Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the White House asserted "absolute privilege" as you state, it would have been even less defensible in a court challenge but the House did not seek judicial intervention.

[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?

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.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20200114_-_hpsci_transmittal_letter_to_hjc_-_new_evidence_attachment.pdf

I am not sure how Jay Sekulow can represent the president in the impeachment hearing given what is disclosed here. Also, were they going to put a hit on a US Ambassador?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the White House asserted "absolute privilege" as you state, it would have been even less defensible in a court challenge but the House did not seek judicial intervention.

It is a shaggy dog assertion and goes directly to obstruction. Any lawyer knows that, which is why it is open and shut before any barred attorneys in the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Rudy seeks a May meeting with Zelensky about a “specific request” and that this meeting is being sought with Trump’s “knowledge and consent.”

It’s obvious the request is for the Biden probes.

This makes it hard for the White House say Rudy acted alone.

[Anonymous]

The House Parnas dump is likely a fraction of what was made available but boy, it is damning and certainly not exculpatory for Trump. I can understand why Pelosi was happy to move forward now.

[Anonymous]

Glad there will actually be a trial in the Senate, even though McConnell originally said there wouldn't be a trial.

Touche Pelosi!

Impressive maneuvering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glad there will actually be a trial in the Senate, even though McConnell originally said there wouldn't be a trial.

Touche Pelosi!

Impressive maneuvering.

Citation for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It is a shaggy dog assertion and goes directly to obstruction. Any lawyer knows that, which is why it is open and shut before any barred attorneys in the Senate.

Can you translate this for the benefit of non-lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad there will actually be a trial in the Senate, even though McConnell originally said there wouldn't be a trial.

Touche Pelosi!

Impressive maneuvering.

Citation for this?

DP. The news, a few weeks ago. They were planning to just hold a vote, no trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad there will actually be a trial in the Senate, even though McConnell originally said there wouldn't be a trial.

Touche Pelosi!

Impressive maneuvering.

Citation for this?

DP. The news, a few weeks ago. They were planning to just hold a vote, no trial.

That was when Nancy refused to send the articles to the Senate, Skippy.
The Parnas dump is not as incriminating as you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad there will actually be a trial in the Senate, even though McConnell originally said there wouldn't be a trial.

Touche Pelosi!

Impressive maneuvering.

Citation for this?

DP. The news, a few weeks ago. They were planning to just hold a vote, no trial.

That was when Nancy refused to send the articles to the Senate, Skippy.
The Parnas dump is not as incriminating as you think.

DP. Oh, it isn’t? Please elaborate on what you think those texts were discussing.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/four-big-takeaways-explosive-lev-parnas-documents/?utm_campaign=post_most&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

The one thing that stood out in here was the "time is not on Trump's side." For everyone that thinks Nancy caved, how about the perspective of stretching this out juuuuuuuust long enough for a ton of additional incriminating evidence to drop. And juuuuuuuust along enough for 4 senators to realize that they need to allow witnesses.

See also: "More is coming. A lot more."

[Anonymous]

Can someone not crazy please explain to me why Republicans think that Adam Schiff is a fact witness to Trump’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone not crazy please explain to me why Republicans think that Adam Schiff is a fact witness to Trump’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?

Because distraction works with their double-digit IQ Republican supporters: "Hurrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrr, what about Shifty Schiffff???? Hurrrrr durrrr durrrr *inhales vape pen*"

They are a mafia of dunces and legit criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone not crazy please explain to me why Republicans think that Adam Schiff is a fact witness to Trump’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?

Because distraction works with their double-digit IQ Republican supporters: "Hurrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrr, what about Shifty Schiffff???? Hurrrrr durrrr durrrr *inhales vape pen*"

They are a mafia of dunces and legit criminals.

I think they think he worked with the whistleblower to gin up the charges against Trump. I think they have all the brains of a potato salad.