The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[tx 3 putt 78,759]

33 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

Next Dem Prez should call Russia and ask them to investigate Don Jr and his father. 

Like Putin would answer the phone. Make Hillary the Russian ambassador. Putin fears her 

[NWBuck 8,630]

9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Like Putin would answer the phone. Make Hillary the Russian ambassador. Putin fears her 

I don't know, man... they were hacking both sides until they found receptive partnership in the Trump Organization

[TexArcher 39,077]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

 

Obstruction charged were never going to be enough to effect removal from office. Especially after the bar had been set at right out treason. You guys know this.  

There could be video of Trump giving Putin a billion dollars of US taxpayer money while lighting a puppy on fire and your party of corrupt shitbird opportunists wouldn't vote to remove him from office.

I mean, it's not as if he wore a tan suit, right?

[UpperWestside 6,285]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I’ve known that nothing would be enough, from the beginning. Because the dynamic is one of a party held hostage by their own misconduct. They have no choice but to be all-in. They can’t betray him - it would be fatal.

It just winds up being fatal for the part of the country that wanted something better. Instead we get 51 cowards who do not give one iota about our country. Party and money over country. I am embarrassed to be an American right now. We have so much potential to do good, but we have a raging 5 year old constantly throwing a temper tantrum in the Oval Office and he has an entire party of enablers 

I will say this again. If you are sticking with this party, even if you are a county clerk, you are complicit in this. You are actively supporting our country being run by a thief and someone who lies everytime he opens his fat ass mouth. I hope y'all feel pride sticking it to the libs and acting exactly like the worthless shitstain holding the highest office in the land. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by UpperWestside

[DixonHur 11,970]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

They can’t betray him - it would be fatal

So instead they destroy the fabric from which the Nation was built...what patriots.

Fuck them all

[Tuco 5,094]

Still can't wrap my mind around how the obviousness of the corrupt bullshit double standard doesn't get through even to the credulous boomer rubes.

They don’t care. This is about teams, not rules or policies. They want their team to win. Go to any football board whose team is under NCAA investigation. It’s the same dynamic.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,612]

10 hours ago, Brandywine said:

Next Dem Prez should call Russia and ask them to investigate Don Jr and his father. 

Or, along those lines....imagine Britain, Germany, Australia, etc all openly offering their assistance or providing whatever is necessary to whoever the Dem candidate ends up being.

Or China.  Easily seem them approaching the eventual Dem nominee and telling them that in exchange for lifting of tariffs, here's all the shit we have on the Trump family.

Or any other nation Trump has pissed off; you know damn well their security apparatus is holding onto shit for just the right opportunity.  

Thanks, Senate.    

[Anastasis 23,718]

On 1/30/2020 at 8:28 PM, 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.

I think that Murkowski is full of shit, but for what it's worth...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-lisa-murkowski-john-roberts/index.html

Why Elizabeth Warren's question on John Roberts may have backfired

Analysis by Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

Washington (CNN)In announcing that she would vote against the Senate calling witnesses, Sen. Lisa Murkowski suggested that her decision was made in part to spare Chief Justice John Roberts from having to face a 50-50 tie, allowing him to avoid a legal and political storm.

"It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the chief justice," the Alaska Republican said Friday afternoon.

Her statement appeared to be a direct response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate who had essentially forced Roberts to speculate about his credibility on national television.

Warren had submitted a question for the chief to read:

"At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"

Roberts, as part of his prescribed duties, read Warren's query from the dais. Word for word without expression.

Now it seems Warren's question was part of the reason Murkowski came to a "no" vote.

Murkowski said, "We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another."

"I will not stand for nor support that effort," she said.

Those comments mirror similar sentiments Roberts had made six years ago.

Way back in 2014, before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the failed nomination of Merrick Garland, not to mention the fiery confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Roberts expressed something similar, worrying about the impact of the political branches on the court.

"They are not getting along very well these days among themselves. It's a period of real partisan rancor," he said at the University of Nebraska. "I don't want it to spill over and affect us."

Roberts was likely never going to cast the tie-breaking vote. Like his mentor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he was likely to have seen himself playing on someone else's field, seeking to follow their rules.

Roberts may have seen it as a separation of powers thing. But also something else: He didn't want his institution drawn into the political circus.

Senate impeachment trial: Key vote to have witnesses fails with vote to acquit timing unclear

That was apparent during his report on the state of the judiciary issued December 31. Speaking generally, he sent a subtle message to other judges. "We should each resolve to do our best to maintain the public's trust," he said. He seemed to suggest: Let the political branches do what they do, and don't get drawn into it.

After the bitter Kavanaugh hearings, Roberts attempted a reset.

"I will not criticize the political branches," he said at the University of Minnesota Law School in late 2018. "After all, they speak for the people, and that commands a certain degree of humility from those of us in the judicial branch, who do not."

But then he continued to talk about the separation of powers. "We are to interpret the laws and Constitution of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them," he said.

He was setting the tone. Murkowski's comments said something out loud that Roberts hadn't.

Speaking for her own branch of government, and flicking mud at Warren, she said:

"We are, sadly, at a low point of division in this country."

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,908]

Lulz ok

[Anastasis 23,718]

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Anybody care to speculate on the long game political strategy in attempting to throw SCOTUS under the bus for a failed removal from office?

[Biff Tannen 46,203]

9 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Or, along those lines....imagine Britain, Germany, Australia, etc all openly offering their assistance or providing whatever is necessary to whoever the Dem candidate ends up being.

Or China.  Easily seem them approaching the eventual Dem nominee and telling them that in exchange for lifting of tariffs, here's all the shit we have on the Trump family.

Or any other nation Trump has pissed off; you know damn well their security apparatus is holding onto shit for just the right opportunity.  

Thanks, Senate.    

I mean honestly, at this point it would be kind of stupid not to. 

[David Dennison 19,569]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Anybody care to speculate on the long game political strategy in attempting to throw SCOTUS under the bus for a failed removal from office?

To portray it as a tool of the Republican Party, which it is.

[Anastasis 23,718]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

To portray it as a tool of the Republican Party, which it is.

To effect what end ultimately?

[WhatTheBuck 28,941]

10 hours ago, Brandywine said:

Next Dem Prez should call Russia and ask them to investigate Don Jr and his father. 

They've already done that. They identified them as useful idiots who are easily bought/manipulated in order to help advance Russian interests and to destabilize the West. It's paying off magnificently. 

[David Dennison 19,569]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

To effect what end ultimately?

To highlight that issue to voters in an effort to reshape it so it's no longer a tool of the Republican Party.

Edited February 1, 2020 by David Dennison

[Anastasis 23,718]

Just now, David Dennison said:

To highlight that issue to voters in an effort to reshape it so it's no longer a tool of the Republican Party.

I think that view has merit.  Long game is politically undermining the SCOTUS to pave way for court packing. 

[Anastasis 23,718]

11 hours ago, Brandywine said:

Next Dem Prez should call Russia and ask them to investigate Don Jr and his father. 

Last Dem candidate did that.  They were smart enough to run it through screens of lawyers, contractors, and sub-contractors. 

[David Dennison 19,569]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that view has merit.  Long game is politically undermining the SCOTUS to pave way for court packing. 

If by court packing you mean appointing a shitload of liberal judges, yes.

Edited February 1, 2020 by David Dennison

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

Obstruction charged were never going to be enough to effect removal from office. Especially after the bar had been set at right out treason. You guys know this.  

He could have handed Putin the nuclear football after sucking his dick and killed Biden.  Absolutely nothing would have removed him from office. This is a naked power grab and a move toward autocracy.  It's also a blank check for even more widespread election interference including vote rigging.  All the stuff you complain about, much of which I agree with, is irrelevant.  An autocratic state is going to further increase surveillance and further depress dissent. Congrats on sticking to your guns, but it's going to get a lot worse. Just wait until exit polling in November point to a comfortable Dem win. And then we all wake up the next day to find out that exit polls were "wrong" and Trump won handily in Republican controlled swing states.  All those GOP statehouses have been working for more than a decade for this. Appointing crooks to supervise elections and disenfranchising minorities. 

After the Trump 2020 win is when the long knives come out, political eliminations start to occur, and we get a constitutional amendment overturning the 22nd amendment and consolidating power further in the executive branch and Senate, and God knows what else. White Christian theocracy maybe. The only real unknown is Trump's heir to power. It won't be his kids and Mitch is old too. 

And the thing about trees of liberty being watered is bullshit too. The American people are pussies.  The Republic will go out with a whimper with Brisket on a ledge and you complaining about surveillance until the autocracy tells you that you better stop complaining. Nobody is going to do shit until they are starving. 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Mo Horn 8,939]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I think that Murkowski is full of shit, but for what it's worth...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-lisa-murkowski-john-roberts/index.html

Why Elizabeth Warren's question on John Roberts may have backfired

Analysis by Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

Washington (CNN)In announcing that she would vote against the Senate calling witnesses, Sen. Lisa Murkowski suggested that her decision was made in part to spare Chief Justice John Roberts from having to face a 50-50 tie, allowing him to avoid a legal and political storm.

"It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the chief justice," the Alaska Republican said Friday afternoon.

Her statement appeared to be a direct response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate who had essentially forced Roberts to speculate about his credibility on national television.

Warren had submitted a question for the chief to read:

"At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"

Roberts, as part of his prescribed duties, read Warren's query from the dais. Word for word without expression.

Now it seems Warren's question was part of the reason Murkowski came to a "no" vote.

Murkowski said, "We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another."

"I will not stand for nor support that effort," she said.

Those comments mirror similar sentiments Roberts had made six years ago.

Way back in 2014, before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the failed nomination of Merrick Garland, not to mention the fiery confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Roberts expressed something similar, worrying about the impact of the political branches on the court.

"They are not getting along very well these days among themselves. It's a period of real partisan rancor," he said at the University of Nebraska. "I don't want it to spill over and affect us."

Roberts was likely never going to cast the tie-breaking vote. Like his mentor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he was likely to have seen himself playing on someone else's field, seeking to follow their rules.

Roberts may have seen it as a separation of powers thing. But also something else: He didn't want his institution drawn into the political circus.

Senate impeachment trial: Key vote to have witnesses fails with vote to acquit timing unclear

That was apparent during his report on the state of the judiciary issued December 31. Speaking generally, he sent a subtle message to other judges. "We should each resolve to do our best to maintain the public's trust," he said. He seemed to suggest: Let the political branches do what they do, and don't get drawn into it.

After the bitter Kavanaugh hearings, Roberts attempted a reset.

"I will not criticize the political branches," he said at the University of Minnesota Law School in late 2018. "After all, they speak for the people, and that commands a certain degree of humility from those of us in the judicial branch, who do not."

But then he continued to talk about the separation of powers. "We are to interpret the laws and Constitution of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them," he said.

He was setting the tone. Murkowski's comments said something out loud that Roberts hadn't.

Speaking for her own branch of government, and flicking mud at Warren, she said:

"We are, sadly, at a low point of division in this country."

Sure Lisa, whatever helps you sleep at night knowing you said fuck scruples. 

[woohorn 1,131]

Last Dem candidate did that.  They were smart enough to run it through screens of lawyers, contractors, and sub-contractors. 

Ha! Which Article has impeachment procedures for private citizens?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

He could have handed Putin the nuclear football after sucking his dick and killed Biden.  Absolutely nothing would have removed him from office. This is a naked power grab and a move toward autocracy.  It's also a blank check for even more widespread election interference including vote rigging.  All the stuff you complain about, much of which I agree with, is irrelevant.  An autocratic state is going to further increase surveillance and further depress dissent. Congrats on sticking to your guns, but it's going to get a lot worse. Just wait until exit polling in November point to a comfortable Dem win. And then we all wake up the next day to find out that exit polls were "wrong" and Trump won handily in Republican controlled swing states.  All those GOP statehouses have been working for more than a decade for this. Appointing crooks to supervise elections and disenfranchising minorities. 

After the Trump 2020 win is when the long knives come out, political eliminations start to occur, and we get a constitutional amendment overturning the 22nd amendment and consolidating power further in the executive branch and Senate, and God knows what else. White Christian theocracy maybe. The only real unknown is Trump's heir to power. It won't be his kids and Mitch is old too. 

And the thing about trees of liberty being watered is bullshit too. The American people are pussies.  The Republic will go out with a whimper with Brisket on a ledge and you complaining about surveillance until the autocracy tells you that you better stop complaining. Nobody is going to do shit until they are starving. 

 

Yep. Here’s a preview of what you can expect coming this November.

https://www.mic.com/articles/158841/michigan-election-2016-results-live-latest-exit-polls-and-voting-projections
 

The 2016 election was stolen.
 

Yesterday the senate abdicated it’s role and authority. 
 

Chief Justice Roberts presided over a sham trial he himself created by signing on to Republican Kennedy’s disastrous Citizens United opinion. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Trying to stick with the overall “we just call balls and strikes” theme that the Republican judges constantly spout out, Chief Justice Roberts announced last night that on the vote for witnesses he would not intervene to break the tie even though the only prior precedent was that he could. 
 

The whole notion that Republican judges just call “balls and strikes” is of course, total bullshit. I would argue that the court used to be somewhat apolitical but that is definitely no longer the case thanks to Republican activist judges and the sooner people realize that the better. 
 

If the Republican house had finally figured out a way Obama could be impeached for wearing a tan suit you can bet your ass Chief Justice Roberts would have intervened to break a tie on a motion if the republicans wanted it, and he would cite the exact same precedent he last night said he would ignore. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by JimmyJames

[Francisco 2.0 32,612]

Nothing to see here, move along:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/01/politics/trump-ukraine-aid-emails-omb-justice-department/index.html

 

Quote

The Department of Justice revealed in a court filing late Friday that it has two dozen emails related to the President Donald Trump's involvement in the withholding of millions in security assistance to Ukraine -- a disclosure that came just hours after the Senate voted against subpoenaing additional documents and witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial, paving the way for his acquittal.

 

Quote

The filing, released near midnight Friday, marks the first official acknowledgment from the Trump administration that emails about the President's thinking related to the aid exist, and that he was directly involved in asking about and deciding on the aid as early as June. The administration is still blocking those emails from the public and has successfully kept them from Congress.

 

Quote

A lawyer with the Office of Management and Budget wrote to the court that 24 emails between June and September 2019 -- including an internal discussion among DOD officials called "POTUS follow-up" on June 24 -- should stay confidential because the emails describe "communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President's immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine."

 

Quote

The filings from the executive branch came Friday to meet a court-ordered January 31 deadline. A judge had specifically asked for an email-by-email breakdown of what the Justice Department redacted or withheld in Defense Department and OMB emails about the aid, and why it did so, after the Center for Public Integrity sued and got access to them in December through the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Francisco 2.0

[hayden_horn 11,403]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

They don’t care. This is about teams, not rules or policies. They want their team to win. Go to any football board whose team is under NCAA investigation. It’s the same dynamic.

i'm not going to make any new friends here, but hell, you don't even have to leave surly. just go to the astros thread on the baseball board, where cheating is okay as long as they got that world series. hypocrisy is not limited to the republicans. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by hayden_horn

[Ted Lange 16,441]

the GOP truly loathes the truth. Act 83.732,000 scene 982,092   Its mindboggling how much these fuckers lie.

 

 

 

 

The GOP is pretty much wrong on everything.   They should rebrand to be the SWAM or ClearLakeHorn party

[Nivek 17,425]

i'm not going to make any new friends here, but hell, you don't even have to leave surly. just go to the astros thread on the baseball board, where cheating is okay as long as they got that world series. hypocrisy is not limited to the republicans. 

Did lance armstrong cheat if everyone else was doping as well?

[David Dennison 19,569]

25 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm not going to make any new friends here, but hell, you don't even have to leave surly. just go to the astros thread on the baseball board, where cheating is okay as long as they got that world series. hypocrisy is not limited to the republicans. 

It's only hypocrisy if you believe it isn't OK for everyone else in professional sports to cheat. Some of us don't care if professional athletes cheat. It makes for much better entertainment if they do.

[RomaVicta 30,637]

17 hours ago, Brandywine said:

“Of all the dictators in the world we get the dumb one.”

😖

Oddly, that's our best hope for the moment. It really gets bad when someone more generally cunning than Trump seizes the reins of the hate engine. That will be the day that this limping republic gets its crutch kicked out from under it. 

See the movie Network and the story of Howard Beale. Go back further and see A Face In the Crowd. Go back centuries and see why Athens would banish charismatic, prominent citizens out of their fear of the demagogue. Wise people have always recognized the threat to a free society dependent on a broad, easily-influenced electorate to map its future.

When I read 1984 the first few times, I dismissed it because I couldn't see how such tyranny could be introduced and imposed on a free people. I reread it in the year 1984 when smiling Ronald Reagan was president. I was slow on the uptake, but this time I got it. The people will demand it. You need only keep an eye on the upper class; the proles aren't constantly monitored because they're kept content in a state of constant war and constant resentment.

The people will demand it. And here we are. The Senate of the United States embraces the flimsiest of fig leafs to hide their shameful act of moving the nation in the direction of tyranny. 

An election may change the dynamics in November, but the tyranny party isn't going to be destroyed; it will merely be delayed. I now see Mitch McConnell as the principal architect. He's as much as stated that the job of the out of power party is to become the party in power. The job is not to serve the people; the aim is power for its own sake.

The Greeks saw the cycle of nations as this: Tyranny > Anarchy > Democracy > Tyranny > etc. 

The ancients were very pragmatic in their view of the world.

[David Dennison 19,569]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Oddly, that's our best hope for the moment. It really gets bad when someone more generally cunning than Trump seizes the reins of the hate engine. That will be the day that this limping republic gets its crutch kicked out from under it. 

See the movie Network and the story of Howard Beale. Go back further and see A Face In the Crowd. Go back centuries and see why Athens would banish charismatic, prominent citizens out of their fear of the demagogue. Wise people have always recognized the threat to a free society dependent on a broad, easily-influenced electorate to map its future.

When I read 1984 the first few times, I dismissed it because I couldn't see how such tyranny could be introduced and imposed on a free people. I reread it in the year 1984 when smiling Ronald Reagan was president. I was slow on the uptake, but this time I got it. The people will demand it. You need only keep an eye on the upper class; the proles aren't constantly monitored because they're kept content in a state of constant war and constant resentment.

The people will demand it. And here we are. The Senate of the United States embraces the flimsiest of fig leafs to hide their shameful act of moving the nation in the direction of tyranny. 

An election may change the dynamics in November, but the tyranny party isn't going to be destroyed; it will merely be delayed. I now see Mitch McConnell as the principal architect. He's as much as stated that the job of the out of power party is to become the party in power. The job is not to serve the people; the aim is power for its own sake.

The Greeks saw the cycle of nations as this: Tyranny > Anarchy > Democracy > Tyranny > etc. 

The ancients were very pragmatic in their view of the world.

The greatest American myth of all is the myth that we are a free people.

[Continental Op 3,934]

It's only hypocrisy if you believe it isn't OK for everyone else in professional sports to cheat. Some of us don't care if professional athletes cheat. It makes for much better entertainment if they do.

"Cheating is OK if I like it!"

[David Dennison 19,569]

1 minute ago, Continental Op said:

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's only hypocrisy if you believe it isn't OK for everyone else in professional sports to cheat. Some of us don't care if professional athletes cheat. It makes for much better entertainment if they do.

"Cheating is OK if I like it!"

It's sports. 

[RomaVicta 30,637]

16 hours ago, staboner said:

there is no mechanism I can see that returns order and principle to the federal government. And there isn't a population that knows/can demand it. Show me on the doll how that can happen? 

This is a massive accelerator further downhill today. I mean we knew it, but you know, its still pretty fucking infuriating

I figure just get it over with. 

You trust any senator, anyone in the GOP, a hapless dickless democrat or the seven deadly sins POTUS? You trust them more than the military apparatus at all? I'll take the later thanks. And I am a bleeding heart libtard who "hates" the military. But I know a failed enterprise when I see one. And I know spineless lizards when I see them too. 

have a good no nuke friday my man

 

The precedent would be Ataturk in Turkey. Until recently, the military there were the actual guardians of democracy.

Actually, now that I think about it, George Washington is our own precedent. All the statues to him around the world where he was a beloved figure have him extending a scroll, the power of rule, back to the people. Gary Wills' book Cincinnatus is a great, quick read on Washington.

Cincinnatus was a Roman who also returned power to the people.

Do we have such a leader?

 

Tangentially, Adam Schiff is as close as we've got to someone worthy of history in all of this disaster. I can't think of the last time a politician has so deeply moved me. As far as I'm concerned, he's heroic. I worry that he will become tragic because of the enemies gathered against him. Godspeed Adam Schiff.

[Red Five 41,787]

1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

the GOP truly loathes the truth. Act 83.732,000 scene 982,092   Its mindboggling how much these fuckers lie.

 

 

 

 

The GOP is pretty much wrong on everything.   They should rebrand to be the SWAM or ClearLakeHorn party

It's not even like Schiff was reporting something, or "making up a bunch of bullcrap". He referenced a CBS story, in which a Trump confidant said something. That's it. I know this is all just a waste of time, but how would those senators know what one person told a reporter? 

[hayden_horn 11,403]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

It's only hypocrisy if you believe it isn't OK for everyone else in professional sports to cheat. Some of us don't care if professional athletes cheat. It makes for much better entertainment if they do.

congrats, you have just encapsulated the entire republican world view. merely change professional sports to politics and professional athletes to politicians, and you have the republican justification for acquitting trump.

[David Dennison 19,569]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

congrats, you have just encapsulated the entire republican world view. merely change professional sports to politics and professional athletes to politicians, and you have the republican justification for acquitting trump.

Yeah, but one thing actually matters, the other is merely entertainment.

[RomaVicta 30,637]

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Warren had submitted a question for the chief to read:

"At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"

Roberts, as part of his prescribed duties, read Warren's query from the dais. Word for word without expression.

Now it seems Warren's question was part of the reason Murkowski came to a "no" vote.

Murkowski said, "We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another."

"I will not stand for nor support that effort," she said.

 

Such brave guardians of the republic! The GOPs elected a president that is every evil thing they've falsely accused his Dem predecessor of being: a lying, divisive, anti-democratic danger to the republic.

Now they take subtle offense at any turn of phrase that can be, through bland sophistry, made to appear offensive to some element of government.

Fuck all of these vile quibblers. They use a car's air freshener to hide from themselves the stench of the rotting elephant they sell as prime beef.

I hope all these ambulatory pieces of shit are "going to go through some things."

[WhatTheBuck 28,941]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

It's only hypocrisy if you believe it isn't OK for everyone else in professional sports to cheat. Some of us don't care if professional athletes cheat. It makes for much better entertainment if they do.

I hope you're not expecting anyone to take that b.s. seriously. 

[Horn Dog 10,188]

As long as we were gonna have a sham trial, the dems really should of taken more advantage of making Chief Roberts read the questions.  I would of asked the DOTARD attorneys since they want to hear from Hunter Biden, would they also be in favor or calling for testimony from other equally relevant witnesses such as Mike Hunt, Ben Dover, and  Anita Mandelay?

Edited February 1, 2020 by Horn Dog

[David Dennison 19,569]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

I hope you're not expecting anyone to take that b.s. seriously. 

I'm absolutely serious. I couldn't care less if professional athletes cheat. Go nuts.

[jimmyjazz 47,331]

I find it both humorous and sad that anyone thinks anything the Dems did affected the vote on witnesses.

No.  The Dems could have deposed Bolton, Mulvaney and Trump in the House procedures and once things moved to the Senate, there would have been no witnesses called.  It was never going to happen.  We knew acquital was never going to happen, but in reality, nothing even resembling any Presidential or judiciary impeachment trial was ever going to happen.  The Republicans had the numbers and the very best they were going to do was bake in a 51-49 vote on witnesses and failure to acquit.  Anyone stupid enough to believe Murkowski or the other "moderates" is a fucking idiot and should have their voting rights stripped.  (I'm only half kidding about voting rights.  An IQ test to get your "as long as you're not black or brown" ID card would seem a fair trade.)

[hayden_horn 11,403]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, but one thing actually matters, the other is merely entertainment.

this is the republican philosophy though. if everyone cheats, we should cheat better and win. shrug. 

[Horn Dog 10,188]

17 hours ago, Pasken said:

 

Graham uses big boy words now.

Question for the Surly attorneys.  At what point does a president lose the ability to invoke executive privilege?  If the senate wants to investigate the Biden’s can Obama claim executive privilege, instruct all witnesses from his administration to ignore the Senate’s subpoenas and lock it up in the courts just like dotard? If not does this mean that dotard’s privilege expires with his presidency?     

[WhatTheBuck 28,941]

37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm absolutely serious. I couldn't care less if professional athletes cheat. Go nuts.

Do you think it should be mandatory?

[David Dennison 19,569]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Do you think it should be mandatory?

Then it wouldn't be cheating.

[David Dennison 19,569]

22 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this is the republican philosophy though. if everyone cheats, we should cheat better and win. shrug. 

It's a political philosophy that is currently being used to great advantage by Republicans. Democrats used to have it mastered. 

[Brisketexan 107,028]

Question for the Surly attorneys.  At what point does a president lose the ability to invoke executive privilege?  If the senate wants to investigate the Biden’s can Obama claim executive privilege, instruct all witnesses from his administration to ignore the Senate’s subpoenas and lock it up in the courts just like dotard? If not does this mean that dotard’s privilege expires with his presidency?     

Answer, dead serious: if he is a Republican president with a Republican Senate, there is no point at which he can’t invoke it. Because the only counterweight is a court order to produce the information...which the POTUS will ignore, because the only penalty is “it’s illegal to defy a court order,” but a Republican Senate won’t ever hold him accountable for a violation of law. There is no limit, there is no failsafe. The failsafe has failed.

[WhatTheBuck 28,941]

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Then it wouldn't be cheating.

So everybody doesn't do it. In fact, the reason people cheat is to get an unfair advantage over their opponent precisely because their opponent isn't cheating too. If everyone did it then everyone would be the same relative to one another as if none of them were cheating. So everyone cheating doesn't make it more entertaining. What makes it more entertaining for YOU is if YOUR team cheats and they win a championship. When your team loses a championship to a team that is found to have been cheating, you will express the exact opposite opinion. 

[RomaVicta 30,637]

57 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I find it both humorous and sad that anyone thinks anything the Dems did affected the vote on witnesses.

No.  The Dems could have deposed Bolton, Mulvaney and Trump in the House procedures and once things moved to the Senate, there would have been no witnesses called.  It was never going to happen.  We knew acquital was never going to happen, but in reality, nothing even resembling any Presidential or judiciary impeachment trial was ever going to happen.  The Republicans had the numbers and the very best they were going to do was bake in a 51-49 vote on witnesses and failure to acquit.  Anyone stupid enough to believe Murkowski or the other "moderates" is a fucking idiot and should have their voting rights stripped.  (I'm only half kidding about voting rights.  An IQ test to get your "as long as you're not black or brown" ID card would seem a fair trade.)

I similarly opined earlier that the post game commentary about possible errors made by the house managers negatively impacting the chances for witnesses is based on a false premise. The house managers performed excellently. In the bits and pieces that I saw or heard, the case was laid out with supporting evidence in a convincing manner.

So, if you agree that the house managers did their jobs more than adequately, the question becomes why weren't the GOP senators swayed? The answer to that question has been illuminated in many fine posts on this thread already. They've aligned with a man who cares nothing for a republic that he probably never even understood. They support absolute dishonesty and third rate sophistry in the name of partisan purity. They bank on the ignorance of an electorate whose education they regularly refuse to fund and whose teachers they regularly vilify. 

They're proud of this. That's just how depraved they are.

They support the murder of journalists, the abandonment of comrades in arms, and the embrace of autocrats.

 

What the alleged fence sitters must be telling themselves as they cling to this POS is beyond me. Fig leaf. Sad! Do something!