Jump to content

The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Js1

Js1 85313

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Please make sure every U.S. senator sees this important jury duty orientation video. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachmentTrial?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachmentTrial</a> <a href="https://t.co/YSl8rvczPO">pic.twitter.com/YSl8rvczPO</a></p>&mdash; The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1219788167898898432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Agreed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexArcher
TexArcher

Of course we're not getting witnesses and of course Trump is getting acquitted.  This was only going to end one way. Schiff was brilliant.  And none of the people who needed to hear it did.

Zavala
Zavala

DAMN YOU RUSSIA!

Longhorn_Fan68
Longhorn_Fan68

Posted Images

Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5792

Posted
Posted

Shocking

Republican leaders signaled they were regaining confidence on Wednesday that they would be able to block new witnesses and documents and bring the trial to an acquittal as soon as Friday, after revelations from John R. Bolton threatened to knock their plans off course.

Senator John Barasso of Wyoming, the No. 3 Senate Republican, told reporters that if they were successful, Republicans planned to move directly to a vote on the two articles of impeachment themselves. It was unclear if there would be additional closing arguments, or if the Senate would vote up or down on the abuse of power and obstruction charges Friday evening.

“I’ve heard enough,” he said. “I’m ready to vote on final judgment. This has been fully partisan, fully political.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted

I cam see where they could make an argument that even if Trump did quid pro quo, it wouldn't be impeachable.  It would be bullshit, and dangerous for our democracy, but I can see a logic there, however twisted.  But the defense has not stipulated that assertion.  They have said that there was no evidence of quid pro quo.  Republicans are refusing to even examine the defense's case as presented.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beantown Express 2.0

Beantown Express 2.0 6559

Posted
Posted

So not sure if I heard this right but Dershowitz was asked does it matter if there was a quid pro quo.  He responded it doesn’t matter but that in Trump’s mind him winning the next election is the nation’s best interest so it’s okay to do a quid pro quo to help himself win a reelection.  Did i hear that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5948

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So not sure if I heard this right but Dershowitz was asked does it matter if there was a quid pro quo.  He responded it doesn’t matter but that in Trump’s mind him winning the next election is the nation’s best interest so it’s okay to do a quid pro quo to help himself win a reelection.  Did i hear that right?

As long as they're not blowjobs which seemed to be primarily for Bills interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3362

Posted
Posted
Just now, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So not sure if I heard this right but Dershowitz was asked does it matter if there was a quid pro quo.  He responded it doesn’t matter but that in Trump’s mind him winning the next election is the nation’s best interest so it’s okay to do a quid pro quo to help himself win a reelection.  Did i hear that right?

I thought he argued more about quid pro quo generically, that a president that withholds aid (or grants it) based on any conditions is a quid pro quo, and therefore the house articles would make it impeachable.  They keep trying to conflate quid pro quo for the country versus the individual.  The house articles don't stop a president from using leverage when its good for the country, only if it clearly benefits him.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3362

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this is so obviously a sham. i had to turn it off. 

Yea, this is turning into more of the house questioning of witnesses.  Only safe questions for the opponents witnesses, rehashing of your parties points when asking your witnesses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11037

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, heso said:

I just saw a GOP senator claiming that if we’re going to impeach Trump for making the deal with Ukraine to help his re-election prospects then no president will ever be able to do anything that would improve their chances of re-election without getting impeached for it. He gave the example: if a president goes and makes a trade deal that is beneficial for the country, that’s now impeachable because it improves his re-election prospects. 

jesus Christ. I don’t think I know anyone stupid enough to believe that. But I’m sure I know people that will believe it because a GOP senator said it on Fox News. 

 

Derpedowitz just said the same thing.

 

 

I like the question and answer format. However, the other side should get a 2 minute rebuttal after the 5 min answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5792

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Adam Schiff giving a brilliant answer right now to the question re ‘Bolton, did you ask him to testify?’

Yep:

A question from Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) allowed House manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to debunk a claim perpetuated by Trump on Twitter that Bolton wasn’t called to testify in the House inquiry.

“The answer is yes, of course we asked John Bolton to testify in the House and he refused,” Schiff said. “When we raised a subpoena with John Bolton’s counsel … the answer was, ‘You serve us with a subpoena, and we will sue you.’

If they’d gone that route, Schiff said, “it would take months, if not years to force John Bolton to come and testify.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28777

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I thought he argued more about quid pro quo generically, that a president that withholds aid (or grants it) based on any conditions is a quid pro quo, and therefore the house articles would make it impeachable.  They keep trying to conflate quid pro quo for the country versus the individual.  The house articles don't stop a president from using leverage when its good for the country, only if it clearly benefits him.    

But he also said that the president believes his reelection is good for the country so, naturally, extorting a foreign leader into smearing his political rival is, in his mind, good for the country. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3362

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But he also said that the president believes his reelection is good for the country so, naturally, extorting a foreign leader into smearing his political rival is, in his mind, good for the country. 

I didnt get that, I thought he kept it more in line with "by helping Israel, Im helping my election chances, therefore its a quid pro quo."  I thought he was twisting himself in knots trying to argue that anytime a president used leverage, it was a quid pro quo that would ultimately benefit him.  Still a stupid stance, but I guess Dersh likes the attention.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

This whole Bolton witness issue is looking more and more orchestrated. 
 

White House sits on the book then reveals what it says on Sunday. On Monday the republicans are in chaos. Attack the source and claim not credible and doesn’t matter anyway. Cue the Dershowitz argument that even if not true doesn’t rise to impeachment anyway. 
 

Now they’re walking it back and by Friday everyone will vote against witnesses except mittens and Collins. Everyone else says we’ve heard enough to acquit. Also makes the actual revelations from the book less meaningful. 

The timing is too perfect. Mass manipulation at it finest. What a total sham. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But he also said that the president believes his reelection is good for the country so, naturally, extorting a foreign leader into smearing his political rival is, in his mind, good for the country. 

i would like to know where that line of reasoning ends.

my reelection is good for the country . . . so my campaign will be publicly funded.

my reelection is good for the country . . . so i've decided not to hand over power in 2021.

my reelection is good for the country . . . so i've decimated (original meaning) the registered democratic population in swing states.

of course, it doesn't have to be "my reelection."  The logic seemingly extends to whatever he believes is good for the country.

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Bold move, going with the Costanza defense.

Image result for it's not a lie if you believe it gif

 

also true.  there isn't any way to test trump really believed it.  there is no objective components.  and we certainly can't, say, have thorough examination on the topic.

 

so i believe the real answer is, every president begins each term with the phrase "everything i'm doing the next four years are things that i think are in the best interest of the country."  Seems to be impeachment proof at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45903

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But he also said that the president believes his reelection is good for the country so, naturally, extorting a foreign leader into smearing his political rival is, in his mind, good for the country. 

So much for the people getting to decide what's good for the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Diablo

El Diablo 4232

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But he also said that the president believes his reelection is good for the country so, naturally, extorting a foreign leader into smearing his political rival is, in his mind, good for the country. 

I'm not choosing sides here but I gotta say, I like the way the guy thinks. "Honey, if I get to fuck Claudia Schiffer I'll be a happy man. And a happy me is good for our marriage".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can anyone decipher what this is about?:

 

lulz, of course he was, and this has to be the reason for the sudden about face graham did with regards to trump. trump enmeshed him in the illegal scheme, either wittingly or unwittingly, then once he had the noose around his neck, he tightened it and graham started supporting trump so as not to get strangled.

Edited by hayden_horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28777

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I'm not choosing sides here but I gotta say, I like the way the guy thinks. "Honey, if I get to fuck Claudia Schiffer I'll be a happy man. And a happy me is good for our marriage".

Who's to say Bill getting a beej from Monica wasn't in our national interest? Being President is a stressful job. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19416

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

lulz, of course he was, and this has to be the reason for the sudden about face graham did with regards to trump. trump enmeshed him in the illegal scheme, either wittingly or unwittingly, then once he had the noose around his neck, he tightened it and graham started supporting trump so as not to get strangled.

Maybe he's on tape telling them how he got Lindsey to come around? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2791

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

So I missed the beginning, are the senators limited to one question or is each party taking turns for the allotted period of time?

The parties take turns asking questions. The group that the question is directed to gets 5 mins to answer. 

2 days of 8 hours for questions. In the Clinton trial that worked out to 150 questions. 

Edited by heso
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...