Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Trump supporters are insane. They need to be deprogrammed

They really are insane. Bunch of f’ing animals. I guess that’s what happens when you watch propaganda 24/7. Where was security? I would think Adam Schiff would have round the clock coverage. He needs it.

[Anonymous]

Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

Now, yes. But when the trial begins and Roberts is to administer the oath?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

You mean - rules totally unlike what Schiff and Nadler followed?
Rich that they now insist the process must be fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

You mean - rules totally unlike what Schiff and Nadler followed?
Rich that they now insist the process must be fair.

Schiff and Nadler followed the rules set up by the Republicans when they were in the majority. The ones they used for all of the Benghazi investigations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

You mean - rules totally unlike what Schiff and Nadler followed?
Rich that they now insist the process must be fair.

Uh, the House is akin to the Grand Jury (and still the President was offered to question witnesses or offer a defense and declined), the Senate is the trial, but you likely knew that and are still trying to raise a stink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

You mean - rules totally unlike what Schiff and Nadler followed?
Rich that they now insist the process must be fair.

Uh, the House is akin to the Grand Jury (and still the President was offered to question witnesses or offer a defense and declined), the Senate is the trial, but you likely knew that and are still trying to raise a stink.

The majority would not call the witnesses the minority wanted.
The minority was not allowed to issue subpoenas.
The president's attorney was NOT allowed during the judiciary hearings when the actual witnesses testified (not law professors or attorneys for Congress).
The majority wanted only one side of the story told.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

You mean - rules totally unlike what Schiff and Nadler followed?
Rich that they now insist the process must be fair.

Uh, the House is akin to the Grand Jury (and still the President was offered to question witnesses or offer a defense and declined), the Senate is the trial, but you likely knew that and are still trying to raise a stink.

The majority would not call the witnesses the minority wanted.
The minority was not allowed to issue subpoenas.
The president's attorney was NOT allowed during the judiciary hearings when the actual witnesses testified (not law professors or attorneys for Congress).
The majority wanted only one side of the story told.

You didn't read PP:s post, did you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

You mean - rules totally unlike what Schiff and Nadler followed?
Rich that they now insist the process must be fair.

Uh, the House is akin to the Grand Jury (and still the President was offered to question witnesses or offer a defense and declined), the Senate is the trial, but you likely knew that and are still trying to raise a stink.

The majority would not call the witnesses the minority wanted.
The minority was not allowed to issue subpoenas.
The president's attorney was NOT allowed during the judiciary hearings when the actual witnesses testified (not law professors or attorneys for Congress).
The majority wanted only one side of the story told.

Now you understand what happens when Americans accused of crimes go up against the Prosecutor in front of the grand jury.

You prove your innocence during the trial, not the indictment.

[Anonymous]

Shumer and Senate Democrats should push for a Senate vote to grant Chief Justice Roberts the authority to rule on the relevance of witnesses proposed by either side for the impeachment trial and for Roberts to issue the subpoenas to the relevant witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

You mean - rules totally unlike what Schiff and Nadler followed?
Rich that they now insist the process must be fair.

Schiff and Nadler followed the rules set up by the Republicans when they were in the majority. The ones they used for all of the Benghazi investigations.

It's only fair when Democrats are the targets, silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Trump supporters are insane. They need to be deprogrammed

Ah, c'mon. Just admit that if this were a Republican speaking and a liberal interrupting, you'd be cheering him on.
We know that because it has happened so frequently in the past 3 years.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

When was a similar event ruined because people were angry at a Republican in attendance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the Senators need to take an oath of fairness and impartiality, what are the chances that Schumer et al ask Roberts not to seat people like McConnell and Graham as there is no conceivable way they can claim impartiality now?

While that would be nice (I would add the 8 senators who went to Moscow for July 4th as well) I think Schumer is on the better strategy right now, which is to establish fair rules that the American public can understand and sympathize with.

You mean - rules totally unlike what Schiff and Nadler followed?
Rich that they now insist the process must be fair.

Uh, the House is akin to the Grand Jury (and still the President was offered to question witnesses or offer a defense and declined), the Senate is the trial, but you likely knew that and are still trying to raise a stink.

The majority would not call the witnesses the minority wanted.
The minority was not allowed to issue subpoenas.
The president's attorney was NOT allowed during the judiciary hearings when the actual witnesses testified (not law professors or attorneys for Congress).
The majority wanted only one side of the story told.

The Majority allowed several GOP witnesses to come forward. That is more than Ryan's House did for Benghazi.
The Minority doesn't issue subpoena's, that is per House Rules written and passed in 2015, when the GOP controlled the House.
The President could have had any of the GOP House Members ask questions, but instead they blew debunked conspiracy theories. If there were a proper and legitimate defense, it would have been offered.
What is "the other side" of the story?"

Maybe watch some school house rock or read any book about how impeachment works?