand from the smoldering Bible. A bit of a surprise, since I read about a hundred pages of rages on Granny Nancy and the DNC refusing to even say the word out loud. I often wish the Dems were even half as crafty and sneaky as they make them out to be. Alas.
Then some House dweeb came on to argue that House Rule 201(d)(e), amended 6/2014, clearly proves that a Declaration of Nunh-Unh “shall be taken as absolute and irrefutable proof of something kinda important, therefore not guilty.” Or something. Temporary coma, dunno.
And sure, the Russians did it, but that doesn’t mean Ukraine didn’t do it too! And if Ukraine could have done it too, that proves they did, and Trump’s demand for an investigation into the Crowdstrike Soros/Hillary server was totally legit. Also, Burisma. Because.
(There was no mention of Hillary’s Pizza Shop Sex Farm. Grateful.)
Also, they got the money, so that proves that they were always gonna get the money, because cause and effect are a unity.
Right about here, the Republicans, in their mercy, decided not to continue with the devastating point by point rebutal of Shifty’s flimsy case, supported by mere fragments of testimony, documents, admissions, photos and videos. They could have just kept on going, tearing the impeachment evidence to shreds, but really, why bother? Oh, wait, forgot the super seekrit meeting the basement bunker of the House, and the Dems refusing to let Il Douche be represented, present evidence or witnesses.
I’m a Nixon survivor. Takes a lot to disgust and nauseate me, Puking my guts out, over here.
Wow. 
Very disappointing. I thought Romney at least was trying to put on a show of integrity.
Incidentally, I clicked to predictit.org 20 times and got “The connection has timed out” 20 times. IIRC I got the same when I attempted to click there months ago. Normal?
I also try to chuckle now and then to keep my mood up. But I’m afraid the humor in your example escapes me.
in case no one mentioned it yet , no surprise that all Trump’s defenders in the trial are white men
So it’s been rumored.
Constitutional law professor and NBC news contributor Lawrence Tribe pointed that out, then felt the need to apologize for it. Why, I do not know.
I’m starting to think that Bill Maher’s theatrics about Trump not leaving, regardless of outcome of the next election, is not so far fetched. Particularly given the willingness of Trump supporters to lie and ignore evidence so brazenly during these proceedings.
I just saw a recent video of Trump proclaiming – with a straight face, and mysteriously his tongue did not turn black and fall out – that he’d always supported his intelligence community and always agreed that Russia was involved in 2016 election meddling.
But of course, he couldn’t just shut up and quit while he was ahead. He had to add “…and it could have been others, as well.” He just can’t help himself.
His experience as a prosecutor may have been a factor. While IANAL, I imagine the ability to look the jury in the eye when making opening and closing arguments would be quite effective. Except for the jury in question here, more than half of whom couldn’t give a damn.
You took the words (or something) right out of my … urp … excuse me.…
Isn’t Pam Bondi on Trump’s defense team?
The same Pam Bondi that took a $25,000 bribe directly from Donald Trump (which he stole from his own charity) while serving as attorney general of Florida to stop prosecution of the Trump University scam? That Pam Bondi?
Yes, her.
Not normal in my experience. I can’t recall timing out a single time at PredictIt and I reference the site pretty frequently.
Also because, as this should be a sticky for everytime someone complains that Roberts should “do something,” Roberts is not a judge in this trial in a typical sense. 51 senators can overrule anything he does. So if someone complains that Trump’s attorneys are introducing “facts not in evidence” and ask for “witnesses” that is not up to Roberts. It is up to 51 senators.
And that goes for everything in the whole trial.
Roberts possesses the brain power necessary to noticing that an impeachment trial is, by definition, political. So he’s failed at his primary mission right out of the gate–unless you’re mistaken about it being to ‘stay out of politics,’ and instead it’s ‘to avoid anything that could look like criticism of GOP malfeasance.’
His one intervention so far supports that view. He objected not at all to documented lies by Trump’s defense team. He objected only to name calling (presumably by both sides, though he didn’t name names).
This would make sense except for the fact that it is not “the Senate” (or “senate”) that has made that decision. It’s one, and only one, political party, that has made that decision.
So, again, Roberts is participating–nay, mired–in politics. Passivity is not neutral. Passivity is a choice.
Aye; excellent summation and arguments. That’s why I said he still is complicit: he can choose at any time to speak out but he chooses to remain silent.
ETA: The Greater Good is in danger of dying off and being replaced by My Own Good. IMO, It’s gonna be even harder to switch it back around again, if we so choose.
If the rebupkis want to overrule the chief justice on a matter of law how is that going to look? Make my day.