This scheme, of alllllll e schemes, is so poorly hatched, I wish I could award violations.

I expect a couple new books to arrive and will re-read one of my favorites as you all make the history books with this idiocy.

Bless your hearts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh FFS....who could be bothered. What's absent in your life that you obsess with this idiocy?

Functional democracy.

Sing it.

Anonymous wrote:Oh FFS....who could be bothered. What's absent in your life that you obsess with this idiocy?

Functional democracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read many of the transcripts and agree...read them. You are going to ask the members of the country to be his attorney and PR crisis team since you are denying the GOP's witness requests, any representation and no semblance of due process? Really?

It. Is. Not. A. Trial.

I understand that however, you think the only citizen in the U.S. without the protections afforded under the Constitution is the President? FTS.

Also, I found a WaPo article 6/8/17 by Mark Zaid some of you may want to brush up on. I'd write up my salient take always from it and how it undermines your inquiry but, you make the news, you might as well read it.

Constitution has this to say about due process:

Fifth Amendment: No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Fourteenth Amendment:...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Trump is not and will not be deprived of life, liberty or property as a result of impeachment hearings or impeachment. We're good here.

Lol. I remember when conservatives used to care about the Constitution.

also, what's he afraid of?

toddlers have to represent themselves at immigration hearings.

He doesn't think he can do as well as a Spanish speaking toddler in testifying under oath?

I thought he had the greatest brain. He can't answer some questions about his "perfect phone call"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read many of the transcripts and agree...read them. You are going to ask the members of the country to be his attorney and PR crisis team since you are denying the GOP's witness requests, any representation and no semblance of due process? Really?

It. Is. Not. A. Trial.

I understand that however, you think the only citizen in the U.S. without the protections afforded under the Constitution is the President? FTS.

He's also the only citizen in the US who cannot be prosecuted for a crime because he is a sitting president.

Apparently that isn't in the Constitution, though. It is some kind of Department of Justice Memo.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000

Headnotes:
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

so... as someone posted earlier, if he *wants* to be charged with crimes, so he can get his due process he is entitled to, all he needs to do is authorize someone to recind that memo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read many of the transcripts and agree...read them. You are going to ask the members of the country to be his attorney and PR crisis team since you are denying the GOP's witness requests, any representation and no semblance of due process? Really?

It. Is. Not. A. Trial.

I understand that however, you think the only citizen in the U.S. without the protections afforded under the Constitution is the President? FTS.

Also, I found a WaPo article 6/8/17 by Mark Zaid some of you may want to brush up on. I'd write up my salient take always from it and how it undermines your inquiry but, you make the news, you might as well read it.

He gets all the protections of other citizens at the trial. In the Senate. Right now is akin to charging decisions, investigations, grand jury testimony, and indictments and there are few, if any rights at that stage for anyone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-a-victim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/

Thanks, PP, for pointing out the article. Here is a statement that I find interesting. I think we could substitute the current whistleblower for "Winner."


"Few individuals other than the president have the legal right to decide unilaterally what constitutes the national security interests of the United States, and Winner was certainly not one of them"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read many of the transcripts and agree...read them. You are going to ask the members of the country to be his attorney and PR crisis team since you are denying the GOP's witness requests, any representation and no semblance of due process? Really?

It. Is. Not. A. Trial.

I understand that however, you think the only citizen in the U.S. without the protections afforded under the Constitution is the President? FTS.

Also, I found a WaPo article 6/8/17 by Mark Zaid some of you may want to brush up on. I'd write up my salient take always from it and how it undermines your inquiry but, you make the news, you might as well read it.

Anonymous wrote:I read many of the transcripts and agree...read them. You are going to ask the members of the country to be his attorney and PR crisis team since you are denying the GOP's witness requests, any representation and no semblance of due process? Really?

It. Is. Not. A. Trial.

There's a website for that:
https://www.justsecurity.org/67076/public-document-clearinghouse-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry/

Up to date.

You’re correct. The GOP has nothing.

Except numbers in the senate. And a large chunk of voters who are cult members.

And those things may be more important than the truth.

One o the GOP's strategy points is that Ukraine did not know aid was being held up, but Taylor testified that they asked why it was being held up. How does that work? I mean, it's not just the phone call, it's what's happening after the phone call, right?

or domestic affairs

:d

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh FFS....who could be bothered. What's absent in your life that you obsess with this idiocy?

Um. Why is it idiocy, “independent”?

There's a person at work who fumes any time the break room tv is set to CNN, turns off the volume, and loudly complains she wishes she could exert parental control to keep the news of the TV. I guess that's pp's attitude.

I've started reading a couple, despite the number of pages they are a tenth the density of the Mueller report in terms of reading. Jim Jordan's posturing about the process is in there. . . .btw it occurs to me that NO presidential impeachment proceeding in the past dealt with international affairs, they were ALL domestic issues.