Jump to content

The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32389

Posted
Posted

What a glorious (or sad) time we live in.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has to remind GOP senators during an impeachment trial of the President that they cannot include the whistleblower's name in questions.  

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/john-roberts-whistleblower-name-mentions-109292

 

Quote

Chief Justice John Roberts has communicated to senators that he will not read aloud the alleged Ukraine whistleblower’s name or otherwise publicly relay questions that might out the official, a move that’s effectively blocked Sen. Rand Paul from asking a question.

In a behind-the-scenes fight, Paul, a Kentucky Republican, has composed questions that violate Roberts’s edict, according to several Republicans familiar with the dynamics. It’s a vintage Rand Paul effort that’s annoying fellow Republicans and could come to a head on Thursday.

 

Quote

Paul – who has strongly opposed the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump – has been floating the alleged whistleblower’s name in media interviews for months.

But Roberts signaled to GOP senators on Tuesday that he wouldn’t allow the whistleblower’s name to be mentioned during the question-and-answer session that started the following day, said the sources. Roberts was allowed to screen senators’ questions before they were submitted for reading on the Senate floor, the sources noted.

 

Quote

And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other top Republicans are also discouraging the whistleblower’s identity from being disclosed as well. Paul has submitted at least one question with the name of a person believed to be the whistleblower, although it was rejected. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) composed and asked a question regarding the whistleblower earlier Wednesday that tiptoed around identifying the source who essentially sparked the House’s impeachment drive.

 

Spoiler

“We’ve got members who, as you have already determined I think, have an interest in questions related to the whistleblower,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said. “But I suspect that won’t happen, I don’t think that happens. And I guess I would hope it doesn’t.”

Paul has complained that he is being preventing from asking a question about the origin of the Ukraine investigation, although he didn’t get into specifics with reporters on Wednesday evening.

“It’s still an ongoing process, it may happen tomorrow,” Paul told reporters.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) first revealed the existence of the whistleblower complaint publicly in mid-September, when he subpoenaed the document from the director of national intelligence and accused acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire — under the influence of the White House — from preventing it from reaching Congress.

But Republicans allege that Schiff and his staff improperly interacted with the alleged whistleblower, who worked at the National Security Council when Joe Biden was vice president.

House Republicans threatened to out the whistleblower during impeachment hearings in that chamber, and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) identified a person believed to be the whistleblower in the Judiciary Committee, although Gohmert didn’t identify him as the whistleblower during the exchange.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

What a glorious (or sad) time we live in.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has to remind GOP senators during an impeachment trial of the President that they cannot include the whistleblower's name in questions.  

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/john-roberts-whistleblower-name-mentions-109292

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

“We’ve got members who, as you have already determined I think, have an interest in questions related to the whistleblower,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said. “But I suspect that won’t happen, I don’t think that happens. And I guess I would hope it doesn’t.”

Paul has complained that he is being preventing from asking a question about the origin of the Ukraine investigation, although he didn’t get into specifics with reporters on Wednesday evening.

“It’s still an ongoing process, it may happen tomorrow,” Paul told reporters.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) first revealed the existence of the whistleblower complaint publicly in mid-September, when he subpoenaed the document from the director of national intelligence and accused acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire — under the influence of the White House — from preventing it from reaching Congress.

But Republicans allege that Schiff and his staff improperly interacted with the alleged whistleblower, who worked at the National Security Council when Joe Biden was vice president.

House Republicans threatened to out the whistleblower during impeachment hearings in that chamber, and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) identified a person believed to be the whistleblower in the Judiciary Committee, although Gohmert didn’t identify him as the whistleblower during the exchange.

 

I hope Rand Paul's other neighbor kicks his ass next time he goes home.

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
TDunk

TDunk 590

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Did I follow the Dersh logic correctly in that if Obama wanted to spy/wiretap the Trump campaign, he would be in his legal right and not impeachable because it would be for the betterment of the country...

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2791

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, TDunk said:

Did I follow the Dersh logic correctly in that if Obama wanted to spy/wiretap the Trump campaign, he would be in his legal right and not impeachable because it would be for the betterment of the country...

Yes, but only because it doesn’t matter to Dersh or the gop right now. The argument will flip 180 degrees when it’s a dem pres. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future. For our children.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Can’t lose sight of the fact Trump only cared about the “announcement” of investigations.  It’s really not even about dirt.  It’s a campaign to mislead and to abuse the public trust while harming national security.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Yay, I got to respond to a poll.  I'm a Republican that voted for Trump who wants removal.

They asked me about and Cornyn and Abbott too.  Told them Abbott's political posturing on not accepting refugees was a scare tactic and that I no longer support Cornyn due to carrying the President's water. Voting for MJ Hegar

 

Also told them I'm voting Biden in the primary and general election.

Edited by TexasEd
  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, RPM said:

McCain was the only thing that kept the GOP from losing it's soul. He served the country, not the party.

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

Did selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate serve the country? Or the party? Or just his election chances because the party has been taken over by the evangelicals?

Let's not mythologize him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26318

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

Did selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate serve the country? Or the party? Or just his election chances because the party has been taken over by the evangelicals?

Let's not mythologize him.

I'm not trying to mythologize him, just stating fact. He kept the dam from bursting. Selecting Palin was an incredibly bad decision. Swung my vote. Hell, she would have only been Veep. How much damage could she have done vs what Trump has?

McCain's time passed when Dubya and Turdblossom spread a fictitious scandal (a/k/a flat out lie) about him having an illegitimate biracial child when SC & NC primaries came round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13510

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

After getting trashed on Twitter by trump, maybe Bolton will sit down for an interview if he believes the senate will not call him to testify.....and pull a “McCain”?  Hopefully, before the senate has a chance to vote.

Bolton may need to publicly preview his testimony today if he wants to be called. Even if he just says that he can testify that trump did X and both he (Bolton) and Mulvaney can speak to it. That could force a few senators back in the column to ask for witnesses. Otherwise it sounds bad for witness unless Roberts will break a tie.

but there are several indications that Bolton doesn’t want trump re-elected, so Bolton may just opt to spend the next 10 months trashing trump in the media.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13510

Posted
Posted

If Dershowitz is right (hint:  he’s not) would that mean Nixon should never have been considered for impeachment given that his motives were for the National good in electing Nixon? Dershowitz would agree that the break-in itself was a crime but I guess the coverup and lies were all cool in his world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heso

heso 2791

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Dershowitz is right (hint:  he’s not) would that mean Nixon should never have been considered for impeachment given that his motives were for the National good in electing Nixon? Dershowitz would agree that the break-in itself was a crime but I guess the coverup and lies were all cool in his world?

The best part of Dersh’s argument is that it doesn’t even have to be remotely in the best interest of the country, only that the president could claim that he thought his action was in the best interest for the country. Not even that the action itself was in the best interest of the country, just that the president thought that the action would help him get re-elected and therefore better for the country. 

its such an insane argument. 

Edited by heso
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, heso said:

The best part of Dersh’s argument is that it doesn’t even have to be remotely in the best interest of the country, only that the president could claim that he thought his action was in the best interest for the country. Not even that the action itself was in the best interest of the country, just that the president thought that the action would help him get re-elected and therefore better for the country. 

its such an insane argument. 

When you (Trump) file for reelection the same day you are inaugurated then all of your actions are toward your best interest so it is indeed insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13581

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, heso said:

The best part of Dersh’s argument is that it doesn’t even have to be remotely in the best interest of the country, only that the president could claim that he thought his action was in the best interest for the country. Not even that the action itself was in the best interest of the country, just that the president thought that the action would help him get re-elected and therefore better for the country. 

its such an insane argument. 

 

Anything any candidate does to get elected is legal if they believe it's in the country's interest. 

Goddamn fucking insane.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22694

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, heso said:

The best part of Dersh’s argument is that it doesn’t even have to be remotely in the best interest of the country, only that the president could claim that he thought his action was in the best interest for the country. Not even that the action itself was in the best interest of the country, just that the president thought that the action would help him get re-elected and therefore better for the country. 

its such an insane argument. 

The argument they are pitching is as follows: "The current President believed that a candidate in the next election may have dubious ties to a foreign government, and so, in order to protect the country, he ordered an investigation."  We know that's bullshit, but that's what they are selling. 

Fine.  Let's accept that as the truth.  Now, can anyone now explain why they're upset at the Crossfire Hurricane stuff?  I'm not even trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely wondering how they can say one situation is illegal and the other is literally the President's duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18218

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

At least Dersh’s arguments are consistent with the facts. He’s not trying to gaslight us.   I think he’s arguing the president’s case the right way. 

Oh, he’s definitely gaslighting.  He’s just gaslighting on the law instead of the facts.  Dersch’s argument is contrary to the entire reason for our War of Independence and the founding principles of this country.  We don’t do that l’etat, c’est moi shit here.  Dersch’s whole argument presumes the contrary, and that’s why he’s a fucking liar.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The argument they are pitching is as follows: "The current President believed that a candidate in the next election may have dubious ties to a foreign government, and so, in order to protect the country, he ordered an investigation."  We know that's bullshit, but that's what they are selling. 

Fine.  Let's accept that as the truth.  Now, can anyone now explain why they're upset at the Crossfire Hurricane stuff?  I'm not even trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely wondering how they can say one situation is illegal and the other is literally the President's duty.

I will let you in on a secret. The President's attorneys don't believe their own arguments. They are just trying to wear everyone down with illogical circular reasoning until everyone gets up and walks away. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45898

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Oh, he’s definitely gaslighting.  He’s just gaslighting on the law instead of the facts.  Dersch’s argument is contrary to the entire reason for our War of Independence and the founding principles of this country.  We don’t do that l’etat, c’est moi shit here.  Dersch’s whole argument presumes the contrary, and that’s why he’s a fucking liar.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that many attorneys, and in particular criminal defense attorneys, spend such a great deal of time preparing zealous defense arguments for their client that they eventually become muted to the truth.  Their job is defense -- get the client acquitted.  Short of criminal behavior in the courtroom (perjury, etc.) I think they can and will do anything, particularly when their client is guilty of what is being alleged.  Deflect, deny, etc.  Over time, that becomes normalized.  It's like an offensive lineman being taught to hold.  Eventually, it becomes second nature and they're shocked when they get flagged for it.

tl;dr  Herpa Dersh

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...