impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The democrats are dragging this out.  Articles should have been done by the end of October. The whistleblower was in September FFS.

[David Dennison 18952]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats are dragging this out.  Articles should have been done by the end of October. The whistleblower was in September FFS.

If they were dragging it out, there would not be an impeachment vote this year.

[CycleTex87 2982]

This is a lot of pissing in the wind, because McConnell and the Senate will make quick work of the trial.  Kangaroo court if you will.  I'll be surprised if its anything else.

[David Dennison 18952]

1 minute ago, CycleTex87 said:

This is a lot of pissing in the wind, because McConnell and the Senate will make quick work of the trial.  Kangaroo court if you will.  I'll be surprised if its anything else.

Hopefully voters will see through the short term political victory that will come with acquittal.

[smuggs 9354]

1 minute ago, CycleTex87 said:

This is a lot of pissing in the wind, because McConnell and the Senate will make quick work of the trial.  Kangaroo court if you will.  I'll be surprised if its anything else.

Yeah well, sometimes the wind blows hard, from many directions, but you still have to take a piss.

Or something...

[Pig Bellmont 8742]

2 minutes ago, CycleTex87 said:

This is a lot of pissing in the wind, because McConnell and the Senate will make quick work of the trial.  Kangaroo court if you will.  I'll be surprised if its anything else.

No one will be surprised, but there will be a vote in the senate and 1/3 of those assholes are up for re-election, including Mitch and Lindsay. 

[Brandywine 1317]

Had the shoe been on the other foot the Republicans would have been like mangy ugly attack dogs (which they really already kind of are). When the Senate gets through, the American people will start to believe it was the Dems who made the call to the President of Ukraine and committed the crime. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Brandywine

[triplehorn 2664]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If they were dragging it out, there would not be an impeachment vote this year.

Pelosi didn’t say anything about an impeachment vote this year.

[EMAWesome 101]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats are dragging this out.  Articles should have been done by the end of October. The whistleblower was in September FFS.

If they were interested in dragging this out they would fight Bolton's refusal of their subpoena in the courts.  Actually if they were interested in anything about this that is what they would do.

[triplehorn 2664]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

If they were interested in dragging this out they would fight Bolton's refusal of their subpoena in the courts.  Actually if they were interested in anything about this that is what they would do.

They are fighting it.  It’s in the courts by way of the Don McGahn case.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dems should have impeached Trump multiple times already.  Nothing stopped them from doing so. 

[kevwun 15936]

We get it Hugo.  You don't need to post it every 7 seconds.

[Pasken 1309]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Hopefully voters will see through the short term political victory that will come with acquittal.

I think they are more likely to vote to dismiss than acquit.

[David Dennison 18952]

12 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

If they were interested in dragging this out they would fight Bolton's refusal of their subpoena in the courts.  Actually if they were interested in anything about this that is what they would do.

John Bolton has never been subpoenaed.

[EMAWesome 101]

12 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

My girl made a bad joke that would have made her law class groan. But show of hands of those that think Melania really wrote that tweet? Yeah. I liked this tweet was a pretty good clap back. 

 

Your girl also doesn't know the definition of treason, as stated in the Constitution.  I suppose that might not be a big thing but if a supposed Constitutional law expert who teaches law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country doesn't know this it makes hard to give credibility to anything else she says.

 

Karmin's defintion of treason--“Treason,” the first thing listed, lay in an individual’s giving aid to a foreign enemy — that is, putting a foreign adversary’s interests above the interests of the United States. 

The Constitution's definition of treason-Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

 

You can't have treason without a war.  When has the Ukraine declared war on the United States?

 

If she doesn't know this basic fact, which takes about ten seconds to Google then what other crap did spew she out of her hole without any actual knowledge of yesterday?  The only basis for her "expertise" was her hatred of Trump.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

19 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

No one will be surprised, but there will be a vote in the senate and 1/3 of those assholes are up for re-election, including Mitch and Lindsay. 

And I'm sure Donald will tone it down to make things easier for the senate Rs facing reelection 

[David Dennison 18952]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Your girl also doesn't know the definition of treason, as stated in the Constitution.  I suppose that might not be a big thing but if a supposed Constitutional law expert who teaches law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country doesn't know this it makes hard to give credibility to anything else she says.

 

Karmin's defintion of treason--“Treason,” the first thing listed, lay in an individual’s giving aid to a foreign enemy — that is, putting a foreign adversary’s interests above the interests of the United States. 

The Constitution's definition of treason-Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

 

You can't have treason without a war.  When has the Ukraine declared war on the United States?

 

If she doesn't know this basic fact, which takes about ten seconds to Google then what other crap did spew she out of her hole without any actual knowledge of yesterday?  The only basis for her "expertise" was her hatred of Trump.

Other posters kindly pointed out to me in another thread that the definition of treason is not limited to the Constitution.

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

It's a legal question, not a fact question. And scholars disagree. I don't know enough about this area or Turley's views to weigh in, but it strikes me as odd to suggest that the courts must weigh in to determine if Congress can pursue a given basis of impeachment. That is counter to the Consitution giving Congress the sole power of impeachment, and with similar questions, the Courts have typically stayed out it, citing a prudential doctrine of avoiding what they refer to as "political questions." Beyond that, I can't really critique Turley's views, though I'm sure the other scholars disagreed yesterday and explained why. As others have said, the democrats not calling a conserative legal scholar that would have sided with them was a mistake. The media seems to be reporting this as another partisan divide, and it's not that. Turley's views would be a small minority among legal scholars. 

 

 

I wish someone would have tried to nail him down on what he really thought a reasonable approach is for a president that refuses to comply with the impeachment process at all.  Its not like hes got narrow questions in the courts about specific items that he can claim immunity on, hes blanket denying everything.  I do agree with him that more evidence is better, but when the president withholds that evidence, what does he expect the house to do?  It was disappointing that both sides mainly asked their own witnesses the stuff they already knew.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

18 minutes ago, kevwun said:

We get it Hugo.  You don't need to post it every 7 seconds.

I will fight you! 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Pig Bellmont 8742]

8 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

And I'm sure Donald will tone it down to make things easier for the senate Rs facing reelection 

lulz Rudy is in Ukraine right now doing more of the same shit that started all this

[Rougarou 594]

8 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

lulz Rudy is in Ukraine right now doing more of the same shit that started all this

Seriously!? I’d like to see ol Donny Trump try to wiggle out of this all the while engage in the exact same thing that has got his neck in a noose 

[jimmyjazz 46300]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

It's a legal question, not a fact question.

I'll defer to this perspective since I don't see the difference.  Certainly the Constitutional language about impeachment is very cut and dried, but maybe that's not enough to be called "fact".

 

Quote

Beyond that, I can't really critique Turley's views, though I'm sure the other scholars disagreed yesterday and explained why.

There was some disagreement, but the general tendency of the Dems to focus on their 3 scholars and the 'pubs to focus on Turley created some confounding lack of clarity.  As others have said, perhaps it was because lawyers don't want to ask a question for which they don't already know the response, but one would think they could handle that with further pursuit on the next round.  It wasn't a trial with very strict examination and cross-examination standards.  "Here's your 5 minutes, go" allows a lot of damage control.

 

Quote

As others have said, the democrats not calling a conserative legal scholar that would have sided with them was a mistake. The media seems to be reporting this as another partisan divide, and it's not that. Turley's views would be a small minority among legal scholars. 

That's interesting.  If his views are shared by a substantial amount of the legal community, then from an educational perspective I would have loved to have heard more point/counterpoint.  But, I guess that wasn't the point (repetitive use of "point" intended).

EDIT:  strike that last paragraph.  I literally missed the period after "that" and before "Turley's".  It's a good lesson on the importance of punctuation.

Edited December 5, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[jimmyjazz 46300]

54 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democrats appear to want to get this over with as quickly as possible because they know they are going to be defeated in the Senate.

immediately followed by

50 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats are dragging this out.  Articles should have been done by the end of October. The whistleblower was in September FFS.

 

LMAO.  surly never stops surlying.

[jimmyjazz 46300]

44 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

If they were interested in dragging this out they would fight Bolton's refusal of their subpoena in the courts.  Actually if they were interested in anything about this that is what they would do.

They didn't subpoena Bolton.

[TwiceHorn 31624]

45 minutes ago, Tuco said:

According to this thread, they avoided challenging Turley and stuck to the friendly witnesses.  A lot of posters are frustrated by that, but it sounds like you agree with the approach.  I tend to as well, not because they couldn't find cracks (or canyons) in his logic, but because there was a decent chance he'd have some 2 sentence retort that showed their ignorance on some fine point and it would make them look foolish.  The goal isn't to convince people watching the entire exchange; they are looking to avoid negative headlines. 

Well.  I do think these hearings were less effective than those of the intel committee.

I think they had to choose con law profs who don't wear their ideology on their sleeves, so no Tribe, for example.  Or Sandy Levinson.  Charles Alan Wright and Ronald Rotunda are dead, so I can't think of any right-leaning con law profs anymore, other than Turley.  And honestly, I don't see him as much of a leading light in constitutional law, more constitutional criminal procedure, but whatever.

I can see the merit in a less confrontational approach for these particular hearings.

I do think some of Turley's "wilder" points should have been challenged more effectively than what I saw.  Particularly where he contradicted himself regarding the Clinton impeachment.  I am a little surprised that he took some of the positions that he did, which seemed to me to be pretty clearly partisan rather than merely a conservative view of the Constitution.

Because I'm on the record as disliking even the necessary congressional hearings (I concede that these are probably necessary), I think I would have preferred professional counsel handling the questioning here, as in the intel committee.

I think they really missed the boat not having former UT prof and Colorado dean Hal Bruff.  He's a scholar of presidentlal constitutional law, probably the expert in the field, and, although associated with the Carter administration, would probably have been super even-handed on these issues.  https://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/profile.jsp?id=8  He may be in poor health, I hope not.  The other obvious one, that has been consulted by the press on some Trump issues, is Peter Shane. https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/peter-m-shane/

[EMAWesome 101]

26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Other posters kindly pointed out to me in another thread that the definition of treason is not limited to the Constitution.

Impeachment is a constitutional process.  If you are going to use treason as a reason to impeach you must use the definition in the Constitution.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45751]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

They didn't subpoena Bolton.

I don't understand why.  Still waiting on McGahan decision?

[jimmyjazz 46300]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Impeachment is a constitutional process.  If you are going to use treason as a reason to impeach you must use the definition in the Constitution.

Well, not if it's circumstantial treason.

[horncyclist 1391]

12 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Seriously!? I’d like to see ol Donny Trump try to wiggle out of this all the while engage in the exact same thing that has got his neck in a noose 

As soon as the Senate clear him, why shouldn't he just call up Zelensky and say "oh yeah, you remember that favor...and oh we do a for you...well, we're holding up the aide again, please announce the investigation." Let's all be clear what's at stake here. If the republicans prevail, we're saying that Trump or any president, can do this--and worse--without consequence."

[BrickHorn 18293]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think they had to choose con law profs who don't wear their ideology on their sleeves, so no Tribe, for example.  Or Sandy Levinson.  Charles Alan Wright and Ronald Rotunda are dead, so I can't think of any right-leaning con law profs anymore,

Is Charles Fried still around?  Or Graglia?

[sachick 1189]

In the senate trial, will the president be able to call any witnesses? Like he's threatened to call Pelosi, Shicff, et.al?

[Tuco 5084]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don't understand why.  Still waiting on McGahan decision?

He was the National Security Advisor.  I would imagine there would be a higher bar to clear to compel him to testify, than say Sec of Energy or Dir of OMB, which should be more bureaucratic.  The Dems probably want to avoid court case losses that would embolden others from testifying and push the narrative the White House is on solid ground in blocking testimony. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Tuco

[EMAWesome 101]

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Professor Gerhardt is wrong in arguing that a president can be impeached for insisting that the courts resolve conflicts between the legislative and executive branched. (1 of 2)

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

(2 of 2) Our system of checks and balances permits a president to resist congressional subpoenas if he believes that the information sought is privileged. It is the function of the judicial branch to resolve such disputes.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Professor Gerhardt says that we teach our law students always to comply with congressional subpoenas. No. We teach our students that we have an adversary system which permits the executive to challenge legislative actions.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Feldman mistakenly says the Constitution defines bribery. Where? It defines treason, but not bribery

[qtote]

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Professor Turley is correct that impeaching a president for demanding judicial review of Congressional subpoenas would undercut our system of checks and balances.[/quote]

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof Feldman is wrong in suggesting that the courts have no role to play in deciding whether Congressional subpoenas are subject to claims of executive privilege in the context of impeachment.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof. Carlin defines bribery to include “ bad practices.” That would be unconstitutionally vague and dangerous.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The expert witnesses should be cross examined by opposing counsel instead of just being thrown softballs by counsel on their side. Cross examination is essential to test witnesses. Otherwise the witnesses are just lecturing about their preexisting views.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The open ended criteria for impeachment proposed by the Democratic experts are dangerous and place Congress above the law. That’s why the Framers demanded specific criteria that sound of crime, rather than “abuse of office.”

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Republicans should have challenged Professor Feldman’s assertion that “abuse of office" is a constitutional basis for impeachment. These words do not appear in the Constitution and such vague criteria were rejected by the Framers.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Democratic witnesses have wrongly said that Congress cannot move forward because President Trump has resisted Congressional subpoenas. Of course they can. Simply go to court and get a judicial order.That is the proper course, not impeachment for invoking separation of powers

[EMAWesome 101]

8 minutes ago, sachick said:

In the senate trial, will the president be able to call any witnesses? Like he's threatened to call Pelosi, Shicff, et.al?

It will be ran by the Republicans so I would assume he would be able to call anyone he or his defense team would want.  Doesn't mean they couldn't fight it in the courts but he could call them.

[High Plains Drifter 11054]

18 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Side bar- What jobs do y’all have that allow you to watch and comment on these hearings so thoroughly?

 

I'm the president of a large western democracy that is sliding into fascism.

[SquishMitten 10447]

Well for one thing it stays there until someone moves it. You don’t just shut it off yourself. Then when that happens they can blame the dems for taking away their masterpiece, even if that’s a total lie. 
Also their target audience is old as shit. 
Not saying it’s the critical point of the whole thing just trying to answer your question as to why they might do it that way. 

Nah. I’m going with the theory it’s because they’re old and don’t understand technology. They’re like the office geezer who prints emails, scans them, and then sends it as an attachment because they don’t know how the “Fwd:” function works.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

I would like to see the President call the Biden's, Pelosi, Schiff to testify. I think it would blow up in the Republican's face.

Counter that with the Democrats having Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani called forth to testify. Throw in some Fraud Guarantee and we'll see where the Republic lands

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, CycleTex87 said:

This is a lot of pissing in the wind, because McConnell and the Senate will make quick work of the trial.  Kangaroo court if you will.  I'll be surprised if its anything else.

 

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

No one will be surprised, but there will be a vote in the senate and 1/3 of those assholes are up for re-election, including Mitch and Lindsay. 

What Pelosi and Dems understand - when corrupt Senate acquittal is a foregone conclusion, the simple calculus is the longer this goes, the more perilous it gets for Trump/GOP Congress.  It's a function of both more severe evidence coming forth after Trump's appeals are exhaustedin multiple cases (tax returns/DB financials/Mueller 6(e) materials/McGahn compelled testimony (multiple others then compelled to testify), and proximity of manifest GOP Congress' corrupt complicity to the 2020 election.

What Pelosi is doing now is saying the evidence we have today is damning and sufficient as a stand alone to impeach this motherfucker.  But she's stating that without defining when a full case will be handed over to the Senate.  If she came out and said we can't impeach "now" because of needing the evidence currently tied up in the courts, it would diminish the meaning, strength, and magnitude of evidence they already have - which is a shit ton.  So her approach today is to stoke it, keep the pressure and momentum going forward, and merge it with the court outcomes into 2020 (that could end up being resolved a lot sooner than expected).

Edited December 5, 2019 by triplehorn

[EMAWesome 101]

Hmm, I guess there is a limit to the number of quotes you can make in one post.  I think I might have a way around this.

 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Feldman mistakenly says the Constitution defines bribery. Where? It defines treason, but not bribery

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Professor Turley is correct that impeaching a president for demanding judicial review of Congressional subpoenas would undercut our system of checks and balances.
 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof Feldman is wrong in suggesting that the courts have no role to play in deciding whether Congressional subpoenas are subject to claims of executive privilege in the context of impeachment.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof. Carlin defines bribery to include “ bad practices.” That would be unconstitutionally vague and dangerous.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The expert witnesses should be cross examined by opposing counsel instead of just being thrown softballs by counsel on their side. Cross examination is essential to test witnesses. Otherwise the witnesses are just lecturing about their preexisting views.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

What a waste of time and resources to have no cross examination of hostile expert witnesses. What a missed opportunity to press witnesses instead of throwing them softballs. Why no cross examination?

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The open ended criteria for impeachment proposed by the Democratic experts are dangerous and place Congress above the law. That’s why the Framers demanded specific criteria that sound of crime, rather than “abuse of office.”
 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Republicans should have challenged Professor Feldman’s assertion that “abuse of office" is a constitutional basis for impeachment. These words do not appear in the Constitution and such vague criteria were rejected by the Framers.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Democratic witnesses have wrongly said that Congress cannot move forward because President Trump has resisted Congressional subpoenas. Of course they can. Simply go to court and get a judicial order.That is the proper course, not impeachment for invoking separation of powers
 

[pyrohornIII 4823]

10 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Exactly.  Most people are just getting the highlights, selectively chosen by whichever network they prefer, with plenty of lopsided editorializing to confirm how correct their viewers are and what a bunch of idiots the guys watching the other channel are.

The people who really need to hear this and understand this, the ones who aren't in one camp or the other, don't give a shit.  That's why they're not in one camp or another.

We may be the first nation to die of apathy.

Historical voter turnout out front should have told you this.

[EMAWesome 101]

6 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

I would like to see the President call the Biden's, Pelosi, Schiff to testify. I think it would blow up in the Republican's face.

Counter that with the Democrats having Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani called forth to testify. Throw in some Fraud Guarantee and we'll see where the Republic lands

If Schiff testified under oath the only way the entire case wouldn't collapse like the Hyatt Regency skywalk would be if he perjured himself.

[jimmyjazz 46300]

4 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

I would like to see the President call the Biden's, Pelosi, Schiff to testify. I think it would blow up in the Republican's face.

Counter that with the Democrats having Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani called forth to testify. Throw in some Fraud Guarantee and we'll see where the Republic lands

The Democrats have nothing to lose at the trial.  They know the outcome.  They should absolutely see it as a means to generate maximum public outrage.

[pyrohornIII 4823]

I think they know Senate will not remove.  They want the names on record for that.   Because unlike most people who nearly get caught, and are cautious about repeating wrongdoings, Trump will go balls to the wall on mobstering shit up, because he figures he's untouchable.

It's like give him enough rope and he'll hang himself.  And those who enabled this shit.  The whole lot will face their hangings at the voting booth. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by pyrohornIII
What JimmyJazz said.

[jimmyjazz 46300]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

If Schiff testified under oath the only way the entire case wouldn't collapse like the Hyatt Regency skywalk would be if he perjured himself.

So you're saying the case is predicated on an overloaded and incorrectly built structure compromised by dynamic loads that are harmonically tuned to said structure's natural frequency, because disco?

(My Dad was a consultant on the post-mortem.)

[horncyclist 1391]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

Hmm, I guess there is a limit to the number of quotes you can make in one post.  I think I might have a way around this.

 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Feldman mistakenly says the Constitution defines bribery. Where? It defines treason, but not bribery

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Professor Turley is correct that impeaching a president for demanding judicial review of Congressional subpoenas would undercut our system of checks and balances.
 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof Feldman is wrong in suggesting that the courts have no role to play in deciding whether Congressional subpoenas are subject to claims of executive privilege in the context of impeachment.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

Prof. Carlin defines bribery to include “ bad practices.” That would be unconstitutionally vague and dangerous.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The expert witnesses should be cross examined by opposing counsel instead of just being thrown softballs by counsel on their side. Cross examination is essential to test witnesses. Otherwise the witnesses are just lecturing about their preexisting views.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

What a waste of time and resources to have no cross examination of hostile expert witnesses. What a missed opportunity to press witnesses instead of throwing them softballs. Why no cross examination?

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The open ended criteria for impeachment proposed by the Democratic experts are dangerous and place Congress above the law. That’s why the Framers demanded specific criteria that sound of crime, rather than “abuse of office.”
 

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Republicans should have challenged Professor Feldman’s assertion that “abuse of office" is a constitutional basis for impeachment. These words do not appear in the Constitution and such vague criteria were rejected by the Framers.

Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDersh

The Democratic witnesses have wrongly said that Congress cannot move forward because President Trump has resisted Congressional subpoenas. Of course they can. Simply go to court and get a judicial order.That is the proper course, not impeachment for invoking separation of powers
 

Trump is making baseless arguments. Democrats should not have to go to court to prove that when time is of the essence. It's not that hard.

Here's a hypothetical to help. As things stand, Trump got caught and so they stopped what they were doing. What if he hadn't gotten caught? What if the pressure is ongoing and Zelensky is moving towards an announcement. Democrats suspect it but they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because the key witnesses, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry and Pompeo are being blocked from testifying. Should democrats have to wait for the courts, as more damage is done in that case? No. And there's no reason they should have to wait now. It's entirely up to Congress--not the courts-- to decide what is impeachable and they shouldn't have to wait for the courts to say the obstruction is based on baseless claims. That's ridiculous, against the plain language of the Constitution, and impracticable. 

[tantric superman 4668]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Articles coming!  I predict three. 

 

Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. 

[Tuco 5084]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

So you're saying the case is predicated on an overloaded and incorrectly built structure compromised by dynamic loads that are harmonically tuned to said structure's natural frequency, because disco?

(My Dad was a consultant on the post-mortem.)

I had never heard the harmonics aspect of it.  I know there were plenty of mistakes going in to it, beyond that.  

[jimmyjazz 46300]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

Trump is making baseless arguments. Democrats should not have to go to court to prove that when time is of the essence. It's not that hard.

Here's a hypothetical to help. As things stand, Trump got caught and so they stopped what they were doing. What if he hadn't gotten caught? What if the pressure is ongoing and Zelensky is moving towards an announcement. Democrats suspect it but they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because the key witnesses, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry and Pompeo are being blocked from testifying. Should democrats have to wait for the courts, as more damage is done in that case? No. And there's no reason they should have to wait now. It's entirely up to Congress--not the courts-- to decide what is impeachable and they shouldn't have to wait for the courts to say the obstruction is based on baseless claims. That's ridiculous, against the plain language of the Constitution, and impracticable. 

I said it yesterday, but if Turley were correct, then a sitting President could get away with anything at some point into his term simply because of the legal inertia of fighting things out in the courts.  

[shnsajax 3592]

So someone was trying to quote Alan Dershowitz 9 times in Surly in one post as an argument?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

If Schiff testified under oath the only way the entire case wouldn't collapse like the Hyatt Regency skywalk would be if he perjured himself.

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. Listen, it's obvious by your Cheeto stained lips, that you're more than happy to empower further corruption by the President and his band of merry men.

The corruption has gotten so bad now, it's become the norm.