Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is hilarious is that after the totally rigged House impeachment hearings, the Democrats have found religion and want a "fair" trial.

McConnell has told Schumer to go to hell ...... and I don't blame him.

No one with half a brain is buying these ludicrous, lying, talking points, so give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is hilarious is that after the totally rigged House impeachment hearings, the Democrats have found religion and want a "fair" trial.

McConnell has told Schumer to go to hell ...... and I don't blame him.

No one with half a brain is buying these ludicrous, lying, talking points, so give it a rest.

Given that liberals believe that anyone who supports Trump has only half a brain, there must be a receptive crowd. Of course, we know that the only valid "talking points" is the spiel from CNN and the Democratic leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

Refusing to testify and order WH staff to ignore subpoenas is not executive privilege. It's obstruction of justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

Refusing to testify and order WH staff to ignore subpoenas is not executive privilege. It's obstruction of justice.

You should tell Nadler to include obstruction of justice as a third article of impeachment!

[Anonymous]

Linda Ronstadt
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/linda-ronstadt-says-mike-pompeo-is-enabling-donald-trump-at-kennedy-center-honors-dinner/2019/12/08/206d3c8e-19ed-11ea-8d58-5ac3600967a1_story.html

Singer and Kennedy Center honoree Linda Ronstadt threw a little political shade at the arts center’s annual State Department dinner Saturday night, after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo introduced her with what was supposed to be a humorous play on one of her hit songs.

Pompeo congratulated the singer and wondered aloud when he would be loved — a reference to the Ronstadt hit “When Will I Be Loved.” According to Sam Greisman, son of actress Sally Field — another of the evening’s honorees — the singer responded, “Maybe when you stop enabling Donald Trump.”

[Anonymous]

Trump is emotionally fragile. At least Clinton had the testicular fortitude to face his impeachment like a man.

[Anonymous]

McConnell slaps down Schumer's demand for witnesses:

McConnell noted in his remarks that House Democrats chose not to ask the courts to force White House aides to testify, and said that decision is "why the House is poised to send the Senate the thinnest, least thorough presidential impeachment in our nation's history."

"The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate. It is their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election," he said. "As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House's obligation to, quote, 'build an ironclad case to act.' End quote. If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate's job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to 'get to guilty.' That would hardly be impartial justice."

He even suggested that he might just allow a motion to dismiss the charges contained in the articles of impeachment and end the whole charade - and a charade is what it is, a pathetic case.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-impeachment-trial-mitch-mcconnell-rebuffs-chuck-schumers-request-for-witnesses/

[Anonymous]

Sure, McConnell. Sure.

[Anonymous]

He even suggested that he might just allow a motion to dismiss the charges contained in the articles of impeachment and end the whole charade - and a charade is what it is, a pathetic case.

Did I hear that they did that with Clinton? And, Schumer voted to dismiss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McConnell slaps down Schumer's demand for witnesses:

McConnell noted in his remarks that House Democrats chose not to ask the courts to force White House aides to testify, and said that decision is "why the House is poised to send the Senate the thinnest, least thorough presidential impeachment in our nation's history."

"The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate. It is their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election," he said. "As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House's obligation to, quote, 'build an ironclad case to act.' End quote. If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate's job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to 'get to guilty.' That would hardly be impartial justice."

He even suggested that he might just allow a motion to dismiss the charges contained in the articles of impeachment and end the whole charade - and a charade is what it is, a pathetic case.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-impeachment-trial-mitch-mcconnell-rebuffs-chuck-schumers-request-for-witnesses/

74% of those polled disagree with McConnell. His obstinance is not playing well across the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

PP here -- if the bolded is true, wouldn't Trump and the Republicans want to make that case as strongly as possible by having Mulvaney and Bolton testify that the phone call was perfect and there's no factual basis for impeachment? It's two days of testimony, if each is limited to 8 hours (as Schumer proposed). That won't cut into election season in any meaningful way...

The Dems would love that. Have President Trump throw away executive privilege along with all the other rights afforded to him.
And, the Senate is not where witnesses provide testimony. That would be like a jury (which the Senate is) calling witnesses in a trial.

If Pelosi, et al, really wanted Mulvaney and Bolton to testify, she could have the courts decide on the subpoena. But, she didn't. Wants to hurry this mess along.......

Except Trump hasn't claimed Executive Privilege. He has claimed absolute privilege, which doesn't exist in precedent or law. He made it up. So you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell slaps down Schumer's demand for witnesses:

McConnell noted in his remarks that House Democrats chose not to ask the courts to force White House aides to testify, and said that decision is "why the House is poised to send the Senate the thinnest, least thorough presidential impeachment in our nation's history."

"The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate. It is their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election," he said. "As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House's obligation to, quote, 'build an ironclad case to act.' End quote. If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate's job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to 'get to guilty.' That would hardly be impartial justice."

He even suggested that he might just allow a motion to dismiss the charges contained in the articles of impeachment and end the whole charade - and a charade is what it is, a pathetic case.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-impeachment-trial-mitch-mcconnell-rebuffs-chuck-schumers-request-for-witnesses/

74% of those polled disagree with McConnell. His obstinance is not playing well across the country.

After 8 years of obstructing Obama at all costs and especially the matter of Merrick Garland, McConnell is in no position to expect anyone to take him seriously. Just business as usual for him, logic-, reason-, decency-be-damned.

[Anonymous]

Democrats may rue the day they started with this impeachment charade:

Four recent polls on impeachment also showed that the public is gradually turning from the concept of impeaching the president when the same polls showed a three to an eight-point margin of support for most of October and November.

A CNN poll and a NPR/PBS/Marist poll showed a three-point margin against impeachment, a Quinnipiac poll showed a six-point margin, an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed a tie.

The latest CNN poll showed that support for impeachment from Democrats fell from 90 percent support in November to only 77 percent support in December.

Good job Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi!

[Anonymous]

This comes under the "you can't make this up" category......

Something you don't see every day: Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for taking bribes, participating in a House hearing that sets the rules for an impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This comes under the "you can't make this up" category......

Something you don't see every day: Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for taking bribes, participating in a House hearing that sets the rules for an impeachment.

And these are the guys calling for the impeachment of a president ..............