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

Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17670

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

If/when Donny Trump wriggles his way out of this, it won’t be a win because Republican absurdity and hypocrisy is on record as much as it will be a loss because of the moral hazard; GOP have pushed the line of the rules and what can be taken advantage of and get away with Scott free (and don’t give me any moral victory stuff about how being impeached by the House and having an asterisk next to his name means anything to anyone). This is all bad.

The reason it is bad is because half the country are members of the Cyclops third eye clan from HBOs Watchmen and the other half are not and we have no Superhero’s.

Welcome to the lanai!

I have a table of Speyside single-malts to introduce you to.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that may have played with her base, but that was a disingenuous piece of business right there.  She knows better.

I am disappoint.

Bullshit. He signed on to Kennedy’s disastrous citizen united opinion which led directly to that question ever being asked Today. 
 

Fuck him. Dred Scott legacy is his forever. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4969

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

its an obv question but a good one. if we are participating in a complete failure of one of the branches of government then the entire apparatus is also gone. not just the SCOTUS. now they may not be corrupted in the manner that congress is, but they are down a notch in whatever credibility they once had. 

its like that one long note of suck. just keeps going and growing. and sucking. roberts can EABOD for being the complicit asswad he has been pretty much the entire time of his service. he is the tahoehorn of the fucking top of one of our core institutions. big words, examples, the big board, and every other goddamn evasive dance move you can imagine to avoid doing what everyone knows is right. a round fuck him too. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Must be strange presiding as the judge over the sham trial caused by a court opinion you signed on to that may very likely lead to the dissolution of the senate and the Republic in favor of an emperor.
 

Don’t even think that happened in Rome. Quite an accomplishment. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13581

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Recognize that the Democrats' position on Clinton was nearly equally partisan and use to your advantage here.

The entire premise of the Whitewater investigation never even pretended to be a defense of fair elections or our democratic institutions and devolved into a fishing expedition of even less relevant issues relating to the public interest. 

 

According to Volume 2 of the Mueller Report and Robert Mueller's own public testimony, Donald Trump, under oath and with the help of his lawyers, failed an open book take home test regarding a foreign authoritarian government's interference in our democratic elections.

The "nearly equally partisan" Democrats declined even an attempt to impeach him on that.

They declined to even investigate him for the same circumstances that ended John Edward's campaign and got him indicted. The president fucking a porn star and conspiring with the press to kill the story during an election campaign doesn't even get the sleepy Democratic hound dog off the porch.

Corroborating sworn affidavits testifying Trump raped and threatened the life of a 13 year-old? Nope.

Emoluments? Lol.

Stop.

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10403

Posted
Posted
Yeah, that may have played with her base, but that was a disingenuous piece of business right there.  She knows better.
I am disappoint.


Gotta disagree. It’s the reality of the situation. We have three branches of government. We are watching one branch actively arguing for their own nullification. And in doing so, they are potentially dragging the judiciary down with them
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3760

Posted
Posted (edited)

So now out country is like.... Catholic priests before the internet. Somebody is getting fucked over and over and over, but we really, really, do not want to know anything.  ANYTHING!

This moment, right here and right now, are why Dems should be more interested in Gun ownership.

Edited by horn4life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Gotta disagree. It’s the reality of the situation. We have three branches of government. We are watching one branch actively arguing for their own nullification. And in doing so, they are potentially dragging the judiciary down with them

 

Perhaps. But the Constitution gives them the power to do exactly that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12457

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Islay > Speyside


When I was a younger man I thought Islays were where it's at but then I had a Cambeltown (Springbank 15 year old) that blew my mind. Since then I've gotten into the Glen Scotias and Glengyles.  Delicious. So much depth.  Don't get me wrong, I still like Laphroaig, Ardbeg, Bowmore etc... but once you go Cambeltown you never go back.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32389

Posted
Posted

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/trump-president-impeachment-dictator-945579/

 

Quote

We may be witnessing the end of the United States presidency as we know it. It doesn’t come in large, destructive gestures, like the demolition of the White House. Instead, we most often see it arrive in the mild utterances of old men. Such was the case on the Senate floor on Wednesday, when Alan Dershowitz spoke up in favor of President Trump’s autocracy.

 

Quote

We should have seen this coming, as Trump hardly ever misses an opportunity to reach for more power, not even amidst a process ostensibly about stripping it from him. Ironically and most unfortunately for the Democrats who sought even a modicum of accountability for President Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors, the impeachmentprocess is being perverted into a process to make Trump into a dictator.

 

Quote

Trump’s defense against impeachment has, to this point, been somewhat bifurcated. At once, Trump was supposedly utterly innocent of the charges being brought against him — it was a perfect call with the Ukrainian president, we keep being told; just look at the White House’s doctored transcript — and it was also perfectly fine if Trump did everything he was charged with, because he is allowed to do whatever he likes. It was hard to discern which argument was more disturbing or less befitting of a president.

 

Spoiler

However, Dershowitz went all in with the latter on Wednesday in his response to Republican senator Ted Cruz’s question about whether posing a “quid pro quo” would ever be appropriate conduct. Dershowitz responded by asserting that a president had the powers to shield himself from impeachment merely because, well, if you’re a star, they let you do it. 

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz offered. 

Let’s pick that apart for a moment. “Broad” doesn’t adequately describe that standard. Leave aside the “quid pro quo” part of that — ”if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest” both is a confusing and alarming sentence. Presidents may be popularly elected, but I’d argue that no president is elected in the public interest. That is something that is proven over time by their service, and certainly not anything for the president — him or herself — to solely determine. 

This kind of argument opens the door not only for disgraced president Richard Nixon to be exonerated for the Watergate break-in and cover-up, but for future presidents to do even worse. Would presidents, convinced that it is in the public interest for their discriminatory policies to continue, promote voter suppression to keep black and Hispanic people away from the polls if they believe it would help them get elected? Would they seek to cancel an election altogether? We consider these things hyperbolic, perhaps, but then look at what Dershowitz said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. That actually happened. This is actually happening.

He went on yesterday to argue that a more straightforward case of corruption would look like a president withholding funds unless a foreign leader put his name on a hotel and gave him a million-dollar kickback — a curious example, given who our president is. What isn’t an example of corruption, he argued, is what Trump is doing. “A complex middle case is, ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly,’ ” Dershowitz said. “That cannot be an impeachable offense.”

There were some confusion even amongst Republican senators after he was done, though they’ll surely end up buying it. House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ impeachment manager, slammed the “very odd argument” Dershowitz put forth, adding that “it’s carte blanche” for any president to request foreign interference in an election on his or her behalf. 

That hits at the heart of what this is all about. Many ask, “Why are Republicans so desperate to defend this guy, Donald Trump of all people?” They miss the point. Republicans may not want to see Trump turning the State of the Union into a barnstorming complaint against impeachment, or perhaps they do. But the Senate majority doesn’t want to dodge John Bolton or a real investigation into the Burisma-Biden matter because simply because they are afraid to discover the truth about Trump’s personal guilt. This isn’t about ending all this before next Tuesday night to avoid some embarrassment. It isn’t about him. 

This is about Republicans maintaining the ability to manipulate elections here at home. Trump, so desperate to win his election the first time, welcomed foreign interference along with the traditional domestic voter suppression his party offered. Pandora’s Box has been opened more widely than the president and the Republicans probably ever anticipated, and now they are willing to argue that Trump has the powers of an autocrat all so that they can maintain this ability to reach out to whomever they need to in order to win elections. 

This is how reckless Republicans are with America, willing to give untold amounts of power to a man whom they still don’t fully understand in a frantic attempt to maintain their own grip on advantage in a country that has already elected a black president once and whose demographics are quickly turning against them. 

The irony of it all is that Republicans, who have never made a real policy argument for black and Hispanic votes (and instead stigmatized and hindered them), are now stuck offering ridiculous reasoning to keep their charlatan, criminal president in office. It pays to have a case to make, but when the agenda is furthering white patriarchy and oligarchy at the expense of our natural resources, voter suppression becomes a useful tool. 

This is how we end up with a lawyer standing on the floor of the Senate, already one of the most unrepresentative elected bodies, arguing for dictatorship.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14332

Posted
Posted
The entire premise of the Whitewater investigation never even pretended to be a defense of fair elections or our democratic institutions and devolved into a fishing expedition of even less relevant issues relating to the public interest. 
 
According to Volume 2 of the Mueller Report and Robert Mueller's own public testimony, Donald Trump, under oath and with the help of his lawyers, failed an open book take home test regarding a foreign authoritarian government's interference in our democratic elections.
The "nearly equally partisan" Democrats declined even an attempt to impeach him on that.
They declined to even investigate him for the same circumstances that ended John Edward's campaign and got him indicted. The president fucking a porn star and conspiring with the press to kill the story during an election campaign doesn't even get the sleepy Democratic hound dog off the porch.
Corroborating sworn affidavits testifying Trump raped and threatened the life of a 13 year-old? Nope.
Emoluments? Lol.
Stop.
 

102c9df4085fa0510df25290c6080bf1.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31450

Posted
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Bullshit. He signed on to Kennedy’s disastrous citizen united opinion which led directly to that question ever being asked Today. 
 

Fuck him. Dred Scott legacy is his forever. 

You can criticize him, you can criticize the Courts' decisions,  but trying to blame this shitshow impeachment trial on him and the Supreme Court is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

And as Dennison notes, the CJ's role in the impeachment process is minimal and the Supreme Court's is none.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31450

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

 


Gotta disagree. It’s the reality of the situation. We have three branches of government. We are watching one branch actively arguing for their own nullification. And in doing so, they are potentially dragging the judiciary down with them

 

And the reality of the situation is that the Constitution gives the Chief Justice a minimal role in this proceeding and the Supreme Court none.

He's not acting as a federal district judge presiding over a criminal trial and Liz damn well knows it.  Weak analogies between this and a criminal trial are ok for laypeople I suppose, but not for Elizabeth Warren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can criticize him, you can criticize the Courts' decisions,  but trying to blame this shitshow impeachment trial on him and the Supreme Court is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

And as Dennison notes, the CJ's role in the impeachment process is minimal and the Supreme Court's is none.

The Supreme Court decision in the dred Scott decision led to the civil war. 
 

The Supreme Court decision in citizens united led to trump. 
 

So yes. The Supreme Court led to the shit show we are currently witnessing. 
 

It ain’t minimal. 

Edited by JimmyJames
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
And the reality of the situation is that the Constitution gives the Chief Justice a minimal role in this proceeding and the Supreme Court none.
He's not acting as a federal district judge presiding over a criminal trial and Liz damn well knows it.  Weak analogies between this and a criminal trial are ok for laypeople I suppose, but not for Elizabeth Warren.


I don’t think the Constitution really specifies the limits of his role. I don’t really read in there a necessity to protect whistleblowers or admonish impoliteness, but to remain silent on other subjects. My impression is that his role has been defined mostly by a very limited tradition. Maybe that’s appropriate, but I don’t think it’s a question that is beyond the pale to challenge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31450

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The Supreme Court decision in the dred Scott decision led to the civil war. 
 

The Supreme Court decision in citizens united led to trump. 
 

So yes. The Supreme Court led to the shit show we are currently witnessing. 
 

It ain’t minimal. 

Except that isn't what she meant.  It's a post hoc defense.

She's my candidate, but I'll call her on bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
Perhaps. But the Constitution gives them the power to do exactly that.

This. Our constitution has an Achilles heel. If a criminal conspiracy controls the senate, then it’s game over.

When I was a younger man I thought Islays were where it's at but then I had a Cambeltown (Springbank 15 year old) that blew my mind. Since then I've gotten into the Glen Scotias and Glengyles.  Delicious. So much depth.  Don't get me wrong, I still like Laphroaig, Ardbeg, Bowmore etc... but once you go Cambeltown you never go back.  

My man. HUGE Cambelton fan here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17399

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And the reality of the situation is that the Constitution gives the Chief Justice a minimal role in this proceeding and the Supreme Court none.

He's not acting as a federal district judge presiding over a criminal trial and Liz damn well knows it.  Weak analogies between this and a criminal trial are ok for laypeople I suppose, but not for Elizabeth Warren.

If there is a tie vote on allowing witnesses, doesn't the chief justice cast the deciding vote?  If so, Warren's question may be about nudging him in that case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31450

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 


I don’t think the Constitution really specifies the limits of his role. I don’t really read in there a necessity to protect whistleblowers or admonish impoliteness, but to remain silent on other subjects. My impression is that his role has been defined mostly by a very limited tradition. Maybe that’s appropriate, but I don’t think it’s a question that is beyond the pale to challenge.

 

That is true.  But that's not what she did. She implied that he had that role.

Interestingly, Article 1, Section 3 provides:

Quote

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Which is similar to the role of the Vice President in the Senate generally, which by a longer and stronger tradition, is mostly ceremonial and confined to matters of decorum.  And the VP presides over impeachment trials except in the case of the President.  So it's pretty reasonable to give the Chief Justice a similar role to the VP.  There's nearly zero implication of some strong judicial role for the CJ.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Goredho said:

If there is a tie vote on allowing witnesses, doesn't the chief justice cast the deciding vote?  If so, Warren's question may be about nudging him in that case.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/01/08/can-chief-justice-roberts-break-procedural-vote-ties-in-trump-impeachment-case-n2559171

  • Like 1
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...