Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are going straight to dismissal. Oh well Dems

That doesn't make it go away. Trump is still the third (not the first) president to be impeached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Part of the reason this is an issue is that the DOJ didn't do its job in allowing the proper authorities investigate the whistleblower report. Why do you suppose Barr didn't want anyone snooping around this, given he was personally cited in the July 25th call? So the burden fell on the House, unprecendent, because the Executive was covering up. You don't get it both ways, sorry, the American public deserve to hear from Bolton and Pompeo under oath. They refused the House, the should be forced by the Chief Justice to appear before the Senate.

I mean, if they can clear the President, why fight it, right?

Nothing to clear.

The Democrats have not made a case which is why they want a redo in the Senate.

Face it: Schiff f---ed up!

Even if you believe the bolded, it is because of the obstruction. Most attorneys believe they could make a strong case in a court of law based on the evidence at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So true,.......

https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1207021893397680128

It is remarkable that, before House Democrats have even passed articles of impeachment, Senate Democrats are already pivoting to new demands for the Senate to re-do Chairman Schiff’s homework for him.

It is the House’s duty to meet the high bar for undoing a democratic election *before* they impeach. Speaker Pelosi herself once said it was the House’s job to “build an ironclad case.”

The fact that my colleague is already desperate to sign up the Senate for new fact-finding suggests that even Democrats who do not like this president are beginning to realize how dramatically insufficient the House’s rushed process has been.

Per Senator Murphy:

a. If McConnell believes that witnesses and documents would lead to a guilty verdict, why wouldn’t Republicans want to see them?

b. McConnell “short circuited” talks by going on TV and saying he would coordinate the trial rules with Trump.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why this did not hit me last week--but Lavrov did get the meeting Zelensky was denied.

Maybe. . . . the Trump base has learned that there is no reliable link between doing the right thing and being rewarded. Or maybe it consists of people who have never thought there was a link, but either way they have decided to roll with the guy who gets rewarded, and now like the golden goose everyone that touches them gets stuck and can't let go.

So depressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Part of the reason this is an issue is that the DOJ didn't do its job in allowing the proper authorities investigate the whistleblower report. Why do you suppose Barr didn't want anyone snooping around this, given he was personally cited in the July 25th call? So the burden fell on the House, unprecendent, because the Executive was covering up. You don't get it both ways, sorry, the American public deserve to hear from Bolton and Pompeo under oath. They refused the House, the should be forced by the Chief Justice to appear before the Senate.

I mean, if they can clear the President, why fight it, right?

Nothing to clear.

The Democrats have not made a case which is why they want a redo in the Senate.

Face it: Schiff f---ed up!

Even if you believe the bolded, it is because of the obstruction. Most attorneys believe they could make a strong case in a court of law based on the evidence at hand.

The Democrat's argument is that they could not talk to certain individual or review documents they wanted to see. There is a process in the event of such an impasse. It is to go to court and seek enforcement like they have done with his tax returns - which will now be determined by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the Democrats were in a rush to impeach and did not want to take the time to pursue the judicial option.

As far as what lawyers say, the rules for evidence and what is admissible are very different in a court room v an impeachment hearing. As someone who never voted for Trump, I am one of those who think it was sheer folly to impeach him given that an election was going to take place in eleven months - and given that the outcome was predetermined that he would be acquitted.

I don't blame McConnell for refusing to call witnesses that the Democrats want. It would be absurd for the Senate to allow it given that the Democrats deliberately declined to pursue the judicial remedy to force compliance. The case - as Pelosi herself said - should have been airtight before it reached the Senate.

On a personal level, I believe that Trump did want to obtain dirt on Biden but my gut feeling is irrelevant. What is needed is convincing evidence supporting that contention. Let me also say that I fundamentally don't trust Schiff. The guy was not interested in dispassionately getting the facts. He wanted to impeach Trump and was going to do whatever had to be done to get to that goal.

[Anonymous]

The whole bit with the tax returns is sheer lawlessness. Mnuchin has no legal argument to speak of. He's just not following the law.

Yuck.

[Anonymous]

On eve of vote on Articles of Impeachment, Vice President's Office confirms Giuliani was acting for Trump's personal interests not U.S. government.

Helps make case against Trump: directed Zelensky and senior US officials to work with Giuliani for his personal political benefit.

[Anonymous]

With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Part of the reason this is an issue is that the DOJ didn't do its job in allowing the proper authorities investigate the whistleblower report. Why do you suppose Barr didn't want anyone snooping around this, given he was personally cited in the July 25th call? So the burden fell on the House, unprecendent, because the Executive was covering up. You don't get it both ways, sorry, the American public deserve to hear from Bolton and Pompeo under oath. They refused the House, the should be forced by the Chief Justice to appear before the Senate.

I mean, if they can clear the President, why fight it, right?

Nothing to clear.

The Democrats have not made a case which is why they want a redo in the Senate.

Face it: Schiff f---ed up!

Even if you believe the bolded, it is because of the obstruction. Most attorneys believe they could make a strong case in a court of law based on the evidence at hand.

The Democrat's argument is that they could not talk to certain individual or review documents they wanted to see. There is a process in the event of such an impasse. It is to go to court and seek enforcement like they have done with his tax returns - which will now be determined by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the Democrats were in a rush to impeach and did not want to take the time to pursue the judicial option.

As far as what lawyers say, the rules for evidence and what is admissible are very different in a court room v an impeachment hearing. As someone who never voted for Trump, I am one of those who think it was sheer folly to impeach him given that an election was going to take place in eleven months - and given that the outcome was predetermined that he would be acquitted.

I don't blame McConnell for refusing to call witnesses that the Democrats want. It would be absurd for the Senate to allow it given that the Democrats deliberately declined to pursue the judicial remedy to force compliance. The case - as Pelosi herself said - should have been airtight before it reached the Senate.

On a personal level, I believe that Trump did want to obtain dirt on Biden but my gut feeling is irrelevant. What is needed is convincing evidence supporting that contention. Let me also say that I fundamentally don't trust Schiff. The guy was not interested in dispassionately getting the facts. He wanted to impeach Trump and was going to do whatever had to be done to get to that goal.

Fact: The "perfect call" that Trump released himself is enough to impeach and remove from office. He asked a foreign country to investigate a political rival. That is enough right there. Full stop. All the other extortion, bribery, conspiracy theories, firing ambassadors is just the poop icing on the turd cake.
The mental and moral gymnastics you people put yourself through to continue supporting him looks painful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

The Dems didn't impeach him for the emoluments stuff or for the Scotland plane stuff or for any other piddling little shenanigans. It was only when Trump did something reeeaaaalllly bad did they move towards impeaching him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

The Dems didn't impeach him for the emoluments stuff or for the Scotland plane stuff or for any other piddling little shenanigans. It was only when Trump did something reeeaaaalllly bad did they move towards impeaching him.

They were screaming for two years about collusion, conspiracy, etc. etc. and said that they had hard evidence of both. Both of those sound reeeeaaaaallllly bad to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Actually, why didn't that happen in the House?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

But public opinion matters more than what the Senate minority thinks. The country is roughly split 50-50 on removal from office. Don't you think Trump and his team would want better public opinion if they could have it? -NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

The Dems didn't impeach him for the emoluments stuff or for the Scotland plane stuff or for any other piddling little shenanigans. It was only when Trump did something reeeaaaalllly bad did they move towards impeaching him.

They were screaming for two years about collusion, conspiracy, etc. etc. and said that they had hard evidence of both. Both of those sound reeeeaaaaallllly bad to me.

What's your point? Do you know what the articles of impeachment are? Do you know what they'll be voting on tomorrow?