The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,881]

 

[Gil Bang 25,983]

 

Yeah, up thread I called Paul a cock

[Gil Bang 25,983]

Hey everybody, here’s a question about Hunter Biden so let’s send the lawyer that makes 70,000 a month from Qatar for lobbying to handle the question

[Red Five 40,877]

I’m trying to imagine this in a murder trial.
“Hey we’ve got these guys over here who were there and are ready to say what they saw.”
“No!! Definitely not!! MAKE THEM SHUT UP!!”
“Got it. Ok so well you are clearly innocent and are now free to go.”

[hpslugga 4,062]

What's even more shocking about this whole proceeding than the inevitable outcome is that we're being asked to take seriously as little as a single syllable uttered by Alan Dershowitz.

[David Dennison 18,940]

13 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

This is our concern, Neal 

 It doesn't matter. Mitch has the votes. Move on.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

So how’s the GOP coverup going? Any new threats against witnesses or murder threats against congressmen? Any new refusals to turn over relevant documents?  Any new threats of reprisals against the jurors? 
 

The GOP is a crime syndicate with a false claim of legitimacy through a formerly great past tradition buttressed by an alarmingly corrupt incompetence.
 

These guys are shitty wannabe gangsters. Think Moscow Mitch in his recent gangster pinstriped suit looking like a total jackass. Absolutely pathetic. No respect given at all. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by JimmyJames

[Brisketexan 105,177]

9 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

What's even more shocking about this whole proceeding than the inevitable outcome is that we're being asked to take seriously as little as a single syllable uttered by Alan Dershowitz.

You mean, THIS Dershowitz?

Quote

“I’m not happy seeing Richad Nixon’s gang being tried by blacks and liberals in the Disrict of Columbia,” said Dershowitz.

Damn right he's being taken seriously -- he's perfectly on-brand for the GOP.

[hpslugga 4,062]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You mean, THIS Dershowitz?

Yes, the same one who said that.

The same one who plagiarized a hoax book, among his myriad intellectual atrocities.

Edited January 30, 2020 by hpslugga

[Red Five 40,877]

“Golly there’s just no evidence.”

[Underdog 28,753]

JFC, it's time to start a Revolution.  Is there a book out there for dummies on how to start one?  Drain the swamp completely, both parties.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Where’d all the evidence go? 
 

Witnesses? Documents? Do you think the former USSR held trials with witnesses and documents?!? I don’t think so?!?

Rather be Russian than democrat!
 

Those 300 Spartans fought in vain thanks to Moscow Mitch and the corrupt GOP spineless crew. 

[Brisketexan 105,177]

2 minutes ago, Underdog said:

JFC, it's time to start a Revolution.  Is there a book out there for dummies on how to start one?  Drain the swamp completely, both parties.  

[TwiceHorn 31,512]

Got an aural glimpse of today's proceedings. Val Demings is doing a good job from what I can hear.

Who is the lithper?  Thipollone? Theckulow?

Edited January 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

Jay's getting feisty.  They're fucked and they know it.  Not on acquital, but in the court of public opinion.

[horncyclist 1,391]

The dishonesty is absolutely staggering.

They're going to acquit without witnesses tomorrow. No doubt. They calculated the risk and the blowback from acquittal/cover-up is less than letting Bolton testify. 

 

 

 

 

[Jiggy-Z 3,433]

28 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

What they’re doing is obstruction of justice, which gets you to the same place as perjury if you have honest people conducting the process.    

It’s not actually some clever loophole they’ve discovered or anything.  The laws account for this.  It’s just that the laws don’t matter if the people administering them are corrupt enough to ignore them. 

You are being kind when you write that they are "ignoring them (laws)", implying that they are running around independently attempting to save their own skins and just happen to have a similar mode of doing so that happens to somehow coincide with everybody else's.   This is an orchestrated and deliberate effort where their is actual collusion among the participants.

[Red Five 40,877]

2 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

The dishonesty is absolutely staggering.

They're going to acquit without witnesses tomorrow. No doubt. They calculated the risk and the blowback from acquittal/cover-up is less than letting Bolton testify. 

 

 

 

 

The history books won't make any sense. "Wait, there was a trial? But they didn't even call witnesses? Ones who were there, with first hand knowledge?"

"That's right."

"So what was the point of the trial?"

"Dunno."

[Gil Bang 25,983]

Schiff just dropped a bomb

[David Dennison 18,940]

Just now, Red Five said:

The history books won't make any sense. "Wait, there was a trial? But they didn't even call witnesses? Ones who were there, with first hand knowledge?"

"That's right."

"So what was the point of the trial?"

"Dunno."

Let's just hope those votes have an effect in November. I would love for this to cost Mitch his majority. 

[hayden_horn 11,364]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Schiff just dropped a bomb

what did he say?

[TXSG8R 3,362]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Schiff just dropped a bomb

What was it?  Just walked back into the office.  

[Gil Bang 25,983]

what did he say?

He talked about this

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

21 minutes ago, Underdog said:

JFC, it's time to start a Revolution.  Is there a book out there for dummies on how to start one?  Drain the swamp completely, both parties.  

I saw this for sale at my son's base's PX a few years ago:

[SquishMitten 10,421]

Yowzers. Schiff going back to it with this question as well. That was quite a gift from the DOJ

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

13 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Schiff just dropped a bomb

nvm

Edited January 30, 2020 by Biff Tannen
slow on the refresh

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

As soon as the GOP acquits Trump, House Dems should just open new impeachment hearings. 

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

As soon as the GOP acquits Trump, House Dems should just open new impeachment hearings. 

Absolutely.  I've advocated for them to fight far dirtier than they have, and in point of that, that wouldn't even be "dirty", but they better start being political.

[TXSG8R 3,362]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

As soon as the GOP acquits Trump, House Dems should just open new impeachment hearings. 

Nope, that plays into the R's hands.  They have harped on putting this into the hands of the voters, that should be the dems message going forward.  Trump cant be removed by impeachment, if you want him gone, you have to vote him out.  Period.  

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

Just now, TXSG8R said:

Nope, that plays into the R's hands.  They have harped on putting this into the hands of the voters, that should be the dems message going forward.  Trump cant be removed by impeachment, if you want him gone, you have to vote him out.  Period.  

No.  This is about getting as much information in front of the voters as possible.  Another impeachment will ultimately fail, this is true, but the Dems need to be on the offensive instead of cowering in defense all the time.

[Goredho 17,413]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

the system, as it stands, came into focus during the mueller report days (ahh, that takes me back).  it was back then when we learned that sure, the president probably broke some "laws" in the traditional sense, but the olc opinion was that the president is not necessarily governed by the same set of laws, but instead, would be subject to the impeachment process by the house (and subsequent trial by the senate).  they essentially stated that the president cannot be indicted or charged with a crime.

and now that we're in the impeachment phase, we're learning that the president also can basically not be impeached unless there is clear evidence and possibly already an investigation into...wait for it...an actual crime that he has been charged for.  catch 22, circular logic, however you wanna call it - that's where we are.

part of me thinks this was a genius plan hatched 10+ months ago during the mueller days.  the salad days.  but nope, they're completely off-script now, and just throwing shit against the wall.  the problem is that most of it is actually sticking.

Yep.  Dershowitz’ arguments absolve the president of any misdeeds in engineering an election win in the past or future.  I think it’s diabolically brilliant.  The GOP senators desperately want to acquit Trump.  They still will and Trump’s attorneys have attached a rider to that acquittal giving Trump implicit authority to do whatever it takes to stay in power as an “act in the national self-interest.”

The stakes of this impeachment trial have just been upped significantly.  When the Dems fail in removing Trump,  we will be left with an election process where the GOP President can engage in any action necessary to secure an election win for themselves or their designee in this or any future election.  If someone wants to complain the act is illegal, it will be obstructed, tied up in courts being stacked in favor of the GOP and otherwise rendered meaningless.

With that authority secured the GOP can do whatever they want.  They no longer answer to the voting public that first drifted and then tried to run away from their old-testament conservatism.

RIP America.

 

[TXSG8R 3,362]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

No.  This is about getting as much information in front of the voters as possible.  Another impeachment will ultimately fail, this is true, but the Dems need to be on the offensive instead of cowering in defense all the time.

You can do that without going through impeachment.  At some point, people will tire of the spectacle, and of congress not working.  Trump and his staff are the assholes ignoring 75% of the american people wanting witnesses and a fair trial.  Dont make him a victim by holding hearings just for the sake of it.  They wont get through the senate, its clear.  

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

Just now, TXSG8R said:

You can do that without going through impeachment.  At some point, people will tire of the spectacle, and of congress not working.  Trump and his staff are the assholes ignoring 75% of the american people wanting witnesses and a fair trial.  Dont make him a victim by holding hearings just for the sake of it.  They wont get through the senate, its clear.  

I think the problem here is that what we EXPECT the people to tire of is not what they ACTUALLY tire of.  I think the 75% majority that witnesses should be called is a perfect example.

[hayden_horn 11,364]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think the problem here is that what we EXPECT the people to tire of is not what they ACTUALLY tire of.  I think the 75% majority that witnesses should be called is a perfect example.

there's some bipartisan support for witnesses because the 43% who are all in on trump want hunter and joe and liddle' adam schifty schiff to testify, not because they want anything approaching the truth regarding the criminal syndicate in the white house.

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

Herschmann is a horrible public speaker.  More Hershmann, more Bondi.

That said, more Schiff and Demmings.

[hpslugga 4,062]

14 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

As soon as the GOP acquits Trump, House Dems should just open new impeachment hearings. 

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/24/donald_trump_senate_impeachment_trial

"Yes. Well, Nancy Pelosi resisted for many, many months mounting impeachment, an impeachment proceeding in the House. And there are many different grounds that he could have been impeached for: violation of the emoluments clause, corruption and war crimes, as you said, most recently killing Soleimani in violation of the U.N. Charter, in violation of the War Powers Resolution. But when the whistleblower complaint came out and it became so clear what Trump had done with strong-arming Zelensky to mount — not to mount investigations necessarily, but to announce that he was mounting investigations into Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden and this discredited theory that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election, Nancy Pelosi understood that this was an airtight case. It was narrow. It was clear. People could get their brains around it."

[TXSG8R 3,362]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think the problem here is that what we EXPECT the people to tire of is not what they ACTUALLY tire of.  I think the 75% majority that witnesses should be called is a perfect example.

True enough, but you have to couple that with only ~50% wanting him removed.  Getting screwed out of a real trial probably drives that up, but an endless parade of impeachments probably turns some of those people off.  Ultimately its about the moderates, the base is going to keep being the base on each side.  

[jimmyjazz 46,000]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

there's some bipartisan support for witnesses because the 43% who are all in on trump want hunter and joe and liddle' adam schifty schiff to testify, not because they want anything approaching the truth regarding the criminal syndicate in the white house.

I'm OK with that.  We're not going to completely eradicate politics from this process.

Again, over and over . . . the goal is not to change any Trumpkin's mind.  It won't happen in any consequential numbers.  The goal is to expose the hypocrisy and abject corrupt behavior for all to see and to get out the vote.  Is there risk?  Sure.  There's risk in any tactic.  I want MORE information out there, not less. 

John Bolton will likely make a cogent case for Trump's malfeasance.  Could he flip and turn it all around backwards?  Sure.  What are the odds?  10%?

Same with any and all witnesses.  Fuck it, I want the statements on record.  I don't want the "hearsay" and other uneducated bullshit defenses to be any more common than they already are.

[DDD Dad 14,346]

Nadler needs to spend less time at the lectern.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

3 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Nope, that plays into the R's hands.  They have harped on putting this into the hands of the voters, that should be the dems message going forward.  Trump cant be removed by impeachment, if you want him gone, you have to vote him out.  Period.  

McConnell cited the upcoming election as the reason Garland wouldn't get a hearing. Voters should decide. Then added the possibility he wouldn't give a President Hillary nominee a hearing. THEN, after the election of Trump gloated he would seat a Trump nominee in the final year of Trump's term.

A brazen, naked double standard doesn't stop the GOP from running roughshod over our Constitutional democracy, yet Dems should decline opening new impeachment hearings, which falls well short of a double standard being Trump is a lifelong habitual criminal, because....???....

 

[Horn Dog 9,884]

Question for Dersh-

If a president believes it is in national interest, can he decide to run for a 3rd term?  In fact can he just ban all elections and appoint himself ruler for life if he feels elections are “fake news” and contrary to the best interests of the state?

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

9 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

People could get their brains around it

This is important.  People in this country, by and large, are not smart.  They get bogged down when the story becomes to complicated.

[SquishMitten 10,421]

3 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Question for Dersh-

If a president believes it is in national interest, can he decide to run for a 3rd term?  In fact can he just ban all elections and appoint himself ruler for life if he feels elections are “fake news” and contrary to the best interests of the state?

He already answered that

[Horn Dog 9,884]

12 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

He already answered that

Oh yea.... only if they are republican.  

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Lulz

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

Nikolas <Boo-ee> 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm OK with that.  We're not going to completely eradicate politics from this process.

Again, over and over . . . the goal is not to change any Trumpkin's mind.  It won't happen in any consequential numbers.  The goal is to expose the hypocrisy and abject corrupt behavior for all to see and to get out the vote.  Is there risk?  Sure.  There's risk in any tactic.  I want MORE information out there, not less. 

John Bolton will likely make a cogent case for Trump's malfeasance.  Could he flip and turn it all around backwards?  Sure.  What are the odds?  10%?

Same with any and all witnesses.  Fuck it, I want the statements on record.  I don't want the "hearsay" and other uneducated bullshit defenses to be any more common than they already are.

I'm out of rep apparently, but I want it out there as well. Some say it won't matter, just as Lindsey waves away his earlier statements, but it needs to be preserved on the record.

[Mdhorn 5,974]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

The history books won't make any sense. "Wait, there was a trial? But they didn't even call witnesses? Ones who were there, with first hand knowledge?"

"That's right."

"So what was the point of the trial?"

"Dunno."

They'll rewrite that shit too. 

 

53 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Nope, that plays into the R's hands.  They have harped on putting this into the hands of the voters, that should be the dems message going forward.  Trump cant be removed by impeachment, if you want him gone, you have to vote him out.  Period.  

Great--so we're banking on a fair election? 

[TXSG8R 3,362]

5 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

They'll rewrite that shit too. 

 

Great--so we're banking on a fair election? 

I think the odds of an election getting rid of Trump are better than removal through impeachment based on what the Senate has shown us.  Its looking like we cant even get 4 Rs to ask for witnesses.  A 2/3rd vote to remove is unthinkable.  

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

17 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm out of rep apparently, but I want it out there as well. Some say it won't matter, just as Lindsey waves away his earlier statements, but it needs to be preserved on the record.

I think we all want everything on the record, but I don't know if another impeachment is the way to do it.