Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a fiasco this impeachment exercise has been for the Democrats!

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) said on ABC's "This Week" that the allegations that President Trump exploited Ukraine for his political benefit are "serious" and "impeachable," but added that there are "gaps" in the House's case and that he is willing to acquit Trump in a Senate trial if "those dots aren't connected."

Snort. What a "fiasco" that there might be some gaps before evidence has been given. What Doug Jones is saying is that he's going to wait and see the evidence before he decides on Trump's guilt. Which sadly is more than I can say for Mitch and Lindsey and co.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a fiasco this impeachment exercise has been for the Democrats!

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) said on ABC's "This Week" that the allegations that President Trump exploited Ukraine for his political benefit are "serious" and "impeachable," but added that there are "gaps" in the House's case and that he is willing to acquit Trump in a Senate trial if "those dots aren't connected."

There are no gaps. Just political cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a fiasco this impeachment exercise has been for the Democrats!

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) said on ABC's "This Week" that the allegations that President Trump exploited Ukraine for his political benefit are "serious" and "impeachable," but added that there are "gaps" in the House's case and that he is willing to acquit Trump in a Senate trial if "those dots aren't connected."

I think Pro Publica just connected the dots via a FOIA request.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-ukraine-scandal-follow-the-money

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/opinion/senate-impeachment-trial.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Good op ed today on the Senate's role in impeachment by VT senator Patrick Leahy.

Senators serve as a unique combination of judge and juror during an impeachment trial. Sworn in by the chief justice of the United States, senators take a special oath to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” This is an oath I have taken several times. First elected to the Senate in 1974, in the wake of Watergate, I have served on six impeachment trials since then — five judges and one president. I take this oath extraordinarily seriously. And it’s one I fear the Senate is on the verge of abandoning.

Senator Lindsey Graham has admitted that he’s “not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, vowing a quick acquittal, boasted that he is “not an impartial juror” and pledged that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

This is tantamount to a criminal defendant being allowed to set the rules for his own trial, while the judge and jury promise him a quick acquittal. That is a far cry from the “impartial justice” required by our oaths and the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/opinion/senate-impeachment-trial.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Good op ed today on the Senate's role in impeachment by VT senator Patrick Leahy.

Senators serve as a unique combination of judge and juror during an impeachment trial. Sworn in by the chief justice of the United States, senators take a special oath to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” This is an oath I have taken several times. First elected to the Senate in 1974, in the wake of Watergate, I have served on six impeachment trials since then — five judges and one president. I take this oath extraordinarily seriously. And it’s one I fear the Senate is on the verge of abandoning.

Senator Lindsey Graham has admitted that he’s “not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, vowing a quick acquittal, boasted that he is “not an impartial juror” and pledged that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

This is tantamount to a criminal defendant being allowed to set the rules for his own trial, while the judge and jury promise him a quick acquittal. That is a far cry from the “impartial justice” required by our oaths and the Constitution.

This will change nobody’s mind. The USA has gone full tribal.

[Anonymous]

Republicans have been saying that the courts should have decided on whether witnesses can testify or not. But now the Trump administration is arguing the courts should stay out of it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/23/politics/don-mcgahn-testimony-white-house/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans have been saying that the courts should have decided on whether witnesses can testify or not. But now the Trump administration is arguing the courts should stay out of it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/23/politics/don-mcgahn-testimony-white-house/index.html

Whether the courts have jurisdiction over the issue is one thing and whether Trump's claims of executive privilege is another issue.

But it must be resolved by the courts ........ that is the role of the judiciary. The most ludicrous thing is the Democrats viewing the resort to the judiciary as equating to obstruction of Congress. Totally idiotic. No wonder the Democrats are now desperate to call new witnesses because the abuse of power and the obstruction is nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

Bolton, Christie and Guiliani are all in Nashville this evening. Tampering with potential witnesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans have been saying that the courts should have decided on whether witnesses can testify or not. But now the Trump administration is arguing the courts should stay out of it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/23/politics/don-mcgahn-testimony-white-house/index.html

Whether the courts have jurisdiction over the issue is one thing and whether Trump's claims of executive privilege is another issue.

But it must be resolved by the courts ........ that is the role of the judiciary. The most ludicrous thing is the Democrats viewing the resort to the judiciary as equating to obstruction of Congress. Totally idiotic. No wonder the Democrats are now desperate to call new witnesses because the abuse of power and the obstruction is nonsensical.

Never Trumper here (but not a Democrat FWIW).

It seems to me that the Senate Republicans are within in their power to rush the trial, call no witnesses etc. But it is also perfectly clear that they are only doing this because Trump is 100% guilty. There are no fact witnesses to testify in Trump's favor. They know it. The Democrats know it. So Democrats are going to do everything in their power to draw attention to this fact to turn voters against Trump, even if they will ultimately accept McConnell's decision. Involving the courts is just a ploy to draw attention to the fact that the Senate Republicans aren't even going to pretend to try to discover the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a fiasco this impeachment exercise has been for the Democrats!

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) said on ABC's "This Week" that the allegations that President Trump exploited Ukraine for his political benefit are "serious" and "impeachable," but added that there are "gaps" in the House's case and that he is willing to acquit Trump in a Senate trial if "those dots aren't connected."

CYA. He’s scared. I get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/opinion/senate-impeachment-trial.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Good op ed today on the Senate's role in impeachment by VT senator Patrick Leahy.

Senators serve as a unique combination of judge and juror during an impeachment trial. Sworn in by the chief justice of the United States, senators take a special oath to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” This is an oath I have taken several times. First elected to the Senate in 1974, in the wake of Watergate, I have served on six impeachment trials since then — five judges and one president. I take this oath extraordinarily seriously. And it’s one I fear the Senate is on the verge of abandoning.

Senator Lindsey Graham has admitted that he’s “not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, vowing a quick acquittal, boasted that he is “not an impartial juror” and pledged that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

This is tantamount to a criminal defendant being allowed to set the rules for his own trial, while the judge and jury promise him a quick acquittal. That is a far cry from the “impartial justice” required by our oaths and the Constitution.

This will change nobody’s mind. The USA has gone full tribal.

OMFG, please hear this as me screaming it at you: there is no both sides here. The GOP, one party, party is shredding the Constitution and trying to replace democracy with fascism. It is not an issue of both sides and every time people pretend that this is equally the fault of both parties, you are furthering the GOP/Orwellian viewpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a fiasco this impeachment exercise has been for the Democrats!

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) said on ABC's "This Week" that the allegations that President Trump exploited Ukraine for his political benefit are "serious" and "impeachable," but added that there are "gaps" in the House's case and that he is willing to acquit Trump in a Senate trial if "those dots aren't connected."

I think Pro Publica just connected the dots via a FOIA request.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-ukraine-scandal-follow-the-money

Pro Publica is the best.

[Anonymous]

Nothing to see here

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing to see here

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html

Pompeo, Bolton and Esper met with Trump in late August to plead with him to release military aid, and he rebuffed their effort. That has not been reported before and adds Esper as a witness.

[Anonymous]

Not just a witness, but it undermines yet another GOP talking point.