Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

The GOP is in a No-win situation.

The House Managers will present iron-clad evidence against the President. If McConnell somehow gets the Senate to avoid admitting said evidence, it will be released into the public realm exposing the Senate for what it is.

McConnell knows it, which is why he was so meek during his presser today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens if Trump exercises executive privilege ........ please only informed opinions on what the legalities are in such a situation as opposed to outright speculation.

Presumably, Chief Justice Roberts would rule on any such assertions. He is not going to cover for Trump and be the CJ that destroyed the American Experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is in a No-win situation.

The House Managers will present iron-clad evidence against the President. If McConnell somehow gets the Senate to avoid admitting said evidence, it will be released into the public realm exposing the Senate for what it is.

McConnell knows it, which is why he was so meek during his presser today.

That is laugh out loud funny.

If that is the case, why the push for MORE witnesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens if Trump exercises executive privilege ........ please only informed opinions on what the legalities are in such a situation as opposed to outright speculation.

Presumably, Chief Justice Roberts would rule on any such assertions. He is not going to cover for Trump and be the CJ that destroyed the American Experiment.

I no longer think Roberts cares one whit about the appearance of fair or American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is in a No-win situation.

The House Managers will present iron-clad evidence against the President. If McConnell somehow gets the Senate to avoid admitting said evidence, it will be released into the public realm exposing the Senate for what it is.

McConnell knows it, which is why he was so meek during his presser today.

That is laugh out loud funny.

If that is the case, why the push for MORE witnesses?

NP. Because you morons have to be bludgeoned over the head with the truth, or you won’t believe it. I doubt you’d even believe a tape recorded confession by Trump as proof. The chicken sh*t Republican Senators are so cowed by Trump and his stupid base that they’ll do anything to hide the truth. If Trump is innocent (lol), then he should welcome witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is in a No-win situation.

The House Managers will present iron-clad evidence against the President. If McConnell somehow gets the Senate to avoid admitting said evidence, it will be released into the public realm exposing the Senate for what it is.

McConnell knows it, which is why he was so meek during his presser today.

That is laugh out loud funny.

If that is the case, why the push for MORE witnesses?

It is moronic: the House presented an appallingly flimsy case and they are now trying to salvage it. They may have had a better case if they subpoenaed and compelled the witnesses but they could not wait for court rulings. Now they want the Senate to bail them out of the mess they got themselves into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens if Trump exercises executive privilege ........ please only informed opinions on what the legalities are in such a situation as opposed to outright speculation.

Presumably, Chief Justice Roberts would rule on any such assertions. He is not going to cover for Trump and be the CJ that destroyed the American Experiment.

Will Roberts rule on compelling witnesses if executive privilege is asserted without due process? I seriously doubt it ...... usually the basis for denying executive privilege would have to be heard based on facts, the law, etc with appeals up to the Supreme Court. I can't see Roberts taking it on himself to make a ruling as the presiding judge.

But I really have not seen this discussed. If Robert rules that he does not have the authority to enforce the subpoena on his own, it basically takes the issue away from the Senate voting for or against assuming that Roberts has to rule before it goes to a vote before the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Lawrence Tribe in the Boston Globe explaining why a refusal to call the witnesses Trump has thus far silenced — and to demand all key documents he has suppressed — would violate the oath to do impartial justice

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/15/opinion/why-mitch-mcconnell-must-allow-senate-call-witnesses-trumps-impeachment-trial/?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

“ At stake is not how best to achieve a preordained partisan result, but how best to conduct a fair trial.
As Sir Winston Churchill once said, ‘Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is.’”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Senate is going to have a legitimate trial and at least 4 witnesses will be compelled to testify; or at a minimum, Bolton will, though don't be surprised if Lev Parnas becomes a witness to testify as well.

If Bolton does in fact testify and it goes consistent with Fiona Hill's testimony, the GOP are going to have a hard time not removing Trump from office. Even if the Senators that are in purple states vote to remove and there aren't enough total to remove, it will be a stain on the GOP that the 2020 elections will settle in terms of control of the Senate and White House.

Yes, Trump had 62 million voters in 2016. He likely has fewer than that now. But there are 285 million voters who will be awakened by such a travesty.

Would be great to have Lev! Maybe he can talk about his friendship with these people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is in a No-win situation.

The House Managers will present iron-clad evidence against the President. If McConnell somehow gets the Senate to avoid admitting said evidence, it will be released into the public realm exposing the Senate for what it is.

McConnell knows it, which is why he was so meek during his presser today.

That is laugh out loud funny.

If that is the case, why the push for MORE witnesses?

It is moronic: the House presented an appallingly flimsy case and they are now trying to salvage it. They may have had a better case if they subpoenaed and compelled the witnesses but they could not wait for court rulings. Now they want the Senate to bail them out of the mess they got themselves into.

I think McConnell said it best in a tweet today:

"First, Democrats spent weeks saying the House case was totally convincing. Now, the opposite: They say the House case is so thin that if the Senate judges what the House actually voted on, it's a “cover-up."

Their own investigation was so shallow that it now equals a “cover-up”?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawrence Tribe in the Boston Globe explaining why a refusal to call the witnesses Trump has thus far silenced — and to demand all key documents he has suppressed — would violate the oath to do impartial justice

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/15/opinion/why-mitch-mcconnell-must-allow-senate-call-witnesses-trumps-impeachment-trial/?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

“ At stake is not how best to achieve a preordained partisan result, but how best to conduct a fair trial.
As Sir Winston Churchill once said, ‘Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is.’”

But that would mean that executive privilege is not a factor in an impeachment or that Roberts has to make a ruling on it by himself without the usual hearings. I think the biggest argument which may make Roberts rules that it is outside his purview is that the House could have sought the enforcement of subpoenas and chose not to do so because they wanted to expedite the impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is in a No-win situation.

The House Managers will present iron-clad evidence against the President. If McConnell somehow gets the Senate to avoid admitting said evidence, it will be released into the public realm exposing the Senate for what it is.

McConnell knows it, which is why he was so meek during his presser today.

That is laugh out loud funny.

If that is the case, why the push for MORE witnesses?

The Dems want more witnesses. Ask Trump why he doesn't? Also, have you seen some of the files released via Lev Parnas? They are not flattering for the President's case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is in a No-win situation.

The House Managers will present iron-clad evidence against the President. If McConnell somehow gets the Senate to avoid admitting said evidence, it will be released into the public realm exposing the Senate for what it is.

McConnell knows it, which is why he was so meek during his presser today.

That is laugh out loud funny.

If that is the case, why the push for MORE witnesses?

It is moronic: the House presented an appallingly flimsy case and they are now trying to salvage it. They may have had a better case if they subpoenaed and compelled the witnesses but they could not wait for court rulings. Now they want the Senate to bail them out of the mess they got themselves into.

I think McConnell said it best in a tweet today:

"First, Democrats spent weeks saying the House case was totally convincing. Now, the opposite: They say the House case is so thin that if the Senate judges what the House actually voted on, it's a “cover-up."

Their own investigation was so shallow that it now equals a “cover-up”?"

YOu can't have it both ways. It actually isn't a flimsy legal case, but since this is political and not legal, then it is incumbent upon a normal release of documents and testimony from witnesses. Yet, Trump released ZERO documents and blocked key witnesses from testifying. So either there is prima facia obstruction of justice, or else there is evidence from the defendant. But you can't withhold evidence and block witnesses and then claim the case is flimsy. McConnell undercuts his own argument with this statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens if Trump exercises executive privilege ........ please only informed opinions on what the legalities are in such a situation as opposed to outright speculation.

Presumably, Chief Justice Roberts would rule on any such assertions. He is not going to cover for Trump and be the CJ that destroyed the American Experiment.

Will Roberts rule on compelling witnesses if executive privilege is asserted without due process? I seriously doubt it ...... usually the basis for denying executive privilege would have to be heard based on facts, the law, etc with appeals up to the Supreme Court. I can't see Roberts taking it on himself to make a ruling as the presiding judge.

But I really have not seen this discussed. If Robert rules that he does not have the authority to enforce the subpoena on his own, it basically takes the issue away from the Senate voting for or against assuming that Roberts has to rule before it goes to a vote before the Senate.

The White House has not asserted executive privilege. Had it, there would have been a negotiation or legal precedent for a path to proceed. However, the White House asserted 'absolute privilege" which doesn't exist, and hence why the House thought it nonsense to try to prosecute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is in a No-win situation.

The House Managers will present iron-clad evidence against the President. If McConnell somehow gets the Senate to avoid admitting said evidence, it will be released into the public realm exposing the Senate for what it is.

McConnell knows it, which is why he was so meek during his presser today.

That is laugh out loud funny.

If that is the case, why the push for MORE witnesses?

It is moronic: the House presented an appallingly flimsy case and they are now trying to salvage it. They may have had a better case if they subpoenaed and compelled the witnesses but they could not wait for court rulings. Now they want the Senate to bail them out of the mess they got themselves into.

I think McConnell said it best in a tweet today:

"First, Democrats spent weeks saying the House case was totally convincing. Now, the opposite: They say the House case is so thin that if the Senate judges what the House actually voted on, it's a “cover-up."

Their own investigation was so shallow that it now equals a “cover-up”?"

YOu can't have it both ways. It actually isn't a flimsy legal case, but since this is political and not legal, then it is incumbent upon a normal release of documents and testimony from witnesses. Yet, Trump released ZERO documents and blocked key witnesses from testifying. So either there is prima facia obstruction of justice, or else there is evidence from the defendant. But you can't withhold evidence and block witnesses and then claim the case is flimsy. McConnell undercuts his own argument with this statement.

All of what you say is negated by one basic fact: the Democrats could have subpoenaed the witnesses and the documents and sought to enforce it by the courts. They chose not to do so and now want to bypass the judicial process by requiring this be done as part of the impeachment trial. I don't think that will fly but I am not a lawyer - assuming Trump chooses to exercise executive privilege.