The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[Carl Spackler 3479]

Just got out of an arbitration and am just now coming up for air.  Was wondering if the summary below (c&p from elsewhere) is accurate.  Please advise.

 

ALL THE WITNESSES: Ok we all agree. This is what happened.

REPUBLICANS: None of you were in the room!

BOLTON: *raises hand* Well I was in the...

REPUBLICANS: Who asked you?! Shut up! You’re a liberal pawn!

BOLTON: Um... I’m actually I’m a lifelong Republican and I was literally Trump’s national security advi...

REPUBLICANS: Shut your mustache! Somebody bring back the first national security advisor.

FLYNN: *in orange jumpsuit* Hey sorry guys I’m in jail lol.

REPUBLICANS: What? Why?

FLYNN: For lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

REPUBLICANS: Well what idiot told you to do that?!

FLYNN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! No one believes either of you!

KELLY: *raises hand* I believe them. And I was Trump’s Chief of sta...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Let’s talk to the current chief of staff. Who is he?

MULVANEY: *raises hand* It’s me. Sort of. Well, I'm the act...

REPUBLICANS: Shit. Never mind.

PARNAS: *raises hand* I was also in the room. In fact, here’s a cell phone video of the President saying that...

REPUBLICANS: Wait what?! How in hell did you sneak a cell phone into a meeting with the President?

PARNAS: It was easy I just walked right in and...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! You’re a criminal!

PARNAS: Correct. So I just walked right into...

TRUMP: I don’t know him.

PARNAS: And here’s 500 pictures of me with the President because we’re besties.

REPUBLICANS: Wait... What idiot introduced you to the President??

PARNAS: His personal lawyer.

REPUBLICANS: Cohen??

COHEN: *also in orange jumpsuit* Hey no sorry guys I’m in jail too. Oops.

REPUBLICANS: Why?

COHEN: For campaign finance violations.

REPUBLICANS: Whose campaign?

COHEN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Who was the campaign chair??

MANAFORT: *also in orange jumpsuit* Yeah. Me. Also in jail. Heyyyy.

REPUBLICANS: IS EVERYBODY IN JAIL?!?

PARNAS: It was Giuliani.

YOVANOVITCH: Giuliani! That’s the guy who had me fired from my job!

REPUBLICANS: Who are you??

YOVANOVITCH: I was the ambassador to Ukraine.

REPUBLICANS: Wait, you had her fired? Do you work for the government??

GIULIANI: Nope. But I figured no one really follows any rules around here so...

REPUBLICANS: Well who is the ambassador to the European Union??

SONDLAND: *raises hand* It's me. I was also in the roo...

REPUBLICANS: F@$&!!!

PUTIN: *rubs his bare chest*

[Anastasis 23464]

16 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.

[Tuco 5076]

I think it would also be reasonable to suggest that the founders thought there was some functional reason to have the top judge involved in the most important “trial” for more than just decorum. Just because the VP presided in a certain way, doesn’t mean that was what the founders intended.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

1 minute ago, Carl Spackler said:

Just got out of an arbitration and am just now coming up for air.  Was wondering if the summary below (c&p from elsewhere) is accurate.  Please advise.

 

ALL THE WITNESSES: Ok we all agree. This is what happened.

REPUBLICANS: None of you were in the room!

BOLTON: *raises hand* Well I was in the...

REPUBLICANS: Who asked you?! Shut up! You’re a liberal pawn!

BOLTON: Um... I’m actually I’m a lifelong Republican and I was literally Trump’s national security advi...

REPUBLICANS: Shut your mustache! Somebody bring back the first national security advisor.

FLYNN: *in orange jumpsuit* Hey sorry guys I’m in jail lol.

REPUBLICANS: What? Why?

FLYNN: For lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

REPUBLICANS: Well what idiot told you to do that?!

FLYNN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! No one believes either of you!

KELLY: *raises hand* I believe them. And I was Trump’s Chief of sta...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Let’s talk to the current chief of staff. Who is he?

MULVANEY: *raises hand* It’s me. Sort of. Well, I'm the act...

REPUBLICANS: Shit. Never mind.

PARNAS: *raises hand* I was also in the room. In fact, here’s a cell phone video of the President saying that...

REPUBLICANS: Wait what?! How in hell did you sneak a cell phone into a meeting with the President?

PARNAS: It was easy I just walked right in and...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! You’re a criminal!

PARNAS: Correct. So I just walked right into...

TRUMP: I don’t know him.

PARNAS: And here’s 500 pictures of me with the President because we’re besties.

REPUBLICANS: Wait... What idiot introduced you to the President??

PARNAS: His personal lawyer.

REPUBLICANS: Cohen??

COHEN: *also in orange jumpsuit* Hey no sorry guys I’m in jail too. Oops.

REPUBLICANS: Why?

COHEN: For campaign finance violations.

REPUBLICANS: Whose campaign?

COHEN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Who was the campaign chair??

MANAFORT: *also in orange jumpsuit* Yeah. Me. Also in jail. Heyyyy.

REPUBLICANS: IS EVERYBODY IN JAIL?!?

PARNAS: It was Giuliani.

YOVANOVITCH: Giuliani! That’s the guy who had me fired from my job!

REPUBLICANS: Who are you??

YOVANOVITCH: I was the ambassador to Ukraine.

REPUBLICANS: Wait, you had her fired? Do you work for the government??

GIULIANI: Nope. But I figured no one really follows any rules around here so...

REPUBLICANS: Well who is the ambassador to the European Union??

SONDLAND: *raises hand* It's me. I was also in the roo...

REPUBLICANS: F@$&!!!

PUTIN: *rubs his bare chest*

Well done.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

I think it would also be reasonable to suggest that the founders thought there was some functional reason to have the top judge involved in the most important “trial” for more than just decorum. Just because the VP presided in a certain way, doesn’t mean that was what the founders intended.

Possibly.  Contemplating it, the President's out, for obvious reasons, can't likely put the Speaker of the House in charge of the Senate.  The question then boils down to VP or CJ as a high government official?  Is it an arbitrary choice of a high government official, or intended to impose a judicial role?  If it's intended to impose a judicial role, why do other impeachment proceedings take place without a judicial officer?  Also, why is the VP disqualified?  Given that the VP may have a conflict of interest given succession upon removal, seems fairly likely that it's the last high government official standing.

[Gil Bang 25922]

All bullshit aside, to this layman, it looks like Schiff is the best lawyer in the room by a mile.   Do you lawyers see it that way?

[Anastasis 23464]

3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

All bullshit aside, to this layman, it looks like Schiff is the best lawyer in the room by a mile.   Do you lawyers see it that way?

Has anyone seen Nadler recently?

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

All bullshit aside, to this layman, it looks like Schiff is the best lawyer in the room by a mile.   Do you lawyers see it that way?

Yeah. Pretty much.

Also with respect to Chief Justice Roberts, it seems clear to me that “presiding” over an impeachment trial doesn’t just mean sitting there with a thumb up your ass listening to assholes like Rand Paul spewing out total bullshit. 

It actually means doing something and making decisions. 

[Tuco 5076]

Possibly.  Contemplating it, the President's out, for obvious reasons, can't likely put the Speaker of the House in charge of the Senate.  The question then boils down to VP or CJ as a high government official?  Is it an arbitrary choice of a high government official, or intended to impose a judicial role?  If it's intended to impose a judicial role, why do other impeachment proceedings take place without a judicial officer?  Also, why is the VP disqualified?  Given that the VP may have a conflict of interest given succession upon removal, seems fairly likely that it's the last high government official standing.

I could see the VP presiding during the legislative functions because he is involved in the execution of the laws. He is boss signs the laws. It make sense an almost top notch rep from the exec presides during the creation of them. But when it comes to trial time -the most important trial for the survival of this government you are just inventing- you’d want the top judge in the land to preside in a fairly active manner. Particularly considering the Senators were not mostly all lawyers or well staffed with lawyers. If I was (naively) inventing a government, that’s how I might imagine it.

[Gil Bang 25922]

Mitt's turn.

[JimmyJames 12271]

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Why does this gif from you in response come as zero surprise? 

[SquishMitten 10403]

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

[Anastasis 23464]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Why does this gif from you in response come as zero surprise? 

If you think that Warren's tactic to call into question the credibility of the CJ was a smart move to effect the political end of removal from office by endearing the CJ to her position, I guess you are free to think that. 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

18 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

All bullshit aside, to this layman, it looks like Schiff is the best lawyer in the room by a mile.   Do you lawyers see it that way?

I don't know if he's the best lawyer in the room, but he's by far the most eloquent and adept at the lectern.  He's obviously not a dumbass.  I'd say Philbin is the closest from the defense, although his tone of voice (not his fault) is annoying.

[Gil Bang 25922]

Romney's question is really clever.  Schiff's saying "yes", Purpura is saying "no".  It's a good setup for calling witnesses. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

I could see the VP presiding during the legislative functions because he is involved in the execution of the laws. He is boss signs the laws. It make sense an almost top notch rep from the exec presides during the creation of them. But when it comes to trial time -the most important trial for the survival of this government you are just inventing- you’d want the top judge in the land to preside in a fairly active manner. Particularly considering the Senators were not mostly all lawyers or well staffed with lawyers. If I was (naively) inventing a government, that’s how I might imagine it.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is actually given a lot of power in an impeachment trial. It’s not recognized because it’s happened so rarely and the judicial branch has always been supposed to be number 3 when it comes to power after the executive and the congress. Roberts is so far being a pussy in my opinion. 
 

The framers intended it that way that the courts were number 3 but we’re supposed to have power over impeachment.

Marbury v. Madison, however, was the ultimate court power grab and for some strange reason it worked. 
 

It’s the senate that’s relinquishing it’s power here to emperor trump. That’s because Moscow Mitch is an amoral power hungry asshole. 

[Gil Bang 25922]

WTF happened with Amy's question?

[Gil Bang 25922]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is actually given a lot of power in an impeachment trial. It’s not recognized because it’s happened so rarely and the judicial branch has always been supposed to be number 3 when it comes to power after the executive and the congress. Roberts is so far being a pussy in my opinion. 
 

The framers intended it that way that the courts were number 3 but we’re supposed to have power over impeachment.

Marbury v. Madison, however, was the ultimate court power grab and for some strange reason it worked. 
 

It’s the senate that’s relinquishing it’s power here to emperor trump. That’s because Moscow Mitch is an amoral power hungry asshole. 

So, for example, does CJ have the power to sanction Rand Paul for attempting to out the whistleblower?

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If you think that Warren's tactic to call into question the credibility of the CJ was a smart move to effect the political end of removal from office by endearing the CJ to her position, I guess you are free to think that. 

Dude. The question wasn’t designed to kiss his ass. It was designed to point out to him explicitly the mess he has made and his ability to at least try to clean it up. I don’t expect you to understand. 

[Gil Bang 25922]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

So, for example, does CJ have the power to sanction Rand Paul for attempting to out the whistleblower?

Yes. 

The senate could vote to override him if they wanted to. Not bloody likely. 
 

The point is he has that power if he wants to use it. 

[DDD Dad 14329]

I really wish Nadler would spend less time at the lectern. His tone is condescending and does not help the presentation.

[Anastasis 23464]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

I really wish Nadler would spend less time at the lectern. His tone is condescending and does not help the presentation.

Look like Schiff was not pleased. 

[Gap03 3304]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Look like Schiff was not pleased. 

MSNBC is saying Nadler cut Schiff off.  If so, Pelosi needs to take him behind the woodshed because he sucks compared to Schiff.

[Anastasis 23464]

"Jerry, Jerry, Jerry" is what I heard from Schiff while Nadler headed to the lectern. 

[Anastasis 23464]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Dude. The question wasn’t designed to kiss his ass. It was designed to point out to him explicitly the mess he has made and his ability to at least try to clean it up. I don’t expect you to understand. 

I am sure that it takes the mind of a great trial lawyer such as yourself to understand.  Or do you you just push paper?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Schiff is a much more effective advocate than nadler. That’s been obvious for months. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I am sure that it takes the mind of a great trial lawyer such as yourself to understand.  Or do you you just push paper?

I do both. Thanks for asking. 

[Cairn Horn88 8260]

Bolton apparently in Austin tonight.  Don't know any more than that.

[Anastasis 23464]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

I do both. Thanks for asking. 

#bothsides.

[Pasken 1309]

1 minute ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Bolton apparently in Austin tonight.  Don't know any more than that.

Keep an eye out for drones.

[Gil Bang 25922]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Schiff is a much more effective advocate than nadler. That’s been obvious for months. 

Nadler looks too much like Larry David's cousin Andy.

 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Bolton apparently in Austin tonight.  Don't know any more than that.

Not surprised. This is the town nowadays. 

[Gil Bang 25922]

Collins says she's in favor of witnesses per CNN

[Pasken 1309]

Alexander and Collins to release statements tonight.

[Gil Bang 25922]

Murkowski (sp?) wants to "reflect on it" per CNN's Manu Raju ( a solid fucking reporter). 

[Anastasis 23464]

1 minute ago, Pasken said:

Keep an eye out for drones.

Unless he is attending a brown people wedding, it should be a low risk situation. 

[shnsajax 3591]

Bolton apparently in Austin tonight.  Don't know any more than that.

[DDD Dad 14329]

Collins has issued a statement in favor of witnesses. She must have confirmed that there will be fewer than 49 votes for witnesses.

[Gil Bang 25922]

 

[Anastasis 23464]

6 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

CNN's Manu Raju ( a solid fucking reporter).

Plus or minus 10 days. 

[Gil Bang 25922]

Alexander is a NO per Manu Raju

[JimmyJames 12271]

If the senate still has principles they will call witnesses.

if the senate is a trump piss bowl they won’t. 
 

Im an optimist at heart. So I’ll just refrain from stating what I think is about to happen. 
 

ok never mind. 51-49 no witnesses. 

#gopcoverup

[Gil Bang 25922]

We're fucked. 

[Gatorubet 30188]

8 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Alexander and Collins to release statements tonight.

I heard it was selfie pics of furrowed brows.

[DDD Dad 14329]

Manu Raju is reporting Alexander is a no.

Based on the question he posed today I’m not surprised (with Cruz and others asking about the prior bipartisan impeachment votes).

[JimmyJames 12271]

Moscow Mitch and the back in the USSR crew about to vote to acquit! 

[JimmyJames 12271]

We don’t need no stinking witnesses!!

[Gil Bang 25922]

If you click on tweet, it's a long thread where he says "Trump did it, but I don't give a fuck"

Edited January 31, 2020 by Gil Bang

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

Any country with self-respect would set DC on fire tonight. Instead, we’re just gonna whine on Twitter.