I'd like to believe that, but tell it to all the victims of church and synagogue shootings, and other victims of politically-motivated terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Printable View
I'd like to believe that, but tell it to all the victims of church and synagogue shootings, and other victims of politically-motivated terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
That’s true, but we don’t see the bombings, riots and burning cities to the extent we did when the Beatles were still together.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Man, republicans really do want to make this impeachment trial as shammy as possible. I guess when a coverup is the only way to succeed you have to be all in on the coverup.
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/...76642988236806
I believe that's how witness depositions were handled in the Clinton trial as well. It's also how the House impeachment team took statements from key players. What makes this a coverup?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
According to Rep Schiff, “the evidence is already overwhelming”. If that is the case, would additional witnesses serve any purpose other than theatrical?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Sure. Because you got people who are saying "there's no firsthand evidence". Not that that's actually true, but having Bolton testify would end that silly argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Reading a book is the same as taking a witness deposition? And are the senators going to then be able to read parts of the book in public at the trial the way the videotaped depositions were played at the clinton trial? If not, then no, this isn't really the same at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I don't believe the book has been published yet so my assumption is they'll be reviewing an unedited manuscript. If I'm not mistaken, when key government figures become authors of commercial works there is an obligation for the publisher to vett the contents with relevant government agencies to ensure no potentially confidential information is disclosed. I'm assuming the manuscript has not completed that process.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Considering that the book has a release date of mid-March I'd assume that that review is finished. But neither here nor there, reading a book or manuscript and keeping it secret doesn't seem quite the same as doing a videotaped deposition and making it public. The republicans in the senate should surely know that this too will become public and yet again make them look like fools.
Believe it or not, lots of Democrats believe Republicans always look like fools. As hard as that might be to believe, I think I could show enough examples to make the point, so why should Republicans be concerned if even the most reasoned jurisprudence would achieve the same result?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
It’s sort of their default setting. You get used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
The time to worry is when they start praising some Republican (who isn’t safely dead).
I beg to differ, Sir. I have nothing but kind words to say for former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a hard core Republican who nonetheless stood up to the GOP and agitated for Medicaid expansion in Arizona for the working poor. There was no incentive for me to do this - I am a human being who believes in giving credit when credit is due - even for Republicans. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I believe America has earned the right to see Trump squirm, and he certainly deserves such, if only for the harrassment of innocent foreign nationals legitimately presenting themselves for admission to the United States. Karma is not always pleasant and Trump sure has a heavy duty dose of it coming to him. I wait with anticipation for the delivery of such - how it is to be delivered who knows, I don't read the future. But being kicked to the curb (rejected from office) would at least be a start. And would destroy him, given that he is a narcissist. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I have liked many Republicans through the years while they were alive. Nevada has had 2 excellent Republican governors since I moved here.
I worry about scattered violence resulting in deaths of US citizens - completely carried out internally in the US - should Trump indeed be ejected from office. Certainly not all - but some of his followers - especially the more rabid Second Amendment radicals - could be pushed over the edge enough to engage in illegal violent behavior against those celebrating a Trump heave-ho from office. Some - but not all Trump supporters I have run across in (Thank God) becoming more and more purple every day Arizona truly strike me as unstable. I just don't have faith that ejecting Trump from office wouldn't push some subset of such people into violent behavior. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I don’t see how that would work. How do you shame the shameless? He would simply think he had been handed another victim card to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
As part of the question and answer in today's impeachment trial it was revealed that the NSC is now finishing up review of the manuscript and had flagged multiple confidential and top secret details which must be resolved before authorization to publish. Their letter to that affect was dated today.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
It would appear that Senator Graham was correct in suggesting use of the SCIF, otherwise they would have looked foolish allowing the Democrats to reveal top secret information for political gain.Quote:
The republicans in the senate should surely know that this too will become public and yet again make them look like fools.
That is a sophomoric bit of rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I thought Republicans weren't allowed in the SCIF.
Even if that had ever been true the House doesn't control the process anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Very true!Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
The point is not for political gain but to show how corrupt the current president is. He has lied about the issue. Grounds for impeachment!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Review of top secret information in a public venue would be for political gain. JP1 protested Lindsey Graham's suggestion that it be done in a secure environment as a "coverup". I think it's responsible, unfulfilling for some, but ultimately responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Given the White House’s history of classifying stuff not for security’s sake but for the purpose of hiding inconvenient information I’m not surprised to learn that Bolton’s lawyer has accused the White House of corrupting the vetting process of the book by sharing it with people outside the NSC’s records management division.
If I were a betting man I’d put my money on Bolton in this fight and that the book will be available, with minimal if any changes, well before the November election.
I'm not aware of any reason it can't be available by it's original March publishing date, the editing process shouldn't take long. If the House had held the impeachment material for two months instead of one they probably could have had a manuscript, if not an advance copy of the book, to review on camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Or the senate could just call a witness to their "trial" and ask him what happened. But that would involve actually being interested in getting to the truth which would kind of defeat their efforts at a coverup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I guess you'll have to wait till Friday or so to see if witnesses will be called. I think the real question is whether potential witnesses will be limited to those already introduced in the House impeachment inquiry, which was the case in the Clinton impeachment trial, or whether new witnesses will be allowed. I'm guessing Republicans will be accused of a "coverup" either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
If I were to guess, I'd say that the statistic of 70-75% of American voters wanting witnesses in the impeachment trial shows that 1) voters are capable of understanding the difference between an impeachment based on someone lying about an extramarital sexual event vs. an impeachment of someone accused of using the power of the presidency to go after a political opponent and rig the upcoming election and 2) only hard-core forever-republicans give a crap about following the random, not constitutionally-required precedent of the Clinton impeachment structure to the letter. Considering that even the most judgey of other people's sex lives, Evangelical Christians, clearly aren't concerned about presidential sexual indiscretion (they did, after all, happily vote for the "grab em by the p.... guy) I'm not particularly surprised.
At this point the republicans in the senate have painted themselves into a corner. They don't really have any good options. Probably their best option is to have Bolton testify so that the perception of a blatant coverup is significantly reduced. But the risk is that moscow mitch loses control of everything, because heaven only knows what else will come out into the open once he starts talking.
And now we know The Dersh's grand, mind blowing legal theory. It's that the president can do absolutely anything in pursuit of reelection and should not be impeached for those actions. I wonder how much money one has to be paid to be able to say something like that without laughing?
Will voters rise up in righteous anger over which witnesses the Senate chooses to call? That might depend on the numbers of the righteously angry who vote in any given Senator’s state.
Will impeachment be a big issue in any given voter’s mind come November, to the extent it might be a deciding factor in their vote? Will we have “moved on” by then?
The sort of people who say “Moscow Mitch” made up their minds years ago. Will the needle be much moved by the Ukraine phone call? I have trouble believing that.
I have been busy so I have not keeping up with the trail, relying on family and neighbors I run across to keep me filled in. That said, this Bolton thing - his book verifying quid pro quo - has renewed faith in a chance of A Trump Free Nation. Time will tell. And of course if Trump is ejected it won't be right away - once April gets here I'll have more time as bookings sliw down a bit - I'll be more able to help plan a block party to celebrate. Rob
Should be trial above and as bookings slow down above.
I think the general idea was that a president shouldn't be impeached for doing things to help the re-election effort. If you reject that and, oh I don't know, let's say a President Warren promises to give everyone with student loans a $50,000 credit the year before her next election, should she be impeached for using the power of her office to enhance her chances?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
That's just a thought experiment, you don't have to answer if you don't want to because off hand I can think of lots of scenarios that might trigger future impeachment efforts.
The news today had a short blurb on the Federal Election Commission defining what is illegal. It seems to contradict the defense that no crime has been committed and therefore no grounds for impeachment. There must be a reason why this hasn't come up, at least that I've run across. Quote from the FEC chair, “the law is pretty clear. ... It is absolutely illegal for anyone to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the United States.” The law doesn’t just apply to money — investigations or political dirt that benefit a particular campaign counts as “things of value” too.
According to Alan, Dershowitz must’ve just chosen his words poorly. This is from his testimony. Lawyers are careful with words. If he had intended any caveats he would have said them.
“ ’I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”
I don't think he chose his words poorly, he just included too many of them, his entire answer on the subject was much more broad. I think you got the soundbite but missed the message.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
The message was plain and clear. It is the same message that Nixon gave to us a long time ago.
If Dersh had intended a different message he would have provided a counter example of when his message doesn’t apply. Perhaps over the coming days he’ll be asked by a reporter for one and clear it up.
I see it could end in acquittal as early as today. Just in time for Iowa.
Shout out to Sen Collins.
I’m sure she’s wringing her hands as I type this. Guaranteed the only way she votes for witnesses is if she’s one of 3 who do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
If Mitch manages to end this without an actual trial it’s going to be hilarious watching Bolton lob more bombs at the republicans every few days. Although it’s going to be tough to outdo today’s bomb. I mean seriously, trump’s defense attorney is a co-conspirator in the crime?